War against Iran

[Beingist]

My latest blog post is at The Daily Chronolog , but just so I don't get banned for spam, I've included my article below. (But, you're going to have to visit the blog for the links, sorry).

Last weekend, Iran declared that they had shot down a U.S. RQ-170 surveillance drone in the eastern part of the country. Repudiating this charge, U.S. officials claim that the drone had crash-landed after mechanical difficulties caused its operators to lose control of it. In any event, its now in the hands of the Iranians, who now have at their disposal some the United States top secrets. "Its bad," said one official, "they'll have everything."


Of course, it is no secret that the United States regularly conducts covert operations on, around, and in territories considered a threat to its interests. In fact, it's the very reason the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was even established. Of course, back in 1947, the threat was the Soviet Union, but through the years, the CIA has been used for all sorts of covert operations designed to monitor, subvert, and sometimes even eliminate what the Federal government considers threats to the country's national security. Though highly secretive, there is little doubt now that the Agency is being utilized to monitor activities in Iran, and since the Feds have made no secret of their opposition to Iran's reported efforts to advance their nuclear weapons capabilities, it wouldn't be surprising if such monitoring were attempts to gather intelligence that would assist in neutralizing such capability.


The downed-drone incident also follows on the heels of a series of explosive mishaps at Iranian nuclear facilities that some officials claim, on the condition of anonymity, are evidence of covert sabotage. Such claims are substantiated by the continuing "accidents" at Iranian nuclear facilities, reportedly brought about by a computer worm (a sort of virus) called Stuxnet, which affects roughly 58 percent of all the computers in Iran, many of which are utilized in their nuclear refining operations.


Needless to say, this series of events has raised Iran's ire to such a point as to lead its General Mohammed Al Jaafari to raise the operational readiness of the country's military forces. Now, as we already reported two weeks ago, Israel has not ruled out possible military force against Iran; and just today, Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief has called for Saudi leadership to consider nuclear armament in order to counter threats from both Iran as well as Isreal. Add to that the United States' continued covert operations, and one can't help but wonder if we're not already at war with Iran.

[James Fletcher]

I'm a little torn on the issue. While I think any kind of military action against Iran is a bad idea, I don't believe that they should be allowed to become a nuclear power.

[Mikennick]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

I'm a little torn on the issue. While I think any kind of military action against Iran is a bad idea, I don't believe that they should be allowed to become a nuclear power.

Yea, war against Iran, would be a terrible idea, but what other options are on the table?

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Mikennick

Yea, war against Iran, would be a terrible idea, but what other options are on the table?

Besides heavy sanctions, which are only so effective since Iran is an oil rich nation and Russia has stated they will continue to buy Iranian oil regardless, there are probably few other options.

The good news is that there is still plenty of time to act since Iran are still years behind developing an actual nuclear warhead.

[Cidwind]

Originally Posted by Mikennick

Yea, war against Iran, would be a terrible idea, but what other options are on the table?

I'm sorry but why exactly is everyone on this forum talking about going to War with Iran as though its this nonchalant recreational activity?
Iran hasn't poised any serious threat the the United States or any of our military allies. To attack a nation simply because we disagree with how they decide to run their country is both bad manners and incredibly conceded.

We just went through that up in arms belief with invading Iraq, and all we got were hundreds of thousands dead in causalities dead. Yes, we got the dictator. But Saddam was merely one man, what he really worth all we spent and all the lives we lost?

I'm all for war when its necessary, but fear of what maybe might happen is not justification for losing/killings thousands.

[royster]

Originally Posted by Cidwind

I'm sorry but why exactly is everyone on this forum talking about going to War with Iran as though its this nonchalant recreational activity?

This is perhaps THE most sane and intelligent post I've seen on this forum for a while.

THANK YOU.

[Brutha]

I meant the United States. Maybe I should have put it as U.S.

Oh dear.
The US is an idea. royster is part of "the US". Snerp is part of "the US". Beingist is part of "the US".

Are you suggesting that they all have some sort of hidden agenda when it comes to the middle east that I don't know because I'm European?
I don't think that's the point you want to make.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Cidwind

I'm all for war when its necessary, but fear of what maybe might happen is not justification for losing/killings thousands.

I think almost all of the wars that the U.S. indulged in post WWII could have been avoided.

[Cidwind]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I think almost all of the wars that the U.S. indulged in post WWII could have been avoided.

I'd agree.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I think almost all of the wars that the U.S. indulged in post WWII could have been avoided.

I would argue that they were actively pursued.

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

I'm a little torn on the issue. While I think any kind of military action against Iran is a bad idea, I don't believe that they should be allowed to become a nuclear power

Yeah, thats exactly the way I feel.

Maybe a surgical strike is the answer, without putting boots on the ground??

[Beingist]

Such fear hurts me to hear.

[ZephyrusX]

I wouldn't say that I feel hurt, but I am troubled by this fatalistic attitude. So long as we keep operating from a Win-Lose perspective, will we not basically fulfill our own prophecies? It is my understanding the the Iranian government wants nuclear warheads as a political deterrent towards antagonist foreign powers (the U.S, Israel).

Originally Posted by Beingist

Such fear hurts me to hear.

[Frisky]

The world doesnt need more nukes though, it needs less of them

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I wouldn't say that I feel hurt, but I am troubled by this fatalistic attitude. So long as we keep operating from a Win-Lose perspective, will we not basically fulfill our own prophecies? It is my understanding the the Iranian government wants nuclear warheads as a political deterrent towards antagonist foreign powers (the U.S, Israel).

Indeed. Few people realize that the United States remains the only power to use nuclear weapons as an act of war (i.e., Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII), and so other countries of the world have a valid reason to be fearful, as well as view the U.S. as a nation of hypocrits.

This is not to say that I think that Iran should have nuclear weapons, but only that when the Western powers say, "we can have nukes, but you can't," then it is no surprise that those who can't might simply flip them the bird.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I wouldn't say that I feel hurt, but I am troubled by this fatalistic attitude. So long as we keep operating from a Win-Lose perspective, will we not basically fulfill our own prophecies? It is my understanding the the Iranian government wants nuclear warheads as a political deterrent towards antagonist foreign powers (the U.S, Israel).

The iranian government wants nuclear warheads for the coming of the Mahdi.

[javed]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

I'm a little torn on the issue. While I think any kind of military action against Iran is a bad idea, I don't believe that they should be allowed to become a nuclear power.

Why NOT???

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by javed

Why NOT???

I answered that in this post:

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

The difference is that Iran is a violent theocracy that considers human rights to be subservient to adhering to an extremist and backward interpretation of the religion of Islam.

By its very existence as an Islamic Republic it is waging jihad, which is an aggressive stance, not a defensive one. Therefore they should definitely be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.