TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Would you support going to war with Iran?
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Aye I was just takin the piss. I gathered what it was, but still find the images it congured up of gun crazed yanks all sat round the TV whooping to wars like they were football matches mildly amusing (and probably quite close to the bone for a lot of Americans!) If there were a 24hr live war channel offering subscriptions, I honestly believe it'd attract quite few subscribers over there!!

LOL, with live helmet shots from the front line?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm guessing you don't because you actually believe the UN can make a difference as peacekeepers in a huge country like Iraq, where the US can't even control the roads with 150,000 troops. You are separated from reality. If you want to continue arguing your bankrupt views, then the rest of us here will not hesitate shooting you down.

The ONLY difference for Iraq if the coalition had a UN mandate would be legitimacy in their actions. It would still be America and the countries in Iraq that were fighting and mounting the same operations they are today. Even if France, Russia and China had agreed to back the UN mandate, they would not be required to send in troops. It would just have legitimised America action (which would be no different with or without that mandate)

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL, with live helmet shots from the front line?

I'm pretty sure there's stuff like that already on YouTube!!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm pretty sure there's stuff like that already on YouTube!!!

Funny story.

In my sociology class, I was partners with this one marine sniper who had just gotten back from Afghanistan and IRaq. He brought in his laptop which had numerous videos of him shooting the enemy. I found out that the sniper rifles can shoot 1.5 miles and ALSO can have cameras mounted on the scope! So you can see the kill! So I got to watch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters get blown apart from a mile away. You see what the sniper sees. It's awesome! You see a guy peeking out from behind a rock. Just make his head explode, and literally his explodes like a watermelon.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Funny story. In my sociology class, I was partners with this one marine sniper who had just gotten back from Afghanistan and IRaq. He brought in his laptop which had numerous videos of him shooting the enemy. I found out that the sniper rifles can shoot 1.5 miles and ALSO can have cameras mounted on the scope! So you can see the kill! So I got to watch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters get blown apart from a mile away. You see what the sniper sees. It's awesome! You see a guy peeking out from behind a rock. Just make his head explode, and literally his explodes like a watermelon.

Riiiiiiiight.........

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Riiiiiiiight.........

Well, hey, if it's you against them, I'de rather be the guy with the 1 mile rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer ya I mean the casualities could only be around a few thousands and by your standards thats probably normal. These are innocent people we are talking here not a bunch of animals gettting slaughtered.

Get over yourself, seriously.

I was strictly speaking militarily so take your bleeding heart somewhere else kthxbye.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer ya I mean the casualities could only be around a few thousands and by your standards thats probably normal. These are innocent people we are talking here not a bunch of animals gettting slaughtered.

You do realize he was talking about military targets right? The missile is designed to penetrate deep underground military installations such as bunkers and command complex's. Hardly a civilian structure.

What the hell is going on in here? Can someone summarise the latest posts..?

Wait I will read and fuc everyone who thinks Iran should be invaded.. Iran will fuc each and everyone of you.. just wait and see..

quote:

Originally posted by Purple What the hell is going on in here? Can someone summarise the latest posts..? Wait I will read and fuc everyone who thinks Iran should be invaded.. Iran will fuc each and everyone of you.. just wait and see..

No, everyone is trying to correct the shit that you posted in this thread talking about the UN and US. If you look at the poll, very few of us want an invasion of Iran. See, just more shit. Look at the what's in front of you and stop making shit up.

If you want to continue to defend your bankrupt view then respond to the first post at the top of page 5.

I just finished reading all the posts made recent and ralised that its all just chick talk.. like blond teenagers commenting on each other clothes..

Anyways..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I didn't ask what you want the US and UN to do. I'm still waiting for your source that says those countries would send troops to Iraq under any UN mandate or mission. The place is a full on combat zone. What if they get hit by insurgences, which is pretty much a certainty if they are sent in today's environment? Do you think the UN with its bureacracy will be able to mount counter-insurgency operations like the US does? Dude, you are seriously misinformed. What media is filling you with these mis-truths. I mean hell, when you said this...

