How Stupid Would It Be To Bomb Iran?

[MaddLlama]

Has the government actually said they have some evidence that Iran is involved in anything? It seems like what's happening is the government officials said it, and the journalists just ate it up and unquestioningly published it without asking for any substantiating proof. So far, there's been no real critical analysis about this, and it's being published as if this is the absolute truth. Don't assume everything government officials say is true - that ought to be a cardinal rule of journalism
Did we not learn any lessons from Iraq? Apparently not...

 

[Scuba Pete]

This all goes back to the Repblican doctrine of "WWJB":

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
​

If you're a Christian wanting this to happen, can I ask what ever became of "Turn the other cheek"??? They havn't even attacked us yet and you are willing to throw out the scriptures? Or how about that directive to "as far as it depends on you" to live at PEACE with EVERYONE???

Nah, I guess WWJB is just sexier. We return now to your war mongering.

 

[Reverend Rick]

As long as we are bombing military facilities, I don't see why it would be stupid. It would be stupid to put troops on the ground.

:yes:

 

[Scuba Pete]

Here we have a vote that Jesus would bomb ONLY military facilities. Who's next to play that wacky game...

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Reminds of that Marine Sargeant who said "Kill 'em all and let Jesus sort 'em out!"


​

 

[Comprehend]

This all goes back to the Repblican doctrine of "WWJB":

Who Would Jesus Bomb? ​

If you're a Christian wanting this to happen, can I ask what ever became of "Turn the other cheek"??? They havn't even attacked us yet and you are willing to throw out the scriptures? Or how about that directive to "as far as it depends on you" to live at PEACE with EVERYONE???

Nah, I guess WWJB is just sexier. We return now to your war mongering.

Hmm. Somebody has forgotten their bible. Could somebody remind me what Jesus does to the wicked when He returns?

Oh yeah. Kills them all....

Pete, I hate to break it to you but turn the other cheek is a personal commandment not one to a government or society. To be consistant with that position, you would also have to say that the Government cannot punish criminals, ever for any crime. We would have to just "turn the other cheek" and live peacefully with them. LOL. yeah, that would work...:slap:

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh yeah. Kills them all...:slap:

Comprehend ups the ante with KILLS THEM ALL (and let God sort them out?) No scripture to verify his position, but who cares? We're playing...

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Get your self righteousness out and let's see who we can bomb next! Just be sure you don't end up as a heretic 'cause it would ruin your day! FWIW, I left my last church because they sound just like you!
​

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Has the government actually said they have some evidence that Iran is involved in anything? It seems like what's happening is the government officials said it, and the journalists just ate it up and unquestioningly published it without asking for any substantiating proof. So far, there's been no real critical analysis about this, and it's being published as if this is the absolute truth. Don't assume everything government officials say is true - that ought to be a cardinal rule of journalism
Did we not learn any lessons from Iraq? Apparently not...

I'm not saying we should bomb them without proof. I'm saying, in the evidence of proof, bomb their military facilities, not their cities. Iran doesn't have all their facilities hidden in civilian areas like Iraq, so there is a much smaller chance of civilian casualties. I feel no animosity toward the Iranian people whatsoever, but their government is trying to take them all to war.

 

[standing_alone]

I'm not saying we should bomb them without proof. I'm saying, in the evidence of proof, bomb their military facilities, not their cities. Iran doesn't have all their facilities hidden in civilian areas like Iraq, so there is a much smaller chance of civilian casualties. I feel no animosity toward the Iranian people whatsoever, but their government is trying to take them all to war.

I tend to agree with this POV. While we certainly need to learn from our experience in Iraq, we also need to continue to assess the threat posed by Iran. I guess what I'm trying to say is we can't let our mess in Iraq make us turn a blind eye to either Iran itself or to potential courses of action against Iran if that country starts to pose an even bigger threat. However, thanks to our mess in Iraq, we would likely be sorely equipped to take any large action against Iran if the need be, nor, as our experience in Iraq indicates, would it likely be a good idea. Bombing military targets, should credible evidence suggest the urgency to do so, seems a reasonable course of action.

 

[Comprehend]

Comprehend ups the ante with KILLS THEM ALL (and let God sort them out?) No scripture to verify his position, but who cares? We're playing...

