If Bush gets re-elected, Iran will be bombed...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Orson, Jun 22, 2004.

  1. Orson

    Orson New Member

    The title is my inference based upon reading accounts of the International Atomic Energy authorities and their thus far failed attempts to get Iran to uphold the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - which Iran signed.

    The Bush Administration has waged a wake-up call to the dangers of terrorism and nuclear proliferation; Iran is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism.

    So-the question are these: Will the US bomb (and here I assume a multi-night/day operation against nuke facilities) Iran next winter? Or next summer?
    Will claims of acting for Iraqi security play a large or small role?

    Your opinions on this issue are solicited.
    (And I have no clue as to whether a Kerry Administration will be much different or the same as Bush; when presidents get elected, they may change. Obviously, Kerry portends not to be proactive, like Bush - but that may change if elected.)

  2. Rich Hartel

    Rich Hartel New Member

    To Orson,

    With the war on terrorism since 9/11, I believe the U.S. has to take a very aggressive role against known countries that support and harbor terrorests, and who have that capabilties to build and sell nuclear wepons to these terrorists.

    And lets face it, Iran is one of those countries, who would like nothing better than to wipe America off the face of the planet.
    So, if that means bombing them a few times to keep them in line, so be it!

    So basically what I'm trying to say is that no matter who gets in to office, I certainly hope the next president is not affraid to act and do the right thing when it comes to protecting our country!

    And thats why I'm voting for Bush, I think he has shown that he is not affraid of taking on these terrorists.

    Peace through exercising strength! But hey, that's just my opinion.

    Rich Hartel
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2004
  3. Orson

    Orson New Member


    There are pros and cons to any proactive policy to the terrorist threat.

    Therefore I believe the likely consequences of this policy deserve airing and debate. Personally, I'm more ambivalent about these consequences; I'm not happy for the US to fulfill the role of mighty hegemonic policeman to the world! I've like real alternatives identified and explored.

    Thus far, the so-called "peace movement" has failed to explore these. We have a debate failure in this country.

    Hysteria, ostrich poses, and anti-Bush acrimony are no subsitute for realism and engagement with the issues of our time.

  4. Rich Hartel

    Rich Hartel New Member

    To Orson, greetings,

    I agree with you that there will always be pros and cons to any and all proactive policies to the terrorists threat.

    However, the way "I" see it, the time for the U.S. to sit idly by and to wait to see what will happen next is over. After what happened on 09/11/2001, I don't know what else could happen to this country for people to truly wake up and realize that the next terrorest attack could be alot worse than the approx. three thousand Americans who innocently died on that September morning.

    If being more aggresive means keeping terrorets countries like Iran, Lybia, etc... in check, then bombs away, and again I say, "so be it!"
    Yes, this might make us the police man of the world, but that is because no other country seems to care about us, unless these other countries are looking for a hand out.

    True peace and security seems to come only through exercising strength.

    An example would be Iraq; for the last twenty plus years Iraq has been a thorn in the world's side, but can you imagine the kind of terrorest threat Iraq would have been to the world today if the Israelies did not bomb the Nuclear reactor that Iraq was trying to build, back in the early 80"s? I can only imagine!

    Well, again, that's my opinion!

    Rich Hartel
  5. anthonym

    anthonym New Member

    The U.S. has to be careful where it directs its resources. We were pouring money and other aid into Iraq while that construction was underway (and providing illegal aid to Iran in that decade as well). And now we're in Iraq and haven't found the WMDs and Osama is still on the run.
  6. Policy changes...

    There's a few things that I believe the US needs to do at once:

    1. Begin an aggressive program of developing and leveraging alternate energy sources so we can eliminate our dependence upon foreign oil. We really need to get serious about this, and the Presidency is the place for this leadership to start.
    2. Once dependence upon foreign oil is reduced, or better yet, eliminated, those Islamic states will be pushed back to the status they held in the 19th century - poor, nasty, and brutish. The funds will dry up, and so will a lot of this violence which is funded by the oil dollars either directly or indirectly.
    3. Shorter term we need to get tough with Saudi Arabia - the secret deals and winks & nods that have taken place around our arrangements towards this horrid country need to be revealed and undone. Saudi Arabia is the largest backer of terrorism in the world - haven't we all noticed by now that nearly ALL the 911 bombers were Saudi citizens?
    4. Iran? Maybe they are a problem, maybe they aren't. I do not see them as nearly in the same light as the big oil states, who on the one hand smile at us and take our money, and on the other secretly fund and protect violent religious movements (e.g., wahhabism) that are dedicated to destroying anything and everything in their drive towards Islamic purity.

    The key to it all is taking the funding away from this part of the world, and to do that we have to stop sending them $ for oil, and have our own native-generated resources as a substitute. Is it so hard to imagine a hydrogen-fueled economy in 25 years??

    In conclusion, there's nothing worse than having ingrates who would still be picking sand out of their ears now sitting in comfortable palaces, paid for by our dollars, exchanging oil for dollars, and then setting prices and production quotas for the rest of the world, all the while carrying on about Israel requiring extermination and secretly funding terrorist cells and operations that have struck our financial center and Pentagon, and killed 3,000 people. Enough. The real enemy is the Saudi regime and the crazed lunatics that follow the wahhabist creed.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2004
  7. GENO

    GENO New Member

    Lets hope that the lame-brain does not become the lame-duck.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2004
  8. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    If Bush gets re-elected, I'll have to be talked out of opening a vein.
  9. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Hey - wasn't Barbra Streisand supposed to move out of the country if Bush was elected in '00? Well, I am still waiting Babs...