Didnt you read what I posted? Dont you understand? I said unless US agrees to withdraw no country will bring out its name that yes I will send my forces.. Are you that numb? Unless step 1, 2 and 3 are met, noone will take step 4..

Here I will post again..:

quote:

Originally posted by Purple This is the process.. Step 1: US decides and agrees to withdraw completely from Iraq... no partial withdrawal.. this demands complete withdrawal from Iraq including oil fields. Step 2: US apologies and admits its mistake in an open speech at UNO in attendance from the parties involved like Collin, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, US ambassador to UN.. who deliberately lied in all UN General Meetings. Step 3: US ambassador to UN requests UNO and its members for help and ask them to deploy their (UN) peace keeping forces in Iraq. Step 4: Here your anxious wait ends when UN decides which countries troops should be sent to Iraq, like in case of Somalia UN asked neighboring African countries to send its troop.. and they had to follow it. Countries don't decide they want to send their troops or not, when you sign the UN treaty as its member you pledge certain number of forces to UN.. UN decides in civilized discussion general meetings and its country members follow the ruling.

Unless step 1, 2 and 3 are met, noone will take step 4..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You didn't even realize the UN's headquarters in New York is sovereign territory. You do also realize the US only has as much power as the other Security Council members right? I'm guessing you don't because you actually believe the UN can make a difference as peacekeepers in a huge country like Iraq, where the US can't even control the roads with 150,000 troops. You are separated from reality. If you want to continue arguing your bankrupt views, then the rest of us here will not hesitate shooting you down.

First, Wow.. minutes before you were saying that US is what gives power to UN.. and now you take a U turn and 'US only has as much power as the other Security Council members'?

Second, you think UN a 'global' organization cant make a difference in Irq which is smaller than Africa? Are you that timid? You think that low of UN? No wonder your pride to be an American has make you think that this world is smaller than you. US cant control roads with 150,000 troops because US is shit, they suck, you can never control Iraq qith your fire power or with your numbers.. nuke the shit out of of Iraq and you wont control it even than... money and power is not everything.. got it? Iraqis have said that all they want is to get the US fck out of it land.. that's their mission.. You are separated from reality. Go beyond the numbers and think in more humane way as to why US is facing opposition in Iraq and UN wont..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well, hey, if it's you against them, I'de rather be the guy with the 1 mile rifle.

Yes quite, but wanking over it on YouTube is taking it a little far no?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes quite, but wanking over it on YouTube is taking it a little far no?

No, it was on his laptop. I said he was in my sociology class. The guy brought in his laptop and showed me in class.

quote:

Didnt you read what I posted? Dont you understand? I said unless US agrees to withdraw no country will bring out its name that yes I will send my forces.. Are you that numb? Unless step 1, 2 and 3 are met, noone will take step 4..

So, the US withdraws, and the UN takes over? You're assuming the insurgency will just lay their arms down and accept a UN occupation? The Iraqi government sure isn't going to provide security. It's not the UN's job to mount counter-insurgency operations.

quote:

This is the process.. Step 1: US decides and agrees to withdraw completely from Iraq... no partial withdrawal.. this demands complete withdrawal from Iraq including oil fields. Step 2: US apologies and admits its mistake in an open speech at UNO in attendance from the parties involved like Collin, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, US ambassador to UN.. who deliberately lied in all UN General Meetings. Step 3: US ambassador to UN requests UNO and its members for help and ask them to deploy their (UN) peace keeping forces in Iraq. Step 4: Here your anxious wait ends when UN decides which countries troops should be sent to Iraq, like in case of Somalia UN asked neighboring African countries to send its troop.. and they had to follow it. Countries don't decide they want to send their troops or not, when you sign the UN treaty as its member you pledge certain number of forces to UN.. UN decides in civilized discussion general meetings and its country members follow the ruling.

I agree with steps 1, somewhat of 2, I wish 3 could even work, and 4 definately won't work.

I believe the US should admit its mistake. Perhaps by a succeeding administration. I don't know if we would go so far as to make the former Bush administration be present at the announcement.

