When would the best time be to do this? If we bomb too soon, our guys might have to go in there in the winter, to clean out all the nests. Spring would be ideal before it gets too hot. My guess would be late February.
Maybe we could start a pool of some sort, betting on when it happens. It is sure to happen before Bush leaves office (unless he gets the Israelis to do it).
What do you guys think?
|
|
Closed Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 109
Thread: Best Time to Bomb Iran?
-
10-29-2007, 05:17 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date: Dec 2004
- Location: Maryland
- Posts: 21,935
- Rep Power: 45564
Best Time to Bomb Iran?
-
10-29-2007, 05:19 PM #2welcome to the machine
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 10,331
- Rep Power: 2466
remind me again why we need to bomb a 3rd world country, please
"I accidentally a whole bottle of hemlock" ~ Socrates
-
10-29-2007, 05:26 PM #3Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Age: 34
- Posts: 10,168
- Rep Power: 1957
to prevent them from getting nukesOriginally Posted by Schadenfreude
-
10-29-2007, 05:28 PM #4welcome to the machine
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 10,331
- Rep Power: 2466
hmmm can't Israel do that? It's in their interest, and they have 200 already.Originally Posted by colt.45
"I accidentally a whole bottle of hemlock" ~ Socrates
-
-
10-29-2007, 05:32 PM #5Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2006
- Location: Texas, United States
- Age: 64
- Posts: 17,022
- Rep Power: 33557
We have several thousands of them. Why don't we give them a couple of ours?Originally Posted by Schadenfreude
hmmm can't Israel do that? It's in their interest, and they have 200 already.paolo59
"If you're going through hell, keep going!" Winston Churchill
-
10-29-2007, 05:35 PM #6Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 8,265
- Rep Power: 2461
How do you know we didn't?Originally Posted by paolo59
-
10-29-2007, 05:35 PM #7
because it is against the best interests of the average US citizen if the US were to bomb iran it would increase islamic terrorists hared against the US.Originally Posted by paolo59
-
10-29-2007, 05:38 PM #8welcome to the machine
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 10,331
- Rep Power: 2466
I don't think America should be in the business of giving our hard earned arsenal to other countries whose existence doesn't serve our national interest one bit.Originally Posted by paolo59
"I accidentally a whole bottle of hemlock" ~ Socrates
-
-
10-29-2007, 05:39 PM #9Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Age: 34
- Posts: 10,168
- Rep Power: 1957
Originally Posted by kajara3
Why Dont We Let The Terrorists Get Nukes So When They Get Pissed Off At Us Because Of Some Cartoon In a Newspaper They Can Use Them Against Us
By Jesus Thats A Great Idea!!!!
-
10-29-2007, 05:40 PM #10Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Posts: 30,841
- Rep Power: 122028
The lack of common sense in this thread is staggering.
-
10-29-2007, 05:41 PM #11
iran could never target the US with a nuclear missile that could actually reach the US.Originally Posted by colt.45
now, north korea on the other hand does have a nuclear missile that can strike the US, but we seem to be doing just fine.
the only people that need to worry about iran getting a nuke is israel, not the US.
-
10-29-2007, 05:42 PM #12Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 94,566
- Rep Power: 295276
Because the arms business is big business.Originally Posted by Schadenfreude
I would do it if I was in that situation. If I was going to scrap some old tanks from the 80's, and some third world country wanted to buy them, I'd sell it to them.
-
-
10-29-2007, 05:43 PM #13Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Age: 34
- Posts: 10,168
- Rep Power: 1957
Originally Posted by kajara3
Why DonT We Just Wait Until Iran Has The Capability To Strike Us
-
10-29-2007, 05:44 PM #14Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 94,566
- Rep Power: 295276
Yup, it sure is.Originally Posted by Kavak
-
10-29-2007, 05:44 PM #15welcome to the machine
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 10,331
- Rep Power: 2466
well, as a private matter I don't have much problem with it, but when it becomes an entangling alliance per se, or we give Israel billions of dollars in foreign aid, I draw the line.Originally Posted by Dave22reborn
"I accidentally a whole bottle of hemlock" ~ Socrates
-
10-29-2007, 05:45 PM #16Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 8,265
- Rep Power: 2461
Whether we like it or not, 3rd world countries are eventually going to get nukes, and Iran happens to be next on that progressing list. Would you recommend bombing every state that we aren't happy with? Pakistan already has nukes, and you can be sure that the only reason that we don't hear much about them is that they are giving us lip service and they already have nukes.Originally Posted by colt.45
The way I see it, if you want to increase the chances of the U.S. being attacked, by all means, bomb Iran. Even if you don't care about the prospect of aggressively bombing a county, even if you are a person that only cares about yourself, even then, bombing Iran would be a bad idea.Last edited by Beatitude; 10-29-2007 at 05:47 PM.
-
-
10-29-2007, 05:47 PM #17Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 94,566
- Rep Power: 295276
Should we cancel all aid to other foreign countries as well????Originally Posted by Schadenfreude
And giving Israel a few billion a year is nothing, I mean what do you want???? Your 5 bucks back???
And at least Israel invests our money into useful ****.
-
10-29-2007, 05:48 PM #18Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 94,566
- Rep Power: 295276
I mean, it truly isn't that big of a deal. They're about to get a weapon that we have had in our possession for over 63 years.Originally Posted by Beatitude
-
10-29-2007, 05:49 PM #19Sore 24/7 and lovin it
- Join Date: Oct 2006
- Location: United States
- Posts: 2,627
- Rep Power: 744
it's like the witch hunts, guilty until proven innocent, or more likely, guilty until dead. Then when dead, remembered and condemned as guilty.Originally Posted by colt.45
And just FYI it's not terrorists building any nukes here... it's pretty much just the US insisting that Iran is (Iranian scientists), while weapons inspectors have found 0 evidence of this, and on top of this projected it would take 5-10 years before they COULD produce a bomb.
On top of this: MAD.
It's kind of like Iraq, only instead of "knowing" Iraq has nukes, we KNOW that Iran doesn't have nukes.
And still, people are suckered into OMG we must bomb them before they get Teh Nukez! They want to wipe Israel off the face of the EARTH OMG we must kill them first.
Chill the **** out, Israel can handle themselves, no need for us to blow Iran (which is behind enough as it is) any further back, on a suspicion alone.My Training Log:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1015388
End of 2008 goal: 215 lbs @ <10% bodyfat
PRs: bench 315x5, squat 335x8
-
10-29-2007, 05:49 PM #20
who do you think they would try to strike first, the US or israel?Originally Posted by colt.45
israel would retaliate against iran before they could ever have the capability to strike the US, which would take at the VERY least oh... probably 50 years (yes i am making this up, but how long do YOU think it would take iran to have that capability?)
anyways, we let north korea have that capability, who does not like the US, and the US is just fine, so, considering this, why make the situation we have with islamic terrorism even worse by bombing another islamic country and killing innocent civilians, which is a MUCH larger threat to the US's security in the first place?Last edited by kajara3; 10-29-2007 at 05:52 PM.
-
-
10-29-2007, 05:53 PM #21U.S. Soldier
- Join Date: Aug 2007
- Location: Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
- Age: 35
- Posts: 517
- Rep Power: 260
We should focus on creating an air tight ICBM defense network.
US Army 13F FIST
"A mans character is his fate."
"The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of the government" - Ron Paul
www.Campaignforliberty.com
-
10-29-2007, 05:54 PM #22Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Age: 34
- Posts: 10,168
- Rep Power: 1957
MAD my ass when some terrorist comes hear and explodes a thermonuclear device, Iran is gonna be like WTF we never gave them nukes. So then who could we strike back at?Originally Posted by Absolute0
-
10-29-2007, 05:55 PM #23Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Age: 34
- Posts: 10,168
- Rep Power: 1957
Pakistan has em to counter India and atleast Pakistan isn't an Islamic Facist state...yet.Originally Posted by Beatitude
-
10-29-2007, 06:04 PM #24welcome to the machine
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 10,331
- Rep Power: 2466
yep.Originally Posted by Dave22reborn
voluntary giving is the only moral way."I accidentally a whole bottle of hemlock" ~ Socrates
-
-
10-29-2007, 06:05 PM #25welcome to the machine
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 10,331
- Rep Power: 2466
yes they are. They have a military dictatorship. Look it up.Originally Posted by colt.45
non-Interventionism is the best course of action, do a bit of research on it and you might find the same thing.
here's a good video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bWdQutcctwoLast edited by Schadenfreude; 10-29-2007 at 06:08 PM.
"I accidentally a whole bottle of hemlock" ~ Socrates
-
10-29-2007, 06:05 PM #26Registered User
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Posts: 8,265
- Rep Power: 2461
So we bomb states that are an idealogy we don't approve of? There are plenty of African and Asian countries that fit that bill. Should we invade them too? They dont' have nukes yet, but as time progresses, every country on the planet is bound to start developing it.Originally Posted by colt.45
You see, this kind of aggressive, immoral, violent mentality simply doesn't work unless you're prepared to tear across whoever you please. Even more dangerous, if we go to war with Iran, we shouldn't be expecting a coalition following behind us.Last edited by Beatitude; 10-29-2007 at 06:07 PM.
-
10-29-2007, 06:09 PM #27Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 94,566
- Rep Power: 295276
So we should invade Iran, or bomb them, because of some possibility of them "supposedly" giving a nuke to some terrorist?????Originally Posted by colt.45
Pakistan is probably the bigger threat, a good deal of their population supports OBL, and it was their intelligence agency that helped create the Taliban.
All it takes is for Pakistan's president, to be taken out, and that country is going to go to hell, and who know's what's going to happen to the nukes.
-
10-29-2007, 06:11 PM #28conscientious
- Join Date: Sep 2005
- Location: United States
- Posts: 27,852
- Rep Power: 88268
only reason i can see to strike against iran is because they are helping to attack US forces in iraq.Originally Posted by Schadenfreude
☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ ★cVc★ ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
☆☆☆☆☆☆ Roflcopter Crew ☆☆☆☆☆
☆☆☆☆☆☆ PC Master Race ☆☆☆☆☆
☆ /\^/\^Misc Colorado Crew^/\^/\☆
-
-
10-29-2007, 06:17 PM #29Is in the house...
- Join Date: Mar 2007
- Location: Australia
- Age: 33
- Posts: 918
- Rep Power: 1416
First thing i thought when reading that statement...Originally Posted by jmonty
-
10-29-2007, 06:57 PM #30
Spring of 2008, from what I have read.
The only thing which is seriously on the table relative to military options vis-a-vis Iran is a precision bombing campaign aimed at setting back Iran's nuclear weapons programme a few years (which is only what it would really do, most seem to believe). Some sort of full-scale invasion isn't even being seriously considered.
Bookmarks