I wonder what the U A E has to gain from this and why we attack other countries based on what other countries say that maybe biased in its decisions and reflection of what they put forth.....and why is it that the US must fund and fight other peoples wars losing our sons and daughters when we can't even stop illegal immigration into our own country, take care of those back at home, while running ourselves financially into the ground....based on what our court system would call heresay.

Oops, hearsay, lol......and what does the UN say?

The USA is fighting nothing but peasants and people in poverty ever since the end of world war 2.

Never had the balls to face a real army after that. Either Vietnamese living in the rainforest or some goat herders in Afghanistan, using 30 year old rifles.

What a glory!


Defeat the peasant armies with no air force, no navy nothing.

Tell me which one of you live a better life because of any of these wars?

There will be no Iran war, they have not 30 but only 20 year old war machines.

And if I see someone crying over the dead body of an American soldier, thanks to this war, don't ask for empathy. You sent them to die you murdered him pointlessly.

Go ahead and waive your flag, you are no patriot, you are a giant naive idiot, whoever you are.

hear, hear!

Because of alliances and such we have with other countries and orgs like Nato which require action when one member nation is attacked.

Garbage out the windows. As usual. The mass media misleads everyone. Here is the truth.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jxqEslQGlFFNPywUUfjhIJ9Ud3KA


there goes your "war plan"

there is actually a broad international consensus that iran must never be allowed to have nuclear arms. nobody would object if their nuclear related sites were destroyed. there would be worldwide rejoicing.

Yeah,and Sadam had invisible nuclear weapons.

Ever hear of this wonderful invention they call 'the wheel' ... ? It's used on things like TRUCKS ... those are big machines that MOVE THINGS from one place to another ... like from Iraq to SYRIA ...

what?! who said anything about saddam's reactor?

you don't think that everyone (except possibly n korea)
would breathe a great sigh of relief if iran's nuclear
arms capability were destroyed?

the u.n. security council and most of the rest of the
world is eagerly awaiting the elimination of iran's
nuclear arms development effort!!

woot!

That is all for denyability later on.

indeed.

i guess you are a patriot, with posts like these... you have a lot of nerve to call other people unpatriotic with that attitude.

It would be the start of WW3. By definition, if nothing else. A war on 3 fronts IS a world war.
In any case, the most likely scenerio, if we attack Iran unprovoked, and yes attacking Iran before they've attacked anyone else would be unprovoked, would be thus:
Every muslim/Arab/communist country in the world would give condemnation to the U.S..
Several of those countries would stop trading with the U.S..
The cost of oil would double or triple. Immediatly. Do you like the idea of $20/gallon gasoline?
About a billion more muslims would declare a jihad on the U.S..
The U.S.'s army is already stretched too thin. Another front would almost guarentee a draft.
Because the threat of terrorism would now be a real and pressing concern in the U.S., most of the freedoms we have left would go away--for the sake of security. And you're kidding yourself if you think those will ever come back.
The U.S. will be bankrupted beyond all hope. Our government will collapse.

So, gosh, do you think it's possible those muslims who are advocating that we attack Iran could have an ulterior motive?

Not to mention I'm sure they're looking forward to $300/barrel oil prices too.

i guess it's better to just let them start nuking people, huh?
who will be their first target?
even if they didn't nuke anyone, they will sell nukes to factions that will.
then what? osama bin laden has 20 nukes? where do you think those will end up?
just something to think about... we do have interests other than oil here.

While the prospect of Iran having nukes is not a pleasent one, just exactly when did it become in vogue to punish a country before they've attacked anyone else?
I think a better idea would be to isolate Iran and to promise them that if they used a single nuclear weapon, we'll launch a volley of ICBM's on their country. This tactic worked well for the U.S.A. and the USSR for about 50 years. While the situation is not exactly the same, Iran has no way to retaliate against us for instance, if we promised nuclear anihilation, that would probably keep them in check for a long time. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

you just want your prophet to come back.

While the prospect of Iran having nukes is not a pleasent one, just exactly when did it become in vogue to punish a country before they've attacked anyone else?
I think a better idea would be to isolate Iran and to promise them that if they used a single nuclear weapon, we'll launch a volley of ICBM's on their country. This tactic worked well for the U.S.A. and the USSR for about 50 years. While the situation is not exactly the same, Iran has no way to retaliate against us for instance, if we promised nuclear anihilation, that would probably keep them in check for a long time. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

it might work, but they are fanatical and they don't seem to care about dying. i think they are more worried about iran selling or giving
the nukes to a terrorist group than iran using the nukes themselves. but either way Israel really has something to worry about.