4 ms·

The point is not to make life better in Iran. The point is to remove the regime's nuclear capability. If the goal was to make life better in Iran there would be

by tkahn6 15y ago

The point is not to make life better in Iran. The point is to remove the regime's nuclear capability. If the goal was to make life better in Iran there would be no economic sanctions.

ucee054 15y ago
This attitude is why "it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians". US soldiers will not give a damn about civilian lives if said civilians are ragheads like me, and will drop bombs on anything from sewage treatment plants to nuclear power stations, whatever accomplishes "the mission". The ensuing radioactive fallout and disease will kill hundreds of thousands of innocents but they don't count, they are only people who look like me, not real humans. The Iranian government have the option of retaliating at the instant of the first explosion with a barrage of supersonic torpedos. If said barrage is large enough it could overwhelm US defenses and take out the US fleet, the gulf state oil installations and pipelines, perhaps the Saudi oil reserve. To see where this leads, google for "Philip Giraldi" and "World War 3". Here is a link: http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with-iran-might-look-like/ http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with...
- tkahn6 15y ago
  There is no attitude. It's simply a fact that military action in Iran would not have the purpose of helping Iranian citizens. That is not logically equivalent to the statement that US/NATO would/should abandon regard for civilian life in pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Do you really want the US 'helping' anyone? Military intervention in Iran would not be an exercise in nation-building or 'liberation'. The rest of your comment is some victim-complex hyperbolic fantasy. It's a course of events that should be considered but it is by no means whatsoever a certain consequent of military action.
  - ucee054 15y ago
    Let me put aside your insulting me as a hyperbolic fantasist. Let me also put aside the Iranian government going on record to state that it WILL take out the oil and will close the Straits of Hormuz if attacked. Let's also disregard the warnings of CIA middle east ops people like Philip Giraldi and Robert Baer (and I can quote others) and the state of the oil futures market, and go with your idea that America can make an airstrike on Iran without causing all out war. Because that's what you mean by "nuclear disarmament", isn't it? You mean "Dropping wide-radius bunker busting bombs on Iran's medical reactor in the middle of the city." And these explosions will bombs, what "regard for civilian life" will their ensuing huge explosions in the middle of the city show? What "regard for civilian life" will the radiation leakage show? Claiming that I have a "victim complex" is merely an ad-hominem that will not dispel the US military's long record of treating civilians as expendable, precisely the "attitude" I was alluding to. Here is example reportage on US drone strikes in Pakistan: They use the first strike to cause first responders to come to the scene, because some them will be Taliban. Now hit them with the second strike, with total disregard for all the non-Taliban rescuers (trying to help the civilians caught in the first blast) caught in the second blast. Link: http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/07/chris-woods-2/ http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/07/chris-woods-2/ I can also give you examples from Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam going all the way back to World War 2.
    - sp332 15y ago
      If it comes down to: letting Iran threaten us and our allies with nukes, vs dropping some bombs on a city and killing a lot of people, everyone would pick dropping bombs on the city. We expect the Iranian people to realize this, and consider pre-emptively disarming themselves out of self-preservation.
      - ucee054 15y ago
        Iran has NOT threatened any one with nukes, it does not even have a weapons program. Iran only has an enrichment facility for medical isotopes and for its power station. This enrichment is under full IAEA monitoring. Iran even agreed to stop enriching and buy the fuel from abroad, but the US killed the deal. That Iran is not making weapons has been confirmed by the US National Intelligence Estimate, by the Mossad to JCS chairman General Dempsey, and by National Intelligence Director Clapper to the Senate. link: http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/05/flynt-leverett-8/ http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/05/flynt-leverett-8/ How can you expect Iran to "disarm" itself when it does not have nukes in the first place? The same way Iraq was supposed to "disarm" in 2003?

by tkahn6 15y ago

The point is not to make life better in Iran. The point is to remove the regime's nuclear capability. If the goal was to make life better in Iran there would be no economic sanctions.

ucee054 15y ago

This attitude is why "it's a forgone conclusion that any military action on the part of the US or NATO in any capacity means death for hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians". US soldiers will not give a damn about civilian lives if said civilians are ragheads like me, and will drop bombs on anything from sewage treatment plants to nuclear power stations, whatever accomplishes "the mission". The ensuing radioactive fallout and disease will kill hundreds of thousands of innocents but they don't count, they are only people who look like me, not real humans. The Iranian government have the option of retaliating at the instant of the first explosion with a barrage of supersonic torpedos. If said barrage is large enough it could overwhelm US defenses and take out the US fleet, the gulf state oil installations and pipelines, perhaps the Saudi oil reserve. To see where this leads, google for "Philip Giraldi" and "World War 3". Here is a link: http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with-iran-might-look-like/ http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with...

tkahn6 15y ago
There is no attitude. It's simply a fact that military action in Iran would not have the purpose of helping Iranian citizens. That is not logically equivalent to the statement that US/NATO would/should abandon regard for civilian life in pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Do you really want the US 'helping' anyone? Military intervention in Iran would not be an exercise in nation-building or 'liberation'. The rest of your comment is some victim-complex hyperbolic fantasy. It's a course of events that should be considered but it is by no means whatsoever a certain consequent of military action.
- ucee054 15y ago
  Let me put aside your insulting me as a hyperbolic fantasist. Let me also put aside the Iranian government going on record to state that it WILL take out the oil and will close the Straits of Hormuz if attacked. Let's also disregard the warnings of CIA middle east ops people like Philip Giraldi and Robert Baer (and I can quote others) and the state of the oil futures market, and go with your idea that America can make an airstrike on Iran without causing all out war. Because that's what you mean by "nuclear disarmament", isn't it? You mean "Dropping wide-radius bunker busting bombs on Iran's medical reactor in the middle of the city." And these explosions will bombs, what "regard for civilian life" will their ensuing huge explosions in the middle of the city show? What "regard for civilian life" will the radiation leakage show? Claiming that I have a "victim complex" is merely an ad-hominem that will not dispel the US military's long record of treating civilians as expendable, precisely the "attitude" I was alluding to. Here is example reportage on US drone strikes in Pakistan: They use the first strike to cause first responders to come to the scene, because some them will be Taliban. Now hit them with the second strike, with total disregard for all the non-Taliban rescuers (trying to help the civilians caught in the first blast) caught in the second blast. Link: http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/07/chris-woods-2/ http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/07/chris-woods-2/ I can also give you examples from Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam going all the way back to World War 2.
  - sp332 15y ago
    If it comes down to: letting Iran threaten us and our allies with nukes, vs dropping some bombs on a city and killing a lot of people, everyone would pick dropping bombs on the city. We expect the Iranian people to realize this, and consider pre-emptively disarming themselves out of self-preservation.
    - ucee054 15y ago
      Iran has NOT threatened any one with nukes, it does not even have a weapons program. Iran only has an enrichment facility for medical isotopes and for its power station. This enrichment is under full IAEA monitoring. Iran even agreed to stop enriching and buy the fuel from abroad, but the US killed the deal. That Iran is not making weapons has been confirmed by the US National Intelligence Estimate, by the Mossad to JCS chairman General Dempsey, and by National Intelligence Director Clapper to the Senate. link: http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/05/flynt-leverett-8/ http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/02/05/flynt-leverett-8/ How can you expect Iran to "disarm" itself when it does not have nukes in the first place? The same way Iraq was supposed to "disarm" in 2003?