Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza - Page 19

scaeagles · 07-24-2006, 12:42 PM

I would suggest a nutjob is running Iran as well.

N. Korea gained nuclear capability through appeasement. It is the textbook case on why the appeasement of loud threats is not in the best interest of the appeasers.

Some would have us appease Iran. Not that I completely disagree with Alex's view on self determination in term sof seeking nclear capability, but continued appeasement will result in them having nukes. Assuming we don't want them to have nukes, action is necessary. Diplomacy will not deter them, and they have made that clear.

So then, WB, are you saying you would support military action in Iran to prevent them from acquiring the power N Korea does?

scaeagles · 07-24-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

So that was the only thing stopping you, huh?

Not the only thing, no.

wendybeth · 07-24-2006, 02:12 PM

Scaeagles, if Iran specifically threatens us or any of the allies that we hold defensive treaties with, then yes. Otherwise, sadly- no. I would want to go in and kick their asses, but as long as they play this underhanded, spy-vs-spy clandestine activities game, we have little choice but to do the same. In the manwhile, we should be developing alternative energy sources- that would be the most successful long term method of containing these assholes. Take away their funding, and you make it very difficult for them to continue on as they have been. We should also (and hopefully are) developing strategies and weaponry that might counteract or negate any nuclear aspirations, and so long as they choose to fund groups like Hezbullah and the like I have no problems with using Israel or other countries in the same manner.

Moonliner · 07-27-2006, 08:50 AM

The history of the middle east, in a few min...

innerSpaceman · 07-27-2006, 08:41 PM

That was actually pretty helpful.

07-24-2006, 12:42 PM	#181
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I would suggest a nutjob is running Iran as well. N. Korea gained nuclear capability through appeasement. It is the textbook case on why the appeasement of loud threats is not in the best interest of the appeasers. Some would have us appease Iran. Not that I completely disagree with Alex's view on self determination in term sof seeking nclear capability, but continued appeasement will result in them having nukes. Assuming we don't want them to have nukes, action is necessary. Diplomacy will not deter them, and they have made that clear. So then, WB, are you saying you would support military action in Iran to prevent them from acquiring the power N Korea does?
	Submit to Quotes

07-24-2006, 02:12 PM	#183
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Scaeagles, if Iran specifically threatens us or any of the allies that we hold defensive treaties with, then yes. Otherwise, sadly- no. I would want to go in and kick their asses, but as long as they play this underhanded, spy-vs-spy clandestine activities game, we have little choice but to do the same. In the manwhile, we should be developing alternative energy sources- that would be the most successful long term method of containing these assholes. Take away their funding, and you make it very difficult for them to continue on as they have been. We should also (and hopefully are) developing strategies and weaponry that might counteract or negate any nuclear aspirations, and so long as they choose to fund groups like Hezbullah and the like I have no problems with using Israel or other countries in the same manner. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-27-2006, 08:50 AM	#184
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	The history of the middle east, in a few min... __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

07-27-2006, 08:41 PM	#185
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	That was actually pretty helpful.
	Submit to Quotes