Iranian nuke scientist killed by bomb

Well, Rick Santorum, when asked if the U.S. was involved in the attack asserted that if we are not than we should have been. I don't think we can expect a Democratic response on that one.
 
And so the fight goes on. Those who believe in democracy, freedom of religion and tolerance on one hand, the radicals, the raging lunatics and fundamentalists on another. One small win for the good guys.
hookem.gif
 
2003, you clearly put a lot of thought into this, and I'll respond to you soon.

(The strange irony of this discussion - we support the same guy for President just for obviously different reasons.)
 
The real question is not "should we try to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons" but "Is it possible to stop them from having them at a cost that is acceptable to us, both short term and in term of potential consequences?"
 
I realize some of you either hate Israel or at least are indifferent to its struggle for survival. No matter how you feel, the US is Israel's friend. That is not going to change anytime soon. Accepting that reality, the question then is what you do when you see your friend threatened with nuclear attack. Do you do nothing? Do you take reasonable steps to help?

Also, 2003: I know you wish Israel didn't exist, but the reality is the Jews dreamed of a state and are not going to let that go. Do you believe it is better for Iran to face that fact and get along with Israel, or should they continue tacitly supporting Israel's downfall, which can only come about by force? This gets to the heart of Iran's "innocence" in seeking nuclear weapons.
 
bornahorn,

The bottom line is that 2003 and folks who agree with him on this think the entire problem is our fault and that if we just got out of the Middle East and didn't defend Israel, everything would be fine (as if the Middle East was a peaceful place before we came along). They're so sure of it that they're willing to put all of their eggs in that basket. It's not possible for them to be wrong or even less than 100 percent right. Accordingly, they have no contingency plan at all in the event that they're not perfectly right, or if they do, they're not willing to discuss it. That's really the problem I have with the Ron Paul mentality on foreign policy. If you ask them what happens if they end up being wrong, you hear nothing but crickets chirping. They either say it's impossible for them to be wrong, redirect the question to something else, or just ignore the question.

If Israel was threatened or even actually attacked, they would probably say we shouldn't meddle in the situation and let the chips fall where they may. However, don't expect to get any of them to actually answer you on the hypothetical question. Iran would have to actually attack Israel before they'll answer the question.
 
It would be fascinating to compare their beliefs with the isolationist movement of the 1930s. Of course many of the same people who believe 9/11 was an inside job believe Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy to get the American public behind the war. It's a convenient thing to do when events occur that don't fit your story.
 
Unfortunately, it's hard to find level-headed people on foreign policy. We've got isolationists who think we're causing all the evil in the world on one side, but on the other side, we've got neo-cons who want to interfere in every conflict in the world (mainly so their friends can make a lot of money) under the guise that freedom is for everybody (which is a slap in the face to our founding fathers).

Our foreign policy should be completely pragmatic. We should support Israel because they support us - not because some Southern Baptists think we need a Jewish state there so Jesus can come back. (As a Christian, I believe Jesus will come back when he's good and ready. I don't think he gives a crap who man puts in charge in Jerusalem.) We should fear Iran, because they give us reason to fear them.
 
Great debate here – smart and mostly respectful.

Am I the only one that finds it odd the focus of American media and social attention and scrutiny was on North Korea until they actually DID develop a nuclear weapon and preceded to sink some South Korean ships? Now Iran is the boogie man and we don’t really focus on N. Korea? I know… I am a conspiracy theorist at heart.
 
What it seems like the 2010 report to Congress is saying is that Iran wants the ability to dominate the middle east without fear of reprisal from the US and Israel. Too bad that the report didn't explain Iran's goals better - For example, it talks about Iran being involved in terrorism, nuclear weapons, foreign politics, and proxy wars but it doesn't say anything about how each affects its end goals. You would have to go to another one of your links for an explanation. In one from an Israeli it says that we attacked Iraq for no reason so it should be apparent that Iran would have to develop nuclear weapons. There are many flaws to that argument and it doesn't explain the proxy wars and the military, strategic, and monetary support of terrorists, terror organizations, and dissident groups throughout the ME.
 
Hps,

Why should I believe anything you say abut Iran's intentions towards Israel when you yourself have made it clear you don't think Israel should have ever existed? Why would you care if Iran threatened Israel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top