Syria

[pettie4sox]

Do you have money to go to war with Iran? Or are you hoping the US drops MOAB and ends it in one shot? I don't know you and if you have served or not but it seems that people who are biggest cheerleaders for war are the ones that are sitting behind their keyboards.

 

As for your what's popular what's not popular; If you haven't seen the sheer divisiveness stirring up in the US over the past few years than I don't know what to say. People are ready to find a reason to do something stupid and revolt. I believe another war could be the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

IMHO.

[StrangeSox]

yeah I'm not down with that, I wouldn't imagine that much of the liberal/left would be either. Intervention in cases like Libya, Mali or Syria are somewhat complex and you'll find a wide range of views on the left over the merits, but that's a bit different from direct war with Iran.

[Soxbadger]

Really?

 

Most of the liberals I know dont care about Iran. Only so much sabre rattling before even the biggest pacifist will say enough is enough.

 

I was against the Iraq war from day 1. Iran, theyve earned what is coming.

 

[Balta1701]

yeah I'm not down with that, I wouldn't imagine that much of the liberal/left would be either. Intervention in cases like Libya, Mali or Syria are somewhat complex and you'll find a wide range of views on the left over the merits, but that's a bit different from direct war with Iran.

Hell, my "stay the Hell out of another clusterf***" in Libya position is looking more accurate by the day.

[Soxbadger]

Do you have money to go to war with Iran? Or are you hoping the US drops MOAB and ends it in one shot? I don't know you and if you have served or not but it seems that people who are biggest cheerleaders for war are the ones that are sitting behind their keyboards.

 

As for your what's popular what's not popular; If you haven't seen the sheer divisiveness stirring up in the US over the past few years than I don't know what to say. People are ready to find a reason to do something stupid and revolt. I believe another war could be the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

IMHO.

 

 

I just dont see this as a divisive issue. Iran has made enemies with everyone. They will step over the line and I expect the US will respond.

 

Iran wants a war, they are going to get one soon enough. There is nothing the US can do. Just like when the Japanese attacked the US, they went over a line that there is no going back from.

 

yeah I'm not down with that, I wouldn't imagine that much of the liberal/left would be either. Intervention in cases like Libya, Mali or Syria are somewhat complex and you'll find a wide range of views on the left over the merits, but that's a bit different from direct war with Iran.

 

So you think that liberals are going to be against intervention in Iran when Iran starts attacking Israel?

 

Check the war with Iraq in 1990. It was hugely supported and that was about protecting "Kuwait".

 

No one is going to bat an eye over Iran once they target Israel. Maybe the most anti-war, but that will be such a small minority.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

Hell, my "stay the Hell out of another clusterf***" in Libya position is looking more accurate by the day.

 

Libya is a far more tricky issue than Iran attacking Israel and the US getting involved.

 

That is a no brainer and I cant believe that people actually think it will be divisive. The US wont make the first move, its just going to keep pressing Iran until it does something.

[StrangeSox]

hard to compare the general attitudes in 1990-1991 to 2013 what with us still winding down the two longest wars in our history right next door to Iran.

 

edit: you're still going to have majority support but there's a sizable number of people that don't want war with Iran:

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

Edited February 1, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

hard to compare the general attitudes in 1990-1991 to 2013 what with us still winding down the two longest wars in our history right next door to Iran.

 

edit: you're still going to have majority support but there's a sizable number of people that don't want war with Iran:

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

 

lol

 

You have over 50% support to attack Iran just over building nuclear weapons.

 

Imagine if the question was:

 

"Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran has attacked Israel?"

 

Im guessing you are somewhere at 70-80% which is almost unimaginably high.

 

(edit)

 

To conclude, the numbers already support my position that the majority are fine attacking Iran, let alone if Iran does something aggressive.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Soxbadger

[mr_genius]

"Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran has attacked Israel?"

 

oppose

Edited February 1, 2013 by mr_genius

[Soxbadger]

no

 

Thats because you're an Obama fan and anti-Israel.

 

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/obama-most-...ent-history-usa

 

http://freebeacon.com/iran-state-tv-praise...agel-selection/

 

http://aclj.org/israel/stop-president-obam...rael-nomination

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4287299,00.html

 

 

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

stay the Hell out of another clusterf***" in Libya

 

that would be the rational thing to do, therefore i suspect there will be bipartisan support in congress to intervene in Libya.

[Soxbadger]

Isolationism has worked so well in the past. Its never resulted in the US having to expend more money and man power than if the US had just gotten involved to start.

 

Oh irony, now it is the "liberals" who are the isolationists and it is the "conservatives" who are not.

 

I just dont understand how anyone who claims to be a liberal, can also want isolationism. Those are mutually exclusive. If you truly care about the plight of people, then you would want someone to interfere on behalf of the weak. Regardless of the cost to yourself.

 

This is like welfare or universal health care, which are generally considered a liberal policies.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Soxbadger

[mr_genius]

Thats because you're an Obama fan and anti-Israel.

 

Obama aside, I certainly don't think the US needs to battle for Israel. They can defeat Iran on their own. It would be like if a friend of mine got into a fight with a obviously weaker opponent. I wouldn't jump in and go for the total beat down. I would either let things play out or convince them that what they are doing is stupid.

 

[Balta1701]

Libya is a far more tricky issue than Iran attacking Israel and the US getting involved.

 

That is a no brainer and I cant believe that people actually think it will be divisive. The US wont make the first move, its just going to keep pressing Iran until it does something.

At what point did "Iran attacking Israel" become a part of this discussion? Particularly since most of the discussion, including this strike, involves Israel making the first move.

 

If Iran were to actually strike an Israeli city, then yes of course, go ahead and decimate them, just remember that it'll cost us another $5 trillion to rebuild the country.

[StrangeSox]

Thats because you're an Obama fan and anti-Israel.

 

http://freebeacon.com/iran-state-tv-praise...agel-selection/

 

lol free beacon

[StrangeSox]

Isolationism has worked so well in the past. Its never resulted in the US having to expend more money and man power than if the US had just gotten involved to start.

 

Oh irony, now it is the "liberals" who are the isolationists and it is the "conservatives" who are not.

 

I just dont understand how anyone who claims to be a liberal, can also want isolationism. Those are mutually exclusive. If you truly care about the plight of people, then you would want someone to interfere on behalf of the weak. Regardless of the cost to yourself.

 

This is like welfare or universal health care, which are generally considered a liberal policies.

 

yo, Iran is full of people I've got no beef with

[StrangeSox]

lol

 

You have over 50% support to attack Iran just over building nuclear weapons.

 

Imagine if the question was:

 

"Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran has attacked Israel?"

 

Im guessing you are somewhere at 70-80% which is almost unimaginably high.

 

(edit)

 

To conclude, the numbers already support my position that the majority are fine attacking Iran, let alone if Iran does something aggressive.

 

Well, you said "liberals" originally, not "majority of the people."

[Soxbadger]

Obama aside, I certainly don't think the US needs to battle for Israel. They can defeat Iran on their own. It would be like if a friend of mine got into a fight with a obviously weaker opponent. I wouldn't jump in and go for the total beat down. I would either let things play out or convince them that what they are doing is stupid.

 

Im not 100% sure that Israel can take Iran, etc on their own. The reason is that if it is just Israel v Iran, its likely that other middle east countries will swarm.

 

With US backing some of those countries may stay on the sidelines or just try and get involved via terrorism. The problem is that there is really no situation that will occur where its just Israel v Iran, the US is going to be targeted regardless.

[pettie4sox]

For every "oh s***,why war?" American there is probably an Iranian saying the same thing. Iran's government is bad news. The citizens are probably just trying to get by like Americans.

[Soxbadger]

At what point did "Iran attacking Israel" become a part of this discussion? Particularly since most of the discussion, including this strike, involves Israel making the first move.

 

If Iran were to actually strike an Israeli city, then yes of course, go ahead and decimate them, just remember that it'll cost us another $5 trillion to rebuild the country.

 

The entire premise of the argument is that Iran is going to do things to continue to escalate.

 

I guess we could also talk about a different hypothetical where Israel attacks Iran unprovoked and without the US telling them to.

 

But I was sticking with the, US is fully aware of Israel's operations and is giving them the okay. Thus if Iran does anything in response, the US would likely get involved.

 

As for the money aspect, money isnt everything. And regardless of the costs of WWII, it was the right thing to do to get involved. Even if most of Europe never repaid us. You cant put a price on doing the right thing.

 

yo, Iran is full of people I've got no beef with

 

You would fit right in with 1930's isolationists. According to Y2hh, most people in Germany werent Nazi's so we shouldnt have gotten involved, because we didnt want to hurt the innocent Germans.

 

Well, you said "liberals" originally, not "majority of the people."

 

I said "even liberals". I never said the majority, I never put a figure on it. I just said "even liberals" meaning that there would "even be some liberals" who would support it.

 

Why? A majority of Jews vote democrat. They are almost always going to be okay with protecting Israel against Iran.

[Balta1701]

The entire premise of the argument is that Iran is going to do things to continue to escalate.

 

I guess we could also talk about a different hypothetical where Israel attacks Iran unprovoked and without the US telling them to.

 

But I was sticking with the, US is fully aware of Israel's operations and is giving them the okay. Thus if Iran does anything in response, the US would likely get involved.

Escalate does not equal attack. Iran isn't stupid. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an actual military strike against Israel ends their regime. And hell, they flat out might not have any capacity to hit Israel if Israel's missile defense system is all its cracked up to be.

[Soxbadger]

For every "oh s***,why war?" American there is probably an Iranian saying the same thing. Iran's government is bad news. The citizens are probably just trying to get by like Americans.

 

It is unfortunate, but we are judged by those who we elect to lead.

 

Im sure that were a lot of innocent (insert Native Americans, Japanese, Germans, Vietnamese, Korean) but the rest of the world cant sit idly by, just because the innocents of the country are letting the villains do what they want.

 

You have to take responsibility for your lot.

[StrangeSox]

You would fit right in with 1930's isolationists. According to Y2hh, most people in Germany werent Nazi's so we shouldnt have gotten involved, because we didnt want to hurt the innocent Germans.

 

nah

 

edit: I mean I could support the opposition to Germany while still deploring the Dresden bombing or the idea of decimating the German people.

Edited February 1, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I said "even liberals". I never said the majority, I never put a figure on it. I just said "even liberals" meaning that there would "even be some liberals" who would support it.

 

Why? A majority of Jews vote democrat. They are almost always going to be okay with protecting Israel against Iran.

 

your statement was ambiguous but if that's what you meant okay.

[Soxbadger]

Escalate does not equal attack. Iran isn't stupid. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an actual military strike against Israel ends their regime. And hell, they flat out might not have any capacity to hit Israel if Israel's missile defense system is all its cracked up to be.

 

Well if Iran isnt going to do anything, then I see no reason why Israel would do anything.

 

Im pretty sure the US and Israel are happy with the status quo where they are able to do whatever they want.

 

But the entire premise was based on Iran threatening to get involved over Isarel striking Syria.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-575668...ver-air-strike/

 

Strangesox,

 

If you didnt get the joke with me posting those articles, its that 99% of the time its Republicans attacking Obama for being "anti-israel" so I thought it would be fun to use them