GiHadOrange

*Deleted Quote edited out*

Your premise is correct, but Iran is clearly NOT reasonable..., and not very rational gambling with their populace they way they have been.

Blaming the victim here?

Iran is reasonable. It are other who wants to bomb Iran and don't care much about if the populace gets hurt as a "side effect" or collateral damage.

They are not-that-bright liars and do not deserve the oxygen of yet more televisual publicity for their megalomaniacal causes. They need a large gun pointed at their heads with the understanding that if they do not stop the process of spitting the nuclear dummy, the trigger will be pulled.

more warmongering ...

Doubt they would. Probably tut a bit is all.

really ?

Good to have China and that they will push the evil ones back and create some balance in the world.

If you drop some targeted bombs aka as start a war of aggression don't whine if the attacked country fights back.

A response would be completely expected. The question is whether the response would be measured enough to prevent a big war breaking out.

No. The answer is: Don't start wars. Don't bomb other countries.

Just because the country you plan to attack has maybe only a low defense and cannot really hurt you back, that doesn't make that war anyhow justified.

I watched Ahmadinejad on TV give his acceptance speech...

did you watched it on Press TV?

Of course it's worth it a war. Just imagine how worse a war would be with them if they had nukes. Need to clip them in the heels before it's too late.

I understand that position but really you've have to be God (for those that believe in such things) to know what exactly would happen if Iran was allowed to weaponize vs. a war to try to stop them. It's not as if it's going to be easy to stop them. Targeted bombs just delay this and what country has the resources or will now for a total war with Iran? (Hint: the USA does not.) I do think it will probably escalate sometime to targeted attacks to delay things, but then what?

trageted bombs= attack Iran = war of aggression

You can say that, it's just words, but my impression is that Iran wouldn't start a total war in response to that, and of course they WOULD respond, more like limited attacks on U.S. and Israeli targets. Of course the obvious danger in taking that risk is that things don't go as planned and limited actions escalate. High risk actually.

If you drop some targeted bombs aka as start a war of aggression don't whine if the attacked country fights back.

As said already. As soon as the troops leave, quickly followed by the president and his cronies with the billions they have looted from the aid money, the Taliban will once again be back in power. It will then revert back to the tribal and primitive country it was and always will be and run by religious savages.

That said as much as they weren't very nice to their own people they never threatened another sovereign state and certainly never the UK. When the UN asked them if they could do something about the opium production they did. under the Taliban no more than 30 tons of opium was ever produced. Unlike the coalition that has failed to keep this up and it now runs around 650 tons a year.

Their mistake was to ignore the demands of the USA regarding Bin Laden. When the USA can't get what it wants with diplomacy it tends to get it with its military might. as history has shown.

For me the troops, especially the British troops should all be pulled out now.

American and British troops are dying there for nothing. They are only still there because the politicians are too gutless and spineless to admit they have lost a war they should never have started in the first place.

True. I feel for all the soldiers that will die or be maimed in the future because the politicians can't admit the war is unwinnable.

They should leave now, as it won't make any difference now or later.

Ever heard of conscientious objection?

I feel sorry for the people that got killed by these soldiers.

Soldiers are always unappreciated till it's yourself being threatened.

They probably signed up for a lot of reasons other than Afghanistan, but once in, you can't say no to a posting.

You can't send troops to a war and then complain when they kill people. It's their job.

Blame the politicians, not the grunts. Next time vote for the anti war party.

Yes, its a soldiers job to kill people. They knew that when they signed up.

As said already. As soon as the troops leave, quickly followed by the president and his cronies with the billions they have looted from the aid money, the Taliban will once again be back in power. It will then revert back to the tribal and primitive country it was and always will be and run by religious savages.

That said as much as they weren't very nice to their own people they never threatened another sovereign state and certainly never the UK. When the UN asked them if they could do something about the opium production they did. under the Taliban no more than 30 tons of opium was ever produced. Unlike the coalition that has failed to keep this up and it now runs around 650 tons a year.

Their mistake was to ignore the demands of the USA regarding Bin Laden. When the USA can't get what it wants with diplomacy it tends to get it with its military might. as history has shown.

For me the troops, especially the British troops should all be pulled out now.

American and British troops are dying there for nothing. They are only still there because the politicians are too gutless and spineless to admit they have lost a war they should never have started in the first place.

True. I feel for all the soldiers that will die or be maimed in the future because the politicians can't admit the war is unwinnable.

They should leave now, as it won't make any difference now or later.

Ever heard of conscientious objection?

I feel sorry for the people that got killed by these soldiers.

I am with Iran in this issue and not afraid of them.

What do you mean?

Do you support their obvious goals to develop nuclear technology that is at least ready to weaponize very quickly?

Do you assert Iran's goal is not to do that?

Do you think a nuclear Iran would increase stability in the middle east and NOT force other regional powers to proliferate?

Yes, I am pro nuclear power.

OK, well, my opinion is that there is no problem at all with Iran having peaceful nuclear power plants (they already do, correct?) or having medical technology and if they were really sincere and open about LIMITING it to that with comprehensive inspections allowed, their entire nuclear program could be easily negotiated. The issue is the capability and/or realization of weaponization. There is indeed a large international consensus that Iran should not be allowed to weaponize nukes or even be too close to that capability. I support that opposition to Iran's potential weaponization as there is little doubt a nuclear Iran will pressure other countries like Turkey, Saudi, Egypt, etc, to do the same. Do I think Iran is sincere about not wanting to be near weaponization? No, I do not and again I think most of the world doesn't believe that either.

