grhqofb5 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Saw a poll on CNN.com asking this rather straightforward question, and was curious what ES might think. Simple yes or no, and of course discussion. Edit: hmmm... can't edit to add a poll. Oh well. Also, wrong forum. I'm such a loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champskins Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Ask the mods to see if they'll move it to the "Tailgate" for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHYSTER411 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Military force only if it's to move up for RGIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailToTheRedskins14 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Simple answer is no. Despite all the media propoganda, I'm not buying that they're "jealous of our freedoms" and "a bunch of savages that want to destroy America." I don't understand why it is okay for us to have it but not them. And in all reality, if they did decide to drop a bomb on us, they know they'd be wiped out immediately. This will (and yes, we will go to war with Iran, whether it is declared or not) could be the most pointless, inopportune, badly placed war we've ever had. We need to stop pouring money into the MIC to try to ride out the mess we're in. [ATTACH]46430[/ATTACH] <-- Caption : "Oh my god, Iran is threatening us!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailToTheRedskins14 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Military force only if it's to move up for RGIII. That too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epochalypse Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Even this thread can't avoid an RGIII reference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Military force only if it's to move up for RGIII. Yes no option should be off the table in the drive to aquire RGIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champskins Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 be careful guys... this is a good subject for a thread, just put in the wrong place and I'm sure it was on accident. Don't want to mods to 'boots to asses' for trolling and derailing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldskoolskins Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 This should be Tailgate material, but in answer to your question, yes, military force should be an option.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 No. While I can't say I'm opposed to subterfuge and sabotage to accomplish our goal (or delay the inevitable, I supposed), no good will come from a military invasion or attack. If nothing else, do everything in our power to support the "Green Revolution" or whatever it's offspring would be at this point. Give the power back to the pro-modern and pro-western youth in the country. Make an ally out of an enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Edit: hmmm... can't edit to add a poll. Oh well. Also, wrong forum. I'm such a loser. That made me And to answer the question i would need more info on the problem. But if they are planning on developing the weapons and or have them and are planning on selling them to other countries well yes force should be used IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Military Force in Iran: Yes RG3 in DC: Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destructis Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I think it should be stickied at the top of the forum so the OP can forever live in shame. Oh and yes to RG3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Military force only if it's to move up for RGIII. I strongly support this stance! In all seriousness, no. Just no. I'd love to hear how some people would react if Iran bombed us because we dared to develop a certain technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHYSTER411 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Would we be intervening to protect ourselves or Israel at this point? I mean where does it end? If we want to try and intervene for every country that may be attacked by one of their enemies we will be at war forever. I see some are worried that they may develop nuclear weapons and sell them. So do we attack people based on could happens and what ifs? Maybe I'm just already exhausted from the military campaigns we are trying to wrap up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Would we be intervening to protect ourselves or Israel at this point? I mean where does it end? If we want to try and intervene for every country that may be attacked by one of their enemies we will be at war forever. You seem to be opposed to this "war forever." I know some people who would be willing to punch you in the face to change your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Why are people convinced that diplomacy is ineffective? It works, and less american lives are lost in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Why are people convinced that diplomacy is ineffective? It works, and less american lives are lost in the process. No no, you don't understand. Killing people works. Sanctions work. That's why we got rid of Fidel Castro decades ago and Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons. We just made Fidel unpopular enough, and killed enough of Iran's scientists. Everybody knows this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHYSTER411 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 You seem to be opposed to this "war forever." I know some people who would be willing to punch you in the face to change your mind. Strangely enough I'm also opposed to being punched in the face usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Military force should remain on the table for purposes of our public negotiation with Iran. Anything else would be viewed as a sign of weakness by the Iranians. However, if this or any other President were to actually use military force under these circumstances, they would be an utter fool, because it would cost us way more than we ever could gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 No, we should only use military force against a nation that attacks us or at a minimum, clear proof with confirmed evidence of an imminent attack. We cant afford to keep doing this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 It shouldn't be. But I'm not sure I would publicly rule it out. A military strike on Iran wouldn't stop them from making nukes if they want to though. And it would drive the opposition against us and the moderates towards the regime. I don't see why they would use them in any case, since it would get them wiped out. They've shown a certain caftiness in shutting down both Amadi and the opposition at home. I can't imagine they would go to such lengths to secure power just to throw it away in a nuclear tantrum. Besides I have a feeling the palestinians wouldn't be too happy about radiation on their land if Iran tried to use nukes on Israel. Also what if they were to try to hit Israel and hit Palestine by accident? The focus should be on limiting the regional influence of Iran and supporting the opposition in Iran. (for example pressuring Iran not to execute protesters and free opposition leaders) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 They won't attack us with it. And if they get it' I'd bet that they or someone they give it to will use it to kill a LOT of people, be it in Israel or in Europe or in Malaysia. And then it's too late to argue. At that point we better all be on the same page worldwide, because the game changes utterly and forever. It should not be off the table, but they have to be damn sure the weapon is imminent. Other than that, I think Iran's people can solve the problem, with the proper diplomatic pressure on the leadership we mutually oppose. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Publicly, yes. Privately, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.