America getting ready for Iranian strike?

It would be a bad thing. Now tell me what the question has to do with what I said.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think Americans are too busy shooting civilians in Iraq now to aim for Iran.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Watch your words...
I meant Russia by big brother and not the other Arab Countries. There is no way that Arabs can unite together. That is their biggest weakness. nd i am not from the Middle East
You can NOT bomb the hell out of a country anymore. Those days are gone.
Epecially after the unfair Iraq war no other country will let you do something like this again. People will have a hard time believing you from now on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Turkey did not get anything. Parliament voted if Turkey should join the war and let the US use the bases and the outcome was "No"
US thought that they can push the Turkish military to change this result but since Turkey is close to join the European Union the military did nit do anything and will not do anything in politics in the future.
So, Turkey did not gain anything from this but lost a lot of money like in the first gulf war.

 

watch my words for WHAT?

Russians are Phucked as they have ever been. Afhgans thought the same about their BIG Brothers and got raped by them, you won't be any different.No one is coming to save Iran. NO ONE.

YES! you can still bomb the country back to stone age, we just did that to Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran could be next in line, but not just right now. Maybe in 2 or 3 years. Yes it will be.

 

Of course, you are big anc cool because you can kill many. What an achievement!!
Who are the primitive ones? Stupid rednecks.

 

Skywalker can be a tough guy on the internet. A lot easier than serving on the front lines in Iraq.

 

I am merely making a point, I do not advocate any kind or form of killing. I amsimply trying to tell people who think that iran can fight back, they can't stand more than a week or two. That is what I am trying to say, not that I am favoring any sort of war. Sorry, I have been sorta sarcastic, through out this thread.

Jagger: Sorry, I do not think that I am communicating my point well.

 

I hope you have read the whole thread before making statments about me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am arguing a point that USA can destroy Iran in months or weeks without putting any ground troops and Iranian won't be able to do much.

 

What the usofa can do on paper doesn't mean much in the real world.

2nd I thought the us was fighting a war against terrorism, not conducting terror and mass genocide, am i wrong?

 

there sure is alot of ANTI-USA people around here lately, personally I served in the first gulf war I am a american and proud to be a american, would I fight again if my country ask yes I would, would you?

as far as some of the things I read in here like people on the ground getting gps positions of site why the hell for they got sats that can do that in minutes and if you doubt it your still living in a wet dream.

As far as us attacking Iran sorry I just don't see that one happening any time soon, maybe after we are out of Iraq but I think Seria might come before them, ohh wait some of you might say no North Korea will be before them no I doubt that to we are pulling our troops out of there little at a time when our troops are gone sure North and South Korea might start fight and then we have cause to go back and bomb them or what ever, the USA is not as dumb as the media or you all think.

Do I agree with some of the things the USA does no not at all but I live there and such I trust that they will make the right decisions, but I can say this too I don't agree with alot of dicisions that some other countrys make too, every country makes the wrong moves, I don't see anyone flaming France for invading the ivory coast hmm...

also Kunax you think the USA is committing mass genocide better look up the term!!!

also look at the history of our world around the beginning of western civ, when the world was run by kings, how did they get power, from wars by invading wining wars, the usa's government is kinda modeled from that era, but we have a un-crowned president and not a king, I do have to say times change but they don't.

 

oopss almost forgot skywalker is right the USA can destroy Iran, but what you are all forgetting is it can destroy any country in days if it wanted you all forget about the nuclear arsnal's but I don't see that ever happening. maybe if North Korea Nuked south korea or japan then we would us nukes.

 

I did not say they where commiting mass genecide, it was a reply to skywalker(and your self now), who boast that usa can destroy Iran(you,any country) with in days/months.
Dont you see what you saying. To destroy a country means kill all or most of its cityces(sp!), mass genecide, even if they die from 2nd hand effects like no water,food or healthcare the destroyer is to blame.

Few habors true hate for usa, hate requirs a form of respect, that has been lost alongth with trust for most people, disliking and distrust for use as a hole, yes. For the individule, well all doors are open its up to him or her

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Would I fight a war if my country asked? Hell no. You see, "being an American" is a lot different than being a soldier in the Army. When in the Army, you're told to do something without question. Being an American isn't about doing something without question but usually with question. There is nothing unpatriotic about not agreeing with something your country says or wants. That's what patriotism is!

This whole war "to defend freedom" is pure bunk. That's an abused claim to get people into thinking it's a patriotic thing to do. The whole freedom wording is exactly the same as others do using God. Use wording that’s the most important thing to someone, and they’ll do anything for it out of fear. These countries aren't jealous of our freedom as Dubya and the Republicans say, lol. Nobody is at war with us, we're at war with other people. Go to war against countries before they develop better weapons? That's bunk too. Countries have the right to arm themselves with the best technology they can get even if they're Anti-American. That doesn't mean they're going to attack us, even if they may do so a hundred years from now. Because China, Russia, France, UK, or any other country in the world continues to develop better weaponry, does that mean they're going to use it against us too? Any country very well may, but until they do and wage war, there is nothing wrong with them doing what they're doing.

The only time I would fight for my country is when I'm doing exactly what the words say, fighting for my country. Once an enemy comes on my homeland, I will defend myself and everyone around me. But I will never ever go to another country that we declared war on as opposed to them declaring war against us. Afghan war, sure. Iraq or Iran war? Hell no. So question the war and if it's legitimate, then go ahead and join in if ya want, but don't be a brainwashed soldier that does anything those above you say. For the whole "fighting for freedom" bit, you don't seem to have much of it as a soldier. Ironic, no?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Thats the key right there.......Well said N :m:

 

Exactly!

I’m not sure if right is the right word.

I’d say they can try to take the opportunity to do so. But is that an inalienable-right? What are these State Rights? Is there a list? Does the USA have the right to take Iraq’s oil? Does might make right?

I don’t know if there are any universal Rights regarding States?

Should Kurds have the right to a State?
Should the Ainu have the right to get their land back?
Should the Tibetans?
Should the native Islander-Taiwanese (aboriginals) have the right to get their land back and all the Chinese return to the mainland?

It seems the only “rights” States or the People that comprise States have are those they can guarantee for themselves. And so maybe Iran has the right to make as many nuclear bombs as they can.

But I'd say its more - IF they can.

Back to weapons:

Do you think that Taiwan has the right to arm itself with hundreds of nukes and point them at all the major cities of China? Or visa versa? If so do you think that it is, by natural extension, the USA’s right to sell such weapons to Taiwan (or China)? Is it NKs right to make Biological Weapons?

If I knew for a fact that NK was going to revamp and modify a biological pest similar to the black-plague and that it would result in a similar pandemic - then I’d be in favor of stopping them.

However, do I think NKs are?
No.
Do I think Iraq was enough of a threat to go to war against –
No.

But that doesn’t mean that I support the notion that it’s State X’s right to make technologically advanced race-tailored biological weapons because they are the best Weapons available. I do not think THAT is a right of States.

Just out of curiosity?

Is it the USAs right to stop all trade with any nation they deem they do not want to trade with?

OR must the USA trade with any and all countries?

Is it the USAs right to say to other countries: "If you trade with nation X then we will not trade with you"?

Was it the USAs right to put sanctions on Iraq?

Are sanctions the next technological weapon in war? Is it then the USAs right to develop it?

These are just some questions I thought of . . . . . .

 

That's what some were saying about Iraq.

America's military forces are stretched pretty thin at the moment, and I seriously doubt they could handle an invasion in Iran.

Quite simply, the military force is inexperienced. The troops have had no experience in a real war of attrition for decades. Remember that the first Gulf War was a skirmish, not a war.

We are observing America's incompetence in Iraq. The Arabs in that area will never greet Westerners with open arms. The sooner the American admin realizes this, the better.

 

Well I’d say it’s a combination of “right” and “if”. Everyone has the right to defend themselves with the best weaponry they can get, it’s just a matter of making it happen. People may not trade certain arms to another country for obvious reasons, everyone wants to have the best weaponry possible whereas their enemy’s, or possible enemy’s, isn’t as good. There are many various ways to gain weaponry anywhere from espionage, to trading, to researching it themselves. Most ways can be prevented by others to not have someone get better weaponry, but everyone has the right to with those that wish to trade with them.

The only way to not stop someone from getting better weaponry is having them research it themselves. Others can slow down the process by not trading other goods with them to cause financial troubles which would “in theory” work, but doesn’t really as that nation will just continue with it’s weapon research and where the other countries assumed they would take money out of research and put it towards the hurting areas such as lack of food for civilians, they don’t do so. So basically that idea goes down the drain and the only people that hurt are the innocents. Now who’s to blame? The one who decides defending themselves for/against future conflicts is worth more than the lives of some of it’s citizens, or the ones who tried to deny another country the right to defend themselves by putting embargoes on them? Both sides are free to do as they wish so this then basically just becomes a question of opinionated morals which basically means nothing as morals are created and changed by the most powerful.

Well when I say “right”, it all comes down to being even with everyone. If one country is allowed to do something, the same should apply to everyone else. If we deny Iran or North Korea to arm itself with the best weaponry possible, then why do we not deny the same of China, America, or anyone else? Because we’re the big guys and we get to tell others what to do since there is nobody around to stop us. Here we’re going to war against other countries all because they’re anti-American so they somehow pose a threat to us. Being anti-American doesn’t mean they’re going to wage war with us yet that’s how we’re treating it. But that’s not the real reason we’re going to war with them.

In these days, it’s pretty hard to go to war with someone as we’re all trying to be loving peaceful people staying in our own land while trading with everyone. So basically no country is going to be able to gain any land or resources anymore except in the Capitalistic nature of buying out someone. Everyone is stuck being where they are now with no old-school ways of future expansion. So how does one make it possible to have their dream of true of taking over the world? Create propoganda that goes against people being loving and/or wanting to keep to themselves so you get the self-proclaimed right to have a pre-emptive strike and declare war in a so-called “justified” reason during the days where war is looked down upon.

Not freely, no. In these days, everyone is now stuck with having everyting as it is now. Our countries can no longer expand without being looked at as a brutal and aggressive country. This is why people think of crafty and sneaky ways of making it happen without realizing the true reason of them doing so. Any reason for anyone doing anything for any other country is the pure and simple reason of increasing their power and influence in the world in hopes of being able to rule it without having to do so using the aggressive way of waging war which then puts them in a bad light and ruins their ability to do so.

Now the Kurds, Ainu, Tibetans, and any other minority group can go ahead and TRY to claim their own state. They can either play victim as the Jews did or they can secretly overthrow their current government to take control. Those people can even try to wage war in their country to take it over and create their own state too. However, until they wage war, nothing should be able to be done against them as there is nothing wrong with arming oneself. We do not know their intentions even if we play the “well this is what I’d do if I were them” scenario. Prevent them from doing so is being discriminate because there is no country in this world that tries to arm itself with the best weaponry available.

Yup, they all have the right to do so. Every country in the world continues to update it’s weaponry but does that mean that every single country has put it to an offensive use? China and Russia have nukes pointed at us as we do of them. Why should we and they be able to do so but not Taiwan? We’re all looking out for ourselves so why should Taiwan be denied that right especially when China wants Taiwan so badly? Just because Taiwan has nukes pointed at China, it doesn’t mean they’ll all of a sudden use them. Name one country that has nukes pointed at another that has actually launched it at those countries?

North Korea and biological weapons? What’s wrong with that? Biological weapons is just another way of killing. Are they fighting anyone right now with their other weaponry? Until they do declare war on someone, we shouldn’t be able to go to war against them all because they “might” someday use them. That’s pretty scary if anything on our part. Nobody is going to war with others yet WE are the ones actually going out and waging war with other countries to prevent them from doing so, lol. Does that make ANY sense? That’s just a reason used by us to be able to do what we can’t.. expand our power and influence in times when waging war is looked down upon. So all ya gotta do is say we’re going to war against someone because they’re going to do it with us some day. Somehow that makes sense to everyone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

France may some day declare war with us too so I guess we outta just invade them tomorrow too!

And since you seem to be so scared of biological weapons and wanting to stop anyone trying to develop them. Shall we invade Mother Russia? They have loads of it. Should we invade ourselves because we have loads of em too? This is the silly part that makes no sense in that reasoning. We use these reasons on smaller countries yet the reasons we use apply to a huge number of other countries.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Basically what we’re doing is trying to consolodate power so that there are less people that disagree with the way we run things. The more countries that agree with one another, the easier it is to create a one world government so that someone will actually make that dream come true of being able to rule the world. Live and let live? I think not. More like live and let live under one rule. Democracy is being used as a tool to make all of that happen. Things can’t be done on a massive scale unless there is some kind of a perk into converting to someone’s system. Even with democracy and freedom, there can only be one outcome when voted upon. How is that freedom? It only means there are two opposing peoples (higher vote vs lower vote) compared to a whole number of them when it comes to various types of governments and ways of life, and we all know how easily it is to sway votes or just flat out cheat which in turns makes freedom and democracy worthless. We still wind up living under other people’s rules.

Giving us voting perks only blinds us in thinking we’re making our own rules when we’re not. When was the last time you’ve gotten to make your own rule? You only get to vote between rules created by other people telling you how to live. And exactly how is this any different compared to other forms of government in which we hate and is somehow a threat to “our freedom”? It’s all political propoganda bunk! Look how the Bush Administration is able to do what they want just by the mention of the blinded words of “freedom and democracy”. This is no different than the Church doing what they want by mentioning the word “God”. By continuously saying how great something is and creating up this fake threat against what we love, the people making those claims are able to do anything they want. Love and fear is the greatest manipulator.

Whoa, sorry for the rant in that part, heh.

Yep, every country is free to do as they wish. All of those things you mention isn’t a country doing something AGAINST a country, it’s rather them NOT doing anything to them in the form of not trading with them. However, when it comes to waging war against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or anyone else, that’s a country actually DOING something against a country. Doing something to another is an act of war and that’s just wrong. We shouldn’t be able to do anything to them unless they do something to us. We can’t make up these scaredy cat reasons of them possibly doing something to us in the future as that can apply to anyone.

Unless a country flat out says we’re going to attack you, then a pre-emptive strike is justified. And the funny thing? Only America has made those claims. So basically if Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any other Axis of Evil ever attacks us, it’s fully justified as self defense. But hey, somehow they’re the bad guys and we’re the good. Funny how we get to always twist things around to suit our cause, eh? We’re using propoganda to create ways to expand our influence and power aside from just the continental United States in a time where expansion outside one’s country is frowned upon, and we’re getting away with it!

- N

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4190279.stm

Maybe we will see a softer, more sensitive Bush in the second term then? Mr Blair is good freinds with Bush and he of all people would know if Bush was thinking of invading Iran.

As Blair was seen to go along with Bush's idea to invade Iraq without question and loyalty with huge consequences to his trust among the public, on the run up to the general election, it would be a foolish thing for Blair to admit to if he knew of otherwise. He didnt actually deny that Bush will invade either so if he does it wont look as if he was lying. Teflon Tony strikes again, that lawyer degree was handy wasnt it?

I think its entirely possible that Bush will invade Iran, to forcefully spread democracy and human rights as well as western values. Maybe even Tony Blair will give his blessing.

 

Considering that anti-Iran news is coming from the Bush administration, it's not so much a matter of if but when the US will attack and how. Can't happen without a draft in place, so watch for that. The ball has been rolling on that for some time; should become public knowledge in the next couple months. When should be the end of the year or early 2006, first with an intensive air campaign, to help ensure that Bush's administration has time to get a firm grip on the oil, since 2008 has some risk (increasingly small as Bush's dictatorship grows stronger) of the presidency falling into less corrupt hands. The alternative is that Iran agrees to pay off Bush Oil to stave off an attack. This has nothing to do with nukes or liberation, just as Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs or liberation.