Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Makes sense, US did at least partially in Afghanistan and Iraq but not Saudi Arabia. nt jody Feb 2012 #1
Makes sense? oberliner Feb 2012 #11
He's threatening to counter-attack US bases in Afghan & Iraq, and other places in the region. leveymg Feb 2012 #15
It makes even less sense from a purely military perspective oberliner Feb 2012 #21
From a purely military perspective, gaining deterrent power is very important. David__77 Feb 2012 #22
No one was threatening Iran until they started to pursue nuclear weapons. oberliner Feb 2012 #35
LOL. Until then we had excellent relations... n/t kirby Feb 2012 #40
I wouldn't say that oberliner Feb 2012 #46
They used to be MrBig Feb 2012 #53
Hehe... exactly. They were obviously very pleased that we sold nerve gas to Iraq for use in the war. LooseWilly Feb 2012 #52
Fact: Iran hasn't invaded another country in 300 yrs. US only country to Nuke another country WillYourVoteBCounted Feb 2012 #75
Since we are discussing Irans history perhaps you could clarify something for me please. cstanleytech Feb 2012 #82
Since we are discussing Iran's history perhaps you could clarify something for ME please? U4ikLefty Feb 2012 #83
Yes. Your turn unless of course you are one of the ones who cstanleytech Feb 2012 #90
They had to get rid of the CIA's base of operations, somehow. n/t ronnie624 Feb 2012 #94
Just like noone was threatening Iraq untill they started to persue WMD? quakerboy Feb 2012 #85
Do you have any facts to backup that opinion of yours by any chance? cstanleytech Feb 2012 #91
Other than observing the attitudes of our political leaders, no quakerboy Feb 2012 #97
The north korea one is why we wont invade Iran to. cstanleytech Feb 2012 #108
O I L WordsCanBeTraps Feb 2012 #102
And the links proving a potential invasion based on stealing the oil is where? cstanleytech Feb 2012 #109
Why don't you learn some history WordsCanBeTraps Feb 2012 #101
The Iran - Iraq war ended in 1988 which was 24 years ago more or less. cstanleytech Feb 2012 #115
looking at it from the Arab point of view. It's quite important to have nukes. If Iraq had had Katashi_itto Feb 2012 #64
Except then Bush might well have been able to push through a glass them cstanleytech Feb 2012 #116
The assumption is that the Iranian military is a rational actor. leveymg Feb 2012 #56
It makes perfect sense for Iran to renounce its program oberliner Feb 2012 #62
You honestly believe that? If it was't a uke program we would be going after Iran for something Katashi_itto Feb 2012 #65
The nuke program makes things worse not better oberliner Feb 2012 #68
aside from the fact that Iran has every right to nuclear power despite the complaints from some n/t Bodhi BloodWave Feb 2012 #69
Absolutely oberliner Feb 2012 #73
A smart military move for the USA as well. In the long run. WHEN CRABS ROAR Feb 2012 #59
Sigh. I am afraid to read posts like this. Have we not had enough war? Paper Roses Feb 2012 #2
+1000 +++ n/t RKP5637 Feb 2012 #3
Had enough war? NEVER! Peace is not profitable... at least for US war profiteers. Raster Feb 2012 #17
I couldn't have put it better myself.War is for uncivilized, uncaring, unfeeling and usually greedy judesedit Feb 2012 #18
It has always been this way (since History is known). Amonester Feb 2012 #20
I'm with you entirely on this! LongTomH Feb 2012 #23
I am with you as well. WHEN CRABS ROAR Feb 2012 #60
I hear you Paper Roses Skittles Feb 2012 #100
Before I clicked on the thread I asked myself "is this an AP article?" Jazzgirl Feb 2012 #4
here is another source maddezmom Feb 2012 #5
Why does that matter DUIC Feb 2012 #8
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Feb 2012 #6
Attacking countries is not sensible oberliner Feb 2012 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Feb 2012 #28
No it isn't - in fact, it's lunacy oberliner Feb 2012 #34
The idea of Muslims shooting back really offends you, doesn't it? Scootaloo Feb 2012 #42
What the heck? oberliner Feb 2012 #44
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #49
There is not one post I have ever made that suggests anything like you are describing oberliner Feb 2012 #54
Wow MrBig Feb 2012 #55
what is lunacy is sitting back and doing nothing. bowens43 Feb 2012 #71
The best defense would be to not puruse nuclear weapons oberliner Feb 2012 #74
Then when US, Israel, Pakistan, India and others give up their nukes WillYourVoteBCounted Feb 2012 #76
Nuclear non-proliferation is a noble cause oberliner Feb 2012 #77
Then what is your position on Israel possessing nukes & not signing the NNPT? U4ikLefty Feb 2012 #84
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Feb 2012 #79
I doubt it oberliner Feb 2012 #80
striking back when attacked is very sensible. bowens43 Feb 2012 #67
No it isn't - it's lunacy oberliner Feb 2012 #70
I agree and-justice-for-all Feb 2012 #81
The war drums are sounding Gringostan Feb 2012 #7
That's kind of a non statement statement. bluedigger Feb 2012 #9
The statement warns not only about retaliation against attackers, but also use of territory for it.. LooseWilly Feb 2012 #58
Well, of course. Wouldn't any country? An attack would be an act of war. nt Poll_Blind Feb 2012 #10
Of course? oberliner Feb 2012 #13
Most people on DU are pacifists? Really? Crunchy Frog Feb 2012 #24
Anti-war generally oberliner Feb 2012 #36
Preemtive attacks are one thing. Retaliation against attackers is another. Scootaloo Feb 2012 #50
Can't one oppose both? oberliner Feb 2012 #63
I suppose one could, and some certainly do. Crunchy Frog Feb 2012 #89
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Feb 2012 #29
There are very, very few true pacifists on Earth. So why are you surprised? nt Poll_Blind Feb 2012 #30
Lots of anti-war protestors here on DU and in the progressive community generally oberliner Feb 2012 #37
I'm not cheering on any attacks against any country but I don't find this statement maddezmom Feb 2012 #38
Yes I agree oberliner Feb 2012 #48
When it comes to actual attacks happening quakerboy Feb 2012 #86
They were all killed throneoflunacy Feb 2012 #32
You only want selective pacifism, Oberliner Scootaloo Feb 2012 #43
What the heck are you talking about? oberliner Feb 2012 #45
Do you really? Scootaloo Feb 2012 #51
Iraq and Afghanistant weren't able to defend against US attacks WillYourVoteBCounted Feb 2012 #78
Fuck Iran. Everyone should just ignore it. slackmaster Feb 2012 #14
Their propaganda machine is worse than N. Korea or Iraq bathroommonkey76 Feb 2012 #26
Is anyone using their brain? WordsCanBeTraps Feb 2012 #103
Ignore the fact that Israel has been threating to attack Iran? bowens43 Feb 2012 #72
You honestly believe that the Iranians are "good"? bathroommonkey76 Feb 2012 #88
Their nuclear program is weeks away from extinction. alphafemale Feb 2012 #95
Question- What happens when you drop a bomb on tons of enriched uranium? WordsCanBeTraps Feb 2012 #104
TONS of enriched Uranium alphafemale Feb 2012 #107
You get a big fucking toxic, radioactive mess. slackmaster Feb 2012 #111
They made their bed. Now they can shit in it, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors. slackmaster Feb 2012 #110
Iran has multiple sites protected by North Korean style deep earth bunkers - it is highly unlikely Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #117
It's the Iranian version of the Bush doctrine. n/t Gore1FL Feb 2012 #16
Really? I thought that the Bush doctrine was to strike a country Crunchy Frog Feb 2012 #25
Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account. Gore1FL Feb 2012 #31
Since when are military strikes the exact same as terrorism? Humanist_Activist Feb 2012 #39
I am not arguing on behalf of Iran. Gore1FL Feb 2012 #93
Well, except for one crucial difference Scootaloo Feb 2012 #47
My point is that to the Iranian point of view an attack is an attack Gore1FL Feb 2012 #92
Guns of August in February. gordianot Feb 2012 #19
Whatever the Ayatollah throneoflunacy Feb 2012 #33
No they are most likely to consider the oft rumored air strike Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #61
I see it as winds of war. amandabeech Feb 2012 #112
I agree. gordianot Feb 2012 #113
There is a post in the I/P forum from a couple of days ago linking to a Haaretz story amandabeech Feb 2012 #119
Iran is an up and running North Korea--The Mouse that Roared.. solarman350 Feb 2012 #27
OMG! Tehran is just a two-day drive from Harlingen, Texas!! n/t RufusTFirefly Feb 2012 #41
I've made it in a day and a half n/t MrBig Feb 2012 #57
As they should. bowens43 Feb 2012 #66
That'd be rubble. alphafemale Feb 2012 #96
If you want peace, work for justice. If you want justice, prepare for war. saras Feb 2012 #87
Hit with what? alphafemale Feb 2012 #98
oh you are so funny alpha WordsCanBeTraps Feb 2012 #105
Nope precision strike to that nuke plant. alphafemale Feb 2012 #106
Outside of possible fallout(that can drift to other countries) that will lead to thousands... Humanist_Activist Feb 2012 #120
It's not that hard to figure out... Tripod Feb 2012 #99
Iranian's may say that but... EX500rider Feb 2012 #114
they can't win the war but they can cause a lot of damage and they will Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #118
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Iran vows to hit any coun...»Reply #4