Mutually Assured Destruction is going on right now between the US, China, North Korea, Pakistan etc.
Iran and their Islamo-facist government is a wildcard because they are more ideologically motivated than the governments of China and North Korea who simply want to maintain and consolidate power. I'm all for destroying sites where the Iranian gov't is developing nuclear capabilities like the Israelis did with Iraq in the early 80's but as far as the whole "let's nuke them before they nuke us" garbage that is just dumb.
Iran has allready shown they have no issue going to war with the US, why would I let them get the ultimate weapon if I could stop them at a reasonable cost?
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-21-2011 at 05:34 AM.
Today the Iranian Government has declared war on England. Another reason they shouldn't be allowed to have Nukes under any circumstances.
Go figure another State sponsored attack on an embassy and diplomats by the Iranian Theocracy.
LONDON — In the latest sign of deteriorating relations with the West, a group of Iranian protesters stormed the British Embassy compound in Tehran on Tuesday, chanting “death to England,” tearing down a British flag and ransacking offices, according to British officials and images broadcast live on state-run Iranian television...
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 11-29-2011 at 10:57 AM.
republicans are out of touch with the American people. polls say the public is overwhelmingly against more pre-emptive war.
Didn't the United States (and it's supporters in NATO) act to preempt some event or threat to the peace that the Libyan millitary offered? Clearly Libya was of no threat to the United States at that moment in history, so to lauch an offensive there could only be a preemptive action against a perceived future threat, in this case a threat of a "humanitarian crisis".
Also, has the Obama strikes into Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and other locales also been premeptive? We're not in a declared state of war with those countries, are we? We attacked to preempt a potential threat we say in those nations, either to us and our troops, or to civillians/protestors/etc.
Clearly, you've expressed support for pre-emptive actions many times during this administration. And I'll bet if Obama chooses to act against Iran in some form (like long-range air power projection), you will come out in asupport of that action as well.
In today's case, Iran has acted against our closest ally in the U.K. Now, I'm not saying we SHOULD act, but an action to protect our ally is not (as Winston points out) preeptive, ir reactive.
so let's be clear, the Iranian students that trashed the British embassy... that's an act of war?
Can you please show me where Obama (the man in charge) clained our involvement was "a reaction ro decades of activity" and where he details that activity.
Because I can show you were he said:
Sure sounds like we went in not to protect anything U.S., but to preempt the killing of Libyans by other Libyans.Originally Posted by Obama
Last edited by Warfish; 11-29-2011 at 11:53 AM.
What bugs me is if Obama orders U.S. action in or against Iran, in any form, I know the same posters talking against the idea now, will rise to support it fully, with long lists of reasons why Obama is doing the "right thing".
They'll be reams of posts as to why Iran is different from "insert (R) orders Wars here", and how Obama is doing th eonly moral thing, or how deeply in U.S. interests it really is if you look at it from this angle, or how Oil isn't a factor at all, etc, etc, etc.
There is almost no consistency here.
I would hate to see us go to war in Iran, it's clear we are in a secret war in Pakistan right now. I can at least understand the real national security issue.