I didnt really mean that it loves killing but then we cannot forget its history and present aswell...They have been doing it all the time. Sometimes for no reasons. So we can bring out a conclusion that it loves doing so?
Should the US go to war with Iran?
-
-
Ugh, no. Why do people think this? Are they not seeing the mess in Iraq and pondering that the Middle East might be somewhere to leave alone for a while, if not forever?[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
NO MORE OF THESE BLOODY WARS!
more people dying 4000 may not be a big number in terms of ww2, but it will only get bigger, and the families of those 4000 people still feel the same as the families of the millions who died in ww2. does it make the pain any less? NO!
does it make it any more acceptable? NO!
if america took all the money it has spent on wars and instead put it toward helping the impovished people of new orleans or improving the life of ordianry americans, rather than apeasing the jewish lobby's desire for america to protect isreal.
for over 60 years, america has funded the deaths and destruction of civilains homes in the middle east, must it continue?
dont go to war with iran, the region is so unstable, and with 2 countries side by side (iran and iraq), both with no real government and american occupation, i fear the "might" of the us army wont be anything against the wars which will ensue then they pull out. but then its not their problem....
america must not start more wars in the middle east... its done enough, and besides, what proff can you have that they even intend to develop beuclear arms, and if they do, what about all the other countrys, will you then invade russia perhaps? or pakistan? or maybe india?
no. this war, if it happens, will be about the oil. just like all the rest.... -
Brainwiped wrote:
NO MORE OF THESE BLOODY WARS!
more people dying 4000 may not be a big number in terms of ww2, but it will only get bigger, and the families of those 4000 people still feel the same as the families of the millions who died in ww2. does it make the pain any less? NO!
does it make it any more acceptable? NO!
if america took all the money it has spent on wars and instead put it toward helping the impovished people of new orleans or improving the life of ordianry americans, rather than apeasing the jewish lobby's desire for america to protect isreal.
for over 60 years, america has funded the deaths and destruction of civilains homes in the middle east, must it continue?
dont go to war with iran, the region is so unstable, and with 2 countries side by side (iran and iraq), both with no real government and american occupation, i fear the "might" of the us army wont be anything against the wars which will ensue then they pull out. but then its not their problem....
america must not start more wars in the middle east... its done enough, and besides, what proff can you have that they even intend to develop beuclear arms, and if they do, what about all the other countrys, will you then invade russia perhaps? or pakistan? or maybe india?
no. this war, if it happens, will be about the oil. just like all the rest....
+Rep
They should put the money into something useful, like what you said or developing more ways of getting energy without relying on fossil fuels. With no need for fossil fuels, the US will stop invading the middle-east, solving both problems and costing half as much. No war, less oil. And more importantly no bloodshed on either side.
They can barely afford the wars they're fighting, let alone another.
and if Iran is gonna invade Israel... So what? It sounds harsh but they should just keep the hell out of their business.
Another reason I don't want a US - Iran war is because the UK will obviously get involved too, and I'm joining the army in September and to be honest, don't wanna end up fighting some mega pissed off Iranians because our government's too nosy.[CENTER][SIZE=1]
[/SIZE][/CENTER] -
Assaultrifle wrote:
Yes or no? And explain. I think we should but i won't say any more since last time i got modded for expressing my opinion on this. Im just curious to see what other people think.
I don't get it why our culture is so "oxymoronic." Warring for peace and all...
Sasha Vassily wrote:
Is it like, a new and dangerous weapon that US or other countries don't have?
So, you're saying that these nasty weapons should be used again?
Tell that to the 100,000 people that are now dead because of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... -
Ehh, it's a hard choose. I mean, if we don't nuclear technology could not only affect a few certain countries, but (optimistically speaking) the whole world. Then again there is too much war going down on planet Earth. I say no.[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][SIZE=5][SIZE=2]"But the search ends here[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=2] Where the night is totally clear[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=2] And your heart is fierce[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=2] So now you finally know that you control where you go[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][SIZE=2] You can steer."[/SIZE][/SIZE][/CENTER] -
Where exactly did he say the weapons should be used again? From the looks of it, he was using sarcasm, relating to the U.S. having nuclear weapons along with other nations, but nothing to do with actually using the weapons.
Oops307 wrote:
So, you're saying that these nasty weapons should be used again?
Tell that to the 100,000 people that are now dead because of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... -
Brainwiped wrote:
america must not start more wars in the middle east... its done enough, and besides, what proff can you have that they even intend to develop beuclear arms, and if they do, what about all the other countrys, will you then invade russia perhaps? or pakistan? or maybe india?
no. this war, if it happens, will be about the oil. just like all the rest....
They can invade Russia only in their dreams and I can promise that they will still lose :p -
16-1
Wonder who the one idiot is?[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] -
-
LuklaAdvocate wrote:
Where exactly did he say the weapons should be used again? From the looks of it, he was using sarcasm, relating to the U.S. having nuclear weapons along with other nations, but nothing to do with actually using the weapons.
That's how I interpreted his post.
Everyone interprets differently; I don't really think that you should joke about something like that, either, if it was sarcasm. -
He shouldn't be joking about nuclear weapons period, very true. I'm still rather confused as to how you interpreted him saying the weapons should be used again, though.
Oops307 wrote:
That's how I interpreted his post.
Everyone interprets differently; I don't really think that you should joke about something like that, either, if it was sarcasm. -
LuklaAdvocate wrote:
He shouldn't be joking about nuclear weapons period, very true. I'm still rather confused as to how you interpreted him saying the weapons should be used again, though.
I apologize; thought that he said something about using the weapons against. I must have heard it from somewhere else. -
Ok let's be clear. One of the main reasons US don't want Iran to have nukes is that US won't be able to interfere that much on the middle east (interfere also means in this case either threatening or declaring a war :rolleyes:). Iranian people will defend themselves with the nukes. US is afraid because they'll have an equal fight :eek: if they fight against a country with the same weapons. As for terrorism, I don't think Ahmadinejad will try to take the nukes. He's not that stupid...
-
Double Post
-
Developing nuclear capability is one thing while having the ability to fire off missiles armed with nuclear devices and have them reach another coast is quite another. I also find it unlikely that a country such as Iran will fire a nuclear weapon at another country, such as the United States, which has thousands upon thousands of nuclear bombs, while Iran is lucky to match the tiniest percentage of them.
Vagos wrote:
Ok let's be clear. One of the main reasons US don't want Iran to have nukes is that US won't be able to interfere that much on the middle east (interfere also means in this case either threatening or declaring a war :rolleyes:). Iranian people will defend themselves with the nukes. US is afraid because they'll have an equal fight :eek: if they fight against a country with the same weapons. As for terrorism, I don't think Ahmadinejad will try to take the nukes. He's not that stupid... -
-
LuklaAdvocate wrote:
Developing nuclear capability is one thing while having the ability to fire off missiles armed with nuclear devices and have them reach another coast is quite another. I also find it unlikely that a country such as Iran will fire a nuclear weapon at another country, such as the United States, which has thousands upon thousands of nuclear bombs, while Iran is lucky to match the tiniest percentage of them.
Iran cannot throw nuclear missiles in the US. Their nuclear missiles would not have that much range ever :p -
Assaultrifle wrote:
"The US should not attack Iran.
Hundreds of thousands of people will more than likely die, as happens in most wars. The US should stay out of other people's business, as this is why people hate it so much. Israel was re-created right in the middle of Muslim lands, so now wonder they are pissed off. If they want to fight the US should let them, as interfering will not do any good."
Is that a quote from this thread? If it is I really wish you'd quote properly.
And if it is, have you considered replying to everyone else's points?[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER]
-
Share