[John Q. Smith]

would you support another invasion, in Iran this time?

[]yes
[X]no

[Splinter]

No I would not. I would support surgical air strikes and whatever is necessary to eliminate their nuclear program. But invasion would be pointless and too costly.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Splinter:
No I would not. I would support surgical air strikes and whatever is necessary to eliminate their nuclear program.

And if invasion proves necessary, what then?

As for me, I wouldn't support it yet, but if current trends continue I'm liable to change my mind. The whole reason the US was able to credibly invade is because Saddam refused to cooperate fully with the inspections officers. I hope Iran would not be so foolish.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And if invasion proves necessary, what then?

As for me, I wouldn't support it yet, but if current trends continue I'm liable to change my mind. The whole reason the US was able to credibly invade is because Saddam refused to cooperate fully with the inspections officers. I hope Iran would not be so foolish.

Last I checked the US didn't credibly invade.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
As for me, I wouldn't support it yet, but if current trends continue I'm liable to change my mind.

In other words, you will await the elections in August and if the new president is not to your liking, you will bomb him away. The Americans' understanding of democracy.

[alphasubzero949]

Hell, we already have Iraq and Afghanistan; why not make it a complete U.S. territory 3 states across?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
Last I checked the US didn't credibly invade.

Many people, myself included, were convinced of the legitimacy of the invasion for the reasons Bush claimed at that time. This wouldn't have been possible if Saddam had cooperated in good faith. That is what I mean by a credible invasion; I did not mean 'credible' and 'legitimate' to be synonymous.

Mind you, I believe it was legitimate anyway, but that was not the point of my post, and I don't want to debate it here.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
In other words, you will await the elections in August and if the new president is not to your liking, you will bomb him away.

No. All that matters to me is whether or not Iran either abandons its nuclear program or allows inspectors to prove that it is a good-faith effort to develop power facilities and not weapons.

I couldn't care less about the elections or any new or incumbent President, except insofar as these determine the outcome of that particular decision.

[Curios Meerkat]

What an awful d�j�-vu...

Inspectors have visited Iran's facilities several times and found no evidence of a weapon program.

Nevertheless, and due to the insistance of the US, Iran has agreed to temporarily freeze its nuclear activities in exchange for better economic ties with a handful of EU states.

Sometimes I really wonder how cultured and intelligent people like you can fall for the propaganda of some politician - but then, I see the 'liberal media' acting as nothing but a megaphone for it (see the Friedman editorial posted here).

[chris v]

Let's go for it. All reason, logic and restraint have gone out the window. What the hell. Nothing to lose except a few hundred billion dollars, a few thousand soldiers, and the usual collateral damage. We didn't need facts for Iraq, what the hell do we need facts for with Iran? Let's do some Shock And Awe, send in a light, quick force, and plan only for the best possible outcome.

We've learned nothing from history yet, why start now?

[Face Ache]

This will be a hit and run if it happens, not an invasion, although I'd be interested to know who wouldn't mind being drafted to go fight in Iran (seeing as it's so worthwhile).

[rambo47]

Invade, no. But 250 Megatons set for a 1 mile airburst over Tehran

[Sherwin]

Nope. Just build a big wall around it.

[Psychonaut]

Originally posted by rambo47:
Invade, no. But 250 Megatons set for a 1 mile airburst over Tehran

*Sigh* Why the hell not? We're on a roll, aren't we?

[demograph68]

Iran?!? What happened to North Korea's plan of making nuclear bombs?

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Iran?!? What happened to North Korea's plan of making nuclear bombs?

Today's secret word is composed of 3 letters, beginning with an O and ending with a L. And don't forget about a certain vowel in the middle.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No. All that matters to me is whether or not Iran either abandons its nuclear program or allows inspectors to prove that it is a good-faith effort to develop power facilities and not weapons.

Hey, where is that check we agreed you would rip up and throw away?

I ripped it up and threw it away.

No you didn't. Prove it.

Come search my place.

**searches** It's not here. Where are you hiding it?

I destroyed it.

Prove it!

Has the check been cashed? It's been a year.

That wasn't the question! Prove you destroyed it, or I'm going to break into your house and steal some stuff!

I'll be hiding in a hole in my crawlspace...

[Salah al-Din]

A different view on this thread and you be the judge if it would still be unlocked.



Blow up Israel: Yes or No?


one reply:

Invade, no. But 250 Megatons set for a 1 mile airburst over Tel Aviv

Another reply:

Nope. Just build a big wall around it.(there is a bad joke in there but lets not go there)


How long do you think it would take for that thread to be locked?

[John Q. Smith]

gawd, Salad Bin Llama, you're even more obnoxious than me

[Millennium]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Iran?!? What happened to North Korea's plan of making nuclear bombs?

What 'plan'? They say they already have them, which is what makes the whole thing so troublesome. Is it really so hard to understand that actually having nukes changes everything, as compared to not having them yet?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
A different view on this thread and you be the judge if it would still be unlocked.

[snip]

How long do you think it would take for that thread to be locked?

About as long as it's taken this one.

[chris v]

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
gawd, Salad Bin Llama, you're even more obnoxious than me

He has a point. Israel has the bomb. Their military is arguably teorristic on occasion. It's a matter of viewpoint*.







* disclaimer! CV doesn't want anybody anywhere to get nuked. He's a peacenik of the quivering apologist variety, so lay off, already Millenium and Vmarks.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What 'plan'? They say they already have them, which is what makes the whole thing so troublesome. Is it really so hard to understand that actually having nukes changes everything, as compared to not having them yet?

A lesson well-learned by all the countries racing to acquire nukes, I might add. "Look! N. Korea's got the bomb, and the US is leaving them alone. Maybe we'd better get in on that."

[tie]

Originally posted by Splinter:
No I would not. I would support surgical air strikes and whatever is necessary to eliminate their nuclear program. But invasion would be pointless and too costly.

I would support a CIA-backed coup that ultimately leads to the installation of an anti-American, anti-democratic, terrorist-supporting regime.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world...cia-index.html

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Millennium:
About as long as it's taken this one.

mhmmm.

[chris v]

Originally posted by tie:
I would support a CIA-backed coup that ultimately leads to the installation of an anti-American, anti-democratic, terrorist-supporting regime.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world...cia-index.html

"Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry..."

There's kind of a theme developing here...

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by chris v:
"Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry..."

There's kind of a theme developing here...

Just take a look at what is happening in Venezuela and the US policy towards them. It's pretty obvious.

[ebuddy]

The vast majority of those here, xenophobic of the American slay me. You really do. I voted no, in the poll. Invasion is not the answer to all of life's problems. Some of you imperialists need to quit pointing at US foreign policy and drop the crack-pipe.

Two statements made by Curious Meerkat; Inspectors have visited Iran's facilities several times and found no evidence of a weapon program.

Per Daily News, World and International report;

TEHRAN - Iran plans to reject any international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world yesterday to accept Iran as a member of the nuclear club.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi rejected outside influence on Tehran's nuclear ambitions two days before the International Atomic Energy Agency meets to discuss Iran.

"We won't accept any new obligations," Kharrazi said. "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path."

Nevertheless, and due to the insistance of the US, Iran has agreed to temporarily freeze its nuclear activities in exchange for better economic ties with a handful of EU states.

I hope you see this as ultimitely good and proof that the US is not alone in seeking peaceful means to disarming ends. HEEHEEHEE, I'm so against the US that I want all those who speak of Zionist destruction to have unfettered, unrestricted access to nukes...*squirm* HEEHEEHEE

[Joshua]

No, I wouldn't support an invasion under the current circumstances. I would like to see Bush encourage a democratic revolution and support it (limited air strikes, special forces, etc.) when and if it occurs.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Joshua:
No, I wouldn't support an invasion under the current circumstances. I would like to see Bush encourage a democratic revolution and support it (limited air strikes, special forces, etc.) when and if it occurs.

He would be about 25 years too late to do that. Iran already had their revolution.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Joshua:
No, I wouldn't support an invasion under the current circumstances. I would like to see Bush encourage a democratic revolution and support it (limited air strikes, special forces, etc.) when and if it occurs.

You know that Iran is a republic with elected representatives, don't you?

Iran doesn't need a democratic revolution, it needs an evolution to more democracy. I don't see how that could be supported with "limited air strikes".

[Salah al-Din]

Here's a must read article for you.

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durable...tl/intl.3.html

Highlight:

They(Jews) elect their own deputy to the 270-seat Parliament and enjoy certain rights of self-determination


Now compare that to the US's most favoured allies in the ME.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You know that Iran is a republic with elected representatives, don't you?

Iran doesn't need a democratic revolution, it needs an evolution to more democracy. I don't see how that could be supported with "limited air strikes".

And Saddam was democratically elected with 100% of the popular vote, right?

RSF's World Press Freedom Ranking has Iran ranked 158th out of 167. The Heritage Foundation ranks Iran 148th of 161 in their Index of Economic Freedom. I don't know of any general indexes of political or personal freedom, but you can read Amnesty International's report here, and the Human Rights Watch brief here.

This isn't a free, democratic state, and it isn't going to "evolve" into one any time soon.

[Cody Dawg]

Hand over the nukes and cooperate or we're gonna stick you up and take 'em away.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Joshua:
And Saddam was democratically elected with 100% of the popular vote, right?

