It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would You Back A Military Strike On Iran?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
No, absolutely not. As is, hell to the no.

Our history of striking countries based on faulty intel about them having WMDs should tell us everything we need to know about how this will go. We go in, destroy a country, kill a bunch of people, and then have the hypocritical nerve to say that they wanted us there, and we are helping them to have freedom and democracy. This particular time around it will end up involving the whole world. AND FOR WHAT??

This is Israel's problem, let them deal with is, and get AIPAC out of our halls of government.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stewiegriffin
 


Add more debt to the pile. Can the US even afford another war!?



Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050.


Afghanistan is running around $500 Billion, not including interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
No, absolutely not, never.

To strike a country because of the idiocy of their leaders is barbaric.

We would all be dead right now if having weapons to defend your people was cause for attack.

As said above, I too am so terribly sick of the warmongering and violence surrounding the good people of Earth.

I do not believe in avoiding conflict, I get right in there and resolve it by seeing all sides and encouraging others to do likewise. We all want the same things really. Only fools think that violence will solve anything.

Namaste



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Threegirls
 


Democracy eh?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Absolutely not!

So, what happens after more death and destruction? What happens when all the supposed bogeyman states have been bombed into submission? See, they'll just create more enemies, which they are already doing by installing hardline regimes in place of the ones we are supposedly deposing. It's a never ending cycle.

The industrial military machine is a beast that must be fed, as there is just too much profit at stake to let peace reign. If they can't find an enemy abroad, then they'll criminalise those at home and wage war on anyone who steps out of line, while telling us all it's to keep us all safe. It goes beyong paranoia, which it seems is a lame excuse, and is just an excuse to maintain the killing for profit.

In Israels case, they are state created through terrorism, who have expansionist policies and have enough clout through global banking and bought, bribed and quite possibly blackmailed politicians elsewhere to support them, no matter the cost in human life and destruction of the environment.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Absolutely not!

So, what happens after more death and destruction? What happens when all the supposed bogeyman states have been bombed into submission? See, they'll just create more enemies, which they are already doing by installing hardline regimes in place of the ones we are supposedly deposing. It's a never ending cycle.

The industrial military machine is a beast that must be fed, as there is just too much profit at stake to let peace reign. If they can't find an enemy abroad, then they'll criminalise those at home and wage war on anyone who steps out of line, while telling us all it's to keep us all safe. It goes beyong paranoia, which it seems is a lame excuse, and is just an excuse to maintain the killing for profit.

In Israels case, they are state created through terrorism, who have expansionist policies and have enough clout through global banking and bought, bribed and quite possibly blackmailed politicians elsewhere to support them, no matter the cost in human life and destruction of the environment.



Star for that.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Krono
 




Didn't he say that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth?


No he didn't, can you show me some proof?



He actually said that the Israeli regime should be wiped off the face of the earth. Somewhat different, though still very aggressive. The difference though, is that is not a genocidal statement. The media twisted the translation, with intent it would seem.

No, of course I don't support another war to benefit the ultra wealthy.
edit on 4-3-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Absolutely not,
Look at history,arguably these kind of wars rarely if ever have a successful outcome. The US and the world will be all the worse for it. These outcomes below are almost certain to happen.

1. Oil supply disruption and rising costs will effect the US economy ,and the fed will print more money which will devalue the dollar further. = massive fuel price hikes and import costs and even more stress for the US people..
2. This will be no "walk in the park" aka Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. Conflict will be extended. Massive loss of life. Draft will possibly be activated. (will the US/World populaces tolerate this)?
3. Conflict costs will be huge compared to others (can the US/World economy/populace sustain/tolerate this)?
4. All this could bankrupt the US and other allied countries, as I cannot see them winning this conflict. It will just suck the world economy dry at the worst possible time.
5. Domestic liberty issues will be swept under the rug completely if a state of war is put in place. If you think you are losing freedoms and suchlike now, just wait until this starts up.
6. The war could reach international shores in the guise of terrorism and suchlike.
7. This potential conflict is almost certain to draw in other ME nations.Oil, you wont be able to get near it let alone buy it.

There are many other unforeseen issues that I cannot think of at the mo. that can happen.

It will just be another Veitnam. If Iraq took 10yrs this could last 20yrs +. Anti Western sentiment will be forever ingrained. Hate for westerners will be forever the norm and will never be appeased.Ever.

The world will be a darker place for it. Even darker than it is now.

Dialogue and more dialogue, even if it takes forever is a far better outcome than any war.
Get the worlds best and brightest diplomats/negotiators on the job. Hell I reckon I could do a better job than the ones in place at the mo. Totally inept.

IMO war in this day and age is a simple cop out for weak minded bullies on all sides that dont know how to talk to each other. Pathetic for a presumably enlightened species.

Peace



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Krono
 




Didn't he say that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth?


No he didn't, can you show me some proof?



He actually said that the Israeli regime should be wiped off the face of the earth. Somewhat different, though still very aggressive. The difference though, is that is not a genocidal statement. The media twisted the translation, with intent it would seem.

No, of course I don't support another war to benefit the ultra wealthy.
edit on 4-3-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)


Your translation is still wrong. Israel, nor wiped, nor face, nor earth was even said. lol



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Would You Back A Military Strike On Iran?


At this time .. and in this situation ... NO.
In the future ... if the situation drastically changes .... maybe.
It all depends on what is happening then.
But for the present time ... NO.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
An Israeli attack would be bad enough.But what if they strike these nuke sites and radiation is released upon the public?What a mess.Simply the Iranians want to change the balance of power in the region.I myself fear a nuclear armed Iran and their intentions but worry what an attack could lead to.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stewiegriffin
reply to post by Krono
 


YES!!!

Hey Ahmadinejad.
We're coming to get you man!

See what we did to your buddies Gaddafi and Hussein? Your next man!


Thanks for sharing your ignorance. That's how tptb goad us into war.

Hussein was the #1 enemy of Iran.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Have world leaders engage in virtual multiplayer genocide [Call of Duty or Battlefield, who cares] and who scores the hightest points is the winner. Problem solved.
No aimbots or wallhacks.
Wait! Better yet!
You can't go wrong with Generals!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Yeah I know I thought of that after I made the post.
I was going to edit it but it was meant as a joke. Lighten up a little.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I'll take a slightly different tack than my previous posts here by how direct the Headline/OP question is.

Yes. I would support a military strike on Iran. Under two conditions I doubt we ever see happen.

1). Provocation must exist and must be so clear and so blatant that the average American citizen can view the evidence and agree without having it explained. It it needs to be explained, even by some simple power point, then war is by no means justified. Not even a limited raid.

2.) IF or when #1 is 100% satisfied, then the strike must be with such force and total overkill in commitment, that the outcome is of absolutely no question before ever starting. We have the weapons...we have the power. This isn't a question of ability but political will.

Short of *BOTH* of those conditions being met and met fully, I think the leader who initiates an attack on Iran needs to be arrested and tried in the Hague for War Crimes, just as we've done to a couple others in recent years. I don't care if it's Netanyahu, Putin or Obama. Cuffs and a Cell. Nothing more. Bye Bye, The End.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Yes !
I Would Back A Military Strike On Iran !
Where do I tribute ?


edit on 4-3-2012 by Skizoid because: Video problems....www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
No he didn't, can you show me some proof?

Your translation is still wrong. Israel, nor wiped, nor face, nor earth was even said. lol


Make sure to read ALL of it...

I will highlight some


On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), filed a story on Ahmadinejad's speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia, entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map.[1] The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying:

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[2]



Then...



Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]

Ahmadinejad's phrase was "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود" according to the text published on the President's Office's website.

The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."

Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation
Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – "wipe Israel off the map" – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous


and...



In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:

[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.


He also said these things too.. But as you can see, he never stood by his words. His actions have shown otherwise.

"At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[25] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, he denied that his country would ever instigate military action."

Syria ring a bell?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
The following is something I posted under a similar topic earlier today, but I feel it applies to this one even better:

The situation in the Middle East is akin to being a boil on the ass of the World. Antibiotics haven't worked, and scratching that festering wound has only made it worse. It's time to let it run it's own course, and deal with the scar later.


In other words: Let the natives deal with their own problems.

See ya,
Milt
edit on 4-3-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


Here is what he said:

Our dear Imam [Khomeini]
ordered that this Jerusalem occupying
regime [Israel]
must be erased from the
page of time. This was a very
wise statement.

October 26, 2005, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

So its a matter of Semantics i guess.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Of course Iran wants to defend itself, its weapons are defensive.

If that's true, the same can be said for Israeli weapons. I reckon it will be a defensive war, so that makes it much better.

See ya,
Milt




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join