If we do help it will be a repeat of the 1980s w/ afgahn soviet war
Poll
If the people of Iran attempt to remove Amedinijad, should we help?
| Yes, full scale invasion in support | 17% | 17% - 16 | ||||
| Yes, only airstrikes | 6% | 6% - 6 | ||||
| Yes, only by supplying weapons | 16% | 16% - 15 | ||||
| No, not our business | 59% | 59% - 54 | ||||
| Total: 91 | ||||||
RDMC(2) wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
None of our business.
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
None of our business.
No, who cares. Lets face it, its getting real old and exhausting for the US as to operate as the world police. We lose too many fine young men and women, usually for nothing. If they threathen or attack the US or other free countries, the use of Cruise missiles with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads should be considered. I know it sounds hard, but it is what it is. I am sick and tired of going to funerals for fallen soldiers fighting in some fucked up country where their efforts are not even appreciated.
Last edited by Superslim (2007-06-29 18:09:53)
No to the chemical, biological, and or nuclear weapons. If you are tired of going to funerals for fallen soldiers, stop going to them. I guarantee many people (especially the ones directly oppressed under Saddam in Iraq) in those countries appreciate our efforts. The country (Iran) is not fucked up. The way it is run is, much like the US. However, it is not up anyone to decide the fate of Iran except for the people of Iran.Superslim wrote:
No, who cares. Lets face it, its getting real old and exhausting for the US as to operate as the world police. We lose too many fine young men and women, usually for nothing. If they threathen or attack the US or other free countries, the use of Cruise missiles with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads should be considered. I know it sounds hard, but it is what it is. I am sick and tired of going to funerals for fallen soldiers fighting in some fucked up country where their efforts are not even appreciated.
No, if the US invades there will be a form of democracy in Iran.Turquoise wrote:
will not, perhaps?...Belx wrote:
Democracy cannot be forced upon a people, and US involvement will lead to a democracy.
...a very dysfunctional democracy....Belx wrote:
No, if the US invades there will be a form of democracy in Iran.Turquoise wrote:
will not, perhaps?...Belx wrote:
Democracy cannot be forced upon a people, and US involvement will lead to a democracy.
Yeah, and sit back and watch as the world crumbles around us? Most of the world hates how we police it. They'll smack talk us all day and night, but when it comes down too it, everyone knows exactly how important it is that America sticks its nose all over the place. If you disagree that America is the glue that holds the world together then you're either A) Just stupid B) Yeah, probably stupid C) You're disagreeing because you know its true, but you hate that it's true, so you have to feel better about yourself by talking smack.Balok77 wrote:
America should just keep its nose out of other countries business for once
I personally don't like how we stick our noses in a lot of places that we shouldn't, but I also know it's necessary. I would rather be a part of a country that is hated because we take action than a country who sits back on their ass, silently breathing a sigh of relief that something is being done, but maintains their stance of disapproval because its the "in thing."
not to mention that its like saying america would succumb to a power vacuum if bush were removed...KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I would argue that there would be no "vacuum of power" if Ahmadinejad was removed. The true power in Iran does not come from the President of Iran. He is more of a figurehead, which may be why he often uses anti-west/anti-Israel rhetoric; He is probably trying to gain favor with the Islamic clerics who actually do run the country (the Council of Guardians, and the Supreme Leader).Villain{NY} wrote:
If Ahmadinejad was removed the vacuum of power would be so great that the ensuing violence would tear that country apart and make the Iraq situation look like a cake walk. We are best to leave middle eastern peoples to destroy themselves as they place no value on human life and hate us anyway.
Barring human rights atrocities such as genocide, we should not interfere with Iranian sovereignty at all.
Yeah, why I said a form.Turquoise wrote:
...a very dysfunctional democracy....Belx wrote:
No, if the US invades there will be a form of democracy in Iran.Turquoise wrote:
will not, perhaps?...
Probably very Iraq-like.
True...Belx wrote:
Yeah, why I said a form.Turquoise wrote:
...a very dysfunctional democracy....Belx wrote:
No, if the US invades there will be a form of democracy in Iran.
Probably very Iraq-like.
Oh I was so relieved when I saw those numbers for the poll.
I'm sure no matter what if there was such a chance to get rid of him and they just needed a special teams help, we'd be there not on record.
Iran's president is not its only problem its theocratic extremist Muslim governmental system as a whole is.
but I also know it's necessary
necessary? was Iraq really that necessary. Saddam Hussein wasn't a good man, no he was one of the most evil men who ever lived, however he kept the country held under one banner which crucially meant the civil unrest in Iraq was kept in check. Yes America has now 'liberated' this country, what liberated the oil supplies that your country so desperately needs to keep its economy afloat. Mate, it isn't necessary for you to invade another country probably ever unless the pose a real threat to America. Do you see America invading and sending in troops to countries like Sierra Leone, or Columbia where there has been the most horrible atrocities in the last fifty years. No but you see them ready to launch a full scale invasion to any country in the middle east, i wonder why.....
necessary? was Iraq really that necessary. Saddam Hussein wasn't a good man, no he was one of the most evil men who ever lived, however he kept the country held under one banner which crucially meant the civil unrest in Iraq was kept in check. Yes America has now 'liberated' this country, what liberated the oil supplies that your country so desperately needs to keep its economy afloat. Mate, it isn't necessary for you to invade another country probably ever unless the pose a real threat to America. Do you see America invading and sending in troops to countries like Sierra Leone, or Columbia where there has been the most horrible atrocities in the last fifty years. No but you see them ready to launch a full scale invasion to any country in the middle east, i wonder why.....
A) None of our fucking business.
B) They can elect someone moderate at the next election if they want.
B) They can elect someone moderate at the next election if they want.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-06-30 04:34:35)
OMG. Pls, don't.
To be precise, the US will "democratically" appoint some local sympathizer /ass-kissing power-hungry traitor to run the country according to their wishes. Iraqi style.Belx wrote:
Yeah, why I said a form.Turquoise wrote:
...a very dysfunctional democracy....Belx wrote:
No, if the US invades there will be a form of democracy in Iran.
Probably very Iraq-like.
Last edited by oug (2007-06-30 06:15:33)
ƒ³
Depends on you definition of "help".
Sorry mate but that would have to be THE most naive comments I've seen in a while. WTF are you saying???? America is not the be all and end all of global society and while I might not favour a middle eastern culture, I certainly won't favour a change against their will, especially America changing it due to their past mis-demeanours.BeerzGod wrote:
Yeah, and sit back and watch as the world crumbles around us? Most of the world hates how we police it. They'll smack talk us all day and night, but when it comes down too it, everyone knows exactly how important it is that America sticks its nose all over the place. If you disagree that America is the glue that holds the world together then you're either A) Just stupid B) Yeah, probably stupid C) You're disagreeing because you know its true, but you hate that it's true, so you have to feel better about yourself by talking smack.
I personally don't like how we stick our noses in a lot of places that we shouldn't, but I also know it's necessary. I would rather be a part of a country that is hated because we take action than a country who sits back on their ass, silently breathing a sigh of relief that something is being done, but maintains their stance of disapproval because its the "in thing."
If the U.S. invade Iran in any shape or form, they will most certainly lose their global superpower status. Iran (Geographically) is a vital link between Europe and Russia and have powerful allies of their own. The U.S. most certainly know this and want their piece of the pie but this will be something where they will have to sit back, butt out and watch. They want involvement and control of everything conceivably possible and Iran is not one of them to be involved with. World War 3 (As many countries are involved currently which constitutes a world war....Are we in denial here?) started when the U.S. invaded Afganastan and they will lose big time if they invade Iran.
If anyone should intervene, it would be better if the EU, Russia and other Iranian links be involved as it will more likely be a peaceful outcome. America will just bomb the place, try the democracy bandwagon scenario and yet create another fierce enemy aswell as dragging more countries into the dreaded limelight and not recitfy anything productive. They screwed up before and I'm sure they'll screw up again.
So no, none of our business.
Yes. In the way of 'tell us where he is, and we'll bomb him for you'. Supplying weapons to anyone not a confirmed ally (or without an off switch) is a fucking stupid idea, and is why American choppers keep being shot down; Leftover stinger missiles from afghanistan.