Gator Country

Dreamliner · 03-21-2013, 10:01 AM

New Pew Poll shows substantial majority (and majority of both parties) say it is more important to prevent Iran from having a nuke than to avoid a war:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/...-wary-of-iran/

MichiGator2002 · 03-21-2013, 10:06 AM

What does that study have to do with your thread title? Americans can be tired of war and still not be so ignorant, naive, and suicidal as to not recognize that the situation in the world might call for it. I mean, you might think pediatric oncologists don't get tired of meeting yet another 4 year old with terminal cancer, since, after all, they show up to work.

Dreamliner · 03-21-2013, 10:09 AM

It means that Americans are clearly not tired of war, D'uh! If they were tired of war, they'd oppose fighting wars on the flimsy pretense that bad people are always out to get us (absent our meddling) or that we are tasked to be the world's policeman.

cocodrilo · 03-21-2013, 10:15 AM

It doesn't matter whether Americans are tired of war or not. How the hell can this country afford a war with Iran or anyone else on the planet? (Is Granada still available? Last time it was glory at a bargain price.)

There is no hope.

MichiGator2002 · 03-21-2013, 10:15 AM

So, no legitimate or factually based connection, I should have said for clarity. I for one am damn tired of war. And if I was in a desert with almost no water, I would probably be damn tired of walking. But putting on blinders and tuning out the reality of existing in a world of bad actors is no more an option than sauntering up to the first mirage lagoon and drinking sand. For the same reason.

Lawdog88 · 03-21-2013, 11:23 AM

So, some good questions might be: Suppose Iran gets a nuke. Will they use it ? Why would they use it ? How would they use it ? What would happen after that ? Would they make another ? And, how do we know any of the above ?

Another might be, depending upon the answers to those questions, should we prevent them from making one in advance, and if so, how should that be done.

I am not in the CIA, and I have no answers to any of those questions.

And another similar - and perhaps more important - question might be: Should we do anything about North Korea and their threats to attack us with a nuke, just as soon as they can get around to it ? (And they seem to be trying to get around to it).

Spurffelbow833 · 03-21-2013, 12:34 PM

Until peace can be packaged and sold for a better profit than war, there will be no peace. Putting a gun down doesn't sell bullets. Picking one up does.

**DeanMeadGator** · 03-21-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

So, no legitimate or factually based connection, I should have said for clarity. I for one am damn tired of war. And if I was in a desert with almost no water, I would probably be damn tired of walking. But putting on blinders and tuning out the reality of existing in a world of bad actors is no more an option than sauntering up to the first mirage lagoon and drinking sand. For the same reason.

I lost friends in Vietnam. Two of our sons served in the military. No one in their right mind wants war.

Nevertheless, should we let Iran develop a nuclear weapon? What if we do? Will we drawn into a war if Israel is attacked? How many lives would then be lost?

What is the alternative? I would hope that there is one, but am realistic enough to know that there may not be.

Mankind has been at war since the days of the Old Testament. Sadly, war is not new.

**G8trGr8t** · 03-21-2013, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

It means that Americans are clearly not tired of war, D'uh! If they were tired of war, they'd oppose fighting wars on the flimsy pretense that bad people are always out to get us (absent our meddling) or that we are tasked to be the world's policeman.

so should we allow the world's most prolific sponsor of terrorism have nuclear weapons?

what is your solution?

most people don't like to fight either but if somebody strikes them they tend to defend themselves.

**jdrgator** · 03-21-2013, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

so should we allow the world's most prolific sponsor of terrorism have nuclear weapons?

what is your solution?

most people don't like to fight either but if somebody strikes them they tend to defend themselves.

War is an addiction we just can't quit. We've got history to prove it. I understand about the concern with Iran and the potential threat that they pose, but given our history, if Obama or whomever succeeds him in a few years kept pushing it down the road so as to avoid more war, I am generally for it. All too often those most wanting war are those least likely to put themselves in harms way.

**boligator** · 03-21-2013, 02:07 PM

Even if Iran was successful in developing a nuke, would they use it? It would pose no direct threat to the US as they have no delivery systems capable of reaching us. Israel, yes maybe they could but to do so would insure their annihilation. Therefore, to go to war over the possibility that they might use it would be foolish IMHO. The US does NOT need to be in another war. We've wasted too many lives and resources already being the world police.

**G8trGr8t** · 03-21-2013, 04:44 PM

they wouldn't have to use it. they could give it to one of their proxies who could smuggle it on a freighter from some innocuous eu country that has inspectors sympathetic to or paid off by al qaeda or ??? and detonate it when it gets into NY Harbor. Is that a risk you are willing to take?

