Military strike on Iran

[Superfly]

Should the west strike Iran and cripple any nuclear programme...

 

[sam76]

Hey mate,

Perhaps you could put a poll up on this one.

(and before someone else jumps in) You should perhaps put up an argument for and against along with your own opinion.

I believe the mods get a little shirty when threads are started like this.

here's cheers!



Hmm perhaps the Israelis are thinking the same thing...

 

[Santob]

Here we go...again with this pre-emptive nonsense, because it was such a success in Iraq.

 

[numbercruncher]

Are we getting low on Oil again ?

 

[Sean K]

The US military economy must need a boost.

 

[szandor]

yes Iran is making nuclear weapons just like Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
However i do think Iran is next on USA's agenda,and like usual they will fabricate whatever is needed to convince the gullible moronic american public that 'we must go to war to stop these evil terrorists' blah blah blah.
In reality we all know its all about business and MONEY,oil,the petrodollar which Iran is trying to get the other nations of the world to trade oil in euro's,which would devestate the american economy,something saddam hussein introduced before the invasion,and was one of the first things the american's changed when they had control of the country(the conversion of trading iraqi oil back to US dollars).
Apart from the oil agenda,you have these american companies,who's ceo's and directors basically control the US govt through donations and other influences,such as KBR,which incidently Dick Cheney was a director before he became vice president,these companies including weapon and ammnuition companies recieve all the contracts,and make billions from war.
The american taxpayer spends trillions of dollars on war and the country goes into further debt,but who cares,the people in power are making MONEY,and thats what its all about!

 

[marklar]

I voted yes because I think it's a good way for the proles to be distracted from the failing economy and housing crisis

Therein lies the true agenda of the US government: "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

Time to re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four again...

m.

 

[Superfly]

Hmmm... nothing about the danger of an nuclear Iran, just the usual anti-Americanism shinning through...

 

[prawn_86]

Hmmm... nothing about the danger of an nuclear Iran, just the usual anti-Americanism shinning through...

Should China launch a pre-emptive strike against America to prevent future Iraqs/Afghanistans/Iran's happening? :

 

[Dukey]

Hmmm... nothing about the danger of an nuclear Iran, just the usual anti-Americanism shinning through...

So when pray tell are you going to enlighten us as to what opinion we should have ?????????

and more importantly - why???????????

.... Mister Fly.

 

[Santob]

Hmmm... nothing about the danger of an nuclear Iran, just the usual anti-Americanism shinning through...

Yes there is a danger with a nuclear Iran
There is also a danger with a nuclear Israel
There is also a danger with a nuclear China, UK, France, Russia, India, Pakistan.
There is also a danger with a nuclear USA.

But lets not let war distract us from what is really going on. The collection of the common wealth of the USA into fewer and fewer hands prior to the collapse of the Pax Americana.

 

[szandor]

the only nuclear Iran is nuclear energy,just like australia has,usa,china etc etc.If you believe Iran is arming itself with nuclear weapons,what about the fact that the usa,israel,ussr etc all have nuclear weapons?Does that mean Iran has the right to bomb the sh*t out of Israel because they have nuclear weapons?

The USA is just looking for another excuse,just like it did for iraq to go to war and make the people in power (and by power i dont mean puppets like bush) more MONEY.

 

[juw177]

To the thread starter: you seem to have a lot of fallacious world views with no facts to back it up. You really are really full of neo con American propaganda. Your past posts include:

On Iran's (non existent) nuclear program

So you think that the mad mullahs in Iran should be allowed to become nuclear... words will not stop them.... ..Iran works away to achieve it's goal... while some look & hope for a more humane & rational way of thinking to deal with the problem... but how do you deal with an unrational government...

On Hiroshima and the generations after it that suffered

Have you any idea what a land invasion of mainland Japan would have cost in American / Australian / English lives... most estimates 200000 to 1+million... the bomb saved countless brave men & women

On Iraq war:

When you are fighting an enemy that kills their own women and children, makes videos of cutting westerners heads off with knives.. what we do is nothing.

On China

The US could probably decimate mainland China with its submarine fleet alone.. destorying most needed infustructure, resulting in millions of straving Chinese.. and even with conventional weapons it may just take a while longer.

Iran has been proven to not have a nuclear weapons program so the first post of the thread is debunked. End of thread.

Bush is only accusing Iran of having the capacity of developing nuclear weapons, which means nothing. And lets not forget the only country to ever use the bomb was USA, and it was used on civilians.

 

[mayk]

I think balancing of nuclear power in a region is really important:Some examples:

Russia & America.

Pakistan & India.

These countries use these weapons as nuclear detterent, so that a war will not start.

Iran & Isreal if both nuclear armed I guess will not pose such a huge problem. Then they might start thinking that it will be mutually assured destruction, why not work towards peace!

Just my 2 Cents

 

[roland]

I think balancing of nuclear power in a region is really important:Some examples:

Russia & America.

Pakistan & India.

These countries use these weapons as nuclear detterent, so that a war will not start.

Iran & Isreal if both nuclear armed I guess will not pose such a huge problem. Then they might start thinking that it will be mutually assured destruction, why not work towards peace!

Just my 2 Cents

Sounds good, except when you are dealing with the possibility of the destructive power falling into the hands of people who consider self destruction as the ultimate religious sacrifice to their cause - the "Mexican Standoff" doesn't work in that scenerio

 

[Prospector]

Why not a strike on India - they are right next to Afghanistan/Pakistan aren't they.
For what its worth, if someone did launch a real attack on the US I dont think they would have enough military power anymore to fight it. And the US tends to judge everyone else on its own values, which, as juw has already pointed out, meant being the only country to launch a nuclear attack, and on civilians to boot!

 

[disarray]

But lets not let war distract us from what is really going on. The collection of the common wealth of the USA into fewer and fewer hands prior to the collapse of the Pax Americana.

quoted for absolute truth.

if america attacked iran they would probably get their asses handed to them. the US is stretched very thin manpower wise so their chief force projection would be their gulf fleet. however in wargames the fleet takes heavy losses when confronted by large numbers of small agile craft which is irans strategy. added to this iran has a credible anti-ship defence with its sunburn missile system. the US does have undisputed air power but you can't defeat a country solely from the air.

i'm currently bearish on america

 

[Santob]

quoted for absolute truth.

if america attacked iran they would probably get their asses handed to them. the US is stretched very thin manpower wise so their chief force projection would be their gulf fleet. however in wargames the fleet takes heavy losses when confronted by large numbers of small agile craft which is irans strategy. added to this iran has a credible anti-ship defence with its sunburn missile system. the US does have undisputed air power but you can't defeat a country solely from the air.

i'm currently bearish on america

And Iran does have some form of an airforce - which neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had.

 

[2020hindsight]

Anyone remember Bush having to admit (last Dec) that he should have known that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Trust Bush ? - yeah right

Bush : Iran is imminent threat Keith Olbermann MSNBC Part1

Bush : Iran is imminent threat Keith Olbermann MSNBC Part2

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush5dec05,0,6387210.story?coll=la-home-center

Iran continues to be a threat, Bush says
template_bas
template_bas
The latest report on the country's halting of a nuclear weapons program in 2003 indicates the need for ongoing international pressure, he says.
By Johanna Neuman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 5, 2007
WASHINGTON -- President Bush said today that despite a new intelligence report asserting that Iran stopped its development of nuclear weapons in 2003, "nothing has changed" in U.S. policy.

"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the know-how necessary to make a nuclear weapon,"

etc etc

 

[2020hindsight]

"Facts are of no consequence to this WhiteHouse."

Keith Olbermann: George Bush and His Iranian Masquerade

We have either a pathological presidential liar ,
or idiot in chief ?

Keith Olbermann - Bush: Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?