[Bon mots]

Should force be used?
Yes.

[Lancer_N3502A]

In a New York minute. In a heartbeat. Faster than greased lightning. I leave out anything?

[cynicom]

Too many hand wring Neville Chamberlains in this world today.

[Gay State Conservative]

Preventing a Nuclear Iran-- Should Military Force be Used?

Think back to this hypothetical headline from 1937:

Preventing a Nuclear Germany-- Should Military Force be Used?

The filthbags now in charge in Iran make Hitler look like a 10 year old schoolgirl by comparison.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Should Military Force be Used?

I say yes.

[shield]

Military is not in a position right now to go to war with Iran.

Off the record, the military will tell you this.

[Paul_Denton]

Lets see. Yes, Yes, and Yes.

[manwiththehands]

NO! At least not yet. Two reasons:

1. Let's finish up in Iraq first and give the America-hating mullah's time to let it sink in.

2. Give the Iranians the opportunity to overthrow the current regime and implement democracy for themselves.

I am sick to death of Americans dying for and at the hands of Muslims.

If we get into a crises where something has to be done NOW then go ahead ... but even then good luck trying to sell it to the American public.

War with Iran would be disastrous.

[Natural Law]

The only guarantee the US should give is that of the Bush Doctrine of the preemptive use of force.

[demkicker]

Hell yes!

[Brilliant]

I don't think that military force is really practical against Iran, unless they attack us first. For one thing, it would shut down oil flowing from the Gulf, and that would mean $30 or $40 a gallon gasoline, not to mention a shortage of everything else as well. It would probably trigger a world wide depression. It would be a very bloody war that would be difficult to fight without oil.


Probably the only way the war could be fought as a practical matter would be with nuclear missiles.

[aculeus]

If we attack Iran we can count on counterstrikes here in the USA. They've had lots of time to plan something.

[LibWhacker]

"show a necessity of self-defence, [that is] instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

Can't be applied to the nuclear era. The old law is inadequate. It's not America's or Israel's fault if international law hasn't kept up with the realities of the 20th Century (never mind the 21st).

[HardStarboard]

>>>"Sweden-Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday he thinks the United States will need to give Iran a security guarantee..." <<<

The clearest indication yet as to why Mohamed Elbaradei did not get the Nobel Prize for IQ!

[Calamari]

Should force be used?

Yes.

[BunnySlippers]

YES!

[okie01]

From Arend's argument, it is clear that he would approve of the use of military force under only one circumstance: after Iran had launched a nuclear attack on Israel (or another of its neighbors).

By definition, he is prepared to accept that outcome, as the natural consequence of the actions he supports.

In other words, the argument is itself useless.

[yarddog]

I can only think of two legitimate questions regarding what to do with Iran. One: Do we use nuclear weapons? Two: If yes, do we use them or does Israel use them?

[COBOL2Java]

...It may well be that a policy of economic sanctions, containment, and deterrence is the best option...

Sure, why not? It worked so well against Saddam!

[johnny7]

I just hope that when Israel strikes... it will be enough to eliminate the problem.