Should the US go to war with Iran?
-
-
Yeah, that was my point, or perhaps I didn't phrase that correctly?Mayank wrote:
Iran cannot throw nuclear missiles in the US. Their nuclear missiles would not have that much range ever :p -
Esmo wrote:
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?
yes it is from this thread. and here are the only things i havent replied to. i will reply to them now:
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....
i didn't say it wouldn't be painful or people wouldn't die. i do care about our troops and civilians but like you say, the families of WW2 troops also cared about their troops, but does that mean we shouldn't have gone to war with the Axis powers? and health care is important, but if something like a war needs to happen, then money needs to be spent on it so we can actually win. Also, i realize the current U.S military strength and manpower is not enough to take over Iran and stabilize it. We would need a draft for this war, however i don't want this topic to turn into a should we bring the draft back topic so i wont say any more about that. and i have no real proof but like i said there are multiple countries suspicious of ahmadinejad. it's not just me and it's not just the U.S.
and the invasion of those nations would be ridiculously dumb. why would we randomly invade any of those countries? and how would it be about oil when the main problem is nuclear proliferation?
BlockHead2111 wrote:
+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.
it is not that easy to come up with a new energy source that's better than oil and could easily replace it. meanwhile there are wars that need to happen for other reasons. the war in the middle east is not about oil. why do so many people think that. if we were pumping all of iraq's huge oil reserves, you'd think gas prices wouldn't be soaring up. and didn't saddam go to war with Kuwait in 1991 so he could take their huge oil reserves? meaning iraq doesnt have that much oil?
and also if you are not willing to fight in a war, i'd suggest not going into the military.[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER] -
Assaultrifle wrote:
i didn't say it wouldn't be painful or people wouldn't die. i do care about our troops and civilians but like you say, the families of WW2 troops also cared about their troops, but does that mean we shouldn't have gone to war with the Axis powers?
WW2 was different.
The Allies were defending themselves from attack. That is justified. Launching another attack on a distant country is not, and thousands will die.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] -
-
Assaultrifle wrote:
and the invasion of those nations would be ridiculously dumb. why would we randomly invade any of those countries? and how would it be about oil when the main problem is nuclear proliferation?
it is not that easy to come up with a new energy source that's better than oil and could easily replace it. meanwhile there are wars that need to happen for other reasons. the war in the middle east is not about oil. why do so many people think that. if we were pumping all of iraq's huge oil reserves, you'd think gas prices wouldn't be soaring up. and didn't saddam go to war with Kuwait in 1991 so he could take their huge oil reserves? meaning iraq doesnt have that much oil?
and also if you are not willing to fight in a war, i'd suggest not going into the military.
saddam simply wanted more oil. just like the americans. you are pumping iraqs oil, or you would be, if you had the resources to stabilise the country.
if your simply invading iran to remove its neuclear capabilities, then why not the other countries i listed who deifnately have neuclear arms.
this is about oil, like all the wars in the middle east. they are about oil, abnd in isreals case religion. -
Brainwiped wrote:
saddam simply wanted more oil. just like the americans. you are pumping iraqs oil, or you would be, if you had the resources to stabilise the country.
if your simply invading iran to remove its neuclear capabilities, then why not the other countries i listed who deifnately have neuclear arms.
this is about oil, like all the wars in the middle east. they are about oil, abnd in isreals case religion.
because the countries you listed are not hostile to the US or Israel or any other US ally nor are any allies of ours suspicious of them. the only other country thats a problem is north korea, but theres not much we can do about that, at least not now.[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC][/CENTER] -
Assaultrifle wrote:
it is not that easy to come up with a new energy source that's better than oil and could easily replace it.
I never said it was, but with the money spent already on your country's wars could easilly have made some major developments.
Assaultrifle wrote:
meanwhile there are wars that need to happen for other reasons. the war in the middle east is not about oil. why do so many people think that.
Because your country is the biggest user of fossil fuels on the planet? And because Iraq just happens to have a lot of oil that soldiers are guarding.
Assaultrifle wrote:
if we were pumping all of iraq's huge oil reserves, you'd think gas prices wouldn't be soaring up.
You still have to pay for transport, wages of the people who transport it, the oil used in transporting it, and more expensive than all the tax. Fuel prices aren't just down to quantity.
Doesn't mean he didn't have it. Just a greedy bastard, like Bush. And on about Saddam... Look what happened to him...Assaultrifle wrote:
and didn't saddam go to war with Kuwait in 1991 so he could take their huge oil reserves? meaning iraq doesnt have that much oil?
Assaultrifle wrote:
and also if you are not willing to fight in a war, i'd suggest not going into the military.
Who said I'm not willing to fight? The main war my country fights is Afghanistan, which I support. My country had sense and more or less pulled out of Iraq. I'd much rather fight terrorists than kill some poor bastard defending his oil.[CENTER][SIZE=1]
[/SIZE][/CENTER] -
JCpatriots wrote:
No we shouldn't. End of story, no need for it. We need to stay the fuck out of every other country's business, that's why no other countries like us. We won't friggin quit with this crap.
Iran is a growing threat, just like China. There is plenty need for it, they have threatened to destory our nation and Israel (one of our closest allies). It isn't a matter of "getting involved in other's countries' business", and we surely aren't in Iraq for oil. Iran is a threat that will only become more dangerous as time progresses, and I feel WW3 is imminent nonetheless.
I want to say something about Iraq real quick, we are there because we felt they were a threat to our safety. Don't call Bush a liar either, you can call the majority of the Democratic party liars because all of the major Democrats (especially President Clinton) were calling for intervention in Iraq because they felt strongly that Iraq had biological weapons that could do us harm. Don't believe me? Go on YouTube and listen.[SIZE=3]Brendan, [SIZE=2]Libertarian and hates the ACLU[/SIZE][/SIZE]
I like hunting bullshit, corruption, hazing, fraud and abuse within the subcultures of society. You can call me the Inspector General... -
your post amuses me, so you are saying that USA should invade other country just because they are developing economically, just because a country is starting to have stronger military force than the USA, they should be wiped out?
You are mindless by putting China into the discussion. What has they done other than starting to develop a stronger country? Just because they are starting to actual be able to fight back if US invades? Well,
If USA ever try to invade China or Russia, they have made a BIG BIG mistake.
If this is the case, every other country especially the middle east can say that USA is a thread to their safety.:rolleyes: -
so, you are saying, whenever a country is considered a "threat" to the USA, they should be invaded? If this is the case, Iran has the perfect case of saying that USA is a threat to them...:rolleyes:
that is how war starts my friend .... -
so you want thousands of ppl getting killed just because you felt iran is supposed to be a"threat". If this is the case, every country should now be invading United States. USA is not superior than any other country so why does it get special treatments?
-
Assaultrifle wrote:
your damn right the USA is a threat to Iran. a big threat. and if they don't start complying with U.N requests then we will have a big problem. and maybe your missing my entire point that i want this war to start.
do you now?
well i dont
we dont have a problem, they are years from having nuclear weapons.
remember iraqs chemical weapons, we're have they gone?
so where is irans so-called neuclear capabilities? and no i dont mean that civilian powerplant. that has been inspected enough times, they have the knoledge, but no where near the technology
even the IAEA know that iraq cant make weapons,
america is spinning ... "nucelar weapons (oil) extremist government (oil) dangerous and funding terrorism (oil, apease the jewish lobby gorups)" :D
you dont realise the politcal and military implications an invasion of iran would cause,
dont belive everything that comes out of that fat capitalist pig of a president you wont have for much longer's mouth. there are no fucking weapons, there never will be, and if your country invades, then what?
poverty
and civil war, and guess what else, A BREEDING GROUND FOR RADICAL ISLAM, the very thing george bush set out to kill, but in reality, hes just fanning the flames.
so then. on balance
-americas ego may be slightly inflated, before losing a war to guerila jihadis figiting them using bombs and hiding at the side of the road.
-then poverty and huge civil war has iraq been rebiult? didnt think so
-has the new orleans? didnt think so:rolleyes:
-have you even won your stupid war in iraq? or afganistan? nope, not those either
-radical islam shall breed and then what? another war?
-your gonna run out of countrys to invade soon, and wood to build all those coffins, and flags to drape over them.
so no. now war. instead fight poverty, develop a sustainable energy source. dont cause problems, solve them.
-
So Assultrifle, you want to invade a foreign country, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, yet you oppose the killing or maiming of murderers and rapists.
Is it just me or is that a little hypocritical?[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] -
Well why does Iran need to be taken care of?
It's not the USA's job to get involved.
And on one hand you defend the right of criminals, yet you also want a war which will destroy the rights of hundreds of thousands of people.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
Share