    (as much as I can't stand Bushy, Babs is a first class creep. One of those holier than thou types who thinks her dung don't stink!)
  10. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Re: Policy changes...

    THIS, Carl, is not a live option.

    Why? Even if we did pursue this course - admittedly with all its tempting consequences - other industrial powers either couldn't or wouldn't.

    Haven't you thought it odd how France - with 60% of its power needs met by nuclear generators - along with Russia, was the most desperate state cutting deals with Saddam (as we now know from the corruption trials there)?

    These problems already occured under UN sanctions and with US and UK military enforcement. You want to try a reservation policy for all the oil rich middle east? Then show me how patrolling these borders is even plausible....

  11. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Why is it people complain about Sept. 11, yet don't think twice about (and even endorse) the idea of the US unilaterally deciding to bomb Iran's bomb-making facilities?

    And why do so many believe that dropping bombs around the world makes us safer?

    I think it makes us a whole lot less safe. While I'm not crazy about Iran having nuclear weapons, what is the rational for the US and Britain and France having them, but not Iran? Are they more likely to use them indiscriminately? Based on what?

    So far the only country that's actually used them against another country is the US. I realize there are lots of pros and cons in that instance. Nevertheless, it doesn't look so good on our resume when one is trying to figure out who will use them, and who won't, in the future.

    Just asking, since so many on this site seem to feel they have extraordinary powers to read the collective mind of the Arab world.

    GUNSMOKE New Member


    It dosen't matter who is elected President!

    Who bombed Iraq's CANDU fast breeder?

    The same country just took delivery of three advanced KC-10 tanker aircraft, they could fly a polar route to get there if they need to.
  13. Orson

    Orson New Member


    I, for one, am ambivalent about American hegemony. But on the other hand, Iran IS the world's greatest exporter of terrorism - all informed people know this.

    Your words verge on the denial of the obvious: Hezbolah, etc. - and you think it's safe for a state whose offical policy endorses terrorism is tantamount to the US in WWII against Japan? You mean the Japs were surprised at being attacked? Or what? (Popularly soveriegn nation don't attack other ones, typically democracies - non-Democracies however do! See "Death By Gvernment" by R. J. Rummel for detailed data.)

    This is where you (fellow lefties) go unhinged with bizarre moral relativism and the denial of reality.

    It is indeed possible that historian Niall Ferguson ("Colossus" 2004) is correct: without Imperial leadership (i.e., the US), the world is a more dangerous place!

    Apparently Tom is content to live in a more dangerous place, one where committed terrorists and Islamo-Bolsheviks weild The Bomb....against the West!

    I'm sure I speak for most when I say "That's incredible."

    On June 29th, I heard Richard Armitage (ubdersecretary of state?) - the first in the Bush Admin - say it's definite: Iran want's nukes.


  14. SeptGrad

    SeptGrad New Member


    Both you and Tom communicate excellent points.

    Tom, The US is the only country to nuke another. We even nuked ourselves, so to speak, at first above ground in the south pacific and New Mexico but learned to test underground later in Nevada.
    We gained a lot of knowledge but at what cost?

    Orson, Iran does export the most terrorism. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict would have been over long ago if not for Hezbollah and a few other countries like Syria.
    Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq which saved them from getting nuked in my opinion. We need to destroy any such facilities in Iran. Does anyone remember the hostage crisis in 1979? There is no lost love between the US and Iran and Iran's theocracy has proved to be a dangerous way to govern. Until there is an Islamic reformation, the US and its allies will continue to be threatened.
  15. GENO

    GENO New Member

    I look for another Iran-Iraq conflict in the future, and guess who will be right in the middle of that one. Iraq will not be able to defend themselves and their fragile democracy will be challanged both externally from Iran and internally by radical clerics who wnat to create an Islamic state. And then there are the influx of terrorists who will be flooding the countryside recruiting martyrs-in-training to do their mischievous deeds. Once Iraq is enveloped in civil war its off to Saudi Arabia (terrorists sponsored by Iran/Syria) to overthrow its ruling royalty and destroy the oil drilling infrastructure. Then to Jordan and Egypt... a new definition of the domino theory.
    The military draft will have to be reinstituted in order to have enough "boots on the ground", many billions of dollars will have to be spent at the expense of domestic programs. Wont be popular at home. Then Pakistan will fall to radical Islamic rule (they possess nuclear weapons) and will threaten to use them (against India) if certain conditions are not met.
    Wow - this could really get ugly.
    Just thinking of what COULD happen scares me.
  16. Rich Hartel

    Rich Hartel New Member

    To SeptGrad,

    You hit the nail on the head, I agree with you 100%. The U.S. must destroy any nuclear reactor Iran might be building or any other terrorst country that pose a threat to this country.

    The U.S. can not sit idly by any more, especially after 9/11!!

    Rich Hartel
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2004

Share This Page