Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

 

Poll

Invade Iran

yes32%32% - 51
no38%38% - 62
wait until Iran does something worse28%28% - 46
Total: 159
2007-01-27 12:56:36
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6875|SE London

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:

James-M-II wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

You realize that Iran isn't like Iraq and actually have an army/weapons, where as Iraq had tanks that are made of like wood. It's going to be a lot harder to simply "invade Iran" without a full blown war.

@ usmarine2007:

Wow, for your age you seem incredibly childish. Having a Persian ancestry and having VISITED IRAN TWICE, I can tell you that the people there are not Allah Akbaring Psychopaths, who wish "death to America." I have family in Iran and lots of them are actually JEALOUS of America/Canada because of it's freedoms compared to the Islamic countries.
yeah right good one. people say... dont sterotype, but how can i not? when anytime i see them... theyre always in the streets burning american flags.... shouting alalalalala and shooting ak-47's. thats the imagine i get... what else am i suppost to think. leave usmarine2007 alone, i think hes right. its all you left wing pinkos
that say, no dont make war... but as soon as something bad happens its... wheres the army? i hate you tree hugging middle eastern sympathisers. if you like it to much go live there jeez. next thing you know youll be strapped with c4 weilding an ak-47 shouting die infidels
thats the biggest problem in the USA.. people beleive all they see on their TV..  Iran is a civilized country.. and nobody is walking around in the street shouting alalala while firing in the air with their AK.  yes they do that in palestine and now in Iraq but only because America/Israel have destroyed their country and their lives.

I would do the same thing if a foreign power came in my country to tell me who my leaders should be and how to live my life.   alalalalala
Indeed. That is not what Iran is like at all.

Saudi Arabia is much worse than Iran, but we don't hear about that because they are allies with the US. yet the royal family there are responsible for all kinds of attrocities.
2007-01-27 14:06:36
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6824|The lunar module

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Iran is being naughty so what should we do? Do we put the foot down now through negotiation or even force? Or do we sit back and let them build up nuclear arms while the world is preoccupied with Iraq? Discuss.
Also, one interesting question would be 'why is Iran being naughty?'

Edit: typo.

Last edited by apollo_fi (2007-01-27 14:07:45)

2007-01-27 14:15:37
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6875|SE London

apollo_fi wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Iran is being naughty so what should we do? Do we put the foot down now through negotiation or even force? Or do we sit back and let them build up nuclear arms while the world is preoccupied with Iraq? Discuss.
Also, one interesting question would be 'why is Iran being naughty?'

Edit: typo.
It's a valid point. They've really done nothing wrong. They have denied access to UN inspectors from nations who have current sanctions against them, but that's quite understandable.

Iran are getting a lot of hassle over this and why they are doing it is a good question. But to answer it properly you have to look at the political climate in Iran, not just the hard-line regime in place at the moment.

Bertster7 wrote:

I do believe that Iran are developing nuclear technology for power, rather than for weapons, at least in the short term. The reason I think they are going with nuclear power is nothing to do with global warming, but to do with global perceptions and the fact that it is only a short step from nuclear energy to nuclear weapons. For a start nuclear power facilities will upset Israel greatly and possibly cause some sort of backlash against Iran, which will be in the best interests of the hard-line movements in Iran and will cripple the, very heavily supported, reformist opposition. At the rate political reform is taking place in Iran, by the time they have produced any weapons grade fissile material (which won't have happened till the end of the decade, maybe halfway into the next), there could easily be a responsible reformist government, more representative of the people, in power in Iran.
The more western animosity there is towards Iran the more power the hard-liners get there. We want the hard-liners gone, so we (the west) should be being quite passive with them and hinting that if a more moderate government should come to power we'll give them a great deal of support.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-27 14:22:13)

2007-01-27 15:04:51
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6824|The lunar module

Bertster7 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

For a start nuclear power facilities will upset Israel greatly and possibly cause some sort of backlash against Iran, which will be in the best interests of the hard-line movements in Iran and will cripple the, very heavily supported, reformist opposition.
The more western animosity there is towards Iran the more power the hard-liners get there. We want the hard-liners gone, so we (the west) should be being quite passive with them and hinting that if a more moderate government should come to power we'll give them a great deal of support.
Amen brother.
2007-01-27 15:15:37
James-M-II
Member
+13|6662|ENGLAND

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:

James-M-II wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

You realize that Iran isn't like Iraq and actually have an army/weapons, where as Iraq had tanks that are made of like wood. It's going to be a lot harder to simply "invade Iran" without a full blown war.

@ usmarine2007:

Wow, for your age you seem incredibly childish. Having a Persian ancestry and having VISITED IRAN TWICE, I can tell you that the people there are not Allah Akbaring Psychopaths, who wish "death to America." I have family in Iran and lots of them are actually JEALOUS of America/Canada because of it's freedoms compared to the Islamic countries.
yeah right good one. people say... dont sterotype, but how can i not? when anytime i see them... theyre always in the streets burning american flags.... shouting alalalalala and shooting ak-47's. thats the imagine i get... what else am i suppost to think. leave usmarine2007 alone, i think hes right. its all you left wing pinkos
that say, no dont make war... but as soon as something bad happens its... wheres the army? i hate you tree hugging middle eastern sympathisers. if you like it to much go live there jeez. next thing you know youll be strapped with c4 weilding an ak-47 shouting die infidels
thats the biggest problem in the USA.. people beleive all they see on their TV..  Iran is a civilized country.. and nobody is walking around in the street shouting alalala while firing in the air with their AK.  yes they do that in palestine and now in Iraq but only because America/Israel have destroyed their country and their lives.

I would do the same thing if a foreign power came in my country to tell me who my leaders should be and how to live my life.   alalalalala
yes iran is very civilised, calling for the destruction of a country.... israel? im not intrested in anyones thoughts on them, the zionists or whatever you call them... calling for their desctruction isnt civilised mate
2007-01-27 15:33:47
--->[Your]Phobia<---
Member
+35|7050|UK - England
firstly we have 48 extremely dumb and narrow minded people on this forum who voted yes. What you going to invade them for? Following Iraq weapons of mass destruction? Or is it the Oil, hmm does Iran have Oil? Ok serious point if they want to go nuclear then they should have every right to do so, After all its for energy purposes to feed the ever increasing demand. Even if they do create a nuke they are entitled to in my opinion. Why you might ask? Well:-

Country                                           Warheads active/total*    
United States United States                    5,735/9,960[2]    
Russia Russia (formerly the Soviet Union)5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom United Kingdom               <200[4]    
France France                                         350[5]    
People's Republic of China China         130       
India India                                           40-50[7]    
Pakistan Pakistan                               30-52[8]    
Democratic People's Republic of Korea North Korea     1-10[9]    

Undeclared nuclear weapons states
Israel Israel     75-200[11]

That’s the worlds countries who have nukes obviously to protect their country against any threats. Now don’t go saying Iran is some sort of jack in a box ready to pop. Its not them you should be worried about its the US.
2007-01-27 15:56:06
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6895|132 and Bush

Next week we are supposed to see a mountain of evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq. I guess we will have a clearer picture of their motives then.

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

That’s the worlds countries who have nukes obviously to protect their country against any threats. Now don’t go saying Iran is some sort of jack in a box ready to pop. Its not them you should be worried about its the US.
When we start threating to wipe other nations off the planet if they don't bow to the US I will be more concerned than I am with Iran.

PS, I voted no. Iran can be handled economically.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-27 15:58:37)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-27 16:05:56
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6875|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

Next week we are supposed to see a mountain of evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq. I guess we will have a clearer picture of their motives then.

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

That’s the worlds countries who have nukes obviously to protect their country against any threats. Now don’t go saying Iran is some sort of jack in a box ready to pop. Its not them you should be worried about its the US.
When we start threating to wipe other nations off the planet if they don't bow to the US I will be more concerned than I am with Iran.

PS, I voted no. Iran can be handled economically.
That's almost as bad.

Iran is in an important transitional phase at the moment, with many of the population wanting reform. Passive backing of the reformist opposition is the way to deal with Iran. Not direct backing as that could easily be distorted and turned into great propaganda for the hard-liners.
2007-01-27 16:17:54
jonnykill
The Microwave Man
+235|6973

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

firstly we have 48 extremely dumb and narrow minded people on this forum who voted yes. What you going to invade them for? Following Iraq weapons of mass destruction? Or is it the Oil, hmm does Iran have Oil? Ok serious point if they want to go nuclear then they should have every right to do so, After all its for energy purposes to feed the ever increasing demand. Even if they do create a nuke they are entitled to in my opinion. Why you might ask? Well:-

Country                                           Warheads active/total*    
United States United States                    5,735/9,960[2]    
Russia Russia (formerly the Soviet Union)5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom United Kingdom               <200[4]    
France France                                         350[5]    
People's Republic of China China         130       
India India                                           40-50[7]    
Pakistan Pakistan                               30-52[8]    
Democratic People's Republic of Korea North Korea     1-10[9]    

Undeclared nuclear weapons states
Israel Israel     75-200[11]

That’s the worlds countries who have nukes obviously to protect their country against any threats. Now don’t go saying Iran is some sort of jack in a box ready to pop. Its not them you should be worried about its the US.
Simply because we have more? Well what if Iran makes one, and uses it.
2007-01-27 16:22:46
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6875|SE London

jonnykill wrote:

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

firstly we have 48 extremely dumb and narrow minded people on this forum who voted yes. What you going to invade them for? Following Iraq weapons of mass destruction? Or is it the Oil, hmm does Iran have Oil? Ok serious point if they want to go nuclear then they should have every right to do so, After all its for energy purposes to feed the ever increasing demand. Even if they do create a nuke they are entitled to in my opinion. Why you might ask? Well:-

Country                                           Warheads active/total*    
United States United States                    5,735/9,960[2]    
Russia Russia (formerly the Soviet Union)5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom United Kingdom               <200[4]    
France France                                         350[5]    
People's Republic of China China         130       
India India                                           40-50[7]    
Pakistan Pakistan                               30-52[8]    
Democratic People's Republic of Korea North Korea     1-10[9]    

Undeclared nuclear weapons states
Israel Israel     75-200[11]

That’s the worlds countries who have nukes obviously to protect their country against any threats. Now don’t go saying Iran is some sort of jack in a box ready to pop. Its not them you should be worried about its the US.
Simply because we have more? Well what if Iran makes one, and uses it.
It'll be OK. They need them anyway, to deal with the Aliens.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=62036
2007-01-27 16:48:19
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6895|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Next week we are supposed to see a mountain of evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq. I guess we will have a clearer picture of their motives then.

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

That’s the worlds countries who have nukes obviously to protect their country against any threats. Now don’t go saying Iran is some sort of jack in a box ready to pop. Its not them you should be worried about its the US.
When we start threating to wipe other nations off the planet if they don't bow to the US I will be more concerned than I am with Iran.

PS, I voted no. Iran can be handled economically.
That's almost as bad.

Iran is in an important transitional phase at the moment, with many of the population wanting reform. Passive backing of the reformist opposition is the way to deal with Iran. Not direct backing as that could easily be distorted and turned into great propaganda for the hard-liners.
It is the economic turmoil that is driving most of the discontent and pushing for reform, but if you think sanctions are almost as bad as an invasion I really don't know what to say.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-27 16:54:50
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6875|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Next week we are supposed to see a mountain of evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq. I guess we will have a clearer picture of their motives then.


When we start threating to wipe other nations off the planet if they don't bow to the US I will be more concerned than I am with Iran.

PS, I voted no. Iran can be handled economically.
That's almost as bad.

Iran is in an important transitional phase at the moment, with many of the population wanting reform. Passive backing of the reformist opposition is the way to deal with Iran. Not direct backing as that could easily be distorted and turned into great propaganda for the hard-liners.
It is the economic turmoil that is driving most of the discontent and pushing for reform, but if you think sanctions are almost as bad as an invasion I really don't know what to say.
I didn't say "as bad" (well I did, but it had an almost in front of it). From what I've seen and heard (mostly from family over there) the economic turmoil has nothing to do with any of the political reform. It is people sick of living under a totalitarian Islamic regime that are pushing for change. It is the way of life they want changed, nothing to do with economics. If anything more money would help.

When people are forced into poverty by sanctions who do you think they blame? The goverment for getting sanctions imposed upon them or those who are imposing the sanctions? Sanctions are not a good way of getting any sort of empathy with the people of Iran.

Step up the IAEA presence and keep tabs on what they're doing, other than that, just sit back and wait.
2007-01-27 16:59:48
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6895|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's almost as bad.

