1 yes no question it's the right thing to do.
2 yes they will but it's not the right thing to do.
3 no they wouldn't because it's the wrong thing to do.
4 no they wouldn't because they are overstretched as it is.
5 no they won't but they should.
Printable View
1 yes no question it's the right thing to do.
2 yes they will but it's not the right thing to do.
3 no they wouldn't because it's the wrong thing to do.
4 no they wouldn't because they are overstretched as it is.
5 no they won't but they should.
How to make a poll:
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=85679
Number 4Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Iran is 4 times larger than Iraq and has a population of over 60 million. The terrain and climate are awful and they have far more military equipment than Iraq had by the time of the invasion. The US could not contain Iraq and meet other commitments without drafting - which I believe is off the cards, non?
Easy one to start off with? :lol:
Option 4... But i bet he tries ;)
i know you'll eat me for saying this but i hope they never get peace in iraq by america's plans. if they get a bloody nose it would be great for world peace because the whitehouse would know picking a fight with a competant enemy would be a stupod idea
option 4, god i wanna watch america get their asses wooped like they did in vietnam, just in the ME. if i'm not mistaken, the war on Iraq is still not over, no matter what the "administration" says.
that too, but held back from sounding h4r5h:01:Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
I pick 2...and I do believe the draft will be reinstated..soon.
Why does this poll imply that the talks in Iran are unilateral? It’s not only the US talking with the Iranians to get them to stop their developments.
There should be an option to vote for invasion only if the Iranians refuse to cooperate and refuse to stop developments, and military action is a last resort.
then that would ( in your opinion) be 1Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
Your a bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
I'd love to see you ass whooped.
Why not go to an address of my specification so some folks of mine can tape it?
STFU..ya gay pirate.
Yes Vid if:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
invasion only if the Iranians refuse to cooperate and refuse to stop developments, and military action is a last resort.
well let's use Iraq as a mirror.... Bush does everything the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
Well, so far everyone agrees that he wants to. ;)
what about the option
"mind your own business"
4
Iran is not iraq nor its Afaganistan, it has more power then any other country in middle east(Ever thought why irans Currency's down) and the main thing is strong public unity, during iraq iran war iran had notting and iraq was supported from many countries like USA but still fight countinued for 8 years without losing. think now.. iran with all this weapon power!! i dont think USA will do such a mistake.
now if u talk about Suria it would be another 1 week war for USA :lol:
care to expand on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by 15%
I will expand
Will Bush send troops to Iran
yes he will because it's the right thing to do
yes he will but it's the wrong thing to do
no he won't because it's the wrong thing to do
no, but only because of lack of manpower
no, but he should
I did not even know that the us was intending to do so
none of the options in the poll state otherwise
so i guess there is no choice hence according to this poll
the us has Definet plans on doing so.
hence
add more options
as for my opinion
finish one thing first before complaining about the next
thus mind your own business
Do i actually have a choice in caring ?
no
Do as you please - a threat is threat even if it is not a threat
this is not a threat
15 I do believe I said that in my original post that there aren’t enough options. There is no option on there about solving this problem diplomatically.
Thats because Bush doesnt know the meaning of that word, possibly...
Strange that the only country ever to use Nukes, is paranoid about anyone else developing them, and wont let the UN inspect (or stop development of) their own.
Even stranger that they are quite happy to put anyone in charge of that button (including someone suffering from Senile Dementia in the 80's).
The excuse that "Any Madman" can be put in charge of them just doesnt wash, when most of the world already think a madman is in charge of the largest collection of these weapons.
Strange you would say that as the U.S. along with other nations are trying to work out the situation with the Iranians and the Koreans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove
then that would be covered byQuote:
Originally Posted by 15%
no he won't because it's the wrong thing to do. or no but he should
he is obviously making an issue of it.
if you have no interest the option is there....just don't vote.
but the question was "will bush send troops in"Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
if you think he won't choose "no because it's the wrong thing to do"
are any not voting because it's not anonomous......
i can't put every single option in there , it would be a mile long, so i put "bulk" options there. If you make a vote but wish to expand you have that ability.
Vid I didn’t vote because I’m trying to see which one best describes how I feel about the situation.
As for the voting not being anonymous I think that they should all be public. If someone votes one way in this poll and says something different we need to hold them accountable for their voting record :D
I have never been to iran
but i have two good friends how are refuguees from there
they are good friends
Strange, the EU seems to be doing well until the US puts it's foot in and makes things go backwards.. How many times have the EU and Iran come to an agreement that is satisfactory to the UN and then the USA have blocked it so far this year?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
This brings us back to the start each time... so making the situation, like everything else in the Middle East the US touches at the moment, worse.
