Would you have supported the invasion of Iran if the Iraq war hadn't happened?

[Braznor]

... of course assuming you are opposed to it at the moment.

 

[blackllotus]

I would oppose an Iran invasion with or without considering the Iraq war.

 

[ProfJohn]

Can we get another option along the lines of a limited bombing campaign?

I do not think we will or should invade Iran, and would not have thought that even if Iraq had been 100% successful like we were told it would be.
Totally different cases.
Iraq: homicidal maniac leader who killed thousands through direct action.
Iran: leaders who try to exert their influence on the Middle East through indirect intermediates such as Hezbollah.

You take out Saddam because that is the only way to end his ways. You slap Iran upside the head in hopes that they change thier policies.
Iran operates with impunity now exporting their weapons and terror to the Middle East, mainly Lebanon. By dropping a few bombs you show them that actions have consequences.

Look at Libya and its support of terrorism in the 1980s. Once we dropped a few dozen bombs and almost killed their leader they changed their ways.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can we get another option along the lines of a limited bombing campaign?

I am curious how our troops should remain in Iraq to protect it from descending into further chaos, yet we can leave Iran to absorb a bombing campaign? That is a contradiction I?m not comfortable with.

Is it only their nuclear facilities we strike? In that case we may not know of all their locations or facilities. To ensure successful neutralization we?d need to destroy the government and specifically assassinate those involved with it and its nuclear program.

Then, that country would be in ruins just as the same reason our troops are in Iraq now.

I do not think we will or should invade Iran, and would not have thought that even if Iraq had been 100% successful like we were told it would be.
Totally different cases.
Iraq: homicidal maniac leader who killed thousands through direct action.
Iran: leaders who try to exert their influence on the Middle East through indirect intermediates such as Hezbollah.

You take out Saddam because that is the only way to end his ways. You slap Iran upside the head in hopes that they change thier policies.
Iran operates with impunity now exporting their weapons and terror to the Middle East, mainly Lebanon. By dropping a few bombs you show them that actions have consequences.

I?m not convinced a few drops will do anything against Iran other than solidify their position on developing nuclear weapons by which to strike back with. Poking a stick at the hornet?s nest is a brilliant method by which to sting yourself.

Look at Libya and its support of terrorism in the 1980s. Once we dropped a few dozen bombs and almost killed their leader they changed their ways.

Iraqis would celebrate us with flowers too. Never underestimate the extent of radical Islam. They used 19 box cutters to change our lives; far worse has yet to come when real weapons are put on the table.

 

[Bowfinger]

I would probably support an invasion of Iran if I saw credible, independent evidence that doing so was mandatory to defend the United States of America from a significant threat. I would never support an attack based on the current uncorroborated accusations and innuendo. The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with this, except to note that the same sorts of propaganda were used to sell it.

 

[dahunan]

Why do so many people play GI Joe..
Why do so many people seem to LOVE WAR

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why do so many people play GI Joe..
Why do so many people seem to LOVE WAR

Zergling rush 4tw!!!

 

[firewall]

I would oppose an Iran invasion with or without considering the Iraq war.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

I think that Iran has always been the greater threat. In 2003 I would have probably supported a limited bombing attack on Iran, assuming the govt could have come up with some decent evidence that they were trying to build a bomb.

I do not think that either Iraq or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. I think Saudi Arabia would have been a better target than Iraq.

 

[fallensight]

Invading is not the best way to affect change within Iran. Yeah, the president of Iran is a raving lunatic, but he is not as popular among the youth of the country. His political party had huge defeats in what amounts to the Iranian midterms. The best way to handle Iran right now is to keep them from stiring up too much trouble through diplomacy and wait out the current president. All an invasion would do is turn the pro-west sentiment that exists in the college youth of the country agaisnt us. It would be totally counter productive.

 

[dahunan]

Violence is ALWAYS the answer

 

[tomywishbone]

Oh absolutely! I know for a fact, that Iran has been holding high level talks with Osama bin Laden and they recently purchased some yellow cupcakes from Niger. Invasion is an excellent idea.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why do so many people play GI Joe..
Why do so many people seem to LOVE WAR

DDP

Death
Destruction
Profit (KACHING!)

