View Poll Results: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    4 9.76%
  • No.

    31 75.61%
  • Maybe.

    6 14.63%
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 153

Thread: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    You said inspections and other stipulations in the deal will not suffice, and we all know that sanctions are a temporary solution that cannot be sustained. So what option are you leaving other than a military strike?
    You must not have read all of what the experts are saying. Sanctions would go back into full effect. Iran's economy was on the verge of collapse due to their own decisions to keep up their 30 Billion with Military and sponsoring terrorism.





    Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity. Does America still hope to arrest the region’s trends toward sectarian upheaval, state collapse and the disequilibrium of power tilting toward Tehran, or do we now accept this as an irremediable aspect of the regional balance?

    Some advocates have suggested that the agreement can serve as a way to dissociate America from Middle East conflicts, culminating in the military retreat from the region initiated by the current administration. As Sunni states gear up to resist a new Shiite empire, the opposite is likely to be the case. The Middle East will not stabilize itself, nor will a balance of power naturally assert itself out of Iranian-Sunni competition. (Even if that were our aim, traditional balance of power theory suggests the need to bolster the weaker side, not the rising or expanding power.) Beyond stability, it is in America’s strategic interest to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences. Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement.....snip~


    Whats Iran going to do.....declare war on the US? Puleeeze don't make me laugh this early in the morning.

  2. #52
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,484
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan5 View Post
    I vote yes. It makes the world more interesting and I'm all for that. Frankly I think we need to begin "Environmentally Nuking" human ideological problem areas such as ISIS controlled Syria/Iraq and parts of Africa with Islamists.

    It would be good for the environment.
    This must be the best of sarcasm inc .. lol..

  3. #53
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    You must not have read all of what the experts are saying. Sanctions would go back into full effect. Iran's economy was on the verge of collapse due to their own decisions to keep up their 30 Billion with Military and sponsoring terrorism.
    Iran went from like 200 centrifuges to 1700 centrifuges under the sanctions. And the sanction regime requires international support, which would fall away if the US walks away from a deal.

    You say you want a 'better deal', but you only advocate for an unattainable deal that will never be on the table under any circumstances whatsoever.

  4. #54
    Professor
    kjwins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 11:25 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    War should always be the last thing the US does. But we all know that's not the case. Nobody hates war more than the soldiers that fight it. So maybe we should ask them, & not listen to the people that stand to make a profit off of a war with Iran.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    8,711

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    MMC, I believe you are supposed to give credit to authors when quoting their work.


    matchlight, please remind me of the bombing missions into Cuba back in 1962 that caused the Soviet Union to withdraw.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  6. #56
    Professor
    kjwins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 11:25 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    This guy always has a good take on this stuff. Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell


  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Iran went from like 200 centrifuges to 1700 centrifuges under the sanctions. And the sanction regime requires international support, which would fall away if the US walks away from a deal.

    You say you want a 'better deal', but you only advocate for an unattainable deal that will never be on the table under any circumstances whatsoever.



    Now here is the truth about their centrifuges, with the full article to the WSJ. Oh and how does the International Sanctions fall away with Iran saying they won't accept the deal unless all sanctions come off?

    Are you even aware what their Alleged Supreme leader stated and what BO told his lame ass?






    Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran. While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer.

    Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites. The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment?

    In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging.....snip~

    The Iran Deal and Its Consequences - WSJ

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    MMC, I believe you are supposed to give credit to authors when quoting their work.


    matchlight, please remind me of the bombing missions into Cuba back in 1962 that caused the Soviet Union to withdraw.

    I did......I said Kissinger and Schultz. Did you miss the post where I said their names? There is a couple of them in here.

  9. #59
    Professor
    kjwins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 11:25 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    Here's one that tells the truth of the deal.


  10. #60
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,547

    Re: Should the US launch a military strike on Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Hmm, not sure I'd agree - with B.O. in place to stink up the operation proper, he'd probably broadcast the date and time he planned on striking, with how strong a force, what kind of weapons, how long they'll be over target, altitude, air speed, GPS cords, along with resumes of the men involved; he'd arrange in advance for permission to enter Iranian air space, and probably accommodate the Ayatollahs by offering to go so far as to file a flight plan - in broken Farsi.

    And to keep the Israelis from mucking up his brilliant plan, he'll cut a deal with Hamas and Hezbollah to keep the Israeli defense forces busy in turn for a promise of land in Israel proper once he's successful removing Netanyahu from power.

    That, or he'll continue on the path he's most familiar with:





    Nah, he would only forecast what is to be bomnbed and when so they can get free.

    He's afraid of losing his peace prize
    "Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •