DescentBB

OK, just curious how many of you whackos would want to go to war with Iran.Y ou can decide when or how, or why.

Personally, I think you must be delusional for a war with Iran. I can't see why anyone would be for this, considering the state of Afghanistan and Iraq and how those went.

What would the point of a war with Iran be? Besides, like N. Korea, Iran can and will shoot back.

Um.... how 'bout no war?

war ++

War +++

Bee

Dedman wrote:What would the point of a war with Iran be? Besides, like N. Korea, Iran can and will shoot back.

Better now than wait until they have a nuke. Irans president, by his rhetoric, is a live wire that will have no qualms about using the bomb on either us or Israel. You all are being presented with a 1930's living history lesson. Many thought Hitler could be negotiated with and all thyat madman was doing was biding his time until his military strength was such he could impliment his plan for world conquest.
As the old saw goes," learn from history lest history repeat itself". Voted yes.

While I am fully aware of what happened with Hitler and the other European powers, I would not support a war with Iran right now as it is poor strategy given the available resources—or lack thereof. If the rest of the world joins in, then there is a chance, but otherwise it's not worth it at the moment.

I'm beginning to lean towards Iraq going to war with Iran.

No, I don't want it. I just think that's what is going to happen.

lol, you psychotic warmongers scare me. anybody the president posed as a threat you'd believe.
besides woody who just has a republican hard on the size of texas and would do anything bush did, why did you vote for warring with iran?

what did iran do to us? how did they threaten us?

Birdseye wrote:...why did you vote for warring with iran?
...what did iran do to us? how did they threaten us?

As for me, my vote on going to war with Iran is based on two issues.

1.) The country is controlled by muslim clerics who want to build a nuclear weapon.
2.) The president of Iran has stated, among other things, the following.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archi ... veId=15816
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/ ... index.html
3.) The parts above (in bold) should not be allowed to mix.

Bettina

Birdseye wrote:OK, just curious how many of you whackos would want to go to war with Iran.

Yes...but not with Americans involved.

You know in Iraq, when the WMDs turned out to be false. If Iran got a WMD or a located construction site of one, and we got MILLITARY help from other countries, I could possibly agree to it. However our lack of success in Iraq and Afganistan would be a bad thing.

1)Low resources/soldiers
2)No International millitary Support
3)Two pretty-well failed missions already
4)No exact proof of Nuclear Weapons production.

Get three of those four things fixed, and I would most likley agree. But at our current state and the chances of those changing, no.

Also, no George W. Bush involved. I don't care if it is Republican or Democrat (Democrat referred most of the time) but seeing bad managment on the previous missions + lies and lots of other domestic problems he has caused, I won't approve until he is out (impeachment or after his term).

1.) The country is controlled by muslim clerics who want to build a nuclear weapon.
3.) The parts above (in bold) should not be allowed to mix.

I wish I could say that \"nuclear\" and \"weapons\" could not be allowed in the same sentence as well.

Remember, it isn't as if I don't see any threat, it is, FOR IRAN ONLY, that it is more of a resources and assistance issue. In my opinion Iraq was not a threat, but Iran is, and if we had more resources/support/better management, I could agree.

america doesnt attack people who they think might fight back and im pretty certain iran would. i say america because i dont think many other countries are would be stupid enough to attack them

invading a country such as afghanistan or iraq, soverign nations is no better than hitler invading poland

i would be pretty furious if a war started with iran

tris wrote:invading a country such as afghanistan or iraq, soverign nations is no better than hitler invading poland.

Are you saying that Nato had no right to invade Afghanistan? I hope you answer this...

Bee

Bet51987 wrote: Are you saying that Nato had no right to invade Afghanistan? I hope you answer this...

Bee

Didn't NATO not want to attack Afghanistan and the US just went without their approval?

EDIT: Sorry, or was it attacking Iraq?

I'm not voting yet because the issue is too complex.

Is Iran committing an act of war against the US? yes. Am I scared of Iran? YES.

The problem is, its WORSE to start a war that you can't finish then to just avoid it in the first place. And due to Bush's stupidity in Iraq, we lack the resources and the will to get into another serious war.

resources: There is a significant chance that the US military could not actually win the war if we fought it.

will: Even if the military could handle it, the will of the people to fight has been all used up. The anti-war sentiment is so great right now that unless something really big stirs the fire again, anything Bush starts in Iran he will NOT be given the time to finish.

I haven't voted because I don't like the choices.

• Yes, they're already fighting us in Iraq

True, it appears (more evidence really needs to be made public) that they (or at least some groups within Iran) are either fighting us in Iraq or at least helping the Insurgents to some degree... but should we be going to war about it? It's not a good enough reason without more evidence.

• No, we learned our lesson about Bush leading us to war

I'm against war and encourage we don't go to war... but I totally disagree with your statement \"... we learned our lesson about Bush leading us to war...\"

Based on many things, I don't thing it was wrong for us to go to war in Iraq. Has it been handled correctly? No. Could they have handled it better? Yes. But hindsight is 20/20. There are MANY thing we didn't know going into it (one thing being how to fight Insurgents)... and are learning (albeit way too slowly).

Therefore, since I disagree with both of the choices in this Poll, I'm not voting on your Poll.

Birdseye wrote:lol, you psychotic warmongers scare me. anybody the president posed as a threat you'd believe.

Me, too. It's honestly scary how easily people can be swayed to support their country going to war, even when they have no idea what's involved!

(Disclaimer: Not that I'm saying people here are uninformed, you all are surprisingly knowledgeable. I just think people in general are often way too easily convinced about serious issues like war.)

*/me searches for that video where people-on-the-street in the US are interviewed about the "next country to invade" and agree to support invasion of a third-world country just because a politician said it was a threat...*

At this point I don't see an all out war with Iran immediately necessary. I do see an immediate need for people to recognize the threat Iran's leaders pose and use some common sense to separate their justified mistrust of the Bush administration from the criteria they should use to determine what the best course of action is!

Iran (read: islamo-facsist movement with immediate regional, and ultimately global, aspirations) is either a threat or it isn't, regardless of what Bush may say about them or how badly Bush has dealt with other military situations!

Bush=bathwater
Recognizing Iranian threat=baby

So be careful what you are throwing out!

OOOOH - Bet made Admiral!

What'm I up to I wonder?

Edit - HEHE - 7777

War? Not exactly. I think invading would be a really bad idea.

However, I don't think bombing the ★■◆● out of their military infrastructure would be. Might teach them some humility too.

Mobius wrote:OOOOH - Bet made Admiral!

What'm I up to I wonder?

Edit - HEHE - 7777

Hey, I did! and on my birthday month too. What does that mean. Like who can I control or issue orders to get me sodas.

Bettina

Leaders of third world countries say a lot of stupid things. Hussein himself claimed to have WMD, but he didn't.

Realize is the scale of Iran. Iraq is a nation of 28 million people. Iran has 70 million people. Invasion is not a decision that should be taken lightly or based on the weak evidence the Bush administration has provided. Apologies if I find the \"Hey, what's scarier, an Iran that did this deliberately or an Iran that didn't?\" rhetoric less than compelling.

Appreciate the purpose of war as it relates to diplomacy. A lot was made of Bush Sr.'s decision during Desert Storm to not destroy Hussein at that time. I would like to think this is because Bush Sr. understood that Hussein was a keystone, no matter how awful he was. He was a target for negotiation. And hence, for a time, UN inspectors were allowed to go around Iraq and look for WMD in the years following Desert Storm. Certainly, under Dubya's reign, Iraq got feisty again. But, if we had repeated the actions of Desert Storm - which is to say launch a powerful military onslaught to get Hussein back to the meeting table - we would have been vastly more successful than we are now. I fervently believe that if we had left at \"Mission Accomplished,\" we would be in a better position today.

That is the point of recent wars from our perspective, in my opinion. We want to bring the major parties to the table to work out a solution that mollifies our concerns and pacifies the region, if only temporarily. If hostile leaders choose not to cooperate, one option is to bomb them like crazy and then ask if they would like to reconsider. People like Hussein, driven by a simplistic, selfish goal of staying in power, would usually break down and agree to negotiate.