Get your self righteousness out and let's see who we can bomb next! Just be sure you don't end up as a heretic 'cause it would ruin your day! FWIW, I left my last church because they sound just like you!​

once again you are forced to misrepresent my post and refuse to respond to my points.

Are you unable to respond to my argument? If you are able, how about you try?

Pete: Please try to answer this question: Would you let Hitler run free and never stop him? If your answer is that you would stop him. You are a hypocrite. :yes: If your answer is no, you are crazy. :yes:

 

[MaddLlama]

I'm not saying we should bomb them without proof. I'm saying, in the evidence of proof, bomb their military facilities, not their cities. Iran doesn't have all their facilities hidden in civilian areas like Iraq, so there is a much smaller chance of civilian casualties. I feel no animosity toward the Iranian people whatsoever, but their government is trying to take them all to war.

Ok, but even talking about bombing anything before we have anything more than circumstantial evidence is getting way ahead of the game. Why not wait until we have some sort of real idea, and proof of what's going on before we start even talking about bombing their military facilities?

 

[Comprehend]

No scripture to verify his position, but who cares?

I'm sorry peter, I assumed you were familiar with the bible....

Matt 13:49-50
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matt 21:40-41
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

2 Thes 2:8
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Gen 19:12-13
12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this place:
13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

Gen 38:7
7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.

Rev 16:1-7
1 AND I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and [upon] them which worshipped his image.
3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead [man]: and every living soul died in the sea.
4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

Rev 18:4-8
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.

20 Rejoice over her, [thou] heaven, and [ye] holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

Rev 19:1-2
1 AND after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
2 For true and righteous [are] his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

Rev 19:11-20
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Matt 3:10-12
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matt 13:30
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

[NoahideHiker]

The "Who would Jesus bomb?" thing is a bit of a misgnomer because everyone assumes Jesus was the ultimate non violent teacher who always turned the other cheek. If Jesus is so non violent why did he tell his disciples to go buy a sword to carry before they went out to preach? So they could defend themselves.

 

[McBell]

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Noone knows.
He isn't here to ask.

All you, or anyone else, can do is read through the Bible and then make guesses as to what Jesus would do.

Seems to me that this little fact makes your whole WWJB a wee bit asinine.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Ok, but even talking about bombing anything before we have anything more than circumstantial evidence is getting way ahead of the game. Why not wait until we have some sort of real idea, and proof of what's going on before we start even talking about bombing their military facilities?

Because I think we need to be clear about our intentions, to Iran and the rest of the world. Such talk should remain conditional on clear proof of Iranian influence in Iraq, which can easily be considered an act of war against the United States. Then, simply state that while we do not want to harm the Iranian people, the Iranian government has forced our hand, and we will begin bombing military facilities.

I think having clear and honest intentions is important.

 

[michel]

I tend to agree with this POV. While we certainly need to learn from our experience in Iraq, we also need to continue to assess the threat posed by Iran. I guess what I'm trying to say is we can't let our mess in Iraq make us turn a blind eye to either Iran itself or to potential courses of action against Iran if that country starts to pose an even bigger threat. However, thanks to our mess in Iraq, we would likely be sorely equipped to take any large action against Iran if the need be, nor, as our experience in Iraq indicates, would it likely be a good idea. Bombing military targets, should credible evidence suggest the urgency to do so, seems a reasonable course of action.

Good points; but, if like Iraq, they use human shields................?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Ok, but even talking about bombing anything before we have anything more than circumstantial evidence is getting way ahead of the game. Why not wait until we have some sort of real idea, and proof of what's going on before we start even talking about bombing their military facilities?

This is not a trial, this is a war on terror that knows no boundaries. We are in a different age and time and are beating the enemy at their own game.

Tactically speaking, a preemptive strike is better than waiting for your enemy to be caught captured and convicted. All is fair in love and war. I for one am not going to wait for the second holocaust in 100 years.

The reason we have not done as well in warfare lately is we are trying to fight a politically correct war.

 

[McBell]

This is not a trial, this is a war on terror that knows no boundaries. We are in a different age and time and are beating the enemy at their own game.

We are?
Al quaeda is trembling in their boots?
I have yet to see any evidence of this.
Besides which, you cannot uphold the law by breaking the law.

Tactically speaking, a preemptive strike is better than waiting for your enemy to be caught captured and convicted. All is fair in love and war. I for one am not going to wait for the second holocaust in 100 years.

So it is better to just take the 'Amercian Cowboy" approach and hope for the best?

The reason we have not done as well in warfare lately is we are trying to fight a politically correct war.

I do not understand what you mean.
Please elaborate on this.

 

[MaddLlama]

This is not a trial, this is a war on terror that knows no boundaries. We are in a different age and time and are beating the enemy at their own game.

Tactically speaking, a preemptive strike is better than waiting for your enemy to be caught captured and convicted. All is fair in love and war. I for one am not going to wait for the second holocaust in 100 years.

The reason we have not done as well in warfare lately is we are trying to fight a politically correct war.

So, then what you're saying is that we should bomb countries if we just think they might want to hurt us? Even if our intelligence is baseless, or even worse, fabricated?
I'm not saying "let's wait another 10 years and see what happens", but having circumstantial evidence but no real proof of involvement isn't exactly a good reason to bomb a country. Unless, of course, you're one of those types that thinks that we ought to solve the problem by "bombing the middle east back to the stone age"?

Do you trust everything the government tells you?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Just how stupid would it be to bomb Iran? Why would it be stupid? Or, if you by chance think it would be smart, then why would it be smart?

I voted so stupid only Cheney and Bush will do it. So, if the bombing did not happen during Cheney / Bush time, and it happens in the future by the next President, that President is as stupid as Cheney and Bush.

Let the US people ask themselves this question: What do the people of US gain by bombing Iran?

Nothing, nothing at all, at the current political situation. It is not going to improve the US control of the middle east situation. It may help to prevent China from getting more oil from Iran, and prevent China from growing economically and millitarily. But what has that to do with benefit to the US?

Will bombing of Iran save Israel from being obliterated from the middle east? It may. But what benefit will that bring to the US people with the continueing existence or non existence of Israel? If the Jews currently residing in Israel were forced to leave Israel and move to other countries, how will that adversely affect the life of US people?

On the other hand, bombing Iran will lead to more war and battle, Islamic fundamentalists and extremists will be likely to attract more people to their cause, and US will then have to spend more money and effort to tighten her homeland security, life in US will be made more miserable etc. So the consequence of bombing Iran will just bring instability to the whole world, and when that happens, life of the US people be become more miserable.

I see no benefit at all in bombing Iran except:
(1) US capitalists invovled in weapon trades will make a fortune for themselves.
(2) US neo con will have the satisfaction of showing the world of their power, fulfilling their superiority complex.
(3) US Christian extremist will have the satisfaction of having another crusade, defending their belief, and attempting to defeat the Muslim, claiming their God is the true god.
(4) Fulfilling the ego of some US people that they are the defender of freedom of the world, etc etc.....

 

[Reverend Rick]

I voted so stupid only Cheney and Bush will do it. So, if the bombing did not happen during Cheney / Bush time, and it happens in the future by the next President, that President is as stupid as Cheney and Bush.

First off, Bush and Cheney have not done this.
Second, If their so stupid, that speaks volumes about Kerry and Edwards. They were unable to win an election against their so called stupid opponents

 

[kiwimac]

Yes. But the public opinion of the world would have a cow. We have had tactical nukes since the 60's. Now we also have bunker buster bombs capable of deep underground penetration.

Combine the two and you have something akin to an underground mini-nuke. This will work to take out the sites. There are some estimates that the program is spread out over 30 or more locations, most underground. It would take a large group of fighters or bombers but with the precision guidance systems of today, if we know where the target is, we can probably hit it.

As a side note. Israel could also do this job. The US sold Israel bunker busters last year or two years ago (I forget) for just this purpose. Israel has nuclear technology and their Air Force is actually better than ours so they can definitely do the job.

Personally, I think Israel is about to do the job. 1. They are the most threatened by the situtation. 2. They have shown that they will do it when they bombed Iraq's reactor (provided by the French and Chiraq) in the 1980's. 3. The United States has recently moved a second carrier into the gulf for no apparent reason but I think it is to provide refueling and logistical support for an Israeli air-strike on Iran if needed. (The Israeli fighters cannot make the trip without refueling). 4. AND THE BIGGIE. Israel is rumored to have just asked permission for a flight corridor over Iraq for just this purpose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml

"Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon."

Ah yes, let us not forget ONLY the US and Israel are allowed to have nuclear weapons in the Middle East, God forbid another sovereign nation might want them.