well if the launch one on israel then well lets go kick their iran asses but i mean lets just leave them alone if they dont
Last edited by *TS*tphai (2006-05-25 16:53:41)
Poll
What should the US do about the Iran situation?
| Continue pressing for UN Security Council Sanctions | 17% | 17% - 21 | ||||
| Use Backchannel diplomacy through Russia | 9% | 9% - 12 | ||||
| Launch a conventional Invasion | 8% | 8% - 10 | ||||
| Let Israel handle it | 13% | 13% - 16 | ||||
| Nuke them into the Stone Age | 27% | 27% - 33 | ||||
| Nothing | 24% | 24% - 30 | ||||
| Total: 122 | ||||||
no it isnt. but members of the military are the ones that carry weapons and look for the enemy. civlians just live their lives. terrorist attack civilians because they are not matched in combat capabilities as say, the US Army. all a terrorist cares about is a body count and a headline.xXSarnathXx wrote:
but were still talkin about human lives, a life isnt worth less just cuz s/he's in the military.
Islamic fundamentalist blow people up, behead them etc while christian fundamentalists moan about video games corrupting their youth etc. We invaded iraq because elected officials decided it was the right time, they commit terrorist acts based on the ramblings of a handfull of twats. So no its not. Why DO i bother, open a fucking newspaper for gods sake.xXSarnathXx wrote:
the way i see it, islamic fundamentalists are the same christian fundamentalists, so basically iran...iraq whatever is the same as the us. the only difference is that christianity is much more accepted in the western world. but when it all comes down to it, its not that different.
and terrorism, how come its justified to invade another country, killing thousands of lives, and its not justified to commit terrorist acts? isnt it basically the same?
IMO, the US should launch a full-scale assault on iran, then maybe they would be like, oh, this is what it would be like if we launched a nuke over there, this sucks, nevermind world, we dont want our nukes anymore. at least then it would give me something to do when i join the USMC, iraq is done, all the US really did was kill people, there was no change that i can see. its like when you decide to build an addition to your house, you start thinking its a good idea, then you get lazy and keep doing less every day till you end up hiring someone else to finish it. in this case, its the next president of the US, hell figure something out.
They seem to be open for negotiation...
Is anyone listening??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-sche … 21296.html
Is anyone listening??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-sche … 21296.html
Uh-huh. And that is comparable how? Iraq had waged war and then accepted peace terms. Iranians have not. Iranians have made attempts at a peaceful resolution suitable to all. The US has ignored them. They'll talk to North Korea though. Notice how North Korea is both more aggressive, and non-Muslim? If you were living in Iran, what would it look like to you?lowing wrote:
For the same reason Iraq wanted to "negotiate" for the past decade before we went in.....It is a stall tactic and you know it.
Bloody Sunday (Russia), 1905.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Terrorist specifically target non-combatants, as they are easy, soft targets which whom they could do the most damage.
Bombing of Dresden, 1945.
Mai Lai Massacre, 1968.
Bloody Sunday (Ireland), 1972.
Yeah, the military sure does avoid those civilian targets.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-05-25 20:35:56)
unless I missed it in the papers, North Korea hasn't made open comments about desires to wipe a nation off of the earth.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh-huh. And that is comparable how? Iraq had waged war and then accepted peace terms. Iranians have not. Iranians have made attempts at a peaceful resolution suitable to all. The US has ignored them. They'll talk to North Korea though. Notice how North Korea is both more aggressive, and non-Muslim? If you were living in Iran, what would it look like to you?lowing wrote:
For the same reason Iraq wanted to "negotiate" for the past decade before we went in.....It is a stall tactic and you know it.Bloody Sunday (Russia), 1905.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Terrorist specifically target non-combatants, as they are easy, soft targets which whom they could do the most damage.
Bombing of Dresden, 1945.
Mai Lai Massacre, 1968.
Bloody Sunday (Ireland), 1972.
Yeah, the military sure does avoid those civilian targets.
Stall tactics are still stall tactics, regardless, your point is mute.
Last edited by lowing (2006-05-25 20:49:05)
No, the North Koreans just waged a war of aggression against South Korea. Nothing big, just one of the first major post-WWII conflicts.
And besides, how do you know they're stall tactics if no-one has even asked for terms? Maybe they're looking for a solution that won't make Iran look weak, but still satisfy America et-al that they aren't engaging in nuclear weapons research.
And what is he supposed to be stalling? The war America doesn't have the resources to wage?
And besides, how do you know they're stall tactics if no-one has even asked for terms? Maybe they're looking for a solution that won't make Iran look weak, but still satisfy America et-al that they aren't engaging in nuclear weapons research.
And what is he supposed to be stalling? The war America doesn't have the resources to wage?
Iran has the same right to preserve its national interests as the US. Why should they bow down to western imperialism ? Right now, all we get from Iran is rethoric. They are no threat to anyone, and they know it.
There is no legal grounds to deny them access to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The NPT specifically acknowledges that right.
If the US again decides to act unilaterally and undermine international and UN diplomatic efforts, they'll simply isolate themselves further. Moreover, I don't think they have the military capabilities to invade Iran atm.
There is no legal grounds to deny them access to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The NPT specifically acknowledges that right.
If the US again decides to act unilaterally and undermine international and UN diplomatic efforts, they'll simply isolate themselves further. Moreover, I don't think they have the military capabilities to invade Iran atm.
Iran and its govt. is not a responsible govt. According to your, logic, why shouldn't Hamas have nukes, the US has them? There is no way you believe all of the bullshit you post on here Bubbalo. You have to try and reach so far down into the barrel to pull out an arguement that it is almost comical. As a matter of fact, it IS comical.Bubbalo wrote:
No, the North Koreans just waged a war of aggression against South Korea. Nothing big, just one of the first major post-WWII conflicts.
And besides, how do you know they're stall tactics if no-one has even asked for terms? Maybe they're looking for a solution that won't make Iran look weak, but still satisfy America et-al that they aren't engaging in nuclear weapons research.
And what is he supposed to be stalling? The war America doesn't have the resources to wage?
Nukes should do it...
Seems like people either want to nuke them or do nothing. We're all lazy sadists....
If America, Russia, France, Britain, Germany (?), China etc can have nukes, then why can't Iran?
Last edited by Cold Fussion (2006-05-26 03:59:58)
I watched the Bush Blair press conference live last night. They talk quite a bit about Iran. Now living in an occupied country myself, I don't have a lot of love for Blair, but at least the man can answer the questions hes asked. Bush must have said the words freedom & liberty twice in every sentence. bearing in mind he wants to over throw a government put there by its ppl and steal their oil and he has the cheek to use these words to overwhelm and confuse the real addenda. When he was asked a question by a journalist he talked back to them like they was a school kid...... genuinely patronizing. He would then go into a rant using all the usual buzz words and statements but not actually address the question. I see Blair on the TV a lot and he is usually very confident, but he looked visibly uncomfortable. Specially after Bush said he wanted to free women in Iran. They are free in Iran, they do university and get jobs and have careers. Ok they have to wear certain clothes, but its part of their religion, which the ppl follow.
Bush did hint at sanctions, which is probably the way this thing will pan out. Its been proven before that sanctions hurt the people the most and draws them closer to their government, united against the common bad man. It will only strengthen the Iranian ppl and polarize them against the west, which is probably the goal. easier to justify the inevitable invasion that will follow, probably within the next 5 years.
Bush did hint at sanctions, which is probably the way this thing will pan out. Its been proven before that sanctions hurt the people the most and draws them closer to their government, united against the common bad man. It will only strengthen the Iranian ppl and polarize them against the west, which is probably the goal. easier to justify the inevitable invasion that will follow, probably within the next 5 years.
If they launch one at Israel then HOORAY in my opinion. Israel is the source of innumerable ills in the middle east.*TS*tphai wrote:
well if the launch one on israel then well lets go kick their iran asses but i mean lets just leave them alone if they dont
you left out one option, send in the Aussies! well sort em out!
Last edited by anzus (2006-05-26 04:09:54)
You know what I love about you lowing? Your ability to cut straight through the majority of what I say and respond to the least important point. It's like you just can't see that which you can't say is wrong, and just ignore it. It's like a four-year old. How cute!lowing wrote:
Iran and its govt. is not a responsible govt. According to your, logic, why shouldn't Hamas have nukes, the US has them? There is no way you believe all of the bullshit you post on here Bubbalo. You have to try and reach so far down into the barrel to pull out an arguement that it is almost comical. As a matter of fact, it IS comical.
Now, to responde:
How do you figure they aren't responsible?lowing wrote:
Iran and its govt. is not a responsible govt.
Other than the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation? Your logic is flawed. If you were to say that G.W. Bush has his own personal stash of nukes, then this would become an issue.lowing wrote:
According to your, logic, why shouldn't Hamas have nukes, the US has them?
As to why Palestine shouldn't: Given that Israel has nukes, I don't see why they shouldn't. If Israel were to disarm, that might be a different story.
Iran has no ongoing hostilities with any nation, and is one of the most stable governments in the Middle East.
I say again: numbers. We don't have them. We could maybe go in under cover of night to place a few bombs. But then, I don't see why we should.anzus wrote:
you left out one option, send in the Aussies! well sort em out!
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-05-26 04:36:38)
@Cold Fussion:
I didn't know Germany had nuclear weapons... Since when? I'm leaving the country since our constitution doesn't seem to have any weight anymore...
@Americans in this Forum:
What is it about Europe, that most americans in this forum have a problem with? Just interested...
I didn't know Germany had nuclear weapons... Since when? I'm leaving the country since our constitution doesn't seem to have any weight anymore...
@Americans in this Forum:
What is it about Europe, that most americans in this forum have a problem with? Just interested...
They don't.
Cause we rock and are wanna be yankies! Just ask Priminsiter (wannabee President) John Howard!Bubbalo wrote:
[I say again: numbers. We don't have them. We could maybe go in under cover of night to place a few bombs. But then, I don't see why we should.anzus wrote:
you left out one option, send in the Aussies! well sort em out!
I suppose I should have expected that from someone named anzus. Please tell both your name and statement are sarcastic?
anzus 4 pres 2008.
A foreigner can't be elected in the US.
I never said pres of the U.S. NOW DID I?Bubbalo wrote:
A foreigner can't be elected in the US.
SHADDAFUCKUP!
Well president of what, then? Autralian elections will likely happen late 2007, and we have no president.