Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably the same thing we did when North Korea tested a nuke and when Pakistan tested a nuke. You weigh the pros and cons of military action. So far, in the case of Iran, no administration (Republican or Democrat) have felt that the pros outweighed the cons.
It is stupid making this a left v right thing. The current administration has continued the policy of the previous one. Right now, nobody wants to go to war over this.
Is N Korea hegemonistic? No, so not such a big deal.
Is pakistan hegemonistic? Yes, but only with respect to its neighbors Afghanistan, which is what made that country so difficult for the US to bring to a peaceful situation, and India - remember Mumbai? Or any of the other massive terrorism from pakistan in india? I do.
Now imagine iran, with a regime whose sole existence is the export of terrorism, armed with 25-100 nukes.
No rational president or Western leader can allow iran to achieve nuclear weapons, none. It will lead to a far more devastating war down the road.
Is N Korea hegemonistic? No, so not such a big deal.
Is pakistan hegemonistic? Yes, but only with respect to its neighbors Afghanistan, which is what made that country so difficult for the US to bring to a peaceful situation, and India - remember Mumbai? Or any of the other massive terrorism from pakistan in india? I do.
Now imagine iran, with a regime whose sole existence is the export of terrorism, armed with 25-100 nukes.
No rational president or Western leader can allow iran to achieve nuclear weapons, none. It will lead to a far more devastating war down the road.
I don't think anyone wants to see Iran obtain a Nuclear Weapon. The issue is whether we should be involved, risk US troops lives, go to War, etc to prevent them from doing so. Romney seems to want to go down that path of Military action in Iran.
And what will you do genius when iran tests a nuclear weapon
I'll uncork a bottle of sparkling grape juice.
Quote:
Did you like how they captured the 3 americans and the UK navymen?
I didn't like how they were sent into harm's way by their own government, but considering Iran is surrounded by a hostile alliance, they showed a hell of a lot of daring by doing that.
Quote:
Does anyone with a brain recognize how it would render the UN and its functioning mechanisms like the IAEA completely worthless were iran to achieve a nuke?
Well, it would be a failure of the IAEA, but completely worthless? The UN itself doesn't stop all wars but it's not therefore "completely worthless."
Quote:
"no more wars for Israel" - as if the US has ever fought even one, etc.
How many wars/interventions/invasions did we experience in the ME between 1815 and 1948?
How many since 1948?
We never had any real enemies in the ME for generations, until Truman screwed us all by supporting Israel.
Ya know, for all the indignation about Iran getting a nuke, in case you didn't know, we were the only nation in the world to use a nuke ...errr..twice.
I don't think anyone wants to see Iran obtain a Nuclear Weapon. The issue is whether we should be involved, risk US troops lives, go to War, etc to prevent them from doing so. Romney seems to want to go down that path of Military action in Iran.
Its just campaign rhetoric. Chances are, if he ever gets elected, that he will do the same thing as his predecessors.
Is N Korea hegemonistic? No, so not such a big deal.
Is pakistan hegemonistic? Yes, but only with respect to its neighbors Afghanistan, which is what made that country so difficult for the US to bring to a peaceful situation, and India - remember Mumbai? Or any of the other massive terrorism from pakistan in india? I do.
Now imagine iran, with a regime whose sole existence is the export of terrorism, armed with 25-100 nukes.
No rational president or Western leader can allow iran to achieve nuclear weapons, none. It will lead to a far more devastating war down the road.
When was the last time Iran invaded another country?
Its just campaign rhetoric. Chances are, if he ever gets elected, that he will do the same thing as his predecessors.
If Bush and Cheney had more time we would have likely invaded Iran, Cheney certainly was itching for it. It appears Mitt wants to do the same thing, yet again showing how extreme and far to the right he has become.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
