El Nuncio, those are some good points to discuss.
- Iran has very little to do with 9/11, if anything. The hijackers weren’t from Iran. Osama Bin Laden wasn’t from Iran. Al Qaida isn’t Iranian. Afghanistan and the Taliban weren’t in Iran.
That is short sighted. Iran is the ideal the hijackers and terrorists strive to create in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Indonesia and now days in Europe. It is the model theocratic Islamic state, it represents “things as they should be” in the eyes of these people just as America, despite imperfections, is the prototypical free country. Besides the fact that it is an iconic Islamic state, Iran is the source of moral guidance and also a source of financing for the war on freedom. For these reasons the current iranian regime is worth destroying.
- Whether or not one believes in the importance of morality or in maintaining the moral “high ground,” the single most effective, unquestionably idiot-proof way to get rid of it would be to initiate a nuclear attack against a foreign metropolis in a country that has never been proven to be in possession of nuclear weapons of its own, let alone have used them.
The protection of free citizen’s rights is not a knight duel. The point of war is to win, not to “be fair”. The idea that nuking a country with no nukes would mean the loss of the moral high ground is a complete distortion of morality. Japan had no nuclear weapons in World War 2 - yet America’s moral high ground in that conflict is unquestionable.
The moral high ground must be attained and maintained by clearly identifying the reasons for going to war not in the tools one chooses to use in order to win.
- (…) If you wanted a guarantee that the Muslim world would be united in total and unflinching hatred and loathing for the United States for the next two thousand years, in a way that it is not presently united for any cause, then nuking Tehran would do it.
That is their problem. If they are not capable of peaceful rights-respecting coexistence, they would have to be completely anihilated. If a serial killer would become even more frenzied by being put in jail you don’t let him go free - you put him in jail permanently (assuming there is no death penalty).
- Most inhabitants of places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are not militant terrorists, which is why there were 19 hijackers on Sept. 11th and not 19 million. See above; unless you’re suggesting that we use enough nuclear power to wipe out not only Ahmadinejad in Tehan but all Muslims in all parts of the world, be prepared for a very unfriendly reception from the remainders.
Your argument defeats itself. “Most muslims are not terrorists. If you kill the ones who are terrorists be prepared for the others to use terror against you.”
- The general theme of the responses on this thread seems to include the following: a) that all people who live in a Middle Eastern country other than Israel are Muslims,
that all Muslims are fanatic Islamic lunatics who are bent on using terrorism to destroy the United States, and c) that the best way to respond to an indiscriminate attack on non-combatants is with an even larger indiscriminate attack on non-combatants. I submit that all three of these impressions are grossly inaccurate, and that the folly of basing military policy decisions on grossly inaccurate judgments of an entire geographic region is a valid reason not to nuke Tehran.
That is not hardly the reasoning or the actual arguments presented. A more truthful summary would be: a) there are theocratic muslim governments in the Middle East, these theocratic governments are bent on destroying Israel and the United States, c) this threat must be removed, and d) the innocents harmed in the conflict are victims of the rights-violating bastards that made the conflict necessary
- The people of the United States are not prepared to deal with the ramifications that accompany the stigma of being the only country ever to have deployed nuclear weapons in hostility not once but twice.
There only is a stigma because there is no one speaking up and explaining that using those weapons was right. And why.
- Most of the world clamored for sanctions after North Korea’s pitiful little supposed nuclear test. Imagine what would happen after the U.S. conducts a similar test several orders of magnitude larger on a densely populated area.
Clamor. And that is it. The difference between a lunatic leader of a slave country using a nuke and a free country using a nuke for self defence is not lost on most people. Even today.
- It is wholly irresponsible and self-injurious: we lack the military capacity to protect our forces and our citizens abroad from the dangers they might very likely face after we have instigated such a catastrophic upheaval and committed what many will (rightly or wrongly) perceive as a grievous injustice far more worthy of condemnation and retaliation than the events of Sept. 11th.
It is the choice of our citizens to go abroad. If it becomes dangerous to do so because other countries are incapable of protecting our citizens’ rights, they will have to stay at home until the other free countries of the world get their act together. The military can take care of itself - if unfettered by suicidal rules of engagement.
- “We should have done it five years ago.” Five years ago, we didn’t even know for certain who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Not knowing who is responsible for an attack is not a logical reason to launch a devastating attack at someone who simply might be.
Iran has been sponsoring attacks against the USA for decades.
- We cannot “retaliate” against Iran, as some have suggested, because Iran has yet to attack the United States.
History says otherwise.
- (…)
What we need is assured distruction of anyone who threatens the individual rights of american citizens. I’m quite sure a statement to the effect of “if your president chants “death to America” on TV, we are coming for you” would clear up any doubts about why the regime was taken down.
