January 29, 200620 yr I'd support war with Iran in a heartbeat if they had nukes. Iran is the one country I'd support invading because of Nukes. Why you ask? Iran is more than willing to nuke Israel, our Americans in Iraq, Pakistan, Europe, the Kurds. Its either us or them, and damned if I'm politically incorrect but its going to be them before us.
January 29, 200620 yr If we were going to invade a middle eastern country in the name of terrorism and stifling it, Iran would have been teh best choice. But they didnt have a leader named Saddam Hussein who daddy failed to remove from power 10 years earlier.
January 29, 200620 yr airstrikes are possible without many casualties, perhaps some black ops... I dont see us in a full scale war with Iran in the near future ummm i do............theyve got oil and i sh*t load of it
January 29, 200620 yr airstrikes are possible without many casualties, perhaps some black ops... I dont see us in a full scale war with Iran in the near future ummm i do............theyve got oil and i sh*t load of it:lol :lol
January 29, 200620 yr invading iran would be a very very very bad idea.... with the amount of supporters they have in that part of the world you can very easily set the first step towards WWIII Iran would fight alone. All the Arab countries, Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan would all fight Iran over nukes. If we were going to invade a middle eastern country in the name of terrorism and stifling it, Iran would have been teh best choice. But they didnt have a leader named Saddam Hussein who daddy failed to remove from power 10 years earlier. To be fair, the U.S. could have easily captured Saddam in the first Persian Gulf War but insisted on bowing to international pressure and leaving Saddam's soveirgnty intact. You criticitize Bush Sr. for listening to the whims of the international community then you criticize Bush Jr. for trampling on that same opinion? Isn't that unfair?
January 29, 200620 yr invading iran would be a very very very bad idea.... with the amount of supporters they have in that part of the world you can very easily set the first step towards WWIII Iran would fight alone. All the Arab countries, Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan would all fight Iran over nukes. If we were going to invade a middle eastern country in the name of terrorism and stifling it, Iran would have been teh best choice. But they didnt have a leader named Saddam Hussein who daddy failed to remove from power 10 years earlier. To be fair, the U.S. could have easily captured Saddam in the first Persian Gulf War but insisted on bowing to international pressure and leaving Saddam's soveirgnty intact. You criticitize Bush Sr. for listening to the whims of the international community then you criticize Bush Jr. for trampling on that same opinion? Isn't that unfair? look it really doesnt matter if we eliminated Saddam under old Bush. We didnt for whatever reason. The main priority of this war was to finish the job now, terrorism was just a nice excuse for doing so. There were many more reasons for removing Saddam in the early 90s. They didnt exist this time around.
January 29, 200620 yr Anyone else find the irony in Pakistan attacking Iran over nukes? Anyway, I think an attack on Iran would stretch our military past the breaking point, if it's an invasion/occupation thing. We don't have those kinds of resources. I suppose that maybe if we get heavy international military support, then it won't be all that bad. But we couldn't be the majority force.
January 29, 200620 yr invading iran would be a very very very bad idea.... with the amount of supporters they have in that part of the world you can very easily set the first step towards WWIII Iran would fight alone. All the Arab countries, Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan would all fight Iran over nukes. If we were going to invade a middle eastern country in the name of terrorism and stifling it, Iran would have been teh best choice. But they didnt have a leader named Saddam Hussein who daddy failed to remove from power 10 years earlier. To be fair, the U.S. could have easily captured Saddam in the first Persian Gulf War but insisted on bowing to international pressure and leaving Saddam's soveirgnty intact. You criticitize Bush Sr. for listening to the whims of the international community then you criticize Bush Jr. for trampling on that same opinion? Isn't that unfair? look it really doesnt matter if we eliminated Saddam under old Bush. We didnt for whatever reason. The main priority of this war was to finish the job now, terrorism was just a nice excuse for doing so. There were many more reasons for removing Saddam in the early 90s. They didnt exist this time around. NO reasons existed? Are you f***ing kidding me?
January 29, 200620 yr invading iran would be a very very very bad idea.... with the amount of supporters they have in that part of the world you can very easily set the first step towards WWIII Iran would fight alone. All the Arab countries, Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan would all fight Iran over nukes. If we were going to invade a middle eastern country in the name of terrorism and stifling it, Iran would have been teh best choice. But they didnt have a leader named Saddam Hussein who daddy failed to remove from power 10 years earlier. To be fair, the U.S. could have easily captured Saddam in the first Persian Gulf War but insisted on bowing to international pressure and leaving Saddam's soveirgnty intact. You criticitize Bush Sr. for listening to the whims of the international community then you criticize Bush Jr. for trampling on that same opinion? Isn't that unfair? look it really doesnt matter if we eliminated Saddam under old Bush. We didnt for whatever reason. The main priority of this war was to finish the job now, terrorism was just a nice excuse for doing so. There were many more reasons for removing Saddam in the early 90s. They didnt exist this time around. NO reasons existed? Are you f***ing kidding me? i dont recall saying none existed. the many reasons in the early 90s though didnt exist this time around. and i find it laughable that we use the dictator excuse as the biggest reason when saddam isnt even close to the worst dictator in the world.
January 29, 200620 yr If we somehow isolated the middle east and western Asia from the rest of the world (like physically push them away near like Australia)...that would solve some problems.
January 29, 200620 yr invading iran would be a very very very bad idea.... with the amount of supporters they have in that part of the world you can very easily set the first step towards WWIII Iran would fight alone. All the Arab countries, Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan would all fight Iran over nukes. If we were going to invade a middle eastern country in the name of terrorism and stifling it, Iran would have been teh best choice. But they didnt have a leader named Saddam Hussein who daddy failed to remove from power 10 years earlier. To be fair, the U.S. could have easily captured Saddam in the first Persian Gulf War but insisted on bowing to international pressure and leaving Saddam's soveirgnty intact. You criticitize Bush Sr. for listening to the whims of the international community then you criticize Bush Jr. for trampling on that same opinion? Isn't that unfair? look it really doesnt matter if we eliminated Saddam under old Bush. We didnt for whatever reason. The main priority of this war was to finish the job now, terrorism was just a nice excuse for doing so. There were many more reasons for removing Saddam in the early 90s. They didnt exist this time around. NO reasons existed? Are you f***ing kidding me? i dont recall saying none existed. the many reasons in the early 90s though didnt exist this time around. and i find it laughable that we use the dictator excuse as the biggest reason when saddam isnt even close to the worst dictator in the world. OK, the many reasons in the early nineties - for example, the chemical bombings of Mesi and Halabja. You're saying that it's been long enough since then to make him a suitable man for the job, who should not have been put on trial and removed from power? What world are you living in, Das?
January 29, 200620 yr If we somehow isolated the middle east and western Asia from the rest of the world (like physically push them away near like Australia)...that would solve some problems. It's a shame all the oil in the world had to be shoved under the most insane people on Earth. If brown people didn't have oil, they would be ignored and left to live in poverty like Africans. Sorry if that seems racist, but its true. When the oil runs out, there won't be money for WMD's for these governments. In order to stop the Middle East from becoming like Africa in the future, they need to stop with their damn totalatarian theocracies! In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will prove beneficial for the region. In 50 years, the oil won't matter, water will more important. In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will benefit the region.
January 29, 200620 yr invading iran would be a very very very bad idea.... with the amount of supporters they have in that part of the world you can very easily set the first step towards WWIII Iran would fight alone. All the Arab countries, Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan would all fight Iran over nukes. If we were going to invade a middle eastern country in the name of terrorism and stifling it, Iran would have been teh best choice. But they didnt have a leader named Saddam Hussein who daddy failed to remove from power 10 years earlier. ya i'm trying to figure out just where the hell it became our job to be the world's liberating force? that and the main reason for the war in the early 90s was the invastion of Kuwait. I really dont know what nation Iraq was busy invading to cause us to bomb the living hell out of them. I mean hell if we are going to bomb the living hell out of a nation for not living up to what the UN stipulates then we need to start bombing the hell out of ourselves for the many UN accords and such that we have simply ignored, especially economic reasons. To be fair, the U.S. could have easily captured Saddam in the first Persian Gulf War but insisted on bowing to international pressure and leaving Saddam's soveirgnty intact. You criticitize Bush Sr. for listening to the whims of the international community then you criticize Bush Jr. for trampling on that same opinion? Isn't that unfair? look it really doesnt matter if we eliminated Saddam under old Bush. We didnt for whatever reason. The main priority of this war was to finish the job now, terrorism was just a nice excuse for doing so. There were many more reasons for removing Saddam in the early 90s. They didnt exist this time around. NO reasons existed? Are you f***ing kidding me? i dont recall saying none existed. the many reasons in the early 90s though didnt exist this time around. and i find it laughable that we use the dictator excuse as the biggest reason when saddam isnt even close to the worst dictator in the world. OK, the many reasons in the early nineties - for example, the chemical bombings of Mesi and Halabja. You're saying that it's been long enough since then to make him a suitable man for the job, who should not have been put on trial and removed from power? What world are you living in, Das? If we somehow isolated the middle east and western Asia from the rest of the world (like physically push them away near like Australia)...that would solve some problems. It's a shame all the oil in the world had to be shoved under the most insane people on Earth. If brown people didn't have oil, they would be ignored and left to live in poverty like Africans. Sorry if that seems racist, but its true. When the oil runs out, there won't be money for WMD's for these governments. In order to stop the Middle East from becoming like Africa in the future, they need to stop with their damn totalatarian theocracies! In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will prove beneficial for the region. In 50 years, the oil won't matter, water will more important. In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will benefit the region. why because we are bringing glorious democracy to the region?
January 30, 200620 yr If we somehow isolated the middle east and western Asia from the rest of the world (like physically push them away near like Australia)...that would solve some problems. It's a shame all the oil in the world had to be shoved under the most insane people on Earth. If brown people didn't have oil, they would be ignored and left to live in poverty like Africans. Sorry if that seems racist, but its true. When the oil runs out, there won't be money for WMD's for these governments. In order to stop the Middle East from becoming like Africa in the future, they need to stop with their damn totalatarian theocracies! In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will prove beneficial for the region. In 50 years, the oil won't matter, water will more important. In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will benefit the region. First, don't apologize for being an ignorant racist, noone wants to hear your apology and you don't mean it. There are major deposits of oil all over the world not just the Middle East, in fact the number 1 and 2 suppliers of oil to the U.S. is Canada and Mexico respectively (Saudi Arabia is number 3). "Brown" people are crazy? Slavery, imperialism, nuclear proliferation, international wars... last time I checked the U.S., Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia has lead the league in these categories not the Middle East. What countries in the Middle East are totalitarian theocracies? I see alot of right-wing authoritarian military dictators and Hashemite princes. Yeah alot of thier policies are based on sharia and fiqh jurisprudence but big f***ing deal, plenty of our laws are based off of Judeo-Christian ethics. Before Islam, Arabs were at the mercy of Byzantium and Persia desitined to obscurity, after being unified by Mohammed, Muslims became a world actor, so yeah they are gonna look at that say "That works. That made us great, that brought us out of pagan obscurity." To them Western democracy denotes extortion, imperialism, and a delution of thier values and culture.
January 30, 200620 yr Chewbacca isn't ignorant, he's exactly right. And Das, you haven't answered my post.
