regarding the bombing of Iran...

[Metric]

Quick poll...

Assuming the word comes down from on high that Iran MUST be bombed to prevent it from obtaining nukes, would it be better for the US to do the deed, or better for Israel to do the deed?

[clowntable]

Assume the world decides the US has to be bombed. Would it be better for Iran, Pakistan or Russia to "do the deed".

WTF, what kind of stupid question is that?

[Metric]

Just a quick question regarding the fallout of an action that could very well be taken by someone very soon -- pay no attention if discussion of the possibility causes your sphincter to contract beyond level 4.

[Nielsio]

Another great poll for liberty.

[Metric]

Perhaps I should have phrased it in terms of "which would be the worst case scenario" (of the two) instead of "which would be be best case scenario."

A standard conversation goes something like this:

If nobody stops them, Iran will get nukes, and that will be bad. The US doesn't want that to happen, and may bomb Iran to stop them.

But that would be horrendous -- don't we have enough to worry about with Iraq?

If the US doesn't do it, Israel probably will.

So -- is this necessarily worse? Israel has certainly done it before. But of course Israel is hated more, and is an easier target for retaliation.

[clowntable]

[ QUOTE ]
If nobody stops them, Iran will get nukes, and that will be bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If nobody stops them, Iran will get nukes, and that will be bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. This is simply what the glowing tube in my living room tells me, "Mr. Average American." I want to know which would piss you off more/less or result in less/more war, upheaval, and overall unpleasantness -- Israel bombing to stop them, or the USA bombing to stop them.

For the purposes of this poll, I am not concerned about the question "would it be best if nobody bombed Iran?" I am only concerned about the relative consequences of the two listed possibilities.

[SNOWBALL]

better in what sense? wtf kind of question is this? It's amazing that talking about wiping out huge numbers of people is what passes for civilized discourse.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
better in what sense? wtf kind of question is this? It's amazing that talking about wiping out huge numbers of people is what passes for civilized discourse.

[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot now change the wording, which apparently has thrown everyone completely for a loop. "Better" as in "less bad for the world" -- does it feel more civilized now? I am not talking about "wiping out huge numbers of people" either -- I'm talking about something analogous to Israel's 1981 airstrike on Iraq's nuclear reactor (though it would certainly take a more extensive strike to be effective in the case of Iran).

Please spare me the hand-wringing regarding how "discourse" has become so "uncivilized" these days, and how shocked--shocked!!! you are that someone might mention this. These are two possibilities being actively discussed in the news -- I want to know if you have an opinion on which would be preferable.

My personal opinion as a US citizen is that I would rather us stay out of these types of messes as far as possible and let Israel take action, since they're the ones worried about nukes in the region.

[Brainwalter]

I agree that we should stop sticking our necks out - spending tons of money and threatening our own security - to prop up Israel. I say we leave that whole part of the world to their own devices, let them all kill each other and let god sort 'em out.