|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
07-03-06, 02:31 PM | #21 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
Keep up with the times - why would the USA need to say that? There are better reasons then that to go to war with Iran. "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said in a speech to the to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group. He said the United States joins "other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." That is the only reason the world needs. No way will Iran be allowed to have nukes. No way in Hell.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
|
07-03-06, 04:36 PM | #22 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
first question is: why would you believe the Bush administration on this matter? what part of the last five years where you not paying attention to? next question is: why is a nuclear Iran so unthinkable? why will the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) not be as an effective a deterrent for Iran as it has been for every other nuclear power? third question: since we have been unable to successfully conclude either the Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts, what on earth makes you think the US could successfully open and close a third front? i'm not in favor of Iran going nuclear but as i listen to the drumbeats of an administration with zero foreign policy credibility, it sounds a lot like Iraq all over again - and you know how that turned out. |
|
07-03-06, 04:58 PM | #23 |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
I love pea brained liberals who label things they can't comprehend "unthinkable".
People with higher brain function actually can think about a nuclear armed Iran and thus conclude that it shouldn't be allowed. |
07-03-06, 05:03 PM | #24 | ||||
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
These aren’t friendly streets………
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
||||
07-03-06, 06:40 PM | #25 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
I've read a few analyses on a possible war with Iran and almost everyone who looks closely at the issue concludes that it would be suicidal to invade Iran. Too many mountains, too many nooks and crannies to sweep, and the majority of Iranians lives in the densly populated northern reigion around Tehran, so any fight there is sure to cause massive amounts of collateral damage. Even arial bombardment is risky, and cruise missile attacks, while marginally safer for the population, would not do enough damage. The military option in Iran is very undesirable, and nobody knows this better than the president and his staff. Believe me, Bush doesn't want war with Iran and he won't be pushing for it any time soon.
Besides, if we ever looked like we were trying to take over the population of Iran we'd be legitimizing their claims that America want's to destroy Islam. That wouldn't accomplish anything. No, the only way to win is to get Iran to voluntarily give up on its nuclear weapons program through diplomacy. And even though military force won't be needed, an American military presence along the Iran-Iraq border would definitly help our position at the table. Perhaps invading Iraq was the only way the international community was ever going to get Iran to heed its demands. |
07-03-06, 11:44 PM | #26 |
Keebeck Canuck
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Close to a border of LUNATICS
Posts: 1,771
|
Mazer, I hope sincerly you are right on this one.
|
08-03-06, 12:21 PM | #27 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Signs That the United States is About to Bomb Iran
Quote:
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
|
08-03-06, 03:48 PM | #28 |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
oh boy, another war! cool!
- js. |
08-03-06, 06:55 PM | #29 | |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Quote:
|
|
10-03-06, 05:30 PM | #30 | |
Apprentice Napsterite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: unknown
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
ok for one, it wasnt supposed to be humerous, it was just a statement.. i know this is a forum about politics, and strong political opinions. obviously i know some people wont see the humor in it. maybe you shold read it again...... |
|
10-03-06, 11:36 PM | #31 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
It's just difficult to take that coment seriously. Apologize to the dead soldiers in their graves? Come on, that won't solve our problems. It might satisfy your need to see the president humilated, but other than that what purpose would it serve? I had to assume you were joking or else I would have had to pity you.
Apologies are only useful to those who are able to hear them, the families of the soliders for instance. But in my opinion it would only cheapen the sacrifices of the soldiers and deepen the sorrow of their families if they were served with an empty apology by a political figurehead. It's best for everyone if Bush keeps his regrets to himself. |
11-03-06, 12:31 AM | #32 |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
man ,getting an apology from a conservative would be like getting a blowjob from a corpse. you would have to knock out their teeth first...
they can't deal in intangible things like apogogies to dead people it dont make sense unlike the million$ that get spent on commemorating wardead its how the rich have been sending people off to war to fight and die for them for centuries...no regrets ..they will be remembered if they aren't manipulating people they feel they dont exist.. so they just do it with all sorts justifications but you wont hear one ever really apologise... |
11-03-06, 02:38 PM | #33 |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Keep multi away from the morgues and funeral homes ffs.
I still think the U.S. can bomb countries into submission, like Japan, but no-one's got the guts for it anymore. Looks like Iran will be another replay of the 'Iraq sanctions' so all the people who kept saying they'd work if they were only given more time can start saying that again for another 12 years. |
11-03-06, 11:15 PM | #34 |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
theres probably more chance of bombing Iran into submission than sanctioning them into submission ..but theres a danger that russia and china might get involved if that happens maybe some drawn out cold war like stalemate will be needed unless alot of the mid-east becomes uninhabitable for 12 thousand years what about all this recent nuclear support for india and pakistan coming from US and they want Australia to sell them weapons grade uranium ..is this some sort of pre-conflict exercise to build up a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons in that area to help keep the midlle east in check ? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|