16 Mar 06
1 edit
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the primary objective of disabling their air force, and then cripple their nuclear infrastructure at leisure of U.S. Air Force, Navy/Marine Corps brass. Or another option would be to disable their air force and then bring them back to the bargaining table for some "real" talks. Tell them how it will be. Since we already have air power in the region it also makes sense from a logistical standpoint.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by evilpiagetYea, and more good people will die for no good reason More needed money will be flushed down the toilet. CNN and MSNBC will have something else to blab about.
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the p ...[text shortened]... Since we already have air power in the region it also makes sense for a logistical standpoint.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by evilpiagetAnd what gives you the right to 'tell them how it will be'?
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the p ...[text shortened]... ince we already have air power in the region it also makes sense from a logistical standpoint.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by evilpiagetSo you think you are suggesting something the US military hasn't been
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the p ...[text shortened]... ince we already have air power in the region it also makes sense from a logistical standpoint.
drooling over for the past two years?
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by evilpiagetIt took you a few years to figure that out?
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the p ...[text shortened]... ince we already have air power in the region it also makes sense from a logistical standpoint.
How long will it take you to realize that you can't use force alone to police the planet?
How long will it take you to realize that perhaps this isn't about nuclear arms at all, but the fact that the US fears someone else will have the balls to talk to them at their level?
Mutually Assured Destruction, that's our ticket.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by evilpiagetWhat gives you the right to deny an other country something you have? I really see none. You are saying you could declare war on Iran because you think they will produce nukes. So would it be ok for Iran to declare war on the US as they know the US has nukes? This in my eyes gives Iran a greater ‘justification’ for war then the US has.
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the p ...[text shortened]... ince we already have air power in the region it also makes sense from a logistical standpoint.
“From the developments of the past few years I gather that the USA will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.” Would it be ok if they said this? Would you demand war?
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by evilpiagetBritain AND U.S.A Started this and we have to end it!
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the p ...[text shortened]... ince we already have air power in the region it also makes sense from a logistical standpoint.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by RedmikeJust so, having regard to its being a haven for religious fanatics who pronounce 'fatwahs' against anyone they object to, and believe that a suicide bomber goes straight to heaven (at least that is what some of their clerics teach them).
So Iran, a soveriegn nation, isn't entitled to decide how it acts?
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by Howell123We have to walk out of there; it’s terrible to say well we have troops stationed nearby so we may as well invade. I hate the mentality that it’s ok to start a war with a country and you will be the heroes and sort out there problems but if someone did it to you then they are evil and just looking to cause your suffering. They at current have nothing of real threat so don’t invade them, just leave them alone possibly ask them not to advance in the direction of the production of any nuclear arms but well if they do that’s there choice and an ill advised one. I think we should lead by example and start a slow safe disarmament program and tell them that as long as they do not partake in an attack upon citizens of our nationality that we will leave them along.
Britain AND U.S.A Started this and we have to end it!
Think of how much good the money spent on a war with Iran could do if it was spent on aid for Africa.
I ask who is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons as a tool of war? Should we invade them as they must seem unstable to use them?
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by NargagunaThey are willing to die in the hope they can get closer to liberating there country from people who come half way round the world with not aid but weapons and tell them how to run there country. I do not agree with what they do but however they don’t do it to take fathers and husbands away from us they do it in the hope they have of freedom for there fellow citizens.
Just so, having regard to its being a haven for religious fanatics who pronounce 'fatwahs' against anyone they object to, and believe that a suicide bomber goes straight to heaven (at least that is what some of their clerics teach them).
If America was invaded and occupied would American troops be willing to die in the hope of liberating it from the oppressors?
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by evilpiagetwhose army are you proposing to use in this operation? the one that's bogged down in iraq? air power alone cannot conquer a country, there must be soldiers on the ground if one wishes to hold territory. the u.s. military is already stretched beyond its capabilities in iraq and afghanistan and they don't look to be leaving anytime soon. iran is a far larger country with a military that may be far inferior to america's technologically, but is fresh. when they fought against u. s. backed iraq they would have unarmed civilians plodding along in front of the military units as human shields - allegedly civilian volunteers. you cannot win against this mentality. the threat of death means nothing. you'de think that the u. s. would have learned from our experience in vietnam but obviously no one ever learns anything. who doesn't think that they are the good guys? everyone's got reasons why their side is the morally superior. no middle eastern country or organization would give decadent america more than a passing thought if it were not for our support of israel and constant interference - and occasional military intervention - in their region.
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the p ...[text shortened]... ince we already have air power in the region it also makes sense from a logistical standpoint.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by Will EverittOf course not... everyone knows that giving you life in the hope that it helps to secure a future for your generations to come is idiotic and insane. 🙄
They are willing to die in the hope they can get closer to liberating there country from people who come half way round the world with not aid but weapons and tell them how to run there country. I do not agree with what they do but however they don’t do it to take fathers and husbands away from us they do it in the hope they have of freedom for there fe ...[text shortened]... cupied would American troops be willing to die in the hope of liberating it from the oppressors?
I love people with the us versus them attitude.
16 Mar 06
Originally posted by NargagunaSo who gets to decide which soverign nations are to be allowed to do what they want and which sovereign nations don't have that right?
Just so, having regard to its being a haven for religious fanatics who pronounce 'fatwahs' against anyone they object to, and believe that a suicide bomber goes straight to heaven (at least that is what some of their clerics teach them).