Is War With Iran Our Best Option?

[The Batorys]

Israel did nuclear testing in the 70s, we don't know if they have a stockpile now. I'd doubt it or else they'd do more about ISIS.

And what exactly is Israel going to do about ISIS, and why should they care? ISIS is not a threat to Israel at the moment. If the Israelis start lobbing nukes on ISIS encampments, Russia will not take too kindly, and retaliate, putting the U.S. in an even more precarious situation.

As for U.S. airstrike on Iran? It is probably the wisest move they have right now. Their "computer virus" failed to accomplish it's objective, so what card does the U.S. have left to play? You make a deal with Iran right now, and it is the Munich Agreement all over again. I only hope Hillary has the balls to do what is right, as we all know "Ocoward" isn't going to give the order.

Iran is not Nazi Germany. They may be authoritarian, but they are not delusional, let alone suicidal. Which is what they would have to be to actually use a nuclear weapon, if they got one.

Nor is Russia allied with ISIL... in fact, they have been for Assad the entire time, an enemy of ISIL. I doubt they'd give two shits if Israel nuked parts of Iraq.

[Olthar]

You know what we should do about Iran? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We've been dicking around in the Middle East since the days of Bush Sr., and what has it gotten us? A couple of blown up towers and a cultural environment that is even more toxic now than it was then. This isn't working. How about we just stop whacking the beehive with a stick and simply walk away? We are under no obligation to care about this.

[The Batorys]

You know what we should do about Iran? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We've been dicking around in the Middle East since the days of Bush Sr., and what has it gotten us? A couple of blown up towers and a cultural environment that is even more toxic now than it was then. This isn't working. How about we just stop whacking the beehive with a stick and simply walk away? We are under no obligation to care about this.

No, we've been dicking around with the middle east since Eisenhower's administration, possibly longer. While Eisenhower was, I think, overall fairly competent, removing Iran's elected government to install the Shah was, in hindsight, not a good move.

Generally I agree, though. The middle east is not our backyard.

[Myrensis]

No, we've been dicking around with the middle east since Eisenhower's administration, possibly longer. While Eisenhower was, I think, overall fairly competent, removing Iran's elected government to install the Shah was, in hindsight, not a good move.

The sad thing is we initially weren't, we knew the Brits just wanted to turn Iran into their own personal oil field and had no intention of getting involved. Then they started telling campfire stories about Communist boogeymen and it was like waving a (literally) red flag in front of a bull.

[Olthar]

You know what we should do about Iran? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We've been dicking around in the Middle East since the days of Bush Sr., and what has it gotten us? A couple of blown up towers and a cultural environment that is even more toxic now than it was then. This isn't working. How about we just stop whacking the beehive with a stick and simply walk away? We are under no obligation to care about this.

No, we've been dicking around with the middle east since Eisenhower's administration, possibly longer. While Eisenhower was, I think, overall fairly competent, removing Iran's elected government to install the Shah was, in hindsight, not a good move.

Generally I agree, though. The middle east is not our backyard.

If we've been dicking around since Eisenhower, then we've necessarily also been dicking around since Bush Sr. Checkmate.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

You know what we should do about Iran? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We've been dicking around in the Middle East since the days of Bush Sr., and what has it gotten us? A couple of blown up towers and a cultural environment that is even more toxic now than it was then. This isn't working. How about we just stop whacking the beehive with a stick and simply walk away? We are under no obligation to care about this.

Every so often, the hive goes psycho and stings you. Or claims the credit for it. All the while it spreads its' brand across the world and joins with like-minded nutcase hives, which ultimately reach their way to your committments and...
zillions die! At the very least the US should do its' best to ensure that said commitments aren't attacked by Islamic lunatics and when and if they are, make sure that the place that launched the strike gets a visit from a billion-dollar bomb.
Also they have oil that our buddies (and we) enjoy using to fuel our society, so getting that cut off because we're all infidels and the Anti-Infidel Rabble took over the oilfields and pipelines to ensure that the infidels didn't get any oil isn't something that would be very well taken.

