Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply Libertarian Discussion
Iran...

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Namori-Chan

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:23 pm


What to do?

Do they pose great enough a threat to attack? On one hand, I say yes, there's no point in waiting for whatever these lunies are up to. On the other, why not let the baby have his bottle, wait for him to make some nukes, and then incinerate the country. On the other hand, how much are we willing to protect our allies, such as Israel or the new Iraqi government? The chance of America itself being attacked is little to none, but we have allies and interests to consider.

On the other hand, how bad will Georgie "Mission Accomplished" Bush mangle this up and what price will we pay?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:17 pm


Iraq had chemical weapons for years. Hussein gassed plenty of Kurds, just imagine what he would have liked to do to Israel.

Keep in mind that it's only mass production of nukes that's really difficult to hide. It's tacky, but not impossible, to just steal or buy out of the black market enough U-235 to get critical mass for a bomb or two. After you get the uranium, it's just a matter of taping plastic explosives.

But like you said, the U.S. has nothing to worry about in itself. Iran doesn't have ICBMs. Probably the best range they have is off scud missiles, or a suicide bombing.

Is it our obligation to maintain peace in the world? Why was the U.N. made in the first place?

The better question is: does Iran, or North Korea for that matter, have enough oil for them to matter to us? I doubt we'll be engaging anyone else unilaterally. After all, Saddam is unique among all dictators in that he tried to kill dubya's daddy.

btw, i'm pretty sure that "Mission Accomplished" was requested by the personel on that carrier.

Sinew
Vice Captain


GIoom
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:43 am


Sinew
Is it our obligation to maintain peace in the world? Why was the U.N. made in the first place?
Well the UN kind of haven't proved very effective in it's peace keeping since we went to war with Iraq. I don't believe the US should be a peacekeeper though. The US probably shouldn't have gone in Iraq and definitely shouldn't bully around Iran. But I really wish that the UN would actually metaphorically grow some balls and realize the "peace keeping" does involve some sort of action. I don't think attacking the country does anything, but actually following through on punishments against countries who abuse the rules would be much more effective. The UN hasn't seem to flow well with the follow through as of late. Although, it sure as hell requires more than one pointless resolution after another, that can be changed to suit a aggressive countries insane leader's convienence.
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:00 pm


We should apply the same standard to our allies that we do to ourselves(We being the Lp). The Lps platform states that we should not go to war unless we are attacked first. What is wrong with expanding that to not going to war unless we or one of our allies is attacked first? If Iran does attack Isreal, (Does, not could, or might) then as Isreals ally, we would go to war. I seem to remember that the 1rst Gulf War went something like this. Iraq invaded Kuiat, we went to war with Iraq, and drove them out. There was no "Regime change," no "bringing democracy to the Middle East" or any of that crap. We merly defended Kuait against an agressor nation. Unfourtunatly, I don't see any war launched by THIS Administration being that reasonable. But thats my thoughts on Iran. We wait until they DO attack us, or Isreal, or the new Iraqi government, then we would be justified in going to war, though I would not support regime change as a goal of that war.

High_Assassin
Captain


SoViEtTaNkT34

PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 7:55 pm


Sinew
Iraq had chemical weapons for years. Hussein gassed plenty of Kurds, just imagine what he would have liked to do to Israel.

Keep in mind that it's only mass production of nukes that's really difficult to hide. It's tacky, but not impossible, to just steal or buy out of the black market enough U-235 to get critical mass for a bomb or two. After you get the uranium, it's just a matter of taping plastic explosives.

But like you said, the U.S. has nothing to worry about in itself. Iran doesn't have ICBMs. Probably the best range they have is off scud missiles, or a suicide bombing.

Is it our obligation to maintain peace in the world? Why was the U.N. made in the first place?

The better question is: does Iran, or North Korea for that matter, have enough oil for them to matter to us? I doubt we'll be engaging anyone else unilaterally. After all, Saddam is unique among all dictators in that he tried to kill dubya's daddy.

btw, i'm pretty sure that "Mission Accomplished" was requested by the personel on that carrier.


We payed for the chemical weapons for we gave Saddam those chemical weapons.

Saddam killed kurds because Bush Sr. told the kurds to revolt and the US would back it.. oops.. I wonder how the mass graves were created.

We also gave Chemical weapons to Iran as well during the Iran Iraq war.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:04 pm


i believe that iran may actually want to have a peaceful nuclear program. if they want one then let them have it just have them supervised. there is no way we can prevent them from makeing peoples lives better with electricity and stuff. if you think about it those countries have hated isreal for years. nothing will change that immediately. their leader doesnt believe in the holocost? dont people here believe it was a hoax?(i personally believe it happened) maybe over time he will see it did happen who knows but i do know they will get more hostile the more we treat them like little children. besides if they tried to attack isreal, isreal themselves have hundreds of nuclear warheads. we will only go deeper in the hole if we attack them. think about it, the russians had thousands of nuclear warheads pointing at america daily during the cold war. and there was never one launched. if you leave people alone they wont bother you.

we already screwed up iran in 1953, iran will hate us forever if we go in and screw them up again. then they will stop at nothing to kill us.

what if it ends up being another iraq and we go in and they have no means of making/transporting a nuclear warhead in the first place? america will be up the creek without a paddle for sure cuz no one will ever respect our ideals ever again.

BerettaPunk


BerettaPunk

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:15 pm


Namori-Chan
What to do?

Do they pose great enough a threat to attack? On one hand, I say yes, there's no point in waiting for whatever these lunies are up to. On the other, why not let the baby have his bottle, wait for him to make some nukes, and then incinerate the country. On the other hand, how much are we willing to protect our allies, such as Israel or the new Iraqi government? The chance of America itself being attacked is little to none, but we have allies and interests to consider.

On the other hand, how bad will Georgie "Mission Accomplished" Bush mangle this up and what price will we pay?


special interests are what got us in this mess in the first place...heck with that crap!
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:58 pm


It seems as though reason has finally prevailed in this case. Iran has reached a nuclear deal with the United States, agreeing to limit it's nuclear activites in exchange for a lifting of those sanctions we've been imposing on them for the past, what 20 years or so? Of course, the war hawks and anti-diplomacy people heave already begun attacking it, because they never wanted to reach an agreement with Iran in the first place. They were probably holding out for some sort of unconditional surrender, total dismantling of all of Irans nuclear facilities, and the removal of all nuclear material from Iran. The thought that we reached an AGREEMENT to only LIMIT Irans nuclear program to peaceful purposes, which is what they claimed it was ALL ALONG, must have been a terrible blow to their egos. Thankfully, their wounded pride didn't stop the deal from going through.

Priestess_Kelina
Crew

Hilarious Gaian

1,275 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Gaian 50
  • Member 100

Danielle Fenton

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:49 pm


BerettaPunk
Namori-Chan
What to do?

Do they pose great enough a threat to attack? On one hand, I say yes, there's no point in waiting for whatever these lunies are up to. On the other, why not let the baby have his bottle, wait for him to make some nukes, and then incinerate the country. On the other hand, how much are we willing to protect our allies, such as Israel or the new Iraqi government? The chance of America itself being attacked is little to none, but we have allies and interests to consider.

On the other hand, how bad will Georgie "Mission Accomplished" Bush mangle this up and what price will we pay?


special interests are what got us in this mess in the first place...heck with that crap!


Territorists of any country should not be trusted period
Reply
Libertarian Discussion

 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum