No but my tax dollars are being wasted on a lesser threat to the world right now and just because that is backfiring does not mean we should not take millitary action with Iran. We are not gonna have troops on the ground in that country anyway. It's called a percision strike through the air and hell we can rut our navy in the Persion gulf and fire at them like we did in the Iraq-Iran war. If they want a part of us they can find us in the Iraq desert.
if they attack isreal, let isreal take care of it. if they attack us, then show the world why we spent billions on our military.
Therein lies the problem. Our Navy is vulnerable against Iran. It will sustain damage because of Iran's strategic location. Also, Iran has hidden most of the stuff underground so Air strikes will not prove to be as useful as they did agianst Iraq. If we decide to attack, we *should* win out eventually, but at very high costs, including manpower and $$. After the debacle in Iraq, we simply cannot afford this atm.
im sure we have some stuff under our sleeves too. we had stealth planes in the early 80s. lord knows what we have now. for Iran to publicly show its cards like this was a mere intimidation factor. the last time we showed our cards...stealth bombers..the A bomb.
The irony lost in all this is that Iran's accelerated buildup of its military arsenal is likely in direct relationship to U.S. presence and threats against them. May be it was inevitable, but we've certainly accelerated the whole process.
We have 30,000+ nukes at our disposal. It's not a waste to our military planners not to use them. They're deterrents. I still believe in the policy of not striking first. Our military's designed to fight two fronts. It's not a waste of taxpayer money not to fight two fronts. Iraq's a lesser threat because we made them a lesser threat. If you know know that they're a lesser threat before invasion then doesn't that mean we created an imaginary threat? Is it still possible? We can't win a war with the air only. Troops are needed to secure and contain the area. Troops are also needed to rebuild the country. It's mass murder if you decide to bomb and leave. You might might kill your target, but without troops, you're handing the government to someone inside who might be nastier. If Iran has nukes, I agree that action should be taken. This is going too strangely fast with the information we have at hand. We also have to consider that Iraq's Shiite majority won't lay down while their brothers are being bombed. Our presense in Iraq is too weak to contain organized civil rebellion for the same reason why we probably have the resources to mount an invasion in Iran....
depends on what your definition of "win" is. if it's merely neturalizing this nuclear threat, that war can be won entirely in the air. note --- im not suggesting the US SHOULD do this.
this is the definition of "WIN". Two hours after blowing the biggest lead in NBA playoff history, the Rockets flew out of Choke City down 0-2 to the Phoenix Suns. Four days later, the Rockets flew into Clutch City with the series tied 2-2. In Game 1 of the 1994 Western Conference Semifinals, Houston built an 18-point lead but lost. In Game 2, they had a 20-point lead in the fourth quarter but lost in overtime. "I'll never forget getting on the charter flight after Game 2," Rockets television commentator Bill Worrell said. "It was like a morgue." The Rockets didn't rise from the dead until the second half of Game 3 when they found themselves behind 49-41 at halftime. Then Vernon Maxwell got hot, scoring 31 points in the second half as the Rockets won 118-102. Houston finished "Desert Sweep" by winning Game 4, 107-96, to even the series.
iran is surrounded by us troops literally and not to mention the huge us naval presence in the region as well, and with all the us threats, it's easy to see why they feel insecure iran just wants to ensure the surivial of its regime and security for its state just like every other nation
Nah...they know where all of the tunnels are. Totally different. Iraq was an invasion to topple a regime, Iran would be targeted strikes at their nuclear facilities. They other difference is that since Iran will not be invaed, it may decide to strike back. And they would be fools to do it overtly, but I wouldn't put it past their president.
Our troops surround many other nations and they don't feel insecure. Who feels insecure about us? Iran? N Korea? It's a shame such peaceful nations should feel insecure, eh? Sure...and don't forget about the clearly stated desire for insecurity of another nation... unlike just about every other nation.
iran is literally surrounded and with all the rhetoric coming out of washington, this isn't like many other nations iran hasn't done anything illegal their program is under international inspection they've never attacked another country in their modern history they've been the victims of imperialism, foreign occupation, us installed dictatorships, invasions, terrorism, and wmds how are they the bad guys all of a sudden?
1. Their president hasn't exactly reached out to the west. 2. Their program isn't under full inspection. When the IAEA asked about various nuclear technologies that weren't necessarily needed for peaceful energy, Iran had no answer. 3. The IAEA referred them to the security council and raised concerns about Iran's nuclear program. 4. The past is the past, theyve done some extremely sketchy things that warrant some level of international attention. This isn't like Iraq. Both the Europeans and Americans agree that Iran hasn't been forthright with their program and their motives.
oh boy, i don't think you've ever been out of the U.S. Or if you have, you haven’t seen the faces behind the smiles.
why would there president reach out to the west when they refuse to treat iran as an equal.....iran cant even get spare aircraft parts from europe, not to mention sanctions and iranian assets that have been frozen for a very long time....khatami tried to reach out and the us said that he was a discredited politician, thus, the west including europe isnt really reaching out to iran either see http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0cfd2c90-1980-11da-804e-00000e2511c8.html read the iaea reports, every facility they wanted to inspect has been inspected....how do you think the world knows so much about their program if you read the iaea reports and not selective media excerpts, they demonstrate that iran has done nothing illegal, thus as usual, the us along with other countries manipulated an international organization to put pressure on a weaker country all countries should be held to the same standards, which begs us to ask the question: what about us proliferation of micro- and mini-nukes? they're a member of the npt as well and you cant just say "the past is the past," the present is a result of the past and the past history has shaped today's perceptions, which are the reality and the reality remains that iran has been the victim of all the things i mentioned above and they've never attacked another nation in their modern history, which is much more than i can say for most countries
it seems the Iranian Prez is begging to get bombed, he basically insulted the wife and expects the husband to sit and watch. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home Israel to be 'annihilated' Apr. 14, 2006. 02:48 PM TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm." Opening a conference on supporting the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad fired a series of verbal shots at Israel, saying it was a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated, and questioning the validity of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews in the Second World War. "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," he said. The president provoked a world outcry last October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map." On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?." The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon." He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon." The president spoke days after two Israeli generals spoke of the military potential of Iran's nuclear program. The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade." The day before Ahmadinejad had announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fuelling nuclear reactors or making nuclear bombs. The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build an atomic bomb. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity. The UN Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.
the same way people have a philosophical objection to facism and nazism....many people have a philosophical objection to a racist ideology like zionism and iran and many other states have been saying these sorts of things about israel for a long time and it's just rhetoric, because if you look at the actions on the ground they tell a completely different story (for example, iran purchased weapons from israel during the iran-iraq war and israeli companies even very recently were selling military equipment to iran) even if iran got a nuclear weapon, it would be nothing more than a strategic deterrent that would ensure the survival of the government and security of the state it would also provide a balance of power in the middle east since israel also has a lot more nukes than iran, if they choose to go down that path, will have in the future....so it would actually add to stability in the region, which is in everybody's interest....especially since israel has threatened to use nukes before like in the 1973 arab-israeli war when they were initially being defeated what people are failing to mention is that they're program is under international inspection as well and they're willing to negotiate even with the US directly where is the threat? if anybody should be threatened its iran, with all the nukes israel currently has, with US troops on their borders, and the significant military presence of american forces in the middle east if you examine iranian actions and not their words, iran is a rational actor that does what is in its best interest just like any other state, which makes their behavior predictable....this is simply a manufactured "threat" and is resolvable if all parties treat each other with mutual respect and negotiate the issues based on their merit http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php http://news.ft.com/cms/s/76a939b6-c5bc-11da-b675-0000779e2340.html
so are you saying that a country should be bombed because of what they say? i'm sure nobody here agrees with what he's saying and it's not beneficial for iran politically and diplomatically, but what happened to freedom of speech? now if there were actions on the ground that indicated he was trying to make this a reality, then of course there would be cause to worry, but if you look at my previous posts, iranian actions tell a completely different story the more and more i examine this issue, the more and more mahmoud ahmadinejad and george bush start to resemble each other
Yeah, I live in a cave. I've been out of the US, and I don't recall the Germans worried that we would invade them. Or the Italians, or Danes, or Swiss, or British.... In your worldy travels, which peoples are concerned about a US invasion?
