-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Iran
- Thread starter ocs_hopeful
- Start date
T37Driver
Lone Warrior
LOL. Fox News. Hardly a news channel. Only there to promote right-winged propaganda just as some other channels do with the liberal views. It's a shame they fv**ing call themselves "Fair & Balanced" when they are on the exact other end of the spectrum. Just my opinion. However, as far as I've noticed, most people in the military love to watch Fox.
T
TXHusker05
Guest
I agree, Fox News is anything but fair and balanced... but CNN is hardly the poster child in that department either, actually, more like the red headed step child.
***Step up to the soapbox*** That Nancy Grace woman on CNN, oh lord, she is like the Hillary Clinton of CNN. You just want to slap her in the face everytime she opens her mouth. Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming. ***Step off soapbox***
***Step up to the soapbox*** That Nancy Grace woman on CNN, oh lord, she is like the Hillary Clinton of CNN. You just want to slap her in the face everytime she opens her mouth. Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming. ***Step off soapbox***
GURFBrett327 said:
phattygixxer
Registered User
What if, and I realize this is a big what if: Iran makes a nuke and uses it, either themselves or through an 'independent terrorist' group, to, say, try and wipe Israel off the map? Or attack U.S. assets somewhere in the world?
Now, that is a huge if, but that's why this question is hypothetical:
What level of a threat for that type of action do you think is necessary for us to wage a pre-emptive war? Just hating us and having a nuke? Having a nuke and threatening to use it? Or, would it have to be imminent (i.e. we know they have it and we know they have plans to use it)
Granted, war is hell, that's not the debate. I simply am interested to hear opinions on what qualifies as a just pre-emptive war (if anything).
Now, that is a huge if, but that's why this question is hypothetical:
What level of a threat for that type of action do you think is necessary for us to wage a pre-emptive war? Just hating us and having a nuke? Having a nuke and threatening to use it? Or, would it have to be imminent (i.e. we know they have it and we know they have plans to use it)
Granted, war is hell, that's not the debate. I simply am interested to hear opinions on what qualifies as a just pre-emptive war (if anything).
irishmc
Member
phattygixxer said:
I personally believe we'd be at war before ever waiting to discover plans to use it, if we know they already have it. I think the fact that they'd have it, especially after Ahmadinejad's insistence that "our entire program is civilian" would be enough for pre-emptive action. and for once, I don't think we'd be alone.
K
KillerSnakes
Guest
I'd have to agree with a few (luckychance and Brett). If we took military action on Iran, it would be pretty nasty. It "seems" that the Iranians are more finatical then the insurgents in Iraq. But I haven't been there so I can't say. I do know that 1 MEF and 2 MEF are exausted. It's all about PFC's and LCpls, and they are busting their tails deployment after deployment. If we did go to Iran we definitely can't do it alone.
YUT!
YUT!
CarolinaCowboy
Pyro
Well at Least Fox reports some of the good things of this world. Im freakin tired of hearing about bad news, i mean comon, all the news does is report that crap. Honestly, I mean if you watch the news it makes you wanna hang yourself with all the Liberals in this world. Im proud to say I stiill stand with God and "America" as my forefathers meant it to be.
OH SNAP! Another good talking to, by another cognizant individual.
First let me restate what I wanted, to get across earlier, but did not have the intelligence to deliver it with the clarity it deserved.
1.
I am against a pre-emptive strategy.
I know that we haven't had credibility for a long time.
2. Wars, kill and main a lot of people. But wars badly fought kill more people. These insurgents in the middle east show a terrible resolve to their cause. We will have to match it, and crush it or it will only grow.
What are the consequences for losing? Worst case scenario, the mobilization of the Arab world against the West. 4th generation warfare on a scale we have not imagined before. Do we have to have a Clancy novel before people think its plausible?
3. (directed at Barnard1425) I also wanted to get at the fact that war does bring people together. The two of us never having been in a combat zone can not fully appreciate what war is, as it is a complicated and difficult thing. But I am sure that we have both lost family, and friends to this war, and so have a vested interest in its outcome.
My "somewhat rosy view of war" will have to be tempered by experience. That view comes because I see my nation being pushed into a corner. Where she is no longer respected, and without respect comes contempt followed by action. And I see war as having a role to play in securing the future of our nation.
I dont know where I got the rest of the stuff... I must have been fvking high or something, my Teach says I should proofread.
Anyway I've got another 2 years before I'm out in the fleet, studying my ass off to make a difference, soooo its all conjecture.
hey check out this blast from the past
Is the president of Iran a terrorist?
First let me restate what I wanted, to get across earlier, but did not have the intelligence to deliver it with the clarity it deserved.
1.
I am against a pre-emptive strategy.
I know that we haven't had credibility for a long time.
2. Wars, kill and main a lot of people. But wars badly fought kill more people. These insurgents in the middle east show a terrible resolve to their cause. We will have to match it, and crush it or it will only grow.
What are the consequences for losing? Worst case scenario, the mobilization of the Arab world against the West. 4th generation warfare on a scale we have not imagined before. Do we have to have a Clancy novel before people think its plausible?
3. (directed at Barnard1425) I also wanted to get at the fact that war does bring people together. The two of us never having been in a combat zone can not fully appreciate what war is, as it is a complicated and difficult thing. But I am sure that we have both lost family, and friends to this war, and so have a vested interest in its outcome.
My "somewhat rosy view of war" will have to be tempered by experience. That view comes because I see my nation being pushed into a corner. Where she is no longer respected, and without respect comes contempt followed by action. And I see war as having a role to play in securing the future of our nation.
I dont know where I got the rest of the stuff... I must have been fvking high or something, my Teach says I should proofread.
Anyway I've got another 2 years before I'm out in the fleet, studying my ass off to make a difference, soooo its all conjecture.
hey check out this blast from the past
Is the president of Iran a terrorist?
@ Raptor10: I would also consider any political/diplomatic action a preemptive strategy designed to prevent war in Iran. Are you against those as well, or are you simply coming around to everyone else's argument that going to war with Iran right now would be UGLY? I hope it is the latter, because anyone who thinks war with Iran is a good idea scares the **** out of me.
@Brett & luckechance: Right on.
@Brett & luckechance: Right on.
luckechance
Registered User
KillerSnakes said:
I couldn't agree more. Everything we do should be about supporting the soldiers and marines on the ground. (Airstrikes/supply lines/etc...)