trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.
There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.
If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".
The answer is yes. Most people trust in the negotiations.
The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.
|
And why should the USA attack a country that poses no threat to its homeland security?
|
Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security. More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons. You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons? What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs? So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.
Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe. The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe. Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike.
|
Let's be realistic, USA poses a bigger threat to any country than viceversa. Reasons for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam wars? Was it really necessary that the USA had to step in and attack without previous attacks from the other parts? Why is it that the USA is always at war, always with countries that are far away from it's borders and without a solid reason?
Let's get real, if the USA decides to attack Iran for the supposed nuclear weapons, we know it's not the reason, just like with Iraq, where the sole reason was oil, as there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found, not even traces of it. And like Afghanistan, an absurd war in all means.
Imperialism comes to mnd when I see people defending unsustained wars like the one in Iraq. USA is not the World Judge, nor the World Police. And there have been very serious war crimes commited by the US forces but they always get away with it. They should step aside and let the ones "threatened" act.
|
First off, I agree that the USA is a bigger risk to any country then they are to the USA. The US is a sueprpower That doesn't mean other countries don't pose a risk to it, plus despite the horrible things the US does, the US is a lot more responsible then most countries.
Furthermore, Iraq was not about oil. Have you not noticed that oil prices have done nothing but go up? To say it's about oil is about the most ignorant statement you can make, even beyond weapons of mass destruction. I mean, on a list of 20 things iraq was about... oil wouldn't even be on the list.
Besides, who is saying anything about a war? We are talking about a bombing campaign like the 4-5 that went on during the Clinton ones. Stepping aside and letting Iran develop nuclear weapons would be the epitome of stupidity.
