Part of my atheism and humanism is my pacifism. However as a realist and a rationalist, and from what I am seeing in the news, war with Iran is a forgone conclusion. Even if we don't attack preemptively, in all likelihood Israel will and we will be bound to support them. This war will be bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined and there is a huge chance Russia may support Iran.
A third war. It's tragic and terrifying. Just as one war ended and talk of withdrawing from Afghanistan begins to move forward, the war hawks have their eyes on yet another conflict.
This one however is not easy.
As an atheist, I can see how the influence of extreme Islam, and the might of the ultimate seat of power the Khomeini, will indeed push Iran in the direction of acquiring a nuclear bomb. So when they say they are looking to nuclear power for peaceful means, can we take them on their word? Can even inspectors tell us the truth? If the country was not a theocracy, perhaps we would not have this problem.
However, part of me wants to acknowledge history, whereas we were so certain their were wmds in Iraq.
I just don't know what to believe any more or whom.I'm scared for my children. I don't want this country to end up in another war.
Is there another option? What about waiting for the worst case scenario; they acquire a bomb and there goes most of Israel or a city in the US? Then when we attack and at least it will be justified? I just don't know.
Where do do you stand? How does this affect you and your family? Does your atheism have anything to do with it? Is this an inevitable course of events?
Back in the old days they would kill all the men and all the sons in village or city for this very reason... if there isn't anyone to seek revenge then you don't have a problem and having a bunch of new women was a plus. Of course I wouldn't ever suggest this as being okay it does make you think how different our idea of war is then our ancestors though. It also sends a powerful message about how powerful revenge is that it caused people so much fear that it was preferable to slaughter a bunch of people.
Back in the old days you didn't have word-wide communication nevermind the interweb. Retaliation would be happen even if all the sons were killed as well.
Yeah much different world indeed. Communication has really made war so much more difficult to justify to a populace if you can see the soldiers or people stuck in the middle being killed.
Yes. Exactly. But what does a raid do? It stops an immediate threat. Isn’t that all we are trying to accomplish.
Look, I don’t agree with Bush’s Iraq, it was a bad decision…. Everybody knows that. History will show that it was. But when Bush stood on the aircraft carrier and said “Mission Accomplished” and had he actually meant it – pulled all American Forces out at that time….. He would have been a hero. Ok maybe hero is a stretch, but history would have shed a much better light on his presidency if he would have conducted a raid vs. an occupation. Go in, destroy their military, set them back 10-20 years in their military technology…. We have stopped an immediate threat. Sure they will eventually become a problem later on down the road that we will have to deal with…. But I would rather do that than trying to conduct nation building and winning their hearts at the cost of our solder’s lives.
Hopefully I'll be standing very far away from either one of the two countries.
First off Iran has openly said if Israel attacks them they will attack the US.
Second Iran infiltrated US computers and servers that control our un-manned aircraft and successfully landed one of our drones in their military base. That alone is grounds for war. More then likely, from what I've read and haven taken from what I've read, war with Iran will start as a cyber war.
I wouldn't support us attacking them but we need to draw a line in the sand and if they pass it then we do something. As for Russia siding with them? Who cares? They talk and talk but don't do anything to help the situation. No one does. The UN should be stepping up so the US isn't playing daddy.
I am against this war but if my number is called I will go and I think this war will happen. How long would you let someone try and walk all over you, taunt you, and lie to you before you did something about it?
But like G. Michael Williams said. "Should we impose our values?" No. Absolutely not.
The idea that Russia would put themselves on the line for Iran is laughable in my opinion. The Russians see everyone else as being useful idiots that they can use. The Iranians are useful to Russia yes but it's also kind of pain in the ass for them as well. When it comes down to it Russia is interested in making money and if they see a change in the wind they will do the smart thing and welcome the new leaders so they can establish new business with the new guys in charge. Hey and if they don't have to do the dirty work of dealing with the pain in the ass even better they can even make money on the old guys in charge while they try to hold on to power while causing more problems to economic rivals like the U.S and other European nations. No the Russians are more interested in the former Soviet Republics that it wants to bring back into the fold using economic weapons like their pipelines or schemes where they grant people citizenship in areas of unrest so that they can say they are protecting Russian citizens by moving "peace keepers" in. That and the members of the European Union combined and United States are the major trading partners for the Russians far more then the Iranians who they have robust trade with yes but nothing in comparison.
Israel is the USA's bitch... or is it the other way around?
As far as I'm concerned, Iran has no business developing nuclear technologies until they become stable and peaceful. Furthermore, only a moron would believe any claim of "strictly peaceful purposes" for Iran's nuclear ambitions. Their nuclear facilities should be destroyed BEFORE they achieve weapons-grade capabilities -- not after.
The problem is: how do we destroy their hardened, underground, facilities without using nuclear weapons? Hell, they might even withstand a direct nuclear hit. It will take boots on the ground to make sure we've removed their nuclear capabilities.
It's unfortunate that Iran has taken this path. But the world simply can't afford the threat of a nuclear Iran. Period.
To my point of view, you're not being realistic enough.
It's crystal clear to me that Iran must not be allowed to go nuclear. I have no problem whatsoever with that position or its many implications.
Spoken like one from a mature nation with reason and consideration of the consequences. We, unfortunately, are an immature nation that is unsophisticated in the art of diplomacy and filled with the hubris of a nation that was the last one standing after the last great conflagration.
The reality is that Iran is a clever foe that will tweak our noses because it amuses them to do it. They set up demons like the US and Israel to rally their populace and keep attention off their domestic problems. I doubt they would attempt a conventional war because it would be costly and they can cut us a thousand times by using proxies. When will we learn that no nation will fight us mano a mano anymore. That only plays to our strengths. The next wars with inferior forces will be asymmetrical. IED's and that kind of thing. Iran has almost 78 million people and compulsory military service. They won't be a pushover. They are clever and shrewd. We would be wise to heed your caution.
Yes, the very same political strategies used by 'Western' governments to silence people here. At the political level, all politicians are very similar.