Show of Hands

Reactors have been attacked before the world doesn't end. Just makes the area radioactive for a while. Israel must do what it must do. Iran is making its bed.

I think raiding it is justafyable but not blowing it up because that could destroy the world.

Is it exactly safe to blow up a nuclear facility

Boom

Beat them bastards up now.
The thing here is that The Muslims WILL use nukes if they get them. Israel will be first and then the US is next - followed by Great Britain.
In their minds anyway.
Luckily the world has Israel to defend against these crazy-ass animals.

Religious crazies like evangelicals, Catholics ,Muslims and Jews? Those nutjobs have all the weapons. I'm going into survivalist mode as we speak.

Religious crazies should not be allowed nuclear weapons. That goes for Israel too.

I vote no, the us and israel have nukes, and we wouldn't be complaining if Poland sought some, so why shouldn't Iran? I wish no one had nukes, but if we do, why can't they?

No we should wait for Iran to have nukes and "wipe Israel off the map". I think not! Blow the nuke facilities off the map first.

...through means most of the world didn't approve of (threat, fear, etc...).

palin- re: your last line... There was plenty of opportunity to take Saddam out in the first Gulf War. One reason they didn't is "they" didn't know who would replace him. It was considered too much of a risk of having a worse regime take over. So they waited and yes, he held it together although...

Palin, look up Al-Anfal campaign.

I go back and forth on this, right now I feel that the other Arab countries in the area, who really don't want Iran to have nukes, should take up for themselves. Quit using Israel and the US as your proxy muscle. Clean up your own backyard.

@Palindrome: i agree with the, "why not North Korea, why not Syria" argument. But this is about a choice facing the Israeli's. It's an immediate issue for them. It's a nuisance and inconvenience for us.

Justified? No. Should they? Perhaps. Do you really want Iran to have Nukes and set off a middle Eastern Arms race? That would be disasterous

It's not my place to make that judgement, but it can definitely be argue that, yeah hoopty ha we got rid of Saddam- but now they have Al Sadr, Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula etc


Fan-freaking-tastic. At least the previous regime held order and the country together

10 countries that more urgently need regime change and humanitarian/military peacekeeping than Libya did or than Iraq did. Iraq was arguably better off w/o us. Considering the amounts of dead, the cultural destruction, the economic leveling and the conflict that brought in terrorists from all over

And the reason "it's a right thing to do" isn't a good enough reason is because people like you are fed the moral storyline and you eat it up. But if you peak under the covers, you're always being played. It's the "right thing to do" is a great pitch. By why not Syria? Why not North Korea? I can say

Doopy- you're seriously telling me the BULK of deaths in Iraq were terrorists??

I seriously urge you to go back and research that conflict

What other "atrocities" warranting American policing did Saddam commit?

Palindrome, you act as if:
A) Those gas attacks were the only atrocity of Sadaam's regime

B) The bulk of the deaths in Iraq were not terrorists.

"Because it's the right thing to do" may not be enough of a reason alone to fight, but it's never not a factor.

If you say we "saved" the Iraqis from a genocidal regime, isn't it a tremendous failure that our military involvement resulted in waaay more people being killed throughout the country than were killed in those gassing attacks? That's like a hostage situation being resolved by leveling a city

Mrken, it just HAS to be black and white, huh? You either have to be a warmonger or a pussy.

Genocide in Vietnam? Genocide in Grenada? Genocide in Panama?Genocide in Afghanistan? ... You can argue genocide in Iraq. But I think you're wrong. America acts out of its interests, not morality.

With that said, Iran has not warranted an attack. If Israel attacks, they should do so alone, but it is definitely not in our best interest. I hope my fellow republicans realize this!!!!!!!!!!!!

@palindrome: I wish that we did things because it was the right thing to do.

I'd rather be considered a warmonger for invading rather than a pussy for doing nothing.

I can't name a place we've invaded where there was no genocide or attempt. Ask a Kurdish Iraqi if the US invasion was a bad thing. Oil is great and often priority, but it's never the only reason.

You need to sharpen up and do independent research for yourself, we don't often get involved in conflicts because it's "the right thing to do". We do it bc it's in our interest to act. Because we have something to gain. If you believe we do things bc "it's right", I have a lot of questions for you.