 

[Uhtrinity]

Only if it was shown without a shadow of a doubt that they aided in 911, but if that was the case we would also be going into Saudi Arabia. But now? What the hell are we supposed to believe? I don't trust anything that comes comes out of the Bush Administration, and to a lesser degree what comes out of our government.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why do so many people play GI Joe..
Why do so many people seem to LOVE WAR

They obviously do not fully understand the results of war. Or they don't care. Or they think the lives of foreign peoples don't have much value. I'm sure the phrase, "war is hell," was not coined as an apology for it.

We've all seen pictures, we've all heard stories. War really is hell on earth, and should be prevented as much as possible.

 

[babylon5]

I will support a Canadian invasion inspite of everything that happened in Mexico.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why do so many people play GI Joe..
Why do so many people seem to LOVE WAR

They obviously do not fully understand the results of war. Or they don't care. Or they think the lives of foreign peoples don't have much value. I'm sure the phrase, "war is hell," was not coined as an apology for it.

Heated La-Z-Boy FTW

They'd rather keep their butt warm that way as opposed to the receiving end of an IED

 

[wazzledoozle]

I wouldnt support attacking at all. Iran wouldnt have been on the course they are on now if we hadnt invaded Iraq, and thus we would have no basis to attack them.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can we get another option along the lines of a limited bombing campaign?

I do not think we will or should invade Iran, and would not have thought that even if Iraq had been 100% successful like we were told it would be.
Totally different cases.
Iraq: homicidal maniac leader who killed thousands through direct action.
Iran: leaders who try to exert their influence on the Middle East through indirect intermediates such as Hezbollah.

You take out Saddam because that is the only way to end his ways. You slap Iran upside the head in hopes that they change thier policies.
Iran operates with impunity now exporting their weapons and terror to the Middle East, mainly Lebanon. By dropping a few bombs you show them that actions have consequences.

Look at Libya and its support of terrorism in the 1980s. Once we dropped a few dozen bombs and almost killed their leader they changed their ways.

Prof John, your Clintonemine side is showing. Desert Fox has already been done. Limit bombing in Iran to Ahmed Chalabi's tent on his next visit.

In regard to Libya, how many decades past between bombing and reconciliation?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I wouldnt support attacking at all. Iran wouldnt have been on the course they are on now if we hadnt invaded Iraq, and thus we would have no basis to attack them.

That's completely bogus. They were funding terrorism before we invaded Iraq, and they've been developing their nuclear programs for much longer than 4 years.

Edit: And I'm against war with Iran, ground and bombing. I could be persuaded to support a bombing campaign if evidence of some sort of serious wrongdoing by Iran came to light. The evidence has to be real and very serious, however.

 

[daniel49]

Opposed at this time.
I think there are other ways of dealing with Iran.
Problem is you can never get a world concensus on these types like adminajahd, Kim Jong, Sadaam. (not going to check the spellings).

To many in europe have economic dependencies on them and Russia and China delight in us being preoccupied with other things besides them. It allows them opportunity to play the field unopposed.

 

[Aimster]

Invade Iran for ?

U.S is the nation that gave weapons to terrorist states to kill civilians. Those civilians were Iranians.

 

[ericlp]

Invade Iran for WMD's! We might even find a few! Tho if we invade Iran, we gonna have to have a draft. AND... Expect 5X as many deaths as in Iraq. We don't have the man power or money to fund it. Tho, bush would love to spend $$ he doesn't have... We can barrow another 3-4 trillion... Can't we?

What? It's just 3.5 Trillion dollars. Who cares... We are at 10T already ... C'mon whats another 3 more?

 

[LouPoir]

Watch out Iran - your next --- and we will make sure that it looks like it's your fault.

 

[Shortass]

I'd support the murdering of Iranians as long as I get some free oil out of it. Or a back massage or something. Free season of the Highlander perhaps.