Iran is in an important transitional phase at the moment, with many of the population wanting reform. Passive backing of the reformist opposition is the way to deal with Iran. Not direct backing as that could easily be distorted and turned into great propaganda for the hard-liners.
It is the economic turmoil that is driving most of the discontent and pushing for reform, but if you think sanctions are almost as bad as an invasion I really don't know what to say.
I didn't say "as bad" (well I did, but it had an almost in front of it). From what I've seen and heard (mostly from family over there) the economic turmoil has nothing to do with any of the political reform. It is people sick of living under a totalitarian Islamic regime that are pushing for change. It is the way of life they want changed, nothing to do with economics. If anything more money would help.

When people are forced into poverty by sanctions who do you think they blame? The goverment for getting sanctions imposed upon them or those who are imposing the sanctions? Sanctions are not a good way of getting any sort of empathy with the people of Iran.

Step up the IAEA presence and keep tabs on what they're doing, other than that, just sit back and wait.
I didn't say you said as bad.. "notice my almost as well". Sit back and wait is not an option considering their support for the guys attacking our troops. You don't give the Iranians enough intelligence to realize it is their great leaders actions that has brought on these sanctions. I guess I just think they have the capability to put two and two together. Iranians are not as ignorant as you think.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-27 17:01:20
Kukulcan
Member
+6|6595|The Battlefield
The USA should evitate armed contest with the Iran.

You suffered heavy losses already in IRAQ... and the iranian army is far more cleaver than the iraq one.
The USMC didn't conquest a city occupied by some civvies in arms ( fallujah )... it wouldn't stand a chance against an army as the iranian one.
2007-01-27 17:06:01
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6895|132 and Bush

Kukulcan wrote:

The USA should evitate armed contest with the Iran.

You suffered heavy losses already in IRAQ... and the iranian army is far more cleaver than the iraq one.
The USMC didn't conquest a city occupied by some civvies in arms ( fallujah )... it wouldn't stand a chance against an army as the iranian one.
If you think just over 3k is heavy losses in a 4 year war you haven't studied history.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-27 17:10:21
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6875|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

Sit back and wait is not an option considering their support for the guys attacking our troops. You don't give the Iranians enough intelligence to realize it is their great leaders actions that has brought on these sanctions. I guess I just think they have the capability to put two and two together. Iranians are not as ignorant as you think.
Their support for the guys attacking your troops is something you can do nothing about. What will sanctions do to achieve that.

I don't think Iranians are ignorant. I know lots of very bright Iranians, my cousin, for example, who writes OSs for phones and comes across as a guy who knows what he's talking about. There is certainly a level of resentment towards the US that exists within Iran, which makes it easy for the government to shift any blame to the US without too many people seeing through it. People see what they want to see.
The mindset of people thinking "we're getting fucked over by America again", is what will cause the problems with sanctions. Sticking carriers off the coast also only makes things worse. Voicing too much support for the reformists is also a bad move, because then people begin to think of US puppet governments like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Passive support and stepping up the pressure on nuclear inspections. Not stopping their development, but keeping it under close watch. Perhaps a clear resolution calling for immediate invasion of Iran should they be conclusively proven to be making nuclear weapons?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-27 17:15:42)

2007-01-27 17:13:58
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6895|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Sit back and wait is not an option considering their support for the guys attacking our troops. You don't give the Iranians enough intelligence to realize it is their great leaders actions that has brought on these sanctions. I guess I just think they have the capability to put two and two together. Iranians are not as ignorant as you think.
Their support for the guys attacking your troops is something you can do nothing about. What will sanctions do to achieve that.

I don't think Iranians are ignorant. I know lots of very bright Iranians, my cousin, for example, who writes OSs for phones and comes across as a guy who knows what he's talking about. There is certainly a level of resentment towards the US that exists within Iran, which makes it easy for the government to shift any blame to the US without too many people seeing through it. People see what they want to see.
The mindset of people thinking "we're getting fucked over by America again", is what will cause the problems with sanctions. Sticking carriers off the coast also only makes things worse. Voicing too much support for the reformists is also a bad move, because then people begin to think of US puppet governments like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quite simply I am just going to have to agree to disagree. We are both trying to predict future reactions to sanctions. I just feel that the Iranians would look towards their leaders actions as a cause and I understand where you are coming from also. Both of us can agree that an invasion is not an option at least.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-27 17:17:32
Kukulcan
Member
+6|6595|The Battlefield

Kmarion wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

The USA should evitate armed contest with the Iran.

