Korean Job Discussion Forums

[koon_taung_daeng]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070702/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


when i hear about this it pisses me off that they are getting away with it, i feel like this is a good opportunity to maybe bomb the hell out of all the terrorist camps and nuclear facilities they have, or maybe its a bad idea but how can we tolerate them arming terrorists?

[ajgeddes]

I really hope they don't. So far, there is no real proof of what they are doing. Right now it is about equal to WMD's in Iraq. Also, why can only American allies have nuclear power?

[dogshed]

They have slowly been becoming more and more democratic over
the years and the civilian population has a lot of pro-American people
that are keeping it under the radar and playing the system.

We could actually be getting rid of a potential ally if we bomb them.

[ajgeddes]

I agree with that too Dogshed. Aside from Israel, they are probably the most democratic country in the Middle-East.

Plus, I am going to Iran for vacation in August, so I really hope nobody bombs anything, but I still won't be doing any tours of Nuclear power plants while I am there.

[Thiuda]

How much of the information presented in the Yahoo.com article was extracted through torture? One might argue, that since US forces are notorious for torturing 'enemy combatants', these prisoners were probably coerced into providing information, merely confirming whatever information the 'intelligence officer' was looking for. So, based on that, I don't think 'you' should "bomb the hell" out of anyone.

I think it's funny that some two-bit English teacher in Korea assumes they can use the pronoun 'we' in this context; 'you' most certainly won't be bombing anyone. 'You' live in Korea as an English teacher, the men and women that would have to do the actual bombing-the-hell-out-of do not consider 'you' part of their 'us'.

Twit

[swetepete]

It's a mistake to over-estimate the efficacy of airstrikes, IMHO. While there's no doubt that all surface opposition could be taken out with little real problem, the nature of covert labs and installations--the fact that they're hidden, and generally subterranean--make them much harder to zap. This is true in Iran, and especially true in North Korea.

So, even if the intelligence was a hundred percent accurate, which it quite likely isn't, any bombing campaign would likely result in a) radicalizing the already anti-American population, and b) pushing the moderates into the same camp as the fervent anti-Americans. To effect leadership change, a ground war would be necessary, and where's the profit in that? Iraq is already a sucking chest-wound on the military coffers, and Afghanistan isn't even fully pacified yet...regardless of moral or ethical objections, or the massive instability it would breed in an already unstable region, a war in Iran would be a huge and terrible mistake simply because of the economics of it.

And as for leadership change, the last time America installed an Iranian leader (who was, btw, replacing a democratically elected president), the Shah ran a police state for thirty years before finally getting taken out by a popular revolt. What possible legitimacy could any American-endorsed leadership have in a country with that kind of history?

[RACETRAITOR]

I read an article recently that said Iran was approaching the US several times asking for diplomatic meetings, and the US wasn't returning their calls. I guess the US needs a credible enemy more than it needs peace in the middle east.

I might be the only one here who says the US would lose in any war against Iran. Iraq has had quite a severe toll, and Iran is way bigger, in way better shape, and way smarter. After invading Iran the US would be stretched way too thin in case a real enemy appears.

[spliff]

Absolutely positivly we should...NOW!

[deadman]

[koon_taung_daeng]

well regardless these people are supplying weapons to terrorist, and of course Iran should int have nuclear weapons , nobody should have nukes and