sweetycakes Posted August 6, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 162 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,868 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 2,122 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/23/1964 Share Posted August 6, 2006 It was about oil; not strategic alliances; read some history. As far as the actual crisis with Hizbollah is concerned, I would have simply said that Israel should pound them back into the stone age, but in reality they are not far from that already. Concerning Iran, I would suggest we hit them with tactical nukes before they can get any further with their advances in this area. As far as how other nations view us, who cares? I think that is a very dangerous view to take. I do think hezbolla should be stopped. By force if necessary -- absolutely. But using tactical nukes against Iran? Don't you realise that once tactical weapons are used, it is only a small step to go from there to full scale, especially if they respond with chemical attacks, maybe against Israel, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetycakes Posted August 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 162 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,868 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 2,122 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/23/1964 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I can't agree, Butero. It would be an immensely risky gamble. It MIGHT work, and effectively, and even scare other potential enemies, if the gamble paid off. Equally, it would cause multitudes of other, moderate people to swell the ranks of our enemies, especially since we (a nuclear power), used nukes to stop another nation aquiring nuclear weapons. Seems to me it would be perceived as highly hypocritical in some circles. I think nukes should only be used as a last resort at best. Maybe never, even, but rather more as a deterrent instead. Once we go down that road, there may be no turning back. There must be a better way to accomplish this task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetycakes Posted August 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 162 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,868 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 2,122 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/23/1964 Share Posted August 8, 2006 You say our troops are overstretched to deal with this issue. But we are not THAT overstretched that we can't provide a couple dozen special forces personnel to deal with it, or a couple of good surgical strikes. When I say we, by the way, I mean the UK and US. I'm British. I agree something has to be done before too long though, since Israel has been considering doing the job by itself, which may be even more inflammatory in the region. But, then again, I'm skeptical about America's intentions also, after reading several reports about this so-called war on terror. We are all playing a very dangerous game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amor Posted August 18, 2006 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,194 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 34 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/18/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 18, 2006 It was about oil; not strategic alliances; read some history. I don't think they'll use them if they get them..unless they're threatened and backed into a corner. Many countries and peoples of the world consider the United States the biggest sponsorer of terrorism on the planet. We just give it "nice" names when we're sponsoring it; we justify it when we're involved with it. One thing is for sure; if they get nukes they won't have to worry about our CIA meddling in their affairs again. Possessing nukes has a way of leveling the playing field. dude' i can't believe you're actually an american. whose side are u on? Dude, I believe in telling the truth; people don't like the truth though. True patriotism should involve telling the truth, admitting when you're in the wrong and working from there to make it better next time. -- Our so-called "crisis" with Iran didn't happen overnight, it began 50 yrs ago when our govt butted into their business. Lunacy is when you think you can do that and not have it bomerang back on you. "Might does not make right" as American colonists proved to the world's superpower Great Britain 225 yrs ago. Iran won't be bombed back to the stone age; too much oil. BTW - You guys can all verify what I'm telling you for yourselves. It's not like it's some big secret. It's documented historical fact. Surely you don't fall for that line that the terrorists hate us for our freedom do you? Maybe you don't get this Anti-Hillbilly, but nobody cares about these facts. I do, and if you had any brains in your bonce so would you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyGunivere Posted August 23, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 454 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/19/1985 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Wow talk about name calling....Can't we just all get along and do it in a civil manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adarian Posted September 2, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 526 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/23/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/03/1961 Share Posted September 2, 2006 The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord, and He turns it withersoever He will. The kings in question being Bush and his Iranian counterpart. Man's goings are of the Lord. These alleged crises are finely orchestrated by our Lord God Himself, and His control is absolute. If anyone sets off a nuke in war, it will be done by the hands of angels according to the will of God. Our freedom to blunder on a global scale is utterly restricted to the will and power of our Father who made us. So what if the Prince of the Kingdom of Persia has the Iranian president eating out of his hand. He is on the Lord's leash. Oil and all that other spin is just the carnal reasoning of men. God put the US in the middle east, not Bush, and certainly not any need of oil. God put strife in the hearts of the arabs as surely as He made the nation of Israel. He has a sure plan. The Lord is in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace_Maker Posted October 25, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 25, 2006 I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted October 25, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 25, 2006 I'll pass your wise remarks on to my father, a retired career Naval man. I am sure he would appreciate your sentiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace_Maker Posted October 25, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 25, 2006 I'll pass your wise remarks on to my father, a retired career Naval man. I am sure he would appreciate your sentiments. I"m sure he would! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted October 26, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I agree with the fact that we cannot handle a full scale invasion of Iran. That is why I would suggest a nuclear strike be done. We have the ability to destroy our enemies, yet we aren't willing to do what is necessary to achieve a quick victory, one with few if any American casualties. There has been one liberal after another telling us that we cannot keep sending troups into places like Iran because the military is too thin. I imagine if we were there as they typed, you would see the glee in their eyes as they see our enemies strengthening themselves to the point of being able to defend themselves against America. You would see them pumping their fists as they hear of more American deaths at the hands of our enemies, because that allows them to bash the military and George Bush. Then they can push the idea that we must all sit down at the table and bargain. I would argue that what it really shows is that we must act in such a way as is necessary to get the job done quickly, and that means going nuclear. That may also be the answer to the threat in North Korea. You scare me Did you ever consider that the rest of the world would see this as the highest act of aggression? While you are nukeing Iran, countries like France, Pakistan, Russia etc. would likely have the US in their nuclear sights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.59eed8b93aa1c92d8b306f10811981dc.jpg)
Recommended Posts