Iran next?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Mr. Anderson, Mar 10, 2003.

  1. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #1
  2. peter2002 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #2
    That is why we're invading. Iran is next after Iraq.

    Pete :)
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    The world can not stand by and just let these nations get the bomb. These countries are just to unstable and usually ran by fanatics/tyrants/zealots. The french,germans just dont get it and are probably the ones helping iran. Iraq,Iran and N.korea can not just be ignored when it comes to these weapons. Its sad that the U.S. is the only one taking notice. The U.N. has become a joke to itsself. If we dont do something about these guys now it may be to late in the years to come. The world has to live up to its responsibilties. And if it wont then the U.S. with its wiser freinds such as England, Australia and others will.
     
  4. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #4
    You are not serious, right? More and more countries will be able to build weapons of mass destruction. So if you don't like them you just invade them? Have fun invading almost the whole planet...

    And also explain the logic to me, that a "peace-loving" country like the USA has nukes (e.g.) but other countries are not allowed to have them? Why not trying to be a good example by getting rid of them? Oh, I forgot... rules only apply for other countries, not the USA...

    groovebuster
     
  5. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #5
    I don't want to see more countries invaded, but what really bothers me is that this arms race can only lead to disaster. Are you just going to be able to tell Iran to stop making nukes? I don't think so. But at the same time, those weapons are potential threats.

    The world is chaning fast, and we're going to need to figure out how to control it (not just the US, but every country), or it will be a future we're not going to want to live in.

    D
     
  6. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #6
    Yes, we have to figure out how...

    But the chosen way (by the Bush administration) doesn't seem to be be the right way in my opinion. The attitude to be just the strongest and therefore to tell the other nations what they have to do no matter what (in particular for national interests and not wolrd interests), just leads to even more problems instead of solving the already existing ones.

    I read a lot about the team behind Bush and what their political goals are. If only half of it is true you find me scared like hell.

    It was very interesting to read this for example...

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    All the people involved into that committee are part of the Bush adminstration now. It's worth reading it. And if you do, read between the lines and what this paper is implying for the rest of the world.

    I would like to provide you also with other links, but most are not englisch sources.

    groovebuster
     
  7. zarathustra macrumors 6502a

    zarathustra

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #7
    I personally have never heard of this group. Reading the PDF (just skimmed it), I was not shocked or surprised - yes, the USA has been spending less on defense (up until 2000), there was no longer a bipolar conflict, but rather a global theater, and in order for the US to be able to stay on top, they have to monitor activities all around the world. With the Soviet union gone, who is the biggest threat to the US? We don't know (well we are starting to find out), and we just might be getting ready for the worst case scenario.

    What will it take for France and Germany to realize that there is a new world order and that rogue leaders might just have their sights on the western countries? A bomb? Assassinations? Terror attacks in the middle of Paris or Berlin? Oh wait, they would never attack France, since they have supplied all of Iraq's nuclear equipment until the Israelis bombed it. Sorry I went off course.
     
  8. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #8
    Actually, yes I am serious. Point is that the US and Russia have started reducing their stock piles. Ours were built up for one purpose MAD. Now, last time that I checked that worked out pretty well for the world, especially for folks in your neck of the woods. We have them, and we, after 9/11, obviously need them! So, point is that if Rouge nations develop, or try to develop WMDS, then yes, the world community has to act.
     
  9. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #9
    The problem is that the process for making WMDs is now widely available and relatively easy. Basically if you have thefinancial resources, you can make WMDs.

    There needs to be another solution besides invasion. The only place this path can lead is constant warfare as more and more nations ome up with WMDs. The only place this can go is US world domination, and that's exactly why these nations are trying to develop these weapons, it is a backlash to the US might is right position. These contries want some might.

    Baseing invasion on stability is also a fallacy. Venesula was stable and democratic until last year. Iran used to be our friends, as did the Freedom Fighters who are now Al Quaeda and even,(gasp) Iraq at one point. Things change. India and is conflict with Pakistan is not very stable, yet they have the bomb and we do nothing.

    I find it entertaining that most ocnservatives want everyone to be able to wn a gun, but only the US to ave WMDs. Not that I disagree with gun ownership, I have two. Its just kinda funny.
     
  10. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #10
    Ah, I don't agree with this, exactly. Its not in defense of the US that they're arming up. Its in defense of the other small countries that are doing the same. Its a weapons race of more regional proportions. The US is not leaning towards dominating the world, I don't even think the US would want that, I wouldn't.

    Culturally, the US is having a much larger effect than its military influences. We're having issues with Sadam since his gov. is a joke, its a dicatorship. He's doing things for Sadam and not for his country. India and Pakistan aren't arming up for defense against possible US action, they're fighting amongst themselves over Kashmir.

    D
     
  11. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #11
    I see your point, and I probably oversimplified quite a it with my post. I don't think the Us should go for world domination, I'm just taking the argument to its logical ends. The only way to insure that no state might be a threat to the US with WMDs is for the US to literaly run the world. I say this bacause any country could go from ally to enemy in a matter of an election period. Just becuase a country is our friend now, doesn't mean they will be in the furture. look at these idiots renaming French Fries and pouring out french wine. They think the US should turn its back on France, even though the US would not exist without France, they were instrumental i the revolutionary war. Things change quickly in the political landscape, and I don't believe it will ever be possible to account for all WMDs and make sure they are only in the hands of our friends. That's not to say we shouldn't try.
     
  12. Mr. Anderson thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #12
    Hadn't seen that - what are we calling French Fries now? And pouring out the wine is just plain stupid waste of money. Sounds more like a mob issue than that of rational individuals.

    Like was saying, its a matter of the human race growing up and not having to rely on WMD or large militaries at all. But that's not going to happen soon.

    D
     
  13. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #13
    A deli in New York has renamed French Fries Freedom fries, and the wine thing started in North Carolina. Also , the gov't is considering putting big labels on French wines that reveal that cow blood is used in the distilling process. While this might piss of vegetarians, most vegetarians I know are intelligent and well informed, so they probably already know about it. Me, I eat beef, so there is plenty of cow blood in my fridge at any given time
     
  14. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #14
    Just to show you some "funny" website some american fellows did:

    http://www.germanystinks.com/

    I was laughing my butt off. At first I thought the website is a joke, but that guy is darn serious...

    It is so sad that it is amusing.

    groovebuster

    Edit: At the moment they linked the website to a page about german nazi propaganda. But this one still works:

    http://www.francestinks.com/
     
  15. beatle888 macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #15

    You seem so lite hearted about invasions...from reading your posts on the topic. i really hope you are in or are getting ready to join the military, or at least have plenty of loved ones that are.
     
  16. beatle888 macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #16

    OH OK, thanks Einstein. now i understand. we need them to protect our selves but other countries shouldnt have them and by god we are going to go in and blow the guts out of any smelly little foreigners along with their diseased larva if they dont bow down to our double standards. god i wish all these pro war geeks would just go JOIN THE F$*KING WAR. GO GO GO PUHLEEZE, then tell us how pro war you are. any person who is pro war and cant stand it when others talk about peaceful resolutions seem a little sociopathic.
     
  17. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #17
    Look little brain. You want to go with insults, I can go right with, you, but PM me. Don't do it here.

    That being said, I am not pro war! I am pro peace, but Saddam has had 12 years to disarm. That is from the world community, and not from the US. But, since the world won't do it, then we will with an international coalition.

    So, don't talk about things you don't know about, don't run your mouth when you know nothing about the people that you are accusing of being a certain way.

    As for the issue of us having nukes, we don't have ties with terror organization. See that is the goal. Prevent other countries that are potentially a problem from having them. It is called the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Read it.
     
  18. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #18
    Sorry when I start to be sarcastic, but while you are at it, can you please also disarm the rest of the middle east, China, North Korea, half of Africa and half of South America too?

    What is so special about the Iraq? Neither it is a direct threat to the US nor to it's neighbours at the moment. Is it maybe really the oil? ;)

    Try to see it from the point of view of a non-american guy. The US administration changed so often their "reasons" why they want to go in that nobody with a few working brain-cells is trusting them anymore.

    You just have to realize that there is still no evidence so far that the Iraq HAS weapons of mass destruction nor that it is linked to the terror attacks of 9/11. As a summary... Powell said lately that the missing evidence of those weapons doesn't mean that they don't exist and that "we" have to act.

    Now that's fair! Now you can be punished just for the potential to do something bad even though there is no evidence that you are even capable of it.

    That can't be really the kind of world you want to live in, right?

    groovebuster
     
  19. BrittasMac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Location:
    CA, USA
    #19
    Iran will not be invaded. Iran is on it's way to sweeping political change. The country was taken over a few decades ago by a militant Islamic faction of the population. The younger generation in Iran is moderate and voicing disdain with the government. It is only a matter of time until Iran returns to it's old civilized self.
     
  20. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #20
    Sure, tell them to get in line, and we will be happy to :)

    Ok, I know you don't believe that about the oil. Yes, they are a direct threat. They have violated a cease-fire from a 12 year old war for 12 years. They are associated with terror organizations, and are a strategic threat to the region.

    No, I cannot. I am an American. I don't live his life, or under his countries rules. I am the one that watched this country attacked on 9/11. I have fought for this country. I will not sit back and appease a dictator that has the ability to do 10,000 times worse than 9/11 to this country. Not to mention what he does to his own people! I am for the war for that reason alone!

    Yes, there is evidence. What in the hell are you talking about. We know how much Anthrax, VX, Serin, Boutolism Toxin, etc he had from previous inspections and documents that were found during the Gulf war. He cannot prove that he doesn't have them, or has destoryed them. The way it works is that destruction of those weapons can be verified for decades! He has them! Just wait a few weeks when they start raining down on our troops and Israel.

    No, again there is real evidence. I have personally seen some of it. Again, I have worked in places that others have not, so you have to respect that. Just know that I know what I have seen and been privy to.
     
  21. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #21
    You are not serious, right? So I have to respect that there is evidence that nobody can show me, but you (of course) have seen it and therefore you are more right than I am...

    If there is evidence that is so convincing, why it wasn't presented so far? It just doesn't make sense.

    groovebuster
     
  22. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #22
    Ok, you have to be kidding right? The reason that I have seen it is because I have served in out military with a Top Secret security clearance, and done intel work. Also, I have worked for the government before in a position that I would rather not discuss here.

    Just look at what is in the press. Where are the 30,000 chemical munitions? The 10,000 liters of Anthrax? The tons of VX? The thousands of liters of Botulism Toxin? He has the drones that he claimed he did not have. Missles that are not legal. He has murdered his own people, and continues to violate the UN human rights decrees.

    Not to mention that he continues to hold Scott Striker as a POW illegally!

    Nuff said. You don't see the evidence, then you don't want to see it. That is the only way in which a person could not see the evidence.
     
  23. Liberal Ovi macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    #23
    Sometimes conservatives are stupid-funny, but other times they're just stupid.

    "Iraq is a threat." Ha ha. You guys make me laugh!
     
  24. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #24
    You know arn doesn't like spam. That is what this post is. So let me respond in kind to your 12 year old attitude.

    How do you explain the 176 page document that Blix presented to the UN security council? Have you read it? Please Forest, can you explain how they are not a threat? See, I can explain how they are, and all you can do is call me stupid. So who is really stupid Forest? Please, can you answer that?
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #25
    The world has to come together and push nuclear weapons to the decline. We dont want every nation to have these. Can you see that this will result in millions dead? we have to stop the proliferation of these weapons. We need to have a world where the only nukes out there will be the ones to divert an astroid on a collision with the earth. War has to be eliminated but you never will have this world as long as you have Hitlers/ Saddams and others who dream of power and controle of others. This is why democracy is so great but we have to get together to stop the likes of the Hitlers and what ever form they take. If democracys fail to take action against the Hitlers and Saddams of the world then our children have little hope for the future. We have to act. If not then the Hitlers of the world will. Iran does not need nukes, the time for countries to stop this nuclear madness is now.
     

Share This Page