Half of US voters say Iran should be bombed

[T90TankGuy]

i am a great supporter of the States . have defended their policies on this forum many a time . but should they attack Iran i feel any moral high ground (if any ) would have been lost by them .

this is not a time for conflicts . its a time when we sit down and sort out the global financial crisis, which is hovering over us as the sword of Damocles . conflicts in the past 20 yrs have failed to achieve what they intended to do . quiet frankly IMHO i am really tired of these interventions.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

LOL

Stupid assholes

 

[gambit]

i am a great supporter of the States . have defended their policies on this forum many a time . but should they attack Iran i feel any moral high ground (if any ) would have been lost by them .

this is not a time for conflicts . its a time when we sit down and sort out the global financial crisis, which is hovering over us as the sword of Damocles . conflicts in the past 20 yrs have failed to achieve what they intended to do . quiet frankly IMHO i am really tired of these interventions.

Then when? I can step up on the moral ladder and say something pretentious like 'There is never a time for conflicts and that we should resolve our differences peacefully.' and get all kinds of applause. But the problem for mankind is that conflicts are inevitable when there are irreconcilable differences between competing ideologies and proponents of one ideology will create openings for conflicts. In other words, conflicts are thrust upon us, whether we want them or not.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

What was said about Iraq. Twice.


So did Iraq.


By what criteria do you judge a military to be 'advance'? By your say so?


Neither did the Soviets went to war against US. If anything, the Soviets backed down in Cuba.


Different issue.


What was said about Iraq.

LOl and your suppose to an expert, you americans though iraq had the 4th strongest armed forces when in reality they had the 4th largest ARMY, there is a difference, also do you think iran will use airforce or navy against you?
the missiles will send your soldiers to hell long before your pilots get in their planes.

matter of facts Iran may not even have to do anything, your military f-22 will kill its own pilot so we wont have to.

also all your military equipment will break down since the chinese gave you crap electronics.

 

[Zabaniyah]

also all your military equipment will break down since the chinese gave you crap electronics.

Wow, that's news to me...

I didn't know that US equipment used Chinese electronics

 

[gambit]

LOl and your suppose to an expert, you americans though iraq had the 4th strongest armed forces when in reality they had the 4th largest ARMY, there is a difference, also do you think iran will use airforce or navy against you?
the missiles will send your soldiers to hell long before your pilots get in their planes.

matter of facts Iran may not even have to do anything, your military f-22 will kill its own pilot so we wont have to.

also all your military equipment will break down since the chinese gave you crap electronics.

Baghdad Bob, is that you?

 

[T90TankGuy]

Then when? I can step up on the moral ladder and say something pretentious like 'There is never a time for conflicts and that we should resolve our differences peacefully.' and get all kinds of applause. But the problem for mankind is that conflicts are inevitable when there are irreconcilable differences between competing ideologies and proponents of one ideology will create openings for conflicts. In other words, conflicts are thrust upon us, whether we want them or not.

i agree conflicts are forced upon us , but considering the amount of influence the US state department has ,can it not be put to bare . you honestly tell me that things cant be sorted or at least delayed diplomatically .

its not a question of American lives or furthering democracy . and we both know that Iran is not in the foreseeable future able to attack America . but a repeat of the 1929 catastrophe is . And at a much larger scale . may be i mm selfish in wanting a secure financial future for my kids . but then i am a father.
an attack is something with will push the financial markets over the precipice .

 

[gambit]

i agree conflicts are forced upon us , but considering the ammount of influnce the US state department and put to bare . you honestly tell me that things cant be sorted or at least delayed diplomatically .

its not a question of American lives or furthering democracy . and we both know that Iran is not in the foreseeable future able to attack America . but a repeat of the 1929 catastrophe is . And at a much larger scale . may be i mm selfish in wanting a secure financial future for my kids . but then i am a father.
an attack is something with will push the financial markets over the precipice .

People accused US of invading Iraq on a whim, never mind that Saddam Hussein lasted through three consecutive US Presidential administrations: B41 and Clinton twice. Same for Iran today. Long before any country is brought in front of the UN Security Council, attempts at diplomatic resolutions have already been in play and failed in the General Assembly.

The issue is not about Iran capable of attacking US on our home soil. But as the world becomes more and more interdependent, regional instability threatens EVERYONE to some degrees, directly or through intermediaries. It is telling of this fact when people say that Iran can supposedly 'cripple' global markets through controlling the Strait but then turn around and say since Iran cannot attack US Iran is 'harmless' to US.

 

[Leviza]

Lol @ Americans

They think they are above the law.... and can bomb any nation ....

Why dont they first hang the american who order to use nukes?

This nation is only creating more and more wars.... i think whole of the Americans should consider going to doctors now... they have no sense of living in peace and let other live in peace..

i say first bomb israel as they are the ones who started nukes in middle east .. but yes they are with americans lol

 

[T90TankGuy]

but mate you forget one thing . Saddam was the head of an independent sovereign nation . also the WMD which were supposed to be there , never were . and guess what Iraq during Saddams time was the most secular of all the Arab states. and you guys did support him during the 80s against Iran .

while the global economy is interdependent on every one .it is an argument which can be used both ways . one which says the US in western Asia , is a disruptive influence. .

by the way Iran never said they would block the strait for over a decade . and lets be honest even the US CG can probably take them on . so the question remains . is an intervention required and of paramount importance at this time .

 

[gambit]

but mate you forget one thing . Saddam was the head of an independent sovereign nation .

Saddam represented Iraq. But this fact is irrelevant.

also the WMD which were supposed to be there , never were .

The 'WMD' issue has been discussed before. If you want to confine the initials 'WMD' to mean functional nuclear weapons, not just nuclear explosive devices, and not associated programs, then you must declare the entire UN nuclear inspections and sanctions against Iraq to be illegal from the start. That also mean the IAEA is an illegal organization.

and guess what Iraq during Saddams time was the most secular of all the Arab states. and you guys did support him during the 80s against Iran .

This is also irrelevant. The current hostile relationship we have with Iran is and never was religious.

while the global economy is interdependent on every one .it is an argument which can be used both ways . one which says the US in western Asia , is a disruptive influence. .

Certainly you can so argue. But then you have turned the argument against the cause of the regional instability in the first place, which in this case many, including the ME, perceives to be Iran. Just as they did so perceived for Iraq. The General Assembly certainly have argued the way you just did: Keep the US out by being reasonable and willing to compromise.

by the way Iran never said they would block the strait for over a decade . and lets be honest even the US CG can probably take them on . so the question remains . is an intervention required and of paramount importance at this time .

This begs the more foundational question: 'Is nuclear weapons proliferation a desirable goal?'

 

[Star√ation]

i am a great supporter of the States . have defended their policies on this forum many a time . but should they attack Iran i feel any moral high ground (if any ) would have been lost by them .

this is not a time for conflicts . its a time when we sit down and sort out the global financial crisis, which is hovering over us as the sword of Damocles . conflicts in the past 20 yrs have failed to achieve what they intended to do . quiet frankly IMHO i am really tired of these interventions.

1. It's state warfare, low or high moral standard got nothing to deal with.

2. Then when? Should the US only wage a war on Iran when Iran already successfully armed itself with plenty of ICBMs carrying mega-nuclear warheads.

 

[T90TankGuy]

This begs the more foundational question: 'Is nuclear weapons proliferation a desirable goal?'

the fact is that nuclear proliferation is very much a clear and present danger . but why should you cherry pick . why not look at north Korea or south Africa . Brazil is another and of course Israel . not to mention India in the 60s and Pakistan in the late 70 and 80 s . so why wake up now and declare non proliferation is unacceptable?

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Wow, that's news to me...

I didn't know that US equipment used Chinese electronics

yep look here

US weapons 'full of fake Chinese parts' - Telegraph

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

Baghdad Bob, is that you?

This is the third time you used that "baghdad bob" against me, if you dont have a answer to my point, you may as well stay quiet.

 

[gambit]

the fact is that nuclear proliferation is very much a clear and present danger . but why should you cherry pick . why not look at north Korea or south Africa . Brazil is another and of course Israel . not to mention India in the 60s and Pakistan in the late 70 and 80 s . so why wake up now and declare non proliferation is unacceptable?

It is 'cherry picking' in the sense that we, meaning the international community who are members of the nuclear states group and who signed the non-proliferation treaty, have the opportunity to discourage a WMD program in the first place. Both India and Pakistan had clandestine nuclear weapons program under their respective nuclear technology program. NKR is essentially too late because test detonations have already occurred and their nuclear weapons program was also clandestine and developed with Chinese assistance. Non-proliferation have always been unacceptable. The issue is how many states are willing to be open about their intentions.