[Arumdaum]

more like our worst option lmao

[The Batorys]

No, we've been dicking around with the middle east since Eisenhower's administration, possibly longer. While Eisenhower was, I think, overall fairly competent, removing Iran's elected government to install the Shah was, in hindsight, not a good move.

The sad thing is we initially weren't, we knew the Brits just wanted to turn Iran into their own personal oil field and had no intention of getting involved. Then they started telling campfire stories about Communist boogeymen and it was like waving a (literally) red flag in front of a bull.

*Sigh*

Yeah, it's too bad. We could have let it be the Brits' fault.

No, we've been dicking around with the middle east since Eisenhower's administration, possibly longer. While Eisenhower was, I think, overall fairly competent, removing Iran's elected government to install the Shah was, in hindsight, not a good move.

Generally I agree, though. The middle east is not our backyard.

If we've been dicking around since Eisenhower, then we've necessarily also been dicking around since Bush Sr. Checkmate.

Okay, that is true.

You know what we should do about Iran? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We've been dicking around in the Middle East since the days of Bush Sr., and what has it gotten us? A couple of blown up towers and a cultural environment that is even more toxic now than it was then. This isn't working. How about we just stop whacking the beehive with a stick and simply walk away? We are under no obligation to care about this.

Every so often, the hive goes psycho and stings you. Or claims the credit for it. All the while it spreads its' brand across the world and joins with like-minded nutcase hives, which ultimately reach their way to your committments and...
zillions die! At the very least the US should do its' best to ensure that said commitments aren't attacked by Islamic lunatics and when and if they are, make sure that the place that launched the strike gets a visit from a billion-dollar bomb.
Also they have oil that our buddies (and we) enjoy using to fuel our society, so getting that cut off because we're all infidels and the Anti-Infidel Rabble took over the oilfields and pipelines to ensure that the infidels didn't get any oil isn't something that would be very well taken.

You realize that Islam is not a monolithic entity and that we're cooperating with Iran to block ISIS/ISIL, the actual lunatics, right? Most of the people fighting ISIS/ISIL are also Muslims.

Also, we trade routinely with Saudi Arabia... which is every bit as religiously conservative as Iran is, if not more so, and is less democratic. You know this, right?

Iran isn't "spreading" anywhere. They haven't been to war with anybody since Iraq invaded them in the 1980s. They are a conservative government with shitty, repressive laws, but by no means are they lunatics. They have not "stung" us since 1979. And yeah, that was shitty, but it was pretty minor, and honestly, it's a little silly for us to still be sulking about it.

[The Conez Imperium]

I thought the world was too war-weary after the Iraq/Afghanistan debacles...

[Terra Sector Union]

Can America just go one decade without getting into a war? If US citizens really feel that Iran is a threat to the US, then I'd say it's an insult to national defense.

[SaintB]

No, war is virtually always the worst possible option.

[Ashmoria]

oh noooo norstal we DID have an exit strategy. it was just an abysmally stupid one. we were going to install Ahmed Chalabi (I think that's the guy) as the new highly popular leader of Iraq and then get the fuck out. ooops it turned out that no one in Iraq knew chalabi and those who did weren't interested in handing him power.

and im sure that any exit strategy the neocons have in mind for iran would be equally stupid.

Yeah... what the fuck would the plan be?

How do you bring democracy to a nation that has a republican (small R) form of government? Or would we be putting the Pahlavis back in?

im sure the neocons will work it out before they drag us into war. maybe some Iranian exile with pull. maybe just a pipe dream of bombing, invading, being greeted liberators, ????, profit!

[Ashmoria]

Israel did nuclear testing in the 70s, we don't know if they have a stockpile now. I'd doubt it or else they'd do more about ISIS.

And what exactly is Israel going to do about ISIS, and why should they care? ISIS is not a threat to Israel at the moment. If the Israelis start lobbing nukes on ISIS encampments, Russia will not take too kindly, and retaliate, putting the U.S. in an even more precarious situation.

As for U.S. airstrike on Iran? It is probably the wisest move they have right now. Their "computer virus" failed to accomplish it's objective, so what card does the U.S. have left to play? You make a deal with Iran right now, and it is the Munich Agreement all over again. I only hope Hillary has the balls to do what is right, as we all know "Ocoward" isn't going to give the order.

or maybe we could step back and realize that WE ARE THE PROBLEM. why does iran want a bomb? we threaten them constantly. we have drumbeats to invade them or nuke them. the only RATIONAL response for iran is to want to get a bomb as quickly as possible so they can defend themselves.

[Cyrisnia]

no

[Imperializt Russia]

Not sure if you people have already discussed this, but last week there was a bit of a stir over this article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

Where a neo-con writer insists that invading Iran is a far better idea than sanctions and diplomacy. Said writer insists it wouldn't even be that hard. Just a little aerial campaign to bomb their reactors and associated infrastructure. A cakewalk if you will...

What do you people think? Good idea or not? Should I start training for the draft?

The man is literally retarded.
There is no other explanation for his woefully idiotic world outlook.

[Kainesia]

Sure. Invade ANOTHER middle eastern country for no damn reason.

[Ashmoria]

Sure. Invade ANOTHER middle eastern country for no damn reason.

what could possibly go wrong?

[Imperializt Russia]

lol are you seriously denying that Israel has the bomb

Israel did nuclear testing in the 70s, we don't know if they have a stockpile now. I'd doubt it or else they'd do more about ISIS.

Probably because that's an atrocious use of nuclear arms.

[SaintB]

Truthfully, some people are too damn dense too see it but the best option for the USA is to make sure that we reach a deal with Iran and drag Israel kicking and screaming into accepting it if we have to. Iran is at least as stable as Saudi Arabia and with it having one of the youngest median ages in the entire region (28 I think) if we can show those younger people we are willing to work with them now it will buy us some good will with them in a decade or two when they start becoming the ones with power that can lead to potential diplomatic ties with them. A war with Iran would ruin everything we've been trying to accomplish again and is just a plain old stupid idea.

[Napkiraly]

Good God in Heaven newbie, there are just so very many ways for me to say this to you. Never; not in a million years; absolutely not; no way, Jose; no chance, Lance; nyet; negatory; negative; mm-mm; nuh-uh; oh-oh; and of course my own personal favorite of all time, man falling off of a cliff NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*splat*

[Roski]

Is it an option that will work?
Yes. Rather well.

Is it the best option?
Likely not.

[Seleucas]

No; normalizing relations with Iran and stopping the propaganda about it developing nuclear weapons is the best option.

[Rio Cana]

No. With the situation simmering and quickly seeming to be coming to a boil in Libya, Yemen and Syria I would think that creating more situations in that part of the world is a bad idea. The nations of the world should be concentrating on solving the problems in the major hot spots which are in Libya, Yemen and Syria.

[New Neros]

Is it an option that will work?
Yes. Rather well.

Is it the best option?
Likely not.

No; normalizing relations with Iran and stopping the propaganda about it developing nuclear weapons is the best option.

No. With the situation simmering and quickly seeming to be coming to a boil in Libya, Yemen and Syria I would think that creating more situations in that part of the world is a bad idea. The nations of the world should be concentrating on solving the problems in the major hot spots which are in Libya, Yemen and Syria.

[Pope Joan]

What compelling national interest is at stake, that would justify such folly?

We already know that Israel fabricated those claims of Iran and nuclear weapons. (Snowden leaked NSa references to the Mossad reports)

What forces are behind this urge to war? We already keep the corporations like Lockheed fat and happy, so it can't be money. Somebody thinks they can create a crisis and centralize more executive power, the way we did with the Patriot Act?