RSF's World Press Freedom Ranking has Iran ranked 158th out of 167.

159 Saudi Arabia

When is it time to bomb your allies in the ME?

But anyway. Iranians elect their representatives. They are slowly moving towards a more open and more democratic society. That is something the US's allies in the ME are not doing at all. Why the need to kill innocent Iranians?

edited to add: This article is also fitting for this post of yours. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4202617.stm


edited to add: Just thought I'd post the image from the Economic "Freedom" Ranking just to prove my point.



Like I said. It's slowly getting better.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And if invasion proves necessary, what then?

As for me, I wouldn't support it yet, but if current trends continue I'm liable to change my mind. The whole reason the US was able to credibly invade is because Saddam refused to cooperate fully with the inspections officers. I hope Iran would not be so foolish.

WTF are you talking about? I thought you had a bit of sense amongst the other no-brainer Americans.How the hell does invasion become necessary in regards to Iran? Oh wait, you just bought into Bush Co., arguments about WMD. Um, since when does the US dictate such maters, that's right, when they decided to be the world police.

Some of you are so friggin thick, it's just a joke. Look at the flimsy reasons here to suddenly demonize Iran, yet based on a proven false course of events. Iran decides to talk about their nuclear intentions, the world goes, "Ok", the US says, no wait, we intend to bomb them anyway.
Heck, we can't find WMD in Iraq, but please believe us that Iran is lying and we need to invade them.

Jeesus, who the fcuk said you could decide what other natoins do, especialy if they feel threatened by the US.

I can't believe people actually support invading Iran, a counry that ha snot threatened anyone. Democracy? Have you thought about asking the Iranians if they are not free

Blind, people.

As to nukes. The US is the only nation that is actually armed to the teeth with nukes, and making such threats to others. Yet, we're al meant to think you are doing tihs in the knowledge of providng a safe world? Gimme a break. US intentions have never been so transparent.

Amazing how it;'s the US declaring others to be the menace of international community, yet, it's the US who is actually invading, bombing, kiling others.

****ing blind people out there, well, most of them in the US.

I really hope Iram kicks you guys hard, I mean launch nukes at you iof you touch them, you deserve it.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No. All that matters to me is whether or not Iran either abandons its nuclear program or allows inspectors to prove that it is a good-faith effort to develop power facilities and not weapons.

I couldn't care less about the elections or any new or incumbent President, except insofar as these determine the outcome of that particular decision.

Who decided that you could dictate such terns? I'm sorry, but lke Bush says, the world has changed since 9/11 and if countries like Iran are being threatened, they deserve to arm themselves to defend their sovereignty or does that only apply to the US?

Hypocrisy my friend, since you;'re assuming the US;' intentions are somehow honourable, but they're not really.

Why not pose thihs little ultimatum to Israel? How about China? Nah, didn't think so. It's easier to go for Iran. Wait, I hear you say thatr Iran is a lose cannon, might supply radicals with arms. Gop check your facts, you have a lot more to wory about from China doing that, than iran.

It's amazing how we have embued America wit this almost reverential title of guardians of the world, yet it is so far from reality. Self-serving bastards.

I just love the phony pretexts for invading countries these days, how selectve it is.

[SubGeniux]

People are assuming here that it's ok to create a world in which we just buy into the US' criteria for war. It's so easy to fool a person into believng they are under attac, and all the while the motives are something entirely different. Not many question the very basis for these actions, which is just amazing.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
A different view on this thread and you be the judge if it would still be unlocked.

You know, if anti-Israel threads get locked while anti-Arab threads don't, simply on the basis of their targets, then you could prove it. It wouldn't even take too much effort.

It's been long established that we only delete spam threads; even the most hateful invective on these boards isn't deleted even when the threads are locked. It seems to me that if you want to show our so-called bias, all you need to do is find locked anti-Israel threads, and show that the threads were locked because they were anti-Israel. We have a nice, convenient Search function that will help you in this endeavor.

I'll say this much: you can most certainly threads which started out as anti-Israel which were later locked. However, I think you'll find it a trifle difficult to show that they were locked because they were anti-Israel.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Many people, myself included, were convinced of the legitimacy of the invasion for the reasons Bush claimed at that time.

Many Americans you mean. If this had been a referendum in most other nations, the motion would have been squashed.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
WTF are you talking about? I thought you had a bit of sense amongst the other no-brainer Americans.How the hell does invasion become necessary in regards to Iran?

If nothing else will induce their cooperation.

Back before the invasion, there were plenty of people who supported the threat of invasion -as it was clearly causing Saddam to start opening up, albeit grudgingly and in bad fairh- but would never have supported an actual invasion. But how can threats be real unless they are intended to be backed up if necessary?

As to nukes. The US is the only nation that is actually armed to the teeth with nukes, and making such threats to others.

Patently false. Consider for a moment North Korea, China, the UK, France, Russia, Pakistan, and India, and that's just the list of nuclear powers that I can name off the top of my head. Then there's Israel, which still denies having nukes even though everyone knows they're there (having been sold to them by France).

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Joshua:

This isn't a free, democratic state, and it isn't going to "evolve" into one any time soon. [/B]

Have you asked the Iranians what they want? Since when does American-style democracy have to be applied to nations across the world? Who cares if they don't have your particular brand of freedoms, they theirs, so why not respect that? Ok?

This argument is growing old, that somehow countries across the globe are in need of rescuin,g and low and behold, the US is the one to do it. What a blanket to actually cover up the real motivations going on here.

Iran is a nation that shoudl decide on how it wants to live, and should fight against any incursions into their territory, and culture.

It's amazing, we hear a lot about Bush saying how others want to take awy American freedoms, are againsty American culture. Fcukin hell, what is this all about then when you want to plant your culture, adn way of life on others? which is basically what you're doing. Removing ways of life and supplanting them with US servants.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Many Americans you mean.

Mostly Americans, but there were others as well. I was merely pointing out that large numbers of people had been convinced, because it wasn't actually that unreasonable of an assertion. If Saddam had cooperated, the claim couldn't have held any water at all, even among these.

Or do you think you have a monopoly on rationality?

If this had been a referendum in most other nations, the motion would have been squashed.

Such a shame that it wasn't a referendum in those nations, then, huh?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Such a shame that it wasn't a referendum in those nations, then, huh?

For the Iraqis that have lost loved ones, yes.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Who decided that you could dictate such terns?

Who ever said that I spoke for anyone but myself? I certainly didn't.

Why not pose thihs little ultimatum to Israel? How about China?

Because they already have nuclear weapons. Trying to stop someone from developing something they already have is pointless.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If nothing else will induce their cooperation.

Back before the invasion, there were plenty of people who supported the threat of invasion -as it was clearly causing Saddam to start opening up, albeit grudgingly and in bad fairh- but would never have supported an actual invasion. But how can threats be real unless they are intended to be backed up if necessary?

Patently false. Consider for a moment North Korea, China, the UK, France, Russia, Pakistan, and India, and that's just the list of nuclear powers that I can name off the top of my head. Then there's Israel, which still denies having nukes even though everyone knows they're there (having been sold to them by France).

You missed my qualification for that sentence. Is ahasd has nukes, AND threatening other nations to that degree. I know many natins have nuclear capabilites, but how many are actually threatening to invade nations every week? Is China? IS Pakistan (Kashmir being a particular cause) Is Iran? So tell me, who is the real threat here? To you, it might be everyone else because of the crap you're sold. But to many other people, you are the threat, not only because of your rhetoric of war, but also because you actually go about invading others. Irna isn't a threat, but ery soon, the US is a threat to tehm. So why shouldn't they take precautions?

As to enducing them into giving up WMD? Where's your inducements? Who said you could be the only nation to have them?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Because they already have nuclear weapons. Trying to stop someone from developing something they already have is pointless.

Why not bomb their nuclear and military sites? That would take out their nuclear capacity.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Joshua:
And Saddam was democratically elected with 100% of the popular vote, right?

You're not comparing Saddam Hussein with Khatami, are you?

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Who ever said that I spoke for anyone but myself? I certainly didn't.

Because they already have nuclear weapons. Trying to stop someone from developing something they already have is pointless.

And so they should have them. If nations like the US are proving to be like the playground buly, then damn, I'd certainly stock up on tools to hit yuou back. BUt wait a minute. Who said they had them? The US? So? Iran has denied that, and they allowed inspectors in, in fact, Iran has already given assurances they are for only peaceful reasons. But, this isn't enough for the US? Wonder why? Because it has nothing to do with taking WMD off them> You really don't see the bigger plan here.

Anyway, the US' track record on accusin gothers of something is sorely tarnished, and I;m afraid, I wouln't believe a word yuou gutys said in reagrds to anyone else. Me thinks they are said purely so some self-serving national interest reasons. Reme,ber Iraq? Where are the WMD? So before you accuse Iran of lying, maybe you want to get your house in order (not you personally).

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Why not bomb their nuclear and military sites? That would take out their nuclear capacity.

Why should they bomb Iran at all? How come Iran is suddenlly this demon nation? According to who? Ah yes, the US. So yeah, we must really believe that, we better be good lemmings and just go along with this little plan, bec ause those them their bad Iraians are gonig to nuke us all. I'm sorry, but the only people who should feel threatened, anbd nisecure, are the damn nations on the recieving end of US threats.