Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:41 pmby Dooom35796821595
Anyone who thinks war is the best option should be sent to the frontline with a bag of conkers.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:42 pmby Earl of Sandwich IV
Dooom35796821595 wrote:Anyone who thinks war is the best option should be sent to the frontline with a bag of conkers.
The peaceniks have killed more people than the worst warhawks.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:45 pmby Land and Freedom
Kubra wrote:Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists.
Biggest red flag right there
Fav brecher quote
Here’s a little tip for you future cannon fodder: if your commander’s plan ever includes the line, “…and then the people will rise up and join us,” you get out of there any way you can, because you’re going to be slaughtered.
There's some ridiculous leaps of logic in the article, yes.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:46 pmby Land and Freedom
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:He layed out the case pretty good. I agree with him, if war is the only option to stop the Iranian nuclear program, which seems to be the case, we shouldn't hesitate.
Come on, the case laid out is ridiculous.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:47 pmby Land and Freedom
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:Anyone who thinks war is the best option should be sent to the frontline with a bag of conkers.
The peaceniks have killed more people than the worst warhawks.
Chickenhawks kill a lot of people too. And we've got a great deal of them at the moment.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:48 pmby Land and Freedom
New Neros wrote:These neocons need to learn that Iran =/= Iraq by a LONG shot. Iraq was mostly flat terrain, bordering three of our allies with numerous areas for re-supply, located close enough to the Persian Gulf to allow missile and airstrikes on a regular basis. Iran is a whole other world compared to that. It has mountains and plateaus popping up instantly from the Persian Gulf, Tehran itself is nestled in a mountain range far away from any area where the US and her allies could stage an invasion, and has a varied terrain of desert, forests, scrub land, and the like.
Drumming up support for a war that'll finally break the US, how delightful.
Putting boots on the ground in Iran would be a disaster.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:50 pmby Earl of Sandwich IV
Land and Freedom wrote:Kubra wrote: Biggest red flag right there
Fav brecher quote
There's some ridiculous leaps of logic in the article, yes.
There's no leap of logic here.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:50 pmby Stormwind-City
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:Anyone who thinks war is the best option should be sent to the frontline with a bag of conkers.
The peaceniks have killed more people than the worst warhawks.
Care to backup that claim?
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:50 pmby Saiwania
One reason why Iran can't be easily invaded now is because Russia is fixing to sell both the S-300 and S-400 SAM systems to them.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:50 pmby Iidoomaan
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:Vilatania wrote:We need to LEAVE the middle-east entirely. That is our best option.
That's the genocide option,
you're right. first we have to kick out the jews. then we can leave the middle east.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:51 pmby Earl of Sandwich IV
Stormwind-City wrote:Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:The peaceniks have killed more people than the worst warhawks.
Care to backup that claim?
Syria - and a million other examples.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:52 pmby Stormwind-City
Saiwania wrote:One reason why Iran can't be easily invaded now is because Russia is fixing to sell both the S-300 and S-400 SAM systems to them.
Invading Iran would destabilize a regional power who is combating ISIS and lead to another war we don't and trillions of more dollars in debt.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:52 pmby Republic of Coldwater
Fuck no.
We would be much better allowing free trade with Iran, and just see Iran completely falter as their populace changes their opinion on the west.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:56 pmby The Lone Alliance
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Fuck no.
We would be much better allowing free trade with Iran, and just see Iran completely falter as their populace changes their opinion on the west.
Funny enough the Iran populace is rather neutral to the west. The sanctions only make them hate the west more simply from the effects of it.
Really it's almost like certain people want Iran to be an enemy
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:58 pmby Sovjetia
Stormwind-City wrote:Saiwania wrote:One reason why Iran can't be easily invaded now is because Russia is fixing to sell both the S-300 and S-400 SAM systems to them.
Invading Iran would destabilize a regional power who is combating ISIS and lead to another war we don't and trillions of more dollars in debt.
+ all the death on both sides
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:59 pmby Sovjetia
The Lone Alliance wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:Fuck no.
We would be much better allowing free trade with Iran, and just see Iran completely falter as their populace changes their opinion on the west.
Funny enough the Iran populace is rather neutral to the west. The sanctions only make them hate the west more simply from the effects of it.
Really it's almost like certain people want Iran to be an enemy
It's because Iran refuses to be a subject of the west
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:03 pmby Kubra
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:Land and Freedom wrote:There's some ridiculous leaps of logic in the article, yes.
There's no leap of logic here.
so you think an invasion of iran will cause
THE PEOPLE! to heroically overthrow their oppressors?
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:05 pmby Earl of Sandwich IV
Kubra wrote:Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:There's no leap of logic here.
so you think an invasion of iran will cause
THE PEOPLE! to heroically overthrow their oppressors?
As he mentioned military defeat has undermined the support of regimes in the past. No one knows what the effects might be. There is no leap of logic here.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:07 pmby Benian Republic
No the US should not go to war with Iran for countless reasons one is that they are still helping HAMAS.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:09 pmby The Nuclear Fist
The only ones who would really stand to benefit from that would be Israel. Let the Israelis do their own bidding.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:12 pmby Kubra
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:Kubra wrote: so you think an invasion of iran will cause
THE PEOPLE! to heroically overthrow their oppressors?
As he mentioned military defeat has undermined the support of regimes in the past. No one knows what the effects might be. There is no leap of logic here.
The instances listed were genuinely unpopular regimes in the process of collapsing in the first place. Anyone who would bother to know the history would know such. This guy, on the other hand, just goes "well it worked these times so it'll work for us, right?" That ain't how you decide foreign policy.
Posted:
Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:12 pmby Reddogkeno101
You know, Australia's fought side by side with America in almost every conflict since World War 2, with Grenada being the only one we weren't in. This is a step too far. Obviously, if the Republicans take power in America, they will feel right at home with our PM, but in a year or two, he'll be gone. The Republicans, if they follow through with what I hope is just rhetoric and not serious, will cause World War Three and possibly the end of Western Civilization or even civilization itself. That we cannot allow. If there is anything close to Satanists, it's the Republicans and Likud.
So obviously, I am very much opposed to this as an Australian, and as a human being.
