Half of US voters say Iran should be bombed

[gambit]

Are you insane?

Did you ever bother to look up the map and see the distance between Iraq and Bangladesh? Actually, we had good relations with the country. It was the first Arab country to recognize us. So, we didn't have any friction with Saddam, and our neighborhood was very different from that of the ME.

That's why I was saying that Pakistan and Bangladesh are not in the ME but in Southern Asia where things are different. They simply aren't in the same scenario.

The reason for Bangladesh's participation is to have closer relations with the US, which we value very much.

Right...So if possible, Bangladesh would turn and wage war against someone who once extended a hand of friendship and who harbored no ill will towards you just to get on our good side and for your little bit of a military to have some combat experience at the expense of that once friendly nation? Good for you...!!! Shows the lot of you are no better and different than US.

That's because Iraq had Western support!

The Iraqi military was Soviet equipped. If that is what you meant. But if not, that still does not excuse the rest of the ME to form a military coalition to take down Iraq because by the time of Desert Storm, 'the West' no longer supported Iraq. Of course, the rest of you saw how easily Kuwait went down...

Of-course, during the 1st Gulf War, the US had far superior technology and probably even competence of their personnel compared to the Iraqis. And that's why Saddam's forces were literally crushed.

And no questions asked about the 2nd Gulf War, since they were under sanctions. They were already dead.

Then why not take down Saddam Hussein then? All sorts of loony conspiracy abounds about how Saddam Hussein 'asked' and 'received' permission from US to attack Kuwait. By the same argument, the ME should have no problems receiving the same permission to take out a weakened Iraq, right? I guess even a weakened Iraq was a 'serious' military opponent after all. It is so funny watching the inconsistency going here. In one argument, the US is seen as 'defeated' in Iraq, but when convenient, Iraq was so weak of a military that even a police force could take down Saddam Hussein.

 

[Majnun]

Very bad thinking. We should not wish bad for any nation, especially not for a nation that we have no disputes and no problems with.

Dont forget, Iran was the first nation on eath to recognize Pakistan in 1947. Muslims should unite against the enemies of Muslims.

If American government's targets are first Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Libya, then Iran, then what makes you think Pakistan will not be in their list. Pakistan is also an Islamic Republic, and American media and American government has become very anti-pakistan recently.

We do have dispute with Iran, an ally of India, who is actively aiding Baloch insurgents and developing nuclear weapons for use against Pakistan.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Right...So if possible, Bangladesh would turn and wage war against someone who once extended a hand of friendship and who harbored no ill will towards you just to get on our good side and for your little bit of a military to have some combat experience at the expense of that once friendly nation? Good for you...!!! Shows the lot of you are no better and different than US.

Well, you did have a hand during the 1971 Indo-Pak war The US even sent a carrier group at the Bay of Bengal (USS Enterprise).

Task Force 74 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although, Bangladesh being a Muslim-majority nation, and given President Nixon's hand in the matter, it never participated in anti-American activities.

Oh well:

We'd always want good relations with a powerful nation Although don't mind us having a good relations with China!

The Iraqi military was Soviet equipped. If that is what you meant. But if not, that still does not excuse the rest of the ME to form a military coalition to take down Iraq because by the time of Desert Storm, 'the West' no longer supported Iraq. Of course, the rest of you saw how easily Kuwait went down...

And not a single country was on Iran's side. Given the difficulties, the Iranians did well and they were courageous.

Then why not take down Saddam Hussein then? All sorts of loony conspiracy abounds about how Saddam Hussein 'asked' and 'received' permission from US to attack Kuwait. By the same argument, the ME should have no problems receiving the same permission to take out a weakened Iraq, right? I guess even a weakened Iraq was a 'serious' military opponent after all. It is so funny watching the inconsistency going here. In one argument, the US is seen as 'defeated' in Iraq, but when convenient, Iraq was so weak of a military that even a police force could take down Saddam Hussein.

That's merely a rumor. No point in really discussing it.

I believe Saddam wanted to control the oil supply line in the Middle East. He even threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. And of-course, given Iraq's war experience during the Iraq-Iran war, the Saudis would've certainly been afraid.

Kuwait was a bug waiting to get squashed since they didn't even have much of a military.

In fact, we do have an agreement with the Saudis that IF they come under invasion or any attack from ANY country, we will send our troops. It is where Islam's holiest site is located, and the Saudis give us oil benefits, especially in regards to running our naval vessels.

Obviously, Bin Laden and his ilks were angry about having Western troops on Arab/Muslim soil. But, that was his issue.

As far as Iraq war went, the 2nd one was just messed up. Sure, Saddam's military was easily defeated by conventional war. But we have to look at what happened on the ground. The terrorists and insurgent elements looted many arms and explosives from what was left of the Saddam army. And that partly helped explain the sheer carnage that went on in Baghdad and much of Southern Iraq.

The only peaceful place was the northern parts where Kurds dominate. And boy, they like the USA

Were the American troops been able to fully occupy and control Iraq initially? Of-course they were having difficulties, even given their technological superiority. It appears that there were too few boots on the ground.

I did support the 1st Gulf War, that fool Saddam needed to be dealt with. The Gulf War was said to be the 'unfinished war'. I would have supported finishing it. But the context used to justify it was flawed. There were no WMDs (under sanctions, Iraq simply didn't have that capability to develop or build them), there were no links to Al-Queda (Bin Laden actually despised Saddam), and they had nothing to do with 9/11.

The end-result in the Iraq war was total genocide in which hundreds and thousands of Iraqis were killed.

And I doubt if Bush came up with the exaggerated claims all by himself. There were questionable sources. Although, the man was genius since he can keep the economy afloat and at the same time run two wars.

Okay, finish the war, but why use false pretexts? And sadly, I believe the same is happening in regards to Iran.

 

[khalidwaleed]

But the same critics here, which might includes YOU, insist that the US government listen and obey to polls showing Americans want US out of Iraq and Afghanistan.


What was said about Iraq.

"NUKE + intercontinental ballistic missile with range of 20000 Km for Iran" is the slogan.

I am expecting, Iran will be making NUKE in 2 or 3 years. and US can't do a sh!t about it. once Iran reaches there, then we will take another poll, itz sure US will not support a war on Iran. because america is a coward like the fat ugly boy from school, who sneaks in to the tiffin of the thin little fellow not the strong one.

and for the paks , stop kissing american AS$, America is evil.

 

[khalidwaleed]

The issue is the potency of the Iraqi military in the ME, of which ALL of the region, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, were afraid to face. Remember that the larger Iran could not defeat Iraq. So all this talk about the Iraqi military being 'easy' to defeat and that the US have never face a 'serious' opponent is all nonsense. If the Iraqi military was not 'serious' and therefore 'easy' to defeat, then why did the ME, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, not create a temporary military union, like how many African states did, to deal with Iraq?


WAKE UP MAN,WAKE UP, bangladesh and pakistan is not in ME, and you as a military expert, that you assume, were thinking that any country will be able to invade pakistan??,for your information, in the current world, no one will be able to invade a country with NUKE. see that is the beauty of "N...U...K...E"


And regarding bangladesh, why ,why the hell do Saddam invade Bangladesh? for oil?.see the map of Bangladesh ,it is after India and Nepal.

leave it buddy, some things are like that, we will have to just stand and watch it happening ? that is going to happen in the case of Iran , she will be making nuke and you US will have to just stand and watch it,like watching the defeat of your favorite team .you want to do many things but you cant....

so peace....

 

[Zabaniyah]

As far as Saddam invading Bangladesh goes, they didn't need to worry. I am sure the Iraqi Navy would have felt as if they are in the safest navy in the world

 

[asianamerican]

American public are pretty bombarded by mass media that tells them what to think. For them to think otherwise would ostracized them some society.

This shows the irrationality of the American public. If you poll Iranian, it would be more peaceful than the American.

Iran poses no threat to the American and yet the American public are willing to risk attacking Iran.

I don't know what the hell people are talking about when they say American are peaceful.

 

[asianamerican]

lets be rank here if today america decides to go to a war with a country a full scale war including all the three branches which country can stop them china no russia no india no . no country can stand out an all scale war from america for more than a month what will iran stop them with gaining total air control with there f14's what about the naval blockage what about the american armour thrust

American doesn't even have the cohesiveness to go on a full scale war. If the US ever try reinstating the draft, there would be a boat load of people moving out. Black won't fight a white man's war. Asian won't fight a white man's war againt Asian. Hispanic just want their land back.

Trust me...there is no support for a draft in the US unless the US mainland is attacked. Otherwise people are sick of sending their son to die in foreign land for a bunch old white geezers

 

[longbrained]

American public are pretty bombarded by mass media that tells them what to think. For them to think otherwise would ostracized them some society.

This shows the irrationality of the American public. If you poll Iranian, it would be more peaceful than the American.

Iran poses no threat to the American and yet the American public are willing to risk attacking Iran.

I don't know what the hell people are talking about when they say American are peaceful.

Of course US is not peaceful. They attacked Iran in Operation Ajax, then stole Iranian oil and then supported dictator Shah in Iran. When revolution happened, Iranians remembering operation Ajax pre-emptively took the US embassy to stop another Operation Ajax. Then US supported Saddam against Iran and Saddam invaded Iran. But Saddam soon found himself on losing end so US navy had to go in helping him since Saddam did not have a navy. Then US shoots down Iran Air Flight 655. The list goes on. Peaceful, nah.

See this thread to understand where US problems are coming from: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...24-us-turning-pakistan-into-another-iran.html

 

[Uchiha]

Americans have low mode intelligence (mode doesnt mean average)