Would You Support Military Action on Iran if Evidence Shows a Nuclear Weapon Program?

[tekisui]

Just want to get the pulse of DU. Sometimes a make false assumptions.


If evidence is produced that Iran's recently revealed nuclear program is working to produce nuclear weapons, would you support a military action?

If it is confirmed, they aren't forthright with inspectors, would you then?

For the sake of discussion, military action could be defined as from the US or from Israel, without US stopping it.

[BlooInBloo]

1. I'll consider it as soon as all of Glenn Greenwald's concerns are adequately addressed.

[Ramulux]

2. Hell no

Until they have used a weapon or actually attacked someone, there is no reason to be even be thinking about military action.

[tekisui]

3. I agree, but the murmurs have re-ignited.

[Kid Dynamite]

4. Would You Support Military Action on the United States

if Evidence Shows A Nuclear Weapons Program?

What if there was evidence of actually USING such weapons?

[JackRiddler]

5. If this makes any sense, then Israel should be attacked before Iran...

right after the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan...

Nuclear weapons can never be justified.

[Democrats_win]

17. It's a practical matter: Realpolitik.

Realpolitik (German: real “realistic”, “practical” or “actual”; and Politik “politics”) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

You're logic is correct but obviously the "wise" people who run this world won't even consider it.

[JackRiddler]

20. Nuclear war is practical?

Realpolitik, always a misnomer, always flawed, surely became irretrievably obsolete on August 6, 1945. Unfortunately many have not learned the lesson, and every possible stupidity and atrocity since has been justified on realistic or pragmatic grounds.

[Barack_America]

6. Military action with what?

Are we going to drop clunker cars on them?

Iran and China are bff's. I find it hard to believe they'd foot the bill for such an attack.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Tell me, will we be using nuclear equipped bunker busters to

accomplish this most urgent task??

[thunder rising]

8. Evidence? Like artists renditions presented by a respected retired General?

[whoneedstickets]

30. Especially one who currenly holds a cabinet level position...

...if he shows up at the UN with a vial of uranium.

[scarletwoman]

9. Frankly, I'd breathe easier if Iran had a nuclear bomb. I think it would have

wonderfully sobering effect on the rest of the world in regard to Middle East policy.

I'd prefer a no nukes world, but given current conditions, I'll gladly settle for a Middle Eastern version of MAD.

sw

[Barack_America]

14. That is an interesting point.

It's not as if Israel isn't equipped with nuclear weapons, after all.

[scarletwoman]

16. I've been saying the same thing for the last several years.

I honestly think we'd all be better off if Iran had nukes.

[eridani]

39. Who can blame them for wanting nukes? They are totally surrounded by nuclear powers

China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Israel.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. I'm not going to war against a country for doing the same thing countries ,we

defend do ,and both have the same reasons ,to defense against each other.

[BuyingThyme]

11. I like this poll.

[stray cat]

12. I support staying out of it militarily and that includes not attacking countries that attack Iran

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

13. I really don't care if Iran has nukes

Might give Israel a much needed attitude adjustment,

[Cant trust em]

15. Evidence for WMDs has been pretty spotty lately. nt

[MadMaddie]

18. Israel will fire the first shots and expect the US to come in as

an allie to back them up.

Russia, France and England are now onboard this will not be a US go it alone effort.

[roamer65]

22. The Russians are a SCO member.

They will not back military actions against Iran. Beijing will not allow it. The Russians are in the hip pocket of the Chinese.

[orpupilofnature57]

23. But the crux of the statement was Israel expecting U.S. to back them..And that's True.

[madeline_con]

36. That's what really sucks about it, we get pulled into Israel's bullshit . n/t

[tekisui]

42. I just hope it doesn't come to that.

[harun]

19. Hell no.

Even if they have them they can't use them. Just like everyone else who has them, it is called mutually assured destruction.

[AntiFascist]

21. Would you kill 100,000s of innocents....

if former oil company executives who happen to be running the country start making noises about "mushroom clouds on the horizon"? I would hope we learned our lesson.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. No. Why?

Unless a foreign country (we don't like) HAVING a nuclear weapons program is now justification enough to attack them (or allow them to be attacked by an *ally*). I sincerely hope it isn't. I suppose that my answer would be different if said country was actually THREATENING to ATTACK another country but that's a whole other ball of wax.

[ismnotwasm]

25. Fuck no n/t

[DireStrike]

26. A lot of things have been "confirmed" in the past.

These things were lies. If the entire international community believed that was the case, AND would send substantial forces for the entire duration of the war, I MIGHT support it.

[cynatnite]

27. No, because I think there must be evidence of a preeminent attack on another country...

I'm not crazy about Iran having nukes. It's a theocratic nation who hates Israel and hangs people for being gay. Having said that, there is nothing, IMO, that says they are planning on attacking anyone. No reason for military action as far as I'm concerned.

[treestar]

48. True, they would not attack Israel, since Israel have nukes

The right might try to sell us on the idea that Iran is suicidal as a nation and might attack Israel and be willing to go down for it. But that's out there, even for Iran.

[rucky]

28. I hope there would be a few more intermediary steps first.

Nobody's really done much diplomacy with Iran.

[Downtown Hound]

29. Hells no

Why the fuck do we Americans get to decide who had nuclear weapons when we already have enough of them to blow up the world multiple times? I guess we're just afraid of a fair fight.

If America wants other nations to stop acquiring nukes, it should stop acting like an asshole around the world. Other nations see our military power and realize that the only way they'll be truly safe is if they have nukes too.

[troubledamerican]

31. Never.

Ask Scott Ritter. Again.

[Iggo]

32. Confirmed like Iraq's WMD?

Um, no.

[saltpoint]

33. No.

[Kaleva]

34. Only if all other options have failed.

[TexasObserver]

35. US, UK, China, Russia, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel ...

And we're worried about Iran having it, too?

[HappyCynic]

37. If that's the bar...

If that's the bar to measure military intervention, why isn't the talk about North Korea? Is it:
A) North Korea *actually has* a nuke?
B) North Korea has no oil?
C) Israel doesn't care about North Korea?
D) Some or all of the above?
E) Something other than the above?

All this talk about Iran (which is, on this issue, actually in compliance with the various treaties they've signed) makes the US appear very hypocritical.

[Iggo]

38. The answer is D.

[quaker bill]

40. Other

I do not support military action, period. It is time we tested what a unified international front can do diplomatically. As best as I can tell, this sort of approach has never been truly tried.

[Horse with no Name]

41. I still have yet to hear a cohesive answer of why it is OKAY for us to possess nuclear weapons

yet our panties get in a wad over anyone else.
And yes, I don't give ten flying fucks about Israel, yet I am not anti-Semetic. I am apathetic.
If they want to fight Iran--let them. Let them waste their fucking blood and treasure, not ours.
I don't support it. I won't support it. I can't support it.

[western mass]

43. raining RW (tr)polls these days

[Ikonoklast]

44. Yes, only if they think of selling any weapons to anyone.

Then all bets are off.

The Persians still have dreams of being at least a regional power with hegemony over their Arab neighbors, who don't exactly love them.

[Tripmann]

45. Nope, and I'm sick of the double standards in play.

[treestar]

46. Once they have it, they join the club

We only attack countries without nukes. If the country has nukes, they could retaliate.

[Echo In Light]

47. Hell no

[MilesColtrane]

49. I don't think the problem is with Iran having the bomb,...

...it's with Iran giving the bomb to someone else.

If they attack a country with a nuke, they'll be toast.