Features

Dole · #26

Quote:

I think the dispute might be over want constitutes a "unprovoked" attack. Does a nuclear Iran need to bomb Israel and/or somebody else before you take them seriously....?

Thats a fascile argument. Are you going to attack every country that might do something bad, just to be on the safe side? China? North Korea? Russia? Israel?

GAsux · #27

Kev,
Thanks for your input. I don't disagree with a lot of it. As for Iran, I'm on the fence as to whether it's worth it or not. I don't at all underestimate the potential and for a variety of reasons I personally see the risk posed by Iran being far greater than that of say North Korea, but that's for another thread entirely.

My only input here is that whether it is right or wrong, a conflict with Iran will be vastly more economically, strategically, and humanitarianly ( ok so thats not really a word) more costly than anything we've dealt with in the last three decades. And that cost, in my mind, must be weighed with the benefit or the effect on the stated goal, in this case being the reduction of terrorism. In my opinion such a conflict would only be marginally beneficial and not worth the cost.

As far as the discussion with Ant, I realized that the point I was making was probably taken a bit out of context so I'll refrain from debating WWII history as it's the topic we started with. My only point there was that as a soldier, the moral justification for war in Europe was much more compelling then it is in Iraq or would be in say, Iran.

When a soldier goes to war facing the risk of giving his life, he is much more apt to go honorably when he feels that it is for the greater good. Such was the case in the European campaign of WWII (whether real or imagined, I'll leave you to debate). Its much more difficult to convince yourself that the sacrifices are worth it when you're potential giving up your life for a "potential threat" no matter how ominious that threat appears to be.

Archduke Tips · #28

Twat is sometimes used as a euphemism for vagina.

KevinTheOmnivore · #29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

Thats a fascile argument. Are you going to attack every country that might do something bad, just to be on the safe side? China? North Korea? Russia? Israel?

Iran has had their fingers in the proverbial cookie jar for years now. They, along with Syria, have been supportive of Hezbollah's efforts in Palestine. Iran was supportive of Osama Bin Laden's efforts to militarize and develope in Sudan.

Im not saying we should simpli invade Iran, but I am however acknowledging the fact that this regime is not very good, and would've probably made a better case for war than Iraq, IMO.

KevinTheOmnivore · #30

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

My only input here is that whether it is right or wrong, a conflict with Iran will be vastly more economically, strategically, and humanitarianly ( ok so thats not really a word) more costly than anything we've dealt with in the last three decades. And that cost, in my mind, must be weighed with the benefit or the effect on the stated goal, in this case being the reduction of terrorism. In my opinion such a conflict would only be marginally beneficial and not worth the cost.

I think we're in agreement. From what I've read (and I may be incorrect), we simply don't have the numbers for a land confrontation with Iran. You're right, the +/- analysis of it doesn't look to good. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't talk softly and carry a big stick, so to speak. We need to be firm with Iran, and we need the global community (particularly Russia) to be firm with Iran. Like I said, I personally think that were the process put in place, Iran could be a diplomatic success story. A bloodless transition from islamic extremism to real democracy. I think the people thee want it, and I think they'd be willing to push harder for it if they knew they had the world community behind them.

KevinTheOmnivore · #31

http://www.policyreview.org/jun05/sokolski.html

Didn't wanna post the whole thing, but an interesting policy analysis on Iran. Pretty good, a lot of the same old stuff, but raises some other interesting points.

Ant10708 · #32

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

As far as the discussion with Ant, I realized that the point I was making was probably taken a bit out of context so I'll refrain from debating WWII history as it's the topic we started with. My only point there was that as a soldier, the moral justification for war in Europe was much more compelling then it is in Iraq or would be in say, Iran.

When a soldier goes to war facing the risk of giving his life, he is much more apt to go honorably when he feels that it is for the greater good. Such was the case in the European campaign of WWII (whether real or imagined, I'll leave you to debate). Its much more difficult to convince yourself that the sacrifices are worth it when you're potential giving up your life for a "potential threat" no matter how ominious that threat appears to be.

Agreed.