What if Iran attacked U.S?

[Defender2516]

It seems that the media is proposing that Irani speed boats are threating USA warships about blowing themselfs up. Bush has commented that serious consequences will take place if this happens.

 

 

 

Now we already know what Bush and his Administration wants. He wants a dam good excuse to march into Iran for Oil and to make us pay heavy money for it.

 

 

 

So my question is, what IF Iran openly and admittedly attacked US troops. Would you want us to Invade Iran?

 

 

 

If so, how much longer would the war last? How would oil prices go?

 

 

 

Discuss.

[deloriagod]

Oil prices would go through the roof.. Wait, they already are. Well looks like I might be walking everywhere for a while :-k

 

 

 

Honestly, if Iran starts attacking the US, I hope the get what's coming to them.

[FooK-A-Ji]

They should wait til they get nukes, coming from a neutral strategists point of thinkin.

[StrOwez]

no I don't think US will have an Iraq style war with Iran or any major conflict, US troops are stretched all over the world, there is the looming economy depression and I wouldn't think Iran would want an open war with US they aren't stupid you know..

[hellbellz]

Here's my idea.

 

 

 

For every 1 of our troops we have 2,000 of yours. :XD:

[FooK-A-Ji]

Here's my idea.

 

 

 

For every 1 of our troops we have 2,000 of yours. :XD:

 

 

 

Thats what happened in the Vietnam War. 1 million VC dead and 57000 American. Thats nothing to be proud of.

[sebbeberg]

Here's my idea.

 

 

 

For every 1 of our troops we have 2,000 of yours. :XD:

 

 

 

Thats what happened in the Vietnam War. 1 million VC dead and 57000 American. Thats nothing to be proud of.

 

Mostly from napalm. Amirite?

[assassin_696]

I don't think Iran are really ballsy enough to provoke the US with the current administration, knowing that they'd probably face a war. Why risk a war with the US which might invade and take control of their oil resources, when oil is proving so lucrative at the moment? Next January they might well test out whoever the next president is, but they know that the current one is permanently on a warpath.

 

 

 

As for America, would they really want to risk another war with a middle eastern nation, costing them billions of dollars of taxpayers money and thousands of American lives? I doubt it. I doubt public opinion is really in favour of another war unless it's necessary.

[FooK-A-Ji]

Here's my idea.

 

 

 

For every 1 of our troops we have 2,000 of yours. :XD:

 

 

 

Thats what happened in the Vietnam War. 1 million VC dead and 57000 American. Thats nothing to be proud of.

 

Mostly from napalm. Amirite?

 

 

 

No the 5 million civvies that died on the side were taken out by napalm mostly.

[FooK-A-Ji]

I don't think Iran are really ballsy enough to provoke the US with the current administration, knowing that they'd probably face a war. Why risk a war with the US which might invade and take control of their oil resources, when oil is proving so lucrative at the moment? Next January they might well test out whoever the next president is, but they know that the current one is permanently on a warpath.

 

 

 

As for America, would they really want to risk another war with a middle eastern nation, costing them billions of dollars of taxpayers money and thousands of American lives? I doubt it. I doubt public opinion is really in favour of another war unless it's necessary.

 

 

 

Which war that America participated in recently was in your opinion necessary? In my opinion, human lives overrule oil conflicts. 9/11 happened, and the invasion of Afghanistan hasn't prevented terrorist strikes.

[assassin_696]

I don't think Iran are really ballsy enough to provoke the US with the current administration, knowing that they'd probably face a war. Why risk a war with the US which might invade and take control of their oil resources, when oil is proving so lucrative at the moment? Next January they might well test out whoever the next president is, but they know that the current one is permanently on a warpath.

 

 

 

As for America, would they really want to risk another war with a middle eastern nation, costing them billions of dollars of taxpayers money and thousands of American lives? I doubt it. I doubt public opinion is really in favour of another war unless it's necessary.

 

 

 

Which war that America participated in recently was in your opinion necessary? In my opinion, human lives overrule oil conflicts. 9/11 happened, and the invasion of Afghanistan hasn't prevented terrorist strikes.

 

 

 

Afghanistan wasn't really about oil, it was about sending a message out to any would be terrorists that America will not tolerate an attack to her citizens on her soil. Public opinion was very much in favour of that war, and I can see why, the Taliban was a clear and present danger to US citizens and interests which needed removing. As for Iraq (which was probably more oil motivated), well that's a different issue.

[FooK-A-Ji]

In other words, the invasion of Afghanistan was retribution.

