Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Does anyone think bombing iran is smart?

Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 12:43:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
John Bolton just put out an op Ed in the nyt arguing we should bomb Iran to slow their nuclear program.

Does anyone think this is good policy?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 1:47:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What nuclear program? WTf do people want from them?

I guess every country has to kiss Israel's *asss, otherwise people pretend like they have weapons of mass destruction and are an imminent threat to justify war or economic sanctions on them.
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 2:12:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 12:43:15 PM, Raisor wrote:
John Bolton just put out an op Ed in the nyt arguing we should bomb Iran to slow their nuclear program.

Does anyone think this is good policy?

I'm going to put the op-ed here for people to read:

http://www.nytimes.com...

Summary:

"experts worried that the Middle East would face an uncontrollable nuclear-arms race if Iran ever acquired weapons capability....comprehensive international sanctions, rigorously enforced and universally adhered to, might have broken the back of Iran"s nuclear program....he sanctions imposed have not....the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that Iran"s weapons program was halted in 2003, was an embarrassment, little more than wishful thinking."

"Now the arms race has begun: Neighboring countries are moving forward, driven by fears that Mr. Obama"s diplomacy is fostering a nuclear Iran....Ironically perhaps, Israel"s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood " even if they couldn"t admit it publicly " that Israel"s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure. Iran is a different story. Whether diplomacy and sanctions would ever have worked against the hard-liners running Iran is unlikely. But abandoning the red line on weapons-grade fuel drawn originally by the Europeans in 2003, and by the United Nations Security Council in several resolutions, has alarmed the Middle East and effectively handed a permit to Iran"s nuclear weapons establishment."

"Mr. Obama"s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality. But by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs. The president"s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East."
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 2:16:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 2:12:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/26/2015 12:43:15 PM, Raisor wrote:
John Bolton just put out an op Ed in the nyt arguing we should bomb Iran to slow their nuclear program.

Does anyone think this is good policy?

I'm going to put the op-ed here for people to read:

http://www.nytimes.com...

Summary:

"experts worried that the Middle East would face an uncontrollable nuclear-arms race if Iran ever acquired weapons capability....comprehensive international sanctions, rigorously enforced and universally adhered to, might have broken the back of Iran"s nuclear program....he sanctions imposed have not....the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that Iran"s weapons program was halted in 2003, was an embarrassment, little more than wishful thinking."

"Now the arms race has begun: Neighboring countries are moving forward, driven by fears that Mr. Obama"s diplomacy is fostering a nuclear Iran....Ironically perhaps, Israel"s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood " even if they couldn"t admit it publicly " that Israel"s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure. Iran is a different story. Whether diplomacy and sanctions would ever have worked against the hard-liners running Iran is unlikely. But abandoning the red line on weapons-grade fuel drawn originally by the Europeans in 2003, and by the United Nations Security Council in several resolutions, has alarmed the Middle East and effectively handed a permit to Iran"s nuclear weapons establishment."

"Mr. Obama"s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality. But by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs. The president"s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East."

That would be awesome if Obama's farewell speech ended with "Allahu Akbar!"

Gotcha!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 2:22:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 12:43:15 PM, Raisor wrote:
John Bolton just put out an op Ed in the nyt arguing we should bomb Iran to slow their nuclear program.

Does anyone think this is good policy?

No, but I think that unless they agree to halt their nuclear program completely (excluding civilian use) we should implement any sanctions we possibly can and implement any form of nonviolent warfare we can, including cyber warfare and other covert tactics.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 5:14:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes. There really is no question. Let us weigh the Cons in a worst-case scenario: Iran strikes back at US military bases, and we eventually get dozens of thousands of casualties, many civilians among them. Economic issues arise in much of the world. The Middle East becomes a much bigger mess than it is.

Pros: It serves US interests.

Since the Pros outweigh the Cons, clearly it should be bombed.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 6:15:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 12:43:15 PM, Raisor wrote:
John Bolton just put out an op Ed in the nyt arguing we should bomb Iran to slow their nuclear program.

Does anyone think this is good policy?

It's not good policy. We've already destroyed almost all semblance of power and order in that region, doing it to Iran wouldn't help anything.

That being said, the arms race in the Middle East is going to happen. It's already starting to brew. And with the current levels of instability there that's not good.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt want nukes now and are making moves towards getting some. Iran is on their way to getting some. Syria (or what's left of the government) is going to want something comparable next. However, that sounds like a regional issue to me...
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 8:37:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 1:38:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Israel maybe.
Now that's crazy.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 8:41:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The best thing to do is become energy independent and stop buying oil from them and just starve them out.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 8:42:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 9:40:31 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
What does the word "smart" denote in this context?

It means a bomb will smart the Iranians.