Bomb Iran: Yes or No?

In 1979, hell yes.

Let the Russians or Chinese do it. Didn’t Obama go to the UN and say that, if they don’t want us to go it alone anymore, then they should man up and help police the globe?

Worth a read if you haven’t yet.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
K2000 wrote:
There’s no reason to bomb them currently. Negotiations seem like they are working. An unprovoked attack could escalate and draw in the Chinese and Russians, potentially. A massive regional conflict is nothing to take lightly.

Every time Ahmedinijad puffs out his chest (flares his lats) he is just trying to create leverage or apply counter-pressure (whether it actually works is a different story). They are not a threat to us, certainly not directly. Also, Iran is allowed to have nuclear power. However I have read that maybe the administration might try to spike that, in order to keep Iran weak economically (they need alternative power sources to avoid burning their own oil resources, their main source of revenue). It’s a delicate situation, but it seems like the administration is playing a shrewd game of poker with Iran, and hasn’t made any wrong moves yet.

This is a country with hard line Muslims in it. They would have no qualms about taking you to the next plane of existence along with themselves and everyone in the world because that is what their religion of no compulsion compels them to do.[/quote]

As opposed to a country that would randomly bomb nations because it is afraid of its own blood dripping shadow and that the sums of all its evil deeds will come back to haunt it?

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Economic sanctions are an act of war?How do you come up with that?So the U.S. and Japan committed an act of war when they sanctioned India over nuclear testing ?The majority of the West committed an act of war against S.A. with the apartheid era sanctions?

Priceless.[/quote]

They certainly are when Obama does it. Under Bush sanctions and threats were referred to as “diplomacy”, but it’s different now. Now not invading or bombing is due to cowardice and/or stupidity, and sanctions are an “act of war”. See how that works?

[quote]orion wrote:

As opposed to a country that would randomly bomb nations because it is afraid of its own blood dripping shadow and that the sums of all its evil deeds will come back to haunt it?[/quote]

speaking from experience?

I say no. We already have enough problems in Afghanistan and our economy is shot. Besides, why would a guy who just got the Nobel prize wanna start a war?

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Economic sanctions are an act of war?How do you come up with that?So the U.S. and Japan committed an act of war when they sanctioned India over nuclear testing ?The majority of the West committed an act of war against S.A. with the apartheid era sanctions?

Priceless.[/quote]

Sanctions are an act of war, if we where sanctioned you would be all up in arms. It works the same way.

The only difference is Sanctions hut civilians, so in fact they are a cowards way of declaring war.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Economic sanctions are an act of war?How do you come up with that?So the U.S. and Japan committed an act of war when they sanctioned India over nuclear testing ?The majority of the West committed an act of war against S.A. with the apartheid era sanctions?

Priceless.

Sanctions are an act of war, if we where sanctioned you would be all up in arms. It works the same way.

The only difference is Sanctions hurt civilians, so in fact they are a cowards way of declaring war.

But then again, I guess the left are full of cowards that like to see civilians starve to death so I can see how you think that is perfectly acceptable.

edit*

Ron Paul on Iran.[/quote]

So they are an act of war because you say so.Got it.Offer up something of substance if you’re going to try to redefine terminology,because what you are posting is just weak.

But then again,I’ve lived in a country under sanctions,unlike you.So I can see how you wouldn’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

How are sanctions not an act of war? With sanctions we are harming people. If we intentionally harm civilians in another nation how is that not an act of war?

So its ok to starve people to death but its not ok to drop bombs on them?

Blockades are considered act of wars, now we call them sanctions. I am not redefining anything I am just stating facts.

Edit*

Ron Paul on why sanctions are an act of war.

[quote]John S. wrote:
How are sanctions not an act of war? With sanctions we are harming people. If we intentionally harm civilians in another nation how is that not an act of war?

So its ok to starve people to death but its not ok to drop bombs on them?

Blockades are considered act of wars, now we call them sanctions. I am not redefining anything I am just stating facts.

Edit*

Ron Paul on why sanctions are an act of war.[/quote]

Do you really need me to explain the difference to you between a blockade and sanctions?And that’s your rationale?Ron Paul said so? I would recommend getting off youtube watching RP clips all day,and actually engaging in some critical thinking for yourself.
You have stated no facts at all,only opinions,and pretty crap ones at that.

The only difference between sanctions and blockades is that when they did blockades they would take the ship that was sending shipments.

And it really doesn’t matter what the hell you think, they view it as an act of war, and eventually they will respond. Most likely in another terrorist act.

If you think Ron Paul and I agree on everything you just have to look at my view on the Iraq war to see we differ on a few things.

Ron Paul back in 1998, did he predict something? lets watch and find out. if you want to skip Ron Paul’s part start at 3:14.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I doubt Obama has the stones to do it himself. Just a few days ago Gibbs was lying and making up bullshit excuses about not talking to Iran for 6 years about it’s nuclear program. In December the Air Force will receive it’s new bunker buster bombs that are much bigger and can go a lot deeper than the ones we gave to the Israelis. What has Obama threatened to do in December? Try sanctions. The democrats are pathetic, they really do not understand how to deal with people who are hardcore ruthless like the Iranian leadership. [/quote]

Right, because going to war has been so fuckin beneficial for us in the past eight years.

Why don’t you limeys do it? Bomb Iran and then take your 34 troops you’ve got in Iraq and send them in to Iran and mop up.

It would be nice to share the burden with someone.

[quote]John S. wrote:
The only difference between sanctions and blockades is that when they did blockades they would take the ship that was sending shipments.

And it really doesn’t matter what the hell you think, they view it as an act of war, and eventually they will respond. Most likely in another terrorist act.

If you think Ron Paul and I agree on everything you just have to look at my view on the Iraq war to see we differ on a few things.

Ron Paul back in 1998, did he predict something? lets watch and find out. if you want to skip Ron Paul’s part start at 3:14.

[/quote]

I couldn’t give a fuck what you and Ron Paul agree on.I don’t give a fuck that you post stupid statements either.I’m pretty convinced you’re an opinionated juvenile,so good luck to you.

If you won’t even watch my video how can you say I am not backing up my claims? Go on with sticking your head in the sand, you refusing to look at my facts just proves you can’t back up yours.

You wasted enough of my time troll.

.

I read you previous link.You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the leg.And you’re correct,I will waste no time explaining anything to you,junior.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I read you previous link.You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the leg.And you’re correct,I will waste no time explaining anything to you,junior.[/quote]

Why don’t you watch my video, I even said skip the part with Ron Paul. starts at 3:14.

But I am more inclined to believe that you watched my video, found out I just proved myself right and are now back tracking out of this thread. You are my new Lixy.

[quote]K2000 wrote:
John S. wrote:
To be fair to bush, all Obama is saying is show us the base or we will sanction you(an act of war).

Really not seeing the difference.

First of all, the fact that they publicly declared this facility is a huge change in Iran’s tone. Then Iran said that they would allow IAEA inspectors (that was last week, don’t know what is the latest).

There are signs of cooperation now. That’s a huge difference. I’m certainly not claiming everything is solved now, things are still tense, but at least there is a significantly reduced chance that we’ll attack. I think that’s a clear improvement.
[/quote]

First of all, western intelligence has known about and been monitoring the construction of that place for a while. The Iranians didn’t reveal anything.

French President Sarkozy had wanted to confront Ahmadinejad about it at the UN but Obama was afraid to have a confrontation, because it might spoil the mood. That is why they waited to slip off to the G20 summit to speak out about it.

All this sanction talk has caught me. Serious question: Do U.S./U.N. sanctions affect the people of those sanctioned countries anymore negatively than the actions of their own country/leadership?