miaheatlvr
Active Member
What do you think OBAMA is going to do? Things are going to get very serious!
Iran to develop NUCLEAR WARHEAD by the beginning of 2010!
- Thread starter miaheatlvr
- Start date
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by MiaHeatLvr
http:///forum/post/2977809
What do you think OBAMA is going to do?
Be "transparent".......
I predict that we (cumulative "we" meaning America) will do nothing at all.
http:///forum/post/2977809
What do you think OBAMA is going to do?
Be "transparent".......
I predict that we (cumulative "we" meaning America) will do nothing at all.
crimzy
Active Member
This is a tough issue based on the current state of international and economic affairs in the US. I don't know what Obama will do but, based on his campaign assurances, I think that he will try diplomacy first and then proceed with military action if necessary.
My question, though, is what do you all think we should do?
My question, though, is what do you all think we should do?
jp30338
Member
Originally Posted by MiaHeatLvr
http:///forum/post/2977809
What do you think OBAMA is going to do? Things are going to get very serious!
I highly doubt this.
http:///forum/post/2977809
What do you think OBAMA is going to do? Things are going to get very serious!
I highly doubt this.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2977891
My question, though, is what do you all think we should do?
Turn Israel loose.
http:///forum/post/2977891
My question, though, is what do you all think we should do?
Turn Israel loose.
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2977897
Turn Israel loose.
That's a tough opponent for Israel if they don't use any nukes. By turning them loose on Iran, wouldn't we be offering Israel up as the sacrificial lamb to the world. Are they now the US' mercenaries?
http:///forum/post/2977897
Turn Israel loose.
That's a tough opponent for Israel if they don't use any nukes. By turning them loose on Iran, wouldn't we be offering Israel up as the sacrificial lamb to the world. Are they now the US' mercenaries?
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2977905
That's a tough opponent for Israel if they don't use any nukes. By turning them loose on Iran, wouldn't we be offering Israel up as the sacrificial lamb to the world. Are they now the US' mercenaries?
See this is what I don't get, it is Abundantly clear the intent of Iran's nukes, Israel, but to libs like yourself, them protecting their existence is offering them up as a sacrificial lamb... I'll go out on a limb, Iran's nuke program isn't going to happen.
http:///forum/post/2977905
That's a tough opponent for Israel if they don't use any nukes. By turning them loose on Iran, wouldn't we be offering Israel up as the sacrificial lamb to the world. Are they now the US' mercenaries?
See this is what I don't get, it is Abundantly clear the intent of Iran's nukes, Israel, but to libs like yourself, them protecting their existence is offering them up as a sacrificial lamb... I'll go out on a limb, Iran's nuke program isn't going to happen.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2977905
That's a tough opponent for Israel if they don't use any nukes. By turning them loose on Iran, wouldn't we be offering Israel up as the sacrificial lamb to the world. Are they now the US' mercenaries?
I dont think Iran has a chance against Israel.Look at what happened to past Nations that tried to have their way with them.
Not only that but Israel has the most at stake here.Iran continuously makes serious threats towards Israel.Like wanting to whipe them off the face of the map.
Nuclear weapons would and could do just that.
http:///forum/post/2977905
That's a tough opponent for Israel if they don't use any nukes. By turning them loose on Iran, wouldn't we be offering Israel up as the sacrificial lamb to the world. Are they now the US' mercenaries?
I dont think Iran has a chance against Israel.Look at what happened to past Nations that tried to have their way with them.
Not only that but Israel has the most at stake here.Iran continuously makes serious threats towards Israel.Like wanting to whipe them off the face of the map.
Nuclear weapons would and could do just that.
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2977907
See this is what I don't get, it is Abundantly clear the intent of Iran's nukes, Israel, but to libs like yourself, them protecting their existence is offering them up as a sacrificial lamb... I'll go out on a limb, Iran's nuke program isn't going to happen.
See your problem, Stdreb, is that you have such tunnel vision when it comes to politics that you can't see past republicans v. democrats, conservatives v. liberals. Don't you realize that this issue affects all of us equally and everyone, regardless of party inclination, should form an INDEPENDANT opinion of what he/she thinks is right? Grow a pair and try thinking for yourself...
As to your point, my previous question was what people think WE should do and the response was to turn Israel loose... like they are our pet army. If they have cause to use military action then they have the autonomy to do so. But to suggest that OUR response to this problem is to use Israel seems to suggest that they are nothing more than mercenaries.
http:///forum/post/2977907
See this is what I don't get, it is Abundantly clear the intent of Iran's nukes, Israel, but to libs like yourself, them protecting their existence is offering them up as a sacrificial lamb... I'll go out on a limb, Iran's nuke program isn't going to happen.
