Instead of a NUKE on Iran, how about some M.O.A.B.'s?

I'm so sick of everybody crying and whining for change in the world as far as the situation with Iran. Oh - oh we can't NUKE them that would destroy the enviorment and blah-blah-blah.....okay, didn't do much harm to japan when we blasted two of thier major cities back to the stone age. Grass grew back, fallout left...so anyway since we are all once again complaining about world situations and then want to cry about it once ANYONE has an opionion about what to do about it, I say lets start droping those beautiful, ton of fun M.O.A.B's ( Massive ordance air burst) or (Mother of all bomb's)on Iran.... HEY!!! they are cheaper than a NUKE, alot cleaner and healthier on the enviorment, and really make alot of noise, and are certainly going to get everbody's attention for a few miles Maybe we could even drop a few dozen of them on the 4th of july. And would certainly brighten up my holiday

You don't have to nuke Iran for destroying their nuke capability. Special bombs and missiles are quite to do the needed job. I don't think that the good Iranian people will be hurt during the operations.

Or how about we dont do anything to Iran because Iran hasn't done anything wrong. We dont need Bush dropping a couple hundred mega tons of freedom on another innocent ME country resulting in "collateral damage" (several hundred thousand civilian casualties).

Iran is under pressure because we think it may be developing the means to produce nuclear weapons. though we beleive we have the right to pick and choose which countries may have nuclear capability and which may not, we choose not to exercise this non-existant right on Israel. quite the opposite acually, we gave Israel some uranium, a couple billion dollars and a copy of "nukes for dummies".

[edit on 7-6-2006 by daedalas]

Originally posted by daedalas
Or how about we dont do anything to Iran because Iran hasn't done anything wrong. We dont need Bush dropping a couple hundred mega tons of freedom on another innocent ME country resulting in "collateral damage" (several hundred thousand civilian casualties).

Iran is under pressure because we think it may be developing the means to produce nuclear weapons. though we beleive we have the right to pick and choose which countries may have nuclear capability and which may not, we choose not to exercise this non-existant right on Israel. quite the opposite acually, we gave Israel some uranium, a couple billion dollars and a copy of "nukes for dummies".

[edit on 7-6-2006 by daedalas]

While i do agree with a agressive solution against Iran, nuclear weapons are never the answer. The M.O.A.B is delivered by a slow moving plane, and Iran can shoot those down, so that is pointless.

The big difference between Isreal and Iran is that Iran has said they want to wipe countries off the map and want a end western lifestyle. We do have a right to say who gets nuclear power or not. If their a threat to the world, us being one of the only offical superpowers we have the responsiblity of keep these weapons out of nut jobs hands.

www.iranian.ws...

Even tho I thought Pakistan aided them only rougue scientiists did

www.buzztracker.org...

U.S says Pakistan is clear of aiding Iran. I still don't buy it however...

in.news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by thesnafued1
nuclear weapons are never the answer.

I could not agree more, what I am saying is that this is not the U.S. trying to stop nuclear proliferation to better humanity and help the environment. This is the U.S. trying to keep the power to instill fear in the less advanced Middle Eastern countries.

The U.S. fears that one day we will lose the ability to say we have more nukes than you. I dont think that Iran would be dumb enough to acually bomb the the U.S. if they had the bomb anyway. first, It is a big jump from having a nuclear bomb to having a ICBM capable of striking anywhere in the world. Iran would have to deliver the bomb to the U.S. or any other unliked country via airplane and that is laughable.

second, Iran may not have any intention of nuking another country, maybe it just wants to feel secure or like a real player in world politics. maybe it feels like if it has a nuclear bomb it will receive more recognition from other countries, this may be true for all we know.

Originally posted by thesnafued1
The big difference between Isreal and Iran is that Iran has said they want to wipe countries off the map and want a end western lifestyle.

If you mean to say that Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map that would be incorrect. what the Iranian president acually said seems to have been lost in translation (propaganda). He was quoting 'the great Imman' for one and what he said was that the Israeli regime would not exist in the future. he was saying that the Israel regime is unjust and would not be tolerated for much longer. implying that a regime change was in order, not obliteration.

as far as Iran wanting the end of the western lifestyle this is wrong. many award winning movies come out of Iran, quite a few acually. they have internet in Iran and Iran is the fourth largest country of bloggers (never thought that fact would be useful). It is also a common cultural trait of Iran to be respectful and hospitable of foreigners.





[edit on 8-6-2006 by daedalas]

Originally posted by daedalas


I could not agree more, what I am saying is that this is not the U.S. trying to stop nuclear proliferation to better humanity and help the environment. This is the U.S. trying to keep the power to instill fear in the less advanced Middle Eastern countries.

second, Iran may not have any intention of nuking another country, maybe it just wants to feel secure or like a real player in world politics.
[edit on 8-6-2006 by daedalas]

I agree with you that Iran wants these nuclear weapons for security but i disagree that the U.S is instilling fear in less adavanced middle east nations by using force. Has the United States threatened Armenia, Oman, Yeman, Jordan, U.A.E, Kuwait, Egypt, Azbejian and a whole lot of other countires. Also what do you mean by less advance? A country that can buid a nuclear weapon and torpedoes that are pretty damn fast is advanced in my book.

If you mean to say that Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map that would be incorrect. what the Iranian president acually said seems to have been lost in translation (propaganda). He was quoting 'the great Imman' for one and what he said was that the Israeli regime would not exist in the future. he was saying that the Israel regime is unjust and would not be tolerated for much longer. implying that a regime change was in order, not obliteration.

www.iran-press-service.com...

Well, then why would he be quoting the Imman about destroying Isreal? The Republic of Iran does'ent even recognize Isreal as a nation.

factsofisrael.com...
www.atimes.com... They won't even fight them in the olympics.

If they wanted to get rid of the Isreali regime what goveremnt would he place a Pro-Muslim goverment? That would be Wiping the Jewish state of Isreal of the map.

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world"

yes, wouldn't that suck, Israel is enjoying kicking muslims around one day and the next they develope the means to fight back. The headlines read "radical muslims threaten poor Israel with nuclear weapons and cut a baby's head off".

Originally posted by thesnafued1
Has the United States threatened Armenia, Oman, Yeman, Jordan, U.A.E, Kuwait, Egypt, Azbejian and a whole lot of other countires.

no, because either they have not threartened us yet (just keep your mouth shut and maybe our nukes will miss your country) or they give us oil.

Originally posted by thesnafued1
Also what do you mean by less advance? A country that can buid a nuclear weapon and torpedoes that are pretty damn fast is advanced in my book.

yes they have fast torpedos but overall, jets, boats, tanks, guns, training, ICBMs, we have the advantage.

Originally posted by thesnafued1
Well, then why would he be quoting the Imman about destroying Isreal?

as mentioned earlier he did not say anything about destroying Israel, he said they wouldn't exist in the future. Also as mentioned earlier, this is referring to a regime change not the nuclear annihilation of Israel. As stated in the IPS article the nuclear annihilation of Israel would also mean the destruction of Palestine.

Originally posted by thesnafued1
The Republic of Iran does'ent even recognize Isreal as a nation.

yes but not because they plan on destroying them in the future but because the land they have was illegally gained and their current regime is unjust.

Originally posted by thesnafued1
If they wanted to get rid of the Isreali regime what goveremnt would he place a Pro-Muslim goverment? That would be Wiping the Jewish state of Isreal of the map.

Not necessarily, a pro-muslim government was in place in Palestine when the jews were migrating into palestine. they coexisted quite nicely until jews threatened to make palestinians the minorities. So the palestinians tried to stop migration into palestine and thus started the Israeli terrorist campaign.

perhaps if a system of migration into palestine was established other than the palestinians being forced to accept all immigrants requesting entrance, maybe things would turn out better.

Let me get this straight, you want to blow up Iran for the chance of them having Nuclear Weapons...isn't that why we went into Iraq and they didn't have any? And Iran has no grudge against America, it's agianst Israel. We need to just let nature takes it's course with Israel And reading other posts that you have written it sounds to me that you are no better than any of these Iranians that you say need to be blown up.