The Next War

H

huisache

2,500+ Posts
All of the Republican candidates except Paul seem to agree that "we" need to eliminate the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons.

They all seem to think that the military option is the way to go.

So why is there no discussion about how excited we all are that one party seems determined to get us into another war? Have you noticed any enthusiasm in your immediate circle for another war in the middle east?

I see a lot excitement about the idea of getting Obama out of office but not a lot of concern about the fact that everybody who appears to have a chance of doing so wants another mid east war.

Who here will come out and say yes, they want to go to war with Iran?

And do you think that there is any possibility that the Iranians will, upon being bombed, mine the the straits and deprive most of the western world of most of the oil from the area? How about what that does to the sturdy economies of our chief market, Europe?

How big a coalition of the willing will President Whoever be able to put together to engage in this war?

I know the Israelis will cheer us on but how about everybody else?

For some years I have berated our political class for playing chess one move at a time. Just thinking now about what happens if we bomb Iran or, as would be necessary in all probability, send in ground troops, what happens next?

Do the Persians just sit back and take it or do they encourage their friends in south Lebanon to lob missiles into Israel and their other friends to start murdering Americans all over Europe and the middle east?

Or should we wait for the elections there in two years and see what we get?

I am really sick of these people with no military service of their own telling us how necessary it is for us to go bomb somebody else and how it will be painless. For them, anyway.
 
My main problem with this is that any decision to bomb Iran is short-term meddling that only increases their sense that they need the nuke.

Assuming that Iran will somehow get a nuke and then use it is not supported by any evidence I can see. It may make them more powerful, and it may in some sense diminish Israel's great military advantage over Iran, but the Persians aren't mad men.

I don't think it is worth it to militarily intervene there and I don't believe the end result is what we really want relative to what diplomacy and sanctions will do.

Ini the end I think they get the bomb if they want the bomb. That is not problematic in and of itself.

MInd you, right now the Reps think it a swell idea to hoot about, but the Dems will be in tow if the right circumstances arise, and I am not talking about circumstances that demonstrate a real need to intervene. I am talking cheap political activity based on shallow understandings and short term perceptions.
 
huis?
"They all seem to think that the military option is the way to go. "

On what are you basing that? Link please that shows ANY one of them suggests mulitary option is the ONLY way to go.

Pure BS NONE of them have even hinted that a military option is theONLY way to go.
All of them have said all options including military should be on the table.
as example here is one quote
" Iran would be held accountable and all options, including military, remained on the table."
 
Mich
I am guessing you don't think huis was being disingenous with his post, right?

So let me ask Huis
Huis??what was the purpose of posting that all the GOP candidates except Paul think the military option is " the way to go" and not post that each candidate has mentioned other options as well as military?

You seemed to try to make it as though that was the only option the GOP candidates favored.

if that was not your intent then perhaps you can clarify and post their actual positions
 
Mich
A " straightfoward" person would have mentioned all the options the candidates had spoken of
OR a straighforward person would have said the GOP candidates, just like the obama admin( hence the biden quote), feel everything is on the table

A straightforward person would not have posted only military as " the" option. it is "An" option





but you know all that
 
I am jumping a step on the candidates and in fact Paul was not the only one who limited the range of enthusiasm. So did Huntsman, and the ex governor of New Mexico has likewise sounded more temperate than the others.

My jump was caused because the leading candidates seemed to be insistent on the idea that Obama was not doing all he can and would not do so. Obama has pursued the other options and they fault him for not doing enough.

Reading between the lines, it seems to me they were suggesting to the audience of republican voters that not enough was being done and that they would do what needed to be done and that Iran would not under any circumstances be allowed to go nuclear.

That leaves a military solution if, as the Iranians suggest, they are full speed ahead. I've not seen any of the republican front runners suggest that the Iranian suggestions that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons bear any credibility.

Here is a major problem I did not discuss which is just as scary as having our next president promising to attack Iran: Iran is not going to have a large nuclear arsenal, if it has one at all, for a good while. Israel already has one.

Given the disparity that will exist for a while, how long can we reasonably expect the Israelis to forego attacking Iran in order to prevent the Iranians from attacking them first?

Neither side will have much time to make a decision about what the other is planning if they get into a tight situation; for example, like what we went through with the Soviets over Cuba in October of 1962. How long is Netanyahu going to wait around to decide whether he should use his before they use theirs?

A military option by the US might be justified in the worst scenario. The republican candidates as a whole seem to me to be suggesting that the worst scenario is inevitable and not that far away.

Given some of them having strong apocalyptic inclinations based on their allegedly fundamentalist orientations, that is sort of worrisome. To me, anyway.

IF the republican candidates aren't threatening war, they need to say so. If they don't think Iran poses an immediate threat, they might say so. I worry that their hyping (in my opinion) the threat could lead to the sort of dangerous situation we had in the early 60s when Kennedy, having hyped a threat in the 1960 campaign, found himself eyeball to eyeball with a guy considerably more stable than ahmadi-nejad.

Trying not to be too disingenuous here.
 
Wow Huis
you are assuming positions not one candidate has offered as " the " option anymore than the obama admin in saying the military option is on the table is saying military is THE option.

perhaps you'd be wise to remember what happens when, without any facts( indeed when facts suggest otherwise) one assumes
 
What impending threats would those be?

Clinton attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with missiles much to the faux alarm of GOPs in office. The plan of invasion for Afghanistan was also largely in place for Bush to use after the attacks.

If you mean he hesitated in the invasion of Iraq, you are merely pointing to a wise policy.
 
The Republican candidates are really drawing a line in the sand here, and it sure sounds like they are bent on launching our next war into Iran over this nuke issue. I don't think we should do that. It's a scary bit of sabre rattling, and they sound completely serious.
Just what we need, a new war to use our surplus funds on.
 
accurate
Please provide a link with quotes from Republican candidates that you think " are really drawing a line in the sand here, and it sure sounds like they are bent on launching our next war into Iran over this nuke issue. "
 
I think Iran, Russia and Ron Paul are the only 3 entities in the entire world that think a nuclear Iran is acceptable.

This issue should transcend politics. A nuclear Iran is much, MUCH more of a threat than even Hussein's WMD program and everyone - including the Dems - seemed to think that was a pretty big deal. (Note: Not a defense of the Iraq War; just making the point that many on both sides of the aisle were concerned with Iraq's WMD program.)

The military option is the last option. Most - if not all - of the other options have been tried. They failed. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. The Republican candidates know this. All of the countries around Iran know this. Hopefully, Obama knows it as well.

I'm not sure what the answer is to remedy the situation. It would be really interesting to know what's going on on the inside at the White House/Joint Chiefs of Staff/Pentagon with regards to the situation.
 
BTW, for historical context, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility back in '81. I know there is a debate about whether it was a military program or for energy; however, I wonder how the last 15 years would have been had Iraq been a nuclear nation.

I do worry about the Iran closing down the Strait of Hormuz (at least I think that's the right one) and screwing the world's economy per oil.
 
Actually, Iran CAN have a nuclear weapon. Many countries today have them. Some have actually used them. None in over 50 years however.

When China gets one, are we going to bomb them? Are we bombing Russia? Iran is not going to attack anyone. Them threatening to use a nuke against another country will get them what, exactly?

They know they cant get away with using one. And this idea that they will give one to someone else is ridiculous. That could happen with any country that currently possesses them, and none of us would EVER truly know the origin of it.

Attacking Iran is useless. The United States of America is BROKE. We dont have any money. Do any of you actually realize this?
 
What if in a few years, Iran says "lift all sanctions against us or we will nuke somebody". That is a big bluff to call.

Applying logic to a place like Iran is meaningless. They do not think like we do. They recently sentenced a young couple to death for getting married. A father killed his daughter for being raped by her uncle because she was no impure.

I would hate to invade anywhere. But if we really believe that Iran is openly working on nuclear weapons (and I think they are) I would not have a problem targeting their leaders.
 
Newt suggested we continue killing their scientists and other black ops moves and if that did not work, go the overt military route.

Romney said Iran will have a nuclear capacity if Obama is reelected and wont if he is elected. He was artfully vague on how he would accomplish that feat.

Santorum said that if sanctions don't work we should take out Iran's nuclear capability.

Huntsman was sane on the subject.

Bachman said the US should be more like China (go commie? What kind of republican is she?) and get rid of AFDC, which was abolished during the Clinton administration.

I defy anybody to tell me what Cain said, which was total gibberish.

The gist of the conversations was that Obama was not trying hard enough and more needed to be done. Several were explicit in calling for a military option.

I apologize if I read too much into what they were saying and I suspect none of them meant any of it anyway but it seems to me that all except Huntsman and Paul were advocating the military option if all else failed. My take is that all else is going to fail because Russia and China will not get on board and so no meaningful sanctions are likely.
 
huis
I know you realize we have black ops going on in iran now, certainly Iran knows we do.
None of the candidates suggested any course of action that the present admin does not including that nothing ( including military) Biden said the same thing about the military NOT being off the table, In fact in the same paragraph Biden said iran is going to have to be held accountable. and the same day Obama said " Iran will have to pay a price".

It isn't hard to link biden saying use of military is not off the table and obama saying iran will pay a price could mean war

so why would you post that only the GOP talks of going to war with iran?

and at this point Obama can make war happen. none of the candidates can
 
One of my fears for a Romney presidency is how many W-esque wars he'll drag us into -- starting with (but not limited to) Iran. I already violently disagree with pretty much every word that's come out of his mouth in regards to foreign policy-- praise for the Bush doctrine, speeches where he gives long lists of how he'd expand our global military presence with not a peep about how broke we are. And now it looks like I'm going to have to listen to "I'm the only one who can keep you safe" election ********.

Ugh.
 
Iran is a huge threat with WMD, just as Russia and China are and the India v. Pakistan situation is very dangerous. Iran would be as well.

My reaction, and that is what it was, was prompted by the overall suggestion that Obama was not doing enough and that Iran would get nukes and they would not allow that.

My question: are we really interested in going to war to stop it?

We had lots of time to talk about that re the Soviets and the Chinese potential threat is a constant source of discussion for forty years now.

There has not been much discussion about attacking Iran. What is the blowback? Can we actually take out the nuclear facilities without ground troops? What happens when you take on a country with 70 million citizens who have been under the influence of religious fanatics for forty years?

Are they more dangerous than NOrth Korea? Are we going to take them out? Why not?

I don't see or hear a lot of discussion about what to do about Iran and I see no support at all even in a belligerent place like Texas for another war.

And Paul makes an interesting point: under our constitution, doesn't the president need to get a declaration of war if we are going to nuke them or take them out, or whatever macho phrasing you prefer? Or is this one of the constitutional provisions that is outdated and can be ignored?
 
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