<p>Israel has nuclear weapons, it's in a position to defend itself.</p>
<p>Iran HATES Israel</p>
<p>Iran has massive oil reserves.</p>
<p>Irans wants nuclear technology.</p>
<p>2+2=4.</p>
<p>"Iran has massive oil reserves."</p>
<p>There's enough reason for us to go after them right now</p>
<p>...sweet sweet sarcasm</p>
<p>"Israel has nuclear weapons, it's in a position to defend itself."</p>
<p>It's not a matter of being able to retaliate; it's a matter of not letting Iran launch weapons in the first place--whether they're conventional weapons (and the nukes are simply there to try and stop other countries from attacking) or nuclear ones.</p>
<p>Four really important reasons why Iran shouldn't have nuclear ANYTHING:</p>
<p>1.) They've already threatened to use weapons(on Israel) that they haven't even built</p>
<p>2.) They claim they just want "nuclear energy" -- yet they just built an underwater missile WITH A WARHEAD( gee, Russia, wonder where they got THAT?)</p>
<p>3.) They are NOT playing; they've hated Israel for a looooong time. Besides, their OWN GOVERNMENT sponsors terrorist attacks on Israel.</p>
<p>4.)I maintain that Iran doesn't have a real government. They base their laws off the frickin' KORAN for goodness' sake. </p>
<p>Guys I think I found Saddam's WMD'S...</p>
<p>READ THIS:</p>
<p>(CBS/AP) Iran announced its second major new missile test in a week, saying Sunday it has successfully fired a high-speed underwater missile capable of destroying huge warships and submarines. </p>
<p>The Iranian-made missile has a speed of 223 miles per hour underwater, Gen. Ali Fadavi, deputy head of the Navy of the elite Revolutionary Guards, said. </p>
<p>He called it the fastest underwater missile in the world, but it has the same speed as the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, developed in 1995 and believed to be the world's fastest, three or four times faster than a torpedo. </p>
<p>It was not immediately known if the Iranian missile, which has not yet been named, was based on the Shkval. </p>
<p>"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines. Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed," Fadavi told state-run television. </p>
<p>It was not immediately clear whether the missile, which has not been named, can carry a nuclear warhead. </p>
<p>The missile test was conducted during the third day of large-scale military maneuvers by tens of thousands of the elite Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. </p>
<p>Iran on Friday test-fired the Fajr-3 missile, which can avoid radars and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. The Guards said the test was successful. </p>
<p>Gen. Hossein Salami said Friday the Iranian-made missile was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The maneuvers are scheduled to last a week and will involve 17,000 Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and helicopter gunships. </p>
<p>Last year, former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military. </p>
<p>The missile tests and war games coincide with increasing tension between Iran and the West over Tehran's controversial nuclear program. </p>
<p>The United States and its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies that, saying its program is for generating electricity. </p>
<p>The U.N. Security Council is demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. But an Iranian envoy said its activities are "not reversible." </p>
<p>Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.</p>
<p>......Gee, sure sounds to me like he's speaking "child's talk", GinPA...</p>
<p>
[quote]
haha, last time I checked, the United States and their fanatical Christian religion went after Iraq because of their religion (if you don't know what I mean, like Pimp said, read the Koran)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you really believe this then you need serious help, my friend. If we were really against the Muslims we would be doing a hell of a lot better at killing them all off. </p>
<p>Letting Iran have nukes is like selling a sniper rifle to Mr. Malvo (the DC sniper). It is not responsible, and thankfully those idiotic enough to believe that it is none of our business are in the minority and are not the ones making decisions. </p>
<p>I assume if these people were around in 1939 they would have believed Hitler when he said that Austria was all he wanted....then Poland....then France...People with the same mindset as these idiots almost cost us the free world 60 years ago and there is no way in hell that we will let them lead us down the same wrong path today.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Im not going to stay out of this..</p>
<p>To Scom and all the other who think America should invade Iran.. Youve posted enough articles about human rights violations etc which you think is justification for invading Iran.. So what about America in vietnam and iraq just to name two places.. Wasnt killing innocent civilians and violating international law enough to prove that america cant handle nukes?</p>
<p>Lets go back to human right - guantamano bay? Need i expand on that? Its all very well to say that the US upholds human rights and think that your country is responsible, but the fact remains that it is anything but..</p>
<p>For those who thought that september 11 was enough justification to do what america did, it isnt.. The number of innocent civilians (yeah exactly the same kind of people who died on 9/11) that america killed is Iraq was 3 times the number that died on 9/11.. Are you going to say that sending tomahawk missiles into someones home in iraq is not equivalent to a terrorist attack?</p>
<p>And after all this, if you think that america is justified in keeping their nukes, they really have no right to stop iran from building their own..
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>guantanamo bay is a futile argument...as the previous poster mentioned, these are people who are scooped up off of the battlefield and thrown into prison...they are enemy combatants. they are not american citizens, and thus have no legal rights. they are protected by geneva... but geneva goes out the window when we're trying to protect the american people (in terms of torture/interrogation, etc)...</p>
<p>and if it means torturing someone to obtain intelligence which will potentially save the lives of american soldiers or american citizens... i'm all for it...most Americans with common sense will agree. </p>
<p>yes, we do torture prisoners of war...does it violate international law? probably...and the Administration will project a political view of having no tolerance for such acts...but the exact opposite holds true. Do I care that some scum bag who was killing our soldiers gets tortured for valuable intelligence? Not in the very least...</p>
<p>I love it how you link killing civilians to American terrorism...the two circumstances surrounding each situation are very different. Americans have shown in the past they do the best they possibly can to avoid civilian casualties. I've read in the news of several operations and maneuvers that were called off solely because enemies were hiding behind civilians for cover. Civilian casualties have dramatically decreased under our watch throughout the history of various warfare engagements...the main trigger for this is current technology.</p>
<p>This contrasts directly with the intent of terrorists who purposefully aim to kill civilians, and instill a fear within the populus... in hopes that we will adapt their ****ed up ideology. </p>
<p>Just an FYI...</p>
<p>We are the biggest humanitarian aid giver in the world...</p>
<p>we even helped Iran when they needed it the most during that terrible earthquake they endured...</p>
<p>open your eyes...</p>
<p><a href="http://www.usaid.gov/iran/%5B/url%5D">http://www.usaid.gov/iran/</a></p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
And after all this, if you think that america is justified in keeping their nukes, they really have no right to stop iran from building their own..
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>The difference is... the United States will not sell nuclear technology to radical terrorist groups that are based within our own country, with the intent to harm other nations...</p>
<p>Iran would do it in a heartbeat...you are a fool if you think otherwise...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If you really believe this then you need serious help, my friend. If we were really against the Muslims we would be doing a hell of a lot better at killing them all off. </p>
<p>Letting Iran have nukes is like selling a sniper rifle to Mr. Malvo (the DC sniper). It is not responsible, and thankfully those idiotic enough to believe that it is none of our business are in the minority and are not the ones making decisions. </p>
<p>I assume if these people were around in 1939 they would have believed Hitler when he said that Austria was all he wanted....then Poland....then France...People with the same mindset as these idiots almost cost us the free world 60 years ago and there is no way in hell that we will let them lead us down the same wrong path today.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>you hit the nail on the head with that post...</p>
<p>and this is not a republican or democrat issue either...most democrats want to stop Iran as well and believe them to be a major threat... stressing diplomatic solutions first...but keeping military options on the table...</p>
<p>people who do not understand the danger that Iran poses by seeking nuclear weapons are simply in denial...</p>
<p>and BTW... i did not suggest going right into iran and taking them out as watercannon mentions...</p>
<p>i still believe there is time to reach an agreement through political discussion...</p>
<p>military action will be used as a last resort...economic sanctions will be imposed, etc etc...</p>
<p>the bottom line is that we need to stop them from furthering their nuclear capabilities perhaps by using some strict international overwatch organization...to assure that their nuclear ambitions are sincerely for providing electricity to the masses...i have no problems with this...but the iranians dont seem to be cooperating one bit</p>
<p>we wont be attacking them anytime soon (unless they hit us first)...and be prepared... the threat is VERY real and possible...it's not a matter of IF it's a matter of WHEN and WHERE...</p>
<p>I agree, the problem is, the US no longer uses diplomacy. And to Cuse, I believe that's part of it-meaning the ways they treat their women. But I never said that was the sole reason, don't be ignorant. Besides, that isn't the issue here.</p>
<p>Israel has nukes, it's safe. Pakistan and Inda fought 4 wars, when both got nukes they didnt attack each other. It forced them not to resort to war and to forge new relations.</p>
<p>If Israel feels so threatened it can do a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. This has occured in the past. Also Israel is a strong country, it's fought multiple middle eastern countries before (Six Days War) and Israel has probably the best intelligence network in the world. I don't like the fact that people are referring to Israel as this helpless country, it's not. It's fully capable of defending itself if the need comes to be.</p>
<p>Correct, look at what we did for Israel in the last decades. No nation in the Middle East is helpless. It may appear this way, but take Iraq for example. We "knew" they "had" WMD, but be honest, did anybody expect such a military insurgency once the US invaded. These nations operate in a different way then the United States. The US is very, very visual about their military. We man thousands of bases around the world, and have thousands of servicemen and women to keep these bases function. However, in these Middle Eastern countries, a so-called military is less visible. Sure, they have a National Guard or something other small-scale military force, but the biggest threat comes from underground organizations. Like dcfca said, Israel has a top-notch intelligence organization. They know all about these insurgents and how they function. Our intelligence, however, can not possibly compare. If you still think that this war in Iraq is worth it, you need to re-evaluate your views. Look at what we've done in Iraq (nothing) and compare that with what they have done to us. I guarantee that if we were to take action in Iran, the results would be the same, if not worse then those in Iraq. Think about it</p>
<p>if you believe we have accomplished nothing in Iraq... you're very uninformed...</p>
<p>ha okay...so we got rid of Saddam...anything else?</p>
<p>I don't see why not. We have a bigger nuclear arsenal than the entire middle east combined....:)</p>
<p>And Iraq was a diversion because Bush failed to catch Osama. He promised to get Osama "dead or alive", and now he says that Osama isn't a big threat anymore. And BTW those hijackers on the Sept 11 attacks were Saudi Arabian, not Iraqi. There's also a theory that 9/11 was perpetrated by Bush himself.....this video makes a pretty convincing case for it.</p>
<p>Well I can't find the video right now, but I'll post the link later.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they are not american citizens, and thus have no legal rights. they are protected by geneva... but geneva goes out the window when we're trying to protect the american people (in terms of torture/interrogation, etc)...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right.. So now america is bigger then international laws that govern each country? Thats the kind of attitude that causes people to hate america..</p>
<p>Get this straight - if every country believed that capturing "terrorists", not giving them access to medical facilities or a proper trial, and not allowing international organisations access to these facilities was justified based on the fact that it was in their national interest, human rights would cease to exist.. America cannot flout international human rights laws, and then get upset because Iran doesnt treat their women properly.. Grow up..</p>
<p>
[quote]
We are the biggest humanitarian aid giver in the world
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So does that still justify violating human rights on the side? I think not</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I don't see why not. We have a bigger nuclear arsenal than the entire middle east combined....</p>
<p>And Iraq was a diversion because Bush failed to catch Osama. He promised to get Osama "dead or alive", and now he says that Osama isn't a big threat anymore. And BTW those hijackers on the Sept 11 attacks were Saudi Arabian, not Iraqi. There's also a theory that 9/11 was perpetrated by Bush himself.....this video makes a pretty convincing case for it.</p>
<p>Well I can't find the video right now, but I'll post the link later.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/</a></p>
<p>This quote is a gem... read...</p>
<p>"But after the 1998 bombings were traced back to bin Laden, the administration attempted to do more than watch.</p>
<p>"We tried many, many times and many different ways to capture or kill bin Laden with very little success," Crowley said.</p>
<p>But Ret. Air Force Lt. Col Buzz Patterson, who worked in the Clinton administration, noted that there were eight Al Qaeda-related attacks during that president's tenure.</p>
<p>"[Administration officials] were very well aware of bin Laden and they were also well aware that Al Qaeda may use commercial airliners as weapons," in the late 1990s, said Patterson, the author of "Dereliction of Duty." But "it was always treated as a law enforcement issue," he added.</p>
<p>"I think President Clinton really failed to grasp the threat ...President Clinton met with Monica Lewinksy many more times than with his FBI or CIA director."</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...&q=loose+change%5B/url%5D%5B/QUOTE%5D">http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...&q=loose+change
[/QUOTE]
</a></p>
<p>read.</p>
<p><a href="http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/%5B/url%5D">http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Get this straight - if every country believed that capturing "terrorists", not giving them access to medical facilities or a proper trial, and not allowing international organisations access to these facilities was justified based on the fact that it was in their national interest, human rights would cease to exist.. America cannot flout international human rights laws, and then get upset because Iran doesnt treat their women properly.. Grow up..
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>proper trial... lmao...yeah... so of the thousands and thousands of enemies that we engaged with and the few thousand we captured on the battlefield, all should be brought to trial... BRILLIANT...</p>
<p>listen to me very carefully... as much as you'd like to sugar coat war... it is what it is and people die. There's no way of getting around it. No matter how noble the cause may be...It's ugly, it's evil, it's dirty...and innocent people die...that's just the nature of warfare. </p>
<p>Also remember...the media along with these international organizations are usually politically motivated and will do everything they possibly can to undermine the war effort... remember that...</p>
<p>and our soldiers have died because of it...sad, but true.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
So does that still justify violating human rights on the side? I think not
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I already explained the steps the US takes to avoid civilian casualties when possible...what you need to look at is intent... not the actual action and the consequences of it...</p>
<p>as i mentioned...if it means saving the lives of several if not many... perhaps thousands of soldiers and/or American citizens... i couldnt care less what they do to some slimeball they pick up in the desert...if you really valued human life you would agree...</p>