Who Would Support A War In Iran?

So, Afghanistan happened, I opposed it, while the majority supported it. Iraq happened, and is happening, I, and the majority, opposed it - but still a significant number of Bush supporters rallied round their President's now bankrupt arguments for war in Iraq. And as an attack on Iran looks ever more likely, fewer still will support such a fool's crusade. But is there anyone who would support an attack on Iran? Did Jesus tell you to do support it? Or did you simply get dropped on your heads as children? Surely there can't be that many left who would follow Bush into another disastrous war, now that his arguments for the quagmire that we're currently in have proven to be, at best based on faulty intelligence (his own maybe?) and at worst, outright lies....

 

Nah. Fuck Iran. Lets go after Mexico next. Why not? Half the country is here anyway!

 

I supported the Afghanistan invasion, like most people. I opposed the Iraq invasion, like yourself and most people.

I think Bush has really got himself in a bind over Iran. Iran truly IS a bigger threat than Iraq ever was, but since Bush wasted so much credibility, goodwill, and manpower on Iraq, there's no way America can easily do anything about Iran.

I think more people would be inclined to support military action against Iran, if not for the quagmire in Iraq. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. A full-blown invasion of Iran would be disastrous, and the logistics of it would be nearly impossible to manage. It would only further aggravate the risk of terrorism, and if Iran DOES have nuclear weapons (I don't think they do, but I wouldn't be willing to bet the farm on it) they would use them against American troops.

I might be inclined to support some tactical air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. It would be much cheaper than an invasion, it would (hopefully) set Iran's nuclear program back a few years, and most importantly, the amount of casualties would (hopefully) be kept to a minimum.

 

Yep , I believe they call that "Shock and Awe", now where did I hear that before? Oh yeah....

 

The U.S. was working on 23 nuclear facilities in Iran back in the 70s to keep up with the energy needs of the country. Then again, that was when the U.S. had the Shaw installed in Iran and had control of the country. Now that someone else is running Iran, those nuclear facilities are deemed comparable to WMD facilities by the current administration.

Iran's first nuclear reactor is scheduled to come online at the end of this year. Bombing it wouldn't help international relations. Russia has been helping Iran build their reactors.

On what political basis would one justify bombing Iran's nuclear facilities? Or for that matter, what justification is there for trying to force them to shut down their entire nuclear energy program? It's true the materials could get sold to unsavory groups, but that's true for all the other countries that produce or have enriched materials (some of which are unstable politically, such as Pakistan or N. Korea). Those arguments would need to be clearly made by Bush before he can get any international cooperation on pressuring the U.N. to pass a resolution that places sanctions on Iran or gives a green like to a bombing or invasion.

One has to consider what would happen to any radioactive material if a nuclear facility was bombed. I never heard what happened to the materials (if any) that were in the Iraq nuclear facility when Israel bombed it in the late 70s.

 

There's also the psychological shock and awe, such as the U.S. giving hundreds of bunker buster bombs to Israel last year, ones that would work just fine on underground nuclear facilities.

 

That's my point. Lots of people will never support airstrikes against Iran because they've seen what Bush has done to Iraq. Personally I think that when it comes to matters of national security, one needs to divorce their feelings on the Iraq conflict from their feelings about an Iranian campaign. I'm not saying that they should necessarily change their mind, or ignore the mistakes of Iraq. But Iran is a different country with different circumstances, and should be treated as such.

What I'm talking about are limited, tactical strikes, but I doubt it can happen as long as people think "Shock and Awe."

 

I would be opposed to any invasion, but I could potentially support air strikes.

 

Oh, and look, it's about to happen again! The newly elected government of Iraq is so much closer to Iran than Saddam could've ever been. Too bad our puppet didn't fare well in elections, huh?

Also, don't forget that the U.S. exported chemical and biological research material to Iraq. They knew Saddam was using chemical weapons on his people and in Iran, but they didn't seem to care. Ironic, huh?

We've done this in numerous other countries too. Vietnam, Korea, most of Latin America...

 

Why is that a problem? Maybe we actually wanted a proper election, with results that expressed the democratic will of Iraqis?

 

I say take syria out first.

 

I don't think so

 

Iran is being nice since 2001. Leave them be.

 

There's a rapidly closing window of opportunity to deal with Iran. Once they get nuclear weapons, any military action will no longer be an option.

Syria is just a mild pain in the ass, and can be easily brushed aside at any time if necessary. Personally I don't think Syria poses that big of a threat (any threat?) to the United States.

 

If anything, they've stepped up their support of terrorism and they've certainly made no secret of their nuclear program. How exactly are they being nice?

 

Well, I do. You do. Bush says he does. He doesn't REALLY want a free election. He wants someone in power who wants to be strong allies with the U.S.

My point was that throughout history the U.S. has tried to manipulate who is in power in other countries and it inevitably comes back to haunt us. The U.S. helped Saddam because he was an enemy of Iran. Now that Saddam is gone and the ally of Bush didn't win like he had hoped, the future may just repeat itself. We're back to square one, with the supposed problem of Iraq being a strong ally of Iran. Only this time, Iran is rapidly accelerating its nuclear program.

 

It is sometimes forgetten that many of these Iranian officials were trained by U.S. military officials. The Iranians know all of the tactics that the U.S. could potentially use against them now (or would have used to support Iran back when the U.S. had the Shaw installed there), as they were taught these same tactics by the U.S. They know all the same tricks of concealing items and protecting themselves.

It's pretty hard, though, to hide an enrichment facility. This isn't something you do in your garage or basement. It's more a question of how refined the material is and if any is being given out to other groups or being used in a bomb.

 

Personally, I think that any attack on Iran, whether it be an airstrike or invasion would create even greater problems and terrorist attacks around the world against US interests would rise dramatically.

The funny thing is hearing Bush say that he is always in favor of diplomacy. He is the worst president in the history of our nation at using diplomacy for problem solving.

I didn't support the war in Afganistan (despite losing my college roomate in the WTC), the war in Iraq and I wouldn't support a war in Iran or North Korea.

 

to answer your question... no one

 

I don't think, at this time, we'll be going into Iran. Iraq is too unsettled for another invasion. Our troop levels are currently stretched to their limit. Rotations are being delayed. Forces and material are being depleted from South Korea and other areas. Even the coalition supporting the Iraq invasion don't seem to be on board for an Iranian invasion.


Iraq would have to be very tame for a very long time, or Iran gives Pres. Bush a very pressing need for a second invasion. A direct attack by Iran into Iraq or a nuclear strike at Isreal could be the reason.

Back in 1980 or 81, Isreal bombed Iraq nuclear plant, effectlively permanently delaying Hussien's nuclear ambitions. They might be able to do the same again in Iran. Logically I don't know how. Flying from Isreal, over Jordan and Iraq into Iran. Would be a tough mission.