Liberal vs. Conservative

[Noysyrump]

Sorry Noysy could you please tell me what Iran has done to the usa to deserve total war?

You do understand what war is right? You remember WW1 and WW2 yeah?

Just checking.

Just to comment on this, as requested.

That page I posted on the last page of this thread, that showed 50% of world military spending coming from the US. That was maintained for 1 reason.

To make sure WW2 NEVER HAPPENED AGAIN.

"what the fuck?" you say.

"looks like we wasted $340b" says Bagar.

Shows what he knows.

What do you think it would have been like in 1990 had we spent 'just enough' to be on par with france or britain. The invasion of saudi arabia could have been a success (instead of the debacle at Khafji) and it could have become another 6 year war to retake SA and Kuwait, instead of the 100 hours it ended up taking on the ground. Every leader in the world realizes, if they attack a neighbor now, death will rain from the sky from B-2s and A-117s with impunity as soon as the sun goes down. I think it's this power differential alone that has kept general peace throught the world.

Now. Is the US a threat to peace? Yes we could be, if the power is misused. Is Iraq a misuse of that power? Perhaps. I do not have all the facts. I can only speculate. Same as you. But after 6 years in vietnam, the US said never again under the Reagan administration and reformed the military, and maintained it after the cold war. It is up to we the people to make sure it is not misused.

What has Iran done? Saber rattling alone is not a reason for total war, but building nukes that WILL end up in the wrong hands is.

[Zaelath]

I'm confused, why do you think Iran are going to be selling nukes to anyone that asks for them? Do they not have any enemies?

e.g. the US doesn't sell their current military assets to their long time and closely allied countries. But Iranians are all stupid brown motherfuckers? Is that how your logic works? Explain your CERTAINTY. Thx.

[Fash]

Anyone who's actually naive enough to think that Iran is going to nuke Israel, or think that the rest of the world outside the USA would care as much as the USA does about this, does not deserve the time of day.

1. I don't give a flying shit about Israel, but it is a sovereign country, a declared ally (id rather support palestine) and a member of the UN.

2. The US wouldn't be the only country ready to fight at that point, but I'm pretty sure their numbers would be trivial in comparison.

3. Again, you are not the person to be judging naivety. There is knowledge to be gained from examining the many possibilities, friend.

It is no stretch of the imagination to think Iran wants to nuke Israel. They've done all but say it word for word.

I also don't believe that the Armed Forces are stretched thin (for the big picture folks: the media message is that we're weak), yet I don't call you foolish or naive for thinking they are.

[Sueven]

Is conflict with Iran inevitable?

No. We are both nations with some established infrastructure and a solid quality of life. Neither country stands to gain anything from war. Especially Iran. See, for instance: Iraq.

Why should the US not attack Iran?

Because it would be unethical, it would be incredibly difficult and expensive and an immense pain in the ass, what would emerge from the aftermath would be extremely uncertain, and it's likely that we can manage our relationship with Iran, via diplomacy, to eventually (over several decades) result in a comfortably peaceful coexistence.

What does a 'conservative' think about this?

Depends on the 'conservative'

What does a 'liberal' think about this?

Depends on the 'liberal'

[Noysyrump]

I'm confused, why do you think Iran are going to be selling nukes to anyone that asks for them? Do they not have any enemies?

e.g. the US doesn't sell their current military assets to their long time and closely allied countries. But Iranians are all stupid brown motherfuckers? Is that how your logic works? Explain your CERTAINTY. Thx.

The country that burns our flag while chanting death to america after taking our citizens hostage wouldnt 'sell' a nuke to someone willing to use it on us? Ummm yeh ok, and I'm pink and fuzzy.

[Noysyrump]

Is it really plausible that terrorists could get and use a nuclear bomb?

Yes. Unfortunately, terrorist use of a nuclear bomb is a very real danger. During the 2004 presidential campaign, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) agreed that nuclear terrorism was the single greatest threat to U.S. national security. Published estimates of the chance that terrorists will detonate a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city over the next ten years range from 1 percent to 50 percent. In a 2005 poll of international security experts taken by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the median estimate of the chance of a nuclear attack in the next ten years was 29 percent -- and a strong majority believed that it was more likely that terrorists would launch a nuclear attack than that a state would. Given the horrifying consequences of such an attack, even a 1 percent chance would be enough to call for rapid action to reduce the risk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01154.html

That was in 2004, now they are imagining upto 90% chance because of both Iran and Pakistan.

[Zaelath]

Perhaps you need to look up some information on risk management. Simplistically: Rate of occurrence multiplied by the impact of the event equals risk.

Doesn't matter that the rate is relatively low if the impact is catastrophic, however, terrorist use of thermonuclear weapons to date: zero. Use of thermonuclear weapons by the US would seem to indicate that you are a much larger threat and we should all be lining up behind the Iranians to insist you disarm.

Besides, a couple of talking heads in an election suggesting that they are interested in lowering the rate of occurance of nuclear terrorism doesn't a) mean that they think it's actually that likely, b) have anything to do with Iran's policy on sale of fissile material to terrorists.

I guess you're suggesting not that Iran would sell nukes to anyone, but that they would "fund" terrorism on the US by gifting terrorists with nukes if they promised they were going to use them in the US. This despite real world examples, like the US, where they don't sell top of the line tactical weapons to close allies let alone hand them to "rogue elements" that may or may not turn against them at a later date.

I wonder what stops them buying nukes from India or Pakistan and handing those to terrorists, or do you think these countries are paragons of incorruptibility?

[Aslanna]

Oooo... another insightful one-liner from the ministry of truth.

Unfortunately for us that's enough to get people to keep responding to him.

[Noysyrump]

Sorry for the late response and necroposting...

I guess you're suggesting not that Iran would sell nukes to anyone, but that they would "fund" terrorism on the US by gifting terrorists with nukes if they promised they were going to use them in the US. This despite real world examples, like the US, where they don't sell top of the line tactical weapons to close allies let alone hand them to "rogue elements" that may or may not turn against them at a later date.

Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat had regularly been flying unrestricted over Iranian territory, and IIAF had no mean of intercepting these high-speed intruders. Thus, the search for a new fighter/interceptor begun. Iranian pilots were virtually flown and tested every fighter available at the time including MiG's (some done secretly in other countries). The final report which indicated pro's and con's of each fighter suggested the F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle as the best fighters. In August of 1973, the IIAF selected the F-14 Tomcat ( From 1970 Iraq was in contact with French government to equip their Air Force with Mirage F-1, this was another factor for IIAF to choose F-14 and start planning for purchase, operation and training for F-14). The initial order signed in January of 1974 covered 30 Tomcats, but in June 50 more were added to the contract.At the same time, the Iranian government-owned Bank-e-Melli stepped in, and agreed to loan Grumman $75 million to partially make up for a US government loan of $200 million to Grumman, which had just been cancelled. This loan save the F-14 program and enabled Grumman to secure a further loan of $125 million from a consortium of American banks, ensuring at least for the moment that the F-14 program would continue. Thanks to Bank-e-Melli.

Not only do we sell our most modern equipment (as the f-14 was in 1974) we sell them to said rogue country. I'm sure we'd sell a B-2 if anyone else could afford one. So, joo dont know squat there.

Why dont they just get it from Pakistan? Because Pakistan doesnt want to be involved I'm sure. Anyone who's read a Tom Clancy book knows they can figure out what reactors made what when by 'fingerprinting' the material. Iran's gubment on the other hand, might not be as inclined to worry about that. Especially when it comes to blowin up Israelies.