U.S. warns Iran to back down

jlew24asu

mammasan wrote:

Maybe it's time they start. Maybe it's time we stop doing all of their work for them.

that would be nice wouldnt it.

Kann

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

Dropping bombs on the region right now is something as dangerous as an invasion. The situation is tense and the middle-east is really unstable. The diplomatic way may not work well and may take time but it at least avoids poking with a stick an extremely unstable region.

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

that would be nice wouldnt it.

Yes it would be extremely nice.

jlew24asu

Kann wrote:

Dropping bombs on the region right now is something as dangerous as an invasion. The situation is tense and the middle-east is really unstable. The diplomatic way may not work well and may take time but it at least avoids poking with a stick an extremely unstable region.

ok we can disagree. I do not think a full out invasion with a few hundred thousand troops, thousands of tanks, etc etc. is anywhere similar to dropping some powerful bombs on a remote nuke site. even psychologically the effects would be different. but anyway, Iran says they will build a nuke, and the US will not talk until they agree to stop building one. a diplomatic solution seems impossible at this point. hopefully cooler heads will prevail

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

Australia isn't seeking the destruction of Israel or the Fiji Islands.

did you read what i said. i didn't say australia was seeking nuclear weapons. australia is selling uranium to china cause, get this, beijing promised not to use it for 'evil'. LMFAO!!!! how about australia doesn't sell uranium to them or anyone else at all. that way there can be no doubt about the intent.

jlew24asu wrote:

since when do other muslims countries get involved in anything? they dont

exactly my point. they need to get off their arses and do something. they need to realise what a position they are in. the West relies heavily on oil. i think i'd be doing a little sanction shuffle if i were in charge of a sheikdom or whatever. of course if i lived in a sheikdom i would already have been stoned to death for adultery or because of my political and religious views. and why don't they have an interest in their own region. i'm not saying that is true but it sure looks like it when they allow the West to just rock in and shoot up the joint.

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

did you read what i said. i didn't say australia was seeking nuclear weapons. australia is selling uranium to china cause, get this, beijing promised not to use it for 'evil'. LMFAO!!!! how about australia doesn't sell uranium to them or anyone else at all. that way there can be no doubt about the intent.

sorry my mistake. but still the same. China has not been a thread ot threatened anybody that I can think of.

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

sorry my mistake. but still the same. China has not been a thread ot threatened anybody that I can think of.

i am sure the tibetans would disagree with you on that point.

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

i am sure the tibetans would disagree with you on that point.

eh, this conflict goes back to the 13th century. I dont think tibet is under threat of a nuke attack. but your right, there definitely is a conflict there. I stand corrected

Collin

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Albert Einstein.

Last Exodus

mammasan wrote:

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.

No way. We don't have the resources to deal with an all out Iranian invasion of Iraq and deal with the insurgency and the Iranians know it. That's why they are pushing our buttons. It's possible within the year, but we aren't ready. Clearly the reinforcements being sent are really meant to support an Iran Operation...But they are not in place yet. I for one, am all for taking out their Nuke cites....

mammasan

Last Exodus wrote:

I for one, am all for taking out their Nuke cites....

Well I will have to disagree with you.

jlew24asu

mammasan wrote:

Well I will have to disagree with you.

why do you think it will be ok for Iran to have nukes?

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

why do you think it will be ok for Iran to have nukes?

I never said it would be ok for Iran to have nukes and have stated several times that Iran possessing nukes is a troubling senerio. I just believe that military action is not the solution to the problem. I believe that this issue should be resolved via diplomacy and I'm very concerned because diplomacy is not this administrations strong suit.

The Illinoisemakers

I don't see in the next two weeks or even the next two months the US striking Iran's nuclear sites. The focus needs to stay on fixing the problems in Iraq.

If the Israelis want to launch missiles into Iran, I'm all for it, but as of right now it shouldn't be a US job.

Thorns2010

Alright....who wants popcorn??? I'm going to make some, and look for a good place to watch the end of the world!!!!

We're all going die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cosmo

jlew24asu wrote:

dropping bombs on some nuke sites is alot different then a full out invasion.

...
Isn't that an 'Act of War'? I mean, we went to war with Japan because they dropped bombs on our Naval Base.
If you cannot accept someone dropping bombs on our soil... why should anyone else accept our dropping bombs on them? Speaking in logical terms here... not national.

american

Cosmo wrote:

...
Isn't that an 'Act of War'? I mean, we went to war with Japan because they dropped bombs on our Naval Base.
If you cannot accept someone dropping bombs on our soil... why should anyone else accept our dropping bombs on them? Speaking in logical terms here... not national.

Logical terms!! That is laughable!! There is no logic in you statement. Accepting bombs is logical? No one "accepts" bombings. They are bombed for a reason. There is no accepting, there is only taking. If we bomb Iran, they will take it.

Cosmo

american wrote:

Logical terms!! That is laughable!! There is no logic in you statement. Accepting bombs is logical? No one "accepts" bombings. They are bombed for a reason. There is no accepting, there is only taking. If we bomb Iran, they will take it.

...
You really need to change your login name... you just perpetuate the stereotype that all of us Americans are idiots.

Ahnimus

Thorns2010 wrote:

Alright....who wants popcorn??? I'm going to make some, and look for a good place to watch the end of the world!!!!

We're all going die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May I have some lightly buttered with just a dash of salt?

catefrances

can the united states just finish something they started. they go to iraq for no reason without finishing the job in afghanistan. now they're sabre rattling tehren. let's clean up iraq before we start another mess please.
have they come out and said they were gonna bomb iran if tehren didn't stop their nuclear programme? if so then that is an absolute act of aggression in my book, not to mention an act of war. are things going so great for the bush administration that there is nothing else they can occupy their minds with?