Iran seems intent to push towards at least potential weaponization. Will sanctions stop that? Doesn't seem very likely. Is it worth a war to stop them? I really don't know.

Iran doesn't build nukes.

Of course it's worth it a war. Just imagine how worse a war would be with them if they had nukes. Need to clip them in the heels before it's too late.

I understand that position but really you've have to be God (for those that believe in such things) to know what exactly would happen if Iran was allowed to weaponize vs. a war to try to stop them. It's not as if it's going to be easy to stop them. Targeted bombs just delay this and what country has the resources or will now for a total war with Iran? (Hint: the USA does not.) I do think it will probably escalate sometime to targeted attacks to delay things, but then what?

trageted bombs= attack Iran = war of aggression

How Ahmadinejad hasn't been taken out yet I cannot comprehend. I think someone should attack first, flatten the whole place.. and then start over. I know it sounds extremist but I'm sorry you can't allow people like that to obtain such dangerous weapons. Whenever they are unhappy about something they go blowing stuff up, themselves in the process... madness. A pre-emptive strike is what's needed here.

Always good to have a reasonable voice in these topics.

Is it just me, or is the silence deafening in here from the usual group of 3-4 strident Romney supporters who have been AWOL for the last 24+ hours? Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's the weekend, and some people have a life. Maybe they've just given up? Or, just maybe they did the math too.

tired.

I am with Iran in this issue and not afraid of them.

What do you mean?

Do you support their obvious goals to develop nuclear technology that is at least ready to weaponize very quickly?

Do you assert Iran's goal is not to do that?

Do you think a nuclear Iran would increase stability in the middle east and NOT force other regional powers to proliferate?

Yes, I am pro nuclear power.

BTW, excellent new Ben Affleck movie called Argo, just watched it, based on the 1980 joint CIA-Canadian secret operation to extract six fugitive American diplomatic personnel out of revolutionary Iran in 1979.

What has a Ben Affleck movie to do with the topic?

I'd answer but I think a jihad is coming your way.

?

I don't get that either.

I am with Iran in this issue and not afraid of them.

I think I would rather watch re-runs of some of Fidel Castro's seven hour speeches. They would probably be more truthful, informative and interesting.

What has Fidel Castro to do with the topic?

Good for Afghanistan. A free election cannot be worse than being occupied by these foreign troops.

The US election will barely have an impact on the US, let alone Thailand. Two peas from the same status quo pod are the two "choices" we were provided with.

If and when someone bombs iran and the straight of hormuz is shut and ask hell breaks loose. if oil goes to180 usd a barrel, then i presume the think tank will be first to explain why.

So and how the election would anyhow change your scenario? do you think there is a difference between O and R?

This is the question asked by Gallup

http://www.gallup.co...n-election.aspx

What a stupid question to go asking, the results would be useless.

It would be like asking "do think Jesus really walked on the water?"

Then when the results come in at 90% the conjecture would be "if 90% of the people believe it then it must be true." Brilliant!

Its more a question like: What you think about the believe of other people. Do you think that the others think that Jesus really walked on the water?

Bizarrely Mitt is most popular in Kenya, while most Asians (including 75% of Pakistanis) responded "<deleted>?", "who?" or "couldn't give a rusty one".

I think in case of Pakistan it is not a "who?" question or ignorance. they know him well in Pakistan, but he isn't that popular there. (drones).

Same goes for Poland, they know him little bit better then rest of Europe and aren't that impressed anymore. ("his uncle liberated the polish concentration camp")

We're talking about people who voted for Bush, not once but twice. I'd put a tenner on 25% of them not even being able to point out various European counties on a map let alone care what we think lol.

No, we are talking about some Europeans who think that Obama is the man. not once but twice.

as if the people outside the US would really care ...

@ notmyself

^^ Your "40% of the entire population" (including kids) is probably the total voter turnout (Romney AND Obama voters).

And no matter who wins or lose and to who they have been voting for nearly all of them who went to vote have been lied to. Is that what you wanted to say or was you intention to say that only Romney voters are those who believe lies?

This Rabbi in Israel says that Obama has been one of the most hostile of all U.S. Presidents to Israel. Obama doesn't believe the tail should wag the dog, and has stood up to Israel - uh, a little bit. Romney is Bibi's friend.

Prominent Religious Zionism Rabbi Eliezer Melamed calls on American citizens to support Republican presidential hopeful. 'Obama has proved he is not a true friend of Israel,' he states

Among the president's "sins", Melamed mentioned Obama's pressure on Israel to freeze construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem – a move which the rabbi believes "put a curse" on the American people and their country.[/font]

http://www.ynetnews....4297707,00.html

Does Rabbi Melamed approve of the harassment of 14 year old Jewish girls as they walk to school? ...for wearing clothes that aren't puritanical enough for right-wing Hassidic tastes. If so, he's not someone I (or I'd venture Americans in general) care to deal with. Publicly distressing a young girl in public is despicable - nearly on a level with Taliban fanatics.

The Rabbi is a Zionist and comes to his conclusions about Obama from a view point of a Zionist. His take on how 14 old girls should dress in school has nothing to do with it.

And i think if you dislike orthodox Jews - neither Obama nor Romney would be really "your" candidate.

If Romney wins it will prove you can lie to the American people about what you represented an hour ago and still win.

Even if Romney loses it will show that well over 40% of the entire population are happy to be lied to.

How many people in percent will go to vote at all?

I am wondering how many of them think there is really a difference between Obama and Romney or even think that one of them is a true honest guy.