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
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
61. No they are most likely to consider the oft rumored air strike
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 05:28 PM
Feb 2012

against their nuclear facilities (and of course their air defense systems) to be an attack.

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 #61