Threats can be contained. Unless they are staging for an attack of the US then there is no justification preemptively attack Iran.

antifederalist on December 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM

You try and make that sound like a law of physics..”a threat can be contained”. Not always, or actually, rarely.

Once an aggressor has reached your standard of staging an attack etc.
The US has an obligation to protect its allies. Iran has threatened and supplied deadly weapons with deadly results on numerous occasions. If fact, I think it is a defining characteristic of the regime. Can you provide any other distinctive characteristics of the Iranian Mullah society?

I can’t help but think that you find any preemptive actions to be somehow morally “wrong”.
Was it morally wrong to defeat the Germans in WW2? They didn’t attck us. In order to win the war we bombed Dresden. Dresden was a city with mostly civilians in it. Dresden didn’t attck us.

You’re bloviating.
I mentioned (in my question to you, which remained unanswered) in an “eliminate the threat” of deadly action.. action with a long standing and proven history of killing innocent citizens, how many people not involved in the direct murderous actions are acceptable in a action of protecting the innocents in the area and beyond?

Again, if you missed the implication, I’m talking about conventional means.

Mimzey on December 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

A threat of violence or a response to an actual attack? Threats can be contained. Unless they are staging for an attack of the US then there is no justification preemptively attack Iran.

When is murder acceptable to you? How many US civilian deaths would be acceptable since the US government already possesses and has used nuclear weapons? Zero. Therefore, No Iranian citizen should have to die for a weapon they don’t have or have ever used. And the US has no moral authority to sentence other people to death for a weapon they don’t possess that the US has used.

antifederalist on December 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

You’re bloviating.
I mentioned (in my question to you, which remained unanswered) in an “eliminate the threat” of deadly action.. action with a long standing and proven history of killing innocent citizens, how many people not involved in the direct murderous actions are acceptable in a action of protecting the innocents in the area and beyond?

Again, if you missed the implication, I’m talking about conventional means.

We could always just NUKE them, twice, from orbit. You really need to be sure.

astonerii on December 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Good old conservative mass murder tendencies.

You’re bloviating.
26 million people?
In your opinion, what is an acceptable number of civilian deaths in order to disrupt the terrorist state of Iran and it’s march towards nuclear weapons, using conventional means?
Mimzey on December 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

When is murder acceptable to you? How many US civilian deaths would be acceptable since the US government already possesses and has used nuclear weapons? Zero. Therefore, No Iranian citizen should have to die for a weapon they don’t have or have ever used. And the US has no moral authority to sentence other people to death for a weapon they don’t possess that the US has used.

You seem to be looking at killing 26 million people.

antifederalist on December 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM

You’re bloviating.
26 million people?
In your opinion, what is an acceptable number of civilian deaths in order to disrupt the terrorist state of Iran and it’s march towards nuclear weapons, using conventional means?

We could always just NUKE them, twice, from orbit. You really need to be sure.
astonerii on December 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

And what has the people of Iran done to you that justifies killing scores of them with a nuclear weapon? The murderer at Sandy Hook killed 26 people. You seem to be looking at killing 26 million people.