logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Using Ground Troops on Iran
Should Ground Troops be an Option in Iran?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 44
Guests cannot vote 
skeeterses
post Apr 12 2006, 06:19 AM
Post #1


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 794
Member No.: 5,233
Joined: July-7-05

From: Maryland
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nucl...ns.html?print=t
I'll let it be known that I'm strictly opposed to any military strikes against Iran unless they strike first against any country. In the link above, a group of concerned scientists have stated that airstrikes will not be sufficient to destroy Iran's WMDs if they do indeed have WMDs. The most powerful Earth Penetrating Weapons (containing small nuclear warheads) can crush bunkers up to 1000 ft deep. However, modern tunnelling technologies can create much deeper bunkers and using EPWs would kill over 1 million people in Iran and the surrounding countries like Iraq and Pakistan.

What the scientists suggested is that if a military action is carried out, conventional bombs will have to be used to destroy any missile launchers on the ground and ground troops would actually have to move in to destroy anything underground. In such a case, the US could provide the aircraft and Europe could provide the troops. And Iran will fight back with everything it has if such a scenerio plays out.

So the question for those who support the option of a military strike is
Would you support the option of ground troops
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Hobbes
post Apr 12 2006, 07:35 AM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,343
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Would you support the option of ground troops

Anything and everything should be an option. Taking something off the table, particularly one of the options that is most likely to be successful, does nothing but weaken your bargaining position. A very strong bargaining position would be necessary to solve this issue diplomatically, as Iran is holding most of the cards currently. So, in short, keeping ground troops as an option is what is necessary to keep them from being used in that fashion. Removing options is what will most likely lead to military confrontation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Apr 12 2006, 10:55 AM
Post #3


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Would you support the option of ground troops

I would certainly support the option of ground troops. As Hobbes says, to remove an option is to limit oneself unduely. Under the right conditions, I would also support the use of ground troops. Always. Thats what they exist for.

The real question ought to be; under what conditions would you support the use of ground troops against Iran?

Most people are rightly concerned that GW Bush has some sort of a plan to use military forces against Iran. Whether or not this is true is just impossible to know. Even for Seymour Hersh.
Afghanistan followed by Iraq, in my opinion does not automatically mean a pattern has been established.

What could actually be happening in Washington is a bluff by the Bush administration. Knowing full well he cannot muster a seriously large invasion force, he could be putting on a show of belligerence designed to fool the Iranians into assuming he is 'just crazy enough to do it!'. At the same time, he maintains various other, more credible military options that don't rely on mass ground troops.

Letting the E3 nations take a diplomatic initiative indirectly supports this possibility since it gave the USA both the chance to play 'bad cop' and gave them time to get ready for what ever might follow the inevitable failure of diplomacy in the face of Iran's stalling.

Like bucket has said else where on this forum, there is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians are seeking to become a nuclear power. In their feeble minds they see this both as their right and a means to an end.

In his now closed thread, Genesisblade asked 'Why should the West feel it has the right to tell Iran that it cannot develop its nuclear technology?'

All people have that right. If Iran has a 'right' to develop nuclear technology, then the rest of the world, in order to protect ourselves, have an equal right to prevent them.
And by what ever means are deemed necessary.
Including the conventional use of ground forces.


edited for spelling.

This post has been edited by moif: Apr 12 2006, 10:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psyclist
post Apr 12 2006, 10:59 AM
Post #4


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
September 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 352
Member No.: 4,200
Joined: January-5-05

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



A nice animation of what the scientists are talking about can be found here:

link

That's about all I wanted to post but to keep this from being a one liner...

I don't support the use of ground troops at all. It's going to cost too much in terms of lives and money. Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq, Iran has a much stronger military than Iraq, and after "Mission Accomplished" in Iran, the insurgency would be much more powerful than in Iraq. And of course, if we're once again side tracked into going into Iran, Iraq will collapse and Afghanistan will follow, we'll be stretched way too thin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Apr 12 2006, 12:50 PM
Post #5


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Thanks for the animation link on the bunker buster nuclear bomb, psyclist.

I think we've done enough in the region for now, more than enough. Our troops, as good as they are, cannot contain the insurgency or the civil war that is taking place in Iraq. This is becoming an exercise in throwing money and lives down a black hole.

Even the most powerful and, arguably, the richest nation in the world has finite resources, and some of these resources need to continue to be "diverted" from military use to be used for the American people stateside.

