[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by robertthebard: So, what was the state of emergency when Iran thumbed their nose at the UN? Oh, I know, they want to do it, so they are going to. The rest of the world be damned. That wasn't the US they thumbed their nose at, it was the UN. Of course, the UN can be bought off any position, even the ones they apply themselves, Oil for Food?

No state of emergency is required for nuclear power, only to be "freed" from the treaty, and so far there is NO PROOF that Iran has nuclear weapons. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Originally posted by robertthebard: I really don't think that it matters how well trained Iran's army is. The whole country could be turned into a parking lot with no troops on the ground, and no use of any nukes. How likely is it that they will maintain their state of morale when their president is shouting, "Die defeating the infidels" from hiding?

No troops on the ground AND no nukes? You seem to forget the fact that Iran has, y'know, anti-air defenses AND an air force, unlike Iraq. And any sort of long-range shelling/bombardment campaign would result in massive civilian casualties which definitely WOULD make Iran share whatever nuclear knowledge and materials it had with anyone who has a grudge against the US and it's allies.

Which isn't even getting started on the giant propaganda catastrophy it would be, or the thousands of people that would be joining Al Qaeda and similar organizations.

Originally posted by robertthebard: The comparison to Viet Nam is accurate. We have been in Iraq entirely too long, for much the same reason that we got beat up in Viet Nam. Instead of going in, and doing what needs to be done in a war, we are ■■■■■-footing around playing police. Why? Public Opinion. Well, I don't know what's going to happen for sure, but if we go to war in Iran, I hope we go to war. I think it's time that people the world over come to realize what it means to piss off one of the major world powers, because whether or not the EU, or the UN wants to acknowledge it, the US is one.

Public Opinion? Not quite, last I checked, pretty much EVERYONE wants the US out of Iraq and almost no one has any support for the war. US troops are still there because the Bush government doesn't want to lose face.

Originally posted by robertthebard: In any event, it's a really messed up thing to say that killing a few more US civilians is acceptable, as Purple implied:

You know what's messed up? Accusing someone of calling civilian deaths "acceptable." When did I ever use that word? Never, please choose your words with more care in the future rather than accusing me of condoning the deaths of American civilians. It WOULD be horrific, terrible, an atrocity. But at the same time it is NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

If a nuclear attack was slated to kill every man, woman, child, dog, cat and camel named Bob in the US, then yes, I could understand a pre-emptive strike that would utterly level the possible attacker, doing the same level of damage in return. However, I cannot condone the use of nuclear weapons when the possible level of damage is so low AND there is still no proof that it's either planned or that the supposed attacker is capable of it!

It may sound unfeeling, but we need to keep perspective, sometimes the only way to make a just judgement is to be cold, to cut your emotional ties and accept the fact that X dead people is better than >X dead people. No matter whether those dead people are Iranians, Americans, Pygmies, Chinese, Israelis, Hindus, Buddhists or people who worship a camel called Bob. The moment we call one nationality or religious direction's lives worth more than another, we're on the way to utter catastrophy, especially when you involve nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by robertthebard: Acceptable losses, so long as it's not you, or your family? "levelling a block or two", or "more people die of AIDS and cancer" is not an acceptable justification for allowing them technology they will use. I guess if they decided to target your home, it would be a different song and dance. However, with what's posted here, I know what my response would be to calls for help: "better a few civilians in your country than a negative world opinion". After all, as far as you're concerned, so long as you can still hope that brown nosing a terrorist sponsoring regime will spare you, it's all good. I wonder how many people thought the same way you did when the Soviet Union was building up territory? I wonder how many people dismissed Hitler as easily as you're dismissing Iran, or Japan, for that matter.

I would not think differently if they were planning to attack Europe, or even Denmark specifically(Let's not forget, however, that there is no proof of any plans yet, for all we know they could be planning to blow up the moon. If they're even planning to blow up anything.). Of course, if they were planning to attack Europe or Denmark I might get the hell out of the way. But I wouldn't consider it any more acceptable to launch a pre-emptive strike based on rumours and paranoia.

Plus, I think it's a bit exaggerating to compare Iran to Nazi Germany and it's leaders to Hitler. They're not engaged in genocide, nor have they ever declared that they want to be. As I said, note that the supposed quote about wanting to destroy Israel is a mistranslation. There is no support of this.

Furthermore, I find it extremely insulting that you are calling me a terrorist supporter. I do not support any terrorists or their actions, I just support that we at least know what's going on before we act. Remember Iraq? That was born of not having proper intelligence before attacking. If there is proof that Iran has a bunch of hidden ICBM's cleverly disguised as mosques or a MacGuyver-ish plan to smuggle a gigantic nuclear warhead right under the Pentagon by use of a rubber chicken, five donuts and a hermaphrodite prostitute named Bob, then I would support something to stop them. Until that point, no. Not even if there is proof that they just have nuclear weapons and can mount them on short-range missiles. Otherwise we'd have to bomb them just for having ordinary weapons, because hey, isn't Israel, one of our allies, startlingly close? Or all those US soldiers in Iraq?

Originally posted by robertthebard: One little point about Japan as well. Saying that the nukes failed to achieve their objective, as horrifying as the use was, is totally incorrect. After all, Japan surrendered. As with any war, that was the objective. War isn't a pretty thing, it's downright ugly, as I've said before. The objective is to kill so many people on the other side that they surrender. If the UN is unhappy about what we do, or how we handle the situation, they can move to Iran, and see if they get the preferential treatment there they get here, and as for the EU, please...Which EU nations would send troops for this blockade?

You also seem to misread my posts with some frequency. I am not saying that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes failed to work. I'm not saying that the EU would help defend Iran, I'm saying that I'd LIKE to see it.

What I'm saying is that the actual DESTRUCTION caused by the two only serious military uses of nuclear weaponry in the history of Earth didn't even utterly destroy their targets. They caused horrific destruction, yes, but there were still survivors and assuming Iran wants to attack the US, there is no reason to suspect they could even reach that level of destruction. Or are you suggesting that the US would surrender?

Originally posted by robertthebard: Edit: One more thought that occurred to me. Use of a nuclear device on US soil by a hostile force would equal Armageddon. It doesn't matter if it killed 10, or 10,000, world opinion be damned, it's time to make some parking lots.

Only if the US wanted to be destroyed. The US knows that even if there is no nuclear retaliation for using nuclear weaponry to level Iran, it would reduce the US to a third-world country. Utter economic block-off, terrorism rising to unheard-of levels and ecological destruction on a frightening scale. Let's not forget the complete loss of Mid-East oil for the US. As many supplies as the US might have at the moment, prices would rise to the point where the current US lifestyle is no longer possible.

I wonder if the US citizens would rather have revenge or their SUV's? I know what my guess is, but I'll leave you to consider it.

[ 02-11-2007, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]