Iran close to war nukes

[Bunz]

This luantic sixth-century type regime simply can't be allowed to have nuke weapons. When the US gets hard evidence that they are assembling them (which is about the only thing left) we should support Israel in taking out the facilities, with intelligence and military resupply.

You realize of course that this will lead to a shooting war, and potentially a nuclear holocaust.

I'm sorry, but this is the Obama theory - if you speak nice to islamofascist tyrants, they'll give up and be nice ever after. The one thing that my study of history has taught me is that dictators only understand only one thing - force. Remember Stalin contemptuously said "how many divisions does the pope have"?

Whose armed forces do you propose to use? There is no way in hell we are going to attack Iran, nor is Israel. You are dreaming. This will lead to WWIII and probably the end of civilization as we know it.

That's just not true - when Reagan entered the white house, the soviet union was being aggressive all over the world, and had hugely armed up in the face of Jimmy Carter's retreat and appeasement policies. Reagan launched one of the biggest arms buildups in american history. Reagan's later-obtained KGB file described him as "a man for whom words and deeds are the same" - it was not only Reagan's words, but his deeds, that made him one of the instrumental factors in the collapse of the soviet union.

You are dreaming. That was nearly 30 years ago, and John McCain is no Ronald Reagan, and Sarah Palin is no George Bush. We cant afford another war. We dont have the troops, we dont have the treasure, and Iran is militarily isolated. I support a de-escalation stance with Iran, because we have no other viable choice. Thinking that direct military involvement is somehow the answer to Iran is sophmoric at best.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The alleged international aggression of the Soviet Union was largely an invention of the US to justify massive arms spending.

When the lie became unsustainable they invented the war on terrror for the same reasons.

The US is the most aggressive post-WW2 nation on earth.

Considerably more dangerous than Iran.

 

[bododie]

How about we knew that Iraq had wmd because we gave them to them during the Iraq Iran war? It's well known by anyone who knows about that conflict that we supplied weapons to Iraq. If you accept something from America, turn your back on us, we will make you pay. Boo hoo.

 

[BigRob]

How about we knew that Iraq had wmd because we gave them to them during the Iraq Iran war? It's well known by anyone who knows about that conflict that we supplied weapons to Iraq. If you accept something from America, turn your back on us, we will make you pay. Boo hoo.

There are no friends.. only interests.

Interests change.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
This luantic sixth-century type regime simply can't be allowed to have nuke weapons. When the US gets hard evidence that they are assembling them (which is about the only thing left) we should support Israel in taking out the facilities, with intelligence and military resupply.

You realize of course that this will lead to a shooting war,

Probably.

and potentially a nuclear holocaust.

Not at all.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but this is the Obama theory - if you speak nice to islamofascist tyrants, they'll give up and be nice ever after. The one thing that my study of history has taught me is that dictators only understand only one thing - force. Remember Stalin contemptuously said "how many divisions does the pope have"?

Whose armed forces do you propose to use? There is no way in hell we are going to attack Iran, nor is Israel. You are dreaming.

I already said Israel, specifically their air force.

This will lead to WWIII and probably the end of civilization as we know it.

Nahhhh.

Quote:
That's just not true - when Reagan entered the white house, the soviet union was being aggressive all over the world, and had hugely armed up in the face of Jimmy Carter's retreat and appeasement policies. Reagan launched one of the biggest arms buildups in american history. Reagan's later-obtained KGB file described him as "a man for whom words and deeds are the same" - it was not only Reagan's words, but his deeds, that made him one of the instrumental factors in the collapse of the soviet union.

You are dreaming. That was nearly 30 years ago, and John McCain is no Ronald Reagan, and Sarah Palin is no George Bush.

Hold on now - I was merely opposing your suggestion that Reagan prevailed by "speaking softly".

We cant afford another war. We dont have the troops, we dont have the treasure,

I didn't propose that.

and Iran is militarily isolated. I support a de-escalation stance with Iran, because we have no other viable choice.

And if they won't de-escalate, what will you do?

Thinking that direct military involvement is somehow the answer to Iran is sophmoric at best.

Maybe so, but one couldn't tell that from what you've posted.