- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,622
- Reaction score
- 68
- Location
- Toledo-ish OH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
M14 Shooter said:If the US determies that the Iranian nuke threat necessitates military action against it, and Russia/China vote against any such action in the UNSC -- do we act or not?
Hoot said:Anyone that advocates that we start bombing Iran needs to check themself into the nearest mental health center.
Hoot said:Anyone that advocates that we start bombing Iran needs to check themself into the nearest mental health center.
Hoot said:Anyone that advocates that we start bombing Iran needs to check themself into the nearest mental health center.
Hoot said:Iraq is basically the size of California.
Iran is four times the size of Iraq/California, with rugged mountainous terrain.
We can never hope to take out all of their nuclear sites, which some rumor to number as high as the 70's, with alot of them underground.
Even with precision bombing, civilian casualties are unavoidable, which will inflame the populace, and only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions a few years at best.
Hoot said:We should allow Russia to let Iran pursue nuclear technology on Russian soil, with Russian supervision.
Hoot said:With the European Union, Russia and China, and the U.N., we can apply pressure on Iran without the threat of U.S. armed aggression.
Hoot said:Bombing Iran should absolutely be a last resort...and not the kind of last resort Bush spoke of in regard to Iraq.
M14 Shooter said:If the US determies that the Iranian nuke threat necessitates military action against it, and Russia/China vote against any such action in the UNSC -- do we act or not?
You mean HAS a WMD.Red_Dave said:So your saying the Iranian government was weapons of mass destruction?
You can't be serious.But as soon as people hear bush say iran is developing nukes [which it isnt its trying to develop energy]
Red_Dave said:So your saying the Iranian government was weapons of mass destruction? Just like iraq did? :lol: Im amazed people actually go along with this con . The american governent tells us we need to invade afghanistan to get bin larden and stop terroism . We invade aganistain, we dont get bin larden, we dont stop terroism. However what we do achive is paving the way for a much needed oil pipeline. Next we where told we had to invade iraq to get rid of saddam husein and his weapons of mass destruction, purge iraq of terroists [thus reduceing the threat of terroism] . and turn iraq into a peaceful democracy. We invaded. Got of saddam husein but no weapons of mass destruction where found, iraq has turned into a war zone. London was bombed in a as revenge for the uks role in the iraq war and bin larden promises more attacks unless us forces leave iraq. However what we did achive was secureing iraqi oil. Bush's record shows that the reasons and scare tactics he uses to get suporrt for his wars are largely false. But as soon as people hear bush say iran [another place with lots of oil] is developing nukes [which it isnt its trying to develop energy] everyone thinks "ooh we must invade before they kill us all" before you can say "gullable"
Kandahar said:So are you denying that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons?
Red_Dave said:Well neither the bush adminstration or the Iranian government seam particually trustworthy
Red_Dave said:so its a tricky one but i would wager that there arent any just like last time.
Red_Dave said:Well neither the bush adminstration or the Iranian government seam particually trustworthy so its a tricky one but i would wager that there arent any just like last time.
Hornburger said:I say not yet. We are already in a war with Iraq, and the rest of the terrorists around the world. We can't take up another war, we wouldn't be able to handle it nearly as well as if we get things elsewhere settled first. I think it would be much better not to act against Iran ourselves just yet.
Hornburger said:I say not yet. We are already in a war with Iraq, and the rest of the terrorists around the world. We can't take up another war, we wouldn't be able to handle it nearly as well as if we get things elsewhere settled first. I think it would be much better not to act against Iran ourselves just yet.
I think that we first need absolute proof on if Iran has WMD's.M14 Shooter said:The question isnt if we do it now (or next week or next month) but if we do it over a veto at the UNSC.
Well then it would basically be like us losing the war in Iraq first of all, because we didn't meet our original objective of providing Iraq with a stable government to handle such threats.Kandahar said:We need to prioritize. I say we get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible so we're in a stronger position to take military action against Iran. Either that or we use Iraq as a launching point for Iran, and stop fighting Iraqi insurgents.
The question assumes this.Hornburger said:I think that we first need absolute proof on if Iran has WMD's.
We've lost the war in Iraq because we haven't yet achieved all our objectives?Well then it would basically be like us losing the war in Iraq first of all, because we didn't meet our original objective of providing Iraq with a stable government to handle such threats.
Oh, I see, I apologize. But still...when is still a factor. We can't handle too much as it is...but when we are able to handle more than sure (if the UNSC vetos), war is a viable course of action.M14 Shooter said:The question assumes this.
Do we or do we not act over a UNSC veto?
No, but we will if we abandon the war in Iraq. We haven't abandoned the Iraq war yet, so we are still there trying to meet our goals. If we weren't, we wouldn't be there.We've lost the war in Iraq because we haven't yet achieved all our objectives?
Hornburger said:Well then it would basically be like us losing the war in Iraq first of all, because we didn't meet our original objective of providing Iraq with a stable government to handle such threats.
Hornburger said:And we don't even know if Iran even HAS nuclear weapons...we can't just go and pull another Iraq...we need to be absolutely sure they have WMD's first.
Kandahar said, ”I don't think we need to start bombing them just yet, but we certainly need that option on the table and we need to start for preparing for it since it looks like we'll need to go that route eventually. None of the possible outcomes from this are good, but a nuclear Iran is the least acceptable outcome.”
Hornburger said:I say not yet. We are already in a war with Iraq, and the rest of the terrorists around the world. We can't take up another war, we wouldn't be able to handle it nearly as well as if we get things elsewhere settled first. I think it would be much better not to act against Iran ourselves just yet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?