user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
You expect an answer Cranky? Answers aren't what conservatives deal in. they deal in blame. They think that if they blame others then they dont actually have to do a damn thing. NOt even about the lies of their own government. Cons point the finger so that they can feel smug in their complacency.
Might you be directing this question towards neoconservatives cranky?Not to split hairs,it's actually quite a big difference.
Let the Europeans deal with it.
Like I've said, even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, they don't have anywhere near the technology to deliver a nuclear missile to the United States.
It's not our concern.
I'm not a conservative but I'll add in on it.
Sanctions won't work so that's off the table. They'll only starve the Iranian public (the leadership will have all the food in the world tho) and send Iran back a few decades. Sanctions won't take away what Iran has already and sanctions don't promise a non-nuclear Iran. North Korea proved to the world that sanctions don't work against the thing that theyre intended to do.
An invasion will work but that won't happen because the US military is stretched out. Funds are getting short and the US can't handle a 3rd front efficiently. The military would do its part if only the politicians could do theirs. Another war won't work.
So does anyone have any suggestions?
LD, why does it seem like you keep forgetting the airstrikes without invasion option?
by Yosi on Sat Apr 29, 06 12:50am
[+]
^Sure,it's best not to interfere Israel's option of airstrikes.Keep the US and our soldiers out of YOUR wars.
I'm not sure that the Iranians will bother distinct between Israel and the US, in both case of pre-emptive strike, or after a nuclear war will break out.
by Yosi on Sat Apr 29, 06 8:57am
[+]
"I'm not sure that the Iranians will bother distinct between Israel and the US"
That is conjecture at best.If they knew that they(and probably much of the region as well) could fight a war with Israel and Israel alone it utterly defies reason that they would drag the US into it,thus eliminating *any* chance they had for winning.Iran may currently be run by fundamentalist nut jobs but they are not stupid.
The Iranians can't win a nuclear war, however, they can make more countries lose in such war. As for the preemptive strike option - they already anounced their willingness to send 40,000 of their civilians to die as suicide bombers against Israeli and American targets.
by Yosi on Sun Apr 30, 06 1:15pm
[+]
Delivery via cruise missiles. Several.
Minimum yield tactical warheads.
Now, b4 it's too late.
Decisive pre-emptive strikes.
"they already anounced their willingness to send 40,000 of their civilians to die as suicide bombers against Israeli and American targets."
You mustn't believe every breath of hot air that they utter!
They KNOW that statements like that
scare the Be-Jesus outa Western Media,
and thus Western Voters.
And we all sit here, quaking..
hoping against death that they won't send them over.
hey, SEND THEM OVER!
if you can get four hundred suckers to do the stupid deed!
Be Brave.
Stand by your religious beliefs.
These guys are trying their best to get you to Your Heaven,
but you're chicken shit scared to make the journey!
What kinda believing 'Christian' are you?
I'm not a conservative. But I say international sanctions. I would oppose an invasion.
"LD, why does it seem like you keep forgetting the airstrikes without invasion option?"
Airstrikes won't work either. Bomb them and they'll still have an army, they'll still have an oppressive system and airstrikes don't promise a non-nuclear Iran. What are you going to do? Just keep bombing them into submission?
"I'm not a conservative. But I say international sanctions. I would oppose an invasion."
Socrates, can you name a single war or UN success story where sanctions solved the problem? If anything, sanctions probably make it worse.
LD- I disagree with your assessment of sanctioning. Sanctioning would indeed have significant affects on Iran. YOUr first claim is that it will not effect Iranian capabilities in its drive toward nuclear weapons. I disagree. If the West, Russia, etc stop exporting the technology, the required material and resources, and so on- then how would they manage to develop nthe project as efficiently. And furthermore, if the Iranian economy is crippled, then how would teh Iranians possibly fund their project as well as they could have if their were no sanctions and if their economy were not so weak? Indeed, sanctions would diminish Iranian capabilitities. Next, you attempt to use North Korea as an example of the failure of sanctioning. Firstly, the international community did not place any wide ranging sacntioning scheme on North Korea. There was plenty of capital flooding in from both China and also from South Korea (In this case the Sunshine Policy)- and in many ways the international community assisted North Korea's nuclear project- through appeasement.
If anything is a good example of the effectiveness of sanctioning- it is the Iraqi case. We know that Saddam Hussein was trying to get nuclear weapons. This was one reson sanctions were applied. And now, it seems he doesn't have any, despite his efforts. This indicates that sanctioning was indeed working, even though teh sanctions on Iraq were not even applied perfectly.
|
|
