War in Iran, Here We Come!

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#1
Senators Unite on Pressuring Iran
By EMMARIE HUETTEMAN
Uniting in response to a string of aggressive gestures from Iran, a bipartisan collection of senators gathered Thursday to send a clear message to Tehran as it seeks to gain nuclear capability.

“You have only two choices: peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear weapons program, or expect a military strike to disable that program,” Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said.

Introducing a resolution with 32 sponsors endorsing continued economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, eight senators expressed their broad support for efforts by the United States to end Iran’s march toward expanding its nuclear program.

Expressing a sentiment rarely uttered by Republicans these days, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he and the other senators stand behind President Obama on this issue. During his State of the Union address last month, Mr. Obama said that he wouldn’t eliminate any options on pressuring Iran.

“All I can say is, we’ve found something we’re united about,” Mr. Graham said.

The senators were careful to note that the resolution was not an authorization of force, but said that Mr. Obama would receive bipartisan support should he decide that a military strike was necessary.

Mr. Lieberman said that if the United States decided to use force, he envisioned a targeted strike aimed at crippling Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons.

“To me, this is about disabling the Iranian nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Lieberman told reporters. “It’s not in this instance about a military strike to overthrow the regime, and it’s something that will be done without ground forces, but really more from the air.”

The lawmakers said they had not abandoned hope for a peaceful resolution. Responding to comments President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made on Wednesday, Mr. Graham said he believed that sanctions were “beginning to bite.”

“The best way for Iran to survive is to abandon nuclear weapon ambitions and become a productive member of the family of nations,” he said. “I think that is still possible through economic and diplomatic means.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/senators-unite-on-pressuring-iran/
 

OccupyWackbag

Registered User
Dec 12, 2011
3,416
188
98
#3
I know I'm gonna get bashed for this by do some sovereign nations get to have nukes and other sovereign nations don't? And who gets to decided that and what happens when those people decide we shouldn't have something?

Oh...
“The best way for Iran to survive is to abandon nuclear weapon ambitions and become a productive member of the family of nations,”
That statement worries me.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,820
18,545
513
Kingdom of Charis
#4
Bomb the shit out of them. I will support that, but not another occupation.
I truly believe that is what the plan is. There really isn't a need for a ground campaign in Iran. I also think that attacking military installations like that could really destabilize the regime, and possibly empower opposition forces (that are reportedly already receiving covert support from the US and Israel).

I really want to start off early by saying that Iran is an American problem. As the statement says, it is currently actively engaged in killing Americans around the world. This is not the US doing something for Israel. Iran also threatens other US allies in the Gulf, is actively helping Assad butcher his own people, and is basically an out of control major problem for the world, and letting them have nukes will be a huge mistake for everyone.

I know I'm gonna get bashed for this by do some sovereign nations get to have nukes and other sovereign nations don't? And who gets to decided that and what happens when those people decide we shouldn't have something?
Fuck that. Because we are the good guys and they aren't. What is this, a political science class? You say something bad about their leader and you disappear forever. You engage in homosexual activity and you get hung in public. They speak actively about wiping another country off the map. How about anyone like that doesn't get nukes because we say so? When someone stronger comes along, they can boss us around as much as they want. Until that happens, we call the shots. We pussied out with North Korea and Pakistan and now look where we are (not to mention Russia and China). The bad guys with nukes already outnumber the good guys. No need to tip the scales even further.
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
16,183
3,899
373
#5
This has been building up for last 6 fuckin' years. Something better fuckin' happen!
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
Sep 28, 2010
3,331
32
98
#7
I know I'm gonna get bashed for this by do some sovereign nations get to have nukes and other sovereign nations don't? And who gets to decided that and what happens when those people decide we shouldn't have something?

Oh...


That statement worries me.
Because the angry woman haters want to "wipe Israel off the map"
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#9

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
16,183
3,899
373
#10
I don't understand your point with that. If you're saying that it's null and void since the revolution came after they signed it, they've never formally withdrawn from it and are instead lying about their nuclear ambitions. North Korea at least withdrew from its participation in it.
Liars! The u.s. is playing it's fuckin diplomatic games like things like that shit of you sign you must abide. more horseshit just get take care of business and stop fiddle faddling over Inspections, sanctions, gay shit.
 

CM Mark

The East is Ours!
Apr 13, 2005
27,472
856
513
Pretty Pretty Unicorn
#12
That means nothing. Every country in the UN has signed documents saying that slavery is illegal in their country. Thailand is filled with slaves in the sex industry, and just look up Mauritania. Both are in the United Nations. Not to mention the slavery that still exists in the US, England, France, Brazil, and other first world countries.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,909
15,298
303
#14
That Ben Stein bit still makes me laugh my ass off.

LINGADY LONGADY

[YT]MP0_wqgWilE[/YT]
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#15
I know I'm gonna get bashed for this by do some sovereign nations get to have nukes and other sovereign nations don't? And who gets to decided that and what happens when those people decide we shouldn't have something?


Well the mussies picked the wrong side during WWII and they have yet to answer for this sin, not to mention Robert Kennedy, the '76 Olympics, the hostages in '79-'80, Lebanon, 9/11, etc...

So basically the West gets to say who has nukes and who dosen't, because they have the power to do so (might makes right) now whether they have the will is another question.

The mussies have willingly given up any moral right that they had to exist. At this point exterminating them is no different than poisoning, burning, or cutting out any other cancer.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#16
That means nothing. Every country in the UN has signed documents saying that slavery is illegal in their country. Thailand is filled with slaves in the sex industry, and just look up Mauritania. Both are in the United Nations. Not to mention the slavery that still exists in the US, England, France, Brazil, and other first world countries.
And if you get caught trafficking in the slave trade you go to jail, even in those savage countries if you haven't bribed the right officials.
 

boardsofcanada

You're a Charcoal Briquette..ditsoon..a moolinyan
Jun 8, 2006
2,347
1
261
#21
It's amazing how much the media is pushing for a war with Iran.
Pretty surprised it hasn't started yet.

I remember I saw an article that had a headline that said something like "US and Iran ships square off" as if an actual attack had already happened. Fucking misleading assholes.
 
Sep 28, 2010
3,331
32
98
#22
oh and btw


thread kill McGillicuddy at your service.



Beer belly!
 
Sep 28, 2010
3,331
32
98
#23
i love the "cheez it" shaped wheels. noonquil rules.
 

Psychopath

I want to fuck your girlfriend.
Dec 28, 2008
18,722
3,552
393
Constant sate of misery
#24
I truly believe that is what the plan is. There really isn't a need for a ground campaign in Iran. I also think that attacking military installations like that could really destabilize the regime, and possibly empower opposition forces (that are reportedly already receiving covert support from the US and Israel).

I really want to start off early by saying that Iran is an American problem. As the statement says, it is currently actively engaged in killing Americans around the world. This is not the US doing something for Israel. Iran also threatens other US allies in the Gulf, is actively helping Assad butcher his own people, and is basically an out of control major problem for the world, and letting them have nukes will be a huge mistake for everyone.



Fuck that. Because we are the good guys and they aren't. What is this, a political science class? You say something bad about their leader and you disappear forever. You engage in homosexual activity and you get hung in public. They speak actively about wiping another country off the map. How about anyone like that doesn't get nukes because we say so? When someone stronger comes along, they can boss us around as much as they want. Until that happens, we call the shots. We pussied out with North Korea and Pakistan and now look where we are (not to mention Russia and China). The bad guys with nukes already outnumber the good guys. No need to tip the scales even further.
Both China and Russia warned them months ago not to go down this path.
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#25
I'll take a stab.
I know I'm gonna get bashed for this by do some sovereign nations get to have nukes and other sovereign nations don't? And who gets to decided that and what happens when those people decide we shouldn't have something?
Because moral relativism has been underrated by sheltered whimsical dolts.