Iran takes one more BIG step...

[notyoueither]

The Israelis can't do what Iran needs done to it.

They can't maintain a sustained aerial bombardment that deprives Iran of power and transportation, as well as neutralising all military sites that are capable of threatening shipping in the Gulf.

Sorry, this one is yours.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It'll be an airforce operation. The Marines aren't going in, but the US is more than capable of bombing the place back to the 10th century.

They can't for various reasons.

The first is that if they bombed the whole country in order to stop Iran building nuclear weapons (of which there is no real evidence), it would be viewed by everyone, including allies of the US as an atrocity on the level of Rwanda.

If they tried limited strikes, then it won't work, since the Iranian nuclear program is quite widely spread and hard to take out (they aren't stupid).

Again, it would be a political and diplomatic disaster, because Iran isn't breaking the rules. They are entitled to pursue nuclear power. They aren't entitled to produce nuclear weapons, but there is no real evidence of them doing that.

[Cyclotron]

The US deliberate bombing of infrastructure in Iraq was disastrous and totally unethical. A repeat performance in Iran would be equally so. There isn't even a pretext to do such a thing - Iran hasn't even attacked Israel (or anyone else).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


They aren't the ones who'll be getting pounded if you attack them. It's about the stupidest thing the US could do right now, which is why I recommend attacking immediately.

While I certainly think any country attacking Iran would eventually regret doing so I don't see how you think they would themselves avoid getting pounded if a great power were to attack them.


If Iran is attacked surely you agree there will be pounding to be had all around?

[notyoueither]

Iran is openly supporting terrorists groups internationally, and they are telling the international community to go **** off on the NPT.

Two things that would get them into hot water, if not the bombing sites of the USAF, I would think.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


They can't for various reasons.

The first is that if they bombed the whole country in order to stop Iran building nuclear weapons (of which there is no real evidence), it would be viewed by everyone, including allies of the US as an atrocity on the level of Rwanda.

They'll have the green light from the EU. That's more than enough for the current crowd in Washington.

The EU begged them to destroy a problem for Europe in Europe.

What makes you think they can't or won't do the same or worse to someone else?

If they tried limited strikes, then it won't work, since the Iranian nuclear program is quite widely spread and hard to take out (they aren't stupid).

Again, it would be a political and diplomatic disaster, because Iran isn't breaking the rules. They are entitled to pursue nuclear power. They aren't entitled to produce nuclear weapons, but there is no real evidence of them doing that.

They won't try limited strikes, and they won't try to occupy the place. They'll bomb it into the dark ages and leave the modern population to get hungry and resentful of the leaders who put them there.

[Cyclotron]

"Hot water" probably is not synonymous with "utter destruction." Besides, the NPT only prohibits weapons, not uranium enrichment, so I've been led to believe. And if we are bombing everyone who's supported terrorist groups, well, when did that policy come into existence? It's not like Iran has suddenly begun to sponsor terror. That's old, old news.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


They'll have the green light from the EU. That's more than enough for the current crowd in Washington.

The EU begged them to destroy a problem for Europe in Europe.

What makes you think they can't or won't do the same or worse to someone else?

If they tried limited strikes, then it won't work, since the Iranian nuclear program is quite widely spread and hard to take out (they aren't stupid).

Again, it would be a political and diplomatic disaster, because Iran isn't breaking the rules. They are entitled to pursue nuclear power. They aren't entitled to produce nuclear weapons, but there is no real evidence of them doing that.

They won't try limited strikes, and they won't try to occupy the place. They'll bomb it into the dark ages and leave the modern population to get hungry and resentful of the leaders who put them there.

bah. just like that worked in serbia against the serbs?

What makes you think iran would be any different?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They won't try limited strikes, and they won't try to occupy the place. They'll bomb it into the dark ages and leave the modern population to get hungry and resentful of the leaders who put them there.

Do you think that's more likely than becoming resentful of the US, the country that bombed them in the first place? I mean, we did that to Iraq, and it did precisely nothing except kill a lot of Iraqis needlessly.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
"Hot water" probably is not synonymous with "utter destruction." Besides, the NPT only prohibits weapons, not uranium enrichment, so I've been led to believe. And if we are bombing everyone who's supported terrorist groups, well, when did that policy come into existence? It's not like Iran has suddenly begun to sponsor terror. That's old, old news.

The current crowd in Washington don't need a whole lot to go on, do they?

I would think the real sin would be if Tehran were encouraging the insurgency in iraq.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo

bah. just like that worked in serbia against the serbs?

What makes you think iran would be any different?

The USAF shut Serbia down over a matter of days.

Ever try to make nukes when you have no power and no transportation?

I don't think Iran would be any different. If the USAF wants to shut down a moderately sized country, consider it shut down.

[SlowwHand]

And it's the USA's fault that the people that are "innocent" have insurgents around them.
What a crockof****.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Do you think that's more likely than becoming resentful of the US, the country that bombed them in the first place? I mean, we did that to Iraq, and it did precisely nothing except kill a lot of Iraqis needlessly.

I hardly think that Iranians could become more resentful of the Yanks.

The more intelligent among them might begin to grasp the sum of the equation that 25 or more years of Islamic fundamentalism have added up for them.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The current crowd in Washington don't need a whole lot to go on, do they?

Forgive me for being hopeful.

I would think the real sin would be if Tehran were encouraging the insurgency in iraq.

Why would they support what appears to be a largely Sunni insurgency? Their prospects of gaining power in Iraq through the majority Shia parties seem much, much better. And besides, recent events have shown them to be more interested in shelling the Kurds than anything else.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And it's the USA's fault that the people that are "innocent" have insurgents around them.
What a crockof****.

A what? When the USA kills somebody, it is the fault of the USA. No qualifications. Only somebody who had totally lost their sense of what basic responsibility is would think otherwise.