Be a Supporter!

Why Iran Shouldn't Be Invaded

  • 449 Views
  • 6 Replies
New Topic
Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Why Iran Shouldn't Be Invaded 2012-04-27 22:15:44

Before I go on, I'd like to say this:

The government of Iran is a horrible, evil, anti-Semitic radical regime. I acknowledge that they are trying to get nuclear weapons, and not for peaceful purposes. I do not believe it should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

However, invading Iran and establishing a democratic government would cost the US and the West so much more than it would benefit us. And I'm not implying that the US could not overthrow the Ayatollah-we could capture Tehran by the summer.

However, history is repeating itself. Just as we fear that Iran is creating weapons of mass destruction, we feared the same from Iraq during the 1990s and early 2000s.

One could argue that as we justly invaded Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda, we should invade Iran to destroy their weapons of mass destruction and prevent them from falling in the hands of terrorists. Iran does have connections with terrorists, and if not al-Qaeda it's confirmed that they are in league with Syria and other terrorist groups who, with a nuclear weapon would wipe Israel off the map.

But what's the difference between al-Qaeda and the government of Iran? Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups exist only to destroy their enemies; namely the US and Europe. That's why we were justified in invading their strongholds in Afghanistan. Their raison d'etre was to destroy us, so we had to invade and stop them.

But Iran? They're no friend of the US or the West, but their reason to be isn't to destroy us. It's to control and subjugate the people of Iran. Our only problem is with the weapons they're trying to create.

Our solution to a nuclear-to-be Iran is to do what we did with Iraq before 2003.
1: Send in UN weapons inspectors and make sure Iran cooperates
2: Bomb any nuclear facilities in Iran.
3: If need be, create a no-fly zone with the support of local Arab nations (Saudi Arabia would be happy to help)

The way to deal with an Iran that wants nukes is to prevent them from building nuclear weapons, but the key is to leave their government intact.

Now there are some who want to invade Iran, and they may ask these questions:

If we overthrow Iran's government they'll stop making nuclear weapons
True, but then we'll have another mess on our hands. Iran may be a terrible government, but they're not going to hand over power to Al-Qaeda or another terrorist group that isn't bound by international treaties or the UN.

Iran's government wants to hand over nuclear weapons; if they somehow get one it will fall into the hands of the terrorists

A valid fear, however, Iran is not going to hand over a nuke to al-Qaeda or Hamas anytime soon, and here's why: Iran's
government is self-preserving. You can't just give, let alone make, a nuclear weapon to someone without there being a trail. If Iran gave a nuclear weapon to a terrorist and that terrorist used it, Iran would be found out and there would be worldwide-sanctioned invasion and regime change for Iran. Khomeini may hate the US and Israel, but he's not going to trade being Supreme Leader for anything.

Getting rid of Iran's dictatorial government will bring democracy to the Middle East.

Not really. We're still having trouble with Afghanistan, and Iraq wasn't much of a success. There's more al-Qaeda than ever in Iraq, even before Saddam. The fact is, sometimes people aren't ready for democracy and the Middle East sure isn't. One thing we've learned from Iraq is that sometimes it's better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable ally. If we want to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons we'll have silos to bomb and scientists to kill; a clear chain of command to target. With terrorist groups like al-Qaeda who live in caves and are more ragtag bands of thugs than armies, it's difficult to track them.

In short, the problem isn't Iran's government: it is the weapons themselves. Don't invade Iran-we'll get another quagmire like Iraq. Use missile strikes, bombings, and covert methods to ensure that Iran doesn't get nukes.

Please comment.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran Shouldn't Be Invaded 2012-04-28 01:03:28

At 4/27/12 10:15 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Before I go on, I'd like to say this:

The government of Iran is a horrible, evil, anti-Semitic radical regime.

In you're opinion anyway.

At 4/27/12 10:15 PM, Ranger2 wrote: I acknowledge that they are trying to get nuclear weapons, and not for peaceful purposes. I do not believe it should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Um not sure if you noticed but pretty much all nations with nuclear weapons use them for peace.

One could argue that as we justly invaded Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda, we should invade Iran to destroy their weapons of mass destruction and prevent them from falling in the hands of terrorists. Iran does have connections with terrorists, and if not al-Qaeda it's confirmed that they are in league with Syria and other terrorist groups who, with a nuclear weapon would wipe Israel off the map.

Ok you probably a need a history lesson in the Middle East first before you go on about those wild accusations. Syria has a Ba'thist party in power, Ba'thists are nominally secular, they're the enemy of Al-Qaida, thus Syria would have no realistic interest in Al-Qaida. This is the same reason why Saddam Hussein also had nothing to do with 9/11 and every country in the ME knew it, thus increasing the unpopularity of the US as people thought it had more shadier intentions.

But what's the difference between al-Qaeda and the government of Iran? Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups exist only to destroy their enemies; namely the US and Europe. That's why we were justified in invading their strongholds in Afghanistan. Their raison d'etre was to destroy us, so we had to invade and stop them.

No. Al-Qaida do not exist to destroy the US and Europe, they exist to push the US and Europe out of the Middle East and to create an Islamist state across the ME. This is the same with Iran. The only country they'd want to destroy would be Israel as Israel is seen as a way for the West to impose its Imperialist policies on the ME.