 

On the US dollar it reads "In God We Trust", implying that american beliefs are built up around the Bible. The Bible also implores one to turn the other cheek. But that phrase was forgotten as it wasn't all too handy at the time.

 

The invasion was to guarantee another 4 years in office if anything.

 

 

 

P.s. The taliban is affiliated with Al-qaeda, but it is not al-qaeda.

[Lionheart_0]

[darkmage099]

Iran wouldn't attack the US.

 

 

 

 

 

I find it hard to believe the sources that say that Iran threatened to blow up US ships...Now I'm not saying they're wrong but possibly not entirely correct.

[FooK-A-Ji]

Iran wouldn't attack the US.

 

 

 

 

 

I find it hard to believe the sources that say that Iran threatened to blow up US ships...Now I'm not saying they're wrong but possibly not entirely correct.

 

 

 

This is exactly how the vietnam war started.

 

 

 

Rumor was that north vietnamese had attacked cambodian ships escorted by us navy.

 

When in fact the cambodian ships were shipping guns and provisions to rebels trying to overthrow the at the time, current government in vietnam.

 

If anything it was an act of self defence , blowing up the cambodian ships.

 

 

 

Tho we don't need to discuss this, as its proven time and time again that america going into vietnam was 100% wrong. Their administration admitted this but couldn't back out because of Lyndon Johnson's agreements before Nixon came into office. Nixon however used his entire office period to stop the conflict, although it carried on for some years.

 

 

 

But the pattern is the same. USA claiming to be threatened and thereby acting in self defence to invade another country.

[assassin_696]

In other words, the invasion of Afghanistan was retribution.

 

On the US dollar it reads "In God We Trust", implying that american beliefs are built up around the Bible. The Bible also implores one to turn the other cheek. But that phrase was forgotten as it wasn't all too handy at the time.

 

The invasion was to guarantee another 4 years in office if anything.

 

 

 

P.s. The taliban is affiliated with Al-qaeda, but it is not al-qaeda.

 

 

 

The American constitution is a secular one, American beliefs are not built up around the Bible. So, that argument isn't really valid. But if you want to get into morals, it would be pretty dangerous to turn the other cheek at the level of nation states. The Taliban may not be a committed terrorist group, but their affliations with Al-Queada are easily enough to make it the threat that it was.

 

 

 

P.s. If you're interested in why it says "In God We Trust" on the US dollar, read this article:

 

 

 

Q: If this isn't a Christian nation, why does all our money have 'In God We Trust' on it?

 

 

 

A: The religious motto found on American money, In God We Trust, if often cited as proof that the United States is a Christian nation. Though the use of the motto does tell us something about American history, it says nothing about the intentions of the Founding Fathers . Their choice of a motto was "E Pluribus Unum." It was chosen by a committee appointed on July 4, 1776, by the Continental Congress 'to prepare a device for a Seal of the United States of America.' Committee member Benjamin Franklin proposed the motto 'Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,' but the phrase 'e pluribus unum' was chosen by the committee and officially adopted on June 20, 1782. The phrase-which was well known, having appeared for many years on the cover of the Gentleman's Magazine-is from 'Moretum,' attributed to Vergil." ( Grolier Encyclopedia , Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc., 1999) As has been noted, it is interesting that our allegedly pious Christian Founding Fathers had an opportunity to choose a national motto with the word "God" in it and rejected it in favor of a secular one.

 

 

 

"E Pluribus Unum" has appeared on most U.S. coins, beginning in the late 1790s. The motto "In God We Trust" did not appear on any U.S. coin until 1864, when "Its presence on the new coin was due largely to the increased religious sentiment during the Civil War Crisis," according to R. S. Yeoman, A Guide Book of United States Coins , 38th ed., Racine, Wisconsin: Western Publishing Co., p. 89.

 

 

 

The religious motto "In God We Trust" was not printed on all U.S. money until required under the McCarthy-inspired law enacting the motto in the 1950s. The courts have held, by the way, that the motto is constitutional because it is not Christian or even religious , but merely ceremonial . - Ed Buckner

[FooK-A-Ji]

I'm really not interested in why it says what it does on the dollar. The dollar will be gone if america keeps invading others , just because they feel threatened.

 

Just like dictators, america is now in a state of paranoia, justified paranoia, as being the self-proclaimed dictator of the entire world is a very dangerous thing. Saddam Hussein was a freak, and he killed anyone he thot to be a threat.

 

Similiarity is, that america is now either bullying, threatening to invade, or IS invading anything they deem to be a threat.

 

 

 

Can't wait for some martians to arrive and put the smackdown on some people. :lol:

[assassin_696]

I'm really not interested in why it says what it does on the dollar. The dollar will be gone if america keeps invading others , just because they feel threatened.

 

Just like dictators, america is now in a state of paranoia, justified paranoia, as being the self-proclaimed dictator of the entire world is a very dangerous thing. Saddam Hussein was a freak, and he killed anyone he thot to be a threat.

 

Similiarity is, that america is now either bullying, threatening to invade, or IS invading anything they deem to be a threat.

 

 

 

Can't wait for some martians to arrive and put the smackdown on some people. :lol:

 

 

 

If you want to use a fallacious point to back up your argument, then back off when I point out the error, that's fine, but don't expect me to take any of your ramblings after that too seriously.

[FooK-A-Ji]

I'm really not interested in why it says what it does on the dollar. The dollar will be gone if america keeps invading others , just because they feel threatened.

 

Just like dictators, america is now in a state of paranoia, justified paranoia, as being the self-proclaimed dictator of the entire world is a very dangerous thing. Saddam Hussein was a freak, and he killed anyone he thot to be a threat.

 

Similiarity is, that america is now either bullying, threatening to invade, or IS invading anything they deem to be a threat.

 

 

 

Can't wait for some martians to arrive and put the smackdown on some people. :lol:

 

 

 

If you want to use a fallacious point to back up your argument, then back off when I point out the error, that's fine, but don't expect me to take any of your ramblings after that too seriously.

 

 

 

I can remove that whole point and still have the upper-hand in this debate.

 

Your standpoint is that retribution is the right way to go about things.

 

Not surprising, since your country mainly believes in killing people to teach others, that killing is wrong (death penalty).

 

 

 

If you want to prove that messing with america is wrong, than have a damn military parade like the rest of the idiots, instead of stooping one whole level lower and actually using the military.

 

 

 

I can remove the whole In God We Trust Point and continue this discussion, but I'll leave it there as another portrayal of hypocrisy, written off with words and more words.

 

 

 

I don't expect you, as a good american, to take my "ramblings" too serious anyway. Most don't because the truth hurts. And the truth is that your country is on a collision course with the rest of the world. It has signed itself OUT of the world community, yet calls upon its allies when it deems fit, and lables them as traitors when the allies refuse to back them up. Or do I need to mention France a couple years ago, among others?

 

 

 

You just waved the topic of Iraq off as something you don't want to discuss as well. Obviously a nerve was struck there. But do like the rest and keep your horseblinds on. At least you won't see it coming when it hits you.

 

 

 

Guess you never heard the saying "don't shoot the messenger, just because he brought the message" either.

 

 

 

No... It was probably "Kill the messenger, bomb and invade his country and steal his assets, as it was a threat he made, the truth, yet a threat".

[assassin_696]

I'm not American, I'm British.

 

 

 

I can remove that whole point and still have the upper-hand in this debate.

 

Your standpoint is that retribution is the right way to go about things.

 

Not surprising, since your country mainly believes in killing people to teach others, that killing is wrong (death penalty).

 

 

 

My standpoint isn't as black and white as that. All i'm arguing is that if a terrorist organisation makes a strike against a country, then that country has a right to not to simply seek revenge, but to remove the threat and safeguard that country's interests. I don't condone America's actions because I think that retribution is the right way to go about things, I condone them because they eliminated an actual (not just perceived) threat. That's what the priority should be.

 

 

 

FYI, I disagree with the dealth penalty.

 

 

 

If you want to prove that messing with america is wrong, than have a damn military parade like the rest of the idiots, instead of stooping one whole level lower and actually using the military.

 

 

 

Most of the world is fully aware of the might of the American military, but that won't stop terrorist subects from nipping at their heels if they think they can get away with it.

 

 

 

I can remove the whole In God We Trust Point and continue this discussion, but I'll leave it there as another portrayal of hypocrisy, written off with words and more words.

 

 

 

I don't expect you, as a good american, to take my "ramblings" too serious anyway.

 

 

 

Your choice, just sayin, America is a secular nation who's decisions aren't really based on a Biblical text. I think you'll find most countries act in the interests of their economy and citizens.

[FooK-A-Ji]

 

All i'm arguing is that if a terrorist organisation makes a strike against a country, then that country has a right to not to simply seek revenge, but to remove the threat and safeguard that country's interests.

 

 

 

14 of the 19 members implicated in 9/11 catastrophe were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. Among those that includes the terrorist pilots.

 

Osama Bin Ladin, the reason they entered Afghanistan if I remember correctly, is Saudi Arabian.

 

 

Most of the world is fully aware of the might of the American military, but that won't stop terrorist subects from nipping at their heels if they think they can get away with it.

 

 

 

I don't think the victims take kindly to referring 9/11 as a "nipping at their heels". In fact, that way of thinking is missing the point entirely. Its not nipping at your heels, its trying to make a damn point. Don't be foolish and assume they gave their lives just for an adrenaline rush or they will make their point again.

 

 

 

 

Your choice, just sayin, America is a secular nation who's decisions aren't really based on a Biblical text. I think you'll find most countries act in the interests of their economy and citizens.

 

How is it taking the interests of american economy and its citizens into affair, when the american economy has never been as weak as it is now in 2008? Affecting the entire nation and its citizens. Like I said, its obvious that it was to gain another 4 years in office, playing off the hearts of torn victims and people who actually genuinely felt something. Rather tasteless.

[Spirrus]

Iran wont attack the US, it would probably be the other way around, its always been the other way around. :roll:

[FooK-A-Ji]

Iran wont attack the US, it would probably be the other way around, its always been the other way around. :roll:

 

 

 

Yes and always with the excuse that they are protecting themselves.

 

Thats like an adult killing a baby, with the excuse that he was afraid the baby would kill him when it grew up :roll:

[assassin_696]

 

All i'm arguing is that if a terrorist organisation makes a strike against a country, then that country has a right to not to simply seek revenge, but to remove the threat and safeguard that country's interests.

 

 

 

14 of the 19 members implicated in 9/11 catastrophe were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. Among those that includes the terrorist pilots.

 

Osama Bin Ladin, the reason they entered Afghanistan if I remember correctly, is Saudi Arabian.

 

 

 

So, what, they'd invade the middle eastern country which they have the strongest diplomatic relations with? Besides, the country of origin of the implicated members has nothing to do with where they were based/being funded by. The 9/11 attacks were by Al-Qaeda, an Afghan terrorist organisation. It might be a guerrilla operation in some respects, but the country to invade is still Afghanistan if you want to try and stop them.

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the world is fully aware of the might of the American military, but that won't stop terrorist subects from nipping at their heels if they think they can get away with it.

 

I don't think the victims take kindly to referring 9/11 as a "nipping at their heels". In fact, that way of thinking is missing the point entirely. Its not nipping at your heels, its trying to make a damn point. Don't be foolish and assume they gave their lives just for an adrenaline rush.

 

 

 

Don't be so naive to think that's all I thought the 9/11 attacks were. I know fullwell their motivation behind them, and I know fullwell it wasn't for an adrenaline rush. "Nipping at their heels" is a figure of speech only related to the size of the attack. 9/11 was terrible, and catastophic compared to most other terrorist attacks, but hardly a deathblow to America. It would take a terrorist attack some considerable order of magnitude higher to do any truly apocalyptic damage to America.

 

 

 

 

Your choice, just sayin, America is a secular nation who's decisions aren't really based on a Biblical text. I think you'll find most countries act in the interests of their economy and citizens.

 

How is it taking the interests of american economy and its citizens into affair, when the american economy has never been as weak as it is now in 2008? Affecting the entire nation and its citizens.

 

 

 

Are you forgetting what the planes brought down in New York? The World Trade Centre, symbolic of the heart of the American (and indeed, world) economy. Bringing down the WTC was a defiant attack against free market capitalism, which sent the US economy into temporary turmoil. America couldn't risk the economy bottoming out like it did on 9/12 again, so it decided to remove that threat. What's the problem?

 

 

 

The current problem is the American economy is largely due to the economic policies of Bush and the war in Iraq (which I disagreed with), not Afghanistan.

[Hydraides]

Man I love Debates :lol: ...I love the Tip.it Community for their Viewpoints lol

 

 

 

I am going to have to say you both have Valid points.

 

 

 

Terrorism is such a hard thing to defend or defeat. Its not exactly whole countries but individuals groups (Stating the obvious)

 

 

 

Just like pearl harbour, Osama Bin Laden awoke a sleeping Giant

 

 

 

Apprently Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan on Sept 11th and was having a kidney operation.

 

 

 

The taliban were affilated with Al Queda though and as they were easy targets that is where they started there war of terror plus the fact Osama had fled from Pakistan to Afganistan.

 

 

 

Going to War with Iraq...Was a Stupid thing to do...Espiecally the UK going also. They must have known Iraq didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

 

 

America going on a War of Terror Campaign led by complete [wagon]...well what can I say....Going to War with Arab countries is only going to fuel Extremism. Education and Diplocmacy is the only way to stop Terrorism