Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US will invade Iran in '06

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by grimreaper797
now we are in a situation we cant handle because we were hypocritical.


We can handle it fine, it's just that many people aren't going to like it, and I don't really care. The future of mankind is at stake.


I agree with GR America can not handle Iraq, look at wat is going on, America may be the most powerfull nation (some will disagree) but i dont think there that far ahead, are people forgeting Vietnam.

I do not belive that America will invade Iran, they tend not to go to war with countries that can actualy put up a decent fight. Plus think of the strain on the US army after Afganastan and Iraq.




posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
i think its our fault for letting isreal have nukes in the first place. (snip)

so yea, we fueled it, let isreal slide, and now we are in a situation we cant handle because we were hypocritical.


Actually, if I understand correctly, Israel got their nukes before the NPT, so I don't see quite so much hypocrisy. In fact, the only reason Israel's nukes aren't perfectly legal under the NPT is that they didn't test a weapon before 1967. Ironically, if Israel had just glassed Egypt instead of going to all the trouble of fighting the Six Day War- they'd be legit.

I grant that Israel needs to disarm, but only at such time as international law is willing to assume responsibility for protecting them against illegal aggression.
I'm just saying that it's not quite the same calliber of hypocrisy that some might thing, when you consider what international law actually says and what the circumstances actually are.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   


I grant that Israel needs to disarm, but only at such time as international law is willing to assume responsibility for protecting them against illegal aggression.


I do agree, but i bet Dubya would still find a way around the law.

[edit on 6-1-2006 by picklewalsh]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
After reading this post I had read an article a while back that had another reason why the U.S. needs to get involved with Iran. Please read and tell us what you think.

www.stevequayle.com...

Personally I can see this becoming more of an economic issue.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Good Gawd Vagabond, I'm gonna havta answer you..

First, I want this to be on the record: back when I was on my downward slide in the Army, Bush I began the drawdown. I thought it stunk. It made me feel uneasy. I understood the change in threats (with the Berlin Wall falling and the Soviet Union crumbling) but I did not see threat going away. I saw it shifting. And I saw new threats on the horizon (China, mainly). I also saw nuclear proliferation. So, the drawdown got underway. Before that time, our policy was always to have plans to fight two separate wars at once. I thought long and hard about the numbers, and about the people who were leaving the military en masse. None of it computed to me. It didn't make any sense, cutting the military back like that. According to the establishment, the cold war threat was gone. According to me, that was BS. I felt the drawdown would only compromise us. And it did. Look at what's happening now in Iraq. Look at recruiting for the Army and Marines. They're hurting. And right now, there's no way we could fight two separate wars like we could at the time of the Gulf War. Back then, we could do it if we had to. Now? We're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

My gut instinct back then was right. In order to pursue objectives like Bush does, you gotta have a massive army like Reagan/Bush had.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by picklewalsh
I agree with GR America can not handle Iraq, look at wat is going on, America may be the most powerfull nation (some will disagree) but i dont think there that far ahead, are people forgeting Vietnam.


I disagree, America can handle Iraq no problem, we just don't. We are fighting a "PC war" with one hand tied behind our back. I'm glad we're not monsters, for if we were we could make Saddam Hussein look like Mr. Rogers, but instead we try to avoid civilian casualties and outright brutality. Alot of good it does though, the rest of the world seems to either say we're brutal anyway, while at the same time saying we're not that far ahead and bring up Vietnam. Another war fought with tied hands. The cynical part of me wishes we would just take off the kid gloves once and show the rest of the world just how far ahead we are. The rest of me though recoils in disgust at the cynical part of me, innocent civilians shouldn't die to prove a point.



I do not belive that America will invade Iran, they tend not to go to war with countries that can actualy put up a decent fight. Plus think of the strain on the US army after Afganastan and Iraq.


I agree we won't invade, I still just don't think that'll be necessary. As far as a decent fight, I'm sure you would have said the same thing about Iraq's army before Desert Storm. How quickly you forget how soundly we defeat others when they're not hiding in cities like cockroaches, that's the only way they can even scratch us because they know we'll hold back.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
There will be terrorism in response from Iran. But Iran already carries out terrorist activity in Iraq


At the risk of pissing you off and sounding unamerican, do you have proof of that? What are your sources? I would honestly love to know.


They have resolved to be our enemies


Dude, we have been mutual enemies almost all of our lives (yours and mine). For good reasons on both sides. That's the wickitywakovvit. But right now it is in no one's best interest to go fighting a new war. It's simply insane.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
first off id like to say Israel has never signed the NPT, and america hasnt pressured them nearly enough considering the great suspicion that they do have nuclear weapons. alot more so then iran.

iran wont have anything to worry about if china decides to dump the dollar. that would be something.

anything could happen, but i still feel its hypocritical to force iran into NPT then when they pursue nuclear power and we suspect them that we can invade, but israel is almost definate to have nukes (pretty much known) and we dont have nearly as much pressure for them to sign NPT.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I suppose the rational answer would be to ask both countries to disarm, and be sponsored by a quote super power. To be taken under one's wing with the promise of making their region a safe, nuclear-free zone.

I like the idea, myself.

No one in Washington is listening , though, to anything, let alone reason.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
no that cant happen, they cant make nearly as much money off of peace as they do war over there. it would simply not make sense to the greedy rich leaders of this country to do so.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
no that cant happen, they cant make nearly as much money off of peace as they do war over there. it would simply not make sense to the greedy rich leaders of this country to do so.


You're exactly right. That's why you get my WAY ABOVE vote.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
At the risk of pissing you off and sounding unamerican,

My friends will always find me much harder to PO than others would, so no worries. As for unamerican... I'll leave it to Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads to dole that one out- It's not my style to outright brand somebody a traitor; most countries just call it being the opposition party, which seems reasonable to me.

As for terrorism in Iraq, let's assess the situation. We've got long-time allies of Iran running the government, but they've had to speak softly because of the US. In practice however, they are an equal party to the blood bath over there.
The really odd thing is that Iran and America have a common friend here.

We're behind them... as strange as it feels for me to say... I guess because we have a newfound respect for elections, because I can't imagine that we really want the new Iraqi government too cozy with Iran.

Iran is behind them A. Because their share an ideology. B. As an added bonus they are doing their part to propagate a conflict that is killing Americans.

www.juancole.com...

Al-Hakim is replying to US criticisms of the working of the Ministry of the Interior, which has been infiltrated by the Badr Corps, SCIRI's paramilitary. It is accused by the US of setting up secret prisons and torturing largely Sunni Arab prisoners. Its special police commandos have also been accused of assassinating or kidnapping Sunni Arabs


Not to mention our old friend Muqtada Al Sadr. Remember that guy? Probably the second least charismatic-looking man I've ever seen... next to FDR. His old man was the founder of the Dawa Party which now a key component of the Iraqi coalition government. Despite differences, Dawa was supported by Iran. What's the difference between Sadr and the Dawa party in power? Sadr hasn't toned himself down from the views which won Dawa the approval of Iran back in the good old days.


Dude, we have been mutual enemies almost all of our lives (yours and mine). For good reasons on both sides. (snip) But right now it is in no one's best interest to go fighting a new war.


We agree they are our enemies, I presume you acknowledge that they seek to develop nuclear weapons, so while a war is not anyone's first choice, it is definately in our interest, considering that the alternative is to have a nuclear-armed enemy in a strategically and economically vital part of the world.

I think your post on the two sides backing off and letting the superpowers check and balance eachother to ensure peace was a pretty decent idea. If Iran will allow verification that it is not developing nuclear weapons, then let's give them a non-aggression pact, get the UN involved and duely authorize Russia and China to over-see the peace between Iran, Israel, and America, and that's that. Stability is better than war if we can have it that way obviously. But if we can't have stability, short and hopefully small hot wars are not nearly as bad as severe dangers of nuclear war.


Last but not least, I reitterate my agreement that we're not ready to be committed all over the world the way we are, we certainly can't fight 2 and a half wars anymore (frankly I maintain that considering the scale of the wars likely to happen back in the Cold War era, we never had that ability, except perhaps for a few moments in the early 90s.). What I must stress however is that two adjoining nations do not constitute two wars. We can't carry out two distinct large scale missions at once there, but we can certainly briefly reorient ourselves to the defense against Iran.

(On a slight tangent, I don't know what the heck we're still doing in Korea- seems like if we're going to draw down from the readiness of the cold war, we can't keep guarding 1953's front-line.)

Thanks for the spirited discussion bro, no worries about ruffling my feathers. Looking forward to seeing what you think of my reply.

Peace (pardon my irony)



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
no that cant happen, they cant make nearly as much money off of peace as they do war over there. it would simply not make sense to the greedy rich leaders of this country to do so.


Although you are essentially right, this is a testament to the idiocy of those in power, not the virtues of war. Well managed peace can be extremely profitable on the whole. War by it's very nature allows one powerful entity to make incredible and often unfair gains, but it's zero-sum; it has to come from somewhere.

Only in peace can a high level of creation take place, not offset by destruction. A truely democratic world (or any strictly bilateral interaction of true democracies) would always choose peace, because the most overall is gained, only shared across a broader section of the population. So, in short, you're right, but I think we have to remember that you don't have to be right, if we can ever get a sufficient handle on our governments.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
really best case scenario would be an impeachment of the bush co. and putting in a more civilized group of american leaders. this simply isnt the way to solve the problems....but remember, they arent here to solve the middle eastern war problems they are here to solve their own, in their own interests
1. continue instability in the middle east to profit from weapon sales and other fear tactics
2. continue fear of middle east instability as cause of terror which they can control people with. if their is no instability and the middle east is relatively calm, this strikes a huge blow to terrorism from those areas (wont get rid of terrorism ever but if we approached it differently and stopped taking sides and were able to balance it out, there wouldnt be so much hate for us over there) this is not a money maker to say the least in the government powers interests.

its quite obvious the true motivation of our government. greed. untill we put all personal relations aside and make the best decision for EVERYONE the peace will never come. we must choose our leaders much more wisely from now one because it will decide the fate of our country and world.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Although you are essentially right, this is a testament to the idiocy of those in power, not the virtues of war. Well managed peace can be extremely profitable on the whole. War by it's very nature allows one powerful entity to make incredible and often unfair gains, but it's zero-sum; it has to come from somewhere.

Only in peace can a high level of creation take place, not offset by destruction. A truely democratic world (or any strictly bilateral interaction of true democracies) would always choose peace, because the most overall is gained, only shared across a broader section of the population. So, in short, you're right, but I think we have to remember that you don't have to be right, if we can ever get a sufficient handle on our governments.


you are correct, peace can be profitable. NOT NEARLY as profitable as war though. profits in medium amounts will not be enough for our greedy leaders. did you know that saudi arabia bought billions in weapons from america in JUST ONE YEAR. israel did the same. iran bought 13 billion in weapons during the time frame as well before the iraq-iran war. profits from this are astronomical compared to the fair profit we would make from peace. peace would benefit everyone...thats not our leaders goals though. its to benefit us, and more importantly them.

its not about peace, its about money. we said the governments the problem, so their solution was to give the power to the corporations....leading to more corruption as more personal benefits.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Oh thank goodness I'm reading some rationality now...

Earlier in this thread people were saying things like the Iranian people "Want Regeme Change" and "We should have attacked Iran first".

I was baffled by how much propeganda was being relayed throught the conversation.

I mean, these were the exact same things people were saying when the US attacked Afghanistan, and the exact same things people said before the US attacked Iraq.

No, I do not think Iran 'should' be attacked. Its both unjustified... and has anyone looked at Iran's military capabilities? Not to mention their support from neighboring countries? An attack on Iran would be a strategic mistake aswell.

If the US attacks Iran, it will only say to the remaining middle-eastern countries that the US intends to get to them eventually aswell.

I think the **** is about to hit the fan.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I just can't believe how many are ignoring the fact that Iran could easily make this all go away. Some seem to think that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and it's just propaganda. Fine. Then why doesn't Iran accept Russia's offer to enrich their uranium, and allow the IAEA full, unfettered access to all their nuclear facilities? The evil zionist/American forces wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and if they still attacked Iran it would be obvious to all, including my fellow Americans that they are just on a rampage fueled by one or all of the usual alterior motives that have been presented here. Wouldn't that be the best way for Iran to stick it to Bush and his minions? Instead Iran plays the standard shell games with inspectors, while their president makes apocalyptic threats. Iran sure is making it easy for the U.S. and Israel to push their propaganda.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
eventually bush co would have got there wish, they did with iraq, and then changed the reason after it was mid way through when they couldnt find the weapons they said he had.

iran is just pursuing them so when bush co did find a reason they would be prepared. unfortunately for them, nuclear weapons is on their reasons to invade list when it comes to iran.
(funny how little we bother israel, a pretty much know nuke holder)



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I just can't believe how many are ignoring the fact that Iran could easily make this all go away.


The point is, Iran will not bullied by the USA or anyone else. They are on the axis of evil list (mainly) because they refuse to go along with IMF control. They're a proud people who wish to control their own destiny. Or, their government of psycho mullahs is a proud group of so-called leaders who wish to control their own nation's destiny. To not acknowledge and (however grudgingly) respect that, is to be hypocritical. Since when has the USA ever allowed any nation or grouping of nations to tell us what to do? never...



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
screw the IMF and World bank. The two institutions which keep most of the World in poverty. Hate them. Good thing people in Latinamerica gave them the boot (finally someone stands up and shafts them instead of getting the shaft).

Edit: Censor circumvention. Desist please.

[edit on 7-1-2006 by intrepid]






top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join