|
Would you support going to war with Iran? (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Firestarter there is something that you are failing to see here,and that is the fact that if the U.S attacks Iran they wont be just going after their nuclear facilities,infact they are going to hit evcery military compouds in Iran.Iam sure like always they ll have a good excuse such as: "those sites were hit because they were sponsoring terrorism" etc etc.
Once that happens,what do you think Iran is gonna do?open its borders and let the American troops walk in?as much as the neocons would love to see that the reality is much diiferent and instead we will have a full on war.
Even if lets say they just go after Irans nukes,Iran will retaliate no matter what.
The outcome of any sort of Military action against Iran will have a negative results and its impact will be felt around the world for a long time. |
I never suggested a full assault and it wouldn't be the first time a reactor has been bombed in the area (see Iraq / Israel over 25 yrs ago) though.
I may be taking a hard stance on this but even if the U.S. or some sort of consortium didn't do it, Israel has proven that it's not afraid of being the scapegoat on such an issue.
Believe me, the last thing anyone needs is the U.S. trying to take on Iran when their plate is already quite full and the world psyche on the whole matter appears to be at it's peak.
You guys are right, it would be like swatting a bee's nest... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I never suggested a full assault and it wouldn't be the first time a reactor has been bombed in the area (see Iraq / Israel over 25 yrs ago) though.
I may be taking a hard stance on this but even if the U.S. or some sort of consortium didn't do it, Israel has proven that it's not afraid of being the scapegoat on such an issue. |
Yes it has. If you know anything about neoconservatism you would know that America's desire to attack Iraq had everything to do with protecting Israel from its one major and realistic threat - Saddam Hussein, yet where were Israel in 2003? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yes it has. If you know anything about neoconservatism you would know that America's desire to attack Iraq had everything to do with protecting Israel from its one major and realistic threat - Saddam Hussein, yet where were Israel in 2003? |
Are you suggesting that Israel actually needed to do anything?
They did well to stay clear when it came to Iraq knowing full well what the implications would have been had they become involved. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Are you suggesting that Israel actually needed to do anything?
They did well to stay clear when it came to Iraq knowing full well what the implications would have been had they become involved. |
I'm just saying that my research on neoconservatism has suggested that they will take any action to support Israel including eliminating their enemies |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
I wish Bush would get it into his thick skull, that you should only go in and invade countries if, and only if, they have invaded / attacked other countries first e.g. first Gulf War and you have UN support.
The current war in Iraq is case and point as to why he shouldn't have gone in. And you don't need hindsight to be able to say that.
What is wrong with this neo-con idiot and dad's buddies? |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
I wish Bush would get it into his thick skull, that you should only go in and invade countries if, and only if, they have invaded / attacked other countries first e.g. first Gulf War and you have UN support.
The current war in Iraq is case and point as to why he shouldn't have gone in. And you don't need hindsight to be able to say that.
What is wrong with this neo-con idiot and dad's buddies? |
$$$$$$
I use to think that e was just you left wing nut balls spouting off, but man a 5 year old can see it...... its just if you try to point it out.... you are labled a nut job. but this is nothing new and you left ones are falling for the next WTF??? president.... Bill oopps I mean Hilary ...... its an never ending cycle man and will never end. till 2012..... ;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
$$$$$$
I use to think that e was just you left wing nut balls spouting off, but man a 5 year old can see it...... its just if you try to point it out.... you are labled a nut job. but this is nothing new and you left ones are falling for the next WTF??? president.... Bill oopps I mean Hilary ...... its an never ending cycle man and will never end. till 2012..... ;) |
You need to lay off the painkillers dude! (Especially if you think the US Democrats are "left wing"!!!) |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
(Especially if you think the US Democrats are "left wing"!!!) |
My def of liberal/leftwing might not be your def of a liberal/left wing due to You are an "outsider" staring in. so sorry for the lost in translation...
not to sound rude,,, but that would be like me correcting you on a very common and over used word in your country... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
My def of liberal/leftwing might not be your def of a liberal/left wing due to You are an "outsider" staring in. so sorry for the lost in translation...
not to sound rude,,, but that would be like me correcting you on a very common and over used word in your country... |
Like if I asked you if you wanted a fag!? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Or if you came over to England and told a girl she had a cute fanny!
:D |
|
|
| George Smiley |
In the UK:
Fag = cigarette
Fanny = vagina |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Lets hope both sides come to their senses right? Admadinijad needs to go. When are the Iranians having another election? Does it really matter? Last election the Guardian Council excluded hundreds of candidates. I don't think the country can continue quickly with nuclear development with such a stagnant economy. Foreigners just need to continue pressuring Iran to come to some sort of rationality. But the US also needs to withdraw 1 of its aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf. What incentive would Iran have to stop nuclear development if there are not just one, but two giant aircraft carriers just off your shore from a country they consider "that great satan"? Not much of any. |
I completly agree that the US needs to work on providing incentives.
Right now I find it hard to think that Iran is making a tactical mistake by pursuing nukes. Looking at the other two members of the "axis of evil" is a rather good demonstrationg N. Korea has nukes and didn't get invaded, Iraq didn't have nukes and did get invaded.
Removing an attack unit would be a decent signal that the US is not keen on invading but I don't know that it is enough to convince the Iranians that they will remain stable without nukes.
The ideal is to figure out how this can be done because until a "nuclear deterant" is no longer a geopolitical gold card Iran is going to pursue nukes ... and I still beleive that fewer mushroom cloud producing devices in the world is better for every one ... even the whales. |
|
|
|
|
