View Poll Results: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nukes?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    12 21.05%
  • no

    45 78.95%
Page 11 of 60 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 598

Thread: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

  1. #101
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Good thing that US Forces actually take into account the Geneva Conventions and do concern themselves with collateral damage then, it would be a shame if it was done by someone who might intentionally target innocent men, women and children, (the US does not) say someone like the regime in Tehran.
    We've killed far more innocent people in "collateral damage" than the Iranians have on purpose during my lifetime. And we have struck dual use targets like we did when we bombed the electrical facilities that powered safe drinking water in Iraq that resulted in millions of innocent Iraqis, mostly children dying from disease.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Yes, true, but the thread title is about bombing, and then we have some people talking nukes. Kind of hard to pick and choose WHO you are taking out that way I would think.
    The US policy following WWII to is that it does not target Civilian population centers, even with nukes, nor does it strike or target purely civilian industry or infrastructure. Each and every target approved is accessed for collateral damage estimates (how many civilians it will kill) vs the importance and priority of the target. Can intelligence estimates be wrong or based on false data, sure, happens quite often, but that does not mean that collateral damage was not calculated, just that when we got there afterwards, what we thought was there wasn't. Cultural centers, religious centers and hospitals are also protected, but if the enemy actually places military forces adjacent to them or in them, then they become legitimate targets. I cannot say all (I haven't been in every one), but most command teams that make decisions on bombing a target has a team member from legal to assess the legality of each target and whether they meet policy for collateral damage.

    Now, in Iran, whom we certainly do not want to acheive nuclear weapons, we can put pressure on them to stop development (this has not even showed the least sign of actually working) or we can destroy those facilities prior to them acheiving their goal. That means bombing them. Due to where their facilities are located, it may not, in fact it is very doubtful, that the facilities and research can be destroyed by anything less than a deep penetrating nuclear weapon. Personally, I favor the invasion route over that, but not everyone does and some just want to believe we could do it with only conventional bombing. Should we chose to employ the nuclear option, we would consider the civilian population in the area and areas that would be affected. But, in the balance of things, if the whole of the Population of Iran were to become collateral damage, my assessment is that it is an acceptable level to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    The US policy following WWII to is that it does not target Civilian population centers, even with nukes, nor does it strike or target purely civilian industry or infrastructure. Each and every target approved is accessed for collateral damage estimates (how many civilians it will kill) vs the importance and priority of the target. Can intelligence estimates be wrong or based on false data, sure, happens quite often, but that does not mean that collateral damage was not calculated, just that when we got there afterwards, what we thought was there wasn't. Cultural centers, religious centers and hospitals are also protected, but if the enemy actually places military forces adjacent to them or in them, then they become legitimate targets. I cannot say all (I haven't been in every one), but most command teams that make decisions on bombing a target has a team member from legal to assess the legality of each target and whether they meet policy for collateral damage.

    Now, in Iran, whom we certainly do not want to acheive nuclear weapons, we can put pressure on them to stop development (this has not even showed the least sign of actually working) or we can destroy those facilities prior to them acheiving their goal. That means bombing them. Due to where their facilities are located, it may not, in fact it is very doubtful, that the facilities and research can be destroyed by anything less than a deep penetrating nuclear weapon. Personally, I favor the invasion route over that, but not everyone does and some just want to believe we could do it with only conventional bombing. Should we chose to employ the nuclear option, we would consider the civilian population in the area and areas that would be affected. But, in the balance of things, if the whole of the Population of Iran were to become collateral damage, my assessment is that it is an acceptable level to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.
    I would not have a problem if they could take ONLY the nuclear facilities, but wouldn't that kind of thing cause fall-out? I'm no nuclear expert. LOL!

    The part I highlighted is unacceptable to me. I'm sure there must be other things we could do.

  4. #104
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Look, I'm not an Iran fan. However, our involvement with the Shah and our subsequent poor diplomatic efforts don';t earn us a gold medal either.

    One thing I've learned through life is that being "right" is not always as valuable as being "smart".

    Lets say we approached Iran and said "look, we're sorry for pissing you off. We feel we may have done the wrong thing. We'd like to try to start over with a clean slate. We have a lot to offer you and if you'll hold off on your bomb-biz for 3 years, we'll trade with you, tour you, exchange education with you and help you develop nuclear plants if you want us to. All we ask is to give all this another try.Not only that, but we'll throw some money at the Palestinians and we'll tell Israel that building one more ****ing settlement will cost them their foreign aid."

