Romney: US has moral duty to block Iran

[T-5 Killer]

Is the axis of evil still legit?

Not since Obama got elected.

[Impartial Bias]

Is the axis of evil still legit?

It's been expanded upon.

The list now includes OG members Iran and North Korea, plus new members like Syria and Libya (Libya joined the team for awhile, but it seems they can't commit, and their star player Gaddaffi is gone, so they hopped off the list. Could come back though). Iraq's been exed out (they've reformed, but if they keep getting closer to Iran they could quickly be back in the naughty-naughty chair). New prospective members include Egypt, Pakistan (they be temp. homies, yo), and even China!

[tommyd]

The big problem I have with Iran getting a nuclear weapon, is that they'll use it.

[American Caesar]

Well Romney can rant all he wants that we have a moral duty to keep the bomb out of Iran's hands unless he's ready to carpet bomb and put 2 million troops on the ground Iran will get the bomb.

[LineDoggie]

Romneys is pretty much saying the same thing Obama has said on Iran getting Nuclear weapons. Both are almost in lockstep on this. Now some will claim this is AIPACs orders and other will understand it makes sense to do what you have to to stop them getting Nukes.

[StateMachine]

Just a general question to the MPnet crowd. What is the upper limit of Iranian and American casualties where you would say it not worth it to prevent the Iran regime from getting nukes or a nuke capability. For example if it was 1,000,000 Iranians and 10,000 Americans would that be too much death and destruction? 2,000,000/50,000? That's Viet Nam size figures. M Albright was asked whether it was worth half a million estimated Iraqi children dying as a result of the 12 year sanctions to weaken Saddam and she said it was.

[Ought Six]

Just a general question to the MPnet crowd. What is the upper limit of Iranian and American casualties where you would say it not worth it to prevent the Iran regime from getting nukes or a nuke capability. For example if it was 1,000,000 Iranians and 10,000 Americans would that be too much death and destruction? 2,000,000/50,000? That's Viet Nam size figures. M Albright was asked whether it was worth half a million estimated Iraqi children dying as a result of the 12 year sanctions to weaken Saddam and she said it was.

That is a pretty idiotic question. Precision bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities would likely cause minimal civilian casualties in Iran and probably very few American casualties, should we attack. No one is contemplating a ground invasion of Iran, so your big casualty numbers are pure fantasy, as is the claim that sanctions against Saddam's regime "killed a half million Iraqi children".

[toad]

That is a pretty idiotic question. Precision bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities would likely cause minimal civilian casualties in Iran and probably very few American casualties, should we attack. No one is contemplating a ground invasion of Iran, so your big casualty numbers are pure fantasy, as is the claim that sanctions against Saddam's regime "killed a half million Iraqi children".

I agree. Idiotic. Off base. Insipid.

/douchenozzle
//trolling

[Surenas]

That is a pretty idiotic question. Precision bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities would likely cause minimal civilian casualties in Iran and probably very few American casualties, should we attack. No one is contemplating a ground invasion of Iran, so your big casualty numbers are pure fantasy, as is the claim that sanctions against Saddam's regime "killed a half million Iraqi children".

Indeed, a rather rough estimate. Numbers vary between 100.000 deaths and 500.000 deaths. Still disgusting imo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

[Ought Six]

Indeed, a rather rough estimate. Numbers vary between 100.000 deaths and 500.000 deaths. Still disgusting imo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

There is only one reason that many people died; because Saddam seized all the food and medical aid coming into the country, and diverted it to his military. To blame the deaths on the sanctions when Saddam himself is clearly to blame is just so much BS revisionist history.

[Surenas]

There is only one reason that many people died; because Saddam seized all the food and medical aid coming into the country, and diverted it to his military. To blame the deaths on the sanctions when Saddam himself is clearly to blame is just so much BS revisionist history.

Yeah, that must be the reason why Albright thought and stated in a interview that the price was worth it. She later denied it and came up with the same excuse as you, but that doesn't change the fact that the sanctions had a major effect on those deaths.

[Ought Six]

Yeah, that must be the reason why Albright thought and stated in a interview that the price was worth it.

Albright is a *politician*, and not a very bright one. To take her word as gospel is unwise.

[StateMachine]

That is a pretty idiotic question. Precision bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities would likely cause minimal civilian casualties in Iran and probably very few American casualties, should we attack. No one is contemplating a ground invasion of Iran, so your big casualty numbers are pure fantasy, as is the claim that sanctions against Saddam's regime "killed a half million Iraqi children".

Yes I understand you believe it will clean and easy. I know that everyone on this forum believes that. I also know that given that everyone on this forum believes it will be clean and easy that none are against a preemptive war on Iran.

What I am asking is a general concept question of where it would be too costly in pro-war minds to de-nuke Iran. Let's take the Iraq numbers, 100,000 dead Iraqis/4000 dead Americans/$1-2T. If those were the expected numbers in a de-nuking war on the Iran regime would you still say go for it.

[Ought Six]

Yes I understand you believe it will clean and easy. I know that everyone on this forum believes that. I also know that given that everyone on this forum believes it will be clean and easy that none are against a preemptive war on Iran.

What I am asking is a general concept question of where it would be too costly in pro-war minds to de-nuke Iran. Let's take the Iraq numbers, 100,000 dead Iraqis/4000 dead Americans/$1-2T. If those were the expected numbers in a de-nuking war on the Iran regime would you still say go for it.

I am not going to play your stupid numbers game. Everytime we take action against another nation, we are rolling the dice as to the outcome. Regardless, there is no plan nor desire for a ground invasion of Iran. I cannot see any scenario that would lead to that. You are trying to spin up BS to support a false argument.

[Steak-Sauce]

No ground invasion means Iran will only be delayed in its development of nuclear armaments. It should be politically very clear formulated by the US and potential allies that every military action, including surgical strikes, taken against Iran must be handled as a full-blown war with all its possible consequences for the region, world and homefront.

I doubt the USA can bomb potential nuclear targets in a country every few months without risking a de-stabilization of the Middle East and losing political influence throughout the world and among friendly states.

Or do people really think half a dozen MOBs will finish the job once and for all?