Just what would we hope to accomplish in Iran: The same stability we're now seeing in Iraq? I don't see the Iranians giving up their nuclear plans without a fight.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Apr 12 2006, 01:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Apr 12 2006, 03:42 PM
Post #6


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



What ground troops? The military pool of man power is already strained to support troop rotations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and our other outposts of empire. Neither Europeans nor other countries have given any sign they would support any military attack on Iran, let alone commit their own forces to such an adventure.

As discussed elsewhere in these forums, the whole idea of a military attack on Iran at this time is insane. We should be talking face to face with the Iranians and offering some real concessions in return for some tight international oversight of their nuclear program. If that fails, after a few years, the world should consider serious international sanctions. If they fail also, we should be prepared to contain a nuclear armed Iran - not initiate nuclear war to destroy it!

This administration's policy of hard line confrontation with states considered nuclear proliferation threats has been a total failure. The example of Iraq goes without saying, confrontation with North Korea played a big role in pushing them into refining fuel rods into plutonium and the likely construction of one to six nuclear war heads. If we can live with a nuclear NK, why can't we live with a nuclear Iran? Is it the oil? Is it the influence of Israel on US foreign policy? (See This Article).

This post has been edited by TedN5: Apr 12 2006, 03:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 12 2006, 04:17 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,373
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(TedN5 @ Apr 12 2006, 11:42 AM)
This administration's policy of hard line confrontation with states considered nuclear proliferation threats has been a total failure.† The example of Iraq goes without saying, confrontation with North Korea played a big role in pushing them into refining fuel rods into plutonium and the likely construction of one to six nuclear war heads.


What confrontation in North Korea? Was it when we withdrew all the north-facing nuclear warheads from South Korea in the mid ninties? Took our forces out of the DMZ? Scaled back and withdrew forces from Seoul? Or was it when we offered them the lightwater nuclear reactor deal?

QUOTE
If we can live with a nuclear NK, why can't we live with a nuclear Iran?† Is it the oil? Is it the influence of Israel on US foreign policy? (See This Article).


Well, if we can live with a nuclear North Korea, gee...why can't we live with nuclear armed Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, and Sudan? Because nuclear weapons in many hands exponentially increases the likelihood that they will be used, especially for unstable and/or authoritarian countries.

I'd say no to the ground troops in Iran idea, and yes to international sanctions. Of course, we do sanction Iran already what we really need is for the rest of the world to play ball too...and I doubt that China or Russia ever will. If Europe is willing, it could make a difference though.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 12 2006, 04:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post Apr 12 2006, 05:06 PM
Post #8


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Well, if we can live with a nuclear North Korea, gee...why can't we live with nuclear armed Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, and Sudan? Because nuclear weapons in many hands exponentially increases the likelihood that they will be used, especially for unstable and/or authoritarian countries.
(Mrs. Pigpen)

We can debate the NK proliferation elsewhere, I will merely state here that the hard line approach adopted by this administration when a uranium enrichment program was admitted to by NK led to its withdrawal from the plutonium reprocessing agreement reached in the Clinton Administration and to a much shorter path to sufficient fissile material for a nuclear device.

I agree with you about the dangers of more and more nuclear states. That is why I opposed spreading nuclear technology around the world with research reactors and "atoms for peace." It is also why I support all the provisions of the NPT, including those requiring existing nuclear states to reduce the number of existing warheads and eventually eliminate them. More and easier to use "bunker-buster" devices are as much a proliferation threat as new nuclear states. Letting Pakistan and India off so lightly for their proliferation was also a mistake.

Your logic should also have been applied to Israel when it began developing nuclear weapons. A simple threat to stop our economic and military assistance unless Israel ceased its program would have probably done the trick. It should have been obvious that a nuclear armed Israel was going to promote nuclear armed Muslim states.

What I don't agree with is threatening countries with regime change and military attack (particularly not with nuclear weapons) in the interest of preventing proliferation.

(Edited to add this link I just discovered to an important speech by Representative Ron Paul that makes many of the same points. Ron Paul is a conservative Republican with a Libertarian bend. The quoted introduction is from the UFPPC.org website).

Ron Paul Speech

QUOTE
In a rational world, a major speech like this would be published in newspapers across the country, instead of being buried in the Congressional Record and read on Internet.  --  Ron Paul, the Republican representative from the 14th Congressional District in Texas, spoke to the U.S. House of Representatives last week and warned that war with Iran is the offing:  "I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I'm wrong.  I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost.  Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al-Qaeda.  We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom.  The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts.  Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war.  I worry that before we can finish the war we're in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, 'enough already!'"  --  Every U.S. citizen should read every one of Ron Paul's 6,000 words.  --  "Let there be no doubt," Rep. Ron Paul warns. "The neoconservative warriors are still in charge and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a preemptive attack on Iran."  --  Paul concludes with a plea for a complete change in U.S.'s approach to foreign affairs, calling for "a pro-American, non-militant, noninterventionist foreign policy."  --  Ron Paul's speech is notable for his use (one time) of the taboo word "militarism" ...


This post has been edited by TedN5: Apr 12 2006, 06:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Apr 12 2006, 06:17 PM
Post #9


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



While I would want to have the ďoptionĒ of troops or whatever is required this is clearly a job for the UN and the IAEA. IMO they do not have the will to deal with it but that said we should not have to do anything but support the Europeans who are as much against this a we are. Time to let FRANCE step up to the plate or the corrupted UN SC. I say we stay the heck out of it. First countries to get nuked are in the region (like Israel). Our strategic interest is in the supply of oil, which would be severely disrupted, if Iran attacked anyone, and the WMD to terrorists issue, but with nukes we can trace it back to country of origin more easily then say Bio/Chem WMD.

QUOTE
Psylist
A nice animation of what the scientists are talking about can be found here:

link

That's about all I wanted to post but to keep this from being a one liner...


You know this weapon does not exist donít you? And the development is not even funded Ė so if it were funded today (unlikely) we would have it in about 3 years or so. Far too late to be even an option for Iran or anywhere else.

In addition there are many good reasons to develop the weapon. Negotiations (including the extreme which is war) is all about the ability of a country to safeguard its strategic weapons esp. WMD and the existence of deep underground facilities is an important part of the equation today. Saddam had a German made deep bunker that would take at least 16 direct hits by cruse missiles to damage (see link below). Melosovich had one as well and all the bombing we did there didnít even scratch it. Certainly the North Koreans have even better bunkers. The existence of these bunkers means that countries can safely keep their expensive WMD programs out of the reach of superior air power and essentially force a ground war invasion to eliminate, for example, the nuclear weapons program in Iran. The nuclear bunker buster takes that ďchipĒ off the table since the deep bunkers would be vulnerable to it Ė even the newer very deep bunkers

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=367822003


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TruthMarch
post Apr 12 2006, 09:07 PM
Post #10


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 265
Member No.: 5,806
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Would you support the option of ground troops

Sometimes I have to wonder whether faulty military intelligence and people's apparent separation of concern is the best device ever created to kill young American boys. No I would not support ground troops because they would be dying for nothing just like they did and are doing in Iraq at this moment.
First of all, all sane sensible military commanders know full well that air power won't win a war, short and long term. Bomb whatever however much they want, the fact is that once the planes are gone, the living emerge and continue their lives just like they did in Germany, Japan, China, Britain, and every other country which suffered under heavy air bombardments. Without men on the ground, that ground is not under your control, and control is the only way you can gain the peace after a destructive war.
I laughed at the comment "we'll bring the bombs and others bring the troops". Almost as if it's a sharing game where all levels are equal. And that was in reference to underground complexes which would definitely lead to a likely 10 to 1 casualty rate, and NOT in the GI's favor.
If I could ask a question of my own: Why aren't Americans confused by the US plans for nuclear attacks on Iran in corelation to the US's insistence that nukes are a bad thing? It's no different from someone telling you not to hit black people...while hitting a black person. Why aren't people upset about that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Apr 13 2006, 02:13 AM
Post #11


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(skeeterses @ Apr 12 2006, 02:19 AM)
So the question for those who support the option of a military strike is
Would you support the option of ground troops


Allow me to be direct:

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO

Why in the hell would I trust the same idiots who dragged us into Iran and haven't finished the job in Afghanistan to send American troops into a country that has four times the population of Iraq?

After his record of failure in Iraq why would I trust an arrogant, clueless egotist like Donald Rumsfeld to wage another war?

During World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote was: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."

By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead America's armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with U.S. allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on American soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in the U.S. military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to America's mission in Iraq. Rumsfeld must step down.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/opinion/edeaton.php

It is a point of interest that while the Bush Administration beats the war drums for a strike against Iran for what they might do, they ignore North Korea, another rebel nation that HAS a nuclear weapon.

