Military force ruled out against Iran.

Originally posted by bih
attack against Iran would be an attack against all muslims

Acquiring a nuclear arsenal for the sole purpose of being used against non-muslim nations would be an attack against all non muslims. And, furthermore, all muslims do not reside in Iran. So, no, it would not be an attack on all muslims.

I doubt you will see all world powers just blatently say that any military options are just impossible at this time. Do you truly believe that any countries would over-extend themselves to the point there is no viable military plan for anything that may arise? Sounds like justification for firing someone if you ask me. I'm sure there are numerous battle plans that are both viable and possible.

So, if there is a quite adequate supply of US troops, why the hell then was the US so Ill prepared for Katrina?
Why send national guard troops to Iraq?

And the big thing, why the heck is the US picking on Iran about them acquiring nuclear power when Iran has not gone out and attacked anybody?
Question, what nation has the most nukes and actually used them on foreign soil?

A word comes to mind... 'hippocrate'

So then, who is to be most feared?

A whole hot steamin pile-o-propaganda, commin' right up!!!

Originally posted by Toadmund
And the big thing, why the heck is the US picking on Iran about them acquiring nuclear power when Iran has not gone out and attacked anybody?

Iran is banned from developing or aquiring nuclear weapons under international law. The US along with UK, France, Russia and China are not and are allowed to have them. Other nations such as Israel, India etc.. never signed the NPT and are thus not bound by its laws.

Iran also has a nice habit of calling for the utter destruction of other countries.

Originally posted by Toadmund
Question, what nation has the most nukes and actually used them on foreign soil?

Answer, Russia has the most nukes of any country not the US.



[edit on 5-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by zurvan

Originally posted by bih
attack against Iran would be an attack against all muslims

Hey there, care to elaborate on this comment?

Maybe I should ask my question differently: So was the War on Afganistan and Iraq and Palestine and what ever will happen next. So your point is?

Maybe the message you need to take is: What the .... is wrong with Islam to be
A) So much hated that is under attack?
B) So useless that can not defend itself?


out.

hmm lets see Iraq almost all muslims then Afghanistan muslims too,Iran muslims too,there you go.if Usa has the ballz they would have attacked north korea long time ago

[edit on 5-6-2006 by bih]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Darkmind
Neither the US nor the UK have the forces available to invade Iran. It's just not possible.

Why would the US or UK even have to invade? Iran's nuclear program could be crippled with air power alone. There wouldnt be a need to put a single boot on the ground to stop Irans nuclear program.

But if it really came down to it the US clearly has the forces to invade Iran its called a draft and some 300 million people to pick from. The US fought two much stronger powers at the same time during WW2 and could do so again.

fought what? first of all they didnt attack germany alone how you say,and second they had trouble fighting in vietnam thats why they used nuclear weaponsif they fought alone against germany back then the germans would crush them

fought what? first of all they didnt attack germany alone how you say,and second they had trouble fighting in vietnam thats why they used nuclear weaponsif they fought alone against germany back then the germans would crush them


I think you are getting your history all mix up there buddy... Did the US start WW2 ? Do you recall how they even enter the war in the first place? check back on history book... And I dont remember U.S ever using any kind of nuclear weapons during vietnam war, if you meant to say used nuclear weapon on Japan then yes, but Japan attack the American first on their soil, and in my opinion U.S just attack back 10x fold on their soil... not like i support it or anything innocent people died both side, Japan just had it worst... but it is "an eye for two eye not one eye"

[edit on 6-6-2006 by IspyU]

[edit on 6-6-2006 by IspyU]

[edit on 6-6-2006 by IspyU]

bih, Are you one of those" holocaust never happend " guys, because your not making a whole lotta sense right now, vietnam was not a nuclear theater, it was however a war of attrition that cost the US huge, anyway if we wanted to wage war on all muslims we would nuke mecca like nygdan suggested, that would pretty much set the world ablaze for WWIII

[edit on 6-6-2006 by the_sentinal]

Iran is banned from developing or aquiring nuclear weapons under international law. The US along with UK, France, Russia and China are not and are allowed to have them. Other nations such as Israel, India etc.. never signed the NPT and are thus not bound by its laws.

So if Iran withdraw from the NPT will you stop saying this? And then you'll have no more reasons to attack Iran.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So if Iran withdraw from the NPT will you stop saying this? And then you'll have no more reasons to attack Iran.

Thats well within Irans right to do as long as they give member nations 3 months notice and a explanation before they do, as any NPT nation can. Ofcourse their intentions would then be cyrstal clear to the world and they would likely be ostracized by the rest of the world on a whole new level.

Nuclear proliferation aint it a @#$!@

Originally posted by bih


fought what? first of all they didnt attack germany alone how you say,and second they had trouble fighting in vietnam thats why they used nuclear weapons

Where did I say they fought Germany alone? Could you show me where I said that? Oh wait you cant because I didnt say that Even the German Western front alone during WW2 was more of a threat then Iran is now, not even getting into Japan during WW2.

Originally posted by bih

if they fought alone against germany back then the germans would crush them
:

Really and how do you know this? Do you have some view into parallel dimensions were these events happened. Germany was having trouble attacking the UK across a puddle and had really no way too attack the US mainland.

Plus with the US getting the Atomic bomb first their "crushing" the US wasnt as certian as you make it seem. They may have gotten a Atomic bombs on Berlin along with Japan.

Originally posted by zurvan
And for your sake I hope we don't

Now the question is are you smart enough to understand what i mean?????

Im not sure what angle your coming from. There is more then one reason to oppose putting ground troops in the likes of Iran. However none of our opinions change the fact that the US and its allies are strategy isolated in Iran. Invading Iran instead of Iraq would have required more troops but would have made more sense in terms of fighting. Instead the US is fighting an insurgency in two countries surrounded by unfriendly neighbors.

Originally posted by bih
fought what? first of all they didnt attack germany alone how you say,and second they had trouble fighting in vietnam thats why they used nuclear weapons

if they fought alone against germany back then the germans would crush them

??? Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Nuclear weapons in 'Nam? Nope, they didn't. Pure conventional weapons. As for fighting alone against germany - again, what???

Far to many nations have far too much to loose by Iran gaining nuclear capability. And with thier openly radical and armaggedon ushering attitude, i highly doubt most nations would rule out all military options.

Iran's strategy was to drive up oil prices and to drum up domestic political support, and it's succeeded in both. Now that they've got what they wanted, suddenly they are "carefully studying" the latest proposal presented to them, and the launguage coming out of Tehran is a lot less inflammatory.

Im saying how many countries had to fight germany in order to win WW2? and hes saying US smashed germany back then

Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facili-tate, and have the right to participate in, the full-est possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the fur-ther development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Source

128 used centrifuges, IAEA finds high level residue (Less then weapons grade) on used equipment which traces back to china. So whats the problem? They are doing exactly as the treaty allows for. Sharing of equipment and technology by member countries as stated in the NPT.

Originally posted by bih
Im saying how many countries had to fight germany in order to win WW2? and hes saying US smashed germany back then

Well, good point. Without Britain and Russia there would have been no overall Allied victory against Germany. The Invasion of Normandy wouldn't have been possible without Britain and the Heer had its back broken by the Russians on the Eastern Front.

If China is ties up to North Korea, threatening the US with war if the US attack NK, why wouldn't China support Iran the same way? Iran is much more strategic and ressourcesfull as NK...