Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike On Iran.Yae or Nae?

Originally posted by Xfile
Rite.iran just annouced it was prepared 2"SACRIFICE HALF OF IRAN 2 DESTROY ISRAEL"I REST MY CASE IN THIS THREAD...

Actually, an Israeli minister said she BELIEVED thats what President Ahmadinejad would do if he was given supreme control over iran...Iran never stated that.



[edit on 8/25/2006 by pstiffy]

Originally posted by xmotex
There's nothing going on in Iran to even come close to the Axis buildup before WW2.
Iran has almost no offensive capability whatsoever.

The idea is ridiculous.
All this hysteria is lots of fun and very exciting I'm sure... but to kill millions because we're afraid of what Iran might do (if they even had the ability to do much, which they don't) is totally insane.

There's only one country building up a military capable of taking over the planet.
There's only one country where people are seriously considering nuclear first strikes.
And it's not Iran.

I must agree - I never enjoy seeing these kind of post here as it is a simple kind of war-mongering on a small scale, rather post a positive than a negative - it all helps in the end.
Who knows the NWO may be the ones posting this kind of post to feel out public sentiment

Yea. Kill the heads of state. It's an excellent plan. And one that has worked SO well for us in Iraq and Afghanastan. Ooops. Or maybe not.

Yeah, and it was such a great idea to appease hitler until he wiped out most of Europe.
On hindsight, do you think it would have been a good idea to take hitler out earlier in the game?

There will always be muggers and bank robbers, so why should we have police arrest them right?
That type of mentallity says "bend over and take it."
The US doesn't roll that way.

Hmm, nae perhaps?

[sarcasm] I must've forgotten only we are allowed to have nukes, cuz us americans saved the world [/sarcasm]

ps:



Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 25/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by super70

Yea. Kill the heads of state. It's an excellent plan. And one that has worked SO well for us in Iraq and Afghanastan. Ooops. Or maybe not.

Yeah, and it was such a great idea to appease hitler until he wiped out most of Europe. On hindsight, do you think it would have been a good idea to take hitler out earlier in the game?

There will always be muggers and bank robbers, so why should we have police arrest them right?
That type of mentallity says "bend over and take it."
The US doesn't roll that way.

Oh please. Not the Hitler card again? You mean Hitler, that German leader that went through Europe attacking countries that didn't agree with his country's policies?

It's over 65 years later. The complexion of war has changed. We're talking about nuclear weapons here. We're talking about a single attack that can dwarf ALL of WWII in a matter of hours if not minutes. Why didn't Europe stop Hitler when he first started his offensive? I don't know, ask them. Iran hasn't attacked anyone. The only two countries on the offense in the M.E. are the US and Israel.

Should Iran be contained? Yes. The DOD itself admits we have hardly any intelligence on Iran and before we start launching nukes and wiping out vast numbers of innocent people (surely an act that would help our standing in the international community) it would be a really good idea to know what we're doing. A big step up from our wars in Iraq and Afghanastan.


[edit on 25-8-2006 by jtma508]

The complexion of war has changed. We're talking about nuclear weapons here. We're talking about a single attack that can dwarf ALL of WWII in a matter of hours if not minutes.

Jtma508, your are exactly right on this point. That's why the "lets wait and see what Iran does" plan is not acceptable. Iran is racing to enrich uranium by the ton and turning away UN inspectors at their underground "peaceful energy" sites, and their president has declared repeatedly his wish to destroy Israel. So unlike hitler, once this cat is out of the bag it can't be put back in. You can kick the Germans out of Paris, but you can't un-explode a nuke over Israel.

We can argue the ifs & buts till the cows come home. But the fact is that a confrontation between Israel and Iran is almost inevitable at some point in the near future. The chances of this triggering a huge ME war are, in turn, quite high.

So do we just let them get on with it? Is this even possible with the US wrapped so tightly around Israel's little finger?

I hate to say this but this is Israel's business not ours. They get to choose what they feel needs to be done but that doesn't mean the United States has to get dragged into every potential skirmish on the planet. Should the fit truly hit the shan Iran should be dealt with accordingly. But exactly what do you think the already dissatisfied population of Iran will be thinking if their leadership actually nukes Israel and they are facing the certainty of nuclear retaliation?

Originally posted by xmotex
There's only one country building up a military capable of taking over the planet.
There's only one country where people are seriously considering nuclear first strikes.
And it's not Iran.

Hmmmmm... Are you referring to China? After all, they have certainly taken all of the necessary steps to fit into that category.

I hate to say this but this is Israel's business not ours.

Right you are again. I hope we stay out of it.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just get along?
If only a huge mothership would come down and hover for a few weeks, all of our differences would quickly appear as they truly are...trivial and ridiculous.

As long as there are leaders, there will be greed.
As long as there are borders, there will be division.
As long as there are armys, there will be war.
As long as there is alcohol, there will be girls gone wild.
Lets hear it for alcohol WOOHOO!

Originally posted by neformore
[Why does the US need them?

Why does Russia need them?

Why do France, China, the UK, India and Pakistan, need them?

Why did Brazil and South Africa think they needed them?

The answer to all of the above is "defence"

Now ask your question again. Only this time do it with logic applied.

OK, here's your answers...
The US developed it as a way of ending the war with Japan.

As a result, the Russians developed them to counter the perceived threat posed by the US' possession of them.

Resultant of that, the US offered our allies in France and the UK the ability to develop them to counter the threat of the Russians in Europe.

Pakistan developed them as a tool to hold over India and India developed them in response to the perceived threat that Pakistan could launch a first strike.

China developed them because Bill Clinton sold out the United States and allowed them the technology to do so and as a result, they did simply because they could and knew that it would elevate their status from 2nd world nation to near superpower.

It is the power that possession affords that drives countries to develop them, not simply defense.

It would be very helpful for you to understand history prior to rushing into such hasty generalizations.

Hmmmmm... Are you referring to China? After all, they have certainly taken all of the necessary steps to fit into that category.

BS.

China is certainly modernizing it's military.
On the other hand it's also making large cuts in force size.

And notably absent from their modernization are the systems suitable for power projection beyond their borders: long range bombers, amphibious warfare ships, and airlifters. The China "threat", like the Iran "threat", is for the most part disinformation, a scare campaign conducted for political and economic gain.

There is only one country currently arming itself to the teeth for offensive operations worldwide, and that's us right here in the US. No other nation even comes close.

Originally posted by xmotex
The China "threat", like the Iran "threat", is for the most part disinformation, a scare campaign conducted for political and economic gain.

I don't see China as overly aggresive at this point. But I have to disagree with your assessment of Iran. The threat from them is real, not disinformation.

There is only one country currently arming itself to the teeth for offensive operations worldwide, and that's us right here in the US. No other nation even comes close.

Not because other nations are pacificistic by nature. The US has the technology to keep one step ahead of the curve, and the responsibility as a superpower to do so.

History has shown us that to ignore potential threats until they become unmanageable is a very bad move. Peace is achieved when the consequences of aggression would be self-defeating. People are not good by nature.

Originally posted by xmotex
There's only one country building up a military capable of taking over the planet.
There's only one country where people are seriously considering nuclear first strikes.
And it's not Iran.

That looks like correct, but only "looks like".
A superpower country not means a dangerous country to the world.
Also someone holding a gun not means the man will theat others.
We judge what will be done by a man or a country and what direction the country will go, only or say should, according to what t/he/m has said or have done.
I have posted how judge such country like Iran somewhere else. If you have ability to rebut me, please post here or there, both ok.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Huh? Xmotex are you serious? Why does Iran need ballistic missiles capable of reaching England, why do they need nuclear capable cruise missiles with VERY long range? The rest of you post is simplistic at best but this point is just simply not true.

Why does the US need them?

Why does Russia need them?

Why do France, China, the UK, India and Pakistan, need them?

Why did Brazil and South Africa think they needed them?

The answer to all of the above is "defence"

Now ask your question again. Only this time do it with logic applied.

Well! So the key is DEFENCE as you said.
All of those excuse used only is defence, could u tell me which one above develop nuclear ability meanwhile say a country should be erased from map? I think only Nazi had said something similar before! We have to think much of these...

I say no.

I'm not sure it would be good P.R. for the third nuclear bomb to be dropped on a foriegn land should be the same country who dropped the first two.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I say no.

I'm not sure it would be good P.R. for the third nuclear bomb to be dropped on a foriegn land should be the same country who dropped the first two.

WHAT?!?!?!?! are you saying a nuclear bomb should be dropped on the US?!

you are advocating a nuclear weapon be dropped on YOUR family and YOUR neighbors! for what?! some morbid sense of guilt?! or just some sick twisted morbid hatred of your own homeland. It's people like you that disgust me with such comments.

YOU ARE A TRAITOR!

Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike On Iran.Yae or Nae?

Nae.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't see China as overly aggresive at this point. But I have to disagree with your assessment of Iran. The threat from them is real, not disinformation.

Really? Got something to back that up?

Because Iran's military is just about adequate for Iran's national defense.
I have seen no evidence at all that Iran is preparing any kind of offensive military machine. Iran's missiles are arguably defensive, considering that their primary regional threat (Israel) already has nuclear armed Jehrico missiles capable of wiping out Iran.

Not because other nations are pacificistic by nature.

That includes us. And Israel.
Judging by recent history, neither the US or Israel are anything remotely close to "pacifistic" countries.

The US has the technology to keep one step ahead of the curve, and the responsibility as a superpower to do so.

How self-serving.

Our superpower status is because we're a hegemonic power. We might like to pretend we aren't, but that doesn't change the (fairly obvious) fact that we are.

History has shown us that to ignore potential threats until they become unmanageable is a very bad move. Peace is achieved when the consequences of aggression would be self-defeating.

And yet this is somehow unique to the US?

Other countries should ignore the potential threat the US, with it's immense military might, poses? Because they should assume that unlike everyone else, we're somehow innately benevolent? Despite the fact that we spend as much on our military as the rest of the planet combined? Despite the fact that our military is clearly geared for offensive action and power projection rather than our own defense? Despite the fact that we have started more wars in recent history than any other country on the planet?

You have got to be kidding me. Or yourself...

People are not good by nature.

Except for us, of course?


[edit on 8/26/06 by xmotex]

Nuke Iran.

Sounds like a great plan lets get on with it.

A map of suggested targets



[edit on 26-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]