It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:38 PM
reply to post by Krono

So as the title asks:

Would you back a military strike on Iran?


The best solution for the middle east is to make an international zone around the so-called Holy cities and to flood the area with blue helmets from the U.N. It is really the only way. We have to look at how cheaply this could be done. Going with the blue helmets will be much cheaper than bombing, rebuilding, developing scar tissue between nations is never pleasant.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by mayabong

precisely what i said in my post, i knew you were going to say that thank you by the way

watch towards the end at around 2:00

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by monfra

I always wondered why they didn't create Troy, Sumeria or Hittite land as they have the map too. Its just a land filled with desert sand with sand storms and whatnot. I bet they don't have truck stop diners like in the US serving nice grilled steaks. What is so nice about the Mideast. Why are there so many wars there since I care to remember.
They should have a yearly get together and have BBQ. Its just like living in a good neighbourhood. If you keep to yourself you'd look kinda weird and your neighbours will be suspicious that you may be a suicide bomber. That is how Israel view Iran their neighbour.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:56 AM
No I wouldn't back a strike against Iran.

#1- Iran is not a threat to the Continental United States
#2- Iran has not started a war in over 200 years
#3- Iran is a member of the NNPT
#4- It is NOT the United States responsibility to be the bodyguard of Israel

If Israel wants to strike Iran, be my guest. But keep us (USA) out of it. Fight your own fights. Just remember when Russia, China and Pakistan start bombing you to the stone age, don't come crying to us.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Krono
Would you trust this guy withs nukes?

Mod Edit: The Use Of All Caps - Please Read
edit on 4/3/2012 by kosmicjack because: removed all caps

i wouldnt trust anybody with nukes, definitely not the US

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:48 AM
Ya, I'm pretty ok with the whole middle east being wiped out. The world would run a lot smoother.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:33 AM
I do not condone the taking of any life, for any reason...

Even if I did, I would not agree that Iran meets the criteria set forth in the 'just war theory'....

Should I support such a thing, primarily based on what propaganda and Israel have to say?
If so, the majority of the world would be on fire.... oh wait, it's happening already.

Have fun killing those who you percieve as Evil, and find yourself sitting in the chair next to the devil.

edit on 5-3-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional statement

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:58 AM
I find myself perfectly okay with Iran's nuclear facilities undergoing a process of deconstruction.

The manner it happens in isn't particularly important. The timeline in which is happens is. Sooner than later.

The pro-Iran lobby and the pro-Sanctions groups are currently selling the idea that Ahmamadman's removal is a victory. So long as the Mullahocracy (or some variation of them) remains in charge, the problem remains the same.

Different clown make-up on the clowns in the Three Ring circus. Removing the president of Iran is not a victory of any sort.

Allowing Iran to continue on its current path is madness.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:53 AM
reply to post by Recollector

Great, then you should be one of the first shipped off to fight.

When did you enlist?

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:05 AM
I see now that most americans here missunderstood the question.The question was NOT about backing a UNITED STATES military strike.

I know that the only ones that will potentialy use a military strike against Iran are the USofA and Israel.
I also know that those who answered NO doesn't care who strike...BUT, i know that MANY of those who said No would like Israel and Iran to go at eachother, in the stupid hope that Israel will be defeated.

One missinformed or totally anti-Israel guy (i believe both) asumed that Israel and iran are BOTh theocracies.
Dude...get a grip on reality.

Netanyahu is NOT a RABBI.Kamanei (the SUPREME LEADER ) is an AYATOLLAH.Iran is an ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, while Israel is a democratic laic state.

We all know what religion did in the past (the crusades, the Inquisition) and what does in the present (religious civil war in Africa, deadly conflicts between muslims and christians, sunnis killing shias and the other way).

Would you like a future NUCLEAR WAR also started because of religion?
And yes, it will come from the MOST RELIGIOUS COUNTRY on this planet : the only KNOWN RELIGIOUS STATE : IRAN.

No, thanks.

This is another reason why i support a military strike against Iran, preferabily by Israel (that because i will really like to see the iranian apologists asking themselves : "Damn, Israel kicked some iranian butts...i thought Iran was a super-power, bla-bla, and would have easily defeated Israel.Gee, maybe next time i will use the internet for more research on this matter outside p0rn".

