U.S. warns Iran to back down

mammasan
mammasan Posts: 5,656
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us


Who else think we will be seeing some air strike on Iran within the next few weeks.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    I don't. I'm not an internation conflict expert but attacking Iran is not the greatest idea in the world (as well as for the us military as for the stability in the region) and any government should guess that. I think the US is trying to impress Iran to get it to calm down on its various actions.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Kann wrote:
    I don't. I'm not an internation conflict expert but attacking Iran is not the greatest idea in the world (as well as for the us military as for the stability in the region) and any government should guess that. I think the US is trying to impress Iran to get it to calm down on its various actions.

    I agree that it's not the best idea in the world, but the US government hasn't exactly wowed the world with it's intellect lately, ie. Iraq.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    dropping bombs on some nuke sites is alot different then a full out invasion.
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    jlew24asu wrote:
    dropping bombs on some nuke sites is alot different then a full out invasion.

    Yeah, because us "dropping some bombs on some nuke sites" won't make Iran go after Israel, which then we will step in again and it will then become a full out war.

    I don't think this will happen in the coming weeks. Within a year? Possibly. Before Bush gets out in less than 2 years? Almost certain.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    dropping bombs on some nuke sites is alot different then a full out invasion.


    No it's not the same, but the results could be just as bad.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Yeah, because us "dropping some bombs on some nuke sites" won't make Iran go after Israel, which then we will step in again and it will then become a full out war.

    I don't think this will happen in the coming weeks. Within a year? Possibly. Before Bush gets out in less than 2 years? Almost certain.
    would you rather Iran have nukes?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mammasan wrote:
    No it's not the same, but the results could be just as bad.
    the results? how so? the result, at least short term, of bombing some remote nukes sites would be a nuke site that isnt functional.

    the result for an invasion would be much much different
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    jlew24asu wrote:
    would you rather Iran have nukes?

    I don't lose sleep about Iran having nukes. If Israel wants to take care of them, let them fight their own fight. I know I don't want my friends going to war for something that poses no threat to our country.

    Don't bring up terrorism too, because I would just then remind you that the vast majority of terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis and you don't see us going after them.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    jlew24asu wrote:
    dropping bombs on some nuke sites is alot different then a full out invasion.

    soo ... iran is just going to sit there and say *hey - that's too bad about those sites* ... try again?

    any strike on iran will result in war ...

    on that note - bush is not going to shoot for iran ... the money is still being made as along as iraq and afghanistan continue to be clusterfucks ...
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the results? how so? the result, at least short term, of bombing some remote nukes sites would be a nuke site that isnt functional.

    the result for an invasion would be much much different

    The result would be causing more tension in an already highly explosive region. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has strong ties with several high ranking and influential Iraqi officials. They can make a whole lot of trouble for us on many fronts and that is the last think we need right now.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris wrote:
    soo ... iran is just going to sit there and say *hey - that's too bad about those sites* ... try again?

    any strike on iran will result in war ...
    how so? are they going to invade america? in the 80s I think Israel bombed many of their nuke sites.
    polaris wrote:
    on that note - bush is not going to shoot for iran ... the money is still being made as along as iraq and afghanistan continue to be clusterfucks ...
    money? what the fuck are you talking about? you are one of those who believe bush stays at war so he has more money in hisown pocket?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    ledvedderman wrote:
    I don't lose sleep about Iran having nukes. If Israel wants to take care of them, let them fight their own fight. I know I don't want my friends going to war for something that poses no threat to our country.
    having a nuke go off in Israel would bother me. and I'm not even jewish. or it would bother me that iran could easily sell enough weapons grade nuclear material to make a "dirty" bomb.
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Don't bring up terrorism too, because I would just then remind you that the vast majority of terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis and you don't see us going after them.
    so you see nothing wrong with their hourly "Death to America" chants?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I'm not the only who doesnt want Iran to have a nuke. the entire world agrees with me. except russia or china who is almost 100% dependent on Iranian oil.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I'm not the only who doesnt want Iran to have a nuke. the entire world agrees with me. except russia or china who is almost 100% dependent on Iranian oil.

    I don't want to see Iran possess a nuclear weapon either, but unfortunetly at this stage of the game military force is not an option that we should turn to. Ahmadinejad is loosing his support and launching some air strikes against nuke sight may give support to his rants. We need to rely on diplomacy and unfortunetly that is not something this administration is good at. I say let the EU take the lead on this one because I honestly have no faith in this administrations ability to handle sensetive issues like this.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    jlew24asu wrote:
    having a nuke go off in Israel would bother me. and I'm not even jewish. or it would bother me that iran could easily sell enough weapons grade nuclear material to make a "dirty" bomb.

    so you see nothing wrong with their hourly "Death to America" chants?

    Having a nuke go off anywhere in the world would bother me, even Iran. Innocent people will die no matter what.

    Yes they do "Death to America" chants and that's pretty disturbing, but you avoided the whole Saudi comment. They already attacked us. They flew planes into our buildings. So we can just ignore that, but some fanatical Iranians chant "death to America" and they better watch out?
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Having a nuke go off anywhere in the world would bother me, even Iran. Innocent people will die no matter what.
    I agree I do not want Iran or the US or Israel to ever use a nuke.
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Yes they do "Death to America" chants and that's pretty disturbing, but you avoided the whole Saudi comment. They already attacked us. They flew planes into our buildings. So we can just ignore that, but some fanatical Iranians chant "death to America" and they better watch out?
    saudi citizens attacked our country, not the government. the government actually have sent some el queda suspects to death. but believe me, I am no fan of saudi arabia. but much like russia and china's relationship to Iran, currently, we need saudi oil to survive. regardless the saudi government is ALOT different then the Iranian government.

    those "fantical Iranians" you speak of is the fucking President. he is leading the chants
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    so the boys are still playing around with mutually assured destruction are they? you drop one on us and we'll drop on one you and we'll take the whole world with us. why can't they all just punch each other in the face.
    like you all i don't want iran to have nuclear weapons. and they have repeatedly said that is not their intention. i'm not going to get into a dickfight about the truth of that statement. but why is it the so called defenders of democracy get to decide who can be armed and who can't? if countries agreed to not sell the components needed (and yes australia i am talking to you as well)then there would not be problem. this really isn't rocket science.
    and excuse me for saying so but where the fuck are the other muslim countries opposing any development of weapons of mass destruction? could it be that they see how well the infidels are handling the world and her problems and just laugh their arses off at the ineptitude of it all?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how so? are they going to invade america? in the 80s I think Israel bombed many of their nuke sites. ?

    you have a plethora of troops in neighbouring countries plus there is the israel thing ...
    jlew24asu wrote:
    money? what the fuck are you talking about? you are one of those who believe bush stays at war so he has more money in hisown pocket?

    and you are one of those people that still america goes to war for righteous reasons ... history points otherwise ...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    catefrances wrote:
    like you all i don't want iran to have nuclear weapons. and they have repeatedly said that is not their intention. i'm not going to get into a dickfight about the truth of that statement. but why is it the so called defenders of democracy get to decide who can be armed and who can't? if countries agreed to not sell the components needed (and yes australia i am talking to you as well)then there would not be problem. this really isn't rocket science.
    Australia isn't seeking the destruction of Israel or the Fiji Islands.
    catefrances wrote:
    and excuse me for saying so but where the fuck are the other muslim countries opposing any development of weapons of mass destruction? could it be that they see how well the infidels are handling the world and her problems and just laugh their arses off at the ineptitude of it all?
    since when do other muslims countries get involved in anything? they dont
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    jlew24asu wrote:
    since when do other muslims countries get involved in anything? they dont

    Maybe it's time they start. Maybe it's time we stop doing all of their work for them.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul

Categories