Plausable deniability and NYC wiped off the face of the planet. what do you do when the freighter explodes in the harbor? who do you blame? how do you hold them accountable? Iran has been the money and instigator of multiple attacks against US interests but they do so through their proxies so that there is no military response against them.

War isn't so defined anymore that the enemy or instigator is so easily identified.

T3goalie · 03-21-2013, 05:04 PM

I'm tired of police actions and Presidents using the military at their call.

If the United States of America is going to war, it should Declare War formally and have a united front instead of the games, distancing and second guessing in politics that has gone on since Korea...

The lives are our military deserve a formal declaration and a united government when they put their lives at risk for us. I am sick of the political BS that passes for brinkmanship, i.e. "i support the troops, but i don't support the cause." The president is the Commander in Chief not king. Declare war and then command.

The military has become a political pawn that requires soldiers to risk their lives but does not require our gutless and spineless politicians to cast a vote. Why should the military risk their lives without knowing they have the full support of our Government? It is nonsense.

Lawdog88 · 03-21-2013, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

they wouldn't have to use it. they could give it to one of their proxies who could smuggle it on a freighter from some innocuous eu country that has inspectors sympathetic to or paid off by al qaeda or ??? and detonate it when it gets into NY Harbor. Is that a risk you are willing to take?

Plausible deniability and NYC wiped off the face of the planet. what do you do when the freighter explodes in the harbor? who do you blame? how do you hold them accountable? Iran has been the money and instigator of multiple attacks against US interests but they do so through their proxies so that there is no military response against them.

War isn't so defined anymore that the enemy or instigator is so easily identified.

That is a real-world scenario that can play out. Think commandeered jetliners crashing into high rise buildings for the first time. No one conceived, planned, and executed that plan - except for one guy.

A scenario using either commercial - or perhaps, private - shipping as a nuclear delivery system seems to me, to be much more feasible than far-fetched.

surfn1080 · 03-21-2013, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

It doesn't matter whether Americans are tired of war or not. How the hell can this country afford a war with Iran or anyone else on the planet? (Is Granada still available? Last time it was glory at a bargain price.)

There is no hope.

we (the left) think we can afford to send Egypt money....

**G8trGr8t** · 03-21-2013, 08:21 PM

there is no reason for boots on the ground in a situation like this. if action is required, death and destruction from above to cripple the facilites and the republican guard combined with air support, no fly zone, and logistical and weapons support to the opposition is how the US should conduct itself. if the people want a change, let them fight for it themselves.

**G8trGr8t** · 03-21-2013, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

That is a real-world scenario that can play out. Think commandeered jetliners crashing into high rise buildings for the first time. No one conceived, planned, and executed that plan - except for one guy.

A scenario using either commercial - or perhaps, private - shipping as a nuclear delivery system seems to me, to be much more feasible than far-fetched.

much easier to execute than hijacking and flying three airliners into targets

AmericaFirst · 03-21-2013, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

New Pew Poll shows substantial majority (and majority of both parties) say it is more important to prevent Iran from having a nuke than to avoid a war:

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/...-wary-of-iran/

First, I highly doubt that poll is correct. I don't know one damn person that believes we should go to war against Iran over allowing them to get a nuke. Iran hasn't started any wars for about a thousand years.

Second, too funny that they're even taking a poll on Iran while the North Koreans are developing nuclear weapons and have said they'll nuke us when they get one.

Has Iran ever stated anything similar to North Korea on nukes? No, they haven't. That's why this is about oil once again.

northgagator · 03-21-2013, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanMeadGator

Mankind has been at war since the days of the Old Testament. Sadly, war is not new.

The first warfare was probably over hunting or foraging territory between competing tribes.

The only things that have changed since then are the methods and the weapons to carry out the ritual.

What hasn't changed are the causes for the conflict, the inciting of the emotions, the fear of the coming hostilities, the disruption of daily life, the carnage on the battlefield, the cries of the wounded, the mourning for the dead, the consequences of defeat, the physical scars left on the land, and the emotional scars left on the survivors.

SurfinG8or · 03-21-2013, 09:55 PM

I agree with No Boots on the Ground in Iran, Let somebody elses ground forces go in there. And whoever we are backing in that war needs to compensate us for our Military Might. As for N Korea I doubt the Chinese would allow a Nuclear attack on the US. Cause we would probably level N Korea if they did and the fallout would surely affect China.