Is war with Iran inevitable?

[Poiuyt]

The drumbeat to war seems very similar to what went on before we invaded Iraq. I would think with our recent history that we would be damn sure before we got into another mess.

Does Iran have a nuclear weapons program?
If so, how long before they have a deliverable weapon?
Are they forbidden to do that by international law?
If they develop nuclear weapons, what are the chances of them actually using them?

I would think we would have definitive answers to these before we start anything. Are we about to start another war of choice?

[Rex]

1. No. This is an election year.

It would be political suicide imo.

[TheWraith]

2. No. There is no way in hell that the US is going to war with Iran.

That drumbeat some people are hearing is pretty much in a few people's heads.

[Initech]

3. I'm so tired of unnecessary wars.

Iraq and Afghanistan were bad enough - Iran would be suicide for the US. The only reason we go to war anymore is obscene profit for the MIC. That's it. I'm tired of this crap.

[socialindependocrat]

10. Did you see, McCain wants to go into Syria?

Now, here's a guy who ran for POTUS

We're supporting Israel

and he wants to go into Syria!!

This man is nuts!

Let's see if the GOP gives him a talking to and if he changes his stand.

[Initech]

11. The war party won't change his mind.

If anything all that talk of war - if we put all that money to fixing problems here at home rather than bomb the shit out of small countries, we could end the deficit several million times over.

[postulater]

4. It might help if Israel would decommission it's nuclear weapons.

What makes them special that they are allowed to have them when other countries aren't?

[gratuitous]

5. Gosh, Pres. Obama said we're not at war with Iran

So it's all just jump-the-gun speculation. Until it isn't. At which time it will be too late to weigh in against the war. Our very existence is at stake. And if you're against a war in Iran, it's because you're (1) just an Obama hater; (2) in league with the terrorists; (3) just not understanding how very serious this is; or (4) some kind of dirty fucking hippie, who would be against any war just on general principles, and therefore Not Serious. Or a combination of two or more of those.

Some of the pebbles are protesting the avalanche, but it hasn't happened quite yet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Only if the campaign needs a boost.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Junkdrawer]

7. Currently (as per Chomsky), Iran and the US run Iraq as a condominium....

and Iraq is sitting on one of the few under-developed oil reservoirs in the world (not that THAT had anything to do with the 2003 invasion ).

With regime change in Iran, the failing US empire would gain pretty much exclusive control of said oil (though a puppet government only possible if Iran is out of the way).

So here's the $64 question: Will Russia and especially China sit idly by?

[thelordofhell]

8. No

Isn't this some right-wing talking point. I'm getting sick of this boogey man argument.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Maybe, if Iraq never happened

But it did.

[spin]

12. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent...

If a nation with rational leadership ever has to use such weapons, the weapons will have failed to achieve their mission.

Unfortunately not all nations have rational leaders and the proliferation of nuclear weapons could easily lead to a war that could destroy our civilization and put us back in the Stone Age.

It could be argued that the reason that we have not had WWIII is because that so far the major powers that would have been involved in such a conflict have had nuclear weapons and rational leaders. Unfortunately once the technology to develop such weapons evolved a Pandora's Box was opened. Without an effective world government eventually a nuclear weapon will be manufactured and used by a nation with irrational leaders in an attack against another nation. Such an event may destroy our world or if limited to a regional war this catastrophe will lead to the creation of a worldwide government with the support of a military force that has the power to stop any future nuclear wars.

It's sad but true that all too often wars are often caused by the religious difference between cultures. On the positive side religion has had considerable value in guiding the life of many individuals and has greatly contributed to our civilization. On the negative side throughout history national leaders have often misused religion to foster their goals of power by conquest. One such example is the Crusades.

It’s also sad that much of the technology that we enjoy today was developed because of conflict and warfare. Without the innate aggressive nature of our species, we might be still living in caves or as nomadic hunter gatherers.

In my personal view we are facing a test of our civilization. If we can overcome our aggressive nature and learn to live in peace, we may well be able to develop the technology to journey to the stars and join other members of a galactic society who have done the same. Failure will doom us to starting all over at the best.

[rug]

13. Of course not.

It will be entirely voluntary.