Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Sep 26, 2007.
Now, Iran has oil.....right ?
So, yeah, yeah, yeah....
Let's do it.
What does the article have to do with going to war with Iran?
Ya got me.
Critical thinking skills, please.
Why did we go into Afghanistan and Iraq? To root out terrorists, because we're at war with terrorists.
No No No No !!!!!!!
One vote please.:thumbs:
*I don't believe we should go to war with Iran, but in the interest of public dialogue I'll bite*
We must go to war with Iran to prevent another would-be terrorist from acquiring nukes. If Iran gets its hands on the most deadly weapon known to man then that destabilizes the Mid East and, in turn, the world. Further, once Iran went nookyuler there would be nor forcible way of reversing the scenario shy of global warming run globally amok, thus guaranteeing our diplomatic future catering to a dominant force of evil.
*As always, may the strongest argument win and not necessarily the best*
There are named terrorist groups all over the world. Naming another one in no way suggests that anyone s building up fo war. Quite a silly notion.
Of course, let's invade Iran. We are just running over with Army and Marines with nothing to do. But don't stop there, then we can invade North Korea, Syria, Venezuala, Columbia, Cuba, oh and don't forget the latest created evil one, the leadership in Burma. Don't worry guys, Bush will turn that legacy around before you know it.
Tell that to the Fox News Channel. It is scheduled to beat the war drums loudly this weekend:
Should These United States Go To War With Iran?
Maybe. Who would these United States with Iran be fighting against?
For you and Tim: I didn't say we should initiate hostilities against Iran. The question was raised:
The answer is, it was the threat of terrorists and linking a government to those terrorists that was used as the excuse to invade Iraq. With the clear identification of a significant government body as a terrorist threat, we have now linked that government with terrorism, and have the same grounds for "pre-emptive" actions that we had a few years ago.
This is not a good thing. The question is, before the Pentagon planners were ordered to develop a plan for Iran, what was the objective? What was the end state that the National Command Authorities envisioned, that the planners are developing courses of action to accomplish?
I understood what you meant. However, this is no way equal in comparison. The current conflict is a war that was approved by congress in 1991 and has never been declared at an end. We hav been in a state of cease fire until we wnt back in. There was a whole list of reasons to go back into Iraq not just the reason you gave.
Be careful how you say "approved by Congress." The first Gulf War was primarily a United Nations act, led by the U.S. The House and the Senate both voted to support this, but a formal declaration of war was never issued.
You stated it correctly (approved by Congress), but some folks might misunderstand that to mean that war was declared by Congress.
As for the reason I claimed: the initial rationale by the administration was that Saddam was developing WMDs; later it was stated Saddam was supporting al Qaeda. Thus, a justification based on support of terrorism.
And if you honestly don't believe someone is building up a case for war against Iran, I pray you're right. But I don't think you are.
This is what I am addressing. There were many more reasons and all of them were given in light of being in a cease fire and Saddam not meeting the requirements of that cease fire.
I am surprised, Timmy, that you are such a big supporter of defending the honor of the United Nations.
Kenny I am quite puzzled as to how you came to such a conclusion.
It was the requirements of United Nations resolutions that you are saying that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not meeting.