We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb

For the record...

The US of A will NOT use Nuclear weapons in the future. Not on Iran or anywhere else.

We don't need to. We have other weapons just slightly less powerful. We will never need to use nukes again.

It's just part of the Zio game plan. Iraq to Iran to Syria. PNAC spelled it all out years ago. What part of this is suprising?

whats one bomb compared to an arsenal? and as mentioned they lack a delivery system to hit the US.


but I suppose some people won't be happy unless we make the ME a large sheet of glass.


You know the majority of people do not want wars, then again forums make me think twice.

Google Video Link

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Lysergic]

Lysergic
Not that I disagree with wht that woman says but I wonder why MEMRI goes so hog wild over making sure they are watching what Arabs or Muslims think and Do, when they could also concentrate on what their own kind think and do as well, if they want to be fair and balanced in the Middle East. I wonder why MEMRI doesn't have videos of that settler woman harrassing Palestinians or Drunken Setller kids cursing and telling Peace activists about their superiority. I wonder how often you will get an Israeli Jew on TV blasting other jews that what they are doing to the Christians, Muslims and Druze of Palestine is wrong and calling them pigs cockaroaches and dogs is wrong. Im still waiting for MEMRI to show that one.

I just want to make 2 points:

Firstly, why should Iran be nuke bombed to destroy its nuclear program when ordinary missiles would do the trick?

2ndly: I remember the pervasive dread during the Cold War years that MAD would fail and there'd be WW3, nuclear winter etc etc. Then the superpowers agreed to dismantle their numbers of nuclear weapons and the world began to breathe a sigh of relief.

Now there are posters here that say any country is entitled to a nuke if other countries have it already. I would've thought that the fewer number of nuclear weapons in the world the better. The thought of rogue nations like Iran, North Korea being armed with nuclear weapons sends shivers down my spine.

I have pretty much given my opinion of this in another thread. Every person in the US should carefully think about this move. Remember it is very easy to over react when so much propaganda is being floated around the media. Please don't think of this issue as "us verses them". Please remember the humanitarian aspect of such a move. These are after all human beings. Just because they have a different religion and live in a different part of the world does not make them any less human. Surely there must be a better way. By the way don't whine on about sanctions and inspections as Iraq co-operated in all of these before they had the # bombed out of them and their leader unceremoniously beheaded on TV.

I must admit, some of the people that are posting in this thread have started to see that some of the points I am making cannot just be dismissed by saying "yeah yeah, the evil old US again, terrorist!" like I saw in a previous thread. I'm glad some people are really starting to think about this issue. Please don't follow the shephard into the slaughter house. We can all think for ourselves, the trick is to not let others force their fear and anger on to you. Think for and about yourselves. You are the only person that will. Being a US citizen is not a vacine against counter attack. Please, think about it from all points of view. (Proud Australian decended from English convicts.)

Incase you're reading other threads DuncanIdahoGholem is orthisguyrighthere. I use orthisguyrighthere because my work does not allow access to acounts already established. I had to create another acount while they were watching so they could review any posts I post during work hours. I try to keep work hours posts under orthisguy and after hours post's (where I could have been drinking etc) under duncan. Thanks. Mods, is that legal? Please tell me if it's not.

Ah, crispy, do you remember asking me if I had preferred a dresdan style bombing over a nuke blast? A bunkerbuster or shock and awe attack is not delivered through the crack under your door. Seems you would prefer conventional missiles now, eh? . I thank you for your input. I hope we can discuss this together more without any insults or antagonism (not saying I got any from you!) This is indeed a huge issue, not just for the US but all the world. You guys need to understand if things are crap over there our leader (John Howard) will simply keep walking into the crap untill it covers his eyes. Therefore it is becomming a bigger issue, DAILY.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]

Duncan or whoever you post under - the context of nukes versus conventional - well that was the point you tried to make in claiming the US had no moral high ground having used atom bombs in WW2. My argument was only to point out that by using atom bombs the duration of WW2 was shortened, saving considerable numbers of lives. This was a fact that you have yet to acknowledge as true, although undeniably it is true.

You cannot then say I am claiming one form of weapon over the other. I am only explaining the use of it in WW2 was justifiable, although it was still horrible to have used them.

I am not one of those people who make angry heat of the moment statements like "the middle east should be nuked into one big parking lot". To me it makes sense to take out the nuclear facilities with conventional weapons. they are much more accurate than anything from WW2 days. In that context a pre-emptive strike is preferable to a nuclear stand-off.

Crispy, I highly respect your opinion. I'm not trying to sound anti US as I am not. I'm just hoping people sit down and really think if its the right thing to do and question the intelligence a bit more than Iraq and wait to see if the 4 years of lost emails thing is suss. Badddd feeling about current events.

I like a debate, not a non resolvable fight, and you provide a debate. Thanks.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]

Also 1 nuke is enough. The second was a test. Just ask any skinless japanese people you see. "Oh, the humanity"

[edit on 18-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]

Originally posted by Crispy_Chicken
Duncan or whoever you post under - the context of nukes versus conventional - well that was the point you tried to make in claiming the US had no moral high ground having used atom bombs in WW2. My argument was only to point out that by using atom bombs the duration of WW2 was shortened, saving considerable numbers of lives. This was a fact that you have yet to acknowledge as true, although undeniably it is true.

However it may be argued that the only rason that the war was ended so suddenly and lives were saved was because no-one else actually had a weapon that could deliver an equal counter strike. This is not the case today.

OOPS!! Double post - sorry

[edit on 18-5-2007 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by Crispy_Chicken
Duncan or whoever you post under - the context of nukes versus conventional - well that was the point you tried to make in claiming the US had no moral high ground having used atom bombs in WW2. My argument was only to point out that by using atom bombs the duration of WW2 was shortened, saving considerable numbers of lives. This was a fact that you have yet to acknowledge as true, although undeniably it is true.

However it may be argued that the only rason that the war was ended so suddenly and lives were saved was because no-one else actually had a weapon that could deliver an equal counter strike. This is not the case today.

Very true also during WW2 saturation bombing death figures of Germany and Japan exceeded the death figures from the atomic bombs.

It was the simple fact that The A-Bomb was a new weapon that aesthetically created more damage and the Japanese had very little knowledge of it's capabilities except the two craters and mess created where Nagasaki and Hiroshima town's used to be located also let's not forget the fact 'IF' any country had a weapon like the A-bomb dropped on it and suffered the same number of death for innocent citizens i'm pretty sure it would of relented as well people conviently forget that the USA bar Pearl Harbour never suffered civilian death due to major bombing raids on it's homeland.

Yet as pointed out today is a whole different ball games many many many more countries have the capability of striking back.