This is why starting a war with Iran is a bad idea. Democrats and authors of the Iraq Study Group report have advanced the idea of trying to negotiate with Iran. I feel this is half correct. We need only look to North Korea to see the power of multilateral talks, which Bush himself advocated in the case of North Korea and which also seem to have worked for the time being and seem to be an understated success for Bush. The Europeans have an interest in seeing Iran not descend into chaos, as do other Middle Eastern powers. We need to get them on the same page and then bring Iran to the table. We should not treat Iran as an unapproachable entity. Ahmadinejad has the same selfish interests as Hussein and as any dictator: he wants to remain in power. Should Ahmadinejad be unwilling, then we can throw some bombs. But now is not the time. What we should be doing is talking with our European and Middle Eastern allies and discussing a way forward. My guess is that if you get enough regional, trade, and political pressure on Ahmadinejad, he will cave.

By some reports, Ahmadinejad presides over an Iran that is largely nonplussed about his regime. The last thing you want to do is validate his existence by provoking him directly, and potentially usher in an Iranian nationalism that will ultimately hurt us in the long run.

Birdseye wrote: Personally, I think you must be delusional for a war with Iran. I can't see why anyone would be for this, considering the state of Afghanistan and Iraq and how those went.

There really was no reason to even ask why i'd vote no, heh.

Bet51987 wrote:War +++

Bee

Did you enlist yet ?

Grendel wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:War +++

Bee

Did you enlist yet ?

Grendel, I have opinions like everyone else so please don't do this to me.

Bettina

Did you enlist or not ? Are you planning to ?

ROFL, the classic \"You can't support the war if you don't enlist\" argument.

What a pile of bull★■◆●.

ccb056 wrote:ROFL, the classic "You can't support the war if you don't enlist" argument.

What a pile of *****.

I don't remember asking you or starting an argument. But since you barged in -- did you serve ?

ccb056 wrote:ROFL, the classic "You can't support the war if you don't enlist" argument.

What a pile of *****.

++

Kyouryuu wrote:Leaders of third world countries say a lot of stupid things. Hussein himself claimed to have WMD, but he didn't...

um, yes, he did. In fact, he used them against both the Iranians and the Kurds, if you will recall.

Bet51987 wrote:
As for me, my vote on going to war with Iran is based on two issues.

1.) The country is controlled by muslim clerics who want to build a nuclear weapon.
2.) The president of Iran has stated, among other things, the following.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archi ... veId=15816
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/ ... index.html
3.) The parts above (in bold) should not be allowed to mix.

Bettina

As opposed to our country, where things are as follows:

1.) The country is controlled by evangelical Christians and corporations who already have at hand multiple nuclear weapons.
2.) The president of the United States has stated, among other things, the following.
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushisms.html
3.) The parts above (in bold) should not be allowed to mix.

Gotta keep it all in perspective. Do I think Iran is being run into the ground by lunatics? Of course. Is our country any different in that regard?

Not particularly.

This country has enough problems as it is, such as MAKING SURE EVERYONE CAN EAT. Or how about receiving decent schooling? Or housing?

I'm not recommending isolationism, and I do agree that we need to learn from history's mistakes. But ignorance of a problem until the last moment (i.e. Hitler's rampage and the Holocaust) is different from attending to a global threat in a productive manner with international cooperation.

1.) The country is controlled by evangelical Christians and corporations who already have at hand multiple nuclear weapons.
2.) The president of the United States has stated, among other things, the following.
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushisms.html
3.) The parts above (in bold) should not be allowed to mix.

LOL LMFAO!!! (Although I would prefer a fanatic christian over a fanatic muslim any day)

This country has enough problems as it is, such as MAKING SURE EVERYONE CAN EAT.

Sad...

Or how about receiving decent schooling?

*cough* Florida *cough*

ROFL, the classic \"You can't support the war if you don't enlist\" argument.

What a pile of *****.

And yet some people who don't support the war are over there without a choice... and some who end up dead.

late to the party.

don't like the options on the poll. didn't vote.

Stay outta Iran unless UN is going to take action. (Very doubtful). Let them hit us for those who want to launch an offensive against Iran. ... we did this already in the early 70's.

dissent wrote:

Kyouryuu wrote:Leaders of third world countries say a lot of stupid things. Hussein himself claimed to have WMD, but he didn't...

um, yes, he did. In fact, he used them against both the Iranians and the Kurds, if you will recall.

Prior to our invasion, in the 80s and 90s, yes. Iraq had chemical WMD. At the time of our invasion, and while Hussein was championing the notion that he had them, they appeared to be missing or non-existent.

Bakdraft wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:
As for me, my vote on going to war with Iran is based on two issues.

1.) The country is controlled by muslim clerics who want to build a nuclear weapon.
2.) The president of Iran has stated, among other things, the following.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archi ... veId=15816
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/ ... index.html
3.) The parts above (in bold) should not be allowed to mix.

Bettina

As opposed to our country, where things are as follows:

1.) The country is controlled by evangelical Christians and corporations who already have at hand multiple nuclear weapons.
2.) The president of the United States has stated, among other things, the following.
http://mindprod.com/politics/bushisms.html
3.) The parts above (in bold) should not be allowed to mix.

Gotta keep it all in perspective. Do I think Iran is being run into the ground by lunatics? Of course. Is our country any different in that regard?

Not particularly.

This country has enough problems as it is, such as MAKING SURE EVERYONE CAN EAT. Or how about receiving decent schooling? Or housing?

I'm not recommending isolationism, and I do agree that we need to learn from history's mistakes. But ignorance of a problem until the last moment (i.e. Hitler's rampage and the Holocaust) is different from attending to a global threat in a productive manner with international cooperation.

With one difference. The weapons that Islamic clerics are trying to obtain will be far deadlier. So, if you were Israel, would you wait for international cooperation to sustain your survival? What "productive manner" do you think the U.N. has?

Just keeping things in perspective....

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:The weapons that Islamic clerics are trying to obtain will be far deadlier.
Bettina

How can a country just beginning to work at attaining nuclear weaponry have far deadlier weapons than are already residing in numerous stockpiles throughout this country? Unfortunately, we're the experts in this regard, and I doubt Iran can suddenly turn that on it's head.

Maybe they're in talks with Cobra Commander to develop an incredibly powerful weapon that turns us into cat zombies or something.

Also, the current zone we know as Israel is already heavily assisted by a great many international friends in high places with lots of cash and weapons to throw around, and they have no trouble creating plenty of ways to ensure their own survival.

Bakdraft wrote:How can a country just beginning to work at attaining nuclear weaponry have far deadlier weapons than are already residing in numerous stockpiles throughout this country?

It's not a question of will they build an arsenal capable of defeating us in an exchange of missile salvos...it's a question of will they provide a nuclear device to one of their terror wings to go and plant in one of the same places they currently plant conventional explosives! Or in a new place, like a container ship sitting in an american harbor - Baltimore, New York, Oakland, Los Angeles, etc. etc.
The only hard part is creating the nuclear material for the weapon. The bomb itself isn't that difficult to make and getting the bomb into the U.S. or a cafe in Israel or in a car parked in downtown London etc. is easy to do.

And even if their nuclear missiles won't equal ours there is that whole martyr complex thing they have going! The Iranian nutbag president thinks he can bring about the coming of the 12 imam by starting a world war!
That's more than just a little bit more dangerous and unpredictable than having Vladimir Putin in control of the Russian arsenal....

Grendel wrote:Did you enlist or not ? Are you planning to ?

Aren't you just the perfext piece of crap. Did you you serve? Did you do anything to help your country or are you just flipping your lip to make someone feel beneath you? I did serve in a war that was even more unpopular, and guess what? Soldiers would far more respect Betts opinon than the belittling comments you made. Oh and btw, did you enlist?

woodchip wrote:

Grendel wrote:Did you enlist or not ? Are you planning to ?

Aren't you just the perfext piece of crap. Did you you serve? Did you do anything to help your country or are you just flipping your lip to make someone feel beneath you? I did serve in a war that was even more unpopular, and guess what? Soldiers would far more respect Betts opinon than the belittling comments you made. Oh and btw, did you enlist?

A bit touchy, aren't you. What is it about adding intentions to simple questions ? Yes I did serve in my country. I was just curious if this eighteen year old pro-war advocat will be consequent to her view of things.