DescentBB

I just want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes so to speak.

edit: damn, we appear to be back to only allowing 4 options. Alot of my "neither" options were removed, I guess this will suffice

again with the middle east...

Tyranny wrote: again with the middle east...

Someone seriously needs geography 101.

grrr, the update has removed alot of other options as well.

Where's the none of the above option?

Gooberman wrote:Someone seriously needs geography 101.

oh, wooptydoo, Korea isn't in the middle east

Kim Jong-il will get his before it's all said and done anyways. The middle east is the hotbed right now. N.Korea in due time

Don't make me drive out to your place and smack you upside the head goob

Not right now. Iraq is enough to handle at this point, and was pretty much a pissant force in the first place. We'd be getting into far serious trouble if we just said "Okay, Iran too!"

Europe got the Iran hand-off.

Where's the none of the above option?

There was one, it got truncated.

Also, my main point Ty is that this isn't a dead horse. I hear alot of conservative people discussing that we should go into Iran. Or that we should go into Korea.

I just find it hard to believe that any sane person would think that wise without knowing if Iraq will be a success or not. I finished talking to a good friend of mine before making this post, who was telling me that we should go into Iran now. In fact Bill Oreilly on tonights show said "we just can't let Iran get nukes."

It seems like popular opinion is beginning to start that 'Iran is next."

I just could not disagree more. I believe that would become the biggest mistake in the history of the United States.


And that horse really hasn't been beat here yet.

I could be convinced to support an invasion of (north) korea. I don't think you can tell me with a straight face we should invade iran.

where's the invade france button?

I supported the war in Iraq because the diplomatic options had been exhausted. We tried more than a decade of less drastic alternatives, and finally it came down to the last resort.

We have a LONG way to go before reaching the last resort with either Iran or North Korea. There are circumstances in which I would support military action against either, but I don't intend to cross that bridge just yet. Let's see how the multilateral talks go first. Just the fact that we DID invade Iraq ought to give each of these other rogue nations some pause when it comes to passing up the opportunity to gain something for themselves from negotiation and peaceful abandonment of their nuclear weapons programs.


- Sirian

Sorry Goob, just getting tired of the E&C subject matter. It's been a dead horse all around for two years....

Whether we enter into conflict with Iran may not be decided by the White House. It will be decided by the Iranian government...and so far they seem to be edging toward conflict. There will come a point when Israel will strike at the Iranian nuclear sites itself. What happens next is anyone's guess...but it won't be good.

i wish to vote for a diplomatic option (but none existed) coz i'm a godamn hippy. hahah god is a swear word, eek don't say god.

[quote="Sirian"

We have a LONG way to go before reaching the last resort with either Iran or North Korea. There are circumstances in which I would support military action against either, but I don't intend to cross that bridge just yet. Let's see how the multilateral talks go first. Just the fact that we DID invade Iraq ought to give each of these other rogue nations some pause when it comes to passing up the opportunity to gain something for themselves from negotiation and peaceful abandonment of their nuclear weapons programs.


- Sirian[/quote]

I don't think we should wait too much longer. Once Iran has the bomb and bomb making equipment, negotiations will be a moot point. Not only would Iran have a nuke but they already have the capability to deliver it. Iran is already stating they will be boosting satellites into orbit in the near future:
http://tinyurl.com/52gda
While the sats. will ostensibly be for communications, you can bet your bippy that the real purpose will be for targeting the long range missles they are working on.

Additionally we have the following organisations operating in Iran that the Iranian govt. is turning a blind eye to:

TEHRAN, Iran, (AP) - Some 200 masked young men and women gathered at a Tehran cemetery Thursday to pledge their willingness to carry out suicide bomb attacks against Americans in Iraq and Israelis.

"Sooner or later we will bury all blasphemous occupiers of Islamic lands," Mohammadi said.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/041202/w120250.html

So yeah, I'd wait 'till we've negotiated long enough that negotiation becomes useless.

This is a very skewed poll. Either you have to support the invasion of korea or iran, or both, or you have to have previously supported the invasion of Iraq. This gives no means for those who would not support any of the above options to express themselves other than by not voting.

Personally, I could see Bush invading North Korea and me marginally supporting it because 1. That country is even more opressed than Iraq was and 2. They have said publicly that they have the bomb and 3. They are a threat to all nations in that region, including our Allies Japan and South Korea, and our major trading partner China. All of those nations have expressed at least some level of aprehension at North Korea having nukes, including fellow communist nation China.

Weather or not N. Korea actually has the bomb or not is almost irrelivent, as it has been show quite conclusivly (as opposed to the Iraq War justification dance) that N.Korea is at the very very least activly pursuing and isprobably quite close to having the bomb, assuming they dont already (remember that big boom on some mountain a few months ago?).

I see three possible scenarios happening:

1. We do almost nothing but spout rhetoric, as we are doing now. North Korea keeps improving its weapons and their delivery systems until they become a threat to a large portion of the Civilized world.

2. We sit down at the table and hash out some kind of treaty where both sides make compromises. I see this as the least likely of the three scenarios.

3. We do something to terminate the threat, either by an international lockdown of some sort (UN weapons inspectors....yeah right), or by taking them the hell out either alone, or with allies. Would China get involved if we decided to take it to 'em? Who knows.

Avder wrote:This is a very skewed poll. Either you have to support the invasion of korea or iran, or both, or you have to have previously supported the invasion of Iraq. This gives no means for those who would not support any of the above options to express themselves other than by not voting.

As mentioned several times already (including the first post), Goob tried to have a full range of options, but the poll options got cut short, as apparently we're limited to four options (but sounds like it'll let you try to put more in when creating the poll).

So if you can't vote for any of the options, then just make a post with the option you would've voted for, had it actually made it into the actual poll.

Uh, it's still set to 8 last I checked...

I will support what the President opts to do. Checks and balances will determine if it is the correct action to take at the time. Executive, legislative, judicial...it's supposed to work. And if it doesn't, just hire some overpaid attourney to investigate it. Start the impeachment process, drag it out until the next election, and then maybe it was right after all. Who knows.

Uh, it's still set to 8 last I checked...

I had roughly 7 options there, only 4 are there now.

I think I had

Neither, and I didn't support Iraq.
Iran but I didn't support Iraq
Korea and I didn't support iraq

etc.

What a goob.