Good Idea to Nuke Iran?

It seems a matter of take the war to them or they bring the way to us.

Hard choice and not one I would like to make.

 

In your search window type the following,
--- PHYSICS 911--- hit search, this is truly amazing stuff. Judge it for yourself.

 

With what I saw on a documentary about the Illuminati last night it does make you wonder...

 

Hmmm...can anyone answer me the following question: why might it be OK for the US to launch a nuclear strike against Iran but not OK for Iran to launch a nuclear strike against the US?

 

Has the US stated emphatically that it wants to wipe another nation off the map for no reason?

 

In-line with all the discussion going on about nuking Iran, here is another interesting web site-------JOHN KAMINSKI ARCHIVES------- I have always known I was not too smart, but at the same time I know there is some smart people people who've specialized in one field and become credible in their statements about that field, I'm just wondering if perhaps all his talk of conspiracy, skull and crossbones faternity, Freemasonry, and all this unbelievable talk and writings might have a grain of truth in it.

 

After closer examination I do not believe that I can trust what this man says on his web site---- JOHN KAMINSKI ARCHIVES----because I believe him to be just another Jew hater and I'm very supportive of the Jewish nation and people therefore I've have made a mistake in my previous post.

 

Good reasons!

 

Whether Iraq was right or wrong... the erosion of Bush's credibility by politically opportunistic liberals and Demcrats leaves us in a precarious place with Iran.

Bush will not be able to develop a policy with teeth... and almost 3 years may be too long to let Iran go. However, if the US and Britain do not act then it is unlikely that anyone will. If we do act then we'll be subjected to more ridicule by the French, Germans, Russians, et al and who knows how bad it could get here at home for Bush.

Daisy's original question goes back to the rhetorical question of whether you would have murdered Hitler had you been alive in 1933 and known what he was about to do.

All that said, Bush has been someone who acted on conviction even when it wasn't popular. I suspect that if he is made to really believe that Iran will pose a threat to the US... he'll fall on his political sword and attack them.

 

Clue to the obviously clueless... Someone already started a worldwide guerilla war against Americans.

Your logic sure would have worked well historically now wouldn't it? Even after Hitler had invaded neighbors... the blind kept hoping that appeasement would work- they probably even shared your equation that responding to aggression would only cause more death and destruction.

Yes, had they left Hitler alone many people wouldn't have died in such a short period. But would that make a justification for allowing Hitler to win the war?

That said: Nukes shouldn't be an option except for deterence or response against a specific target. But even then, nukes probably aren't the best weapon in the arsenal.

Nukes are the most peaceful weapon ever. The threat of their use probably prevented a world war between the Soviet Bloc and West.

Anyone who indiscriminately discuss their use against a people just because of who they are as the Iranians have done... can't be trusted with them.

 

-Different Religion cannot be a reason for US to nuke. ( Buddhist countries are peaceful even though they are wrong)
- Bad Politicians etc cannot be a reason for Nuke attack.

- Petroleum cannot be a reason for Nuke.

The real reason is this.

In the domestic politics, state and government are different from individual. Individuals are supposed to "Love Your Enemies". Government and State are supposed to execute the Justice as a shadow of God's Judgment, in addition to the Grace and Mercy to the individual, and these concept must be balanced under the Divine Justice and Democratic Agreement and Consensus among the people.


Likewise,

There is a certain divine rule even among the international affairs as a shadow of God's Justice until He comes.
Some part of it is International Law about the wars, UN, and IAEA and NPT. Moreover, God has assigned a certain mission to USA as a International Police. If USA doesn't do a good job as the International Police Country, then God will desert US and relocate such responsibility to other country or take any other action necessary.
Therefore all the countries in the world should abide by the laws of the international society.

Now if Iran is defiant against International Law, it means that they are eager to receive the Punishment in any form. This action should not necessarily be thru UN only as UN showed the intrinsic problems often.

Therefore I believe that US can take a certain and sufficient action on the limited spots of Nuke site. If they react, US and other countries should react further. If it expand, yes, we should fight further. We shouldn't be scared about the evil too much.

However, I believe that such action should be minimized to the limited scale only.

 

Good post Eliyahu

 

Of course, silly!

• We're us and they're them.</font>[/QUOTE]

• Silly... Yes silly... and a false not to mention innane innuendo.
  
  No. We are the guys trying to stand for good. Now in the liberal mind perhaps there are no black-white/good-bad standards. But both biblically and experentially, there are.
  
  True enough... but whereas our belief in God demands that we allow freedom of conscience and life to even those who disagree with us... the Muslim conviction that they worship the real God makes no such accommodation.
  
  Muslims believe they have the true religion... but would deny rights and possibly even life to those who dissent. Biblical (fundamental/orthodox) Christians believe we have the true religion but see absolutely no merit in forced conversions or violation of those who differ according to conscience.
  
  If that were the operating principle... we wouldn't have waited this long to act on Iraq or Iran... or N Korea or several other thorns in our side.
  
  That's an interesting thing to say... since I am aware of no conservative or fundamentalist who has ever said it. So basically you are putting words in the mouths of your opposition... the same thing as lying.
  
  God has allowed us to have those weapons. His purpose is His alone.
  
  I don't think you are judging from the things in this list.
  
  This is possibly the only true thing you've said. Isolationism worked moderately well when the world was larger and the weapons had much less destructive power.
  
  We no longer live in a big world. You can fly to the US in a day from virtually any inhabited point on the globe. You can fit a weapon more potent than ordinance spent in the whole Civil War in the trunk of a car.
  
  So yes, if you have someone who might be a Hitler then you better stop him very early on.
  
  What they believe, preach, and do is evil...
  
  True. And the difference between the American design and the fascist design is that individuals are afforded rights and liberties... even if they use them to say things contrary to the protection of those rights and liberties against fascists.
  
  If you like your lifestyle... then we need to have some control over those reserves.
  
  I personally don't like our dependence on their oil or indirect funding of those who, yes, hate us for our trouble. I would love to see America using renewable energy sources... but that simply isn't practical right now.
  
  Are you saying they don't? And why do they hate us?
  
  Is it because of things that we have done to them? If so, it is the most irrational hatred in history. We have enriched them and even turned around and sent them aid. Have we attempted to destroy them from the face of the earth? Suppress Islam? What? Are we wrong for supporting Israel's right to exist? If so, take a look at a map. A very small nation of a few million people... surrounded by a massive area of about 1 billion.
  
  That... is the understatement of the century.
  
  Daisy do you doubt that a significant minority of Muslims believe that Jihad mandates that infidels either convert, accept permanent second class status, or die? Do you doubt that this same element makes the Hitleresque hatred of Jews and determination for their destruction a central theme of their religion... the very core of what it means to be who they are?

 

One thing, the reason why we should limit the scale to the minimum is because we cannot replace God with us, what God will eventually do with human actions.

The final action will be taken by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge. But until He comes, there are some things to be done by ourselves too.

We are individuals, but the governments and states are responsible for the order and for the justice. If they don't take the action properly, they should be decomposed, which is attested by the history.

 

Scott J said:

"Someone already started a worldwide guerrilla war against Americans."


I do not think we have seen the full force of a guerrilla war against the United States Scott J
bush has exacerbated that, if we use a major munition or a nuclear device against Iran I believe we would see the whole world begrudge us
and even more would actively take up vengeance to harm us at home and abroad as it stands now it is the Al Qaeda movement that is active against us you would see that multiply if we bomb Iran. In other words more than Al Qaeda will join the ranks.

bush should never have used deception and fear mongering to get us into a mess...but perhaps there was money to be made in Iraq or so they thought.

Scott J your Hitler analogy is bogus and clueless we are talking about here and now ..and how a leader has used deception(attribute of anti-christ) and fear mongering to lead us into a mess that without wisdom but his gut! and the neo- cons he had whispering in his ear. Perhaps you should be speaking truth to power like the 6 brave military leaders are doing now. It is not about the bogus appeasement straw man but it is about wisdom.

The world used to really love and like us ..now the world is thrown into turmoil of dislike and hate for us and those numbers will grow if we bomb Iran. We have not been wise during the bush
tenure ..we have squandered our faith into fear.

 

Clue to the obviously clueless... Someone already started a worldwide guerilla war against Americans.

Your logic sure would have worked well historically now wouldn't it? Even after Hitler had invaded neighbors... the blind kept hoping that appeasement would work- they probably even shared your equation that responding to aggression would only cause more death and destruction.

Yes, had they left Hitler alone many people wouldn't have died in such a short period. But would that make a justification for allowing Hitler to win the war?

That said: Nukes shouldn't be an option except for deterence or response against a specific target. But even then, nukes probably aren't the best weapon in the arsenal.

Nukes are the most peaceful weapon ever. The threat of their use probably prevented a world war between the Soviet Bloc and West.

Anyone who indiscriminately discuss their use against a people just because of who they are as the Iranians have done... can't be trusted with them. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, the intellligent voice of reason to whom many do not listen. Your posts are always so refreshingly full of wisdom and lacking of emotional spin, Scott. I salute you.

I don't know who came up with the idea that nukes would be needed. Probably some retired logistics manager. (Nothing again logistics, it is certainly prime importance, but just not the expertise area.) It seems all of these retired guys are trying to make a living as experts on the News Networks. Many have no idea what we are doing today. This is like computers. Last war's high-tech are obsolete.

Munitions have improved greatly since Viet Nam. Iraq got to feel some of their sting in places most people don't know about even though the New Media made many public.

We don't have to use a MASS weapon to do jobs.

Scott is right. We have already unleashed the wrath of the fundamentalist Muslim. Most of the insurgents are funneled through Syria, but originate in Iran.

Is an invasion of Iran an option? I doubt it, that would be something that would be unlike anything we saw in Iraq, but we are certainly not beyond a few surgical strikes to put them in the technological dark-age.

They are sabre rattling, right now. They have already declared war on us. They just haven't put it in writing.

They declared war the day they said they would see to the destruction of Israel.

It is funny how Irael can protect themselves from terrorism amidst nations that would like to make them glow forever and we Americans (who bailed everybody out in WWII) shake in our boots at our first terrorist attacks.

 

Clue to the obviously clueless... Someone already started a worldwide guerilla war against Americans.

Your logic sure would have worked well historically now wouldn't it? Even after Hitler had invaded neighbors... the blind kept hoping that appeasement would work- they probably even shared your equation that responding to aggression would only cause more death and destruction.

Yes, had they left Hitler alone many people wouldn't have died in such a short period. But would that make a justification for allowing Hitler to win the war?

That said: Nukes shouldn't be an option except for deterence or response against a specific target. But even then, nukes probably aren't the best weapon in the arsenal.

Nukes are the most peaceful weapon ever. The threat of their use probably prevented a world war between the Soviet Bloc and West.

Anyone who indiscriminately discuss their use against a people just because of who they are as the Iranians have done... can't be trusted with them. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Yes. Just like Churchill "exacerbated" Hitler's aggression by taking a stand against him. Of course the aggressor doesn't have to expend as much energy to defeat an enemy that offers no resistance... but that is a far cry from "peace".

Yes... it is far better to let that maniac develop nukes... Lord forbid the world should begrudge us though. Have you been watching the news? Have you read Moussaoui's words? How about those coming out of Iran?

Actually Al Qaeda is only the most prominent. There are others that have long been at war with America.

But again, you propose that we let these people win and impose their will on the world because resistance might have near term costs. The costs of not taking a stand are far greater in the long run. History repeatedly bears this out.

Again, they aren't alone now.

He didn't. That is simply a lie that you have chosen to believe and repeat. He recognized Saddam as a threat and based decisions on what to do about him on the available intelligence.

Saddam was a threat. Period. There is really no disputing that. The question that Bush has been raked over the coals on is how immediate of a threat he was- which is purely academic.

Or perhaps you are simply blinded by hatred for Bush.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. As a matter of fact, the History Channel recently ran a program detailing the origins and ideology of the Baathists. They are fascists. Their founder was enamoured with the person and ideology of Hitler.

Saddam, like Hitler, was a sadistic, aggressor with dreams of ruling the world.

You haven't proven that he has done so. You've assumed that because YOU want to... because you hate Bush. Hate is not a lense good for discerning the truth.

Nope. Your contention is that the problem of Saddam would have gone away if we had simply appeased him and that our current problems will go away if we just try to talk it out with Iran. History and wisdom are decidedly against you.

Really? When? Not very much in my lifetime and certainly not since the end of the Cold War. Without the threat of the USSR, the real feelings of our "allies" have been free to surface.

Very much akin to saying that a bank has been thrown into turmoil because the police showed up to stop a robbery and engaged the criminals in a gun battle.