It's amazing what failed presidents will do to prop up their sagging political fortunes. Disgusting too.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Apr 13 2006, 02:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemov
post Apr 13 2006, 07:21 PM
Post #12


******
sleeping is giving in...

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 448
Member No.: 5,152
Joined: June-17-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



This might be off topic but I have noticed (and this probably because this is Bush year 6) that the debates are becoming increasing one sided here at :ad.gif:. That's part of the reason I haven't been around as much lately. The poll is 12 to 4 that the military should not even be an option. Regardless of the politics involved, here that's just ludicrous.

It also explains some of Iranís actions. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the US lacks the popular will to accomplish any task let alone military action. This is a separate debate but the left in this country has basically resigned from debate and opposes every aspect of the current administration. I'm not even sure what the Left's strategy is at this point. I guess the war would have ended in Afghanistan(or maybe it would have never started), Saddam would still be in charge, and Bin Laden would likely still be at large. That being the case, what threat is there to Iran? Why should they stop their nuclear program, fear of economic sanctions? Yeah, thatís very effective (see: north korea).

This post has been edited by nemov: Apr 13 2006, 08:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Apr 13 2006, 11:55 PM
Post #13


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nemov @ Apr 13 2006, 02:21 PM)
This might be off topic but I have noticed (and this probably because this is Bush year 6) that the debates are becoming increasing one sided here at :ad.gif:.† That's part of the reason I haven't been around as much lately.† The poll is 12 to 4 that the military should not even be an option.† Regardless of the politics involved, here that's just ludicrous.

It also explains some of Iranís actions.† It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the US lacks the popular will to accomplish any task let alone military action.† This is a separate debate but the left in this country has basically resigned from debate and opposes every aspect of the current administration.† I'm not even sure what the Left's strategy is at this point.† I guess the war would have ended in Afghanistan(or maybe it would have never started), Saddam would still be in charge, and Bin Laden would likely still be at large.† That being the case, what threat is there to Iran?† Why should they stop their nuclear program, fear of economic sanctions?† Yeah, thatís very effective (see: north korea).
*




I don't think this is at all ludicrous. There are three elements preventing military action.

Back in September you were arguing that Bush's poll numbers were a fluke of some kind. Six months later, his poll numbers are worse.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=11019&st=0

Not only are his job approval numbers low, but people seem to have lost trust in this president.

QUOTE
Bush's personal image also has weakened noticeably, which is reflected in people's one-word descriptions of the president. Honesty had been the single trait most closely associated with Bush, but in the current survey "incompetent" is the descriptor used most frequently.


http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=271

Is he honest and trustworthy?

No=55%
Yes=44%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...qwar_030606.htm

Why not militrary action?

Reason 1. Bush does not have the political capital to engage in a war in Iran. Why would anyone trust a president with another war when he's made such a god awful mess of the one we currently have in Iraq?

Reason 2. The Iraq war pretty much has our military tied up.

Reason 3. Further drain on the U. S. Treasury would make war with Iran less than palatable.


This post has been edited by BoF: Apr 14 2006, 07:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Apr 14 2006, 10:04 AM
Post #14


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nemov @ Apr 13 2006, 03:21 PM)
This might be off topic but I have noticed (and this probably because this is Bush year 6) that the debates are becoming increasing one sided here at :ad.gif:.† That's part of the reason I haven't been around as much lately.† The poll is 12 to 4 that the military should not even be an option.† Regardless of the politics involved, here that's just ludicrous.

It also explains some of Iranís actions.† It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the US lacks the popular will to accomplish any task let alone military action.† This is a separate debate but the left in this country has basically resigned from debate and opposes every aspect of the current administration.† I'm not even sure what the Left's strategy is at this point.† I guess the war would have ended in Afghanistan(or maybe it would have never started), Saddam would still be in charge, and Bin Laden would likely still be at large.† That being the case, what threat is there to Iran?† Why should they stop their nuclear program, fear of economic sanctions?† Yeah, thatís very effective (see: north korea).
*


Interesting. You say that you haven't been around as much lately because the debates are becoming increasingly one-sided here. I would suggest that your absence is contributing to that one-sidedness. So please, stick around! thumbsup.gif

I would disagree with you that the left has "basically resigned from debate". But I would suggest there is a certain (high) level of frustration experienced by the Democratic (allegedly Left), other-side-of-the-aisle members of Congress. They can suggest alternatives until they're blue in the face (pardon the pun), but as long as Republicans run the show in both houses, they're banging their heads against the wall.

