Bomb Iran, majority of Americans say, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 30-10-2007 @ 04:39 PM by Shar
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth



Well you haven't seen anything yet, till it's on our own land. IMO it will be. Just give it time.


reply posted on 30-10-2007 @ 04:50 PM by VveaponS2K
We will engange Iran with force to stop their "nuclear program", and in turn it will start WWIII. But has anyone noticed that many officials don't even blink to that WWIII? Sure they put on a front like it matters but...It makes me wonder, why are we not so visible scared of Russia and China, both ready to lunge forward with nuclear power? It is widely believed that with the start of WWIII, the end will come in just a few days, as enough nuclear weapons will be launched there will be nothing left. What have all these privately funded underground rogue agencies been developing over the years? Does the US have a secret weapon, or secret weapons that prove nuclear warheads insignificant? There are many documented CIA papers that show encounters of UFO's with military craft / nuclear bases, both of which claimed were able to disable multiple nuclear warheads, and upon giving chase to a UFO, the attack systems on an advanced military aircraft were disabled and shut down upon approach to this object. Have we collected and gathered this UFO technology from crashes and other incidences and put 60+ years of study into them? If so, imagine the possible advancement in this area. Have we a way to disable nuclear weapon systems in mid-flight? I once read that because based on extraterrestrial technology recovered, for every 1 year public technology advances, underground military technology advances a whopping 40 years. Not saying this is the case, but food for thought.


Just realized I got carried away and should have posted this on another thread. sorry!!

[edit on 30-10-2007 by VveaponS2K]



reply posted on 30-10-2007 @ 05:35 PM by Becker44
reply to post by Navieko



But this goes to my point Navieko. There was such a slant to your post that I wouldn't need to poll you to find out how you feel.

I think if you run in a certain circle, read predetermined news and websites, eventually you'll think everyone thinks like you and thus you become the majority.

I think the hard-core anti war crowd represents no more than 10% of the U.S. population. It seems many on here want polls conducted until one comes out that fits their agenda.

We have to be fair on both sides.

Becker


reply posted on 30-10-2007 @ 05:42 PM by Navieko
reply to post by Becker44



If you're willing to accept this poll as an accurate sampling, maybe you should see the many other polls that show that more than half the 'population' think the Iraq war was a mistake. I somehow find it hard to believe that these same people would want to go to war with Iran, when they believe the war with Iraq is unjustified -- and it's not as if the reasons for going to war are any different.


reply posted on 30-10-2007 @ 07:23 PM by pavil
reply to post by IAmTetsuo



I'm sure that is part of the equation, I don't think you will find many Americans alive in 1979 that don't expect some level of payback, revenge whatever you may call it, against Iran for the taking of our Embassy there. We haven't forgotten.

In fact you could very well contend that America's military focus on defending the Saudi oil fields was designed more against Iranian aggression than Iraqi. It just happened that the doctrine and strategy worked just as well for Iraq in Gulf War I. Iran has always been the major threat the US military has gameplaned against in the M.E. Iraq was a distant 2 till it invaded Kuwait.


reply posted on 30-10-2007 @ 07:33 PM by redled
Originally posted by pavil
reply to
post by IAmTetsuo



Iran has always been the major threat the US militry has gameplaned against in the M.E. Iraq was a distant 2 till it invaded Kuwait.


Funny, Iran is not a threat to Britain. Maybe because so many of them live here, and most now identify themselves as British. Honestly, leave them alone, if they get a nuke and get the bright idea of throwing it at someone? They'd get killed by their own. Let them do their own thing, do your own thing, and on diplomatic levels, they are extremely co-operative.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by redled]


reply posted on 30-10-2007 @ 09:15 PM by pavil
reply to post by redled



I agree they were so cooperative when they kidnapped those sailors. Darn nice of them to return them wasn't it? You make my points for me.


reply posted on 30-10-2007 @ 10:33 PM by redled
reply to post by pavil


Well, those sailors did not complain about their treatment. No complaints were upheld, anywhere. There is a difference between symbolic politics and actually trying to get things done. I go for the latter, and that does not imply appeasement.


reply posted on 31-10-2007 @ 11:58 AM by redled
reply to post by pavil



Admittedly not nice, but no guantanamo, which has to be the standard in all of this.



reply posted on 31-10-2007 @ 02:04 PM by pavil
reply to post by redled



Well if you believe your sailors, then getting blindfolded and lined up against a wall and made to believe you are about to be shot is fine to you.

These were Soldiers as defined in the Geneva convention. They were in uniform and Identified themselves as such. What exactly was correct about Iran seizing them in the first place even?


reply posted on 31-10-2007 @ 03:17 PM by redled
reply to post by pavil


From their point of view it is far less than Guantanamo. I was very much against the taking of British sailors, but noticed it was more a humiliation for our government.


reply posted on 1-11-2007 @ 12:07 AM by minitank
WOW . . . ok for one thing it would be very stupid for IRAN to use nuclear weapons on ISRAEL. People who did not skip geography should know that Iran is very close to Israel and israel is surrounded by MUSLIM NATIONS ! If Iran was to back the palestinian cause and "nuke" or my personal fav. "wipe israel of the map" then it would be killing many muslims in palestine, southern lebanon, and parts of syria. Depending on the magnitude of the attack it might even risk the lives of its own people.

plus who are we to trust BUSH with nuclear weapons and not Iran ? again i will remind people that the only nation to have used weapons of this power was the one and only US of A. WWII. Bush waged a war on "weapons of mass destructions" americans believed that, while watching CNN their favorite new network, and supported their president ! in the end. Iraqis are living worse off than before, they never know if they will make it through the day or if they will have food tomorrow. TALENTED AMERICAN MEN were lost for no reason what so ever ! they couldve been deployed in darfur or somewhere in africa to help stop genocides. but saddam's regime , yeah that's brutal ! Let's raise the national security color to red, i think it goes well with our flag.

I cannot wait till 08 elections when the idiot , the one and only behind "OPEC ( APEC)" and "Austrian troop ( Australian) " G W Bush.


another thought:

ok let's say the US attacks Iran, YAY ! but wait WITH WHAT FORCE/RESOURCES ? The war in Iraq/afghanistan is still going on. Reducing force there will cause great harm on the remaining troops. And all this "progress" thus far will be gone with the lives of US troops.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^