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:19 AM
reply to post by faryjay

My sentiments exactly, there are enough people out there that support anything they see on tv, dress them up give them a gun and drop them by parachute over the particular country where they want to kill innocent people and make sure they have enough toilet paper when they sh-t themselves that they don't give away their positions by smell. Iran has every reason to want nucular enegy and the right to it as any other country, and they are surrounded by aproximately 50 usa military bases, I dought if a nuke could make it more than 50 feet off the ground before it was lasered out of existance,

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:18 AM
No, I would not back a military strike against Iran based upon the available conflicting intelligence and information. A strike against Iran would be an act of aggression and would lead to further tension in the Middle East if not all out war with the other principle players.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:35 AM
Should we strike Iran? That depends. IF they strike us first, whether directly or through a terrorist group, then we should turn their country into a glass parking lot. IF they do not, then we should not. IF they attack Israel, we should allow Israel to turn Iran into a glass parking lot. I do not believe in starting wars, BUT if we are attacked we should utterly annihilate the attacker so that they do not try it again. This will also deter others from trying such a stupid thing.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:37 AM
My logic does not allow me to choose a side in this conflict simply because,

both sides are full of baggage. Iran supposedly supports terrorism and Israel..oh Israel..where to start. Invaded Palestine and is still killing Palestinians, built nuclear weapons illegally and only let US inspectors check there plants while prohibiting the inspectors to do a full check anyways..

This conflict has taught me that countries and life in general is sooo unfair. So it seems pointless to choose a side, i say let them fight and winner take all because, there is no "good guy" in the world. Every country including ours is just a bully.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:43 AM

Warmonger=Intellectual accessory to Genocide

So, are you warmonger?

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by DarthMuerte

Glass parking lot? You mean nuke them regardless of the million of innocent men, women, children, elderly, pets, etc. that would be vaporized? For a terrorist act that could be a false flag as well? What the HELL are you talking about?!

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
reply to post by DarthMuerte

Glass parking lot? You mean nuke them regardless of the million of innocent men, women, children, elderly, pets, etc. that would be vaporized? For a terrorist act that could be a false flag as well? What the HELL are you talking about?!
Adopting such a policy might convince the citizens of Iran to adopt a more reasonable government.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:10 AM
reply to post by DarthMuerte

thier present government like the previous one was installed by the west covertly
the previous one to that was elected by the people

edit to add
there are soooo many references

Which brings us to Iran. We all know our history: the CIA’s overthrow of Mossadeg in 1954, the “unexplainable” ineffectiveness of the Carter Administration to deal with the Iranian hostage crisis, the allegations of secret deals between the ayatollahs and the then Reagan presidential campaign, the seemingly magical sudden release of said hostages the day after Reagan took office, the allegations of secret trips to Paris of then Vice-President George H.W. Bush in an SR-71 Blackbird, Iran-Contra and alleged arms deals with Iran via Israel, and, more recently, the popular uprisings in Iran that – unlike Egypt or Libyra or Syria, called forth – ‘inexplicably” once again – no US support or response from the Obama administration, the silly allegations of a used car salesman in Texas plotting against the USA with the help of Iranian intelligence, the recent story of attempts on the Saudi ambassador to the USA… such a silly and transparent plot line – if it weren’t in the real world – would belong in a comic opera, or a Broadway musical

- Giza Death Star Community
edit on 5-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by DarthMuerte

If this was the policy of the world towards the US, you and your family plus all elementary schools in the nation would be part of a mega glass parking lot. Genocide as policy? You cannot be serious!

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by DarthMuerte

thier present government like the previous one was installed by the west covertly
the previous one to that was elected by the people
True on all counts. The previous worst president we ever had allowed Khomeini to come to power and replace the Shah. What a dumb mistake that was. However, even installing the Shah was wrong. We were wrong to have toppled that elected government. That was done to further the interests of big corporations showing that corporations are evil and governments are their tools. This does not mean that I would allow terrorists to attack my home or my people. I would respond with overwhelming power to completely annihilate my attacker. It isn't about winning one fight, it is about showing such a resolve to destroy enemies that no one is willing to risk being your enemy. Look at how much the world fears islam. People are to scared to draw cartoons or burn books and crap themselves when others do so. The muslim nations have no real military power. If we had adopted the policy of complete annihilation for any nation attacking us when Japan did Pearl Harbor and enforced it, no nation would have ever been willing to attack us again. Instead we adopted the policy of rebuilding our enemy's economy and infrastructure; making us appear weak appeasers. Thus we are here now. Laughing stock of the world. Allowing pirates to attack our shipping and thugs to assault and kidnap our people. Disgusting.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in