See your problem, Stdreb, is that you have such tunnel vision when it comes to politics that you can't see past republicans v. democrats, conservatives v. liberals. Don't you realize that this issue affects all of us equally and everyone, regardless of party inclination, should form an INDEPENDANT opinion of what he/she thinks is right? Grow a pair and try thinking for yourself...
As to your point, my previous question was what people think WE should do and the response was to turn Israel loose... like they are our pet army. If they have cause to use military action then they have the autonomy to do so. But to suggest that OUR response to this problem is to use Israel seems to suggest that they are nothing more than mercenaries.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2977911
As to your point, my previous question was what people think WE should do and the response was to turn Israel loose... like they are our pet army. If they have cause to use military action then they have the autonomy to do so. But to suggest that OUR response to this problem is to use Israel seems to suggest that they are nothing more than mercenaries.
I think if anything ,the USA stops Israel from attacking Iran.In hopes for a seemingly impossible peace with them.
http:///forum/post/2977911
As to your point, my previous question was what people think WE should do and the response was to turn Israel loose... like they are our pet army. If they have cause to use military action then they have the autonomy to do so. But to suggest that OUR response to this problem is to use Israel seems to suggest that they are nothing more than mercenaries.
I think if anything ,the USA stops Israel from attacking Iran.In hopes for a seemingly impossible peace with them.
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2977909
I dont think Iran has a chance against Israel.Look at what happened to past Nations that tried to have their way with them.
Not only that but Israel has the most at stake here.Iran continuously makes serious threats towards Israel.Like wanting to whipe them off the face of the map.
Nuclear weapons would and could do just that.
I understand the point but does this mean that you don't believe that the US should do anything while Israel acts? Isn't that what socal was chastising Obama for in the post above?
http:///forum/post/2977909
I dont think Iran has a chance against Israel.Look at what happened to past Nations that tried to have their way with them.
Not only that but Israel has the most at stake here.Iran continuously makes serious threats towards Israel.Like wanting to whipe them off the face of the map.
Nuclear weapons would and could do just that.
I understand the point but does this mean that you don't believe that the US should do anything while Israel acts? Isn't that what socal was chastising Obama for in the post above?
1journeyman
Active Member
You can't really justify attacking a country solely because their leader is full of hot air. You can certainly, however, justify it when Iran continually funds Hezbollah in its war against Israel.
President Obama will ask VP Biden what to do...
President Obama will ask VP Biden what to do...
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2977916
I understand the point but does this mean that you don't believe that the US should do anything while Israel acts? Isn't that what socal was chastising Obama for in the post above?
I think Israels best defense in this case is going to be offense.
preemptive strike if you wish. Amahboobamadee is a madman.
And if Israel asked for help we should provide it,not directly(our military)but support via equipment and intel.
http:///forum/post/2977916
I understand the point but does this mean that you don't believe that the US should do anything while Israel acts? Isn't that what socal was chastising Obama for in the post above?
I think Israels best defense in this case is going to be offense.
preemptive strike if you wish. Amahboobamadee is a madman.
And if Israel asked for help we should provide it,not directly(our military)but support via equipment and intel.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2977911
See your problem, Stdreb, is that you have such tunnel vision when it comes to politics that you can't see past republicans v. democrats, conservatives v. liberals. Don't you realize that this issue affects all of us equally and everyone, regardless of party inclination, should form an INDEPENDANT opinion of what he/she thinks is right? Grow a pair and try thinking for yourself...
As to your point, my previous question was what people think WE should do and the response was to turn Israel loose... like they are our pet army. If they have cause to use military action then they have the autonomy to do so. But to suggest that OUR response to this problem is to use Israel seems to suggest that they are nothing more than mercenaries.
Before you try and slam me and my statement make sure you are right and not doing what you accuse me of.
All I did was point out, that you clearly are allowing your flawed liberal world view to skew what one, generously, could call an opinion.
And my thought still stands, there is little if any doubt what the ultimate intent of a nuclear Iran would be. And that would be the destruction of Israel. So I fail to understand your criticism us if Israel acting on their own behalf took preventative measures to stop such an action from occurring. If Israel believed that Iran had or was close to a nuke and thought they were the target, they'd take care of the situation with or without our "blessing". (It wouldn't be the first time they took on basically the entire middle east)
http:///forum/post/2977911
See your problem, Stdreb, is that you have such tunnel vision when it comes to politics that you can't see past republicans v. democrats, conservatives v. liberals. Don't you realize that this issue affects all of us equally and everyone, regardless of party inclination, should form an INDEPENDANT opinion of what he/she thinks is right? Grow a pair and try thinking for yourself...
As to your point, my previous question was what people think WE should do and the response was to turn Israel loose... like they are our pet army. If they have cause to use military action then they have the autonomy to do so. But to suggest that OUR response to this problem is to use Israel seems to suggest that they are nothing more than mercenaries.
Before you try and slam me and my statement make sure you are right and not doing what you accuse me of.
All I did was point out, that you clearly are allowing your flawed liberal world view to skew what one, generously, could call an opinion.
And my thought still stands, there is little if any doubt what the ultimate intent of a nuclear Iran would be. And that would be the destruction of Israel. So I fail to understand your criticism us if Israel acting on their own behalf took preventative measures to stop such an action from occurring. If Israel believed that Iran had or was close to a nuke and thought they were the target, they'd take care of the situation with or without our "blessing". (It wouldn't be the first time they took on basically the entire middle east)
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2977966
Before you try and slam me and my statement make sure you are right and not doing what you accuse me of.
All I did was point out, that you clearly are allowing your flawed liberal world view to skew what one, generously, could call an opinion.
And my thought still stands, there is little if any doubt what the ultimate intent of a nuclear Iran would be. And that would be the destruction of Israel. So I fail to understand your criticism us if Israel acting on their own behalf took preventative measures to stop such an action from occurring. If Israel believed that Iran had or was close to a nuke and thought they were the target, they'd take care of the situation with or without our "blessing". (It wouldn't be the first time they took on basically the entire middle east)
So your opinion is that we should do NOTHING in the event that Iran obtains nukes. Thanks for the clarification.
http:///forum/post/2977966
Before you try and slam me and my statement make sure you are right and not doing what you accuse me of.
All I did was point out, that you clearly are allowing your flawed liberal world view to skew what one, generously, could call an opinion.
And my thought still stands, there is little if any doubt what the ultimate intent of a nuclear Iran would be. And that would be the destruction of Israel. So I fail to understand your criticism us if Israel acting on their own behalf took preventative measures to stop such an action from occurring. If Israel believed that Iran had or was close to a nuke and thought they were the target, they'd take care of the situation with or without our "blessing". (It wouldn't be the first time they took on basically the entire middle east)
So your opinion is that we should do NOTHING in the event that Iran obtains nukes. Thanks for the clarification.
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2977916
Isn't that what socal was chastising Obama for in the post above?
Please look up the definition of chastise. I did no such thing. President Obama used the term "transparent" so I simply stated that this would be our position on the issue as a country. We will be transparent. As we learned in the case of Sadam Hussein, diplomacy makes things worse. What ever bacame of Kofi Annan's son? Wasn't he behind illegal oil sales to Russia on the premise of diplomatic solutions to end the Iraq vs. United Nations standoff. IMO, Hussein was winning the diplomatic battle until the United States stepped in, along with a host of other nations, to remove him by force.
Wasn't Kofi Annan's son's activity swept under the proverbial carpet? Diplomacy at it's best, right there.
Diplomacy and "transparency" are identical twins where Iran is concerned. Force is the only diplomacy Ahmadinejad and Seyyed Ali Khamene'i understand.
I stand by my previous statement. To add, we will not use force while Obama is in office, regardless of what Biden advises. I hope that I am wrong.
http:///forum/post/2977916
Isn't that what socal was chastising Obama for in the post above?
Please look up the definition of chastise. I did no such thing. President Obama used the term "transparent" so I simply stated that this would be our position on the issue as a country. We will be transparent. As we learned in the case of Sadam Hussein, diplomacy makes things worse. What ever bacame of Kofi Annan's son? Wasn't he behind illegal oil sales to Russia on the premise of diplomatic solutions to end the Iraq vs. United Nations standoff. IMO, Hussein was winning the diplomatic battle until the United States stepped in, along with a host of other nations, to remove him by force.
Wasn't Kofi Annan's son's activity swept under the proverbial carpet? Diplomacy at it's best, right there.
Diplomacy and "transparency" are identical twins where Iran is concerned. Force is the only diplomacy Ahmadinejad and Seyyed Ali Khamene'i understand.
I stand by my previous statement. To add, we will not use force while Obama is in office, regardless of what Biden advises. I hope that I am wrong.
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2977907
I'll go out on a limb, Iran's nuke program isn't going to happen.
This is, I think, the most likely scenario.
Isreal probably will not let them get that far. I wouldn't be surprised if a mysterious, freak explosion dessimated the test and development sites in Iran.
http:///forum/post/2977907
I'll go out on a limb, Iran's nuke program isn't going to happen.
This is, I think, the most likely scenario.
Isreal probably will not let them get that far. I wouldn't be surprised if a mysterious, freak explosion dessimated the test and development sites in Iran.