NationStates Jolt Archive

ORDER! There will be no more mention of being "off topic", or I will hold you in contempt, Mr. McCoy!

I'm sorry, your Honor. It will not happen again.

Yeah this whole thread has gotten off topic. Back on topic(if thats possible), Going to war with Iran is hasty. You can't invade a nation everytime they bat an eyelash, and besides I don't think Iran has done anything to justify it. Sanctions would be something I would support, and invasion would create more terrorists and make us more hated then we already are.

Objection! Your Honor, this is boring! And she mentioned "off topic" almost twice! Furthermore, this witness is not qualified to testify about anything regarding this thread, as the entire thread is based on a complete lack of logic and/or reasoning. As such, critical thinking should not be allowed here!

Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia: if they want to blow themselves up, fine. Let them. It's past high time for the United States to start worrying about its own house and things like "gee, why is my job in India" and "gee, how come everything is suddenly made in China". Those people over there have been slugging it out since the beginning of time and if they want to continue, I say let them. For the past six or seven administrations, American presidents have just tacitly kow-towed to the whims of AIPAC and the Israeli government. Enough already. We don't owe them (although this country gives Israel between $2 and $5 billion per anum, how much more do they need?): historically, Europe, and Germany in particular do. And if people choose to live there, that is the risk (being wiped off the map by all of you neighbors who just happen to be mostly Muslim Arabs, except maybe the Lebanese) they assume.

And as for war with Iran, it won't be some cakewalk because like Kim Jung-Il in North Korea, those people there are "ready" for an invasion. It's too bad they control a good deal of the world's oil because they can also pull a "1973" all over again and our lives will be just a wee bit more difficult.

How come no one ever talks about our "ally" Saudi Arabia that was home to 18 (or so) of the 19 9/11 hijackers? Seems like that place needs a good invadin'.

That's not pessimism, that's reality.

Nice first post, and I agree with the points, with the exception of Europe or germany owing anything to israel or the middle east.

Yes, about six million jews died in world war two. So did nearly 6 million germans. And tens of millions of other people. Germany paid for it by having its government overthrown, being occupied, and split for fifty years.

As for europe, the colonies in the middle east were pretty short lived, and I think its pedantic to think europe owes something to them, they've left them alone for a good 60-70 years, with a few minor incursions(Suez and gulf war, compared to alot more american stuff, Pahlavi, etc).


And on the topic of Japan, I always bring up this alternative:blockade.

The japanese navy and airforce were nonexistant by mid 1945. The americans had the resources to completely block off supplies to japan, and to bomb oil production, military targets, factories, etc.

Japan would simply starve. Its military would collapse even more, and the people would have trouble getting basic supplies.

The japanese military would have no oppertunity to fight the americans, and negotiations could probably take place with a blockade already enacted, showing the japanese military that there was no fight for them to fight.

I'm sorry, your Honor. It will not happen again.



Objection! Your Honor, this is boring! And she mentioned "off topic" almost twice! Furthermore, this witness is not qualified to testify about anything regarding this thread, as the entire thread is based on a complete lack of logic and/or reasoning. As such, critical thinking should not be allowed here!



Knock that off and get back on topic. I didn't intend to drag this off topic it just happened.


As for Iran. Can somebody provide me with some proof they are going for nuclear weapons and not energy?

What are talking about, Iran is threat now! if we wait ten years, we will be dead. Look, Iran wants Israel wiped out, supports terrorist orgs. and is helping the terrorists in Iraq, this is a act of war! If it is war they want, it is war they shall have!! We are a superpower, we will not run, we will not back down!!! I call for a draft to able to meet all threats to our nation, also we might want to start training teens to take up the fight when the time comes for them to protect great American power from her evil and murderous enemys form europe to Africa and South America. I predict America can maintain our way of life for thousands of years!

Are you for real? This seems more like the "WW2 was staged"-mock-thread by Lacadaemon some year ago heh... otherwise, you have serious delusions, padre:)

I can't believe people fed this troll for 17 pages!!!!!

:headbang:

This is such a Jesussaves wannabe, but on the US-fanaticism spectrum.

I think that sums it up quite nicely, yes...

Yeah whatever.

I have one last thing to say.

If the american army was ever in a fair fight with the Iranian Army, i.e., without its superior military power, i.e, only man on man with simple guns, American Army would get fucked and destroyed in a millisecond.

The simple fact is that the american soldiers are the worst, the worst one on one fighters. They suck cock.

Plus, the american nation has never had to fight for survival or in a wide scale attack on its sovereignty or existence...Iran has faced it for a long time.

Iran is battle-hardened.

Au revoir fair board. All you American hawks can really suck it!

No, the simple fact is America is greatest military force in history and could take on the whole world if we had to. And you dont have to be so hostile towards America. You should read my "I love America" post, I think you and others would have better veiw of us.

This is such a Jesussaves wannabe, but on the US-fanaticism spectrum.
Good call.

I think that sums it up quite nicely, yes...
Blah, didn't see that. But yea, it does.

Not Voting on th epole becaue theres no option of never invading Iran. War is sometimes nessasery, but in this situation it would only ever make things worse.

Not Voting on th epole becaue theres no option of never invading Iran. War is sometimes nessasery, but in this situation it would only ever make things worse.
i answer this one already, if your confused just vote for the no war option. sorry but the No Iran war slipped my mind.

And I want to be 6 feet tall but its never gonna happen. Oh wait, bad example, the US will be in Iran in a week.

I'm opossed.
there is surgery that can lengthen your legs to make u taller

If the US wage war against Iran and win, they will be able to connect Afghanistan and Iraq, and estalish a realm roundly equivalent to the ancient Persian empire of Darius. If President Bush also defeats the Syria, he will become Alexander the Great, geographically.

By the way, I think Iran is the EU's share, not US'. But the Europeans seem not to be eager to war. They are afraid of getting scars.

No, the simple fact is America is greatest military force in history and could take on the whole world if we had to. And you dont have to be so hostile towards America. You should read my "I love America" post, I think you and others would have better veiw of us.

Exqueeze me, but why hell would the Pentagon come out with a report saying that we've overextended our troop deployment and can't sustain the "War on Terror" for much longer if we supposedly can take on the whole world?

If the US wage war against Iran and win, they will be able to connect Afghanistan and Iraq, and estalish a realm roundly equivalent to the ancient Persian empire of Darius. If President Bush also defeats the Syria, he will become Alexander the Great, geographically.

By the way, I think Iran is the EU's share, not US'. But the Europeans seem not to be eager to war. They are afraid of getting scars.

Thank you, this sums up my point nicely. President Bush is the man that can win this war on terror. I fully support taking out terrorists across the middle east and this is vital to preserve America as we know it, even if this means going into every country there. To free an entire region would be an amazing thing and lead to long-term peace. I also like your point about the Europeans, I think thats right on.

They aren't imperialist since they aren't anexing anything -- they are simply HIGHLY interventionalist.


That's a very simple definition of imperialism, most of the british empire were not oficially british but protectorates or international mandates like Irak or Egypt. Egypt were never a british possesion but.....

USA it's becoming imperialistic since many years and the speed is increasing.

No one was raped (at least no pics)... 2000 deaths is a relatively small number for a war.

It's very sad and tipic to forget the non US dead, incluiding them of your allies, and of course the thousands and thousands irakis. Are near 100.000 bodies enough for you to be considered a big number?

Try telling that to the parents and relatives though :(

So imagine the feelings about the americans in Middle East

What are talking about, Iran is threat now! if we wait ten years, we will be dead. Look, Iran wants Israel wiped out, supports terrorist orgs. and is helping the terrorists in Iraq, this is a act of war! If it is war they want, it is war they shall have!! We are a superpower, we will not run, we will not back down!!! I call for a draft to able to meet all threats to our nation, also we might want to start training teens to take up the fight when the time comes for them to protect great American power from her evil and murderous enemys form europe to Africa and South America. I predict America can maintain our way of life for thousands of years!

It should be a joke, but I'm afraid you're talking deadly serious.

1.- They support resistance organizations that uses terrorism. It's not the same. Anyway US used to make the same (south america, 80's)

2.- The act of war in Irak was made by the US, so hardly can you cry 'cause the resist an invader. And of course, you haven't more proofs about Iran aiding the resistance than Bush about the WMD.

3.- Iran says than wants Israel wipped off the map. Have you ever thought why? Anyway, that's not an attack.

Unfortunately, the last responsible of Iran nuclear program is the US: the first aid the Sha's goverment to start it and now the have proved the entire world that qhen an enemy get the nuke, they negociate, like in North Korea, so it's normal every country not being an ally from US had thought about it.

No, the simple fact is America is greatest military force in history and could take on the whole world if we had to. Only if the whole world attacked the US. Now taking a look at how strained the US is in Iraq, saying that the US could take on China, much less the world, and win hands down would be extremely misguided. The logistics operation would be a nightmare.
And you dont have to be so hostile towards America. You should read my "I love America" post, I think you and others would have better veiw of us.You're kidding, right? Your "I love America" post is the picture book example of why everyone hates us.

Well, we could opt for a full-blown invasion/occupation/rebuilding of Iran: this would be vastly expensive in blood and treasure and really would tie down and stretch our military. We must keep in mind that while our ultimate military strength is de-facto endless, the actual professional military we have - which has proven itself the best military instrument in human history - is limited; there is only so much of it to go around and if we go into Iran, then we'll have to use all of it. This not only means no more troops in Europe (where we don't need them), but no more troops in Japan, Korea and the western Pacific (where we do very much need them as a deterrent to Chinese adventurism). We'd win such a battle, but the returns on it don't seem worth the costs at this point.

We could set up a program of limited military strikes. These would be designed to degrade rather than eliminate Iran's nuclear program while also crippling Iran's air and naval capabilities. This has much to recommend it, but as it does not cut right at the heart of the Iranian regime we could just get ourselves into a long aerial war of attrition in which we never finish the job and eventually get frustrated with the drip-drip-drip of losses with no apparant end or benefit.

The third option is the short-of-war option. In this both the aerial bombardment campaign and the invasion are still available, but we try a different tactic in hopes that it will crack the nut without tying down our military or costing much life. The program: blockade.

It might be time to give the world a lesson in sea power - both how effective it is, and how entirely helpless the world is in the face of concentrated American sea power. People tend to forget about the military dimensions on the oceans simply because of the fact of absolute American dominance on the seas. Much is made of the vulnerability of the west to disruptions in the supply of oil, but not nearly enough is made of the fact that without oil, no Gulf State has any money at all and nothing is made of the fact that nearly all of Gulf oil leaves the Gulf by ship. There aren't too many tankers in the world which can slip past an American naval battle group.


We should concentrate our naval and air forces around Iran and issue an ultimatum - dismantle your nuclear facilities under American supervision, or suffer a complete blockade. The sea part of it would hurt the most, but with our air power we can also - by blowing rail and road bridges and destroying airports - make a fairly effective blockade of Iran by land and air as well. Iran lives on its oil revenues - without a steady stream of western cash from oil sales, the Iranian government lacks the funds to build a pop-gun, let alone a nuclear weapon. They will also lack the funds to pay the security goons which keep the Iranian masses under control.

By taking this course of action we can show that we are only warring upon the Iranian government - by the limited loss of life and only incremental disruption of the average Iranian's life (they are very impoverished already - most of Iran's oil wealth goes to the elite and to the military...the Iranian people see hardly any of it) we can spare ourselves - at least to a certain extent - an outraged Iranian population rallying 'round their mullahs in a patriotic crusade. With our strategic petroleum reserve (which was built for this, or not built for anything at all) we can replace Iran's oil production for at least two months, maybe much longer - and with about 20% of Iran's oil production coming from off shore facilities, we can easily take control of this and keep the oil pumping, thus stretching out our ability to keep the world supplied with oil even as Iran is blockaded.

How long can Iran hold out with no income at all? A week? A month? I don't think it'd even take a month to make them capitulate. And if they don't, then there still remain the military options.

That's why you're enjoying the full oil stock from Irak? The problem wouldn't be the goverment but the people, they are tired of seing the US making what they want. And iranian people want freedom but not from the armed hand of the US. NAtionalism is stronger than anything in the Middle East (and in the US, also)

If we do go in, we should do it like we did in Afghanistan; with a helluva lotta allies.

Iran is acting up and needs to be dealt with(harshly in my opinion). They want nukes and this is unacceptable. This time we will have international support so we will need a smaller US force and if all else fails there's the draft. I think we should go in, whos with me?

Still haven't got any smarter eh?

...But the Europeans seem not to be eager to war. They are afraid of getting scars.
They already did. That's the point.

They already did. That's the point.

Yeah.. but look at all the cool video games we got out of it! The epitome of sacrifice for the greater good.. :p

Ten years.

We have ten bloody years to worry about this. There is no need to rush. Why is this so complicated for people to understand?
Because he's rather stupid would be my guess.

Knock that off and get back on topic. I didn't intend to drag this off topic it just happened.

What topic? This is a thread about pure, unadulterated sillyness. It has no serious topic, although it deals with a vital issue. If you want a discussion about the current Iranian government, possible dangers of Irans nuclear program or any other serious topic, you should find/create another thread. No offense to you of course, but this thread, as it is now and considering the basis for it, calls for foolishness. ;)

Iran is acting up and needs to be dealt with(harshly in my opinion). They want nukes and this is unacceptable. This time we will have international support so we will need a smaller US force and if all else fails there's the draft. I think we should go in, whos with me?

To be honest, If I had a major superpower threatening (or looking like they are thinking of threatening) to stomp my country into the ground then I would be racing to get as many nukes as I could get my hands on.



P.S After wading with a big shovel through the 15 or so pages I skipped. I add this postscript.

FOOKING HELL THIS THREAD IS HILARIOUS!!!

[Insert laughter here] I love idiocy (and people pretending to be idiots), especially when it doesnt affect me :P

If we do go in, we should do it like we did in Afghanistan; with a helluva lotta allies.
As I pointed out earlier, America might have problems arranging that after Bush's behaviour over the last four years.

... They want nukes and this is unacceptable. This time we will have international support...

Have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

Oh, and by the way - you *have* nukes. Thousands and thousands of them. That is acceptable?

Exqueeze me, but why hell would the Pentagon come out with a report saying that we've overextended our troop deployment and can't sustain the "War on Terror" for much longer if we supposedly can take on the whole world?

b/c our military is not designed to fight terrorists. Our military is designed to break the backs of opposing military forces as quickly as possible with the smallest loss of life. That doesn't really work when we decide we want to take and hold a country.

To be honest, If I had a major superpower threatening (or looking like they are thinking of threatening) to stomp my country into the ground then I would be racing to get as many nukes as I could get my hands on.

Indeed.

Iran is right next to Iraq, it has oil, and is has been included on the Axis of Evil. They have seen what the US has done to their neighboring country. If the people in charge of that nation think rationally in any sense of the word, they must be pouring their funds into nuclear reasearch like crazy, and I would be the last to blame them.

Not that the production of nuclear weapons -by any country - can be condoned. But really, I can see where they're standing.

No leave them alone. UK and USA over stretched as it is with Iraq

i always find it funny that the US always want to stop other countries to have nukes despite being the only country that has ever used them in a war

i don't WANT ware with anybody, but if the u.s. were serious about its pretentions instead of just using them as excuses for partisan political expediency, we would have been much more supportive of secularization movements and sentiments in iran all along.

my displeasure with the forces and mentality behind the bush II and its pogroms would be far less had iran been its first and only target of imposed regeme chainge.

ben laudin and hussain were the cia's and rumsfield's own dogs, set up by them and knocked down by their own masters and creators. i feel personaly ashaimed to be living in a country to have done such a thing.

but iran is a whold nother situation, with its persicution of baha'is.
it is that that is the only reason and thing about iran i would favor seeing nonlocal intervention doing anything about.

america is indeed absurdly arrogant to immagine itself somehow right to possess what it claims to be rightful to destroy others for possessing.

its pretention that these others cannot be trusted may be true as far as it goes, but if anything america has demonstrated that IT cannot be trusted either!

=^^=
.../\...

And to be honest, after the American Government's conduct over Afghanistan and Iraq, help from anybody besides Blair seems pretty unlikely. (Israel might seem likely, but I doubt that they'd dare even if they didn't have enough problems at the moment already...)

Isreali army is one of the greatest of all time, they get the job done PERIOD.
they dont goof around, i would be scared shitless if they invaded my area.

Iran would have been invaded by now if we didnt use our 9 lives up on Iraq.

I would fully support the war in Iraq if they used the Civil rights reason, but they had to lie, so im against it.

If they used a Civil rights reason for invading Iran i would support it.
Hell, id sign up if i werent so lazy.

I don't want war with Iran, regardless of the possible nuclear threat. The US have thousands, and I _am_ more worried about them than Iran.

How about this? (http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/#9) Being in Europe, I'd much rather see that happen, so an invasion isn't in my interest (this isn't just a reactionary opposition to war). Interestingly, Saddam was looking to move to the Euro too, before the invasion.

Thanks to our idiot in chief, we can't go to war with Iran, because we don't have anything to use. All combat brigades are tied down in Iraq, training to go there, or re-fitting after returning from there. Naval and land-based air are ready, but boots on the ground are what would be needed in Iran.

We (the West) face the same problem with Iran we faced with the Soviet Union, only on a smaller scale. We don't have a strong enough army to invade and conquer, but are more than capable of halting any attack. IF Iraq quiets down, the West is in a perfect position to excecute the same strategy: surround your enemy with powerful military bases and force him to over-spend in preparation of an attack.

Iran with nukes isn't nearly as scary as everyone thinks. We had an understanding with the Soviets and the Iranians will understand the same thing: any nuclear explosion that was delivered by non-conventional means (ie, suitcase nukes) would trigger an immediate launch over the pole with everything we had. While the average islamic terrorist is more than willing to blow themselves up and accept myrterdom, the mullahs aren't strapping symtec belts on. They want to be around to enjoy the results; they are in this for the power. They are no different from the Politburo.

Real simple solution: declare that any terrorist WMD set of in a western country will trigger an immediate nuclear campaign against Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and anyone else you care to name. Thus, those countries are now in the business of keeping WMDs away from terrorists, rather than giving them over. Just like the good ole USSR. And the West won that war, rather bloodlessly.

Isreali army is one of the greatest of all time, they get the job done PERIOD.
they dont goof around, i would be scared shitless if they invaded my area.

Yes they did a great job at pacifying Gaza didn't they?

War is not and never will be the answer. There are more ways to deal with this than going in with force to get this done. It is sad at times that you think that this is the only way, but there are more peaceful solutions.

They want nukes and this is unacceptable.

So America can have nukes and Iran can't? Seems a little undemocratic to me? I'm not comfortable with with them having nukes either but if America is the sole decider on who in the world can own nukes and who can't, it seems a little like a global dictatorship itself to me. ie. A nation has to have America's favor to have the right to do anything.

WAR! *huw*

What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Real simple solution: declare that any terrorist WMD set of in a western country will trigger an immediate nuclear campaign against Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and anyone else you care to name. Thus, those countries are now in the business of keeping WMDs away from terrorists, rather than giving them over. Just like the good ole USSR. And the West won that war, rather bloodlessly.

What a brilliant idea! Why don't we threaten to nuke tens of millions of innocent people and provide terrorist groups with a ready made recruitment poster?

Just like the good ole USSR. And the West won that war, rather bloodlessly.
Bloodlessly? Try telling that to the Sandinistas or the Mujahadeen...

Bloodlessly? Try telling that to the Sandinistas or the Mujahadeen...

And Korea and vietnam as well. Not to mention Cuba and all the other hotspots that erupted.

This is such a Jesussaves wannabe, but on the US-fanaticism spectrum.

I miss Jesussaves. :(

So America can have nukes and Iran can't? Seems a little undemocratic to me? I'm not comfortable with with them having nukes either but if America is the sole decider on who in the world can own nukes and who can't, it seems a little like a global dictatorship itself to me. ie. A nation has to have America's favor to have the right to do anything.

Ever hear of the NPT?

Ever hear of the NPT?

A treaty that Iran is apart of?

A treaty that Iran is apart of?

A treaty that guarantees the signatorees the right to develop civilian nuclear programmes?

So America can have nukes and Iran can't? Seems a little undemocratic to me? I'm not comfortable with with them having nukes either but if America is the sole decider on who in the world can own nukes and who can't, it seems a little like a global dictatorship itself to me. ie. A nation has to have America's favor to have the right to do anything.
Nothing wrong with that. Its the privilege you get when your the worlds lone superpower

A treaty that guarantees the signatorees the right to develop civilian nuclear programmes?

Nuclear Power actually. However what if a nation doesn't want to develope it just for nuclear power?

The power plant they are building is a duel use facility. Its not only for nuclear power but also allows for nuclear materials to be turned into a thing called bombs.

They also have not shown proof that it is only for peacefull purposes. They want us to take their word for it. Guess what? Even the EU isn't buying that arguement.

Nothing wrong with that. Its the privilege you get when your the worlds lone superpower

So in other words if you can do it then it's right?

Funny, that logic woulds seem to justify theft, rape and murder. Try again.

To about the same extent as Canada has been threatening the US?
Exactly, we should invade Canada tomorrow! This time we will win a war with Canada! (last time our heart just wasn't in it).

Nuclear Power actually. However what if a nation doesn't want to develope it just for nuclear power?

The power plant they are building is a duel use facility. Its not only for nuclear power but also allows for nuclear materials to be turned into a thing called bombs.

They also have not shown proof that it is only for peacefull purposes. They want us to take their word for it. Guess what? Even the EU isn't buying that arguement.

And how do you expect them to prove that they don't want to build nukes? Frankly I doubt they'll make the effort after the US so blatantly swept aside the lack of proof that the were no WMD in Iraq, in fact after Iraq I wouldn't blame them for wanting nuclear weapons.

And how do you expect them to prove that they don't want to build nukes? Frankly I doubt they'll make the effort after the US so blatantly swept aside the lack of proof that the were no WMD in Iraq, in fact after Iraq I wouldn't blame them for wanting nuclear weapons.

Despite the fact that the world that Saddam had WMD... that won't hold weight.

But we aren't talking about Iraq, we are talking about Iran. Iran has not cooperated with the IAEA and now there's a showdown vote coming soon on this very issue to refer it to the United Nations Security Council. Britain, France, and Germany, are pushing for this since they do not believe that Iran's purposes are for peaceful means. If it is for peaceful means then let us see the proof.

And how do you expect them to prove that they don't want to build nukes? Frankly I doubt they'll make the effort after the US so blatantly swept aside the lack of proof that the were no WMD in Iraq, in fact after Iraq I wouldn't blame them for wanting nuclear weapons.The problem is, this is an oligarchical theocracy with the elimination of a member of the international community on its agenda. Iran has the right to have its nuclear program, and the rest of the world has its reasons to believe that what Iran might well abuse what it would be allowed to use under the treaty.
Iran has facilities capable of producing nuclear weapons. We know this because the IAEA seals are still there, for the time being.

I just wanna ask a question since we are on the topic of Iran. If Iran attacks Israel then the US and most of the winners of WW2 have to intervene and due to a pact?

Despite the fact that the world that Saddam had WMD... that won't hold weight.

But we aren't talking about Iraq, we are talking about Iran. Iran has not cooperated with the IAEA and now there's a showdown vote coming soon on this very issue to refer it to the United Nations Security Council. Britain, France, and Germany, are pushing for this since they do not believe that Iran's purposes are for peaceful means. If it is for peaceful means then let us see the proof.

I'm sorry I don't understand the part in bold.

Incidently how do you expect them to prove that they only want nuclear power for peaceful means? A memo saying "We only want nuclear power"? I signed promise to be very good for ever and ever? Pictures of Iranian scientists pointedly not enriching Uranium?

Of course the whole point is void because Israel's going to bomb the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities long before they come online anyway...

I just wanna ask a question since we are on the topic of Iran. If Iran attacks Israel then the US and most of the winners of WW2 have to intervene and due to a pact?

If Iran attacks Israel then Iran will be a desert of glass, outside influence is irrelevant.

Incidently how do you expect them to prove that they only want nuclear power for peaceful means? A memo saying "We only want nuclear power"? I signed promise to be very good for ever and ever? Pictures of Iranian scientists pointedly not enriching Uranium?

The people at the IAEA knows.

Of course the whole point is void because Israel's going to bomb the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities long before they come online anyway...

You have proof of this?

If Iran attacks Israel then Iran will be a desert of glass, outside influence is irrelevant.

Here we can agree on.

The problem is, this is an oligarchical theocracy with the elimination of a member of the international community on its agenda. Iran has the right to have its nuclear program, and the rest of the world has its reasons to believe that what Iran might well abuse what it would be allowed to use under the treaty.
Iran has facilities capable of producing nuclear weapons. We know this because the IAEA seals are still there, for the time being.

Iran removes IAEA seals (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Matt/pcMatt.jhtml?RangeStartValue=15)

And on a more serious note it really isn't in Iran's interests to use nuclear weapons even if they got them, nuking Israel would also destroy Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock.

Of course Iran should be invaded ! All uppity Arabs who have stolen American oil and put it under their land should be invaded ! Except the Saudis, because they are a bastion of Liberty and Freedom.

:rolleyes:

So in other words if you can do it then it's right?

Funny, that logic woulds seem to justify theft, rape and murder. Try again.
Your comparing apples and oranges. Try agian.

The people at the IAEA knows.

You seem to have dodged my question but I'll let it slide.

You have proof of this?

1. Israel do not want Iran to get nukes under any circumstance.
2. Israel has attacked other nuclear reactors (Iraq's) in the past to stop the development of nuclear weapons.
3. Israel's airforce can outclass any other airforce in the area.

Your comparing apples and oranges. Try agian.

No friend, you justified America's conduct purely by saying "We are big and strong, you can't stop us", I simply applied the principle elsewhere.

Also Israel did issue a statment saying they "Would not tolerate a Nuclear Iran under any circumstances"

Iran removes IAEA seals (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Matt/pcMatt.jhtml?RangeStartValue=15)

And on a more serious note it really isn't in Iran's interests to use nuclear weapons even if they got them, nuking Israel would also destroy Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock.It isn't in Iran's interest to have its President claim the Holocaust never happened but he did it anyway. Having nuclear weapons would be a different story though. We all know what happens to rogue states that don't have any.

I'm pretty sure the Iranians could avoid hitting the Dome of Rock. Israel may not be that big, but there is enough distance between some of the population centers.

You seem to have dodged my question but I'll let it slide.

I didn't dodge anything. I'm not a nuclear expert. The IAEA supposedly are.

1. Israel do not want Iran to get nukes under any circumstance.
2. Israel has attacked other nuclear reactors (Iraq's) in the past to stop the development of nuclear weapons.
3. Israel's airforce can outclass any other airforce in the area.

1) Russia, Britain, France doesn't want Iran to get nukes under any circumstances.
2) Only one nuclear reactor and it turned out to be a damn good thing that they did. However, it is also a longer flight to Iran than it was towards that Nuclear facility (set up by the French I might add)
3) Except one maybe two if you wnat to toss the Brits in there.

You are also forgetting a thing called national airspace. Will Iraq give them permission to fly over its airspace to attack Iran?

Of course Iran should be invaded ! All uppity Arabs who have stolen American oil and put it under their land should be invaded ! Except the Saudis, because they are a bastion of Liberty and Freedom.

:rolleyes:

Most Iranians arent arabs, they're persian, they dont speak arabic, they speak farsi. Also they are a mostly shi'ia nation, not the majority sunni muslims like a nation like Jordan is. Just thought Id clarify

WAR! *huw*

What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me :fluffle:

This is such a musical thread :D

Iran is acting up and needs to be dealt with(harshly in my opinion). They want nukes and this is unacceptable. This time we will have international support so we will need a smaller US force and if all else fails there's the draft. I think we should go in, whos with me?
The US should have invaded Iran along with Irag.

The US should have invaded Iran along with Irag.

VW? Where the hell ya been? Long time no see! :)

VW? Where the hell ya been? Long time no see! :)
Roachbuster? Well, I've been busy. Mostly with my studies. And I canceled my internet some time ago. I was spending to much time on the net and not enough time with my nose in the books. What happened to you?

Roachbuster? Well, I've been busy. Mostly with my studies. And I canceled my internet some time ago. I was spending to much time on the net and not enough time with my nose in the books. What happened to you?

Long story...anyhoo, good to have you back. :)

No, the simple fact is America is greatest military force in history and could take on the whole world if we had to. And you dont have to be so hostile towards America. You should read my "I love America" post, I think you and others would have better veiw of us.

We could take on the whole world... but we'd lose horribly.

We'd go down a lot like Imperial Japan did: slowly, painfully, and probably with a nuked American city or two to make sure that we decide to surrender instead of sending civvies off with sharp sticks in their hands.

Can't Israel sort Iran out? They're a lot closer...

We should just demand they allow inspectors full access and also we should allow inspectors and lower our own arsenal.

I didn't vote because I didn't find a reasonable choice on the poll. No, I don't think we should invade Iran. Not because all war is wrong. But because it's a retarded idea.
The last thing we need to do is jump in the middle of another conflict in the area. But I'd advise Dubya to go right ahead. It's the best thing he could do for the Democratic party.

Im just wondering what think of this Russia plan where Russia will enrich urianium for the Iranians. Your thoughts.....

Im just wondering what think of this Russia plan where Russia will enrich urianium for the Iranians. Your thoughts.....

Nuclear Proliferation Means Peaceful Negotiation.

Im just wondering what think of this Russia plan where Russia will enrich urianium for the Iranians. Your thoughts.....
There's little point discussing it until there's some indication that it's happening or is likely to happen.

They want nukes and this is unacceptable.

*Looks at Britain, US, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, China etc etc*

Yes, I know, I've said this 500 times, and yes, I recieved complaints each time, but the point is, if your going to have nukes yourself, then don't say other countries having them is unacceptable. It's too contradictory for my liking. :)

I'd like to see some other nation with more interest lead a coalition-certainly the US isnt the only one that realizes how bad an idea it would be to let Iran produce/have or sell nukes?
Lets see if someone else steps up to the plate to organize allies, show cooperative resolve and assume some responsibilty.

Mainly, I think we'll really just see a lot of talking. Its more likely Israel will activate a covert operation to disrupt or destroy.

*Looks at Britain, US, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, China etc etc*

Yes, I know, I've said this 500 times, and yes, I recieved complaints each time, but the point it, if your going to have nukes yourself, then don't say other countries having them is unacceptable. It's too contradictory for my liking. :)
Im not sure I trust India, Pakistan or China with the bomb and I certianly dont trust a crazy who thinks the holocuast didnt happen with 1. I would like to see the western countries only having nukes. Its not contradictory because we can be trusted with them, they cant.

Where the "It's a tactically poor decision to invade" option in the poll?

Im not sure I trust India, Pakistan or China with the bomb and I certianly dont trust a crazy who thinks the holocuast didnt happen with 1. I would like to see the western countries only having nukes. Its not contradictory because we can be trusted with them, they cant.

Your justification being that the United States has been, since 1946, the most militarily active state upon the globe, invading states upon mere pretexts, and at the behest of myopic fools.

Your justification being that the United States has been, since 1946, the most militarily active state upon the globe, invading states upon mere pretexts, and at the behest of myopic fools.

My justifacation being that we have safe-guards agianst accidential or unnessacary launches and deployments of tactial and strategic arms.

My justifacation being that we have safe-guards agianst accidential or unnessacary launches and deployments of tactial and strategic arms.

So does every other nation that possesses nuclear arms.

My justifacation being that we have safe-guards agianst accidential or unnessacary launches and deployments of tactial and strategic arms.
I don't think that's really a very good reason to trust us over them. I'd imagine that Iran, if they had a nuke, wouldn't accidentally launch their nuke or do it when they thought it was unnecessary, abd isn't that part of the problem?
There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to dislike the Iranians having a nuke, but somehow I don't think accidental launch safeguards are one of them.

My justifacation being that we have safe-guards agianst accidential or unnessacary launches and deployments of tactial and strategic arms.

However the irresponsibility of you r administration remains.

I don't think that's really a very good reason to trust us over them. I'd imagine that Iran, if they had a nuke, wouldn't accidentally launch their nuke or do it when they thought it was unnecessary, abd isn't that part of the problem?
There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to dislike the Iranians having a nuke, but somehow I don't think accidental launch safeguards are one of them.
I know, one of my other reasons I stated was because their leadership is for all intensive purposes, crazy.

However the irresponsibility of you r administration remains.
Our Administration is the most responsible in history.

Your justification being that the United States has been, since 1946, the most militarily active state upon the globe, invading states upon mere pretexts, and at the behest of myopic fools.

The UK has been involved in more armed conflicts since 1946 than the US.

Our Administration is the most responsible in history.

HA!

...

I'm sorry. I think I just laughed so hard that I threw up a little.

Our Administration is the most responsible in history.
:p
And the hits just keep on commin'! :D

I say, let the Israelis do what they want if they feel as if the Iranian nuclear program is threatening them. I wouldn't hold them back. Hell, I wouldn't hold them back when it comes to mid-east politics. Besides, Iran isn't stupid enough to fire a nuke at Israel.

Israel has nukes too.

I'd rather invade Saudi Arabia.

Only morons want war. Unless you get all your news from Bill O'Reilly, you realize the estimates are even without interference, it would take them a decade to create a nuclear weapon. Yes, Iran is run by fuckheads but no, the current status of things doesn't support starting another pre-emptive war in the middle east.

And if you support that, join the military, otherwise STFU!

Iran is acting up and needs to be dealt with(harshly in my opinion). They want nukes and this is unacceptable. This time we will have international support so we will need a smaller US force and if all else fails there's the draft. I think we should go in, whos with me?
Why don't we just let Israel take care of it? Israel can destroy their nuclear programme and given the internal situtation, a democratic revolution is likely within the next decade.

As a latecomer, I've only scanned a few pages, so if this is redundant, please excuse me.

What would the U.S. or U.S.-led coalition do after they invade Iran? Occupy for eternity so that no one builds a nuclear device within the borders?

Our/your descendents will all be relying upon nuclear reactor based energy in the future, as many people are now. Negotiations for transparency and inspections is the only way to go, just as the Cold War treaties for ABM went.

As a former Korean War, Cold War and Vietnam War nuclear warrior and spook survivor I guarantee that no more nations need to possess nuclear WEAPONS, as opposed to nuclear power. "Keeping up with the Jones" has no meaning when nukes are involved.

Many thousands of warheads have been dismantled and turned into plowshares since the 1980s, and that is the program to be continued.

As a latecomer, I've only scanned a few pages, so if this is redundant, please excuse me.

What would the U.S. or U.S.-led coalition do after they invade Iran? Occupy for eternity so that no one builds a nuclear device within the borders?


Why yes! Same way we're occupying Iraq for eternity just in case another Saddam comes to power. What, you think that's a bad plan? It's a "generational conflict" after all.

has anyone even considered the fact that we could just bulldoze a country, you know most of the cost comes from actually caring about countries we take. if we just fuked em tehn left em. ppl 'd get pissed but fuk man rebuilding is xpensive, and we gain NOTHING FROM IT! Iraq has given us shit except bad rep with UN nations. well.... good luck woith that i say we take em over and call it part of the U.S. go in commando style :mp5:

go in commando style :mp5:
You mean with no underpants?

Seriously, why is it ok for the US to have nukes, but not Iran? I mean, the US goes around nvading and threatening countries, supporting dictators the world over. And that's ok. Ugh.

You mean with no underpants?

Seriously, why is it ok for the US to have nukes, but not Iran? I mean, the US goes around nvading and threatening countries, supporting dictators the world over. And that's ok. Ugh.
Becasue we earned our nuclear power and understand the responsibility, as did Russia and the NATO powers that have nukes. This was gained through 2 world wars and a 40 year cold war. If Iran had nukes they would have used them a long time ago. Israel probalby shouldn't have nukes but if thier neighbors are getting thm they willl need them to prevent thier destruction.

Becasue we earned our nuclear power and understand the responsibility, as did Russia and the NATO powers that have nukes. This was gained through 2 world wars and a 40 year cold war. If Iran had nukes they would have used them a long time ago. Israel probalby shoul have nukes but if thier neighbors are getting thm they willl need them to prevent thier destruction.

Wait, so if a nation has to go through 2 world wars and a 40 year cold war to earn the power and understand the responsibility, how come you think Israel probably should have nukes? (They already do anyway.)

I think this "responsibility" crap is simple justification. We killed innocent Japanese people with our nuclear weapons. Civilians. Women, children. Is that responsible action?

How come it's "earning responsibility" when the US kills innocent people with nukes, and 'understanding their power' to go 40 years of having the entire world's population under the threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of our leaders, but if Iran starts building a nuclear power plant it's irresponsible because they *might* get nuclear weapons and *might* use them?

Wait, so if a nation has to go through 2 world wars and a 40 year cold war to earn the power and understand the responsibility, how come you think Israel probably should have nukes? (They already do anyway.)

I think this "responsibility" crap is simple justification. We killed innocent Japanese people with our nuclear weapons. Civilians. Women, children. Is that responsible action?

How come it's "earning responsibility" when the US kills innocent people with nukes, and 'understanding their power' to go 40 years of having the entire world's population under the threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of our leaders, but if Iran starts building a nuclear power plant it's irresponsible because they *might* get nuclear weapons and *might* use them?
I meant to say shouldn't and in 1945 the only innocent japanese were the unborn

I meant to say shouldn't and in 1945 the only innocent japanese were the unborn

Oh, well Israel "shouldn't" have nuclear weapons. Be sure and tell them that.

I doubt you're in a position to morally judge the entire population of Japan... how about you tell me just what crimes the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki committed, and tell me why it earns a death sentence.

Our Administration is the most responsible in history.

ROFL!!!

Will you give me ten reasons why? :D :D :D :D :D

Dude, I think you're embarassing your right-wing buddies.

Oh, well Israel "shouldn't" have nuclear weapons. Be sure and tell them that.

I doubt you're in a position to morally judge the entire population of Japan... how about you tell me just what crimes the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki committed, and tell me why it earns a death sentence.
They produced ships and supported the japanese military which was used to kill americans and chinese civillians, and tourtued and beheaded captured americans

They produced ships and supported the japanese military which was used to kill americans and chinese civillians, and tourtued and beheaded captured americans

So let's say hypothetically... If I lived in a country that produced weapons, and supported a brutal dictatorship that killed innocent civilians, torturing and beheading captured americans, would I deserve death?

How about if I was 3 years old and didn't do anything but eat, sleep, shit and piss? Does that still constitute "support" and death penalty?

Only morons want war. Unless you get all your news from Bill O'Reilly, you realize the estimates are even without interference, it would take them a decade to create a nuclear weapon. Yes, Iran is run by fuckheads but no, the current status of things doesn't support starting another pre-emptive war in the middle east.

And if you support that, join the military, otherwise STFU!

I will, after college. No one wants war, only morons dont take action when its nessascary. They cant be allowed to continue the path they are on.

I will, after college. No one wants war, only morons dont take action when its nessascary. They cant be allowed to continue the path they are on.
How is it necessary?
Why should they not be allowed to continue?
Why is it your job to stop it?
Why not join in a campaign against nuclear weaponry altogether? Surely that makes more sense.

I will, after college. No one wants war, only morons dont take action when its nessascary.
Yeah and morons take war action on Iraq when it is NOT necessary.
They cant be allowed to continue the path they are on.
And reasons?

How is it necessary?
Why should they not be allowed to continue?
Why is it your job to stop it?
Why not join in a campaign against nuclear weaponry altogether? Surely that makes more sense.
Because they are threatening Americas superpower status, this can not happen. It is our job to stop it because we must protect our interests. Us having nuclear weapons actually saves lives whether you realize it or not.

Because they are threatening Americas superpower status, this can not happen. It is our job to stop it because we must protect our interests. Us having nuclear weapons actually saves lives whether you realize it or not.
LOL. Like many people in the rest of the world, I intensely dislike US hegemony, so I disagree fervently. I'd much rather your bloody superpower status was challenged. Are you going to bomb India and Pakistan too?
And was invading Iraq saving lives?
Pfft.

LOL. Like many people in the rest of the world, I intensely dislike US hegemony, so I disagree fervently. I'd much rather your bloody superpower status was challenged. Are you going to bomb India and Pakistan too?
And was invading Iraq saving lives?
Pfft.

I love US hegemony and I will fight to the death to protect that. Anyone that challenges our standing should be and will be dealt with. India and Pakistan arent threaten us, in fact we are allies. Iraq did save lives in the long run.

I love US hegemony and I will fight to the death to protect that. Anyone that challenges our standing should be and will be dealt with. India and Pakistan arent threaten us, in fact we are allies. Iraq did save lives in the long run.
Ok, you're an unreasonable loony. :)

Because they are threatening Americas superpower status, this can not happen.
And why should we care?
It is our job to stop it because we must protect our interests.
AH HA!!! So you want war with Iran because of oil! Really, how does Iran > Israel ruins America's interest?
Us having nuclear weapons actually saves lives whether you realize it or not.LMAO!

***

Most entertaining thread ever! :D

I love US hegemony and I will fight to the death to protect that. Anyone that challenges our standing should be and will be dealt with.
I do hope you live to see the day where the US has to sit down with the EU, the PRC and India on the same table, the day US hegemony is over.
And you can't do anything about it...:D

Ok, you're an unreasonable loony. :)

He is. And he very entertaining too.

I do hope you live to see the day where the US has to sit down with the EU, the PRC and India on the same table, the day US hegemony is over.
And you can't do anything about it...:D
I like your style. :p :D

I do hope you live to see the day where the US has to sit down with the EU, the PRC and India on the same table, the day US hegemony is over.
And you can't do anything about it...:DNice one! :D :p

Oh, and don't forget Russia.

I do hope you live to see the day where the US has to sit down with the EU, the PRC and India on the same table, the day US hegemony is over.
And you can't do anything about it...:D

The EU is too weak, they dont have a backbone. China is about to collapse(even if they dont their is nothing compared to ours). And India is still wayyyyyy to far away from being considered western or 1st world.

I like your style. :p :D
Yeah, he's a better debater than I am. :p

And India is still wayyyyyy to far away from being considered western or 1st world.
So being western is a prerequisite for superpower status? LOL. I smells prejudice.

UN abassadorship, how old are you?

So being western is a prerequisite for superpower status? LOL. I smells prejudice.
Not being prejudice, They have no economy to speak off and the military is still outdated. they are also overpopulated and I wonder how they can sustain themselves.

UN abassadorship, how old are you?
20, but I dont see where your going with this...

I love US hegemony and I will fight to the death to protect that. Anyone that challenges our standing should be and will be dealt with. India and Pakistan arent threaten us, in fact we are allies. Iraq did save lives in the long run.

Hey, buddy, I found you a nice bridge to live under. Shut your yap. kthx :)

Not being prejudice, They have no economy to speak off and the military is still outdated. they are also overpopulated and I wonder how they can sustain themselves.
Actually their economy is growing rapidly. And you still haven't defended what you said about them "not being western."

Not being prejudice, They have no economy to speak off and the military is still outdated. they are also overpopulated and I wonder how they can sustain themselves.

Yes, because an economy which is nearing the same size as the US (in terms of trillions of dollars GDP) is nothing to speak of. Please do yourself a favour and do some research before you go Jesussaves on everyone :rolleyes:

20, but I dont see where your going with this...You sound like 15 kid.

What's your politcal compass score?

Hey, buddy, I found you a nice bridge to live under. Shut your yap. kthx :)See UN Ambassadorship, even my conservative friend thinks you need to go back to school. :D

The EU is too weak, they dont have a backbone.
Hmm, and you are telling me this in a thread about Iran, of all places?

China is about to collapse(even if they dont their is nothing compared to ours).
Oh, they have been just about to collapse since 1949...

And India is still wayyyyyy to far away from being considered western or 1st world.
Hey, a $3.7 trillion GDP, an advanced software industry and moves into the service sector instead of old-school manufacturing sets them up quite nicely.

I like your style. :p :D
Nice one! :D :p
Yeah, he's a better debater than I am. :p
http://forums.hostmatters.com/images/smilies/ezpi_blush.gif

Actually their economy is growing rapidly. And you still haven't defended what you said about them "not being western."
Disreguard that, I was trying to say they dont have the infrastrutuce or economy of a western developed nation.

You sound like 15 kid.

What's your politcal compass score?
I dont know where I can I take that thing? I'll let you know afterwards.

You sound like 15 kid.

What's your politcal compass score?

It's somewhere way, way out in right field. ;)

I thought the baseball analogy might make it easier for troll-dude to understand what we're saying. Maybe I should talk in Simple English. :p

Yes, because an economy which is nearing the same size as the US (in terms of trillions of dollars GDP) is nothing to speak of. Please do yourself a favour and do some research before you go Jesussaves on everyone :rolleyes:

Thats because they have far more people, doesnt mean they are even close in standard of living. research....btw favour is spelled FAVOR.

I dont know where I can I take that thing? I'll let you know afterwards.http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Thats because they have far more people, doesnt mean they are even close in standard of living. research....btw favour is spelled FAVOR.
Canada: FAVOUR

USA: FAVOR

Understand kiddo? ;)

Thats because they have far more people, doesnt mean they are even close in standard of living. research....btw favour is spelled FAVOR.
Not if you're british

Canada: FAVOUR

USA: FAVOR

Understand kiddo. ;)

Glad to have you around, I would have ripped him apart for being a semantic-linguistic imbecile. :p

And I want to be 6 feet tall but its never gonna happen. Oh wait, bad example, the US will be in Iran in a week.

I'm opossed.


yeah this guy/girl's a liberal. you can tell by the speech about pacifism.

iran is another country in need of a severe disarming by any means necessary. they, like saddam, TRAIN TERRORISTS DAILY. its been a long time coming if you ask me.

plus, the US is the best. in my opinion we should own the middle east. they murder their own people, have no civil rights, treat their women like dirt and are heathenistic assholes. plus, if we kick their country to the curb, OPEC will not be messing with our gas prices like they do now. 3, 4 dollars a GALLON! f**k that! if you ask me, they ask for war by making our prices skyrocket while they cruise around in gold plated benzes.

but people always say, what about our natural petro reserves? well, we'd use them but we wouldnt wanna upset the f-ing HIPPIES.

christ sakes, we can never win with these libs. if their way is so superior and their leaders so awesome, why does the NAACP chairman think he was abducted by aliens and that the mothership is floating in orbit? or what about New Orleans? with like 90% of the pop being democrat black people it should have been a virtual utopia right? oh wait, it wasnt. and guess what, they had no conservatives there, all the funding in the world to fix the dam but ::gasp:: their elected mayor, governor and everyone else embezzled money by the millions, never fixed the dams and then turned around and blamed it on bush. one of our best presidents and the only one with the conviction to actually stand up for whats right!

some people are just too ignorant to see all this i guess. disagree all you want, but youll never change my beliefs demmies. =P

:sniper: ~Blue~

ps- dont send me hate mail, ill just delete it and not so much as give it one thought ;)

Glad to have you around
Thanks :p :D
I would have ripped him apart for being a semantic-linguistic imbecile. :pYeah that guy is annoying. But I rather keep him in one piece, he's very entertaining.

-snip the neofascist hype-

http://palmrealm.tripod.com/snape/qhw1.jpg
Troll! In the dungeon!

Canada: FAVOUR

USA: FAVOR

Understand kiddo? ;)
I understand you spelled it wrong lol. I was -3.38 economic, -1.33 libertarian/authortain for whatever thats worth.

-SNIP-
*cough cough*

I understand you spelled it wrong lol. I was -3.38 economic, -1.33 libertarian/authortain for whatever thats worth.

*gasp* A traitor to his own beliefs! Now we know what his opinion's worth. Less than it was before - nothing!! :fluffle: And what's less than nothing?

...get back under the bridge, boy. :p

I understand you spelled it wrong lol. I was -3.38 economic, -1.33 libertarian/authortain for whatever thats worth.
lol, okay Eutrusca! you can stop pretending now

I understand you spelled it wrong lol.
ok...
I was -3.38 economic, -1.33 libertarian/authortain for whatever thats worth.W...T...F...?...!...?

edit: I knew it! It's a puppet! :D :D :D

*gasp* A traitor to his own beliefs! Now we know what his opinion's worth. Less than it was before - nothing!! :fluffle: And what's less than nothing?

...get back under the bridge, boy. :p
i dont get it, why is everyone shocked by my score? I dont even know what it means.

i dont get it, why is everyone shocked by my score? I dont even know what it means.

It means you're uncomfortably close to me. :eek:

ok...
W...T...F...?...!...?

edit: I knew it! It's a puppet! :D :D :D
but why wouldn't he just keep his bluff going? We can't really call him on it and make him show his cards :confused:

i dont get it, why is everyone shocked by my score? I dont even know what it means.It means you're about to get kicked out of the Young Republicans for being left of center... :p

It means you're uncomfortably close to me. :eek:
ok....so you agree with me then?

It means you're about to get kicked out of the Young Republicans for being left of center... :p
Im not a Republican.

i dont get it, why is everyone shocked by my score? I dont even know what it means.So you're not somebodies' puppet?

OK, let me explain why everybody shocked at your score. First, we see you as a horribly ultra facist right winger. Second, your PC score shows that you are a MODERATE LEFT WINGER.

ok....so you agree with me then?

No. I'm right where I'm supposed to be. You? You're lost! Would someone replace this man's compass? ;)

So you're not somebodies' puppet?

OK, let me explain why people are shocked at your score. First, we see you as a horribly ultra facist right winger. Second, your PC score shows that you are a MODERATE LEFT WINGER.

A MODERATE LIBERTARIAN LEFT WINGER at that.

So you're not somebodies' puppet?

OK, let me explain why everybody shocked at your score. First, we see you as a horribly ultra facist right winger. Second, your PC score shows that you are a MODERATE LEFT WINGER.
Im a moderate libertarian left winger, you had me mistaken.

Im not a Republican.:rolleyes: I wasn't being literal... I was paraphrasing what The Chinese Republics just stated in more mundane terminology...

Thats because Im a Moderate libertarian left winger. You had me mistaken.

:eek:

I'm at a loss... It's Godzilla!

Iran is acting up and needs to be dealt with(harshly in my opinion). They want nukes and this is unacceptable. This time we will have international support so we will need a smaller US force and if all else fails there's the draft. I think we should go in, whos with me?
isreal has nukes should we invade isreal
no blood for oil
let is real fight its own battles
:sniper:

isreal has nukes should we invade isreal
no blood for oil
let is real fight its own battles
:sniper:troll go away :rolleyes:

:eek:

I'm at a loss... It's Godzilla!
well i guess he just finally felt like putting his cards on the table

isreal has nukes should we invade isreal
no blood for oil
let is real fight its own battles
:sniper:
Israel is our ally, its not their battle, its ours and it not for oil so please that reason gets old.

Israel is our ally, its not their battle, its ours and it not for oil so please that reason gets old.
or maybe he put them down not knowing what his hand was, if anyone is following my analogy.

Israel is our ally, its not their battle, its ours and it not for oil so please that reason gets old.

Old doesn't nessesarily imply untrue....

Magazine article1: No blood for oil!
Magazine article2:Something needs to be done about oil prices!
Magazine article3: There is too much money being spent on wars!
Magazine article4: Our troops are underfunded!

Old doesn't nessesarily imply untrue....
No, but in this case it is both old and untrue.

No, not this time. Instead of liberating the world from evil once again, bankrupting our country and adding to the national deficent, while recieving critizism from the world on our failure, i'd much like to see what the U.N would do without the United States resources.


Heres my prediction: (if the US stays out of it)

Day 1: UN tell Iran to stop.
Day 2: Iran sells hell no, we only want nuclear "power"- I mean uh... energy.
Day 3: France surrenders to Iran :p
Day 4: UN asks Iran to stop
Day 5: Iran says "Hell no stop pissing us off or we will nuke Israel!
Day 6: Michael Moore drafts a full scale doctored documentary, critisizing the US's involvment in the conflict with Iran, till he realises, they are not. To this he ruturns to his multi-million dollar home and watches Oprah.
Day 7: Iran is armed and ready.
Day 8: A UN coalition force (US isn't involved) of promptly 142 men arrives at the border of Iran. A budget sharing plan is drafted:
Expenses
US: 98.9%
China:.01%
Russia:.000001% (plus all the borsch you can eat!)
Germany: .0000000001%
Holland: Cannabis for "medical" puroses.
Once they realize the US isnt involved, they prompty declare each country to pay 300 dollars.
Day 9: The 56th UN force invades Iran.
Day 10: The UN force is captured by camels, and are now hostages on Al-Jazeera.
Day 10: The EU (European Union) surrenders
Day 11: Canada surrenders
Day 12: Seahawks win super bowl!!! WOOT WOOT!!!
Day 13: Iran nukes Israel to hell
Day 14: The continet of Africa surrenders
Day 15: China declares neutrality, and kills 40000 if thier own citizens to make them feel better for the loss.
Day 16: US deficent lowered, economy booming
Day 17: Russia says it was never involved, and the russian leaders evacuate to the gulag in siberia
Day 18: Iran holds the world at a rate of 20 men per country (except the good old U-S of A!!! :D )

This is what will happen...... UN resolve this, cause i'd prefer if we dont help.

or maybe he put them down not knowing what his hand was, if anyone is following my analogy.
I dont follow please explain.

See UN Ambassadorship, even my conservative friend thinks you need to go back to school. :D

I have to agree as well. This guy sure as hell doesn't sound like a college student.

And to be honest, after the American Government's conduct over Afghanistan and Iraq, help from anybody besides Blair seems pretty unlikely. (Israel might seem likely, but I doubt that they'd dare even if they didn't have enough problems at the moment already...)
Hey! The Australian governement still doesn't do anything thinking for itself, if the US want to invade another country they'll march right in.

I have to agree as well. This guy sure as hell doesn't sound like a college student.
you dont sound like a college student

Aw come on... give the guy a break, he could be in college...





They do let anyone into JC...

Aw come on... give the guy a break, he could be in college...





They do let anyone into JC...
If your talking to me I go to a major University.

If your talking to me I go to a major University.Well they do let almost anyone into some of those too...



It just costs more...

To be honest, I created this thread somewhat as joke. I thought it would have died long ago, but it became very entertaining for me. As a liberal it was interesting to play the devil's advocate, but its hard to do it forever before you start to believe some of the stuff your saying. At points I thought I couldnt go on "Sean Hannity is a great man and better journalist" jesus I couldnt type because I was laughing so hard as I wrote it. I hope everyone was as amused by this as I was but I wonder how long it can keep going.

To be honest, I created this thread somewhat as joke. I thought it would have died long ago, but it became very entertaining for me. As a liberal it was interesting to play the devil's advocate, but its hard to do it forever before you start to believe some of the stuff your saying. At points I thought I couldnt go on "Sean Hannity is a great man and better journalist" jesus I couldnt type because I was laughing so hard as I wrote it. I hope everyone was as amused by this as I was but I wonder how long it can keep going.

I'm afraid that we're going to have to make you swear to a loyalty oath, now. Only way you're gonna be able to live down your foolish covorting as a GOP lap-dog. :p

you dont sound like a college student

How do I not sound like a college student?

If your talking to me I go to a major University.

Which one?

I don't particularly like the idea of being drafted. But it seems much more plausible than the iraqi situation that they are actually developing wmd's.

I'm afraid that we're going to have to make you swear to a loyalty oath, now. Only way you're gonna be able to live down your foolish covorting as a GOP lap-dog. :p
fair enough, I swear I didnt vote for Bush, not the biggest fan of US policy especially towards Israel, and am not ignorant towards other countries. I am honestly a international studies major and I plan on spending much my time overseas. That said I do love America, its a great place.

fair enough, I swear I didnt vote for Bush, not the biggest fan of US policy especially towards Israel, and am not ignorant towards other countries. I am honestly a international studies major and I plan on spending much my time overseas. That said I do love America, its a great place.

Interesting. You don't sound at all like one. So you think Hamas is going to lose funding?

As for Iran, what do you think about the fact that the IAEA has decided to refer this to the UN Security Council? What is your take on it?

Interesting. You don't sound at all like one. So you think Hamas is going to lose funding?

As for Iran, what do you think about the fact that the IAEA has decided to refer this to the UN Security Council? What is your take on it?

The US said they wont fund what claim to be terrorists groups so they most likely will lose funding. I think is in a way unfortunate in that hamas was democratically elected and the US claims it wants democracy through out the region so for them not to work with hamas because it doesnt fit what they want seems hypocritical. Its more unfortunate in that Palestine needs funding since it is largely isolated due to the occupation.

I think if Iran will get to the security council it will most likely die due to Iran's relationship with China and Russia. I doubt a US invasion even if European allies would happen soon. Its more likely that the Government will overthrown in a totally "Iranian uprising free from outside influence" or that certian sites will suddenly have a "accidential explosion due to electrical wiring"

The US said they wont fund what claim to be terrorists groups so they most likely will lose funding. I think is in a way unfortunate in that hamas was democratically elected and the US claims it wants democracy through out the region so for them not to work with hamas because it doesnt fit what they want seems hypocritical. Its more unfortunate in that Palestine needs funding since it is largely isolated due to the occupation.

Even though it is being runned by a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION? Did you know we are not the only ones threatening to do that unless they moderate, disarm, and stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map?

I think if Iran will get to the security council it will most likely die due to Iran's relationship with China and Russia.

China and Russia supported the move to refer it to the UN Security Council.

I doubt a US invasion even if European allies would happen soon. Its more likely that the Government will overthrown in a totally "Iranian uprising free from outside influence" or that certian sites will suddenly have a "accidential explosion due to electrical wiring"

Maybe.

Even though it is being runned by a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION? Did you know we are not the only ones threatening to do that unless they moderate, disarm, and stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map?



China and Russia supported the move to refer it to the UN Security Council.



Maybe.
I didn't say we were the only ones, Israel said they just wont deal with them(last I heard) and many European nations said they will only have limited dealings with them. I dont think have a choice but to moderate. It is still ironic that the US is so big on middle eastern democracy and democracy in general will now not deal with an democratic government in Palestine but has no problem dealing with non-democratic nations like Egypt, Saudi, and China.

We will see if China and Russia support actions against Iran when the time comes to vote on it.

I didn't say we were the only ones, Israel said they just wont deal with them(last I heard) and many European nations said they will only have limited dealings with them. I dont think have a choice but to moderate. It is still ironic that the US is so big on middle eastern democracy and democracy in general will now not deal with an democratic government in Palestine but has no problem dealing with non-democratic nations like Egypt, Saudi, and China.

We won't deal with a government runned by hamas but we will still talk with abbas, the president.

We will see if China and Russia support actions against Iran when the time comes to vote on it.

Russia might. don't know about China though.

:D

Second best thread ever! :fluffle:

Shu-be-du-be-duu...

I didn't dodge anything. I'm not a nuclear expert. The IAEA supposedly are.

No, you wanted Iran to prove that it doesn't want nuclear weapons, I asked how you expect them to be able to prove that.

1) Russia, Britain, France doesn't want Iran to get nukes under any circumstances.
2) Only one nuclear reactor and it turned out to be a damn good thing that they did. However, it is also a longer flight to Iran than it was towards that Nuclear facility (set up by the French I might add)
3) Except one maybe two if you wnat to toss the Brits in there.

You are also forgetting a thing called national airspace. Will Iraq give them permission to fly over its airspace to attack Iran?

1) Which will give Israel the confidence to attack, knowing that they'll get a diplomatic slap on the wrist at worst from the IC.
2) I'm no expert but I'm sure they could make the flight.
3) Maybe I should have phrased that better, I meant that their airforce is better than any airforce that might oppose them.

I also doubt that Israel cares much about national airspace if they feel they're in danger.

Iran is acting up and needs to be dealt with(harshly in my opinion). They want nukes and this is unacceptable. This time we will have international support so we will need a smaller US force and if all else fails there's the draft. I think we should go in, whos with me?

Why is it acceptable that anyone should have nukes?

Why are the options in the poll so limited? I believe that war is justified in the rare instances where the evil it will prevent is greater than the evil it will create. But I believe that whoever is proposing said war has to provide extremely strong proof of their case. You have not made your case.

Why is it acceptable that anyone should have nukes?

Why are the options in the poll so limited? I believe that war is justified in the rare instances where the evil it will prevent is greater than the evil it will create. But I believe that whoever is proposing said war has to provide extremely strong proof of their case. You have not made your case.

Tell you what. This time, the US should wait until Iran nukes someone. Like Israel, or some city in the southern reaches of Europe, where Iranian missiles can reach now.

After the mushroom cloud drifts away, we'll talk about the problem. Ok? Would that be proof enough for you?

I've always seen it as this......

"Another Year, another War."

I think Iran will back down, or will prove they don't have WMD, if war breaks out at all this year it will involve probably Israel and Palestine.

But one way or another Iran will be invaded. It's merely a target for those imperialist pigs inside the White House- they'll make up a reason to go to war and go into battle.

I voted for option three, basicall Mr. Tony B-Liar has got his head so far up Bush's backside he'll do anything.

And not only that, if the US invades Iran, it means the US becomes and even bigger target to insurgents across the Arab world and international terrorism- in all honestly, those prats sitting in the White House are more stupid than they look, they are sign the United States' death wish.

**Sarcastic Clapping**
Well Done Bush.....well done.....

Hey! The Australian governement still doesn't do anything thinking for itself, if the US want to invade another country they'll march right in.
So do the British as a rule, but it's hard to shake the feeling that after the tidal wave of ill will that's drenched him since he refused to do anything besides supplying Bush with canon fodder over the last one, even Blair will choose to sit this one out.
Of course, I could just be being overly optimistic.

Tell you what. This time, the US should wait until Iran nukes someone. Like Israel, or some city in the southern reaches of Europe, where Iranian missiles can reach now.

After the mushroom cloud drifts away, we'll talk about the problem. Ok? Would that be proof enough for you?

If Iran is a threat to Israel, let Israel take care of them.

Tell you what. This time, the US should wait until Iran nukes someone. Like Israel, or some city in the southern reaches of Europe, where Iranian missiles can reach now.

After the mushroom cloud drifts away, we'll talk about the problem. Ok? Would that be proof enough for you?

BTW, this is the same line of reasoning that was trotted out to justify invading Iraq. That Saddam was a threat to all of us, and if we didn't do something about him first, he was going to deploy those WMD's on us. Turns out that threat was overblown too.

The Iranians might have missiles with the range to reach southern Europe, but they don't have the warheads to put in them as yet.

Israel will nuke the shit out of them if Iran so much as points a missile in their direction ... they have a bigger arsenal and a longer range than Iran could ever hope to have.

Actually, a better tactic for Iran might be to threaten to nuke the Saudi oil fields.

If Iran's missiles cant even reach you. why the f**k do you care?

If Irans missiles cant even reach you. why the f**k do you care about them?


Cause they may not be able to reach you now, but how about in a year, or 5 years?

Cause they may not be able to reach you now, but how about in a year, or 5 years?

Yeah but if you don't mess with them. why would they try to nuke you?

Yeah but if you don't mess with them. why would they try to nuke you?


Well, hmm... lets see... they control a lot of oil, and could threaten the rest of it. Not only the US needs that. If the UN does anything about it, which is what its supposed to do, we would be involved if not the biggest factor in it.

Here's a little scenario for you.

Think of what would happen if a couple of nukes went off anywhere in the Persian Gulf.

Imagine what would happen to oil prices.

Imagine Iran saying, "the EU and US will accede to the following demands, or we'll nuke the oil terminals in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi".

I bet the Europeans at least would roll over and give them whatever they wanted - even if it meant taking back all the Jews in Israel.

If the war was actually fought, and even a few of the oil terminals were hit, that would be a worldwide economic disaster.

He who has the power to destroy a thing, controls that thing.

Thats what I mean, only you actually laid it out.

The only way to take that power out of the Middle East's hands is simple...

Whats that? Yep, exactly!

ALASKA! But then again, we would endanger animals that actually arent endangered at all. Or we would have to move animals from were they belong, even though we moved them to there from somewhere else.

Or switch energy generation to other sources.

Or switch energy generation to other sources.
Oh sure. We know how much Europeans love nuclear power.

And we know how long it would take to switch a hydrocarbon fuel economy over to something else - and how big of a global economic depression would ensue until the switchover was complete.

This is why it was so wrong for the US to invade IRAQ. Because when a REAL threat pops up, we are already neck-deep in Camel dung and our hands are tied. Yes, Saddam was an evil guy, but he was secularist (sp?) ruler who could be dealt with in material ways. He also had no major weapons which we all knew before we went in there. Also, it should be noted that after the first Gulf War, people asked President Bush (sr.) and General Swartskoff (sp?) why they left Saddam in power and they both said that he hates Iran, so keeping him there keeps Iran in check. Even then we knew Iran was nuts and ruled by religious fanatics that cannot be quelled by material means. It is so easy to write-off anti iraq war people as peacenik hippies instead of listening to us that are staying it is stupid because there are much worse threats out there. Now look where we are.

As for Hamas, they are nothing more then a terrorist group who's business is killing people and who's main political stance is to "erase Israel from the map." Palestine gets more aid money poured into it per year from the US and Europe all the other countries that get aid combined. And yet they still live in poverty with areas that still lack plumbing and pavement, not to mention schools and hospitals. Where does this money go to? Corrupt Palestinian officials and terror organizations. When Arrafat was asked why he keeps his people in poverty, he replied that is was to keep their anger at israel "white hot." That was his political party though that lost to Hamas so time will tell if the situation there gets better.

With both Iran and Palestine, we are dealing with dangerous people. Not fake-Saddam-dangerous, but REALLY dangerous. There are scary men involved on all sides (ours and theirs) so we will just have to wait and see what happens because all we can do it watch.

Please ignore the spelling errors. I'm on lunch break:rolleyes:

-hohl

Oh sure. We know how much Europeans love nuclear power.

And we know how long it would take to switch a hydrocarbon fuel economy over to something else - and how big of a global economic depression would ensue until the switchover was complete.

Thermal depolymerization?

Thermal depolymerization?
It would take a long time before the production came anywhere near to satisfying demand.

It would take a long time before the production came anywhere near to satisfying demand.
But it's a start. I wasn't talking short term. Right now, we're stuck with Blood Oil. But if more R&D in TDP was done, we might be able to wean ourselves off the Middle Eastern teat.

Well...

Firstly... I am happy to see the Swartzkopt has been brought up. Has anybody read his autobiography? If you have you may remember his chapters on end of the First Gulf War and why we A: Left Saddam in power, and B: Did not go to Baghdad. Intresting how we are now facing some problems he foresaw...

Besides that... there are other powers sources available today.
Wind power is more an more affordable everyday... as cheap as $5000 for a system that can handel most of your needs for a house. Granted... you need to be near wind... or a hill... but it is a start. If you were to combine that with the newer photovoltaics (sp... I can never remember how to spell that) ... you can have a system that is very effetive, efficient, and reliable.

I live in Oregon, not too much sun here... rains most of the year (I live near the coast). My solars alone work fine. I pump most of my wind power back into the grid. If there was a better system developed to store the excess wind power.. I would never need the solars... But back to them. Mine are newer... mounted on a motorized mount... they have a little light sensitive eye on top... the motors when told to by the eye... turn the solar so it is always facing the sun... my efficency is really great this way.

Point here... alternative energy sources do not have to be alternative.

And... I do not like "smileys" usually but this looked fun

:fluffle: :mp5:
:rolleyes: :sniper:

Oh, man. Reading those all posts was really hard for me... I am not a Iranian but i hd been living in Iran for 10 yrs. The Iran buys energy from postsoviet (ehh how to call it in English?) nuclear power stations in Torkemenostan. And it was reaaaly expensive. Now, Iranians want to create their own nuclear power stations to produce cheaper energy. And not the bombs. Seems that you don't know the middleeastern sense of "speaking the word". Mentioning about somethin is more important than doing it. Mr. Ahmadinejad said: well erase Isra'el. Yes, not very kind it was... But those are only words to make you scared of them. As some say: the cow that moos very loud will not give milk, the dog that is (ehh again) barfing very noisy we'll not bite you". Of course i do not want to compare my Iranian friedns with dogs, oh no, but im sure you'll understand what i wanted to say... Radus'a Ali

Oh, man. Reading those all posts was really hard for me... I am not a Iranian but i hd been living in Iran for 10 yrs. The Iran buys energy from postsoviet (ehh how to call it in English?) nuclear power stations in Torkemenostan. And it was reaaaly expensive. Now, Iranians want to create their own nuclear power stations to produce cheaper energy. And not the bombs. Seems that you don't know the middleeastern sense of "speaking the word". Mentioning about somethin is more important than doing it. Mr. Ahmadinejad said: well erase Isra'el. Yes, not very kind it was... But those are only words to make you scared of them. As some say: the cow that moos very loud will not give milk, the dog that is (ehh again) barfing very noisy we'll not bite you". Of course i do not want to compare my Iranian friedns with dogs, oh no, but im sure you'll understand what i wanted to say... Radus'a Ali
Surely he said that Israel should be erased, not that his own country planned to do so?

Surely he said that Israel should be erased, not that his own country planned to do so?He never said he was going to attack or erase Israel.. He has never said that.

Iran has never recognized Israel.. and probably never will.
He says Israel should be in Europe.. and I agree with him.

Surely he said that Israel should be erased, not that his own country planned to do so?

...or he is saying he would erase them but can't so he's asking others do do so for him or help him do it. We give arms to Israel so they are way better equipped then the rest of the middle east. That is why they are still on the map. That and the fact that the US backs them. There should be no debate that if the rest of the middle east could destroy Israel, they would. Every country there has tried or helped others try on more than one occasion, and will try again if they are ever given the chance.

No bull about the Iraq war. We are no where near knee deep in camel dung. You really have no clue as to how much of our military we are actually using. Why do we have 100,000+ troops in the Iraq? We dont need that many there. Its cause it keeps the border countries under control. I didnt read everyones stuff, so I dont know if anyone talked about it. The Military is bound by the Gov. The Gov isnt giving it far enough money nor space to work. I wonder how many people in congress spent years at a military college learning how to fight a war, or have any military experience at all. Maybe a handful, and most of them did it only for political gains. Generals know what they are doing, congress doesnt. We should have taken out Iraq in 91, but we didnt. Why? Cause congress and the media said, 'He learned his leason'. Well we found out within days that he didnt. He would have had to be taken out sooner or later.

The UN did nothing about it. The stuff they did was just a slap on the hand, and it didnt stop him at all. What the US did helped the UN in a way. He didnt listen to the UN, so the US went in and took him out. If the UN had gone in, just as many of the troops would have been US anyhow. We just didnt wait the 3 years at least it would have taken for the UN to do something. We should take out N Korea now anyhow. They arent listening to the UN either. The UN talks, the US enforces; its that simple.

We had huge interests in that country anyway. War hurt us. You cannot honesty say it was a war for oil. Have you filled up recently?

War is gunna happen. It always will. The world will not become a better place by just talking. Taking out every evil person isnt the answer either. BUT! If you disobey the UN, you have to deal with the US. It will take a few wars to get that message loud and clear. But its what has to be done.

Honestly, (Which I'm sure we are already doing) we should train a really big amount of Special Ops and have them run around countries like N Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba. So, if they do something, its taken care of before it even hits the news. But thats just me.

WMD's! I love this one, cause nobody knows anything about mass destruction! If you recall awhile back, on the news... we found these warheads... like for artillery. Some had traces of Chems in it, other full of Chems. I dont recall the Chem, but what I do know is that if you... lets say blow that thing up in... NYC (poor NYC, everyone picks on it with theories and examples of destruction) It would kill, um... whats that? Oh yeah, just about every living thing in the city. And do you know how much of chem these can hold? Like only a liter or 2... Saddam was stupid. Cause we backed out in the first gulf war, his ego tripled... He would have used them on anything. We found tons of stuff like that, but of course its downplayed as not WMD. Really, a person on a plane with a box cutter could be a WMD, as 9/11 showed. May God forgive mankind for its stupid people. Terrorists should never be givin the american justice system.

WMD's! I love this one, cause nobody knows anything about mass destruction! If you recall awhile back, on the news... we found these warheads... like for artillery. Some had traces of Chems in it, other full of Chems. I dont recall the Chem, but what I do know is that if you... lets say blow that thing up in... NYC (poor NYC, everyone picks on it with theories and examples of destruction) It would kill, um... whats that? Oh yeah, just about every living thing in the city. And do you know how much of chem these can hold? Like only a liter or 2... Saddam was stupid. Cause we backed out in the first gulf war, his ego tripled... He would have used them on anything. We found tons of stuff like that, but of course its downplayed as not WMD. Really, a person on a plane with a box cutter could be a WMD, as 9/11 showed. May God forgive mankind for its stupid people. Terrorists should never be givin the american justice system.
WMD in Iraq is now a 4 year old myth. Even Bush and Blair have come to accept that there are no WMD in Iraq, and if you try real hard, you will be able to accept that fact as well.

Terrorists should never be givin the american justice system.
What? Killing them? Before possibly torturing them?

Iran is acting up and needs to be dealt with(harshly in my opinion). They want nukes and this is unacceptable. This time we will have international support so we will need a smaller US force and if all else fails there's the draft. I think we should go in, whos with me?

I hope you enlist(or get drafted) in the American military and get deported to the middle east.

I hope you enlist(or get drafted) in the American military and get deported to the middle east.
i hope you read the part where he admitted he was just letting us on. Quite good, I must say. I lot better than I would have done!:D

War is never ok. Period Option I believe covers that angle.


Then you, my friend, have no sense of Reality.

Then you, my friend, have no sense of Reality.

Reality is for those who cannot handle fantasy, or so I've been told.

i hope you read the part where he admitted he was just letting us on. Quite good, I must say. I lot better than I would have done!:D
why thank you sir:D

There should be no moderation. If Iran might only be building nuclear weapons, we should leave them alone (like we should have left Iraq alone, no WMDs, just 100,000 dead Iraqis, 3,000 dead US troops and 100 dead UK troops) But if we ever get solid evidence, get straight in there, fight a battlefied war that we can win rather than an insurgency one that we can't, destroy the equipment and get the hell out of there. Only go in with a few good troops to stop the nukes and not a full-scale invasion, so as not to destabalise the region, then let the UN step in with its sanctions etc.

Then you, my friend, have no sense of Reality.

Oh I have a sense of reality. I do know War is necessary sometimes in order to secure peace. I just wish more people realize this.

I have an idea... lets make a dozend of threads about Bombing Iran.. That way I can wet at nigth getting horny about how many "moslems" we are going to kill [/UBER sarcasm]
.