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.
We let isreal take care of it, as they did with Iraq's reactor, syria's reactor, and other surgical strikes they've pulled off in the past. If Iran decides to go attack isreal, we already have troops in the area to prevent crossing through iraq to attack isreal.
We let isreal take care of it, as they did with Iraq's reactor, syria's reactor, and other surgical strikes they've pulled off in the past. If Iran decides to go attack isreal, we already have troops in the area to prevent crossing through iraq to attack isreal.
indeed , you dont put one boot on the ground, you just bomb their sites until they grasp reality, any one heard from khadafi lately?
Iran does not want to nuke us or anyone else. They do want nuclear leverage vis a vis Israel and the rest of the region. But that's really none of our business.
I voted no, but I must qualify that. If I were President, I would tell them, "Go ahead a build your bomb, but, if one nuke is detonated on U.S. soil or the soil of our allies by terrorists, Iran will be held directly responsible, and we will retaliate."
Ahmadinejad isn't supported by his people. Invading Iran could ruin that.
Very true. Also, if you remember, Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005 in the wake of the Iraq invasion because the Iranian people, while very pro-western, were extremely frustrated with the invasion and liked Mahmoud's tough rhetoric. It is likely that if we hadn't gone looking for trouble in the Middle East that Iran would not be making these threats (empty or otherwise) today.
Here is a cool thread from another forum showing the side of Iran we don't normally get to see over here in the US. Very interesting.
Location: The world, where will fate take me this time?
3,162 posts, read 11,435,069 times
Reputation: 1463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgusted
It is 2007, we have a moron as president and our economy is one month away from bombing. Should we attack the White House or let the Iranians have him?.
Please reply yes or yes.
yes
Get rid of the madman at home first, then worry about others.
Just imagine the nasty consequences that a war with iran would have, it might be the beginning of the end of the world as we know it.
"Islamic militants have spread beyond their tribal bases, and have the run of an unstable, nuclear-armed nation."
And it ain't talkin bout Iran!
Here's more...
Today no other country on earth is arguably more dangerous than Pakistan. It has everything Osama bin Laden could ask for: political instability, a trusted network of radical Islamists, an abundance of angry young anti-Western recruits, secluded training areas, access to state-of-the-art electronic technology, regular air service to the West and security services that don't always do what they're supposed to do.
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.
Why worry about possible threats in Iran when it is the reality elsewhere