But Iran? They're no friend of the US or the West, but their reason to be isn't to destroy us. It's to control and subjugate the people of Iran. Our only problem is with the weapons they're trying to create.

Who brought the current regime to power? Oh that's right the "people". By the way, the US was the one supporting an oppressive dictator with no care for his people before the Islamist Republic, so hell no they don't have any trust in the US.

True, but then we'll have another mess on our hands. Iran may be a terrible government, but they're not going to hand over power to Al-Qaeda or another terrorist group that isn't bound by international treaties or the UN.

Iran's government wants to hand over nuclear weapons; if they somehow get one it will fall into the hands of the terrorists

No. Iran wants nuclear weapons because then it can use them as a tool of deterrence against the West.

Getting rid of Iran's dictatorial government will bring democracy to the Middle East.

Not really. We're still having trouble with Afghanistan, and Iraq wasn't much of a success. There's more al-Qaeda than ever in Iraq, even before Saddam.

Again Al-Qaida are largely unconnected to Saddam.

The fact is, sometimes people aren't ready for democracy and the Middle East sure isn't.

I love this argument because it demonstrates what elitism is. "If I don't agree with your policies then you're not ready for Democracy, just let a selected group of elites take care of that for you". Let's make this clearer, people in the ME don't support "Death to America" parties because they hate America, they support them because they're the only ones willing to stand up to America because they have a massive distrust and fear of the country the US continues to fumble around the Middle East like its playground. On top of that Islamists parties gain popularity when they lead the fight against the Secular Nationalist dictatorships like in Iraq or in Syria, describing the huge amount of torture as well as portraying the ME as being in its Dark Ages that it can only escape when it embraces Islam again.

In short, the problem isn't Iran's government: it is the weapons themselves. Don't invade Iran-we'll get another quagmire like Iraq. Use missile strikes, bombings, and covert methods to ensure that Iran doesn't get nukes.

The reason Iraq is such a failure is because the US had such a terrible perspective of the populace and no realistic ideas. To begin with the first thing Bush did when invading Iraq was dissolve the Ba'athist military and removing the officials from power, this of course left a huge amount of trained professional soldiers unemployed and angry at the US, leading of course to the huge insurgency afterwards, it also removed anyone who had any experience in the Iraqi government from any interest with cooperating with the US. That poor management of the situation is what made Iraq to be such a failure. On top of that such horrible miscalculations of the tensions between the ethnic and religious groups, as well as terrible sight on how it ruined ME policy.

If the US were to invade Iran it would be such a huge failure, any government propped up by the US would certainly crumble once the US leaves because it symbolizes foreign domination like the Shah had done, the reason we shouldn't invade Iran is because it will be a disaster in every sense of the word, we should just wait for the regime to fall like it will, if that were to happen then the whole Islamist movement will follow suit.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
CaptainCornhole
CaptainCornhole
  • Member since: Apr. 27, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran Shouldn't Be Invaded 2012-04-28 10:05:39

Personally I feel as though there would be no need to invade Iran if our President and government supported the protesters back during the "arab spring", where Egypt, Libya and Syria got all funky.

With United States backing maybe the protesters could have successfully rebelled against their government. Who knows, our President wasted an importunity IMO.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran Shouldn't Be Invaded 2012-04-28 10:47:50

At 4/28/12 10:05 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Personally I feel as though there would be no need to invade Iran if our President and government supported the protesters back during the "arab spring", where Egypt, Libya and Syria got all funky.

With United States backing maybe the protesters could have successfully rebelled against their government. Who knows, our President wasted an importunity IMO.

History has shown that arming rebels tends to backfire against the country that armed them. Think of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Why Iran Shouldn't Be Invaded 2012-04-28 10:50:21

At 4/28/12 10:05 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: With United States backing maybe the protesters could have successfully rebelled against their government. Who knows, our President wasted an importunity IMO.

An opportunity that had an equal, if not greater, risk of backfiring and squandering all of the political capital the US had left in the region as it did of succeeding.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Why Iran Shouldn't Be Invaded 2012-04-28 11:55:50

Ok. When I saw that Ranger2 made a thread called "Why Iran shouldn't be invaded" I assumed this was yet another parody thread. Like the ones we've seen from Ranger2 in the past that go along these lines:

"I believe blank is a bad! It is so stupid! Now I'm going to reluctantly tell you why blank is really a good thing.... But I still don't believe in blank! Blank is bad! Even though it's good and has all these benefits"

I'm sorry but that's the worst style of satire EVER!

Putting aside my little rant, I'm glad you're trying to look at this issue objectively instead of raising the war horn. I don't see why so many people are looking for war with Iran. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq? The consequences of invading Iran would be catastrophic for the United States and Israel. We can't rely on war and regime change every time someone has a problem with the United States or Israel. Besides, we've already done regime change in Iran in the '50s and look how that worked out. The people worried about Iran nuking Israel are the same types who keep an eye on every Muslim they see on an airplane. It's baseless paranoia to think that people of power, who have something to live for, would essentially sacrifice their own lives to kill Israelis.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran Shouldn't Be Invaded 2012-04-29 00:55:42

Why This Topic Shouldn't Exist:

Cause you can rebut Korriken in the other thread, we don't need to threads going discussing the same thing just because Ranger hasn't made a topic in awhile and feels the need.

Thread over.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature