Discussion in 'World Events' started by Brian Foley, Feb 5, 2006.
I wasn't talking about "an enrichment plant built to make fuel rods". Read my post again.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Oh, no, not an occupation, heh, that's impossible. What I'm saying though is that Iran threatened to retaliate if their factories are bombed. So, who exactly are they gonna retaliate against? Those who bombed em which'll be Israel and the U.S. And the U.S. has said they would defend their ally, Israel. So Iran will launch missles at Israel and possibly in Iraq against our soldiers, but if not, we'll retaliate even further due to Israel being attacked, so something is gonna have to be done with those soldiers in Iraq. And well, Iran isn't gonna sit back and take all this bombing so a conflict with our soldiers in Iraq is inevitable, assuming action is taken against Iran's factories in the first place. And if action is taken against our soldiers, are we going to be purely on the defensive keeping our soldiers in Iraq? That's silly and makes no sense since we have to remain on the offensive as this administration and PNAC have said. So, well, that means we're gonna have to step foot in Iran.
What did I say about mini-nukes?
As for Gulf War Syndrome, if it is, in fact, what people claim it to be, then well, if our soldiers were to step foot in Iran after it being blown to bits by numerous mini-nukes, I don't think it would be healthy for the soldiers to battling on that ruined ground. Some say Gulf War Syndrome is due to our soldiers being in areas of exploded munition bunkers that had various things such as chemical weapons and whatnot. If that is all true, wouldn't it be as damaging to have our soldiers basically repeating the same thing there as in the first Gulf War, if they were to step foot there?
Separate names with a comma.