Do you support a military strike to degrade or destroy Iran's nuclear program?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 12:33:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Do you support a military strike to degrade or destroy Iran's nuclear program?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Topic.
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (I/O)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 61

Author Topic: Do you support a military strike to degrade or destroy Iran's nuclear program?  (Read 1740 times)
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2015, 01:12:48 AM »

Definitely not. I find it strange that the hawks continue to hype up the Iran thing after the rise of ISIS.

The idiotic hawks think we can fight Assad, Iran, ISIS, and al Nusra at the same time.

Time matters.

Once Iran has nuclear weapons there is no turning back, so even if they are usefull now, that is not in itself a definite reason not to destroy their nuclear capability - if possible.
Logged
andrew_c
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 454
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2015, 01:19:20 AM »

Absolutely not.  The US military should not drag itself into more conflicts, since they already have their hands full.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,923


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2015, 01:26:29 AM »

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2015, 01:29:51 AM »

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Hardly. Allowing a regime as anti-Western as the Iranian to become a nuclear power has severe long term consequences.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,707


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2015, 01:35:05 AM »

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Hardly. Allowing a regime as anti-Western as the Iranian to become a nuclear power has severe long term consequences.

You may have missed it, but Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia are all nuclear nations. Iran having a nuke or two isn't going to change anything.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2015, 01:35:15 AM »

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Hardly. Allowing a regime as anti-Western as the Iranian to become a nuclear power has severe long term consequences.

Eh, Pakistan and North Korea being nuclear nations are more concerning.

All three are countries that ideally should not have nuclear capability, but unlike the others Iran can still be prevented from acquiring it.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2015, 01:52:01 AM »

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Hardly. Allowing a regime as anti-Western as the Iranian to become a nuclear power has severe long term consequences.

Question: In the past five years, has Iran been noticeably less or more anti-Western? Have they actually done anything very recently to indicate anti-Westernism?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2015, 01:57:15 AM »

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Hardly. Allowing a regime as anti-Western as the Iranian to become a nuclear power has severe long term consequences.

Question: In the past five years, has Iran been noticeably less or more anti-Western? Have they actually done anything very recently to indicate anti-Westernism?

It is the fundamental nature of the regime and their alliances with extremists that are worrying, not recent policies per se.

This is a one-off - once they got nukes, they got them forever.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,847
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2015, 02:15:40 AM »

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Well, we went into Iraq with about equal justification. Either Bush was world's greatest troll or some on the right really are this insane.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2015, 10:51:23 AM »

No, Iran should be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,173
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 05, 2015, 11:30:17 AM »

Some reasons why it might be a good idea to destroy Iran's nuclear program:

1. Some states in the region mght shift their allegiances to Iran.

2. Iran’s regional rivals (Saudi-Arabia should be a given) will launch their own nuclear initiatives to counter an Iranian bomb sparking a nuclear arms race.

3. A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit US freedom of action in the Middle East.

4. To constrain its rivals, Iran could choose to transfer nuclear technology to its allies - other countries and terrorist groups alike.

5. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy - battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel could escalate.

6. Iran and Israel lack nearly all the safeguards that helped the US and the Soviet Union avoid a nuclear exchange during the Cold War - secure second-strike capabilities, clear lines of communication, long flight times for ballistic missiles from one country to the other and experience managing nuclear arsenals.

7. Even if a nuclear-armed Iran would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw in the US.

Then there is the question whether the US would need to contain Iran to keep the threat at bay. If so,  the US would need to deploy naval and ground units and potentially nuclear weapons across the Middle East. Alongside those troops, the US would have to deploy significant intelligence assets to monitor any attempts by Iran to transfer its nuclear technology + devote a fortune to improve its allies’ capability to defend themselves.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,599
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2015, 01:19:08 PM »

Some reasons why it might be a good idea to destroy Iran's nuclear program:

1. Some states in the region mght shift their allegiances to Iran.

2. Iran’s regional rivals (Saudi-Arabia should be a given) will launch their own nuclear initiatives to counter an Iranian bomb sparking a nuclear arms race.

3. A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit US freedom of action in the Middle East.

4. To constrain its rivals, Iran could choose to transfer nuclear technology to its allies - other countries and terrorist groups alike.

5. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy - battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel could escalate.

6. Iran and Israel lack nearly all the safeguards that helped the US and the Soviet Union avoid a nuclear exchange during the Cold War - secure second-strike capabilities, clear lines of communication, long flight times for ballistic missiles from one country to the other and experience managing nuclear arsenals.

7. Even if a nuclear-armed Iran would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw in the US.

Then there is the question whether the US would need to contain Iran to keep the threat at bay. If so,  the US would need to deploy naval and ground units and potentially nuclear weapons across the Middle East. Alongside those troops, the US would have to deploy significant intelligence assets to monitor any attempts by Iran to transfer its nuclear technology + devote a fortune to improve its allies’ capability to defend themselves.

The problem with this whole "let's bomb them to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon" thing is the simple fact that Iran is not trying to get a nuclear weapon.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
(emphasis mine)

What will lead to them wanting to develop a nuclear weapon is if we keep antagonizing them. If we stop antagonizing them, they have shown willingness to cooperate, especially now that Rouhani is President and Iran's economy is crippled by sanctions. Now is the time to get things done via diplomacy rather than continue the warmongering that will only lead to a devastating conflict in the Middle East. We finally have the chance to end this, but for Israel's intransigence.

A simple strike on their nuclear reactors won't be like when Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities back in the 1980s, where Iran will shrug it's shoulders and be like "okay, that's fine". Iran will respond, whether it be sponsoring a wave of terrorism in Israel/Europe/the US, not helping us combat ISIS (who is an actual threat, BTW), or an outright conflict. Iran is a very powerful country in terms of military might, and any conflict will lead to the deaths of thousands of people, whether they be Iranian, Israeli, Europeans, or American; civilians or soldiers.

We are finally not at war in the Middle East for the first time since 2000, after $1.5 trillion spent on two wars, 6,500+ killed and 32,000+ wounded (the medical costs of which are enormous over the next few decades), and people already want another conflict to start over Israel's paranoia and Neocons' fetish for perpetual war?

We would have to invade, pacify, and rebuild Iran like we tried to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, and all it will do is inspire another wave of terrorism as "proof of our imperialist crusade against Islam" at a time when we can use our fight against ISIS to repair our relations with the Islamic world.


Life is not a Call of Duty game. Iran is a very powerful country, and starting a war with them is not going to be a low-intensity thing like Afghanistan or Iraq that will be a side story on the news. Additionally, we badly need Iran's help to fight ISIS right now.


Iran is not trying to get a nuclear weapon, unless we drive them to do so. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand??
Logged
Grumpier Than Thou
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,320
United States
Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2015, 01:39:17 PM »

No? what a stupid proposition.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2015, 08:08:47 PM »

No (I/O). Syria, on the other hand...
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 14 queries.