As i said, as the only country that actually refuses to allow inspections (except Israel)... as far as im concerned, USA are the outlaw state here, not Iran.
If you can’t see to difference between the U.S. and Iran’s nuclear program then you need help.
True...Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
The USA have enough to blow the entire planet apart 10 times over and are continuing to develop them.
Iran havent got 1 nuke..
The USA refuses to allow the relevant UN agency to inspect any of their facilities, Iran is open to inspection.
Quite a difference.
Its the USA's program that would be under suspicion in any non-biased atmosphere in these circumstances.
Good point. When was last time we used nukes? What's the point of the US getting inspected? Cause everyone else does? We already admit we've got a shitload.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove
Also Bush is not a madman, he's an idiot without a clue.
Get it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove
Yeah your probably right we shouldn’t develop any more nukes because why would the most powerful country in the world take any measures to protect itself. Hell I guess we should just disband the whole damn arm while we’re at it. :dry:
Like I said if you can’t see the difference between a nation that harbors terrorist and one the goes to great lengths to protect people around the world then you have a problem.
Hank
You have a peculiarly rose tinted view of US foreign policy. Is this purely on current performance or is it back-dated at all?
The simple fact is that powers (good or bad) don't like new boys on the block. No one liked it when China, Israel, India and Pakistan went nuclear. We have learned to live with it. This is 1930s science, the genie will not stay in the bottle. North Korea almost certainly has gone nuclear and my view is that Iran is there also (if perhaps still to assemble the bits). We will have to learn to live with this also and ensure that the neceassry weights and measures are in place to effectively create a stalemate in the region. The Iranians will not unlearn the science they have acquired.
You are right though, the UN and the EU are the main players in the Iranian negotiations whereas the US is the main player in N. Korea. I do not see the US invading either unless there was a genuine threat of aggression. Such an action would be huge, messy and would result in a lot of deaths and the total disruption of the oil supply from that region if Iran were to be invaded. This would not make good business sense and whilst I have doubts about GW I do not believe he is anti-business.
@Busyman..
1/ USA is the only country EVER to use the Atom bomb.
2/ UK, France, India and Pakistan all admit they have Nukes and allow UN inspections. Why should anyone else if the biggest player wont do that?
@ Hank
The USA spends more on Defence than the next 5 largest spenders put together. Thats your business, you want to keep the Arms companies alive and let your people die because of a lack of basic Universal Health Care (unlike those countries that you have invaded such as Iraq and Grenada) then i have nothing against that.
However, to my mind both Grenada and Iraq showed more care for their own people than the USA does... and that includes the poltical disappearances and murders in the time of Hussain.
At least they could get Health Treatment when they were ill.
They had less malnutition before the USA invaded (nearly doubled since the invasion, really shows you care)
When i think of all the kids that die, just to keep the shareholders of American Arms Companies rich... well, it sickens me.
Strangelove
Is it only five? I am sure I saw a report that said this had risen to the next 20 as most of Europe has cut Defence spending following the nasty outbreak of peace on the Russian front.
However, as you say, taxes can only go so far - it is a choice between schools and tanks (unless one introduces conscription for 5 years olds and have school tanks :)
You can understand it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I mean, with their current policies, 1/3 of the world will be active enemies before long... and they need an excuse to keep the Defence Speanding that high.
This could well be the REASON for their foreign policy :lol:
I cannot believe that someone with a functioning brain could actually believe that. You sir live in the land of Oz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove
Um, Hank...we are harboring Bush..a terrorist. How about Kissinger..WAR CRIMES.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
Im not a sir :PQuote:
Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank
And, if you believe any civilised country that doesnt have Universal Health Care gives a stuff about their citizens, then its YOU that are living n the land of Oz.
Hussain attacked his enemies only... so i assume that means ALL the poor are the enemy of the American Administration.
Are the Chileans not looking to try Kissenger on War Crimes? However, like Pinochet, age will be the mitigating factor here. It would, as in the Milosovic case, take years to pursue through the courts even if they got him to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthie
bravo. although your statement is pretty weak, i'd have to agree on some very low level with you. honestly, saddam had more control in Iraq then your puppet gov't ever will, not control as in suppression, but freedom yes freedom. what is democracy? where people choose the gov't and have their say. well, call it dictatorship or not, i'd rather be under saddam's power than george's anyday. for cryin out loud, they had the basic necessities when mr. hussain was in power. oh well, no point in crying over spilt milk right? oh wait, 9/11 riiiiiite, that's how this whole Iraq thing started (w/ a little help from non-existant WMDs). for shame America, for shame. There is no hiding it, when the war was announced everyone in America was in on it, or agreeing with it, so you are all guilty, not just the Bush admin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove