| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Like I have said numerous times - a dangerous; precedent was set by USA in Iraq. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 19 2004, 11:58 AM (568 Views) | |
| somerled | Aug 19 2004, 11:58 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Now Iran is making agressive sounds towards the USA / UK presence in their stomping grounds. War of words heats up as Iran warns of preemptive strike on US forces and they have a lot in common with many Iraqis as well and may well be welcomed by Iraqi Shiites. So - where to from here ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Aug 19 2004, 12:03 PM Post #2 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Lets bomb Iran
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Aug 19 2004, 12:05 PM Post #3 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
It is definitely up to them if they want to take on that type of Foreign Policy stance. However, if they do attack us first, they had better be prepared to pay the consequences. In reality, I think Iran is just posturing and playing games. I don’t think they have the b@lls to attack the US. Their military (and weaponry) is no match for ours. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Aug 19 2004, 12:09 PM Post #4 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I would have to agree with 24 here, I wouldn’t make to much of it. But if they do a take first they had better be prepared for what ever we will do to them for attacking, just as we had to be prepared for what ever Iraqi did to us. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Aug 19 2004, 12:11 PM Post #5 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
America can wipe the floor with Iran. Even if a good many of our infantry divisions are tied down in Iraqi cities, we have many air and armored divisions that would turn the Iranian army into hamburger. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 19 2004, 12:11 PM Post #6 |
|
Unregistered
|
If they attack us first do we even have enough troops available to do anything about it? (seriously) |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| doctortobe | Aug 19 2004, 12:13 PM Post #7 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Trust me, yes. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 19 2004, 12:48 PM Post #8 |
|
Admiral
|
I agree with Somerled's point. The door has been opened and it never should have been. That's the whole point of requiring a U.N. determination - no individual country should be allowed to pre-emptively attack another without CONCLUSIVE and UNDENIABLE reason that it's in self-defense of an imminent attack on that country. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 19 2004, 01:27 PM Post #9 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
So how do you benchmark this criterium? This borders on wishy-washy. It could mean anything. How does one know? How did we know, conclusively and undeniably that al Queda would attack? We didn't. Did you know that Saddam has been THREATENING the United States since the end of the Gulf War, and SHOOTING at our aircraft both in the no-fly zones and over his country's actual borders? You know what would shut up Iran very quickly? Send a CVBG (carrier battle group) back there. The GW (USS George Washington, CVN 73) battle group just returned to Norfolk on Sunday or Monday of this week. It was the last carrier group stationed there. This is why those Iranian cowards are blustering. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 19 2004, 02:27 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
Good question to which there isn't an easier answer. But criteria should be established and defined. In addition, any country who uses pre-emptive strikes should be able to provide acceptable evidence of why they thought an attack was imminent . Correct, but so what? We didn't attack pre-emptively in that case and you just named one very good reason why not. Of course. And that's one reason that resolutions such as UN Res 1441 came into existence. But it's also not evidence of an imminent attack on the U.S. Yes it would, but that doesn't make it right. If it was right, we could just do that to any country that annoyed us for any reason... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Aug 19 2004, 02:36 PM Post #11 |
|
Admiral
|
Setting the precident of a pre-emptive war is indeed a very dangerous thing. That is one of the main strands of my opposition to the war in Iraq. If we launch pre-emptive strikes what authority do we have to stand up to another country which does the same? Also with so many American troops in the region it makes it harder for the moderates in the Iranian Government to resist the pressure to gain a nuclear capacity for example. They see how easily Iraq was taken out, they also see us taking a totally different tact with North Korea that may have nukes. I'm sure to may in Iran they feel they need nuclear weapons as a protection so that any power would think twice about invading. When was the last time a nuclear power was invaded? That could have been part of the motivation for Saddam trying to gain nuclear weapons, he would know that his regime was a lot more secure once it got them - provided he never used them. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 19 2004, 02:52 PM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...01404&printer=1 Story title is: Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites I'm going to put this in a separate thread and see what happens! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Aug 19 2004, 03:35 PM Post #13 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
This whole talk about "preemptive" is ignorant. You anti-Bush types have taken the concept of the "Preemption Policy", which is the idea of not letting a dangerous enemy gain the elements necessary to construct weapons of mass destruction or secure a base of operations, and applied it to reactive military operations. Choosing Iraq as the next target in an on-going War on Terrorism was a manifestation of the preemption policy in that Iraq was likely the most probable place for terrorists to gain the elements for WMDs that they needed and it was probable that Iraq would be the next base of operations for al Qaeda, but the use of the military as part of that policy was purely reactive in that it was a reaction to Iraq's 13+ years of ignored U.N. resolutions and continued attacks upon American and British aircraft. If America were to have acted preemptively with Iraq, America would have attacked Iraq in the summer of 1990 when satellite data revealed Iraq amassing its military on the Kuwaiti border, so to claim that the Iraq war was a preemptive requires one to willfully ignore over 15 years of history. And if not willfull ignorance of that history, a willfull disregard for the consequences of maintaining the status quo that has existed since a cease-fire was signed in 1991. Now what was the status quo? The U.N. implored Iraq to adhere to U.N. resolutions, after much stalling Iraq would allow U.N. inspectors into Iraq, the Iraqi IIS would thwart inspections, then the inspectors would report to the U.N. that Iraq was not cooperating, strategic bombing would be threatened or undertaken, and then the whole cycle was repeated again. Now the rest of the world might have been happy to repeat this cycle ad infinitum at U.S. tax payer expense, but I was not going to allow my government to do so and many within my government heard my opinion and people like me who expressed the exact same opinion. And as for Iran and North Korea, America is already acting preemptively in accordance with the preemption doctrine. We are not waiting for Iran or North Korea to gain such weapons before acting, at the very least, diplomatically to forestall these countries from gaining such weapons.
The above statement shows an absolute disregard for America's historical actions toward North Korea, because in no way can a quanitative difference be shown between how North Korea was treated prior to their potential acquisition of nuclear weapons and after. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 19 2004, 03:54 PM Post #14 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Bush himself used the term "pre-emptive" in reference to his planned attacks on Iraq. Oh wait a minute! Bush - Mr. "they never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we" - never says what he really means. :rolleyes: When he sent our troops to Iraq, I wonder if he really meant to give that order.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Aug 19 2004, 03:55 PM Post #15 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Provide the full quote ... I dare ya. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |





3:23 AM Jul 11