100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Five reasons US must avoid war with Iran | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US does not have to go to war with Iran.
If we do anything in Iran it will only be limited targeting of their nuclear facilities to destroy them. There will likely be few if any boots on the ground and no need for troops to be deployed there for any length of time or for any significant duty. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Wed 01/18/12 08:13 AM
|
|
The US does not have to go to war with Iran. If we do anything in Iran it will only be limited targeting of their nuclear facilities to destroy them. There will likely be few if any boots on the ground and no need for troops to be deployed there for any length of time or for any significant duty. That kinda sounds like what Japan did at Pearl Harbor.. My belief is that Iran poses a threat to Israel and if they attack the sites so be it.. The US should not engage in ANY form of collaboration in this matter. If Israel wants the sites destroyed let Israel deal with the consequences.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US does not have to go to war with Iran. If we do anything in Iran it will only be limited targeting of their nuclear facilities to destroy them. There will likely be few if any boots on the ground and no need for troops to be deployed there for any length of time or for any significant duty. That kinda sounds like what Japan did at Pearl Harbor.. My belief is that Iran poses a threat to Israel and if they attack the sites so be it.. The US should not engage in ANY form of collaboration in this matter. If Israel wants to sites destroyed let Israel deal with the consequences.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 01/18/12 08:26 AM
|
|
The US does not have to go to war with Iran. If we do anything in Iran it will only be limited targeting of their nuclear facilities to destroy them. There will likely be few if any boots on the ground and no need for troops to be deployed there for any length of time or for any significant duty. That kinda sounds like what Japan did at Pearl Harbor.. My belief is that Iran poses a threat to Israel and if they attack the sites so be it.. The US should not engage in ANY form of collaboration in this matter. If Israel wants to sites destroyed let Israel deal with the consequences..
EVERYBODY wants to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. NOBODY wants to see radical Islamic terrorist supporters have nuclear armaments at their disposal. Especially those like the US, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Spain, Australia, India wherever there have been radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Iran supports the killing of innocent women and children in terrorist attacks. Mass killings. This is why the international community is very much unwilling to allow them to develop nuclear arms capability. No one wants to see violence and the Iranians can stop it by resuming inspections, dismantling their centrifuge cascades and accepting outside supply of nuclear materials and reprocessing. Easy as that. When Iran signed the NPT they had committed themselves to limiting their activities to strictly peaceful development without enrichment but they have repeatedly violated their agreements and have secretly worked aggressively toward nuclear weapons development. So, soon whatever nuclear capability that has been developed in Iran will be neutralized one way or the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Europe, Asia, Isreal and the rest of them can handle it for themselves! Sheeesh! If they're not capable without US support what good are they for anything else? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 01/18/12 08:41 AM
|
|
Europe, Asia, Isreal and the rest of them can handle it for themselves! Sheeesh! If they're not capable without US support what good are they for anything else? Well I'm sure they will all help - but since the US is certainly the most frequently threatened nation by Islamic terrorists, we also have a responsibility to act. Let's see how the latest round of sanctions work first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US does not have to go to war with Iran. If we do anything in Iran it will only be limited targeting of their nuclear facilities to destroy them. There will likely be few if any boots on the ground and no need for troops to be deployed there for any length of time or for any significant duty. That kinda sounds like what Japan did at Pearl Harbor.. My belief is that Iran poses a threat to Israel and if they attack the sites so be it.. The US should not engage in ANY form of collaboration in this matter. If Israel wants to sites destroyed let Israel deal with the consequences..
EVERYBODY wants to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. NOBODY wants to see radical Islamic terrorist supporters have nuclear armaments at their disposal. Especially those like the US, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Spain, Australia, India wherever there have been radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Iran supports the killing of innocent women and children in terrorist attacks. Mass killings. This is why the international community is very much unwilling to allow them to develop nuclear arms capability. No one wants to see violence and the Iranians can stop it by resuming inspections, dismantling their centrifuge cascades and accepting outside supply of nuclear materials and reprocessing. Easy as that. When Iran signed the NPT they had committed themselves to limiting their activities to strictly peaceful development without enrichment but they have repeatedly violated their agreements and have secretly worked aggressively toward nuclear weapons development. So, soon whatever nuclear capability that has been developed in Iran will be neutralized one way or the other. I would be far more concerned with the 100 nukes already in existence in Pakistan getting into the hands of the terrorists in which you speak.. But Pakistanis aren't out on TV threatening to wipe Israel off the map, now are they? Who is threatened the most by Iran acquiring nukes? It isn't us or any of the other countries you listed.. NPT is a UN agreement.. When the security council authorizes the use of force then you'll have my support.. Until then.. If Israel wants to take out the facilities.. So be it.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US does not have to go to war with Iran. If we do anything in Iran it will only be limited targeting of their nuclear facilities to destroy them. There will likely be few if any boots on the ground and no need for troops to be deployed there for any length of time or for any significant duty. That kinda sounds like what Japan did at Pearl Harbor.. My belief is that Iran poses a threat to Israel and if they attack the sites so be it.. The US should not engage in ANY form of collaboration in this matter. If Israel wants to sites destroyed let Israel deal with the consequences..
EVERYBODY wants to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. NOBODY wants to see radical Islamic terrorist supporters have nuclear armaments at their disposal. Especially those like the US, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Spain, Australia, India wherever there have been radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Iran supports the killing of innocent women and children in terrorist attacks. Mass killings. This is why the international community is very much unwilling to allow them to develop nuclear arms capability. No one wants to see violence and the Iranians can stop it by resuming inspections, dismantling their centrifuge cascades and accepting outside supply of nuclear materials and reprocessing. Easy as that. When Iran signed the NPT they had committed themselves to limiting their activities to strictly peaceful development without enrichment but they have repeatedly violated their agreements and have secretly worked aggressively toward nuclear weapons development. So, soon whatever nuclear capability that has been developed in Iran will be neutralized one way or the other. I would be far more concerned with the 100 nukes already in existence in Pakistan getting into the hands of the terrorists in which you speak.. But Pakistanis aren't out on TV threatening to wipe Israel off the map, now are they? Who is threatened the most by Iran acquiring nukes? It isn't us or any of the other countries you listed.. NPT is a UN agreement.. When the security council authorizes the use of force then you'll have my support.. Until then.. If Israel wants to take out the facilities.. So be it.. Pakistanis aren't on TV calling the US the "Great Satan" that's Iran chanting "Death to the US"...and they don't have nukes yet. Pakistan is not a radical Islamic theocrazy.
Oh yeah the sanctions... On June 9, 2010 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1929 imposing additional international sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program and military activities. The Council passed the measure with 12 out of 15 votes—Turkey and Brazil voted against and Lebanon abstained—in response to Iran’s noncompliance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nonproliferation safeguards and oversight.[1] UNSCR 1929 expands the arms embargo on Iran by banning a wider range of conventional arms and equipment related to nuclear proliferation and missile development and by allowing states to search vessels suspected of transporting such cargo to Iran. The resolution also attempts to target Iran’s financial sector, restrict firms linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and restrain Iran’s nuclear proliferation activity. and as the sanctions ratchet up ...guess what? Iran wants to come back to the negotiating table.. Gee whiz...
Iran Says It Is Willing to Talk, as Pressure Rises http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577169021628065872.html |
|
|
|
|
