US attack on Iran Imminent?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by madanthonywayne, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Madanthonywayne: SAM I dont believe you understand the difference between the American invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Georgia. Iraq was ruled by a dictator believed to have weapons of mass destruction in his possession. He ran an oppressive government and caused instability in the Middle East, alerady having provoked a war over Kuwait's territorial integrity. Georgia, on the other hand, is a democracy, a friendly country that is bothersome to none. Georgia was not believed to have nukes.

    So because they are pro-democratic makes the suppression of south Ossetia and Abkhazia ok? They were bothersome to the people who want independence from Georgia proper, many of these people carry russian passports. Russia didn't behave any differently than Israel. Condeleeza came out and said this isn't 1968 and Russia cannot A. Invade a sovereign nation
    B. Threaten the existing government (regime change)
    C. Occupy the country (Russia didn't even occupy the whole country but they are keeping hold of South Ossetia)

    That statement is a blatant hypocrisy on the part of the US government since this is exactly what we did in Iraq.

    Don't forget it was Georgia that threw the first punch after being warned by Russia.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Lucy, that wasn't me you were quoting. If I were to point out the difference between Iraq and Georgia, I'd go with the fact that we went to war with Iraq because they invaded a sovereign nation (Kuwait). South Osettia was undisputably a part of Georgia, so Russia really had no right to invade Georgia over what was an internal Georgian issue. Yes, Russia said there were a lot of Russians in South Ossetia. And Hitler said there were a lot of Germans in the Sudetenland. That's the parallel, not the US invasion of Iraq, but the German invasion of the Sudetenland.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    The Russian in S. Ossetia were moved there by the Russian, they were part of a program to make sure that these countries would never become totally independent of Russia, that because they were there they would be a reason for Russian intervention.

    Does this look familiar? It is the same excuses and type of operation that the Russians gave and used for Invading Georgia.

    International reactions

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Boy, that sure does sound familiar.........
     
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    All the people( and the most dangerous of all the Israeli and American right wing most of all) who want to attack Iran over the nuclear reactor need to come to terms with one simple fact. Iran has a proven track of being capable of producing WMDs and yet not doing so. When was the last time Israel was hit with biological or chemical weapons that were supplied by Iran. They never were. People need to quit fearmongering and deal with the real world.
     
  9. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Provide some citation as to those fact's.

    Other wise your are blowing smoke.
     
  10. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    It seems that Iran did use and develope Chemical Weapons.

    Maybe not Israel but Iraq was hit.

    . Began CW production in mid-1980s, following CW attacks by Iraq.

    . Limited use of chemical weapons in 1984-1988 during war with Iraq, initially using captured Iraqi CW munitions.

    . Began stockpiling cyanogen chloride, phosgene, and mustard gas after 1985



    CNS - Iran - Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East
    "Chemical Weapons," GlobalSecurity.org, 2/06, http://www.globalsecurity. org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm. "Damghan," Federation of American Scientists website, ...

    http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm

    Chemical [3]


    . Began CW production in mid-1980s, following CW attacks by Iraq.

    . Limited use of chemical weapons in 1984-1988 during war with Iraq, initially using captured Iraqi CW munitions.

    . Began stockpiling cyanogen chloride, phosgene, and mustard gas after 1985

    .Alleged to have initiated nerve agent production in 1994.

    .Ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention on 11/3/97.

    .The United States has alleged that Iran is producing, stockpiling, and weaponizing blister, blood and choking agents.

    .Suspected CW production sites at Damghan, Isfahan, Parchin and Qazvin.

    .Destroyed CW production equipment under observation of OPCW inspectors.

    .Remains in good standing with the OPCW and hosted the Third Regional Meeting for CWC National Authorities in Asia in September 2005.
     
  11. stretched a junkie's broken promise Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    BR

    Not so. The facts.

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war)

    This is 2008, the Russians are not Germans. Put that chestnut away, it has no relevance here. Of relevance here is:

    (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7594860.stm)

    The ongoing interference of the US in distant regional politics to destabilize and pursue (nefarious) foreign policy.
     
  12. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    I would ask the same question, of all "sides" of "the war on terror".
     
  13. stretched a junkie's broken promise Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    There is no "terror", and there should be no "war". Its a fiction, drowsy ones.
     
  14. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    fight for our own right to live? WTF?
    Any possible attack on Iran would be carried out almost entirely for the benefit of the state of Israel. Way to go trying to trick others into thinking it would benefit them also. Seems to have been the tactic with Iraq, and it worked then, but I'm not sure its going to work again. Take some responsibility for once.

    Israel has plenty of nukes and fighter jets to defend itself with, even pre-emptively if it dares to do so. Israel roping other countries in to do its dirty work for them is a major cause of recent political criticism.
     
  15. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Why does this have to be a topic of Israel? There's an evil in the world; they want you dead...you won't get up and do anything.
     
  16. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    So the people/powers that be in Iran are "evil" and want me "dead"?

    Really?
    I haven't heard that before, certainly not from them.

    It sounds like a very simplistic explanation for your views, like the sort of propaganda a certain country used before and during world war two, to describe people who they thought were "evil".
    In the past posters were used for propaganda and influencing the general public. Now, to demonise perceived enemies, hollywood and the mainstream media can do it via the television and movies, such as this compilation of clips demonstrates:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw&e

    Don't you think that is hypocritical?

    If people from another country want people like me dead, I'd hope my government would prevent them from coming here in the first place, so you might say they'd failed at that. But then I'd also hope my government would have prevented entry to people who consider me inferior for racial or religious reasons, and they seemed to have failed at that also.

    Maybe its you who wants "goyim" (the term you used) to die so you don't have to? Why should other countries fight Israel's wars?
    Why don't you do it yourself?
     
  17. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    So would you kill your son if you got to have the thrill of invading another Muslim country, madant, or do you only want to kill other people's sons?
     
  18. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    First of all, I'm not even in favor of an invasion of Iran. Secondly, if my son choose to join the military I'd support his decision as an honorable one. Also, going to Iraq is not a death sentence. We've had 4,000 or so casualties out of how many hundred thousand troops that have cycled thru Iraq?

    For the record, my oldest son just started studying engineering. My other sons are only 8 and 10, so they'll have quite some time to decide what they want to do. On the other hand, many of my son's friends (including his best friend) did join the military. At his high school (a very conservative school that also is one of the top high schools in the state) most boys went into either engineering or the military.
     
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    We are down to 113 days and counting, before the end of the year, so if we are going to attack Iran, we better get to it, George is Running out of time.
     
  20. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    I wish Germany would attack.
     
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    we have had far more than 4000 casualties. We have had 4000 deaths. Your forgetting the wounded also count as casualties.
     
  22. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    i wonder what imminenet meant to the title author!!
     
  23. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: We sure wish you would.
     

Share This Page