US will invade Iran in '06

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Its interesting to note: those countries we (USA) have the biggest problems with, refuse to go along with IMF/WBank diktats and schemes. Its more than a little curious.

Right now, thats why Hugo Chavez from Venezuela is such a big thorn in BushCo's side. He just won't play along.




posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
We need protectionism. The IMF is only interested in creating huge free trade blocs where multinationals can export labour to, lower wages as much as possible, then jump to new victims. If America and the EU suddenly decided to institute a Tobin tax or some other protectionist measure, I am 100% secure there would be no outsourcing, wages would go up all over the world, unions would gain more power, and currencies would be more stable.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
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...


I guess this is just where we're gonna have to disagree. I could give three craps about the IMF, Bush, or Iran's sense of pride. My problem is with further nuclear proliferation of earth. Period. So do you believe every proud nation on earth should have nuclear weapons? If my son and I lived on a different planet, I'd say fine and watch the fireworks from far away, but I don't. Too bad none of our opinions mean squat, but for the sake of discussion I ask you if every nation on earth is entitled to nuclear weapons, and if you honestly believe if every nation has them that they won't be used.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Its interesting to note: those countries we (USA) have the biggest problems with, refuse to go along with IMF/WBank diktats and schemes. Its more than a little curious.

Right now, thats why Hugo Chavez from Venezuela is such a big thorn in BushCo's side. He just won't play along.


For the record I have no problem with Hugo Chavez, I appreciate that he cares, or at least pretends to care about broke Americans like myself. I appreciate his offer to sell us cheap gas for heating, and I'd probably appreciate it even more if I didn't live in Phoenix, lol. I don't care if he goes along with the IMF or not, but I don't think he should pursue nuclear weapons. I don't think anybody else should, and those of us who have them should do away with them. That's just where I stand.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
27jd you worry is nuclear proliferation which is a problem caused by none other then our own government partly. we threw the middle east way off balance with israel and nukes. you cant deny this at all, its made the middle east go into nuclear arms race because of the new nuclear threat they have by israel. this is our fault. we did nothing about it. in fact we helped them.

now we get all angry because we created a problem over there and we dont want to admit it. weve been selling them all sorts of weapons, acting like that could go on forever. eventually something was going to break, our government doesnt seem to ever think far ahead (social security).

further more instead of acting like a true super power nation, which should be acting like a civilized nation, we come in guns smoking and causing all hell. we rushed in with little attempts for reasoning, no matter what way you put it. i guess i never personally saw iraq coming. once they named out afganastan as where the terrorists came from or w/e i thought we'd roll in there guns blazing and take over...and that would be it. unfortunately for us that isnt the case.

our lack of efforts in israel, our lack of reasoning with other nations in the middle east as far as a compromise between them is just so short of necessary im not surprised any of this is happening. you want nuclear proliferation to stop? then your government should have treated each nation equally the entire time and not chosen sides and screw with the balance that was existing. instead of helping that balance we screwed it over by supplying large amount of weapons to everyone over there, and even technology for nukes to israel. its pretty simple why instability has risen in the middle east.

*edit* also there concern to disarm is weak, everything in this effort has been weak and disgusting. we say "o no you cant have nuclear weapons, its too dangerous for the world" what about getting rid of ours? why not be a role model and get out nuke count way down....not gone, but way down. we simply havent done nearly enough about this problem to start pushing other countries around about it. if its truely as much of a concern as they make it out to be, treat it equally with every country.

it really isnt about the nukes...its about another country that isnt on our side that we wont be able to boss around anymore...and we want to boss them around. the threat isnt the nuclear weapons, its the fact they are losing bully power in the middle east when stuff like this happens.

[edit on 7-1-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
For me, and my opinion, it is all about the nukes, and nothing else. Obviously you haven't been reading my posts in their entirety, or else you'd clearly see that my position is that nobody should have nukes. The thing is, to put out a fire, you have to fight it from the outside and move in. You have to stop it from spreading, or while your fighting it in the middle it gets larger and larger. Same goes with nuclear proliferation. The ones that exist, exist, we have to stop more from being made, then work on the ones that exist. Why can't anybody see that I'm not being one sided?



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Can't remember Chavez ever saying he wanted nukes, that's probably disinfo, but even if he did he has the full right to it (the CIA tried to kill him and install a puppet, some sort of drawback to sleazy action in Venezuela need's to be drawn up).



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Can't remember Chavez ever saying he wanted nukes, that's probably disinfo, but even if he did he has the full right to it (the CIA tried to kill him and install a puppet, some sort of drawback to sleazy action in Venezuela need's to be drawn up).


That was never said, I was just making a point that my reasoning isn't that those who don't agree with the U.S. shouldn't have nukes, it's that nobody should. And I was saying that even though I don't have a problem with Chavez, I still wouldn't support him pursuing nukes, which to my knowledge he is not. There are checks to the nuclear powers that exist, and instead of opening the flood gates of nuclear weapons we as a planet, not individual nations or cultures, should focus on stopping more nuclear weapons from being created, then ridding our planet of them completely.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
27jd i understand your point but see what your government is doing is the exact opposite! they arent preventing this, they are encouraging it. they give israel technology for nukes, help them along, dont bother to attack them on it, create further instability in the middle east...then we get mad when iran goes for them?

i understand your point...but obviously your government doesnt agree in the slightest. im not arguing with you, i dont think anyone should have nukes...that includes us. thats not the situation though, the situation is us allowing friendly nations to create nukes, and attack non puppet nations when they try to. im saying i cant blame them for wanting nukes, especially when they are letting your enemy have them.

it is our fault partly for creating further instability from the moves we made with israel, now we cant fix it like we would wish to. iran just wants to make it in the clear. as you put "the ones that exist, exist" they feel if they can make it in that clear then what are you gunna do? israel made it to the clear and they have nuclear weapons and they arent being bothered much, so iran feels they should be able to do that same.

you cant say one country did something illegal and one was ok when they did the exact same thing. if you wanna bring NPT into this then let me say this.
israel hasnt signed it, iran has. so technically iran is breaking the law. this to me is beyond sickening. reason being some one that hasnt even signed it can have nuclear weapons LEGALLY while iran cant because they signed the NPT. its not worth much to me unless every nation with these weapons signs it.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I personally don't care for the idea of Iran going nuclear; however, the behavior of our government (USA) and its western allies has been beligerent towards the middle east, Iraq & Iran, especially. Why in the world, after having seen us roll over Afghanistan and iraq would Iran not want to weapon up? Look at the oil they're sitting on! They have good reason to want to protect themselves.

Maybe if BushCo. & allies weren't so hot to overthrow regimes they don't like, things wouldn't be so tense. These turkeys don't even try diplomacy. They're total neandrathals.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
The major problem here is you keep bringing up the past. Israel has had nukes for a long time. If we were debating that back when it occured, I would have the exact same position regarding Israel. NO MORE NUKES starting now, we can't go back in time. Your logic seems to be, that because of something that happened in the past, we should just roll over and let everybody have nukes. We can't go back in time and stop Israel, it's impossible. We can stop Iran from developing them, then pressure Israel to give up theirs. That's what I'd do if I were in charge, but I'm not. That's just what I want to see happen. You seem to want to see Iran get nuclear weapons to point at you, just because you don't like Israel or the policy of your government. Dude?! You live here, in the bully country that you want so badly to get knocked down. Don't you have a family that you care about? Your willing to give your enemy a knife, so they have a better chance to kill you, instead of making sure they don't get a knife first, then throwing yours down and fighting with fists?



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Maybe if BushCo. & allies weren't so hot to overthrow regimes they don't like, things wouldn't be so tense. These turkeys don't even try diplomacy. They're total neandrathals.


I totally agree. I would love to see Iran give up nukes without any conflict whatsoever. I wish we had a competent government in these times, we're definitely between a rock and a hard place.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I'd like to see our government get back to sanity in foreign policy. It's been a disaster for the past five years.

I'm not afraid of Iran with or without nukes. They may sound crazy, but they are not stupid. They're just being as bellicose as BushCo. is b/c the message they want to send out is don't push us around. We should be trying to negotiate, based on a balanced approach to the region - including the other superpowers.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I'm not afraid of Iran with or without nukes. They may sound crazy, but they are not stupid.


Please don't take this as trying to be offensive, but I just wonder how you can be so sure they're not stupid, or at least won't be at some point in the future? It's not just America I'm worried about, I don't want to see nuclear conflict anywhere, for the sake of the millions of innocent Iranians and Israelis that will die. Iran's president has said he wants to wipe Israel out, of course it's only been words so far, but they've never had nukes either. If some nut was always saying he was gonna kill you, and you found out he was buying a gun, would you just blow it off and say he's never acted on his words so you're not worried about it?



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
If we tried to actually use diplomacy, Iran probably wouldn't be sounding so insane. They're probably terrified BushCo.'s gonna Saddam their you know what.

Both BushCo. and Iran are being unecessarily idiotic, here. If Iran did acquire nuclear capabilities, I don't think they would ever use the first-strike option. I think they want nukes to counter a threat from Israel.

Even having nukes, Israel sees them as a threat and Iran sees Israel as a definite threat. It might help if they were better able to keep their hatreds in check, wouldn't you agree? Thinking becomes much more clear minus the biases.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Even having nukes, Israel sees them as a threat and Iran sees Israel as a definite threat. It might help if they were better able to keep their hatreds in check, wouldn't you agree? Thinking becomes much more clear minus the biases.


I agree, but we can't just hope their hatred will subside once Iran has nukes. I don't have a bias, Israel should not have nukes either. Also, once Iran has nukes, why shouldn't many other nations who are even more unstable? You can't just say Iran is the last one, where do we draw the line? Again I ask you, do you think every country has a right to nuclear weapons?



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
we have had plenty of time with israel if they have had nukes for as long as you say. they didnt sign the NPT so in my view they are breaking the law just as much as iran. in 89 israel bombed an iranian reactor that was being made...15 years later they still had the nukes, and still have not signed the NPT.

we should be more worried about those who ALREADY HAVE such weapons, instead of fear of some one making them, i think that would be number 1 concern.

i dont necessarily want iran with nukes, but if we are going to let israel have them, i simply cant say no. im no hypocrite and i wont act like one. we should be working with both of them for an immediate and long term answer/goal. instead we are planning attacks, while still having no indication of israel. it would be nice to see iran have no nukes then we would have israel disarm all nuclear weapons and have them known to not have nukes anymore, but that isnt going to happen. we will in fact make sure iran doesnt have any, but israel will be left alone but again, just like in 89'.

id be very happy if we were going to disarm and have all the other countries do that same thing, but that will not happen. we will disarm those other non bullies, but after that its nothing more then a dream we tell the public to keep them from getting fed up with the government.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
we have had plenty of time with israel if they have had nukes for as long as you say. they didnt sign the NPT so in my view they are breaking the law just as much as iran. in 89 israel bombed an iranian reactor that was being made...15 years later they still had the nukes, and still have not signed the NPT.

Israel has never openly disclosed that they have nukes, you are aware of this, correct?




we should be more worried about those who ALREADY HAVE such weapons, instead of fear of some one making them, i think that would be number 1 concern.

No, I disagree and have long disagreed with this line of reasoning. The concern, as has been from the invention and implementation of nukes, is continued nuclear proliferation--the spread of nuclear weapons technology to those who do NOT have it already, and that has always been the number 1 concern. Now you have a very radical Islamic government getting set to acquire nuclear weapons. How fortunate for those who pander the anti-war mantra while also pandering that every nation has the right to acquire nukes, eh?




i dont necessarily want iran with nukes, but if we are going to let israel have them, i simply cant say no. im no hypocrite and i wont act like one.

If the unconfirmed data and reports indicate what is probable about Israel's nuclear weapons, then Israel has been thru war after war and has not openly threatened anyone with such nuclear retaliations. It is simply called being nuclear responsible and constrained. There is no hypocrisy here other than some seeming to think and play the card that there is.





seekerof

[edit on 7-1-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
then why wont israel just prove it, have inspectors go in as vigor as those that did in iraq, look under every stone. have inspectors from iran which the iran leader trusts and have them look, also have other inspectors with them to confirm it. if they have them then they should have to get rid of them. nuclear threat is the main issue, not proliferation. proliferation is an issue but an issue that cannot be solved till we start dealing with riding the nuclear weapons already here.

there is no reason israel should have nukes, we should be on them the same way we are on iran. theres no if ands or buts about it, iran wont need nukes if israel is shown to not have any either. a way to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons is to show the threat of people using them is going down. if israel proved they had no nuclear weapons, iran doesnt have any reason either, so if either had them, we'd bomb them if they didnt disarm. its as simple as that. you cant stop nuclear proliferation till you can show the threat of other countries nuclear powers are going to be destroyed.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Um .... please dont try and make it look like im calling for War with Iran because there youth dont like there goverment, i pointed that out as a side benefit.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join