How you think we should attack IRAN? - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Wallaroo · #46 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

One might add to all this crap, that Iran is like five times larger than Iraq, and has almost three times the population. The U.S army is in no condition to invade Iran too....otherwise they would have.

Beer · #47 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007

I wish people would learn about Iran and its people before calling for bloodshed and war on them. Not all governments fully represent the ideals of its citizens. No clearer example than the US.
Iranians can (and have) openly protested against their government. They dont deserve to be killed by US aggressions.

clash · #48 (**permalink**) 07-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveox

Well Hitler Was a nut when he speaks and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a nut when he speaks.

Your not exactly sounding too sane when you speak either.

Quote:

Same shit differant times and the reason they should not have nukes is what he said about isreal. No one Belive Hitler would exterminate the Jews when he said he was gonna eliminate them.The Problem with Europe is they dont wanna fight and we americans have to bail them out.

............ Any chance you could go read a history book and come back ?

samian · #49 (**permalink**) 08-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by noahath

Why should Iran not have nuclear weapons? Look at a map of Iran and the Middle East. Bordering Iran on it's East cost is US-occupied (a nuclear nation) Afghanistan, and it's west cost, is also US-occupied Iraq. Bordering it on the South-east is Pakistan - a nuclear nation. Bordering Pakistan is India - a nuclear nation. To its North is Russia - a nuclear nation. Slightly further to its West is Israel - a nuclear nation. Slightly further to its east is China - a nuclear nation. Do you see what I'm getting at? Imagine for a moment a hypothetical situation whereby the USA had no nuclear weapons, yet Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Guatemala and Columbia all had nukes? Do you seriously suggest that the US wouldn't advocate its right to develop nukes because it was surrounded by nations that already had them, and therefore it felt threatened? Why aren't you advocating that the West take action against the confirmed nuclear nations in the Middle East? Iran is actually a democracy - Pakistan is not. Pakistan and India have been on the verge of war for many, many years now, and are more unstable than Iran. Do you advocate the bombing of Islamabad and New Delhi also? Israel blatantly overreacted recently towards Lebanon, so do you suggest that we take action against them also? Of course not. My point is I'm curious why you approve of all of these other equally aggressive nations having nukes, but not Iran?

I agree completely with the first part, Iran can claim right to defend itself on that argument, it is a fair argument, especially since the US' plans to inject $20bn of military aid to sunni arab states in the region. However the nuclear NPT forbids this, and they signed up to it. Plus, the idea of the nuclear bomb is not offensive but defensive. No stable nuclear state will use one against a non-nuclear state. The benefit of the bomb is not military aggression but military defence and poitical power.

Also I am not so sure of your assertion that "Iran is actually a democracy - Pakistan is not." I believe Pakistan has held diplomatic votes in the past and plans to again in the near future (claims of emergency law no longer nessecary). Iran on the other hand I believe I could find more than one source that shows political freedoms are very low. (have not because I accidentally deleted my internet history and would take ages, if you didn't need them)

samian · #50 (**permalink**) 08-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

its ok that you understand irans feel for a need for nukes, now why dont you look at all the far reaching terrorist groups iran supports. Hezbollah actually has a good deal of operatives in america, we just had a pretty big bust recently. Hezbollah has bombed us before, hezbollah is responsible for many american soldiers deaths in iraq. Add that to thier hitler-esque speaches, and you will understand why iran having nuke is a bad thing. I dont think we should attack iran either i am just saying.

I don't mean to cost you time as a result of my ignorance but I would be interested in some sources supporting the idea that Hezbollah is responsible for soldier deaths in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beer

Iran has an obligation to protect its people. Their neighbor was overzealously invaded over some ridiculous exaggeration.
The least Iran can do is nuclear deterrence.
I do support Iran's right to protect themselves against invasion.

I really agree with your post on page 4 but this one on page 3 is a bit troubling. They have an obligation to protect their people, but you can't use this to justify nuclear armament or you set an incredibly dangerous precedent. That is why we all support the non-proliferation treaty.

Coupled with the fact that Iran openly denies pursuit of nuclear ambitions for the military, I think it is fair to conclude that the debate is not so much on whether Iran deserves nuclear weapons, but on if it is concealing their production. This is the priority, I believe.

tamperpr00f · #51 (**permalink**) 08-13-2007

Israel launched a surprise airstrike on an Iraqi Nuclear facility back in the day. Makes me wonder if they are considering a strike on Iran. Most Iranians aren't big fans of their government. So I doubt any sort of strike would help the situation it would probably make matters worse. But if I was to attack it would be a multiple assassination of the "worst" leaders.

Jihad4Beer · #52 (**permalink**) 08-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveox

I think we should use all out airstrikes with Air Force and Navy. If IRAN strikes isreal Then we call the Nuclear Silo in Kansus to send missles to Tehran.

Well I say we first drop the gay bomb on them I-rainin's. Make em all queer so they fight like girls.

Then we hose them down with the napalm. Shoot the women and children from helicopters as they run screaming. All the while blasting "Ride of the Valkries" from side mounted loudspeakers. And then kick back to watching the guided missiles zero in on select targets in Tehran on our big screen TVs.

And finally the moment of triumph, George Walker Texas-Ranger Bush can fast rope down from a Blackhawk helicopter on top of the old US Embassy and reclaim our ancestral land from the thieving Persian occupiers.

Glory to America!!!!

AdrienXII · #53 (**permalink**) 09-09-2007

I think Bush should challenge Ahmadinejad to a bare-knuckle fight. Winner takes all.

AdrienXII · #54 (**permalink**) 09-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jihad4Beer

Well I say we first drop the gay bomb on them I-rainin's. Make em all queer so they fight like girls.

Then we hose them down with the napalm. Shoot the women and children from helicopters as they run screaming. All the while blasting "Ride of the Valkries" from side mounted loudspeakers. And then kick back to watching the guided missiles zero in on select targets in Tehran on our big screen TVs.

And finally the moment of triumph, George Walker Texas-Ranger Bush can fast rope down from a Blackhawk helicopter on top of the old US Embassy and reclaim our ancestral land from the thieving Persian occupiers.

Glory to America!!!!

Hand me the popcorn.

mawg · #55 (**permalink**) 11-01-2007

full on nuclear bombardment until the entire country is a slag heap
this would serve as a real warning

noahath · #56 (**permalink**) 11-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mawg

full on nuclear bombardment until the entire country is a slag heap
this would serve as a real warning

pramjockey · #57 (**permalink**) 11-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mawg

full on nuclear bombardment until the entire country is a slag heap
this would serve as a real warning

So pathetic on so many ways.

Tell us; do you consider yourself a religious person? Perhaps just a moral person?

Calling for the murder of millions of people makes you something else.

ThorHammer · #58 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007

Any attack on Iran would be waged in a matter where Iran wouldn't be able to hit back in any meaningful way. We can do this with little to no troops on the ground. Certainly no occupation will be required.

The first wave of the attack will undoubtedly target Iran's air defence forces and strategic rocket forces. This will simultaneously allow us to strike anywhere in Iran with impunity (as if we can't already), and take away Iran's only meaningful offensive capability. These strikes will be carried about by aircraft and cruise missiles.

The second wave will then shift focus to Iran's infrastructure. Strikes against bridges, tunnels, railroad networks, airfields, power networks, etc.... Again, aircraft and cruise missiles will be used to accomplish this.

Slartibartfas · #59 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveox

I think we should use all out airstrikes with Air Force and Navy. If IRAN strikes isreal Then we call the Nuclear Silo in Kansus to send missles to Tehran.

What means "if Iran strikes Israel"? Do you mean only convnetional or with nuclear missiles? The latter is nearly impossible. Why should they annihilate Israel at the cost of self annihilation. Russia did not attack the US either.

If you mean therefore that a conventional attack of Iran should be answered with a nuclear attack of the US, you would be the new Paria nation of the world. And by that I mean that the Bush Jr area was like in heaven regarding diplomatic relationships of the US to other countries.

The US would be nothing less than a mass murderous country that committed crimes against humanity. You yourself would have done something to someone else what you are so afraid someone may do eventually against yourself.

ThorHammer · #60 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Tell us; do you consider yourself a religious person? Perhaps just a moral person?

Calling for the murder of millions of people makes you something else.

Not everyone is as hung up on human life as others.

NOTE: I am not agreeing with mawg's suggestion, nor would I advocte those tactics ever be used against Iran.

View Poll Results: How you think we should attack IRAN?
Air Force air assult	4	13.33%
Air Force and Navy Missle Strikes	17	56.67%
Navy Missle Strikes	0	0%
All out war and hell with ground forces	9	30.00%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode