Let's assume the UN fails, and Iran gets nukes

[garric]

There were periods in these forums where there was a vocal voice about people saying stuff like "Iran should be allowed to get nukes, the USA has em and so does India/Pakistan, why shouldn't they?" etc. Coupled with the fact that a recent poll in CFC had Bush being less popular than the president of Iran, got me kind of worried. But in reality, I know most of you don't believe Iran should have nukes, and realize that Iran is a wacky regime and all that good stuff.

The argument comes from two different sides: A hard line, aka invasion, blockades, surgical strikes, etc. versus a diplomatic approach, via the UN or whatever.

What I'd like to know is: What if diplomacy fails? What if the UN fails to prevent Iran from making nuclear arms, we elect an anti-war Democrat in 2008, and one day a few years down the line, Iran announces they have nukes? What happens then? Where do we go from here?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Cheezy strikes again!!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184505

 

[Red Door]

What I'd like to know is: What if diplomacy fails? What if the UN fails to prevent Iran from making nuclear arms, we elect an anti-war Democrat in 2008, and one day a few years down the line, Iran announces they have nukes? What happens then? Where do we go from here?

If diplomacy fails, then we start poking them with a stick. If they don't get rid of the nuke, then we start poking them with airstrikes.

But, why does the anti-war canindate have to be Democrat? Seems just like one of your attempts to attack Liberals again.

 

[garric]

If diplomacy fails, then we start poking them with a stick. If they don't get rid of the nuke, then we start poking them with airstrikes.

But, why does the anti-war canindate have to be Democrat? Seems just like one of your attempts to attack Liberals again.

Apparently you don't know party stances on issues. The Democrats are generally anti-war, and this can't be said about Republicans. By the way, notice how I said "anti-war Democrat" so I don't make a blanket statement about all Democrats?

Your baseless attack is unmerited, and will be reported.

 

[skadistic]

Anti-war is the Dem. party line.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Apparently you don't know party stances on issues. The Democrats are generally anti-war, and this can't be said about Republicans. By the way, notice how I said "anti-war Democrat" so I don't make a blanket statement about all Democrats?

Quoted for truth.

Your baseless attack is unmerited, and will be reported.

I don't know if I'd go that far, it's not like he was malicious about it.

 

[unscratchedfoot]

Yet another thread on the exact same topic. What everyone on this forum doesn't realize is that the situation heating up with Iran has nothing at all to do with nukes. The nuke excuse is just the media's way of mediating war sentiment. That said, when is the US gonna start a war with Iran? That's all I care about.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yet another thread on the exact same topic. What everyone on this forum doesn't realize is that the situation heating up with Iran has nothing at all to do with nukes. The nuke excuse is just the media's way of mediating war sentiment. That said, when is the US gonna start a war with Iran? That's all I care about.

I think I'll report this one, too, these comments piss me off that much.

 

[Red Door]

Apparently you don't know party stances on issues. The Democrats are generally anti-war, and this can't be said about Republicans. By the way, notice how I said "anti-war Democrat" so I don't make a blanket statement about all Democrats?

Your baseless attack is unmerited, and will be reported.

Then I think I should've been cleared. I should've said not all Democrats are anti-war, historically, they have been. But look at Joe Lieberman, we'd be in Iran at the moment if he was President.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Democrats the anti-war party?

Democratic presidents were in power for the start of every major war of the 20th century.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Democrats the anti-war party?

Democratic presidents were in power for the start of every major war of the 20th century.

Back then Democrats were the conservative party.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Back then Democrats were the conservative party.

Wilson conservative? Nope.
Roosevelt conservative? Certainly not.
Truman conservative? Hm, not really.
Kennedy/Johnson conservative? I don't think so.

In fact, I don't think the Democrats have been conservative since the War Between the States.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wilson conservative? Nope.

Wilson was more conservative than you think. Sure, he did reforms some things, but he reversed the progress that Blacks had made in getting fair jobs; he fired every single Black office-holder in the government.

Also, he didn't start a war. He fought for four years to keep us OUT of war.

Roosevelt conservative? Certainly not.

A reformer, but he did much for big buisness, a very conservative thing.

He didn't start a war, he kept us out of war for three years, almost four.

Truman conservative? Hm, not really.

I don't know anything about Truman. He didn't start a war, either.

Kennedy/Johnson conservative? I don't think so.

The big change came with Eisenhower. After that, the parties were more like how we know them today.

 

[Red Door]

I don't know anything about Truman. He didn't start a war, either.

The big change came with Eisenhower. After that, the parties were more like how we know them today.

Technically, Truman started the Korean War with the U.S. by sending our troops there. But, that's getting really technical.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Wilson was more conservative than you think. Sure, he did reforms some things, but he reversed the progress that Blacks had made in getting fair jobs; he fired every single Black office-holder in the government.

Also, he didn't start a war. He fought for four years to keep us OUT of war.

That's regressive, not conservative. The income tax was not a conservative thing. The Federal Reserve was not a conservative thing. Direct election of Senators was not a conservative thing. And Wilson kept us out of war to get re-elected. Once given a second term, he launched American involvement in WWI--with an extensive propaganda campaign which had not been seen in the USA ever before.

And the League of Nations wasn't conservative, either.

A reformer, but he did much for big buisness, a very conservative thing.

He didn't start a war, he kept us out of war for three years, almost four.

FDR didn't start WWII or ask for it; true. But you aren't honestly trying to tell me that the New Deal was a conservative thing, are you?

I don't know anything about Truman. He didn't start a war, either.

Korea ring any bells?

The big change came with Eisenhower. After that, the parties were more like how we know them today.

I'm not passing judgement on whether these were just or necessary wars, merely saying that Democratic presidents fought them. Some (WWII) they had no choice. Others (Vietnam, Korea, WWI) they did.

 

[JohnRM]

Democrats the anti-war party?

Democratic presidents were in power for the start of every major war of the 20th century.

The Democratic Party was a different party prior to Vietnam. Quite a different element has taken it over now.

You have Kerry who actually voted to defund the war in Iraq. You have Murtha calling US Soldiers babykillers, criminals, nazi stormtroopers and the like. You have Hillary Clinton, who ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THE WAR, now saying it was a mistake. The Democratic Party is desperately trying to relive the 1960s and it going to cost them this year, just like in 2004.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Cheesy - you don't need to make a public announcement you're reporting the post. Just report it, and move on.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's regressive, not conservative. The income tax was not a conservative thing. The Federal Reserve was not a conservative thing. Direct election of Senators was not a conservative thing. And Wilson kept us out of war to get re-elected. Once given a second term, he launched American involvement in WWI--with an extensive propaganda campaign which had not been seen in the USA ever before.

Wilson didn't really push some of those things, Congress did; he just signed them into law.

I don't think Wilson pushed us into World War 1; it is true that propaganda circulated, but popular opinion was very much for war, from things like the Lusitania sinking, and the rape of Belgium. The Zimmerman Note showed that war was inevitable with Germany at the point we entered.

And the League of Nations wasn't conservative, either.

That's true, but I didn't say he wasn't visionary.

FDR didn't start WWII or ask for it; true. But you aren't honestly trying to tell me that the New Deal was a conservative thing, are you?

No, I suppose not.

Korea ring any bells?

Truman didn't start Korea. Korea was one of the few times we actually did what the UN told us to; our presence then and now is per UN mandate, hence it's international composure.

 

[JohnRM]

Wilson didn't really push some of those things, Congress did; he just signed them into law.

I don't think Wilson pushed us into World War 1; it is true that propaganda circulated, but popular opinion was very much for war, from things like the Lusitania sinking, and the rape of Belgium. The Zimmerman Note showed that war was inevitable with Germany at the point we entered.


That's true, but I didn't say he wasn't visionary.


No, I suppose not.



Truman didn't start Korea. Korea was one of the few times we actually did what the UN told us to; our presence then and now is per UN mandate, hence it's international composure.

Not to disagree with you, but American troops were already there to begin with. We were attacked. With or without UN resolutions, we would have sided with the ROK.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not to disagree with you, but American troops were already there to begin with. We were attacked. With or without UN resolutions, we would have sided with the ROK.

I didn't know we were already there.