do you think iran will be attacked ?

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by OutCaste, Jun 8, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OutCaste

    OutCaste Well-Known Member

    I think its going to happen pretty soon.
     
  2. ItThing

    ItThing Well-Known Member

    By who?
     
  3. OutCaste

    OutCaste Well-Known Member

    either israel or america or a coalition.

    i have also read reports that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (predominantly sunni countries) are also against Iran's expansionist ambitions in middle east. They seem to be disgruntled as well.
     
  4. OutCaste

    OutCaste Well-Known Member

    the world is really going down the shitter though. seems like nothing is good in any country across the world. only death, destruction, poverty, fanaticism, total disregard for the nature. everything is so depressing and sad yet there are so many people who are extremely happy living in their little bubble.
     
  5. ItThing

    ItThing Well-Known Member

    My government, the government of israel, will at the most deploy forces to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have little to gain by attacking Iran, more likely they will respond to threats as they occur. Certainly nuclear Pakistan has little to fear, much less than Israel or Saudi Arabia. Personally I hope Bush will don his cowboy hat one last time and do the dirty work, Obama does not seem like he would attack Iran and if Bush doesn't maybe McCain will. If nothing else, israel will do its best to avoid destruction.
     
  6. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    If the Neocons have their way then yes, anytime soon. They've been trying to brainwash the public that nuclear power stations are the same as nuclear missile capability for a while now.
     
  7. hammockmonkey

    hammockmonkey Well-Known Member

    We already have 2 wars on why not a 3rd? I mean it's only killing the poor.
     
  8. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Israel are in no danger of being 'destroyed' by Iran, anymore than they were in danger of being 'destroyed' by Iraq. The threat was invented back in 2003, as it is today. The very notion that a country with Israel's nuclear arsenal is in danger of being 'destroyed' by countries with no such capability is proposterous.
     
  9. ItThing

    ItThing Well-Known Member

    http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/IranReport082206v2.pdf
    Just scroll down. Listen guys, I am not for war, what I want is for no one to be submitted for the destructive force of nuclear bombs. I cannot really defend israel's having nukes itself but I know they were not created for offensive usage. Do you doubt from the reputation of Iran's leadership that they wqould use nukes against my country if they could?
     
  10. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member



    Irans 'expansionist ambitions' !?!?!? Well that is hilarious in it's hypocrisy and double-standards!!! What about Israel's 'expansionist ambitions' ?!?!? They built their wall in Arab land lets not forget. Why not on the existing border??
     
  11. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    No, Israel's nukes were probably not built for offensive use as they have 'slave-states' like the US and UK to carry out their dirty work for them. The whole concept of judging the 'reputation' of another countries regime seems to ring a little hollow when it comes from countries that have happily used atomic weapons upon civilian populations and have since admitted that they were used for 'show' to 'impress the Russians', such as in the case of the US dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese in the nineteen-forties. Not that it would be right under any other circumstances either. The very concept of the 'end's justify the means' is that which 'evil' people, such as Saddam Hussein use to justify their own behaviour.
     
  12. ItThing

    ItThing Well-Known Member

    What does that have to do with it? It is I who brought up Israel not OutCaste, and it is he who brought up Iran's territorial ambitions not I, you are connecting two different viewpoints. Please answer my question from before though. Do you doubt that Iran's leaders are willing to use a weapon like that against my country or anyother if they could? I do not understand why you attack the general consensus: "If the Neocons have their way then yes, anytime soon. They've been trying to brainwash the public that nuclear power stations are the same as nuclear missile capability for a while now." without giving us your reason for doubting it. Iran has aqcuired equipment for uranium purification beyond what is necessary for nuclear powerplants. Is it not a legitimate fear that they may intend to develop nuclear weapons and use them?
     
  13. ItThing

    ItThing Well-Known Member

    But I am NOT defending previous use of nuclear weapons by anyone. Iran is a military dictatorship and a theocracy. There has been abuse of the rights for free speach and self government. God knows that my country is not devoid of corruption but our elected representatives do not continuously issue threats against other countries and say that they must be wiped out.
     
  14. JohnADreams

    JohnADreams Well-Known Member

    But no one can really use nukes anymore, they're just a last line defense. If a country ever did use one, it would be wiped out in return. The only use for them is to make yourself unconquerable, to negate any mass military movement against you by another nation.
     
  15. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    It would be tantamount to suicide if any country attacked a country possessing nuclear capability such as Israel. Do you have any proof that they do beyond the unsupported claims of your now discredited government? Remember when Israel were claiming that Iraq did? There is an old saying 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'. You have been brainwashed by your own murderous regime, similar to the Germans in Nazi Germany.
     
  16. ItThing

    ItThing Well-Known Member

    I am very hurt by what you are saying, how can you use my worst enemies as an example against me? This is a sad world, Arthur. I think that you and I agree on the fact that all wars are unnecessary and evil acts, but you cannot go far as to ignore the difference between more or less sufficient reasons for violence. I give a classic example: in the American revolution, the patriots commited acts of terrorism against the british regime, and a war resulted, but they did it in order to free themselves from a government that is inherently unjust. Surely the American forces during that war could not be attributed more blame for it than the british, and in some people's judgment the Americans had a right to revolt. Regardless I'm begging you, whether or not we agree on the facts, you and I have the same basic principles of justice in mind. How dare you call me a nazi, I who have caused the death of no human, palestinian or otherwise, the grandson of two holocaust survivors and a member of a family who has always felt free criticizing its government and has never ceased calling for peace. I demand and apology or I will not continue this discussion.
     
  17. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Many outsiders claim that this is exactly what Bush has, or wants, to create in America. There is evidence that he has never won a -legitimate- election and consequently is essentially a dictator himself. He has already commisioned the use of semi-nuclear weapons (DU and such like) on innocent people, with no self-defence based justification, and now wants to attack a third. Your leaders, as expressed above, do not have to make threats, they simply go ahead and wipe innocent populations off the map, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dont let Iran be the third.
     
  18. XXXXX

    XXXXX Antiquities Friend

    This should be an interesting thread :tongue:

    I hope that EITHER:-

    1) Iran is attacked properly (not pinpoint surgical strikes that will only set it back 5 or 10 years, and simply annoy it - but back to the stoneage) and for that to happen the US will need to be involved, Israel can start it - but cannot finish the job.

    OR

    2) The Iranians get "the bomb" - to be honest I would trust them with a Nuke far more than Pakistan, and they ain't nuked anyone yet.....the Iranian / Persian culture goes back thousands of years (that's pre Islam) and they are not going to do anything to wipe themselves off the map in 5 minutes flat.

    Out of a choice I would go for option 2) - once the Iranians get Nukes they will be and feel secure and will be less of a threat to the region / outside world because they simply will no longer need to take the actions they currently feel they need to and in fact will then solely be counterproductive.....these people are not all mad, trying to conquer and then hold a desert full of f#cked up in the head sand dwellers, whether Muslim, Christian or Jew is simply the height of expensive madness - a culture does not survive several thousand years by not learning a thing or two.....usually about playing the long game.
     
  19. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    I did not, i repeat, -not-, accuse -you- of being a nazi. I said that your government was brainwashing you into supporting something by creating a perceived need, based upon propaganda, similar to how the nazi-government in Germany, did in the nineteen-thirties. Although, if you succomb to the lies and go along with it, you will, in effect, be no different to the Germans who went along with their governent, due to cowardice, or dimwittedness. There is no such need, hence your analogy with the Americans who fought against colonialists is invalid, irrelevant but factual.
     
  20. touglytobeloved

    touglytobeloved Well-Known Member

    Im moving in Iran.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.