    So, maybe it works - yowser. Maybe they tell us to **** off - hey, we really tried. It's LOGICAL to try to avoid killing 10s of thousands of people, isn't it?

    So, maybe you say "sure Mr. Logical, and what if they say yes but they sneak around and build a nuke?". Well, it's not as if we don't have about 3,000 nukes ourselves and we'll be incapable of defending ourselves.

    Just a speculative opinion of course.....


    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    Haven't their actions over the last 30 years proved that our past "shenanigans" were a justifiable policy intended to prevent such a barbaric people from being turned loose on the world?
    Going back 2600 years, that country has cast a cruel shadow over its neighbors. Did the 300 die for nothing?

  5. #105
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I would not have a problem if they could take ONLY the nuclear facilities, but wouldn't that kind of thing cause fall-out? I'm no nuclear expert. LOL!

    The part I highlighted is unacceptable to me. I'm sure there must be other things we could do.


    To my knowlege no one is seriously talking about using nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuke facilities. It HAS been looked at, but the general opinion has been "No...bad idea".

    Conventional bombing would not produce fallout.

    This is not to say that a certain amount of radioactive dust might not be kicked up from the sites, due to there being uranium present.


    IMHO that is Iran's problem for building the sites to start with.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #106
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We've killed far more innocent people in "collateral damage" than the Iranians have on purpose during my lifetime. And we have struck dual use targets like we did when we bombed the electrical facilities that powered safe drinking water in Iraq that resulted in millions of innocent Iraqis, mostly children dying from disease.
    Are you claiming that we struck illegal targets? When and where. Any industry used for or that can be used for the production military equipment is a legitimate target. As for collateral damage, even children, it happens, we try to prevent as much as we can, however we must take actions to defeat an enemy. From my point of view, it was not a problem with collateral damage that caused those deaths, but the really piss poor planning and execution of a plan (yeah, like Rumsfeld even had one) of occupation and recovery that caused it.

    As to Iranian actions, that broaches onto areas that I absolutely cannot discuss.
    Last edited by DVSentinel; 08-29-12 at 08:39 PM.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Last Seen
    10-12-14 @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    407

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    To my knowlege no one is seriously talking about using nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuke facilities. It HAS been looked at, but the general opinion has been "No...bad idea".

    Conventional bombing would not produce fallout.

    This is not to say that a certain amount of radioactive dust might not be kicked up from the sites, due to there being uranium present.


    IMHO that is Iran's problem for building the sites to start with.
    Iranian nuclear facilities are located right next to civilian towns and a bombing run would most likely cause casualties. Not as many as a nuclear missile, but casualties none-the-less.

  8. #108
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Respectfully Sir, using your logic the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly justified. What a horrid thought. I'm SURE you don't feel that way.

    Collateral damage is a glib expression. Killing civilians is totally wrong and 2 wrongs do not make a right.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Are you claiming that we struck illegal targets? When and where. Any industry used for or that can be used for the production military equipment is a legitimate target. As for collateral damage, even children, it happens, we try to prevent as much as we can, however we must take actions to defeat an enemy. From my point of view, it was not a problem with collateral damage that caused those deaths, but the really piss poor planning and execution of a plan (yeah, like Rumsfeld even had one) of occupation and recovery that caused it.

    As to how many deaths the Iranians haved caused directly or indirectly through support of terrorist operations, I doubt very much that you actually have any inkling or knowledge of it. I would love to enlighten you, however that broaches onto areas that I absolutely cannot discuss.

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    Iranian nuclear facilities are located right next to civilian towns and a bombing run would most likely cause casualties. Not as many as a nuclear missile, but casualties none-the-less.
    Then we assess whether those lives are more valuable to us and let the Iranians continue or whether the loss of life amoungst ourselves and our allies would be the greater cost, in which case, those deaths are acceptable collateral damage. I vote acceptable collateral damage.

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Last Seen
    10-12-14 @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    407

    Re: Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Then we assess whether those lives are more valuable to us and let the Iranians continue or whether the loss of life amoungst ourselves and our allies would be the greater cost, in which case, those deaths are acceptable collateral damage. I vote acceptable collateral damage.
    Why should you get to decide who's lives are more valuable? The civilians are doing nothing wrong yet we give our military the green light to kill them if necessary?

Page 11 of 60 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •