Don't let Bush attack Iran!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rob308

New member
It would be very stupid and dangerous, and it wouldn't do anything to make us safer.

It's exactly what our real enemies, Al-Qaeda want us to do. That's because they know they can't actually defeat the US in a conventional war. They are trying to do it by slowly bleeding our economy dry through endless wars.

I haven't seen any proof that they are building nuclear bombs and I really doubt that they are trying to. They are only enriching the uranium to about 4% purity, they would need to clean it up much more (80% or higher) if they wanted to build a bomb.

Ahmadinejad is not the actual leader of Iran. The person who really controls Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This person has issued a fatwa saying that
"the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam" and "Iran shall never acquire these weapons".
Also, when Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University he said
"I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them -- politically they are backward, retarded."
I really don't think he would be saying that if the leader of Iran's armed forces (Khamenei) was building them.

Besides, if they did want to make nuclear bombs, they wouldn't make it so obvious that they were doing it. They would do it in secret and they would deny it in public.

Even if they were building them, they wouldn't give it to a terrorist. If they were going to do something like that they would have already done it. They have the capability to make biological and chemical weapons and they may already have them.

The media says that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" but you shouldn't believe everything the media says. Many people think that was a bad translation, because the phrase "wipe off the map" doesn't exist in the farsi language. The true translation is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Even MEMRI, which is run by the IDF, agrees that this is the right translation. But it doesn't really matter, he has clarified what he meant and he says that it will vanish like the Soviet Union vanished. This is what he said about this subject when he spoke at Columbia University recently:
What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
It doesn't sound like he wants to nuke Israel. It doesn't sound like he's the new Hitler. Actually, there are 25,000 jews living in Iran and they refuse to leave even when Israeli Jews try to bribe them into leaving. They also have representation in the Iranian parliament. There is a TV show about an Iranian Muslim Man and a French Jewish Woman who fall in love during the 1940's. The man rescues the woman from the Nazi concentration camps and they flee to Iran..

Look, there's really no good reason to attack Iran. The majority of Americans don't want to fight Iranians and I don't think they want to fight Americans. I don't even think Ahmadinejad wants war...

We think that this war should not exist. There can be friendship and peace - why should there be an occupation in which killings take place? Our message is that of friendship for all - we like all nations we also like all human beings. Whoever is killed we are distressed, we don't rejoice in it because your soldiers are also human beings, poor things, they do not know where they are. These fifteen English naval personnel they did not even know where they were - why should English youth come to Iraq and be killed - for what reason? The English people should be in their country and serve their own people. We are not happy we would like to have peace and friendship for every one - we have mentioned that we are prepared to help end the war so that there is peace and brotherhood for all.

The Iranian nation is a cultured nation. It is a civilized nature. It seeks, it wants, new talks and negotiations. It's for it. We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats; we don't need to point bombs or guns; we don't need to get into conflict if we talk. We have a clear logic about that.

Iran is a Shia country and A.Q. and the Taliban are Sunni terrorist groups. The Iranians don't like these groups any more than we do. They actually helped us when we went into Afghanistan. Also, Iran was the only middle eastern country that held candlelight vigils for the victims of 9/11...

As for the "great satan" stuff... what do you expect? The western world backed Saddam when he attacked them, they helped him make chemical weapons which he used against Iran and they overthrew their democratic government and replaced it with a dictatorship. It isn't surprising that many of them hate our government. I would also if I were in their position.

But Iran has a very young population. After the Islamic Revolution, the leaders of Iran told people to have lots of children. They did this and now, the old Iranians who remember all those things are outnumbered by the young ones, many who like the US and western culture. These young people want change.

http://www.populationaction.org/Pub..._Things_to_Come/asset_upload_file463_6092.gif

Eventually, Iran will change. They could be a great ally to us in the future but if we attack them that will never happen. Actually, they could be a great ally now...

Here's a documentary about Iran.. I think all Americans should watch it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...233&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


So... what other reasons are there to attack Iran? Why should we attack them instead of making friends with them? How would this benefit us? Are you ready to accept the consequences of it? (10$ gas) I'll be waiting for an answer to these questions...
 
So... what other reasons are there to attack Iran? Why should we attack them instead of making friends with them? How would this benefit us? Are you ready to accept the consequences of it? (10$ gas) I'll be waiting for an answer to these questions...

1. How exactly would you stop Bush from attacking Iran?

2. How do you make friends with someone that hates everything about you and wants to see you dead?
 
Is this a joke, or a post from The Other Side? :mad:

Sounds like Tokyo Rose to me...

The media says that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" but you shouldn't believe everything the media says. Many people think that was a bad translation, because the phrase "wipe off the map" doesn't exist in the farsi language.

Considering that Al-Jazeera said that...
 
While I agree with your premise in general - we, as a nation, should simply get out of the warmongering business; we've had half a century to get good at it and it's only managed to make our lives more dangerous and give the government reason and ability to strip our freedoms - there are points in your post that simply don't make sense.