But what if the Democrats, or "left" as you call them, did currently agree with the President's policies in Iraq? Would there be less insurgent activity, less killing, less overextension of our military forces overseas? I doubt it.

I also doubt that having Congressional Democrats just sit down and shut up would make Iran any less in-your-face with the United States about what they perceive as their right to enrich uranium for peaceful use or otherwise.

George W. Bush was given carte blanche in his GWOT. His "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" speeches accomplished the desired goal, to quelch Congressional opposition and make it possible to wage war and engage in nation building.

Now Republicans and those of similar mind are saying that the Democrats don't have any good ideas, that they just criticize. Well I'll tell you, it's easier to salvage a meal before, rather than after, it has been ruined by another cook.

Let's not ruin another "meal" by committing ourselves to warfare with Iraq, ground troops or otherwise. At least let the UN try to find a solution first.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Apr 14 2006, 10:10 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemov
post Apr 14 2006, 12:37 PM
Post #15


******
sleeping is giving in...

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 448
Member No.: 5,152
Joined: June-17-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 13 2006, 07:55 PM)


I don't think this is at all ludicrous. There are three elements preventing military action.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...qwar_030606.htm

Why not militrary action?

Reason 1. Bush does not have the political capital to engage in a war in Iran. Why would anyone trust a president with another war when he's made such a god awful mess of the one we currently have in Iraq?

Reason 2. The Iraq war pretty much has our military tied up.

Reason 3. Further drain on the U. S. Treasury would make war with Iran less than palatable.

*



BOF, let me clarify something here. The poll question and the thread question are different. The thread askes "would you support military action." I don't expect Democrats to support that, but the poll asks should it be an option. I don't care who the President is, military action should always be an option. This problem existed during the latter half of the last administration. The opposition completly lost the concept of reality. History does in fact repeat itself.

Please spare me poll numbers. Has Bush lost an election of any kind since he's been President? According to rasmuessen he's at 45% right now (his low of 40% on March 30). BTW this is a survey of adults and not likely voters, so you can tack on about 3% for club bushy. In other words, so what? The only obstacle to military action is the political will of the US. There is no question we have the military might to roll over Iran.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Apr 14 2006, 12:40 PM
Post #16


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,373
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(nemov @ Apr 13 2006, 03:21 PM)
I guess the war would have ended in Afghanistan(or maybe it would have never started), Saddam would still be in charge, and Bin Laden would likely still be at large.† That being the case, what threat is there to Iran?† Why should they stop their nuclear program, fear of economic sanctions?† Yeah, thatís very effective (see: north korea).
*



We've seen how sanctions go, yes, but not in North Korea as they are not under international, UN imposed sanction. Their largest trading partners have continued to trade with them. Sanctions worked with Libya. They worked with Sudan (those were bilateral). Iran's economy is based almost entirely on oil. If they can't sell it, they will have pain, and they don't corner enough of a market on the world's oil supply to make demands. The entire middle east is responsible for only 40 percent of the world oil supply as it is (if memory serves...I haven't looked it up in a while).

Yes, sanctions would work in their case, and I believe they would work quickly as we aren't asking for much. It's a cost to gains equation, and they would have much more to gain and less to lose by abandoning their weapons program. On the other hand, it's a cost to gains equation the other wway, too. Ground troops (or any military response at this point) would be catastrophic. We simply don't have the money or manpower to take over Iran. Before you decide to start killing people and sacrificing your own, you'd better be damned sure it's worth the price. At this point, it would be sheer lunacy.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Apr 14 2006, 12:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
English Horn
post Apr 14 2006, 01:12 PM
Post #17


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 14 2006, 07:40 AM)
Yes, sanctions would work in their case, and I believe they would work quickly as we aren't asking for much. It's a cost to gains equation, and they would have much more to gain and less to lose by abandoning their weapons program. On the other hand, it's a cost to gains equation the other wway, too. Ground troops (or any military response at this point) would be catastrophic. We simply don't have the money or manpower to take over Iran. Before you decide to start killing people and sacrificing your own, you'd better be damned sure it's worth the price. At this point, it would be sheer lunacy.
*



I am not so sure that sanction would work. There has been several articles in Newsweek and Time mentioning how popular Ahmadinejad is among population, including educated, secular Iranians - because he is seen as someone who stands up to pressure from the West and pursues national interests.

