I'm an open minded individual. Why should I be opposed to military action against Iran, persuade me?

Question

The warrior hates war. Having served my country 4 years, I would like to think war should be seriously debated and only used as a last resort.

Persuade me and other neoconservatives (I'm neoconservative on foreign policy but liberal on social issues like abortion and gay rights) that military action against Iran in the next 12 months is a bad idea

Answer 1

1. Iran has not attacked the US. They have said things we don't like, but their military has not attacked US forces anytime in the past decade or three.

2. Iran may or may not be pursuing nuclear weapons technology -- there is no evidence either way -- but even if they are, as a sovereign nation they have every right to do so. Just like England, France, the US, Russia, Pakistan, India, etc. etc.

3. The US has no legal right to tell another country what it can or cannot do within its own borders. Just like no other country can tell us what we can or cannot do inside our own borders. So, even if Iran is doing things we don't like, we have no legal authority to do anything about it.

4. If we do attack Iran -- since they have not attacked the US and since we have no legal authority to tell them how to run their country -- it will be solely because we have appointed ourselves the world's overlords -- meaning we would have thrown out the concept of international law and declared ourselves above the law.

Which is exactly the things we keep trying to accuse terrorist of doing -- meaning, we would become everything we hate.

Answer 2

Iran poses no conventional military threat to the US homeland. The head of the IA-EA states that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon program, only a possibility. The Bush administration has not provided any evidence to counter that argument. Our military is stretched very thin with the two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It probably cannot sustain a protracted ground war and occupation in Iran without imposing a draft. The troops in Iraq would be vulnerable to a counter attack from Iran. Any military action without the consent of the security council will further isolate us diplomatically in the long run.

Plus, no matter what happens, the Iranian population will be against America for generations

Answer 3

1. We do not have the available military to do it. It would require either pulling out of Iraq or closing most of our bases in Europe and the Far East. Or reinstituting the draft.
2. The few allies we MIGHT pick up would not be enough to combat the allies that Iran would have, namely Russia, China, and North Korea.
3. In solidarity, the first thing that would happen is that all the middle eastern countries would immediately cut off all oil shipments to us.
4. The youth of Iran who have been slowly working towards a democracy would immediately stop and rejoin the hardliners, thus setting their country back a couple of decades.

Answer 4

your query "Why should I be opposed" is 1" from your words "only used as a last resort" on my computer screen

*BINGO*
you've done a wonderful job of answering your question for me, as I see it

there is zero that I've seen (and I am fairly certain beyond any doubt that I am NOT party to any military intelligence briefings and don't really have any clue what's going on other than what I know from cursory news briefs and my own research etc. lol) there is zero that I've seen which would qualify as a "war-worthy" action by Iran -

about the only war-worthy action I could think of would be irrefutable - absolutely irrefutable - (where are those Iraqi chem. weapons facilities again Georgie? - i.e. Bush has lost all military credibility IMHO) irrefutable evidence of nuclear weapons being built, a horrifically un-justified slaughter of innocent people, a concerted effort of attacking U.S. civilians (i.e. a frat boy getting mugged and shot in Mexico over spring break would not merit us invading Mexico for instance, ~for clarification purposes)

I don't know - oh boy - it would be hard for me to justify war really at all - and maybe that's good that I am not president

but one thing for sure I would have needed a hellovalot more irrefutable proof of Iraq's involvement in 9-11 than Georgey concocted, or had handed to him by Halliburton's advisors - either way

My religious upbringing instilled me with morals of "violence as absolute last resort" - either I'm nuts and don't have a clear understanding of what a "last resort" is - or I'm saner than everyone in this administration

Answer 5

they don't have nukes, the IAEA see no evidence, yet, of their development, they don't threaten the US, there's time for real diplomacy - not the designed to fail diplomacy of the Bush admin - , oil will go to $300/b, it will push the entire M.E. into hyper-chaos, and...the biggies....many people will die for nothing and these troubles with the M.E. are, at least in large part, due to our presence there over the past many decades....we are not welcome, our cultural influence is not welcome...they have tried to make that clear for a long time....Israel is an unnatural intrusion in the M.E.....Israel, not Jews.....brought into existence by Britain at the end of WWII, overlayed on Palestine, displacing those inhabitants who are now a disenfranchised majority....the West has to recognize that, and work with other M.E. countries to solve that issue, and that might not turn out in a way that Israel likes, either. The US has to stop treating the M.E. as though it and it's resources exist for our benefit. The current US policy is making things rapidly worse, not better. It's headed in exactly the wrong direction by 180 degrees.

Answer 6

I think one of the considerations is that it would severely limit access to oil to the major powers of the world. Russia and China are very apt to come to the aid of Iran if for no other reason than the oil. You could likely be biting off more than you want to chew here.

You can call me a coward if you want. I have grandchildren that I would love to see grow up. Nobody better have the audacity to start this unless there really is absolutely, undeniably, 100 % no other choice. None of this stuff like got the U.S. into Iraq.

Answer 7

We will never have enough info to make a truly informed decision. That's what we have elected officials with a zillion workers to feed info to them to make good decisions. Sounds great but, look at the trouble that got us in to in Iraq. In all depends on a leader who has competent people to advise him not a bunch of yes men/woman.
Considering the total cluster f--- this guy and staff has made of Iraq what do you think will happen now that the military has spent 5 years getting equipment and people shot up.

Answer 8

I see no reason to go there but our troops should shoot any Iranian troops they find in iraq. If anybody should have destroyed Iran lately it was the British when their troops were kidnapped. They should have turned iran into a parking lot.

Answer 9

You shouldn’t have to be persuaded not to take military action in this situation. You should have to be persuaded that there are overriding good reasons to take military action, which, as you point out, should be a last resort. I haven't heard those overriding good reasons--have you?

Answer 10

Although I'm not opposed to bombing sites in Iran the problem lies in giving them a reason to send troops into Iraq to kill our service people.

Then we need to escalate not having enough troops

How far do we go ? what are we willing to do ?


It's better to give the green light to Israel