nope. its a balance between a rightful and fair demand by citizens for the reasons and rationale, the likelihood of achieving the goals, and the net benefits of war vs. the need for classified information to remain classified. If you were demanding information, that's fine. But you're just reflexively anti-war (just as many idiots are reflexively pro-war)

no answer will fit in a 2+2 post, that's for sure.

If I was presented with good reasons for a war, I would support it. I have been reading about Iran for years now, and I don't see many good reasons beyond petrodollar implications.

This is kind of trivial in that the US has in the past supported groups that have attacked US interests.

Not necessarily, the US being less dominant in the middle-east could intimately force more compromise, which could lead to more stability in the long run. Not to mention the unknown repercussions of the preventing Iran from getting a nuke could be very bad for our interests.

I just saw this and it made me chuckle. If the Iranian army is made up of pregnant women, the US military is becoming prepared!

"Army Orders Soldiers to Wear ‘Pregnancy Simulators’"

http://dougpowers.com/2012/02/16/pregnancy-simulators/

Do people need an argument against the use of violence?

I think the point of the exercise was for the officers to have more empathy for their pregnant charges not how to kill pregnant women.

Cue a deluge of freshman philosophy course hypotheticals.

you need an argument for any action you take (or fail to take).

Come on maaaan, the only way to proove you're not brainwashed, maaaan, is to condemn your own side at every opportunity and proclaim how progressive you are because you condemn your own country / culture / etc.


Yes, Yes they do. When there is an impending slaughter / massacre / rape, especially of innocents, you will need to argue with me to stop me from using violence to stop people from slaughtering / raping the innocent.

In this case, you need to convince me (me being the rational and civilized members of the international community) not to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons before they actually have them, at which point its too late to stop them from getting them. And since peaceful options have been nearly exhausted, soon we (rational members of int. community) will have to use violence to enforce the stability of the world by keeping nukes out of the hands of genocidal maniacs.

But, if you want to play fairytale-candyland, i'll play too:

The world is perfect. Violence / War is never necessary to defend what is right. We should all approach the malign forces on our planet with flowers and hugs, everything will be just fine as long as we wear Che shirts and throw up our peace signs at every opportunity.

Actually you seem to be the one who is brainwashed. My proof? You disagree with the things I believe. And because you disagree with my beliefs, I have automatic proof you are brainwashed and that your brainwashing most likely came from the TV, probably Al Jazeera.

How does stopping Iran from getting nukes prevent this? Your assuming they will use them in a preemptive manner?

Pakistan is a country that harbored bin laden for years - where we had to fly in covertly without their help to get him with special ops guys. A country with arguably more extremist terrorist element, has nukes.

If we could convince the international community or at least the important nato countries to come aboard if/when we attack Iran, it would be much more reasonable. It doesn't seem like that will happen though, and if the evidence is so convincing why would this be the case?

I need an argument for failing to take vacation in Botswana this April?

So does anybody think Iran is actually going to detonate a nuclear weapon?

Is it gonna be hard to find one?

Yes! I'd love to go there.

It's basically a theocracy. Doesn't seem unreasonable to assume they would imo.

So you think they want guaranteed destruction? The majority of governments in this world are theocracy to differing degrees, yet no one has asked for mutual mass destruction despite it being so easy to do.

I am saying that religious leaders more heavily way an after life and don't necessarily see guaranteed destruction as an end.

That seems like a pretty big assumption, I've yet to see any actual leaders/tptb types in iran conduct any suicide bombing missions.

The experts seem to be split (not necessarily evenly I am not sure) if Iran would be a rational actor if it had the bomb. This is obv the big question and I won't presume to know the answer. I was careful in my responses not to say they would be irrational just that it is a valid concern. The original question was "Does anybody think that Iran would actually drop the bomb?" as if this was not something reasonable to worry about.

WAAF.

yes. it's ****in dangerous. there's your argument. wtf.

"I am not going to botswana because it is dangerous there."
"i am not going to botswana because i want to go to miami instead"

alternatively:

if there's no reason why you shouldn't be in botswana, then why aren't you in botswana?

probably not, but then this is a regime whose ultimate decisions lay with devoutly religious men. given your previous assertion that the greatest evil in this world is founded in religion, im not sure why you haven't posted to DROP TEH NUUKKKKKKEZ.

much more likely is that they will partner with those for whom leaving a bomb to detonate in a public place is the modus operandi.

When your ultimate goal a place in heaven because you died for allah (or whoever your god may be), you are by definition a person for whom survival is the not ultimate goal and cannot be assumed to act rationally (if survival = rational).

there's no doubt that some mullah somewhere in iran thinks that if he presses the button that takes out israel, he will be assured a place in heaven for all eternity. you or i don't think that way, but there are many people in that region that do. the suicide bomber phenomenon is obvious evidence for that.

There are a lot of countries out there with a lot of nukes with a lot of religious men, and we are still here.

not with the level of supreme power that these people have. listen, iran is by all accounts a wonderful country. many peaceful people and a brilliant culture.

the people in charge are a different beast entirely. and by all accounts, they do not represent the majority.

again, i don't know if war with iran is the best answer. i don't know if the good reasons outweigh the bad. i simply have no idea (and neither do you). but if you cannot concede that there are indeed several good reasons to go to war with iran, you're simply incapable of thinking logically about this problem.

I think there are some good reasons for the USA to go to war with Iran, but none of them have anything to do with nuclear bombs.