I haven't seen any proof that they are building nuclear bombs and I really doubt that they are trying to.
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean the intelligence community hasn't.
"the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam" and "Iran shall never acquire these weapons".
Because old dusty books written over a thousand years ago mention nuclear weapons?
Besides, if they did want to make nuclear bombs, they wouldn't make it so obvious that they were doing it. They would do it in secret and they would deny it in public.
They...are denying it. o_O

Now there are plenty of reasons not to attack Iran and his "quote" about wiping anyone off the map has been misrepresented many times over. But if you're going to press this argument I suggest cleaning it up a bit and making it sound like a point of debate, not a string of thoughts in conversation.

I agree with your premise, just not your delivery.
 
Bush will not attack Iran. He has us overextended in Iraq.

Hillary will attack Iran. She will pull us out of Iraq to show Bush wrong, but the modern US politician of either/any party cannot resist the temptation to what Jefferson called "foreign adventure."
 
Sorry, but I think I'd rather take the intellegence reports over a Tokyo Rose type statement "I haven't seen any proof they (Iran) are building a bomb".

Even France is concerned about this one.

Doubtful that Bush will attack Iran at this time but the Israelis are certainly capable of some military action and the U S could very well be involved at some future time under the direction of Hillary, or who ever follows GW.
 
That and the Koran says its perfectly acceptable to lie to non-muslims...




I have spare grains of salt, for anyone who'd like to borrow.
 
We don't have a sustained conflict

We bomb all major targets, eliminate their capability for a retaliation, and let their people do the rest.

Really, we have the major players on our side here also.
 
Bush II will attack Iran when the timing is right, which will be close enough to the next election that the next president won't be able to do anything about Iraq because of the Iranian response that will come. He will set up foreign events to make mideast turmoil unstoppable.

Iran now trades 65% of it's oil for euros, and only 15% in US dollars, and that has the US government's bankers, the ones who own the Federal Reserve system, in a tizzy. If a few more countries make this switch, things could get very ugly.

Al Queda has never been involved with Iran. They're hardcore Sunni's, and all Sunni's think Shia's are heretics to be treated like any infidel.

Iran's entire military is equipped ONLY for defense of Iran, they have no strategic weapons systems of any kind, and none are planned. Even if they developed a nuclear weapon, which is very unlikely, it would pose absolutely no threat to anyone outside Iran. Since Israel has at least 200 and more likely 300 to 400 nuclear weapons AND strategic delivery capability NOW, no one in the mideast will be capable of threatening them with a nuclear weapon under any known circumstances in the lifetime of any reader of this forum. In fact, Pakistan is a far greater threat to the region than anyone other than Israel since it has both nuclear weapons and delivery capability.

An attack on Iran, a member of the UN, would of course violate US and International law under treaties signed by the US government and ratified by the US Senate. These treaties forbid one member nation from attacking another member nation unless two conditions are met. Those are, 1. a member nation attacks or invades a member nation, or 2. a member nation is threatening eminent attack or invasion of another member nation. Neither of those conditions exist, or are expected to exist in my lifetime several times over. Further, congressional authorization of the use of force does NOT alter US law forbidding invasion of a UN member nation because of the way in which the US Constitution article is written establishing this law.

Additionally, Iran, unlike Iraq, has not had ten years of routine bombings and blockades of military hardware. Add that to the capabilities they've developed for internal weapons manufacture and skills remaining from defending against the US government suborned attack by Iraq, they do have some capability of defending against an attack by the Bush/Cheney led coalition within the US government. Of particular interest is the C-802 anti-shipping missile which has a hit probability of 98%, which are delivered in several different ways, including Cat 14 fast attack catamarans. Guidance is INS with terminal radar homing.

And last, if one wants Iran to acquire nuclear capability in the future, I can think of no better way to speed that up with certainty than an attack of their country. That will assure they acquire nuclear weapons.
 
"I really don't think he would be saying that if the leader of Iran's armed forces (Khamenei) was building them."

Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh...

Uhm... yeah. Right. :rolleyes:
 
He wont have to ask. He'll just illegally circumvent Congress again and put us even close to irreversable squalor.
 
I'm surprised that the government has not drafted some of the posters for critical government positions.With their ability to clearly see the big picture and understand complex geopolitical relationships,histories and futures beyond the grasp of the ordinary man,they would be invaluable.

I guess if blogdom says it,it must be true.
 
"A" government or "Some" governments have indeed drafted, or, rather, recruited and indoctrinated people on blogs.

But it's not our government.

These new jihadists have been very effectively brainwashed to think that they're on the right side, too, and stand for peace. Useful idiots. There's a bunch on Daily Kos, definitely.
 
But Iran held a candlelight vigil! What about that?!?

And according to Iran's 'enlightened' leader, Iran doesn't have homosexuals there. Well, not after they stone the homosexuals to death, anyway. That's Iran's 'final solution' for that "phenomenon".

Wonder if they've also held a candlelight vigil for the murdered homosexuals?

:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top