Half of US voters say Iran should be bombed

[Zabaniyah]

Yup, the same military that the ENTIRE Middle East, including Iran, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, are afraid of. So much that ALL of them practically begged the US and Western allies to come in and do 'something'. Of course, we give you guys a sop: We said that it was an Egyptian unit that first entered Kuwait. But everyone know better.

Pakistan and Bangladesh aren't in the Middle East

But hey, we did participate in Desert Storm you know

 

[Waffen SS]

An attack on iran would be good for Pakistan. This will eliminate a huge threat to our western border. GOOD RIDDANCE!

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

A Chinese misusing statistics and not doing basic research before he said something.

How many have died in Mexico's drug war? - latimes.com

No surprise there...

Is Mexico not part of Latin America? And who is responsible for the Mexican murders? I think the US smuggling weapons to Mexico is a big contributing factor.

 

[Hulk]

I do not think they should attack Iran.

 

[gambit]

Is Mexico not part of Latin America? And who is responsible for the Mexican murders? I think the US smuggling weapons to Mexico is a big contributing factor.

Yeah...You are grasping at straws, kid. The Mexican police and army are corrupt. They have been arming the drug cartels for years, long before 'Operation Fast And Furious' came into being.

 

[Birbal]

Is Mexico not part of Latin America? And who is responsible for the Mexican murders? I think the US smuggling weapons to Mexico is a big contributing factor.

Historically, America is directly responsible for the drug problems in Latin America.

 

[gambit]

Pakistan and Bangladesh aren't in the Middle East

Do I care? No.

But hey, we did participate in Desert Storm you know

The issue is the potency of the Iraqi military in the ME, of which ALL of the region, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, were afraid to face. Remember that the larger Iran could not defeat Iraq. So all this talk about the Iraqi military being 'easy' to defeat and that the US have never face a 'serious' opponent is all nonsense. If the Iraqi military was not 'serious' and therefore 'easy' to defeat, then why did the ME, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, not create a temporary military union, like how many African states did, to deal with Iraq?

---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ----------

Historically, America is directly responsible for the drug problems in Latin America.

Utter BS. If American decided to make certain drugs illegal, that is our right. Can we argue that Mexico is responsible for underage drinking by American teenagers?

 

[Birbal]

Utter BS. If American decided to make certain drugs illegal, that is our right. Can we argue that Mexico is responsible for underage drinking by American teenagers?

I'm not talking about making drugs illegal, which I support. I'm talking about supporting drug smugglers. CIA drug trafficking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zabaniyah]

The issue is the potency of the Iraqi military in the ME, of which ALL of the region, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, were afraid to face.

Are you insane?

Did you ever bother to look up the map and see the distance between Iraq and Bangladesh? Actually, we had good relations with the country. It was the first Arab country to recognize us. So, we didn't have any friction with Saddam, and our neighborhood was very different from that of the ME.

That's why I was saying that Pakistan and Bangladesh are not in the ME but in Southern Asia where things are different. They simply aren't in the same scenario.

The reason for Bangladesh's participation is to have closer relations with the US, which we value very much.

Remember that the larger Iran could not defeat Iraq. So all this talk about the Iraqi military being 'easy' to defeat and that the US have never face a 'serious' opponent is all nonsense. If the Iraqi military was not 'serious' and therefore 'easy' to defeat, then why did the ME, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, not create a temporary military union, like how many African states did, to deal with Iraq?

That's because Iraq had Western support!

Of-course, during the 1st Gulf War, the US had far superior technology and probably even competence of their personnel compared to the Iraqis. And that's why Saddam's forces were literally crushed.

And no questions asked about the 2nd Gulf War, since they were under sanctions. They were already dead.

I'm not talking about making drugs illegal, which I support. I'm talking about supporting drug smugglers. CIA drug trafficking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, Wikipedia is so unreliable

 

[Pakistanisage]

Bombing Iran would start a string of events that will bring the World Economy to a meltdown state. It is almost gauranteed that an attack on Iran will result in Iran blocking the straits of Hormuz. All Iran has to do is to sink a couple of Tankers full of oil at the narrowest neck of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf will be blocked. That will take out 30% of World oil Exports creating a havoc in the oil markets resulting in oil prices reaching $ 400 to $ 500 range.

The World industrial capacity will screech to a halt causing global unemployment and Depression. It may destroy US economy because it will affect US exports to Europe, Japan and China whose Economies will be ravaged by astronomical oil prices. This is a doomsday scenario and no country will be spared from the disastrous chain effect.

 

[Omar1984]

Republican or Democrat it will make no difference. They follow the same policies.

Ron Paul is the only peace-loving American politician today.

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

An attack on iran would be good for Pakistan. This will eliminate a huge threat to our western border. GOOD RIDDANCE!

You are wrong. We have no problems with Iran and we have no problem with the Pak-Irani border and did US attacking neighboring Afghanistan do Pakistan any good

 

[Birbal]

Republican or Democrat it will make no difference. They follow the same policies.

Ron Paul is the only peace-loving American politician today.

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------



You are wrong. We have no problems with Iran and we have no problem with the Pak-Irani border and did US attacking neighboring Afghanistan do Pakistan any good

There's also Dennis Kucinich. No one else I can think of though.

 

[Secur]

An attack on iran would be good for Pakistan. This will eliminate a huge threat to our western border. GOOD RIDDANCE!

Really ? Who told you that ?

 

[Donatello]

US voters? Most of them are dumb.

I mean, when the running Presidential candidates are like Michele Bachman, Perry, Romney.......you can sense what is going to happen. Only one person stands out in their current heap of garbage candidates...and that is Ron Paul....but as the guy speaks truth...he will never be the president......

 

[gambit]

US voters? Most of them are dumb.

I mean, when the running Presidential candidates are like Michele Bachman, Perry, Romney.......you can sense what is going to happen. Only one person stands out in their current heap of garbage candidates...and that is Ron Paul....but as the guy speaks truth...he will never be the president......

Yeah...We are. Am sure Pakistani voters are much more smarter than Americans. What the hey...EVERYBODY is smarter than the Americans......How is that lollipop tasting...???