Hitchens: Does the left really want the U.S. to lose?

If the purported terrorists supported by Iran are waging terror against U.S., then yes we should take them out. But if they have a grudge only against Israel, I don't think we need to get involved.

BTW, you didn't really answer my question: have both Israel and Iran played by the same rules (e.g., international treaties)?

 

"This administration will confront Iran Militarily if they pursue Nuclear technology". Where does it end? We don't have the forces to invade Iran, and keep fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Going into Iran would not be the same as invading Iraq, the Generals know this. Iran would be MUCH tougher.

I'm sure those who promote a "military solution" will not be doing the fighting.

How can the answer to every problem be WAR?

 

Iran has oil.

Whatever else they have doesn't matter.

 

what's the basis of the preemptive attack on Iraq again?

 

if the U.S goes into Iran its going to be a different kind of war....you will have to blow that country into pieces....cause they will fight back unlike the Iraqis….it will be a big mistake to attack Iran….the world is already very anti-U.S…don’t need more bloodshed….but for a country like the U.S…force is their advantage…they don’t spend 450BILLION (half of the World TOTAL…which is 900Billion.) for no reason.

 

so our president is indeed a very dangerous man

 

and even if THEY accomplish some of THEIR objectives, you would have to look at all the resources (money, lives, time, diplomatic capital) that were used up.. aslo there are a ton of undesired consequences of THEIR war..

 

trying to put blame on this mess to someone else..

 

Precisely

 

I'm curious, what do you guys think Iran plans to do with a nuclear bomb? If your belief is give it to terrorists to set off somewhere in the US, why do you think Iran would be willing to accept total annihilation for that?

 

Basso, I didn't say that dying is bad so that means war is bad. But because getting killed is bad, putting people in that situation as a last resort if we the U.S. is threatened. I supported the war in Afghanistan. We were attacked, the people who did it and still pose a threat to us were in Afghanistan.

You may feel that Saddam was a threat, but neither you, nor the Bush administration has provided clear evidence to many of us. In fact what was thought to make Iraq a threat turned out not to exist there.

The idea that people could support a war so poorly planned, and in the opinion of liberals so unnecessary. That is why it makes sense to show what goes wrong and what the cost of this war is. Is what we are supposedly getting out of it worth the lives and money that are being lost and ruined in the effort.

 

I don't want to give them the option of that. I can't believe some of you think they're benign.

 

If the US has a right to have nuclear weapons, why aren't other countries?

 

The Bush War supporters always like to use 9/11 as the ultimate motive for U.S. military actions (the current Iraq War, the "pending" Iran War) in ME. Let's take another look at the 19 hijackers: the majority were Saudis, the ring leader was an Egyptian, a couple were from Kuwait, one or two might have been of other ME origins such as Jordan, Lebannon, or UAE. Also you got terrorist cell in Europe, most notably Germany.

If you want to shoot someone for revenge, do you shoot an easy one (or two) or you shoot a real target?

 

I am not afraid of a nuclear Iran. Besides, we wanted to get the Shah to use nuclear power before he was overthrown. Activity was halted during the overthrow, then again during the Iran-Iraq(US) war. I do not understand where you get this notion that Iran is a bad nation since Iranians are generally nice people. Racism?

 

thanks for being honest, basso. this post of yours makes all your previous claims on Iraq 9/11 connection, democracy, mother-of-all-terrorist-connections, etc., completely moot.