War on Iran
- Storm the front!
- No war, please…
- Neutral
0 voters
How many of you here, the netizens of Forumosa, would support the war on Iran?
The US cannot handle the two it already has on its hands, so it ain’t going to happen anytime soon - unless they want to distract from their recent failures but it’s merely shifting the focus, not solving anything. After all Afghanistan finally gets more attention again.
Anyhow, with limited resources (and I don’t expect them to get much support from other countries) it doesn’t seem, shall we say, practical for the US though I would support a draft and expect certain individuals here on f.com to sign up voluntarily to show us they actually mean what they say (notwithstanding the various excuses they will come up with). 
In other words, you’d support the war on Iran somewhere in the near future when the US is in better position to do so. So, not now (voted no) but maybe next time. Is that right?
Based on the current circumstances I do not support a war against Iraq.
Silly rabbit, the US could end the war in 30 minutes with 2 MIRVs. Personally, I’d rather the US would wait. I want to see if those Iranian missiles really [i]will[/i] reach Europe.
OUR recent failures in Afghanistan? Sorry, but last time I checked Germany and OUR NATO allies were all on board for that one. So how are these German troops helping save the day in a war that your nation supported “fully?”
As to Iraq, lots of allies supported that war in various numbers. When the going got tough, a lot of them left. I think that this exposes a very serious flaw in Western governments military strategies and one that their citizens should be awfully keen to see remedied. IF this is all that they are capable of, what happens when these nations face a direct and serious threat to their national interests?
See, you just confirm what I have been saying all along - the US goes and fucks up the place(s), then shifts responsibility to others, leans back and says “well, it’s not our problem [anymore]” and points the finger at anyone else but itself.
Yeah, like Palau. :roflmao:
Surprise!
Read: Probably it wasn’t as easy as the US made it appear.
Or perhaps they are more realistic and realized their mistakes and see no point to continue the adventure, especially if they consider that the US may just run away to the next place again (see above).
Germany fully supported the war and effort in Afghanistan. Why not tell us what “Full Support” from Germany involves? Let’s face it. NOT ONE nation in the world is capable of carrying out such efforts except the US. Now, Germany can and did disagree with Iraq, but not Afghanistan. So what is your nation doing about the “failure” there and why is it “our” as in “American” failure? And the list of allies was extensive in Iraq, not just Palau but ultimately whether it was near universal agreement in Afghanistan or not as was the case with Iraq, the result is the same. The US does most of the heavy lifting and the other nations set conditions on when and where and how they will fight. This is a serious problem that must be remedied or NATO is not an effective security force. Given that YOUR nation depends on NATO entirely for its security, shouldn’t that be of greater concern to you?
Also, I am one of those who believe that we have already met our initial and strategic goals in Iraq. We are not going to leave and everyone knows that. What we cannot do is provide security, but make no mistake, we will be there for the far foreseeable future no matter which party is in power. Remember the big midterm elections and how this was going to change everything in Iraq? Has it? Last time I checked we had a “surge” not a “redeployment” schedule moving ahead, right?
It’s not exactly that simple. Some of these allies did not leave simply because “the going got tough”. Their existing governments were replaced by parties who promised to end their country’s involvement in Iraq. This was possible because, in their eagerness, the US failed to convince most of the world of this “direct and serious threat to their national interests”. Most of the general public in these countries opposed this war to begin with. I doubt the situation with Iran will be much different. That’s assuming anyone else wants to sign up to open that can of worms.
You are quite right. This was a huge mistake to frame the debate solely in terms of wmds. When none were found, the PR disaster was incalculably costly. We are paying for this now. Thanks Tony Blair. Anyway, regardless of who believes and does not believe what, as usual, this is squarely on the US and its shoulders. When allies that support our efforts have trouble marshaling a few thousand troops and keeping them there for more than three years, then I think we all have to be very very concerned about what kind of military capabilities that underlie all of the security guarantees really involve. Obviously, Americans need worry the least, but what about Germany? Poland? New Zealand? What in the world would they do if the US chose not to champion their security interests in a moment of need? Who would they turn to? What would they do?
Ultimately, however, the emphasis on talk, talk, talk is getting no where as usual. Iran is a far greater security concern for Europe than the US. Maybe we should let it play with missiles to the point where one can reach Europe. I am afraid that is what it will take for Europe to wake up to the fact that Islamofacism is a real danger and not just a figment of neocon oilmen’s fevered desires for profit.
Put your Nazi references and insults back where they came (out) from, please.
[quote=“fred smith”]Let’s face it. NOT ONE nation in the world is capable of carrying out such efforts except the US.[/quote]And apparently, it’s not up to the task either.
But then, winning this kind of struggle in that way may very well be the next thing to impossible.
[quote=“Fred smith”]Obviously, Americans need worry the least, but what about Germany? Poland? New Zealand? What in the world would they do if the US chose not to champion their security interests in a moment of need? Who would they turn to? What would they do?
Ultimately, however, the emphasis on talk, talk, talk is getting no where as usual. Iran is a far greater security concern for Europe than the US. Maybe we should let it play with missiles to the point where one can reach Europe.[/quote]
Given the fact that the US economy depends largely on the security of Europe, your statement is largely void. It’s a shame you only see things in such simple terms, Fred.
The question is not whether we should work together closely as allies. The question is when if ever is Europe going to actually take actions to defend itself other than to hold conferences? This is not an issue of choice. Everyone was unanimous in their support of the action against the Taliban in Afghanistan and of the importance of preventing their return. A thousand soldiers and a few helicopters is the best that a major nation in Europe can do when it agrees to something? THAT is the problem. Naturally, I am not suggesting that I would be glad if Europe was nuked by Iran but I really have to wonder if that is what it would take before this endless “give peace a chance” brigade is finally silenced and the full cravenness of its stupidity is treated with the contempt it so richly deserves. France, UK and Germany all agree that we must stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. How’s that working out for you then? Any progress?
In the immortal words of Boy George: “War is stupid.”
If it weren’t for war we’d run out of things we think we need to buy.
Check out (listen, watch or read) what Scott Ritter has to say about it: democracynow.org/article.pl? … /16/144204
According to him, we’ll be in Iran soon, unfortunately.
Boy George and Scott Ritter…well, I hope this can be resolved from actions within Iran.
Alazaskan: “According to him, we’ll be in Iran soon”
I think it’ll be the last nation in the Middle East to have military conflict with America. Good luck.
Better now than in five years time.