You suffered heavy losses already in IRAQ... and the iranian army is far more cleaver than the iraq one.
The USMC didn't conquest a city occupied by some civvies in arms ( fallujah )... it wouldn't stand a chance against an army as the iranian one.
If you think just over 3k is heavy losses in a 4 year war you haven't studied history.
This isn't a war against a ''standard'' enemy.... they are just men at arms , not even soldiers. The USMC has tanks , helos , jets , ships and so on....

You should have destroyed the enemy in about 2 month if you ask me....
2007-01-27 17:18:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6875|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Sit back and wait is not an option considering their support for the guys attacking our troops. You don't give the Iranians enough intelligence to realize it is their great leaders actions that has brought on these sanctions. I guess I just think they have the capability to put two and two together. Iranians are not as ignorant as you think.
Their support for the guys attacking your troops is something you can do nothing about. What will sanctions do to achieve that.

I don't think Iranians are ignorant. I know lots of very bright Iranians, my cousin, for example, who writes OSs for phones and comes across as a guy who knows what he's talking about. There is certainly a level of resentment towards the US that exists within Iran, which makes it easy for the government to shift any blame to the US without too many people seeing through it. People see what they want to see.
The mindset of people thinking "we're getting fucked over by America again", is what will cause the problems with sanctions. Sticking carriers off the coast also only makes things worse. Voicing too much support for the reformists is also a bad move, because then people begin to think of US puppet governments like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quite simply I am just going to have to agree to disagree. We are both trying to predict future reactions to sanctions. I just feel that the Iranians would look towards their leaders actions as a cause and I understand where you are coming from also. Both of us can agree that an invasion is not an option at least.
Absolutely.

I see where you're coming from too, but I'm not as convinced that America won't get the blame again, they are everyones favourite scapegoat.
2007-01-27 17:19:20
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6875|SE London

Kukulcan wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

The USA should evitate armed contest with the Iran.

You suffered heavy losses already in IRAQ... and the iranian army is far more cleaver than the iraq one.
The USMC didn't conquest a city occupied by some civvies in arms ( fallujah )... it wouldn't stand a chance against an army as the iranian one.
If you think just over 3k is heavy losses in a 4 year war you haven't studied history.
This isn't a war against a ''standard'' enemy.... they are just men at arms , not even soldiers. The USMC has tanks , helos , jets , ships and so on....

You should have destroyed the enemy in about 2 month if you ask me....
Usually casualties in this kind of guerilla warfare are higher for the occupying force than in conventional warfare.
2007-01-27 17:35:42
XanKrieger
iLurk
+60|6952|South West England
I voted "Until the shit hits the fan" or in my view, until they bomb Israel.

And even IF they go as far as to do that, nuking them is NOT a solution, its unjustified retaliation, wage war on them economicly as said above

Last edited by XanKrieger (2007-01-27 17:41:40)

2007-01-27 18:48:49
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6656|Vancouver

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

firstly we have 48 extremely dumb and narrow minded people on this forum who voted yes. What you going to invade them for? Following Iraq weapons of mass destruction? Or is it the Oil, hmm does Iran have Oil? Ok serious point if they want to go nuclear then they should have every right to do so, After all its for energy purposes to feed the ever increasing demand. Even if they do create a nuke they are entitled to in my opinion. Why you might ask? Well:-

Country                                           Warheads active/total*    
United States United States                    5,735/9,960[2]    
Russia Russia (formerly the Soviet Union)5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom United Kingdom               <200[4]    
France France                                         350[5]    
People's Republic of China China         130       
India India                                           40-50[7]    
Pakistan Pakistan                               30-52[8]    
Democratic People's Republic of Korea North Korea     1-10[9]    

Undeclared nuclear weapons states
Israel Israel     75-200[11]

That’s the worlds countries who have nukes obviously to protect their country against any threats. Now don’t go saying Iran is some sort of jack in a box ready to pop. Its not them you should be worried about its the US.
No, that simply will not do.

If we are operating under the idea that nuclear arms are wrong, then why give approval to Iran, other than for anti-American ideals? Yes, I do not agree that these states should be in possession of these weapons, especially so many, but we cannot allow another nation to acquire these weapons. Regardless of the countries currently attempting to keep their club exclusive, we must work for disarmament for Iran, and also for the disarmament of the other nations. Iran is not entitled because others have nuclear weapons. That is facing a situation and giving a solution that radically flies in the face of pacifism and the ideals of days past, one that instead smacks of anti-Americanism.
2007-01-27 22:11:52
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6787|Connecticut

Kukulcan wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

The USA should evitate armed contest with the Iran.

You suffered heavy losses already in IRAQ... and the iranian army is far more cleaver than the iraq one.
The USMC didn't conquest a city occupied by some civvies in arms ( fallujah )... it wouldn't stand a chance against an army as the iranian one.
If you think just over 3k is heavy losses in a 4 year war you haven't studied history.
This isn't a war against a ''standard'' enemy.... they are just men at arms , not even soldiers. The USMC has tanks , helos , jets , ships and so on....

You should have destroyed the enemy in about 2 month if you ask me....
And we also have hippy liberal freaks who wont let the Generals unleash the madness. You are ignorant and not educated enough about the Marine Corps to make those statements. We were trying to protect civilian life at the same time as engaging an enemy, oh and they look the same. You put 2500 of Irans best against 1000 of our 0311 Marines and in a very short time you will have 2500 letters to be written to Iranian wives. Make no mistake there, America hater, on the hottest day the USMC will be your coolest customer.  You are a fool if you keep using Fallujah as an example like you did in the other thread, we have handed just about every countries army their ass since 1775 and we are showing no signs of slowing down with Iran.
Malloy must go
2007-01-27 22:54:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6895|132 and Bush

[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:

James-M-II wrote:

TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:

You realize that Iran isn't like Iraq and actually have an army/weapons, where as Iraq had tanks that are made of like wood. It's going to be a lot harder to simply "invade Iran" without a full blown war.

@ usmarine2007:

Wow, for your age you seem incredibly childish. Having a Persian ancestry and having VISITED IRAN TWICE, I can tell you that the people there are not Allah Akbaring Psychopaths, who wish "death to America." I have family in Iran and lots of them are actually JEALOUS of America/Canada because of it's freedoms compared to the Islamic countries.
yeah right good one. people say... dont sterotype, but how can i not? when anytime i see them... theyre always in the streets burning american flags.... shouting alalalalala and shooting ak-47's. thats the imagine i get... what else am i suppost to think. leave usmarine2007 alone, i think hes right. its all you left wing pinkos
that say, no dont make war... but as soon as something bad happens its... wheres the army? i hate you tree hugging middle eastern sympathisers. if you like it to much go live there jeez. next thing you know youll be strapped with c4 weilding an ak-47 shouting die infidels
thats the biggest problem in the USA.. people beleive all they see on their TV..  Iran is a civilized country.. and nobody is walking around in the street shouting alalala while firing in the air with their AK.  yes they do that in palestine and now in Iraq but only because America/Israel have destroyed their country and their lives.

I would do the same thing if a foreign power came in my country to tell me who my leaders should be and how to live my life.   alalalalala
The Iraqi's elected their leaders... if you have proof otherwise please show me.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-27 22:54:24)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-28 02:19:36
SgtSpoon
Member
+6|6778

James-M-II wrote:

yeah right good one. people say... dont sterotype, but how can i not? when anytime i see them... theyre always in the streets burning american flags.... shouting alalalalala and shooting ak-47's.
Yep, that's the power of media/propaganda. Ain't it a beauty. Oldest trick in the book and all those (patr/id)iots still don't get it. It's like holding a carrot in front of a donkey, and it keeps walking and walking and walking ...

I advise all of you to read other news sites. http://news.bbc.co.uk would be a good choice. Every time something negative about Iran is returned from the news agencies, it is smeared out on american news channels so it gets as much attention as possible. After all, they need the support of all those good american (patr/id)iots. Every time something happens that displays the lack of interest in a diplomatic solution by the US, you simply -wont- find it on american news channels. Your government has learned it's lessons well from the vietnam war. All the news-items that show Iran is open to discussion ( keep in mind : a discussion is not a monologue ) simply do not make it to the american newschannels.

I'm afraid you are as indoctrinated as those "Allah Akbaring Psychopaths", poor chaps ...

ps : "Allah Akbar" is no different from "God is with us".

Have a smashing good day.

Last edited by SgtSpoon (2007-01-28 02:23:05)

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard