Would You Support Military Action?

[Winstonm]

It would be good to give pros and cons regardless of vote.

[kenrexford]

Um.

 

This is quite the question. I suppose I could answer it this way:

 

I would support military action against Iowa, if there was a good reason for it.

[hrothgar]

I think that US military action against Iran would be counter productive in the extreme.

[helene_t]

I think that US military action against Iran would be stupid in the extreme.

 

What matters in Iran is that progressive politicians get more influence. Good relations between Iran and the West is in their interest.

[P_Marlowe]

Just a simple question: Was the Military Action in Iraq any good?

 

More precise: Do you believe that Military Action can be good for

anything? My answer to the last question is no.

In most cases, there are other possible options, which are more

effective.

 

Sanctions work.

They will tell you, that the sanctions against Iraq did not work.

And they are right. But only because they did not support Iraq

neighbours, who suffered the lose of the trading income with Iraq, e.g. Jordan.

Those countries did not have resources to offset those loses.

Would supporting Jordan have come cheaper than the war against Iraq,

sure - just do the math, and you may even assume a short succesful war.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

If you use military action because another country raises the tariff by 5% on quinoa, that's a bit extreme and likely to result in bad things.

 

If another country sends nuclear weapons into San Francisco, levels San Francisco, and then threatens to pick off one city after another until your country executes all of its fighting-age males, and you raise the tariff on their quinoa by 5%, that's a bit understated and likely to result in bad things.

 

There are a lot of scenarios somewhere in the middle.

[pbleighton]

If you use military action because another country raises the tariff by 5% on quinoa, that's a bit extreme and likely to result in bad things.

 

If another country sends nuclear weapons into San Francisco, levels San Francisco, and then threatens to pick off one city after another until your country executes all of its fighting-age males, and you raise the tariff on their quinoa by 5%, that's a bit understated and likely to result in bad things.

 

There are a lot of scenarios somewhere in the middle.

 

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

 

Attacking Iran would be even dumber and more self destructive than invading Iraq.

 

Iranian exiles, who are very much opposed to the present regime, have begged the Bush admiistration not to bomb. They say it would entrench the present regime for fifty years. There's noting a dictatorship loves better than a foreign threat to distract the populace from its actions - see Castro.

 

It would be seen in the Muslim world as one more convincing piece of evidence that the U.S. has declared war on Islam. It would be another *bring it on*. It increase the number and intensity of our enemies, and therefore would increase the chances of a nuclear attack on the U.S.

 

It is possible that we will do this thing, and that we then will reap what we sow.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy:

 

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

[kenrexford]

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

 

Attacking Iran would be even dumber and more self destructive than invading Iraq.

 

Iranian exiles, who are very much opposed to the present regime, have begged the Bush admiistration not to bomb. They say it would entrench the present regime for fifty years. There's noting a dictatorship loves better than a foreign threat to distract the populace from its actions - see Castro.

 

It would be seen in the Muslim world as one more convincing piece of evidence that the U.S. has declared war on Islam. It would be another *bring it on*. It increase the number and intensity of our enemies, and therefore would increase the chances of a nuclear attack on the U.S.

 

It is possible that we will do this thing, and that we then will reap what we sow.

 

Peter

The question was not whether you use military force against Iran under a specific set of parameters. The question was whether you use military force against Iran.

 

If Iran does commit an act of war, then military action would not be a war crime and may be appropriate, right?

 

The question seems to be what an "act of war" means.

 

Without taking a position, I'll suggest a fact pattern. You are at home, watching T.V. Outside your house is a man with a gun. Obviously, you cannot shoot him in the head simply because he possesses a gun.

 

If the man is in your house and has your wife held at gunpoint and is threatening to shoot her, having already shot your child, you would be justified in shooting him, right?

 

Well, suppose that man is outside, again. He walks up to your door. He peers in the window with the gun. When you see him, he smashes the window and reaches in for the lock. He unlocks the door. He then enters the house. You show him your gun and demand that he leave, and he does not. He approaches your child and points the gun at him. Your point your gun at the man. The man then shoots your child. You demand that he leave, but he does not. He then approaches your wife with the gun, grabs her, and puts the gun against her head.

 

When during this story is shooting the man OK?

[Winstonm]

Ken,

 

I'm not sure when but I'm pretty sure of when not to - it's not when the man buys the parts to make what could turn out to be gun.

[pbleighton]

I'm not sure when but I'm pretty sure of when not to - it's not when the man buys the parts to make what could turn out to be gun.

 

LOL.

 

Ken, the question is obviously about the U.S. attacking Iran NOW, under the present set of circumstances. What *act of war* has Iran committed, in your opinion?

 

And please answer the question directly, without any weenie lawyering :P

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

Interesting article:

 

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Study_US_pr...ttack_0828.html

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

Ken, the question is obviously about the U.S. attacking Iran NOW, under the present set of circumstances. What *act of war* has Iran committed, in your opinion?

 

And please answer the question directly, without any weenie lawyering :P

 

Peter

Yeah, but a big weenie!

 

OK. As we never know what really is behind anything any more, it's hard to say. Everything is a secret war with secret missions and secret reasons, but stated bullshit and ruse. So, I have NO idea.

 

On general principles, military action probably is a bad idea at this present time, with the information I have to date. However, I'm not so positive that we have all the information or that we actually intend any military action, let alone what the military action might be.

 

It would be nice, in theory, to have the information necessary to make that decision. However, I understand that some of this information might be secret for good reason.

 

This creates a problem, of course. Damned faith without reason? Spooky.

 

I'm just glad that my vote never counts anyway. If the country f's me and mine, at least there was nothing I could really have done about it.

[pbleighton]

However, I understand that some of this information might be secret for good reason.

 

An act of war kept secret for good reason?

 

LOL.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Um.

 

This is quite the question. I suppose I could answer it this way:

 

I would support military action against Iowa, if there was a good reason for it.

They won't get to Iowa until they have subdued New York, California and Louisiana first.....(Louisiana is almost done)

 

It probably won't be long.

 

Do not support further militarization of your country. Iran is no threat to anyone but themselves. Stop sending your tax dollars to Halliberton and The Carlyle Group (THe Bushs and the Bin Ladens are already rich enough) and the rest of the defense/security contractors. Fear is not a reason....you have only to fear what rights and freedoms they will take from you next....and they will.

[luke warm]

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

this is obviously false

[Al_U_Card]

"W" declared war on your Bill of Rights and the Constitution from day one. They used and allowed the "terrorist" presence to grease the machine with the lives of 3,000 innocents. Like Pearl Harbor, a means to their stated end. Try this link to see with historical perspective what those in power are capable of sacrificing....and FDR should have had the political guts to say we must attack them now and not wait until it is too late. No need for secrecy when you consider that your people are not brainless sheep....oh I forgot, that IS what they think....

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/ww...6315/pearl.html

[helene_t]

If you attack another country which has not committed an act of war against you, it is a war crime. It's pretty simple.

this is obviously false

Wikipedia has this to say:

the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal.

[BebopKid]

If Iran starts the aggression or Iran defies U.N. resolutions, then I would support Military Action.

 

I would not support occupation afterwards.

[keylime]

I'd authorize military action against Iran; they are clearly fighting a proxy war against us through other nations and groups.

 

There is no rational reason NOT to get in there and make an emphatic statement to the world that the United States is no pushover. If you do not reduce Iran's capability, you'll have a stepping stone effect that will head in all directions (Turkey, the Kurds, Israel, Armenia, Georgia just to list a few). The consequences would be horrific.

[kenrexford]

you'll have a stepping stone effect

Is that the bridge parallel to dominoes?

[cherdano]

I'd authorize military action against Iran; they are clearly fighting a proxy war against us through other nations and groups.

 

There is no rational reason NOT to get in there and make an emphatic statement to the world that the United States is no pushover. If you do not reduce Iran's capability, you'll have a stepping stone effect that will head in all directions (Turkey, the Kurds, Israel, Armenia, Georgia just to list a few). The consequences would be horrific.

Yeah, we have already seen what great effect it has to show US is not a pushover by attacking Iraq, it has had a tremendous positive effect on all the neighboring countries like Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, ...

 

In all seriousness, how can you say something like that after what happened in Iraq?

[Al_U_Card]

And every M-F that supports war must be in the M-F front lines during the attack.....and then watch the call to retreat.

 

Kill or be killed? Not even close....

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the critical issue that people need to consider is what would the United States hope to accomplish by attacking Iran? You need to start with a set of goals and then determine whether military action would have a positive or a negative effect on one’s chances of achieving said goals.

 

I can’t come up with any examples where I think that a military strike against Iran would improve the lot of the United States.

 

1. I don’t believe that it would destabilize the Iranian regime

2. I don’t believe it would stop the Iranians aiding Shia in Iraq

3. I don’t believe that it would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. (The Iranians can always buy a nuke from Pakistan)

4. I don’t believe that attacking Iran would improve America’s public image with either our allies or the Middle East.

 

Furthermore, even a limited strike against Iran runs some very serious risks. Any such an attack could easily escalate into a real war. The Iranians don’t pose any kind of serious military threat to the US, but they could make life very unpleasant by closing the Straits of Hormuz and stirring up serious problems in Iraq.

 

I do believe that some idiots believe that attacking Iran will given them a chance a “do-over” in Iraq. They can go off and launch a glorious new war and use this to cover up the cluster-***** that these same genius perpetrated five years ago.

 

What’s completely unbelievable is that anyone with half a brain is stupid enough to listen to the Kagan brothers, Kristol, Fred Hiatt, and the like. They’ve been wrong about everything for five plus years and somehow their arguments are still taken seriously.

[kenrexford]

And every M-F that supports war must be in the M-F front lines during the attack.....and then watch the call to retreat.

 

Kill or be killed? Not even close....

Sure, it might be morally wrong to send someone else to die in your place in a war, in theory. However, I'm not so sure that this is all that persuasive of aan objection.

 

You probably do not want people robbing banks. Do you yourseklf grab a gun and head down to the bank to stop the robbery, or do you send in a police officer to do that task? Is it morally wrong to ask the police to risk their lives for your money at the bank, if you yourself are not willing to carry that gun in there?

 

How about firemen? You want your fire put out, but are you a volunteer fireman? Do you risk your life for someone else's fire? Is it morally wrong to ask someone to do that for you?

 

Are you in the mines getting the coal?

 

Are you on the bomb squad?

 

Beyond that, so what? This is a real world we live in, not a fairy-tale world. Some of us have power. We use that so that someone else does not. That's not very nice, but such is life. A nice lion will starve.