It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For or Against War with Iran

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Iran attacks US military.


The link you posted above links to a post made in a news-group discussion. I did not find this article anywhere else. I would have imagined such an attack would have been well known.


Iran holds American citizens hostage.


That was 20 years ago. If you are going to judge Iran as a hostile nation because of taking American citizens as hostage 20 years ago. Then, perhaps we should America as a hostile nation for making deals with facist dicatorships like Iraq 20 years ago. Further, you've not actually given the other side of the story for the hostage crisis.

The Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a nut, was demonstrating against America for it's support of the former Shah's totalitarian rule and Israel and demanded the Shah be returned to be put on trial for his crimes.


Indigo_Child wrote “If Iran had nuclear weapons it would have stabalized the region.”

Are you nuts? How would Iran owning nukes stabilize the region?


How does Israel, the only Middle Eastern state, having hundreds of nuclear weapons, being weaponized by the US and being the most aggresive nation in the region and shouting slogans of "death to the arabs" stabalize it? It doesn't.

What it does is create a aggressive hegemon of Middle east that has all the power and thus destabalises the region. This provokes arms races, distrust, fear and paranoia and undermines the security of the Arab nations. Israel's power is minimized - counter-balanced - by Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and thus the region is stabalized. This would prevent Israel from any misadventures.

It would halt other countries from weaponizing, as they would have the confidence that any aggressive actions by Israel would be contained by Iran. The most destabalizing influence on the region would be a US war on Iran. This war itself would not have materialized if Iran had nuclear weapons. So again, Iran having nuclear weapons has a stabalizing effect.

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
How does Israel, the only Middle Eastern state, having hundreds of nuclear weapons, being weaponized by the US and being the most aggresive nation in the region and shouting slogans of "death to the arabs" stabalize it? It doesn't.


You're right, it doesn't. But I have not seen any Israeli government officials shouting "death to the Arabs", have you? Maybe outraged citizens, but not government officials. They like America's government are greedy, and driven by money. They would not just outright attack Iran with nukes. I don't disagree that Israel is not helping the peace process with some of it's actions, but they would not just nuke a non-nuclear Iran. On the other hand Iran, which is run by Islamic fundamentalists in which government officials have expressed clearly they do not think Israel should exist. Are you 100% confident that Iran's Islamic fundamentalist government would not strike first with nukes to enforce what they see as god's will? Are you confident enough to risk nuclear fallout making it's way into Europe? Are you confident enough that you put your childrens' future in the hands of Islamic extremists?



It would halt other countries from weaponizing, as they would have the confidence that any aggressive actions by Israel would be contained by Iran.


Are you serious? If we allow Iran to obtain nukes, mark my words, Syria and who knows who else will start nuclear programs. But I'm sure your resent of America will cause you to deny that, and you probably will allow that resent to take such a strong hold over you, that you would rather see all out nuclear war, that costs the lives of countless people, than to support the US position, even if it's in your best interest. Do you believe everybody has the right to have nuclear weapons? Do you really think that would be the best way to peace on Earth?






[edit on 23-1-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I am against any war that sends people to die just for Zionism and oil.
How Iraq or Iran would be about Zionism and oil is beyond my ability to divine. Even the best of those people don't like the Jews that much. The only favors we're doing for Israel is taking care of some of their insane neighbors, neighbors who wish for the extermination of the Jewish state. As for the oil, the truth is that we actually pay for it. We put up with the OPEC cartel with only the occasional complaint, we give out billions in foreign aid--we actually pay the world to have us. Meanwhile our 'allies' have cut their militaries down in order to make room in their budgets for all their lovely socialist domestic programs, forcing the US to take up more of the weight in any international engagement. The US military is overstrained because it is running out of friends willing to assist in things that must be done.

We're doing well in Iraq. Despite the homicide bombings so gleefully reported by CNN, the rebuilding outweighs the destruction. Like a giant roach motel, terrorists have flocked there hoping for a chance to stick it to America, but for every American soldier killed, many more guerillas die. Eventually, they will realize that they have lost Iraq, and will flee to more protected areas, because they can't win. They can't win because there is no place they can stay safely in Iraq. When they make a stand, they die. If they don't run, they will lose right there. If they do run, the most logical refuge is Iran.

I do not accept the theory that attacking Middle Eastern countries create many more terrorists. If done for the right reasons, the terrorists that pop up are mainly pre-existing ones. They simply are attracted to battle, and if there is a battleground for the terrorists to run to, they will do so. There are occasional bungles that happen that drive hotheaded young men to swear eternal hostility to the USA, but most terrorists are not really new.

Iran is playing games about its nuclear program, and it is run by a tyrannical theocracy that oppresses freedom in many forms. Its history of weapons deals with North Korea is well known. There are many people there who wish for a new government, but have not found the strength to take it for themselves. All peaceful means must be attempted to see to it Iran isn't doing anything shady, but there is a possibility peaceful means will be exhausted. If that should happen, there is no place for complacency. Also, it is possible that Osama bin Laden has taken refuge in Iran.

Another thing that should be considered is that this is a real Islamic theocracy, not a secular dictatorship like Iraq was. Many more terrorists will go to Iran in the pursuit of a last stand. They will gather there hoping for a great jihad, preparing for the battle of a lifetime. If handled well, the "roach motel" doctrine could work to seriously crush Islamofascist terrorism in the region.

The question is not whether stopping Iran is worth the lives of some of our soldiers, but whether it's worth risking the innocent lives to avoid doing anything about Iran.

[edit on 1/23/2005 by BeefotronX]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I have not read everyones opinions yet but ill go ahead and post mine. Im a proud democrat and have done a bit of research on military tactics. I hate Bush's guts and dont support his Iraq war. In this case "Iran" I say we need to attack immediatley if we want a decent chance at vitory. ON the other hand if we wait to long were screwed. As for being against or for it conditions apply. ILl be for it if we have sufficient proof they want nukes for hard. On the other hand if they only want nuclear energy and gain somewhat of a friend # im against it. Get what im saying?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Iran and Suadia Arabia do not like each other and both strive to be the dominant player in the region. If Iran gets nukes then Saudia Arabia will get nukes. Then every other country in the region will feel it has to get nukes. You have just started an arms race in the Middle East, which happens to be were the majority of the world’s energy source is. Wake up. Use common sense.

Enemies that have publicly stated that their goal is to destroy Israel surround Israel. They have tried on several occasions to do just that. Israel has not nuked anyone; they have shown that they can use restraint with regards to use of their nukes.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I am for it, should Iran gain nuclear capabillities the whole damn world is screwed.
Can you say "nuclear suicide bomber"?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
We seem not to be able to even supply our troops in Iraq with working guns....what are we going to supply our troops in Iran, slingshots and rocks?

Gee, a few years back, I was keeping up with what was going on in Iran, things sounded a bit hopeful really. They were easing up on the religious rule alittle, and beginning to reform. Wonder what happened...oh ya, Bush declared a "Crusade" against the....stupid chose of words, really.

Tell yas what, ya go for Iran, but first go through that god danged budget, cut out enough of the unnecessary spending...not the Social Service Programs, Not the Social Security, Not the Schools, Not the Highway Dept.....Find enough garbage that yous are spending money on that just isn't needed and divert that money into the war you wish to fight and quit thinking that the same kids who are fighting it will be working their butts off to pay for it the rest of thier lives!!!

What is it with the words "We have No money." don't people understand?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Indigo check out this link. What is your response to the information in the link?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
In response to the original question:


Yes. Sort of. I actually think the US should have invaded Iran before Iraq. If this is a true "war on terrorism", Iran is more of a threat than Iraq ever was. Iran all but openly funds and supports terrorists.

But, and a very big but here: With the current situation, i.e. Iraq and all that’s going on there, I don’t think rushing into Iran is a smart idea. Way too much happening. I don’t think there could be a successful attack on Iran without a draft. And I think that’s where the US public will draw the line with the High Holy King George.

So..."Finish" up with Iraq, regroup and refresh our military resources. The take a look at Iraq, get the UN involved (except France) and then pound Iran out of the nuclear/terror business.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

But I have not seen any Israeli government officials shouting "death to the Arabs", have you? Maybe outraged citizens, but not government officials.


www.infowar-monitor.net...

Intimidating graffiti is by no means a monopoly of the Palestinians. In Jerusalem early this year, a group of Israeli volunteers disturbed by the frequent "Death to the Arabs" and "Expel the Arabs" slogans on walls took it upon themselves to paint them over after the municipality left them intact

Then consider the countless atrocities of Israeli soliders against Palistianians and Arabs. Now, is this stabalizing? Yeah I know they're both doing it, but two wrongs do not make a right, do they?


They like America's government are greedy, and driven by money. They would not just outright attack Iran with nukes. I don't disagree that Israel is not helping the peace process with some of it's actions, but they would not just nuke a non-nuclear Iran.


There is no fundamental policy that says a non-nuclear country cannot be attacked with nukes. In the only times they have been used, by America, was against Japan, a non-nuclear country. National security is not decided on false-assurance. Can you convince Iran that Israel will not use nuclear weapons on them?

Can you convince Iran that it would not be invaded by America? You will have a hard time convincing them,with America and Israel planning an invasion of Iran right now.


Are you 100% confident that Iran's Islamic fundamentalist government would not strike first with nukes to enforce what they see as god's will? Are you confident enough to risk nuclear fallout making it's way into Europe? Are you confident enough that you put your childrens' future in the hands of Islamic extremists?


No I am 100% confident that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon, it will be wiped out of the face of this planet, and I am 100% confident Iran knows that


Are you serious? If we allow Iran to obtain nukes, mark my words, Syria and who knows who else will start nuclear programs.


Syria would have no need too, if Iran got nuclear weapons. In the same way Japan and Taiwan don't feel the need to, because America has nuclear weapons.


But I'm sure your resent of America will cause you to deny that, and you probably will allow that resent to take such a strong hold over you, that you would rather see all out nuclear war, that costs the lives of countless people, than to support the US position, even if it's in your best interest.


What's in my best interest is peace and freedom. And I do see nuclear war, if Iran is invaded, and it's a global one and it involves Russia, China and Europe.


Do you believe everybody has the right to have nuclear weapons? Do you really think that would be the best way to peace on Earth?


As someone supporting America, who is the only country in the world to have used nuclear and radiological weapons on more than one occasion, and also the most warring nation in the world, I don't think you are in any position to judge who should and should not.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Intimidating graffiti is by no means a monopoly of the Palestinians. In Jerusalem early this year, a group of Israeli volunteers disturbed by the frequent "Death to the Arabs" and "Expel the Arabs" slogans on walls took it upon themselves to paint them over after the municipality left them intact


But you see, I doubt that graffiti was placed there by government officials, so how exactly does this prove your point? My point is, Iran's official position, by the government, is that Israel does not have the right to exist, per their religious beliefs.



Then consider the countless atrocities of Israeli soliders against Palistianians and Arabs. Now, is this stabalizing? Yeah I know they're both doing it, but two wrongs do not make a right, do they?


No they don't, so let's throw a bunch of nukes into the mix, great idea. Very stabilizing.



There is no fundamental policy that says a non-nuclear country cannot be attacked with nukes. In the only times they have been used, by America, was against Japan, a non-nuclear country. National security is not decided on false-assurance. Can you convince Iran that Israel will not use nuclear weapons on them?


There we go again, let's talk about America the great satan using nukes way back when. Look, I've already stated again and again, that was a very dark day for humanity. So instead of making sure it never happens again, let's make sure it does by allowing everybody and their mother to obtain nukes. Israel will NOT nuke Iran unless first nuked by Iran. Why would they? Militarily they would destroy Iran, they would have no need to nuke them. Not to mention there are several balancing nuclear powers on that side of the world who would not appreciate Israel just outright nuking people in their backyard. And the US would not allow Israel to do it either. Get real. The US has not used nuclear weapons since, and there have been plenty of wars. Israel has had nukes for some time, and have never threatened ANYBODY with them. But you're so sure the fanatical religious leaders bent on Israel's destruction wouldn't either, right? You're absolutely positive? Yeah right. Again, you're so resentful toward America and Israel you don't care. But you see, you live on this planet too. Enjoy the upcoming nuclear winter. Tell your children it was all worth it as long as America and Israel got what was coming to them. Oh yeah, your children will probably be dead.



Can you convince Iran that it would not be invaded by America? You will have a hard time convincing them,with America and Israel planning an invasion of Iran right now.


Absolutely. If they fully disclose and allow to be verified that their nuclear program is peaceful and for energy only, America would not be able to invade. Nobody, including just about every citizen here would permit it.



No I am 100% confident that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon, it will be wiped out of the face of this planet, and I am 100% confident Iran knows that


Have you read any of my previous posts? Iran is run by EXTREMIST, FUNDAMENTAL CLERICS! They believe that if they die carrying out the will of god, they go to paradise. What part of that don't you get? Don't dodge my question. ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT YOURS AND YOUR CHILDRENS' FUTURE IN THE HANDS OF FUNDAMENTAL ISLAM?



Syria would have no need too, if Iran got nuclear weapons. In the same way Japan and Taiwan don't feel the need to, because America has nuclear weapons.


The word "naive" comes to mind. I can guarantee you that letting Iran obtain nukes, will not only increase chances of nuclear conflict at least ten fold, but will create a windfall of aspiring nuclear powers, mark my words.



What's in my best interest is peace and freedom. And I do see nuclear war, if Iran is invaded, and it's a global one and it involves Russia, China and Europe.


And allowing the creation of more nuclear powers is in the best interest of peace? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's no way in hell that Russia or China are going to initiate the destruction of the world because the US invades Iran to stop them from obtaining nukes. Do they care about Iran so much they are willing to see their countries turned to glass by starting nuclear war with America? Please. They will demand America cease, to appease their citizens, like they always do, and nothing more. They are far more concerned about themselves than sticking up for the religious nutcases in power in Iran, don't kid yourself.



As someone supporting America, who is the only country in the world to have used nuclear and radiological weapons on more than one occasion, and also the most warring nation in the world, I don't think you are in any position to judge who should and should not.


You're right. Nukes for everybody, what a lovely vision for peace. What a stable world it will be.



[edit on 24-1-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child


Then consider the countless atrocities of Israeli soliders against Palistianians and Arabs. Now, is this stabalizing? Yeah I know they're both doing it, but two wrongs do not make a right, do they?



Maybe you should read this web site in order to educate yourself on the Israel and Arab conflict.

Indigo you say not to judge Iran by what they did 20 years ago but you have judged America for nuking Japan 59 or so years ago. There is a word for that.

27jd
you just got my way above vote.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by cryptorsa1001]

[edit on 24-1-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Indigo you say not to judge Iran by what they did 20 years ago but you have judged America for nuking Japan 59 or so years ago. There is a word for that.


I also wonder if people don't know, or are conveniently leaving out the fact that Japan used IMO nastier WMD's than we did in WWII:



The Japanese army regularly conducted "Field Tests". Planes dropped plague-infected fleas over Ningbo in eastern China and over Changde in north-central China.

Japanese troops dropped cholera and typhoid cultures in water reservoirs, wells and ponds.

Cottony material and feathers coated with anthrax bacteria were used to spread the disease in an airborne manner, as such fibers had been found to be effective in keeping the bacteria alive long enough to reach the intended human victims.

Witnesses recall watching Japanese airplanes dropping a mixture of wheat, millet, soy beans, rice, cotton fibers, paper and fabric cuttings, aerial spraying pathogens over the cities . They all had been coated with the biological organism or with fleas and brought the germs to people.

Japanese distributed infected food, cakes, drink, clothes and children's candies to the locals.

The same mass infections were being repeated all over China.

"Glanders was a disease first found in horses, and it could attack human beings," said Furmanski. Human beings' legs are most affected by the disease. "Only one out of 20 people with the disease could survive.

Medical records showed that glanders had virtually been wiped out in 1906, but new cases suddently broke out in the 1940s during WWII in China."

Japanese showered 7 WMD Biological pathogens on Zhejiang province to retaliate the Doolittle Tokyo Raid.

Even today, one hard-hit village in Zhejiang still bears the nickname "Rotten-Leg Village" because so many older residents are scarred by glanders from the 1942 attacks. Their flesh are still rotten and have not been healed since they were attacked - they have been suffering for almost 60 years now.

Sheldon H. Harris, a historian at California State University and author of the book, "Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-45 and the American Cover-up" stressed that "My calculation, which is very conservative, and based on incomplete sources as the major archives are still closed, is that 10,000 to 12,000 human beings were exterminated in lab experiments".

Outside the 731 prisons, the "Field Tests" were carried out all over China including Manchuria.

Scholars believe that the toll from Japanese-seeded cholera epidemics in the southern province of Yunnan alone may reach the staggering figure of 200,000 killed in May 1942.

3 months later, another 200,000 die in Shandong province as a result of Unit 731’s germ warfare. In the Zhekiang province city of Quzhou alone, over 50,000 perished from bubonic plague and cholera .............

As the war was ending, Japanese purposely released all the plague-infected animals. The Northeastern China immediately became a disaster area and caused outbreaks of plague that killed at least another 30,000 people from 1946 - 1948.

" There could be over 700,000 or even 1,000,000" lives lost to Japan's biowarfare program" said Daniel Barenblatt, author of new book A Plague Upon Humanity: The Secret Genocide of Axis Japan's Germ Warfare Operation.

These crimes are more than parallel to the coeval work of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi doctors.

Japanese military scientists killed 12 times the number of civilians as did the Nazi's Angel of Death - Dr. Josef Mengele.

Nazi doctors were held accountable for their crimes in the famous 1947 "Nuremberg Doctors Trials", but there were NO comparable "Japanese Doctors Trials".


www.skycitygallery.com...


But we're the only ones who ever used WMD's. And I'm sure Japan would not have used nukes on us if they had them and we didn't. Really, any of the parties involved in WWII would have used them if they had them. Great Brittain would have laid one right on Berlin if they had them to stop the Nazi bombing, guaranteed.





[edit on 24-1-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   

But you see, I doubt that graffiti was placed there by government officials, so how exactly does this prove your point? My point is, Iran's official position, by the government, is that Israel does not have the right to exist, per their religious beliefs.


If you read carefully, the city muncipality is a government organization and they have done nothing about it. As for the government of Israel, I suppose waging constant bloody war against Palistinians, means nothing?



Then consider the countless atrocities of Israeli soliders against Palistianians and Arabs. Now, is this stabalizing? Yeah I know they're both doing it, but two wrongs do not make a right, do they?


No one is throwing nuclear weapons into the mix. They're already there. Israel has them, possibly hundreds of them. For, Iran to then get some for it's safety is like pissing into the ocean to increase it's volume.

A strategic power-balance is based on the same principles of putting weights on scale. Stability, as in a state that is not subject to sudden change or fluctuation is achieved when there is a balance of power. As we know, there is not a balance of power in Middle East, rather there is extreme disparity. It is not the weights or forces(in this case nuclear weapons) themselves that cause the destabalization, rather, it's the amount of weights on both sides.

Let's assign an arbitrary value to each force element in Israels favor:

WMD: 500(hundreds of nuclear weapons)
American support: 50
Military: 25
Aggression: 10

Israel has a weight of 580

Now lets assign a comparative value for Iran:

WMD: 50(chemical and biological)
Syria Support: 5
Military: 10
Aggression: 5

Therefore: Iran has a weight of 70

This means that there is 1:8 disparity in power for Iran. In other words it is enough for Iran to be rendered defenceless and is a grave threat to it's security. If Iran gets some low yield nuclear weapons, and let's assign a compaitive value of 100, that disparity in power would fall to 1:3 for Iran. There would still be disparity, but it would mean that any Israeli aggression against Iran would be very costly for Israel. This would greatly minimize the chances of military conflict and bring them to the table for a peaceful dialogue. The same has happened between India and Pakistan.

Therefore, I submit again, that Iran acquiring at least some nuclear offensive capability will have a stabalizing effect on the region.



There is no fundamental policy that says a non-nuclear country cannot be attacked with nukes. In the only times they have been used, by America, was against Japan, a non-nuclear country. National security is not decided on false-assurance. Can you convince Iran that Israel will not use nuclear weapons on them?



There we go again, let's talk about America the great satan using nukes way back when.


You said something to the effect that a nuclear power will not use nukes on a non nuclear power. I was simply showing you they could and have. As there is only one example of nuclear weapons being used in modern human history, and it happens to be by America, the only thing I could say is America. What did you expect me to say? Cuba?


Israel will NOT nuke Iran unless first nuked by Iran. Why would they
Militarily they would destroy Iran, they would have no need to nuke them.


Israel cannot militarily destroy Iran in a conventional conflict, and If you think so, I don't see any reason trying to discuss serious geopolitics with you. While, Israel has a modern and powerful army, it does not have enough power to invade Iran, which is more or less as powerful. It would be too costly for either side and would end up as a stalemate. I would liken it to a war between China and India.


Not to mention there are several balancing nuclear powers on that side of the world who would not appreciate Israel just outright nuking people in their backyard. And the US would not allow Israel to do it either. Get real.


I think you have forgotten that Israel and US are currently planning a joint invasion of Iran.


The US has not used nuclear weapons since, and there have been plenty of wars. Israel has had nukes for some time, and have never threatened ANYBODY with them. But you're so sure the fanatical religious leaders bent on Israel's destruction wouldn't either, right? You're absolutely positive? Yeah right. Again, you're so resentful toward America and Israel you don't care.


US has used nuclear weapons since then as well. In the gulf war 1991, it used tactical nuclear weapons and since then hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died from depleted Uranium poisoning. Further, the "fanatics" you say(a term borrowed from western propoganda) have had chemical and biological weapons for a long time. Have they used them? Checkmate.


Absolutely. If they fully disclose and allow to be verified that their nuclear program is peaceful and for energy only, America would not be able to invade. Nobody, including just about every citizen here would permit it.


Oh, you mean like the UN inspectors in Iraq? I hate to break it to you, but the UN inspectors found nothing, and Iraq was still invaded. I am not sure when you are going get it through your head, but this is not about weapons. They are lying to you again and you are falling for it again.

Just like with Iraq, not only are we hearing "WMD" again, but everything else that came with it "liberation", "democracy" "terrorism" it's to confuse your little minds. What is pretty disturbing about it - it's obvious.


Have you read any of my previous posts? Iran is run by EXTREMIST, FUNDAMENTAL CLERICS! They believe that if they die carrying out the will of god, they go to paradise. What part of that don't you get? Don't dodge my question. ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT YOURS AND YOUR CHILDRENS' FUTURE IN THE HANDS OF FUNDAMENTAL ISLAM?


Yes, very extreme fundamentalist clerics. So extreme and fundamentalist that they did not harm a single American in 80's hostage crisis. So extreme and fundamentalist, they have not used their aresnal of chemical and biological weapons yet. Does that make sense to you? I got some advice for you mate, don't believe everything you hear, especially US propoganda.

It really does astound me how gullible american people are. You'll believe anything that is on CNN. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the Muslim countries are not full of bearded barbarians on tanks.



Syria would have no need too, if Iran got nuclear weapons. In the same way Japan and Taiwan don't feel the need to, because America has nuclear weapons.



The word "naive" comes to mind. I can guarantee you that letting Iran obtain nukes, will not only increase chances of nuclear conflict at least ten fold, but will create a windfall of aspiring nuclear powers, mark my words.


Idle speculation is what I can say.


And allowing the creation of more nuclear powers is in the best interest of peace? I can't believe what I'm reading. There's no way in hell that Russia or China are going to initiate the destruction of the world because the US invades Iran to stop them from obtaining nukes. Do they care about Iran so much they are willing to see their countries turned to glass by starting nuclear war with America? Please. They will demand America cease, to appease their citizens, like they always do, and nothing more. They are far more concerned about themselves than sticking up for the religious nutcases in power in Iran, don't kid yourself.


Then you underestimate Russia and China, and don't understand geopolitics and are not aware of their positions on the war. Russia and China are Iran's friends and have vested interests in Iran.

Iran is the worlds 2nd largest oil supplier, on which Russia and China depend. Russia is also Irans biggest military supplier and has very good diplomatic relations with Iran. So good, that it proposed a military trilateral alliance including Iran with China and India. So, Russia considers Iran as it's ally. In 1971, US sent it's nuclear aircraft carrier to to the Bay of Bengal to intimidate India's liberation of East Pakistan. Russia intervened immediately and threatened war against US.

Russia will NOT take lightly to an invasion of Iran, especially, considering that America is expandingly so aggressively in the Middle east and has become meglomaniacal like Nazi Germany. Russia has publically condemened US and declared it's support for Iran and Syria. It is also engaging in joint military exercises with China.

Meanwhile, as US foreign policy deteoriates and US is entangled in a three-way conflict between Iraq, Syria and Iran. China will use this opportunity to invade Taiwan and Japan and expand in the Pacific. There will be a chain reaction of events, and before we know, we are fighting a global nuclear war between all of the world powers. All of this because of America invasion of Iran. Hence, why we wiser people, are telling you to not support this war. You keep on telling me "do you want to put your future in the hands of "Fundamentalist Islam" I would rather do that, that put my future in the hands of America bent on starting a nuclear world war that would kill billions around the world and poison the planet for years to come.

If you don't think it won't happen, you don't know anything.


You're right. Nukes for everybody, what a lovely vision for peace. What a stable world it will be.


My vision for the world is one of peace, harmony and love and light. In an ideal world I would not want anyone to have nuclear weapons. However, I got news for you, this is not an ideal world. There has to be mutual disarmment or mutual destruction. It's one or the other.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Indigo_Child, what drugs are you on?
China invades Japan?
America uses nukes on Iraq during the gulf war.
Get a clue!!!!!
No use trying to debate an idiot!!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Indigo_Child, what drugs are you on?
China invades Japan?
America uses nukes on Iraq during the gulf war.
Get a clue!!!!!
No use trying to debate an idiot!!!!


question is what drugs you on?
the dude has made a valid point far better then any i have read of yours
( in my opinion )



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If you read carefully, the city muncipality is a government organization and they have done nothing about it. As for the government of Israel, I suppose waging constant bloody war against Palistinians, means nothing?


Gee, you're right, because the city has not acted timely enough to clean up grafitti, they obviously support what was written. How could I be so stupid, I guess that means my city government supports all the gangs that spray up the walls in my neighborhood. I knew it. Think about that claim again.



No one is throwing nuclear weapons into the mix. They're already there. Israel has them, possibly hundreds of them. For, Iran to then get some for it's safety is like pissing into the ocean to increase it's volume.


You didn't read anything I posted did you? YES. Israel has them. Throwing an opposing nuclear force, an irrational religious one bent on the other's destruction, is what I meant. Nuclear war will be a certainty, IMO. Is that acceptable to you? You still have not answered my question, as nobody has, DO YOU TRUST THE LIVES OF YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES IN THE HANDS OF IRAN'S ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERS???!!! Please answer, yes or no.



Stability, as in a state that is not subject to sudden change or fluctuation is achieved when there is a balance of power. As we know, there is not a balance of power in Middle East, rather there is extreme disparity. It is not the weights or forces(in this case nuclear weapons) themselves that cause the destabalization, rather, it's the amount of weights on both sides.


How can you be SO ignorant to the obvious. Iran does not wish to exist in harmony with Israel. Your point would only hold water if there were two nations that were trying to co-exist that maybe did not get along, but both just wanted to exist in peace. IRAN WANTS TO DESTROY ISRAEL, RESEARCH IT, IT'S NOT DISPUTED!!! What on Earth makes you think this will stabilize the region?



The same has happened between India and Pakistan.


OH MY GOD!! I think my brain is bleeding! Do you not recall that they almost went to nuclear war a few times recently? And thus far, because Pakistan could go either way, neither party is currently ruled by religious extremists who think it's a good thing to die in battle against the other, the enemy of god. If that was the case, I doubt peaceful dialog would have prevailed, and the nightmare scenario you seem to welcome, would already have occured.



Therefore, I submit again, that Iran acquiring at least some nuclear offensive capability will have a stabalizing effect on the region.


Again, I submit, that if you get your way, we're all f-cked.



You said something to the effect that a nuclear power will not use nukes on a non nuclear power. I was simply showing you they could and have.


In an immensely differing situation, do you say we should have continued to allow Japan to use the WMD's they were using on the scale in which I presented to you? Does your heart not bleed for the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, killed by Japan's bio-warfare tactics before we ended the war? What if Japan was able to gain their objective and use those bio weapons in Europe or (I know you don't care) the US?



Israel cannot militarily destroy Iran in a conventional conflict, and If you think so, I don't see any reason trying to discuss serious geopolitics with you. While, Israel has a modern and powerful army, it does not have enough power to invade Iran, which is more or less as powerful. It would be too costly for either side and would end up as a stalemate.


You're right then, there is no point discussing geopolitics with me, Israel would destroy Iran from the air. Period. They would not be looking to occupy Iran, so no point in a ground invasion. And Israel would decimate any Iranian army on the move toward Israel with precision guided munitions and air power.



I think you have forgotten that Israel and US are currently planning a joint invasion of Iran.


Not a nuclear attack.



US has used nuclear weapons since then as well. In the gulf war 1991, it used tactical nuclear weapons and since then hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died from depleted Uranium poisoning. Further, the "fanatics" you say(a term borrowed from western propoganda) have had chemical and biological weapons for a long time. Have they used them? Checkmate.


Checkmate? Whatever bio program they currently have is DEFINETLY not sufficient to completely wipe out Israel, there are a lot of logistics involved in bio-warfare, if they attacked Israel with bio weapons, Israel would nuke them, and rightfully so, I'm sure they know this, they would not obtain their objective, AND they would be wiped out. And please provide a link to or source of your claim we used nuclear weapons in the 1st Gulf War, because I was not aware of that.



Oh, you mean like the UN inspectors in Iraq? I hate to break it to you, but the UN inspectors found nothing, and Iraq was still invaded.


They were after "supposed" weapons programs that Iraq denied, but we KNOW, fully admitted by Iran, that they have a nuclear program. How are you not understanding this?



Just like with Iraq, not only are we hearing "WMD" again, but everything else that came with it "liberation", "democracy" "terrorism" it's to confuse your little minds. What is pretty disturbing about it - it's obvious.


I was highly against Iraq, I still am, I don't buy anything that is fed to me, I make my own observations and I feel this actually is a threat, not Iraq, not NK, but Iran is a threat to world peace. So my "little mind" is far from confused. But yours will be fried in nuclear fire if things go your way.



Yes, very extreme fundamentalist clerics. So extreme and fundamentalist that they did not harm a single American in 80's hostage crisis. So extreme and fundamentalist, they have not used their aresnal of chemical and biological weapons yet. Does that make sense to you? I got some advice for you mate, don't believe everything you hear, especially US propoganda.


So then you trust yours and your families lives in the hands of Iran's government, that's all you have to say. Why won't you?



It really does astound me how gullible american people are. You'll believe anything that is on CNN. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the Muslim countries are not full of bearded barbarians on tanks.


So, you insult and stereotype one group of people, then you cry about how wrong it is to stereotype another? Enough said. I guess Bush was right, as painful as that is to say, those who are not with us, are against us. I'm concerned about the future of my son, if you wish to allow the world to be overflowing with nuclear weapons, in my eyes, you are my enemy.



Then you underestimate Russia and China, and don't understand geopolitics and are not aware of their positions on the war. Russia and China are Iran's friends and have vested interests in Iran.


So vested they wish to commit suicide for Iran? Don't think so, mate.



Russia will NOT take lightly to an invasion of Iran, especially, considering that America is expandingly so aggressively in the Middle east and has become meglomaniacal like Nazi Germany. Russia has publically condemened US and declared it's support for Iran and Syria. It is also engaging in joint military exercises with China.


Why even bother with joint military excercises, as long as we're having a nuke party, there's no need. The world will end. Game over for us all, even for the mighty Russia and China. But it's all worth it, right? As long as you don't end up in one of our many Nazi/American death camps for muslims and Europeans.



My vision for the world is one of peace, harmony and love and light. In an ideal world I would not want anyone to have nuclear weapons. However, I got news for you, this is not an ideal world. There has to be mutual disarmenment or mututal destructin. It's one or the other.


Yeah, that's obvious. But I don't see any disarmament so looks like it's gonna probably be the other, if you have your way and Iran gets nukes, cheers mate.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Indigo_Child, what drugs are you on?
China invades Japan?
America uses nukes on Iraq during the gulf war.
Get a clue!!!!!
No use trying to debate an idiot!!!!


I am not going to resort to name calling. I am better than that.

Yes, China is threatening Japan and is expanding it's navy in the South China Sea and making incursions into disputed regions between China and Japan. Japan is very worried and distrustful of China. Further it has made a stance against China, that the Chinese communists would consider anti-China, it supports Taiwans indenpedence and has made an alliance with US to use it a base to fend of an attack from China on Taiwan.

In the eventuality of China invading Taiwan, Japan will be involved in some manner.

Here, educate yourself: www.twq.com/03winter/docs/03winter_self.pdf

Yes, America did use tactical nuclear weapons in the first gulf war.

You can't shoot me down for being more educated and aware than you. It will just make you look stupid.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
bodrul, your comment does not surprise me after looking at your avatar. You should be disgusted with yourself. The avatar compares hitler with bush. Hitler had people with mental desease fixed so they could not breed. He was involved with the occult and he killed at least 6 million jews most of them by buring them or starving them to death not to mention the millions he killed with his war machine.

Having a difference with bushes policies is one thing but comparing him to hitler is another.

Indog's posts are not based on reality so I guess neither are you.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Governments all across the world, especially the capable governments, have known for decades the terrorism that governments like Iran have engaged in. As i mentioned in another post....year after year countries have lost many lives, valuable time, resources, and cash trying to just sit and bicker over these terrorist governments that are effecting the entire globe in one way or another. How many mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers have to die from terrorists before we realize these rouge states have to be neutralized and put back on the right track?....This has been going on for years people. Long before 9/11. So now after the US gets smacked directly in the face by terrorists we finally decide to do somthing. It may be a long struggling road, but its better to do somthing about a government like Iran, rather than to wait until they murder more innocent people like Bin Ladens criminal gang did. I would support a war with Iran, straight out, not that i like war......I HATE IT.........but some times its just necessary to get the right things done. Look at Japan, Look at Germany!! They are admirable world class countries. You never know about how Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran could turn out in the future if we do somthing now.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join