RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ?

RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 9:12:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls This administration is anti Israel and led by a Muslim pacifist, so you better believe they would never initiate another confrontation with a Muslim State. Hillary Clinton would have actually made a better President, since she at least has a get tough attitude. I disagree. The Israelis have a friend in Hillary and she seems to be in charge of MidEast policy although she gives deference to the Prez.

vincentML -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 9:16:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: housesub4you Well, Thank G. Bush for making us stronger by starting a war based on lies, so if this is a "real" threat we are in no position to have a third war started. I can't believe any of the people who told us how dire was our need to invade Iraq, they got everything wrong and now they are crying wold once again, As to the "dire consequences", we have heard that line before about Iraq, it turned out dire but for all the wrong reasons Good points but how long can we allow distrust engendered by the Bushies to blind us to potentially very real danger? Additionally, Kuperman is proposing in his op-ed piece so-called surgical strikes on known nuclear sites, not an invasion and not a general bombing.

vincentML -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 9:26:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b The whole “talk or bomb” notion is flawed. Information cannot be bottled up forever and fanatics cannot be reasoned with. Sooner or later Iran will get nuclear weapons. We should give up trying to stop them and instead adopt a new policy based upon the old MAD policy. We need to update our own nuclear forces and run a few underground tests so that they (and the rest of the world) has no doubt that we are ready to let loose the fires of Hell if need be. Then we should announce that if any weapon of mass destruction is ever used against the United States or one of our allies – and if it is not blatantly obvious that it was someone else (i.e. Russia or China launching a strike) – then we will blame Iran and launch a full scale retaliatory attack against all of their military facilities and all of their major cities. In other words the complete destruction of Iran will be the result. We might even want to lob a couple of inter-continental missiles (minus the nuke, of course) into downtown Tehran to make sure they get the point. We should include North Korea in this policy as well. You say the talk or bomb strategy is flawed and then you propose sending warning missles into Tehran. What began at Guernica did not end at Guernica, I'm afraid. Bombing civilian populations for warning? I take it that was a throw away line. Wouldn't that surely be the beginning of a war?

starshineowned -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 9:47:24 AM)
Greetings.. I have always maintained that our entrance into that area was done for far more reasons than just the simpleton mindset of us greedy bastards wanting oil. There would of been zero way in hell for us to be in that area at all without a full out invasion to deal with Iran, and folks you can deny all you want but Iran is the rogue amongst rogues, and has made no concessions of their intent to blow the hell out of Israel at the soonest possible chance. Granted..Iraq and Iran don't have a good relations but when it comes to Israel..muslims will forego their petty grievances. Once thats done it will end up being an all out bloodshed amongst themselves, and the less extreme/more moderate empires will crumble to the strongest. Iran with nukes? If anything we are disrupting the area, gathering intelligence, placement/mapping. This boots on the ground info is extremely important. This training and readiness to deal with a much bigger threat is vital when that time comes. The soldiers fighting and dying now I believe are doing so for a much greater cause than they even know. I say when that time comes because I have no illusions about Iran, and they have given the world none about their intents and goal. starshine

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 9:56:34 AM)
I think that unlikely. A strategic airstrike would be more likely than a full out invasion. The best option however is something that looks as if it's an accident resulting from scientists at either facility not knowing what they are doing. Traditionally there has always been an element of plausible deniability which a full out invasion or other action would not accomplish. I tend to think you can't halt progress and so am all for a cold war stance but without the sabre rattling that Marc2b is calling for.

Arpig -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 10:30:03 AM)
quote: Here's proof that Obama is a muslim http://babelishere.webs.com OK, I sat through that tripe, just to see if there was any proof of him being a muslim...and guess what...none! Zilch! Zero. All the things he said about Islam...true. The US being one of the larger muslim nations, well that one's off by a few million, but his point is valid, the US has some 2.5 million muslims roughly the same as Lebanon. He bowed to a muslim king....well I guess that makes him a Shintoist as well, because he bowed to the Emperor of Japan...so which is it, he can't be both. He dressed in muslim clothes...big fuckin fat hairy deal....does that make everybody who ever wore a caftan a muslim? And he visited a mosque...Ooopy, I guess he's a Jewish-Catholic-Anglican-Pentecostal-Muslim-Born again-Orthodox Christian, cause guess what, he's visiyed a shit load of churchs, mosques, temples, and synagogues. Spare us the tediousness of your fantasies please. Obama is no more a Muslim than I am a Conservative, he is no more a Muslim than you are a realist...give it a rest, the BS is tiresome

Arpig -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 10:32:25 AM)
quote: The US and its allies has Iran surrounded as things stand, with troops and materiel in place for a ground war on two fronts and attack from the sea to the south. Not a bad starting point to be sure - but then such a position must influence Iran in its current position and attitudes seeing from their point of view that the power they kicked out of their country thirty years ago has such a presence and has revealed itself as being belligerent (some would say unlawfully so) over the last years in terms of regime change in the region. But Iraq & Afghanistan can hardly be considered secure bases to operate from now can they?

Musicmystery -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 10:37:16 AM)
quote: Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Easy words. But Iran is not some third world backwater. This position ignores that such an attack also has consequences. It's also just rhetoric itself. Quite obviously, every leader of every country is aware of this, and weighs the balance. Thanks to the stupidity of elective wars for the past decade, there's also the reality that we just don't have the resources to take on a war--and air strikes against Iran would certainly mean war--with a powerful nation like Iran.

housesub4you -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 10:51:34 AM)
The same kind we did in Iraq, and we all now how the people of that country treated us like hero's. Jeezzz...I wonder if Bush still has the mission accomplished sign, cause invading Iran based on information from the same people that sold us all the BS about WMD's is the dumbest thing we can do

vincentML -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 11:05:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned Greetings.. I have always maintained that our entrance into that area was done for far more reasons than just the simpleton mindset of us greedy bastards wanting oil. There would of been zero way in hell for us to be in that area at all without a full out invasion to deal with Iran, and folks you can deny all you want but Iran is the rogue amongst rogues, and has made no concessions of their intent to blow the hell out of Israel at the soonest possible chance. Granted..Iraq and Iran don't have a good relations but when it comes to Israel..muslims will forego their petty grievances. Once thats done it will end up being an all out bloodshed amongst themselves, and the less extreme/more moderate empires will crumble to the strongest. Iran with nukes? If anything we are disrupting the area, gathering intelligence, placement/mapping. This boots on the ground info is extremely important. This training and readiness to deal with a much bigger threat is vital when that time comes. The soldiers fighting and dying now I believe are doing so for a much greater cause than they even know. I say when that time comes because I have no illusions about Iran, and they have given the world none about their intents and goal. starshine Are you suggesting we had a hidden agenda for invading Iraq? Are you offering a new justification for that war? To gather intelligence? Forty three hundred sacrificed to gather intelligence? And how are boots on the ground training for nuclear war?

vincentML -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 11:07:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Obama is no more a Muslim than I am a Conservative, he is no more a Muslim than you are a realist...give it a rest, the BS is tiresome chuckles Lovely line!

Arpig -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 11:17:13 AM)
quote: chuckles Lovely line! Thank ya, thankya, I'm here all week[;)]

Moonhead -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 11:46:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls This administration is anti Israel If the administration is anti Israel, why does every jihadist in the middle east hate its guts? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML He refuses access for the UN Nuclear Inspectors to at least one reactor and will not shut down another per their demand according to the OP-ED True enough, but he also refuses most other UN access to the country. (Or rather his boss does: he's never been anything more than the Sooty to the Ayatollah's Matthew Corbett...)

Moonhead -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 11:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: The US and its allies has Iran surrounded as things stand, with troops and materiel in place for a ground war on two fronts and attack from the sea to the south. Not a bad starting point to be sure - but then such a position must influence Iran in its current position and attitudes seeing from their point of view that the power they kicked out of their country thirty years ago has such a presence and has revealed itself as being belligerent (some would say unlawfully so) over the last years in terms of regime change in the region. But Iraq & Afghanistan can hardly be considered secure bases to operate from now can they? Neither can Pakistan anymore, come to that. Where does that leave? Dubai?

Politesub53 -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 11:51:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b We should give up trying to stop them and instead adopt a new policy based upon the old MAD policy. Given the Muslim willingness to die for a cause, is your suggestion workable ? I think the only answer, if talks fail, is to destroy the facilities.

LadyEllen -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 11:57:12 AM)
True enough Arpig, but they could be secured if we really wanted that and had the balls for it. Equally I dont expect we'd need to operate from there too long anyway - given the recent track record of opposition to our attacks I expect we'd be in Tehran by tea time. E

popeye1250 -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 12:05:59 PM)
No. It has nothing to do with the U.S. anyway!

Brain -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 12:22:15 PM)
I would let them develop a bomb since they want it so bad but if they ever used it against the Israelis or to attack any other country I would make them pay a heavy price. The response should be in proportion to any attack by Iran and anything or anyone involved with Iran's attack should be destroyed in order to provide deterrence. If they think they are going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and not pay a similar price they are dreaming. This would also include a regime change if there is anything left of the country. And Iran should be put on probation for perhaps 50 or 100 years with appropriate probationary constraints similar to a criminal. I don't take most political opinions from the state of Texas seriously unless it's somebody like Bill Moyers.

Moonhead -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 12:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b We should give up trying to stop them and instead adopt a new policy based upon the old MAD policy. Given the Muslim willingness to die for a cause, is your suggestion workable ? I think the only answer, if talks fail, is to destroy the facilities. A very good point. Whatever their other faults were, the soviets were rationalists rather than people who are expecting to receive a few virgins in heaven if they blow themselves up along with a few of Allah's enemies. This is part of the reason why negotiations with Iran keep failing miserably in the first place, isn't it? They know that they're right, and they aren't going to negotiate with infidels.

vincentML -> RE: Are We To Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities ? (12/24/2009 1:23:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b We should give up trying to stop them and instead adopt a new policy based upon the old MAD policy. Given the Muslim willingness to die for a cause, is your suggestion workable ? I think the only answer, if talks fail, is to destroy the facilities. A very good point. Whatever their other faults were, the soviets were rationalists rather than people who are expecting to receive a few virgins in heaven if they blow themselves up along with a few of Allah's enemies. This is part of the reason why negotiations with Iran keep failing miserably in the first place, isn't it? They know that they're right, and they aren't going to negotiate with infidels. Just suppose we followed Marc2b's advice and threatened Iran with assured nuclear destruction if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Then suppose the Russians sided with the Iranians and threaten to retaliate by attacking our "ally" Iraq or maybe even Japan with nukes. Nevermind that this is all madness. Check or checkmate?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02