Iran - Bush - Your Views

[AvarAllahNoor]

Iran can start to control the world's oil supply. U.S would be at the mercy of Iran with Gasoline and other product prices. U.S would be able to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons because of the oil threat. - Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat.

I hope to God Iran sticks to their guns (pun intended) Resist another invasion at all costs. - They fail in Iraq, they fail in Afghanistan, now they attempt Iran. lol - It can't be anymore more ludicrious if it was in the funnies section.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries.

I'm sorry for all the innocent americans who will be killed if this goes ahead. Think IRA, but only a 100 times worse, because they don't fear dying, so suicide bombers deployed all over the US.

Lets hope they see sense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk

 

[Woodrow]

I am not going to deny that there is some sort of agenda for the US to be involved in the mideast. But, it is not about oil.

Now, it is true that Iran has a very large reserve of crude, but it is buried deep in the ground and is not producing. I can not foresee any petroleum companies being willing to invest in Iran oil development, while there are still cheaper and safer sources.

I also suspect that in the very near future we will see mideastern oil replaced by Venezuelan, Canadian and Malaysian oil. Venezuela is already getting a good foot hold in the US and is aggressively advertising CITGO (The Venezuelan Government owned Co,) also with the current reduction of mid eastern oil to the US gasoline prices are dropping and they will drop even more once Venezuela gets a larger share of the US market.

I really do not know what the agenda is for the US to be in the Mid east. In the past it was because of Russia and the goal was that if a major confrontation occured between the US and Russia it would be fought in the Mid East and not on US soil.

 

[Keltoi]

Iran can start to control the world's oil supply. U.S would be at the mercy of Iran with Gasoline and other product prices. U.S would be able to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons because of the oil threat. - Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat.

I hope to God Iran sticks to their guns (pun intended) Resist another invasion at all costs. - They fail in Iraq, they fail in Afghanistan, now they attempt Iran. lol - It can't be anymore more ludicrious if it was in the funnies section.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries.

I'm sorry for all the innocent americans who will be killed if this goes ahead. Think IRA, but only a 100 times worse, because they don't fear dying, so suicide bombers deployed all over the US.

Lets hope they see sense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk

First of all, the Iranian oil capacity isn't what it used to be, and their oil infrastructure has been eroding for quite some time. The major threat to the U.S. as far as oil leverage is Venezuela.

Secondly, there is no planned invasion. Any strike against Iran would be just that, a strike. Probably a very big one, but still only a strike, not an occupation.

As far as losing in Iraq, Afghanistan, blah blah, I don't see how you point to a "loss" or a "victory" in these circumstances. They are still playing out. Perhaps you wish to see a "loss", but don't count the eggs before they hatch.

Finally, as for your hypothetical "100 times worse than IRA" analogy, I don't see how that could be achieved. There is no Muslim country on the border to produce the kind of terrorist flow you are describing. I would also wager that there are plenty of normal Muslims who would take to action fairly quickly if they thought their communities were giving safe-haven to suicide bombers in the U.S.

 

[MTAFFI]

Iran can start to control the world's oil supply. U.S would be at the mercy of Iran with Gasoline and other product prices. U.S would be able to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons because of the oil threat. - Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat.

I hope to God Iran sticks to their guns (pun intended) Resist another invasion at all costs. - They fail in Iraq, they fail in Afghanistan, now they attempt Iran. lol - It can't be anymore more ludicrious if it was in the funnies section.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries.

I'm sorry for all the innocent americans who will be killed if this goes ahead. Think IRA, but only a 100 times worse, because they don't fear dying, so suicide bombers deployed all over the US.

Lets hope they see sense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk

Boy ohh Boy can I see this one getting messy...LOL

Well I was going to start with the oil leverage thing but it seems that is pretty well known and already stated.

Second, Iran shouldnt have nukes because that is not just a threat to the US but the entire world, which is why sanctions were approved by the UN. As far as bullying, I would look at it more like looking after the security interests of our own country and the security interests of our allies in striking distance in the middle east and Europe.

Third, I dont think we are failing in Afghan or Iraq. It is always a difficult win when you dont know who you are fighting, or what the infrastructure is or how many you have left to kill before you win. Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban so mission accomplished. Iraq isnt ruled by Saddam so again mission accomplished. What has the Taliban or the insurgency in Iraq done to deserve the victory flag? To me it seems both of these countries are doing more harm to themselves than the US.

As far as Iran goes I think that you have invasion (occupation) and war confused. The US has no interest in Iran other than to stop them from compromising the security of our troops and country. Iran would be simply destroyed, I doubt many ground troops would even be deployed, it would just be days and days of bombs blowing the infrastructure to rubble. Iran would not stand a chance, that goes for Syria as well, however I think that they are cowards and wouldnt want to interfere anyways.

I would say the US is a good democracy, every government has their own secrets, but I wouldnt say elections are rigged, if that were the case Bush wouldnt be a lame duck right now. Hillary Clinton wouldnt be running for president and neither would Barak Obama. That is more speculation from delusional outside sources who really have no real idea of what US politics are, and therefore speculate because of the injustices in their own governments that fail to provide adequate security, food, structure, etc.

And again here we go with the suicide bombers in the US, I have said before and will say again, Muslims would make it a sad day for their own peoples civil rights and lives if this were to happen. I am with Keltoi though, I think that enough Muslims in the US can see what is going on enough to where they would report anything like this and take action to protect their own welfare in our country.

Lets hope Iran see's sense!

(Who is worse Bush or Ahmadinejad?)

-The Yank

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

(Who is worse Bush or Ahmadinejad?)

-The Yank

Well, bad as each other I think - Fair concluson?

 

[MTAFFI]

Well, bad as each other I think - Fair concluson?

very much so

 

[wilberhum]

The US is hardly the only country that doesn’t want Iran to have nukes. More nuke capable countries will only ensure that they get used. The more radical the country the more real the threat is. That is why the DPRK is so scary. Iran has already made it clear that there wish is for Israel to be wiped off the map.
JFK said it the best. The taste of victory will be ashes in the mouth.

 

[Cognescenti]

Let's hope this doesn't happen. It would be a nightmare...but not for the US. The US could absorb hundreds of suicide strikes (as long as they did not entail WMD's)...but it would immediately unite Americans of all stripes. After they got done burrying their dead they would call for action and I don't think they would settle for diplomacy.

The world would have a second Israel..one with 300,000,000 people and a trillion $ defence budget.

 

[MTAFFI]

Let's hope this doesn't happen. It would be a nightmare...but not for the US. The US could absorb hundreds of suicide strikes (as long as they did not entail WMD's)...but it would immediately unite Americans of all stripes. After they got done burrying their dead they would call for action and I don't think they would settle for diplomacy.

The world would have a second Israel..one with 300,000,000 people and a trillion $ defence budget.

Now that is scary :raging: :scared: :anger: :uuh: :muddlehea

for those at least against the US, it seems all of those the US has defeated in the past have said the same things, and talked this big talk

You know there is always this talk, we are not afraid to die, but something tells me that when the number of people that wish to behave this way begins to drastically drop, the fear may become a little more prevalent, and they may find themself saying, why did we make it this way?

 

[MTAFFI]

Now that is scary :raging: :scared: :anger: :uuh: :muddlehea

for those at least against the US, it seems all of those the US has defeated in the past have said the same things, and talked this big talk

You know there is always this talk, we are not afraid to die, but something tells me that when the number of people that wish to behave this way begins to drastically drop, the fear may become a little more prevalent, and they may find themself saying, why did we make it this way?

If you notice the US never says "we are going to do this or that to you" we typically speak with our actions

 

[Suomipoika]

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes

Considering how much they talk about wiping out Israel, I think its very important that Iran is prevented from getting nukes.

Im also bit afraid, how much more will Iran start supporting terrorism, if they do get nuclear weapons and use them to shield their actions.

 

[Um_ahmad]

I hope for peace in the world.

 

[aamirsaab]

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat

My sentiments exactly.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries

Considering how much they talk about wiping out Israel, I think its very important that Iran is prevented from getting nukes.

Well, North korea seemed pretty pumped up to blow the crap out of the US until the american government decided to fork some oil over. D'ya reckon the US could use the old 'hand em some oil' trick with the Iranians?

Im also bit afraid, how much more will Iran start supporting terrorism, if they do get nuclear weapons and use them to shield their actions.

My concern lies with the civilians who get caught up in the political parties vendettas who use nuclear weapons to shield their actions.

 

[Woodrow]

Nukes are a 2 edged sword, and nobody has designed a sheath to hold them.

A nuke is a very expensive military waste. The money used to maintain a nuke greatly reduces the resources for other military options. It is very easy for a small country to soon exhaust it's military budget for any other options. A nuclear country soon becomes a nuclear country without the ability to conduct a conventional war.

As smaller countries become nuclear empowered the chances for limited local skirmishes is reduced and the chance for massive nuclear retaliation increases.

A nuclear power country is not likely to use a nuke against a non-nuclear nation. However, it is almost certain that a nuclear nation would use a nuke as a first strike weapon against any nation known to have nukes.

Any country having nukes poses a very grave danger to themselves, to their neighbors and to their allies.

 

[wilberhum]

My concern lies with the civilians who get caught up in the political parties vendettas who use nuclear weapons to shield their actions.

So why do you want more nuks? How many nuks are enough?

 

[aamirsaab]

So why do you want more nuks? How many nuks are enough?

You misunderstand. Personally, I would love it if nukes were never invented - I think they're the most paradoxical creation ever built by and for mankind.

However, don't expect me to fall for blatant double standards: 'X country isn't allowed nukes but Y country is'.

 

[Suomipoika]

Well, North korea seemed pretty pumped up to blow the crap out of the US until the american government decided to fork some oil over. D'ya reckon the US could use the old 'hand em some oil' trick with the Iranians?

EU has been trying to work a carrot deal with the Iranians for long time now, so far there doesnt seem to have been any real progress. To me it seems more like the Iranians are using the negotiations to buy more time until they do get nukes.

My concern lies with the civilians who get caught up in the political parties vendettas who use nuclear weapons to shield their actions.

What vendettas?

However, don't expect me to fall for blatant double standards: 'X country isn't allowed nukes but Y country is'.

Double standars perhaps, but how often do you hear Bush saying he wants to wipe out Iran, or North Korea, or Syria or [insert whatever country you want here] from the map?

 

[wilberhum]

You misunderstand. Personally, I would love it if nukes were never invented - I think they're the most paradoxical creation ever built by and for mankind.

However, don't expect me to fall for blatant double standards: 'X country isn't allowed nukes but Y country is'.

So since the US has them, every one should get them?
Like it or not they exist and everyone having them will not make things better.

 

[aamirsaab]

EU has been trying to work a carrot deal with the Iranians for long time now, so far there doesnt seem to have been any real progress. To me it seems more like the Iranians are using the negotiations to buy more time until they do get nukes.

Well I wouldn't put it past them to even think of that.

What vendettas?

Saddam, Osama bin Laden to name two.

Double standars perhaps, but how often do you hear Bush saying he wants to wipe out Iran, or North Korea, or Syria or [insert whatever country you want here] from the map?

Actions speak louder than words; the US army attacks on sudan, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Syria, Guatemala, vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan (to name but a few) are several examples of this. Though not all under the direction of Mr Bush, I admit.

Ahmadinajid, like many others, made a huge mistake of barking too loud.

So since the US has them, every one should get them?

As I said before, you can't say 'no you cant have this, but I can' and expect people to fall for it. It's standard bullying tactics and blatant hypocrisy.

Like it or not they exist and everyone having them will not make things better.

As I said before, I'd rather nukes had never been created.

Please note, I'm as left-wing/pacifistic as Ghandi and in no way do I support Iran's military action.

I do however support the concept of standing your ground against a bully.

 

[Cognescenti]

...<snip>
Please note, I'm as left-wing/pacifistic as Ghandi and in no way do I support Iran's military action.

I do however support the concept of standing your ground against a bully.

Exactly which of these definitions for "bully" do you mean?

n. pl. bul·lies
1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
3. A pimp.
4. Archaic A fine person.
5. Archaic A sweetheart.


Note that the first definition, which I suspect is what you intend, requires "habitual" behavior.

Now that you brought up Ghandi...what do you think Ghandi might have said about Indian nukes?