U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran

[True blue (and gold)]

If any of the terrorist groups funded by Iran successfully launches a large scale terrorist attack on American soil, our government will have no choice but to attack their state sponsor, Iran. If the perpetrators can not be linked to a specific government, then both Syria and Iran would probably bear the brunt of the response anyway.

 

It is sad to say, but Saudi Arabia's oil production would innoculate it to some extent from a retaliatory attack unless the link was very direct, publicly known, and neither Syria nor Iran could be blamed instead. IMO, this is true regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House.

 

Good points. Am I the only one extremely worried about the bolded section? I mean, we are talking nuclear strikes here, correct?

[AcesFull]

Good points. Am I the only one extremely worried about the bolded section? I mean, we are talking nuclear strikes here, correct?

I am talking proportional response. If thousands of Americans die, in a nuclear, biological, chemical attack, etc., thousands of Syrians and/or Iranians will die one way or another.

 

We see politicians who are not under a great deal of pressure finding scapegoats every day to distract attention from their own faliures. I am not saying that such retaliation would be a good thing or a bad thing, what I am saying is that there would be a devastating response.

 

Americans would demand a quick response and a simple, "We cannot link the attack to any specific country at this time but we are continuing to investigate," response would not cut it and one of the usual suspects would pay.

[True blue (and gold)]

I am talking proportional response. If thousands of Americans die, in a nuclear, biological, chemical attack, etc., thousands of Syrians and/or Iranians will die one way or another.

 

We see politicians who are not under a great deal of pressure finding scapegoats every day to distract attention from their own faliures. I am not saying that such retaliation would be a good thing or a bad thing, what I am saying is that there would be a devastating response.

 

Americans would demand a quick response and a simple, "We cannot link the attack to any specific country at this time but we are continuing to investigate," response would not cut it and one of the usual suspects would pay.

 

I understand that are providing a scenario and not necessarily your opinion. Thank you.

 

I just hope that another country, in a similar situation, will not attack the US as a result of an attack on them, if we are one of their "usual suspects". We would, unequivocally, denounce such an attack. I, for one, will not be in favor of any military action against a country or group in which we do not know, with certainty, that they were the culprits, particularly with a nuclear device. The collateral damage (non-military lives) in particular, would be too great. Just look the atomic weapons used in WWII and the collateral damage that resulted. Today's weapons dwarf those.

[gchs_uk9]

"...almost every Arab country"

 

Iran must not be allowed to go nuclear.

 

For what it's worth, Iran actually isn't an Arab country. It's Persian. And the people of Iran aren't really fond of being called Arab.

 

Who are the Arabs, and is Iran an Arab country?

 

The answer to the second question is easy: No. But explaining why Iran isn't an Arab country requires the answer to the first.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/1008394/

[UKMustangFan]

I understand that are providing a scenario and not necessarily your opinion. Thank you.

 

I just hope that another country, in a similar situation, will not attack the US as a result of an attack on them, if we are one of their "usual suspects". We would, unequivocally, denounce such an attack. I, for one, will not be in favor of any military action against a country or group in which we do not know, with certainty, that they were the culprits, particularly with a nuclear device. The collateral damage (non-military lives) in particular, would be too great. Just look the atomic weapons used in WWII and the collateral damage that resulted. Today's weapons dwarf those.

 

I completley understand what you're saying, but say there is an attack, God forbid, on America by a terrorist group. If the US is unable to be 100% certain what country was responsible for the attack, how long would you be willing to wait before we responded? Would a month be suffice? Or two? Or a year? At some point we would have to respond, or it opens the door to even more, possibly more severe attacks, wouldn't you agree?

[gchs_uk9]

I completley understand what you're saying, but say there is an attack, God forbid, on America by a terrorist group. If the US is unable to be 100% certain what country was responsible for the attack, how long would you be willing to wait before we responded? Would a month be suffice? Or two? Or a year? At some point we would have to respond, or it opens the door to even more, possibly more severe attacks, wouldn't you agree?

 

The U.S. waited two years after 9/11 and apparently still got it wrong. Was it worth it? Are things better?

[UKMustangFan]

The U.S. waited two years after 9/11 and apparently still got it wrong. Was it worth it? Are things better?

 

Did we wait two years to attack the Taliban or was that before we went into Iraq?

[True blue (and gold)]

I completley understand what you're saying, but say there is an attack, God forbid, on America by a terrorist group. If the US is unable to be 100% certain what country was responsible for the attack, how long would you be willing to wait before we responded? Would a month be suffice? Or two? Or a year? At some point we would have to respond, or it opens the door to even more, possibly more severe attacks, wouldn't you agree?

 

I would rather not respond then attack the wrong country. The idea of having our "justice" on a country NOT responsible, to me, is completely reprehensible, not to mention opening ourselves us for other attacks.

 

Don't get me wrong. I would want to respond against those responsible...but not against those who are not.

[NEXT]

I would suggest most of you on here to move to Iran, along with Obama and vote for him to be President there.......you could get cheap gas, and be part of the destruction of Israel.

 

Pacifist are usually left dead.........................

[SKINPIG]

I understand that are providing a scenario and not necessarily your opinion. Thank you.

 

I just hope that another country, in a similar situation, will not attack the US as a result of an attack on them, if we are one of their "usual suspects". We would, unequivocally, denounce such an attack. I, for one, will not be in favor of any military action against a country or group in which we do not know, with certainty, that they were the culprits, particularly with a nuclear device. The collateral damage (non-military lives) in particular, would be too great. Just look the atomic weapons used in WWII and the collateral damage that resulted. Today's weapons dwarf those.

 

 

Yes, but look at the results. How many american lives were spared due to the use of atomic weapons in WWII?

[UKMustangFan]

I would rather not respond then attack the wrong country. The idea of having our "justice" on a country NOT responsible, to me, is completely reprehensible, not to mention opening ourselves us for other attacks.

 

Don't get me wrong. I would want to respond against those responsible...but not against those who are not.

 

Obviously you don't want to attack an innocent country, but again, if we didn't respond and just kept waiting, what kind of a message would we be sending to the American people?

 

Kind of a sidebar question...If Iran were to attack Israel, do you feel we should intervene?

[SKINPIG]

The U.S. waited two years after 9/11 and apparently still got it wrong. Was it worth it? Are things better?

 

I agree that this war could have been fought with better results, but predicting our enemy was impossible. IMO it's been a unfortunate but needed learning experience for our military. I'm afraid much worse is coming. "Was it worth it?" "Are things better?" If we were not fighting this war against terror...Like it or not...Would we have been attacked on our soil again since 9/11?

[True blue (and gold)]

I would suggest most of you on here to move to Iran, along with Obama and vote for him to be President there.......you could get cheap gas, and be part of the destruction of Israel.

 

Pacifist are usually left dead.........................

 

You want to explain that a little further? Who is saying that if Iran attacks us that we shouldn't? I don't know of a single poster on here that is a pacifist. Just because some people don't want to retaliate against nations not responsible for an attack doesn't mean we/they are pacifists.

[True blue (and gold)]

Yes, but look at the results. How many american lives were spared due to the use of atomic weapons in WWII?

 

Do you KNOW how many were spared? I think, probably, only God knows that.

[Habib]

Obviously you don't want to attack an innocent country, but again, if we didn't respond and just kept waiting, what kind of a message would we be sending to the American people?

 

But then, what kind of message would be sent if the U.S. gets caught off guard with another attack - especially being after 9/11 - let alone with no idea who was responsible? I, for one, would be furious.