As for steps 3 and 4. It's just asking for a replacement occupation force of the American one. What's the difference? Peacekeeping? There is no peace to keep. Whatever peace is being kept is by the occupation forces, some Sunni tribes, and Kurdish areas to the north. So with the withdrawal of American forces, and the inevitable rise in violence, perhaps even the collapse of the Iraqi government, how are UN peacekeepers going to do a damn thing?

Again, I ask your source that even says these troops that must number at least 100,000 will be sent from other countries other than the US.

quote:

First, Wow.. minutes before you were saying that US is what gives power to UN.. and now you take a U turn and 'US only has as much power as the other Security Council members'? [quote] Let me clarify. The US along with the Security Council is what gives the UN its power. Just one veto on the Security Council negates UN approval for any action. My mistake on the vagueness of my comment. [quote]Second, you think UN a 'global' organization cant make a difference in Irq which is smaller than Africa? Are you that timid? You think that low of UN? No wonder your pride to be an American has make you think that this world is smaller than you.[quote] Iraq is a country of 26 million people from 3 main demographic sects. Two of them are actively fighting each other, in addition to infighting amongst themselves. The government of Iraq is a currupt divided assembly that barely functions. I don't think low of the UN. I think realistically about the situation. Deploying enough UN forces to maintain any semblance of order would take more of a committment than even the US has made. You think the UN is a magic peace making force, and it isn't. Usually, only a few thousands troops are ever sent, not hundreds of thousands that would be needed for Iraq. [quote] US cant control roads with 150,000 troops because US is shit, they suck, you can never control Iraq qith your fire power or with your numbers.. nuke the shit out of of Iraq and you wont control it even than... money and power is not everything.. got it?

The US is shit, so it can't control the roads? Great intellectual arguement. 150,000 troops can't control all roads all the time. 150,000 troops can't control all cities, towns, and villages all at the same time. The US does the work clearing out insurgents, but the Iraqi forces can't control their own territory afterwards. How are the UN going to do it? You still havn't explained that.

Money and power are not everything, you're right, so how is the UN going to do anything? The UN would need money and authority (power) to even try to make a difference in Iraq. How are they going to stop the insurgency? You think because US forces leave, the insurgency will just stop? Won't happen.

quote:

Iraqis have said that all they want is to get the US fck out of it land.. that's their mission.. You are separated from reality. Go beyond the numbers and think in more humane way as to why US is facing opposition in Iraq and UN wont..

And the US should get out. I'm far from separated from reality. You want the UN to essentially do what the US is doing now. Where's the reality in that?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Get over yourself, seriously. I was strictly speaking militarily so take your bleeding heart somewhere else kthxbye.

oh Iam sure you were.Everyone knows that most of those nuclear facilities are near cities or towns with many people living in them.So any sort of strike would create casualities.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer oh Iam sure you were.Everyone knows that most of those nuclear facilities are near cities or towns with many people living in them.So any sort of strike would create casualities.

Source? Everyone knows isn't an argument.

Since when have nuclear facilities been located in the center of urban areas? They have to account for any nuclear accidents. What stupid engineer would build a nuclear facility in the heart of a city.?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Source? Everyone knows isn't an argument. Since when have nuclear facilities been located in the center of urban areas? They have to account for any nuclear accidents. What stupid engineer would build a nuclear facility in the heart of a city.?

A real, real dumb one...

quote:

Originally posted by Purple Iran will fuc each and everyone of you.. just wait and see..

first off let me just say i think you are easily one of the most ******* **** ***** *** ****er's on this board. no offence

second, i agree totally with your statement.

...and let further add that Iran "fucks" just about everyone they come in contact with. from Arabs to Russians, the Chinese, Turks, Yanks, Lebanese, many other Moslems and yes, the Joos.

if there were ANY government in the world the last 30 years that was only out for themselves, it would be the Iranian government.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Source? Everyone knows isn't an argument. Since when have nuclear facilities been located in the center of urban areas? They have to account for any nuclear accidents. What stupid engineer would build a nuclear facility in the heart of a city.?

Do you remember the incident that happend not too long ago in Japan?were they had to evacuate alot of people?

so you telling me all the nuclear reactors are built in a middle of nowhere?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r A real, real dumb one...

ya Firecracker is the brainer on this board how could I ever forget?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Do you remember the incident that happend not too long ago in Japan?were they had to evacuate alot of people? so you telling me all the nuclear reactors are built in a middle of nowhere?

No, I'm saying their not built in downtown areas. Japan is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Iran is different. I'm really speaking specifically about Iran. Even more specifically their enrichment operations, which are deep underground in ultra-secure facilities ringed by AA defenses and radar. Are you going to tell me there are civilians living in the vacinity of these military installations?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No, it was on his laptop. I said he was in my sociology class. The guy brought in his laptop and showed me in class. So, the US withdraws, and the UN takes over? You're assuming the insurgency will just lay their arms down and accept a UN occupation? The Iraqi government sure isn't going to provide security. It's not the UN's job to mount counter-insurgency operations. I agree with steps 1, somewhat of 2, I wish 3 could even work, and 4 definately won't work. I believe the US should admit its mistake. Perhaps by a succeeding administration. I don't know if we would go so far as to make the former Bush administration be present at the announcement. As for steps 3 and 4. It's just asking for a replacement occupation force of the American one. What's the difference? Peacekeeping? There is no peace to keep. Whatever peace is being kept is by the occupation forces, some Sunni tribes, and Kurdish areas to the north. So with the withdrawal of American forces, and the inevitable rise in violence, perhaps even the collapse of the Iraqi government, how are UN peacekeepers going to do a damn thing? Again, I ask your source that even says these troops that must number at least 100,000 will be sent from other countries other than the US. The US is shit, so it can't control the roads? Great intellectual arguement. 150,000 troops can't control all roads all the time. 150,000 troops can't control all cities, towns, and villages all at the same time. The US does the work clearing out insurgents, but the Iraqi forces can't control their own territory afterwards. How are the UN going to do it? You still havn't explained that. Money and power are not everything, you're right, so how is the UN going to do anything? The UN would need money and authority (power) to even try to make a difference in Iraq. How are they going to stop the insurgency? You think because US forces leave, the insurgency will just stop? Won't happen. And the US should get out. I'm far from separated from reality. You want the UN to essentially do what the US is doing now. Where's the reality in that?

Yes.. I think that way.. that the insurgents will lay down their weapons and stop this bloodshed once the US leaves, they will embrace UN cos they have nothing against them.. US has invaded Iraq before and Iraqies see US as their Enemy and not UN... they will welcome UN forces and throw stones at leaving US forces.. thats what will happen..

US is seen like Nazi Germany in Iraq and UN will be seen like the liberators from Nazi Germans and not as the occupiers.. dont forget Iraq too is a member of UN and UN supported Iraq all the time..

Yes once US withdraws, their will be a steep/deep fall in insurgency and bloodshed that we see currently in Iraq.

You will not have Tibet style peace and calm.. but it will hell lot more calm, peaceful and worry free life that Iraqies will get once the US forces leave and hands over the guardian thing to UN.

Why will it happen? Cos history has it.. give me one example where UN failed to maintain peace..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What stupid engineer would build a nuclear facility in the heart of a city.?

Americans Not in the center of a city but pretty damn close.

3 mile island was very close to the Penn state capital of Harrisburg.

Nuclear facilities are mostly located just outside the city.. to power the city itself..

Nooone builds nuclear site in remote desert no matter how big the country is..

quote:

Originally posted by Purple Nuclear facilities are mostly located just outside the city..

yeah, right next to the airport

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag yeah, right next to the airport

No, its more like an hour drive from city or so in most cases.. and if US air strikes nuclear facilities in Iran, the radiation leak WILL affect the civilians in the city an hour away from it in minutes..Chernobyl effected whole of Europe...

Edit: And the first one to get effected will be little children and than women... than the old citizens..

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.