War with Iran and its consequences

[SS-18 ICBM]

1. Get troops out of Iraq
2. Bomb Iran (and Iraq if necessary) and don't send any troops.

1. What's done is done. The steps to a stable and democratic Iraq are already present. That video released by insurgents is a sign of weakness and desperation. If America submits now, the terrorists will triumph. Another good idea is to replace the troops with robots .

2. Iraq is an important strategic point for America and other countries who are suspicious of Iran. A presence in Iran is a strategic deterrent to Iran.

 

[Comraddict]

I think that insurgents would be more desperate if they are bombed form air everyday and can't do anything about it.

 

[CartesianFart]

first of all i dont think they would, even if they said they will.

Brace with me if i rather use an analogy of a police officer investigating a dissentful student who frequent his time on a hate website and is rumored to have a certain hit-list of all his classmates and teachers,should the police officer take this less seriously or take swift action?

second, knowing how to make a bomb and actually building it or 2 very diffrent things, iran is about 100 times harder to beat militarily than sudan, if theres talk of attacking iran because theyre enriching uranium (which is btw their legal right to do under the non-profiliation treaty as long its used for nuclear power), what makes you think the us is gonna let sudan build a bomb?

The thing is,that they can have nuclear capability,but must be monitored for in order that there will be no suspicion of building nuclear warheads.The last time i'd checked,they did threat another nation-state of wiping them of the map.This is serious,unless your favorite statesman is Neville Chamberlain.

 

[Jawz II]

Brace with me if i rather use an analogy of a police officer investigating a dissentful student who frequent his time on a hate website and is rumored to have a certain hit-list of all his classmates and teachers,should the police officer take this less seriously or take swift action?.

holy crap, the cops know about my list?

im gonna lay low for a few weeks, you dont know where i am, if anyone asks.

The thing is,that they can have nuclear capability,but must be monitored for in order that there will be no suspicion of building nuclear warheads.The last time i'd checked,they did threat another nation-state of wiping them of the map.This is serious,unless your favorite statesman is Neville Chamberlain.

no actually they didnt, their nujob president said that the israeli regime (aka govenment) would be wiped off the map. maybe it was hinted, i dunno, but that would be weird since the same guy has said repetedly that iran is not trying to build a nuke.

here are 2 big diffrences between iran and the us:
1. us is a democracy, while iran is not, the iranian pres can prety much say whatever he wants and the people cant actually do anything about that.

2.iran has no nukes and isnt even near building one. also theyve said they wont. america has thousand and thousand of nukes.

so when bush hints something like that its much worse than when ahmedinjad dose it. cause he can actually do it.

 

[CartesianFart]

no actually they didnt, their nujob president said that the israeli regime (aka govenment) would be wiped off the map. maybe it was hinted, i dunno, but that would be weird since the same guy has said repetedly that iran is not trying to build a nuke.

If Iran doesn't intend to build WMD then why are they not complying to the IAE protocols?What is it that they have to hide?Why are they insisting that we(the West) should take their word for it?

here are 2 big diffrences between iran and the us:
1. us is a democracy, while iran is not, the iranian pres can prety much say whatever he wants and the people cant actually do anything about that.

Actually,Iran is an Islamic Republic that is closely similiar to United States Democratic Republic.It is just that our laws are more stress from the idea of European enlightenment that promote secular liberty while Iran is more closely tied the sharia.A huge cultural difference but closely republic constitutional form of government.

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html

2.iran has no nukes and isnt even near building one. also theyve said they wont. america has thousand and thousand of nukes.

Are you saying that America with its nukes is not a legitamate Nation to bring stability in the world(last time i'd checked,no wars between any nation-states since the first persian gulf war,of course i am excluding strifes in Africa,but it is not legitamately civilized or sophisticated to cause an international crisis) and that Iran,if allowed to have nuke,is more legitamate to bring stability in the world?Any reasonable individual can easily choose the former,unless you got a good argument for the latter.