January 30, 200620 yr If we somehow isolated the middle east and western Asia from the rest of the world (like physically push them away near like Australia)...that would solve some problems. It's a shame all the oil in the world had to be shoved under the most insane people on Earth. If brown people didn't have oil, they would be ignored and left to live in poverty like Africans. Sorry if that seems racist, but its true. When the oil runs out, there won't be money for WMD's for these governments. In order to stop the Middle East from becoming like Africa in the future, they need to stop with their damn totalatarian theocracies! In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will prove beneficial for the region. In 50 years, the oil won't matter, water will more important. In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will benefit the region. First, don't apologize for being an ignorant racist, noone wants to hear your apology and you don't mean it. There are major deposits of oil all over the world not just the Middle East, in fact the number 1 and 2 suppliers of oil to the U.S. is Canada and Mexico respectively (Saudi Arabia is number 3). "Brown" people are crazy? Slavery, imperialism, nuclear proliferation, international wars... last time I checked the U.S., Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia has lead the league in these categories not the Middle East. What countries in the Middle East are totalitarian theocracies? I see alot of right-wing authoritarian military dictators and Hashemite princes. Yeah alot of thier policies are based on sharia and fiqh jurisprudence but big f***ing deal, plenty of our laws are based off of Judeo-Christian ethics. Before Islam, Arabs were at the mercy of Byzantium and Persia desitined to obscurity, after being unified by Mohammed, Muslims became a world actor, so yeah they are gonna look at that say "That works. That made us great, that brought us out of pagan obscurity." To them Western democracy denotes extortion, imperialism, and a delution of thier values and culture. Thank you for responding to an ignorant post with some solid intelligence.
January 30, 200620 yr Chewbacca isn't ignorant, he's exactly right. And Das, you haven't answered my post. what post? the one about what world I was living in? look there are many nations that are dicking over other nations and other groups of people in the world. why Iraq, if not for their storied history with our nation and us not getting the job done the first time, whatever the reasons were. I do happen to think the global community did screw up by not removing him from power back then. now the reasons for removing him from power were not as great as they were in the early 90s. is that what you were looking for? and it was answered to an extent in my last post. else i really dont know what you want.
January 30, 200620 yr Anyone else find the irony in Pakistan attacking Iran over nukes? Anyway, I think an attack on Iran would stretch our military past the breaking point, if it's an invasion/occupation thing. We don't have those kinds of resources. I suppose that maybe if we get heavy international military support, then it won't be all that bad. But we couldn't be the majority force. Kinda like the US attacking anybody over nukes? Also, I agree with Marlin Nation's response to Chewbacca's post, which I'm not sure he was serious about. I don't think anyone can say If brown people didn't have oil, they would be ignored and left to live in poverty like Africans. and truthfully mean it, unless they are real morons, which Chewbacca doesn't seem to be.
January 30, 200620 yr If we somehow isolated the middle east and western Asia from the rest of the world (like physically push them away near like Australia)...that would solve some problems. It's a shame all the oil in the world had to be shoved under the most insane people on Earth. If brown people didn't have oil, they would be ignored and left to live in poverty like Africans. Sorry if that seems racist, but its true. When the oil runs out, there won't be money for WMD's for these governments. In order to stop the Middle East from becoming like Africa in the future, they need to stop with their damn totalatarian theocracies! In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will prove beneficial for the region. In 50 years, the oil won't matter, water will more important. In the long run, our involvement in the Middle East will benefit the region. First, don't apologize for being an ignorant racist, noone wants to hear your apology and you don't mean it. There are major deposits of oil all over the world not just the Middle East, in fact the number 1 and 2 suppliers of oil to the U.S. is Canada and Mexico respectively (Saudi Arabia is number 3). "Brown" people are crazy? Slavery, imperialism, nuclear proliferation, international wars... last time I checked the U.S., Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia has lead the league in these categories not the Middle East. To them Western democracy denotes extortion, imperialism, and a delution of thier values and culture. First of all, Islamic fundamentalist who blow themselves up because they think they will be rewarded with 72 virgins are definatly quite insane. I wasn't referring to "brown people" in general. And it's a fact that most of the oil supply left on Earth is in the Middle East. Sure Canada is number 1, but at the Current rate, they'll be all out in 5 years. Now, do you really think having people live in a theocracy where a large portion of the population is oppressed while almost the entire population lives in poverty is okay because we don't want to tamper with "values". Religion and state working together in Europe worked just great, a whole lot of wars there. Meanwhile, a great of money coming into the economy of the region is kept by leaders to buy golden toilets and to fund more killing. Then 50 years later, the oil runs, and then the Middle East is out of money and no one is going to care. The only way to prevent the Middle East from turning into Africa is to bring the damn region into the 21st century.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.