trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
trestres said:
Kasz216 said:
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.
|
Why would it be stupid, because government tells you? Proof that they are developing nuclear weapons? As much proof as there was for the Iraqi invasion?
Now tell me, what are the reasons for the Iraq war? Oil prices might be going up but who is controlling the oil in Iraq?
|
There were a ton of reasons... including WMDs. Which were in Iraq.
According to... and your going to enjoy this... Wikileaks. Including that Yellowcake uranium that everybody thought never existed.
Other reasons inclue, George Bush's delusional belief that it was the US duty to bring democracy to the world, His dislike of Iraq, everyone being pissed off and irrational at the time,it becomes a conduit of violence away from homeland targets as they focus fighting the US army on their "home turf". Also being able to one up his old man and "finish the job he didn't".
There are a TON of reasons.
As for who controls the oil in Iraq. That would be the Iraqi government, who lately have shown a lot more in common with Iran then the US
|
Don't blame a single man for the war in Iraq. It's the USA that attacked Iraq and no, it wasn't for WMD, it was purely for the oil, the reconstruction of Iraq, the weapons business and strategic positioning in the area. Having bases in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good way to intimidate Iran isn't it?
Name some more of those TONS of reasons, but this time make sure they are good enough reasons to start a war and kill innocent civilians.
|
Before we get on with that then, your admitting you were wrong about Iraq being about oil?
I mean, i get that's why you are completely trying to change the topic at hand... that you realize your wrong now. But lets start with that.
Personally, i've NEVER thought the war in Iraq was a good Idea. You can fine that being my consistant stance... BEFORE the war, which is something most people can't say now.
I'm just saying anyone who thinks the Iraqi war was about Oil is ignorant... because we don't even control the majority of Iraq's oil contracts, China actually holds the biggest piece of the pie.
Though yes, as it turns out Bush WASN'T lieing about Saddam trying to buy Yellowcake from Nigeria like everyone though he was... go figure.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/wikileaks-confirms-other-ignored-reports-about-iraq-wmds
If were were going to do anything, it should of been Clinton style bombings.