Mrken- I don't like unilateral action. We can act together with others in strict but significant peacekeeping roles in conjunction with others. I agree, sometimes we should step in. But only when there's absolutely no other alternative. And yes, i was very very much against the Libya action

Tyrants abroad love American liberals because they know how weak they make the US.

Palin, let me guess, when people suffer abroad u don't respond, right? So that means u were against intervention in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon Syria, but you agree with Clinton's action (or lack of!!!) in Rawanda and Somalia and slow response to Bosnia, right!!!?

Veritus, just like Bush got scapegoated with the financial crisis from previous mistakes like Community Reinvestment Act and removal of Glass-Steagall. Just excuses, RIGHT?

I'm with you Roche. Israel bombing Iran is no more correct than our bombing Iraq because we "thought" they had WMD's

Roche, whence are the rights of nations as they relate to other nations derived ?

No the country that has 300+ nuclear weapons and a hostile military has no
right to bomb a sovereign nation because they're scared

I totally agree with Pali on this - shocker. I served on and off for 30 years now and I've seen firsthand that the US military gets used for political gain by our politicians, and not for national defense.

It's more than obvious liberals have little to no understanding of global politics. None.
I'd recommend living overseas for a short time. You'd have more understanding of your naïveté and ignorance.
That's not a slam on you libs, just the truth if you can handle it.

@veritas: ... and you still haven't addressed Afghanistan.

@veritas: the problem is that HW wasn't pushed into GW1. SH's generals may have pushed him into invading Kuwait, but I think he had more control over them than that. However another country that was invaded asked for help, and we helped.

If you saw a woman getting raped, would you not help her?

If we wait until the enemy is on our shores we have waited too long. If, God forbid, America is ever invaded, millions of people will die on both sides. It would be the most terrible war the world had ever known.

Acting as unilateral police is how we ensure that we don't have to fight another real tooth and nail war. We have to look out for our interests abroad, which includes that of our allies, lest we be weakened by a thousand cuts and fall to a war we can no longer win.

conflict unless absolutely necessary, in our own defense, and by our own defense I mean where we are actively being invaded or humanitarian aid/support. I oppose occupations, infringements upon our constitutional rights in the name of "national security"- all of it

I'm against pretty much everything neo-conservativism stands for. I don't see the world in black and white. I don't believe America is some sort of righteous, God-blessed gift to the world. I don't believe we own any right to decide right from wrong or act as unilateral police. I'm against military

@mrken. The only reason that even happened is because we screwed the whole country and installed our own little puppet regime. Carter got scapegoated, the real mistakes were made a decade earlier.
@Doopy. But it was the worst holocaust. And Mao's killing were more like the Holodomor than holocaust

Timeout, ur confused.
Carter started this whole mess by being the most incompetent president on foreign policy leading to 52 American hostages for 444 days.

Bill is ok, since he did what he was told

Bush refers senior. Try not to forget ur presidents!

To be fair, veritas, the holocaust wasn't the largest mass killing since the 1940s. Stalin and Mao both killed more.

Anyways, Palindrome, do you have value judgements on any of the points of neo-conservatism that you listed?

My personal policy for personal conflicts is : I only strike back, never first.
If this were generally accepted on a large scale there could be no war. Simple logic.

@Typpet. That's the spirit!!! Let's slaughter millions of innocent men, women and children because you are too ignorant or incompetent to explore any of the plethora of other options that don't end in the largest holocaust since WWII.

…policy that drove Sadaam into Kuwait. So where is the point of contention?

I apologize I'm missing something that you've said or am being harsh at all. I don't mean to be. I simply fail to see upon what grounds you are disputing me.

@O13. What is 'Square 1' in this scenario. You've essentially conceded everything i'm saying. You agree with me that HW wasn't a neocon. And you agree that the neocons pushed for us to get into GW1. And you agree with me that they were pissed when he pulled out. You agree that it is neocon foreign…

Nuke the rag heads

@veritas: OMG! Now we are back to square 1. And you STILL haven't addressed Afghanistan. I don't know if I should buy you a beer or punch you in the freaking nose. (sarcasm fully intended)

I gotta give it to you though, I have never met anyone who talks in circles more than you.