Kuwait=France?

Figures.

See, the nice thing about our military might is that we don't need them anyways. We have 4.5 acres of nuclear-powered sovereign U.S. Territory that can be parked anywhere, anytime in almost 24 hours time.

And then there's the awesome firepower of our newest class of submarine, the SSGN. Imagine a boomer that has no ballistic missiles, but instead fires Tomahawks - and, according to Wikipedia, can carry 154 of them h34r:. Oh yes, and all this firepower is virtually invisible to the Iranians.

Or the strategic bombers in our inventory that can take off from the U.S., nail Iran, and fly right back home. Iran can wave their "nuclear banner" around, but I don't think they fully realize the can of worms they're potentially opening. They're messing with veterans (there are still service members - enlisted and commissioned - in the service today that began their service in the beginning of the '80s).

Just my $.02.

 

I agree with Ozyran in that we wouldn't need those bases to launch a strike if it comes to that... However, i have to disagree with the OP - There are repercussions and consequences for everything. The leadership in those countries aren't beholden to US interests - They're responsible for the well-being of their citizens. In this situation, Iran has stated that they would launch a counter attack against any installation used to launch an attack against them, which in my mind is a sensible response. Kuwait simply isn't willing to bear the brunt of civilian casualties that would likely result from such an attack. no one is perfect, and there stands a good chance that civilian targets in the close vicinity to the bases would be hit in the retaliation, even if that was not the intention.

I hardly think you can blame them for looking out for the well being of their citizens in this situation?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 13 2007, 05:48 PM) [snapback]461142[/snapback]</div>

Get Smart. What they say and what they do are two different things. You honestly think Kuwait wants a nuclear armed Iran - about as much as Saudia Arabia does or Jordan or Egypt or Qatar or Dubai.

Only several organizations/countries want a nuclear armed Iran:
1. American liberals/Democrats (thank you Harry Reid for your statement on not attacking Iran yesterday)
2. the United Nations
3. Islamoterrorists

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 14 2007, 10:59 AM) [snapback]461534[/snapback]</div>

I wish him a safe return and good hunting.

There is little difference between not wanting to prevent iran from going nuclear than from wanting them to go nuclear if you can understand that.

as for my connections with israel - what connections. i am an american jew. i would want for other democracies what i want for israel. and admit the UN is WORTHLESS in this issue.

boy - you must be one tough cookie if you dont agree with people - pretty intolerant i would conclude - very liberal like of you. do you treat everyone this nastily or do you save it for a select few?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 14 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]461576[/snapback]</div>

And yet there's a huge difference between believing the solution is a military conflict versus believing that it can be solved using more peaceful means.

Everyone here has their own limits with regards to war. On one extreme, it's only acceptable to retaliate if attacked. On the other, a preemptive strike is acceptable if you have the slightest suspicion that they're planning something.

Thus far, i haven't seen any evidence that shows Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons. Yes, they're advancing their nuclear program, but at this point it could be for purely peaceful power generation. I think it's wrong to stage a preemptive military strike on an opponent based solely on assumptions and personal feelings.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 14 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]461628[/snapback]</div>

good analogy. tell me, how do you build a fence against a nuclear armed missile? or for that matter a suitcase nuke or even a nuclear cruise missile or even a sub based nuclear weapon - yes your friend iran has the capability to do all the above once you let them get a nuke.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 14 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]461668[/snapback]</div>

building a fence with 100% reliability - cool. i did not know one existed.

dirty bombs - you do not think these are real terror threats? come-on, u r kidding me right doc?

i am not affraid to discuss anything with you or anyone. i would love to stop iran from going nuclear but i am a realist - by now you should be too - what evidence do you have of the iranians listening to anyone about stopping their program???? successful nuclear diplomacy - lets see now ... who are you referencing:

1. NoKo :lol:
2. Pakistan :lol:
3. India :lol:

where did we stop nukes from being built?

again, i am all for diplomacy - i do NOT see it working here - DO YOU? and how long are you willing to wait - till they test a bomb out????? again, when do you call a spade a spade? when would you want us to use force to prevent iran from going nuclear??

 

How long has this been an issue Berman? 6 months at the outside? Diplomacy, economic sanctions, and the like take time to develop. Like Evan said, this isn't a serious threat right now, and probably won't be for a number of years... We have plenty of time to pursue other options before starting a war.

Are you at all willing to discuss the other options at hand? Or are you just going to dismiss them all without consideration?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 14 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]461720[/snapback]</div>

Um . . . Libya.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Libya/index.html

. . . although I am one who believes:
1) Iran is working to acquire nuclear weapons.
2) Iran wants its dogs digging up our rose gardens.
3) By making this announcement, Kuwait is unfortunately emboldening Iran in their quest for nukes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 14 2007, 02:18 PM) [snapback]461752[/snapback]</div>

You are not a racist, i think you just dont understand - geopolitics is a zero-sum game - wherever a vacuum is created it will be filled - we leave the middle east/iraq - somebody will enter it - the probability is that Iran will enter given its proximity, desire, and strength - also turkey might enter from the north and act against the kurds - this would set into place a situation that INCREASES the instability of the region further increasing the liklihood of additional moves being made.

to your points above:
1. yes - remove their ability to go nuclear - a very sane thought
2. how can they escalate or retaliate in iraq?
3. makes no sense at all
4. they have been using women, pregnant women, and children for a long time - nothing new here.
5. interesting you touch on chechnya - a very big reason russia does not want iran going nuclear either - the only difference is that people know what russia will do if wmd's are used against them.

and tell me - play along here...

we leave iraq and mass genocide starts happening - what would you call on the US to do?