All these whacko nutjobs whose first and only solution to a problem somewhere in the world is to bomb them should consider the simple words of the greatest politician and war leader of the 20 Century, Winston S. Churchill.
"Jaw Jaw is better than War War"
But I guess that is far too nuanced for these morons with more teeth than brain cells.
"Jaw Jaw is better than War War"
But I guess that is far too nuanced for these morons with more teeth than brain cells.
So first you attack Iran, which is 3 times the size and strength of Saudi Arabia, then having completed that "baby step", you move onto SA?
It just calls for Iran to stop enriching uranium. They cranked up production for the final few days before the deal went into effect, so they likely have enough for several weapons (not sure of the yield potential). They only have to test one and they're 'safe'.
I'm not sure why 'terrorists' only encompasses al Qaeda. This seems to be the argument made by a lot of people. I don't necessarily agree with preemption. However, given that that appears to be the policy due to consensus, I think it's a bit near-sighted to say that we should only go after people who have already attacked us.
Iran has every right and reason to pre-emptively strike the US (overseas forces most likely).
After all, the US presents a very real and very present danger to Iran's sovereignty while Iran poses no serious or credible threat to the US' sovereignty.
The US does not have some exclusive right to pre-emptive strikes or to delivering death and destruction in the form of 'foreign policy'.
If I were running Iran I would definitely strike at US forces in Iraq... why should they sit and wait while being threatened by a provably aggressive regime (Bush administration)?
I hope Iran attains nukes as it's the only way to ensure the US never invades. We're a typical bully in that we go for the weak while avoiding enemies that can offer real resistance.
After all, the US presents a very real and very present danger to Iran's sovereignty while Iran poses no serious or credible threat to the US' sovereignty.
The US does not have some exclusive right to pre-emptive strikes or to delivering death and destruction in the form of 'foreign policy'.
If I were running Iran I would definitely strike at US forces in Iraq... why should they sit and wait while being threatened by a provably aggressive regime (Bush administration)?
I hope Iran attains nukes as it's the only way to ensure the US never invades. We're a typical bully in that we go for the weak while avoiding enemies that can offer real resistance.
I was under the impression the Euros are actually interested in solving this? These new missiles Iran is supposed working on will have the ability to drop right on Paris if they want.
I think the Isrealis will do something well before we do unless the world wants to put a stop to this.
While we can bicker about Iraq, Iran is a problem if they go nuclear. Only horrible things will come of it.
I think the Isrealis will do something well before we do unless the world wants to put a stop to this.
While we can bicker about Iraq, Iran is a problem if they go nuclear. Only horrible things will come of it.
Does anyone really believe they can keep a country of 60M with lots of natural resources from getting nuclear weapons if they really want it? That is laughable. Like trying to stop the rain.
Be careful what you wish for. This is a country who openly supports terrorist organizations who have vowed to erase Isreal and the western way of life.
At what point will you think your wish is not good for the world? When a bomb detonates in Isreal and the whole ME is leveled and millions killed? Or when a nuke is detonated on a subway in NYC killing 8 million people?
This is a very real problem that needs to be dealt with. If this means diplomatic or military matters. It needs to be dealt with.
They have been doing it for the past 60 years. What makes you think it cant be done for another 60?
Getting nuclear weapons is not as easy as some think. If it was we would see more rougue nations with them. Luckily for us only 1 rougue nation does have them(NK) and one other wants to get them(Iran).
69 vs 26 million. Military spending doens't have much effect if you're fighting against the US. But look at it like this: that's almost 3 times as many potential insurgents. Look at what the Sunnis are doing in Iraq (1/3rd of 25 mil ~8mil), multiply that by 9 and you know what to expect. Following that line of thought, you'd need 1 million+ US troops to occupy the country, 10000+ of them dead within a year a half and still have the country ripped apart by violence.
But let them go ahead. I will do whatever I can to make sure Canada stays out of such lunacy.
Warmongering typically has poor results as well. Remember what happened to Mussilini?
Are we on our list of state sponsors of terrorism? We clearly belong after what we did in Central and South America over the past several decades.
3 rouge nations have nukes.
Its just that 2 aren't considered rouges because they're our allies.
Also DIPLOMACY prevented South Africa, Japan, Brazil, and Argentina from getting nukes.
Then why did you start the circular reasoning by asking me why Bush didn't invade Iran when I just asked the same thing?
1) How does one bomb the regime? This isn't Iraq where the regime favors one sect of Islam and then bombs the other sect. Iran is 90% Shia with the other 10% other Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bahais. Iran is not locking those 10% either. They all have their churches, etc.
I would really like to know how one goes about bombing a regime and not hurting the people.
2) If you were an Iranian and you hated the regime but you loved the U.S, would you still love the U.S once your uncle, aunt are killed? Who would you look to for the answers? Possibly the same regime you hate? Wouldn't the regime that is not popular rise up and be popular once a bombing of their country starts?
If you want a regime change in Iran you need to cause chaos on the streets. That means having buildings on fire and having the teens come out and protest and speak their mind. That can aslo backlash when people see their country being attacked for no clear reason.
Iran has 500,000 people in their military. All men at the age of 18 must go to the military for 2 years training then they can either stay or leave. Most of the men have training for their armed forced. You do not think they will be called up? They have no choice but to fight. The U.S will simply bomb them from the air. How will the people feel when they lost their brother/uncle/dad?
Still love for the U.S?
I don't know. We shall see.
The advantage the U.S has are the Iranian satellite programs coming from California. They are very American Iranians. Most of them are even hardcore republicans who will support the President.
BTW once any bombing of any kind starts, the mullahs will launch all they have at Israel and U.S bases and possibly invade Iraq having the Iraq Shia population support the Iranian invasion. Take my word for it.. the mullahs = crazy.
I would really like to know how one goes about bombing a regime and not hurting the people.
2) If you were an Iranian and you hated the regime but you loved the U.S, would you still love the U.S once your uncle, aunt are killed? Who would you look to for the answers? Possibly the same regime you hate? Wouldn't the regime that is not popular rise up and be popular once a bombing of their country starts?
If you want a regime change in Iran you need to cause chaos on the streets. That means having buildings on fire and having the teens come out and protest and speak their mind. That can aslo backlash when people see their country being attacked for no clear reason.
Iran has 500,000 people in their military. All men at the age of 18 must go to the military for 2 years training then they can either stay or leave. Most of the men have training for their armed forced. You do not think they will be called up? They have no choice but to fight. The U.S will simply bomb them from the air. How will the people feel when they lost their brother/uncle/dad?
Still love for the U.S?
I don't know. We shall see.
The advantage the U.S has are the Iranian satellite programs coming from California. They are very American Iranians. Most of them are even hardcore republicans who will support the President.
BTW once any bombing of any kind starts, the mullahs will launch all they have at Israel and U.S bases and possibly invade Iraq having the Iraq Shia population support the Iranian invasion. Take my word for it.. the mullahs = crazy.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Cheers to that man...i hope our boy martin doesnt cave to these neocon endevours. I can see perhaps something along the lines of an international coalition in Sudan but there needs to be some thought put into war these days. Seems like these trigger happy nut jobs are thinking with their d!cks.
Iran has a 600Billion GDP with 3-4% spent on their military. Iran ranks #12 in the world. Stop looking at data from 1999.
Saudi Arabia also has a bigger military budget than that. They ranked close to #8 I believe. However, SA has like 100,000 in their military. Most of that budget goes to their toys.
Saudi Arabia also has a bigger military budget than that. They ranked close to #8 I believe. However, SA has like 100,000 in their military. Most of that budget goes to their toys.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Got a link to back that up?
Iran GDP "$478.2 billion (2003 est.)"
Saudi Military "$18 billion (2002)"
Look on the bright side, Stunt, we can just sell the Americans their toys and grow fat for 3 years, then step in to look like heroes after the tide of war has already turned.
I love Karma.
I love Karma.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter