Booko
Deviled Hen
In some ways it does. But when you look at the mathematics behind it, it's not so clear as you might think.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Would Happen If The US Attacks Iran?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
In some ways it does. But when you look at the mathematics behind it, it's not so clear as you might think.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Attack them with what? Our forces our spread thin and we already have a system in place to remove those troops form Iraq who have served their time and devoted ourselves, regardless of anyone's opinions, to a large continued presence in Iraq.
I think that any idea of military intervention beyond so called surgical bombing strikes would be extraordinarily ill advised. Never mind our poor relations among other foreign powers but the idea that a ground presence to serve some unattainable goal would spell political suicide for the reigning party but a significant increase in social disruption in our own borders. God forbid that some idiot politician decide to implement a draft to support such a war.
I believe a war in Iran would mean actual, drastic change in the social and political nature of the United States not seen since the Civil War. Such an idea is very dangerous and only a fool would deem such an action necessary.
Unless, of course, some reason is not given by the actions of Iran that would unify a United Nations action against the nation itself. Then the situation would be remarkably different. I just don't foresee the U.N. acting in any manner against Iran.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Well, we do have the wherewithal for an air strike, though the cost of ordinance is hardly minimal these days.
The problem is the only way the people here would go along with that is if they believed Iran was on the verge of attaining nukes. Does the Admin have sufficient credibilty for people to believe such a claim, even if it were true? Or are we wandering into Boy Who Cried Wolf territory?
Ground action on any major scale is not merely ill-advised -- it is not feasible. A glance at a globe reveals how much larger Iran is, and we can't even deal with Iraq, some of which is not really inhabited.
Your comparison to the Civil War is apt, gnomon. Instituting a draft for such an invasion would likely give us another round of draft riots, such as hasn't been seen since the Civil War.
My only question is how many fools we have in power right now. There certainly seem to be enough of them, and they are hardly confined to one party. Just how foolish are the fools, I wonder?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I agree with your entire post Sharon. The simple fact is that the current Administration does not have any political capital left to burn. Even if it was true that Iran was churning out nukes faster than Qur'ans, it would take a lot to convince people to move for out and out action. War is a bit of a touchy subject for Americans these days and I do not see how your current President could possibly go into Iran even via airstrikes. I suspect there would have to be Iranian nukes showing up on Ebay before many would believe a word this Administration said.
The impression I get from the Democrats is that they are so intellectually bankrupt that they are simply voicing scenarios about Republican ambitions to fill the void, lest anyone notice they don't have much of substance to say on pretty much anything. To me, that is as worrisome as the debacles created by the current adminstration. What is more worrisome is that the Democratic clowns are going to be coronated come 2008 unless they do something incredibly stupid between then and now. The so-called terrorists and Iranian government must be wetting themselves in glee. I suspect they are smart enough to realize they have the doggy by the tail and all they need to do is hang on.
fullyveiled muslimah
Evil incarnate!
Ok I just had to post this.
Ahmadinejad questions 9/11, Holocaust - Yahoo! News
This is what happened to President of Iran when he came here. Is it me or is this how America treats other foreign leaders and diplomats? I mean when the queen of England last visited, did she get the third degree?
I realize this really has nothing to do with the OP, but it just struck me as odd and ridiculous to invite a leader of a country to a school only to talk badly about him to his face. This should endear America to Iranians, the treatment of their leader.
Furthermore if you're trying to invade Iran in the near possible future, why is the leader even here? Why would you let him in if he is the potential enemy? I mean does Bin Laden get a press conference and a visit next?
Ahmadinejad questions 9/11, Holocaust - Yahoo! News
This is what happened to President of Iran when he came here. Is it me or is this how America treats other foreign leaders and diplomats? I mean when the queen of England last visited, did she get the third degree?
I realize this really has nothing to do with the OP, but it just struck me as odd and ridiculous to invite a leader of a country to a school only to talk badly about him to his face. This should endear America to Iranians, the treatment of their leader.
Furthermore if you're trying to invade Iran in the near possible future, why is the leader even here? Why would you let him in if he is the potential enemy? I mean does Bin Laden get a press conference and a visit next?
I rather figure Ahmadinejad had it coming. "Speak truth to power." I only wish someone would do the same to Bush and Cheney. The losers in any war between the US and Iran won't be the leaders -- it will be the people of both nations.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I hear you FVM, but the simple fact is that the good Presidential Puppet from Iran is not terribly well liked in his own country. It is unlikely that his fellow Iranian's can go toe to toe with him without fearing for their safety. Who knows, they all could be silently sitting in front of their televisions cheering the American's ability to tear down this figurehead.
Booko
Deviled Hen
The problem is, Ymir, the actions speak very loudly that he doesn't really much care what anyone's opinion is. He's "the Decider" and the Commander-in-Chief. The Congress has essentially abdicated responsibility. This leaves us all hanging tight hoping nothing stupid happens before Jan. 2008.
And to think one of the reasons the Founders wrote the Constitution they way they did is they wanted to prevent the scenario where a king would wage war for personal honour and gain and bankrupt a country. They would be ashamed of us right now.
I don't take it for intellectual bankruptcy as much as a political calculus that it's in their benefit to continue the war, as any attempts to stop the train wreck will involve denying troops needed equipment, and that blood will be on their hands, and the voters will be peeved. It's more craven than intellectually bankrupt.
