America vs. Syria/Iran...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by TJ-, Feb 17, 2005.

?

Read the post

Poll closed Feb 17, 2006.
  1. YES

    17 vote(s)
    65.4%
  2. NO

    9 vote(s)
    34.6%
  1. TJ-

    TJ- New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well well, its nothing new that America has warned Iran and Syria that if they dont stop producing Nuclear "products" and stop aiding "insurgents" in Iraq than they will face "concequences". The two countries announced that they will form a United Front against America and allies with more countries likley to join.

    Question: Do Syria/Iran/Any other country have the right to defend themselvs at any relevant and reasonable cost if invaded or threatened by an opposing force, with the intention of siezing power.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2005
  2. Necrosis

    Necrosis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,794
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Any country has the right to defend itself, if invaded. Any cost, well that is hard to say. It depends on what you mean by that; both countries know America will not invade anyway.
     
  3. TJ-

    TJ- New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i rephrased the question.

    And how do you know both countries know America wont invade. Its more likly to happen than not if they keep ignoring Americas demands. Although it will be a while since they are bogged down in Iraq.

    Did Iraq have the right to defend itself. Back in 2003 most would say No....... So what has changed..?
     
  4. GOG

    GOG Please answer the voices in my head

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no election coming up...
     
  5. kemet64

    kemet64 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2004
    Messages:
    403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I think no. When terrorism is involved, nuclear weapons, and hinderance to US policy, that right is given up.

    When Iran has a support for insurgents and terrorists and have the backing of nuclear weapons that can easily be given into the bad hands, yes that right is given up.
     
  6. OldBuzzard

    OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Well, if it was up to me.....I'd nuke'm till they glowed...and then shoot'em in the dark :D :D :D :D :D
     
  7. Vasot

    Vasot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yea right :rofl:
    As long as Bush is in the Throne nothing is guaranteed

    The same had been told about Iraq you know :bleh:

    The problem is we never saw any PROOF about that in Irac
    and we still do not see Proofs about that with IRAN
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2005
  8. bananaman

    bananaman banana muncher

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am hoping that this was an ironical joke, as i am not sure if a country is a hinderance to US Policy they should give up the right to defend themselves

    :/
     
  9. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I wonder if those stupid scum bag terrorists are having second thoughts about whether or not they should have flown planes into the World Trade Center?

    Any country harboring and aiding terrorists known to want to destroy the US is fair game. We were attacked first.

    They can try to "defend" themselves all they want. It won't matter much. If we need to take them out because they are a threat, and are building nukes, and have reason to sell them to terrorists organizations, or use them against our allies- we will.

    The whole question is what we call here in the US, "ass-backwards". Does the US have the right to defend itself against terrorist states who say they will blow us up, and now have nukes? Hell yes.
    If they build nukes and start selling them to terrorists, the US mainland and many of our allies are under a direct threat..




    Seizing power? How about blowing up unstable dictatorships with nukes? A more accurate description of what would happen.. if this scenerio you suggest ever happens-
    Who gives a crap about their "power" ...like that is some prize we want. :rolleyes:

    The statement you made and the question you ask have nothing to do with each other.. :duh:

    Iran is harboring Al-Qaeda leaders, now they are building nukes-
    1+1= we blow them up if we have to.

    Grabbing at straws with this poll. :rolleyes:
     
  10. bananaman

    bananaman banana muncher

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    fait point - but is their actually any evidence? The Iraq war was proposed on evidence of WMD and Al Queda - niether of which were in Iraq (terrorists are now though!)

    Also when head of the CIA says this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4272287.stm

    you have to wonder that maybe attacking is only a short term solution.

    nana
     
  11. dsdsdk

    dsdsdk New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hehe, it was wrong of the US to attack iraq.. so US is'nt gonna attack iran or syria 'cause the world has had enouth of it's crap (rather bush's crap)..
     
  12. TJ-

    TJ- New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fair game..?:rolleyes: may the world be your battle field then. You were attacked first..? I highly doubt one day they just said hey lets bomb the U.S. America provokes everything.!

    Once again everyone seems to be believing that the world has nukes and is ready to bomb America. There is NO PROOF that they are building nukes. Ever hear of nucleur enegry..? NO PROOF they are selling to anyone. Oh but wait because U.S was so right about the W.M.D's.:annoyed:

    when did Iran or Syria say they were going to blow U.S up.... thats new to me:confused:...... lets play then blame game.

    "If we cant go get Usama, lets go after Saddam. Oh shit we underestimated the power of the Iraqi's, shit, lets go after Iran they have Nucleur energy so that should be a good reason. Shouldnt be to hard."

    If.? If.?....... Does it really matter if they do or dont..?


    one would think so.... but this is America your talking about....:rolleyes:
     
  13. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    But then you say IF - the whole thread is about "IF"... :rolleyes:

    So the whole thread is BS and just a reason to start arguing about it?













    I said IF we need to.. I never said jack about proof did I?
    Again, obviously someone has their liberal terrorist state sympathetic panties in a wudge and wants to start a little meaningless DH political flame zone anti-American fight about it.. :rolleyes:





    If you want me to respond, respond to my posts intelligently... don't make things up and TRY to put words in my mouth. At this rate it's hardly worth my time. As of now I just plain feel sorry for you. All that pent up hatred is bad for your health. :(

    For future reference, it is not spelled nucleur.. it's nuclear.. as a friend I thought your should know so you don't look uneducated. Now let me hear you call Bush an idiot.. LOL

    You obviously just like to start anti-American threads in hopes to get some Americans in here to fight with you. Sorry buddy, I have better things to do. I would like you to answer a question though, what is it like to hate something so much that it consumes you? Hate the US so much that you have nothing better to do than to go on the internet to find Americans to start "fights" with? Man that must suck really bad.


    You start a whole "Poll" based on a hypothetical question paired with an unrelated statement... Then all you want to do is attack the hypothetical responses? Get a hold of yourself man.
     
  14. TJ-

    TJ- New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well before judging my spelling take a look at yours BWX...!
    I dont know what your talking about but your the only one that thinks this thread was to start a fight and are the only one that gets so pissed off at the things i say. Hmmmm i wonder why? I suggest you read the question again before you say its hypocritical and paired with a unrelated statement.

    As this is not the flame warzone and im not the the mood to argure with a fool like you i wont say anymore.
     
  15. HawK

    HawK Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,092
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No soldier should die on any soil but his own...
    Should be the first article of the UN
    That no one would be able to fight a war is no concern of mine :)
     
  16. dsdsdk

    dsdsdk New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bush IS an idiot! really, whenever I see him on tv, is seems to me as if he is challenged (mentally). some people radiate intelligence, but he has the opposite effect.

    Terrorist acts are not the same as weighing war on a country! terrorism cannot be blamed on a specific country! now get it! If I went Timothy McW on a building in the US, should it be allowed to attack Denmark??
     
  17. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Well if you don't want to respond to the issues I raised in my first post..



    That was all you said in response to my post- the rest wasn't related to my post. The rest was statements totally unrelated to what I said..




    It is a totally hypothetical statement- do you know what that means?


    You name the thread America vs. Syria/Iran

    Then ask "IF" an "opposing force", etc, etc, etc.....

    .

    It is totally hypothetical. You say "opposing force". Who is the opposing force? the US? When did the US government say we were going to invade those two counties with the intention of "seizing power" as you say..

    Kind of vague wouldn't you say?



    Oh wait- I guess you should read MY post again. If you aren't even going to read my posts- why even try to argue? Do you know the difference between hypocritical and hypothetical ? If not, I guess my point flew WAY over your head.
     
  18. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    ]
    Oh that's brilliant. No country can fight to help another?
     
  19. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The first part of your post is not worth a response.

    The part I quoted is though. You are wrong. History has proven you wrong already.
     
  20. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I see the problem now battleaxe-

    it seems you need to go look up the word hypothetical.
     

Share This Page

visited