Should the west attack Iran?

[BeBMan]

No idea if anyone should, but otoh I really would like to know how that plays out (teh crisis around Iran, not a possible attack).

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Pekka
But there's a hippie commune closer, maybe you can go there and cry with them. You don't have to use any oil at all, just wamr each others bodies with the nature, eat veggies and drink heated water. Unless you do that, you can't talk about anything.

What an earth has oil to do with going to war with Iran? I'm quite happy to buy my oil, I don't need to conquer it.

[Winston]

For what it's worth, if the U.S. decides to move, Denmark will be there as well.

[Patroklos]

I had a longer response but the forum ate my post.

The forum loves the taste of really good aguements

Proxies - Like Iran would care if you knew they supported them. "Sanctioned" means nothing. You do however seem to concede that this would be an issue so I'll move on.

If we have already directly attacked Iran and are at defacto war with them, and they official back proxies as a matter of public policy, then we have every justification to attack not only those proxies but also Iran itself. Proxies have nothing to lose, Iran itself does. And if those actions are a direct response to our original attacks, then anyone involved with us in those attacks is obligated to respond as well.

As for your Afghanistan point, the first nations those proxies will run into is Germany and Canada right now, not exactly in the best interests of Iran if the US unilaterally attacks Iran (which I don't think will be the case).

Iranian military - I never mentioned once. I referred to proxies. Iran has "friends" and influence in the region and can cause you considerable grief. If you think I'm implying the Iranian military will go toe to toe with the US I want what you are smoking.

I know, I am talking about Iranian military support that will be covert, and thus not unlimited in scope, or overt, in whcih case Iran goes under the bomb sight again.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Winston
For what it's worth, if the U.S. decides to move, Denmark will be there as well.

[Sandman]

In another bizarre twist, the most popular show on Iranian TV at the moment is a drama about the Holocaust.

Iran Holocaust drama is a big hit.

[LordShiva]

Why is that a bizarre twist?

[BeBMan]

I read a German article about this a while ago, which did accuse the show of doing antisemitism in a different way: while they don't deny the Holocaust, they mix in other stuff like that Zionists conspired somehow with Hitler to establish Israel and killed many Jews themselves....Hard to judge of course without watching the show itself....

For those who can read Kraut, here's a linky:

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,504864,00.html

[Traianvs]

I really don't care if they get nukes. North Korea has 'em and that scares me a lot more. We can't afford another invasion, and like the French dude said, if they try to nuke Israel we'll have a perfect excuse to wipe them off the map. Sure, Ahmadinejad has been saying all sorts of crazy crap, but I gather that's his job. He's Iran's Zaphod Beeblebrox, he has the power to throw money around to calm the populace but he wouldn't control the nukes.

Exactly. Ahmadinejad uses strong language to assert himself, but he wouldn't control the nukes himself. Besides, he has been publicly criticized in official government newspapers by Ali Khamenei among others for his aggressive language. Ahmadinejad is simply trying to gain power in Iran. There's no need to attack Iran whatsoever... the paranoia among some westerners is insane lately.

- All the Iranians I have heard or read about in documentaries, newspapers, or other media claim the populace will stand a 100% behind the gov in case of a foreign attack.
- Many Iranians are probably less extreme than most Arabs to the west of Iran. They're not looking for a fight. Attacking them would only create a more radical anti-west attitude.
- The US can't handle Iraq, and it can't handle Afghanistan (with some minor help from UN troops). Adding Iran would be suicide. The US for one can't employ enough troops for another war; especially against Iran (= 65 mill. population, while Iraq's merely 27 mill. or so). You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out

[Winston]

- The US can't handle Iraq, and it can't handle Afghanistan (with some minor help from UN troops).

Ahem. Afghanistan is a NATO operation. And non-U.S. contributions in Afghanistan are hardly 'minor'.

[Patroklos]

The US can't handle Iraq, and it can't handle Afghanistan (with some minor help from UN troops). Adding Iran would be suicide. The US for one can't employ enough troops for another war; especially against Iran (= 65 mill. population, while Iraq's merely 27 mill. or so). You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out

Find me one person, on or off this board, advocating occupying Iran.

[chequita guevara]

Are you arguing about invading Iraq to stop them from getting nukes or Iran, because it all sounds the same to me.

Morons, the lot of you. Can't win one war, so start another one you think you can win. Can't win that war, so you start another you think you can win. Anyone notice a pattern?

I was right the last time. I'm right this time.

BTW, the International Atomic Energy Agency says that ALL of Iran's nuclear material is accounted for and that there is NO evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. But you can ignore me and continue plotting your wars of glory. Hope your ship takes a silkworm, Patroklos.

I actually think it would be great if the U.S. attacked Iran, because the U.S. would get its ass handed to it on a platter in Iraq and we wouldn't attack another country for a generation until the next idiot generation grew up and thought it could take on the world.

[Lancer]

We should just let them have nukes then, and when they nuke Israel we nuke them, is that the strategy?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos

If we have already directly attacked Iran and are at defacto war with them, and they official back proxies as a matter of public policy, then we have every justification to attack not only those proxies but also Iran itself. Proxies have nothing to lose, Iran itself does. And if those actions are a direct response to our original attacks, then anyone involved with us in those attacks is obligated to respond as well.

So you will attack Iraq again?

As for your Afghanistan point, the first nations those proxies will run into is Germany and Canada right now, not exactly in the best interests of Iran if the US unilaterally attacks Iran (which I don't think will be the case).

You might want to take another look at Afganistan deployments.

I know, I am talking about Iranian military support that will be covert, and thus not unlimited in scope, or overt, in whcih case Iran goes under the bomb sight again.

To what purpose? Stir up the rubble?

[Lancer]

Che! Nice to see you.