I'm convinced this is very much the case. Actually, they've probably been wetting themselves in glee for several years now.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Truth is the first casualty in war.
fullyveiled muslimah
Evil incarnate!
I cannot claim to be terribly well versed in foreign policies at all, nor in the way a group of people view their leader. Is Ahmadinejad liked, feared, hated, respected......... probably all those. That really isn't the point. Whether or not somebody should read him like a book is also not the point. The point I was trying to make is how many times does this happen to a foreign leader or diplomat? It's not a rhetorical question either....is this the norm on how they are treated when they visit America? Do other prime ministers have to stand for open criticism upon entering America? Like I really wanna know, cuz if this is the norm its not very respectful, and if it isn't why was he singled out for the treatment?
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
The Iranian chief of state comes off badly since he appears sleazy, slippery and evasive. Why did his government execute a homosexual couple under the law of the stae? Answer: "There are no homosexuals in Iran".
Well, there surely are two less.
Baha`i's are being increasingly marginalized in defiance of the UN and the rest of the world. It's much like the Nuremburg Laws in Iran for Baha`i's in particular--all religious minorities in general.
It was the countryside that elected him to office. The clergy orchestrated that in regions where they held the most sway over the populace.
The situation won't improve until the general population realizes the rule of the ulamma is bankrupt.
They will never be convinced of that by foreign invasion.
Regards,
Scott
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
You are a very bright lady, Fullyveiled Muslimah and I am not entirely sure why you would have to ask. There are precious few leaders in the world who would elicit such a response from the general population. I think it somewhat obvious that the students understood that this was a chance to openly question the logic used by this particular despot knowing they did not have to fear any reprisals for doing so. I rather expect that Kim Il Jong would receive a similar "welcome" and perhaps the "brilliant" president (or whatever) of Sudan. I would think the American people are smart enough to show respect where it is deserved. Mad Mo' isn't Iran, he is merely a puppet on very short strings. Are we supposed to respect puppets now? Oy vey.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Having spent some time around a few Iranians, I agree with Booko. They're national pride is strong. And an attack on the President can easily been seen as an attack on Iran. They may not like their president but that doesn't mean that the U.S. can dis him.
Actually, national pride is not a uniquely Iranian trait. Most Chinese do not like the communist govt. But I guarantee you that when the U.S. starts talking smack about the communist govt, the Chinese are mad at the U.S.
We do not currently have the credibility to speak truth to power. To speak truth to power, you have to not be an abuser of power yourself.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
That's appalling. We're not talking about a surgical strike to knock out nuclear capabilities here. We're talking intentionally inflicting great suffering on the Iranian people.
It's appalling and it's also delusional. Wasn't Cheney promising that Iraq would be a cake walk because once we invaded the Iraqi people would be throwing flowers at our soldiers' feet?
People don't like to be attacked by outsiders. How many countries will it take for us to figure that out?
Are you suggesting the President of Colombia University can't tell Admadinejad off because the President of Colombia University has abused his power?
fullyveiled muslimah
Evil incarnate!
If you notice I did say my question was non-rhetorical meaning I wasn't arguing a point since I had no knowledge of the issue at hand. Trust me, I'm not sticking up for him. He is the one behind the oppression of Bahai's, i am aware of that. My issue was why invite such a person to your country if he is an enemy in the first place? So the people can have a crack at him? And that will affect him how? Will it stop him in his tracks and make him turn over a new leaf? I think not. You think he gives a crap about what some college students think?...Nope. He'll go back to his country and continue to do whatver crap he was doing before.
Furthermore, I just know the US isn't using the fact the he is an oppressor as grounds, or some kind of warped moral grounds, to attack that country. First off the people aren't tyrants the leader is, and secondly the US gov has their nerve. If going around making excuses to kill millions of people in order to make them take on democracy as a gov system, isn't tyranny I don't know what is.
There is nothing obvious (or accurate) about it if the intent is to qualitatively disrupt their weapons industry/deployment, qualitatively impair their capacity to arm terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere, and/or qualitative undermine their ability to wipe Israel off the map,
Cynic
Well-Known Member
While a massive strike can significantly damage infrastructure, communications, etc what it won't do is undermine their sense of determination, and in my opinion, such a strike would not substantially decrease insurgency and terrorism in the long run. It wouldn't stop the arming and training of insurgents. Training camps would appear elsewhere, as support for insurgency/terrorism runs deep in the Middle East.
Was not the intent for Iraq, similar? (I.E., to disrupt/destroy communications, infrastructure, weapons capability, capacity to arm terrorism, etc?) IMO, the U.S. would have to systematically bomb/invade each nation capable of supporting terrorism.
A country with a significantly damaged military infrastructure is a country with a significantly damaged military capacity. What disarming your attacker does or fails to do in the long run may be interesting speculation, but if there is a very real chance that some scum will come at you with a knife, destroying the knife, the wrist, or both may well make exceptional sense.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Do you think that the President of Columbia University is not seen as an American?
Another thing about "speaking truth to power" is that it is done from the people and for the people. An Iranian pointing out injustice to his president in the face of great danger is speaking truth to power. An American, making criticisms from a position of safety, with the power to issue invitations to presidents of nations, is in no position to play prophet.