Link:

QUOTE
The ski resort of Shemshak, just outside Tehran, is the last place you would expect to hear expressions of nationalist ardor. The slopes are filled with wealthy Iranians who sip hot chocolate in the shadow of a dazzling sun and spend most of their time gabbing about designer skiwear and which party to attend that evening. But when the subject of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes up between runs, the skiers get excited. "I couldn't be happier with him," says Mehdi, 19, an architecture major. "We just want our rights, and he defends them." His sister Anahita, 24, says she changed her mind about the President when he refused to abandon the country's nuclear-energy program. "He stood behind his world like a man," she says.

That an Islamic hard-liner has inspired such pride among even secular, Westernized Iranians says everything about the political climate in Iran today and shows how Ahmadinejad has transformed himself from a lightly regarded ideologue to a national hero. In recent months the President has used the escalating standoff over Iran's nuclear program as a platform for broadening his appeal at home, framing the West as an enemy bent on weakening Iran by denying it legitimate access to technology. Indeed, many observers believe that Ahmadinejad is reacting to the masses' increasingly assertive mood as much as he is stoking it. "Before, you had people vs. the regime," says a Western diplomat in Tehran. "Now you have Iran vs. the West."

Unlike Iraq, Iran is a very homogeneous nation with 2000 year old history - nationalistic feelings and fervor can run very high there. I don't see Ahmadinejad bowing to pressure and stopping his program because of sanctions - rather I see the country unifying behind him even more, the harder we squeeze. He built his existing political capital on it, how can he let it go?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeepMan
post Apr 16 2006, 07:03 PM
Post #18


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5,204
Joined: June-28-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None





This administration's policy of hard line confrontation with states considered nuclear proliferation threats has been a total failure. The example of Iraq goes without saying, confrontation with North Korea played a big role in pushing them into refining fuel rods into plutonium and the likely construction of one to six nuclear war heads. If we can live with a nuclear NK, why can't we live with a nuclear Iran? Is it the oil? Is it the influence of Israel on US foreign policy? (See This Article).
*

[/quote]

Couldn't disagree more. Actually Bush's hardline stance has been very productive. He faced down the North Koreans, kicked Sadam out of Iraq, put a leash on Khaddafi. One couldn't hope to be more successful in the foreign policy arena. Now the previous president, Bill CLinton, he was a total, out and out failure in foreign policy, the worst of all time. He and the charlatan Jimmy Carter were fooled by the North Koreans, Clinton bungled Somalia, flopped in Palestine. Now that I think about it, in eight years, besides his intern, what the hell did Bill Clinton do, never was less done in more time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
j10pilot
post May 3 2006, 05:59 AM
Post #19


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Member No.: 3,735
Joined: October-9-04

From: The People's Republic
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



Geez, as if oil price is not high enough already. Look, China has $10 Billion and Japan has $3 Bil invested in the oil fields in Iran. If you take that production out, you will be looking at $120 per barrel of crude, that translates to about $5 per gallon of gasoline for those you who's not good at math or have doubts about the greediness of oil companies.

Militarily, ground force is not a problem; Politically, it's probably not a problem either; but please, do think about the poor people driving their gigantic SUVs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post May 3 2006, 05:55 PM
Post #20


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Apr 12 2006, 07:35 AM)
Would you support the option of ground troops

Anything and everything should be an option.  Taking something off the table, particularly one of the options that is most likely to be successful, does nothing but weaken your bargaining position.  A very strong bargaining position would be necessary to solve this issue diplomatically, as Iran is holding most of the cards currently.  So, in short, keeping ground troops as an option is what is necessary to keep them from being used in that fashion.


By this logic, the invasion of Canada should be an option the next time we're discussing North American trade issues with the Canadians. Now that would make them take notice.

QUOTE
  Removing options is what will most likely lead to military confrontation.


Really, do you think that Iran desires nuclear weapons for the purpose of pursuing a military confrontation with the United States? It think it rather preceives nuclear weapons as a potential means of avoiding such confrontation. It's not Iran that's been rattling sabers over the whole planet, or invading countries on its borders. Have you notice that the one "evil" country over which the U.S. hasn't rattled its sabers is North Korea? Hmm, now I wonder why that is?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 29th, 2022 - 01:06 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.