Europe - Do Their Leaders Have the Guts?

by roybatty 56 Replies latest social current

  • justhuman
    justhuman

    Yeah, hopefully they don't have the low IQ that Bush has...that is around 80 points.

    For sure now we all feel more SAFE that Bush that has the Guts(but NO brain)Because of Bush politics we have more terrorist attacks than ever, plus he managed to turn more Muslims to become fanatics, and create more hate between Christians and Muslims.

    Plus Bush managed to create oil crisis to the world because he had the Guts to lie to the entire world that Saddam had chemical weapons and he was ready to attack U.S. But the real reason that he attacked Iraq was, (as we all know) to get his hands over Iraq's oil, with the Oil companies that he owns. But he forget to tell us how did he become dictator with the support of the father Bush.

    Plus you need to have Guts to be a MASSIVE MURDERER and WAR CRIMINAL by killing thousands of innocent people in Iraq...

    So what it would be the outcome if Bush desides to attack to Iran and thats another Muslim country...just think if you have the GUTS!!!

  • roybatty
    roybatty
    I think its fair to say that History will judge the invasion of iraq as a complete disaster. The blundering done by Bush ,and also let us not forget the Lies too,should SHOULD put him in the same bracket as Nixon ..at the very least!

    I get it. BTW - you won't see me driving around with a GW bumper sticker on my car. But what I'm asking for is your opinion on your country's leaders to prevent Iran from obtaining atomic weapons.

    I still find it ironic that within three pages of posts, hardly anyone has commented on the situation with Iran and europe's attempt to prevent Iran from developing WMD. Once again shows me in all things big and small it's always easier for people to bitch about things rather then offer a solution.

  • fleaman uk
    fleaman uk

    Roy

    I sort of hear what you are saying and im also glad you dont have a GW bumper sticker (avoids fender benders by not having one )im not gonna bash you just because your political views are diametrically opposed to mine.

    I just think a proactive stance against Iran ,by sending in an invasion force, could well be worse than just sitting around letting them get on with it.All kinds of canned worms will be opened.

    I have no idea what the answer is.I doubt Europes leaders do .Bush certainly doesnt.Is there even a real Problem with the Iranians???Dont they have the right to live and expand their Technology?If Iraq was no threat ...is Iran?How many 9/11 or 7/7 terrorists were Iranian compared to Saudi/Pakistani nationals/descendants?

    Maybe things will have changed by the time Hilary Clinton is prez!

  • Pole
    Pole

    roybatty,

    If Iran is allowed to develop a nuke, there is no doubt in my mind that it will use it against Israel. They will.


    I think you really need to shake off your stereotype of Iran to come up with a better view of the situation (which I admit does look bad).
    Consider this: How many nukes does Iran currently posses? And does the figure begin to compare to Israel's 300+ nukes? (according to unofficial sources) Of course we don't know the latter number officially because Israel isn't a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty thanks to the double-standards of world politics. Of course Israel is not as dangerous as some totalitarian islamic states, but do you really think Iran would risk using even 1 nuke against Israel at this stage of relative stability?

    ::I remember a couple of years ago when that big earthquake hit Iran. Some 40 - 50 thousand people were killed, many were injured and many others were trapped underground. Iran accepted help from every nation except Israel. It's leaders felt that it would be better to allow it's citizens to die buried under rubble then to be saved by a Jew. The hatred for Israel by the leaders of Iran, not the Iranians themselves, is so strong it will use the bomb on them.


    YOu seem to be using a piece of Iranian propaganda to prove your point, even making it a bit more dramatic than it was the case. The humanitarian aid from Israel didn't matter that much with the help they had received from all the other countries. The Iranian authorities were able to afford refusing the Israeli help thus achieving a propaganda effect. We have no positive evidence to think otherwise. And certainly this does not constitute positive evidence to invade a big country causing the death of millions of Iranians and tens of thousands of Western soldiers, which (having been to Iran and having talked to the people) I think would be inevitable.

    Another possibility is a nuke going off in New York harbor or in a London subway. Then we'll all stand around and bitch about Bush not doing enough to stop Iran from developing nukes.


    Islamic fundamentalists from Iran will certainly have nothing to prevent them from doing so if their establishment in Iran gets destroyed by tomahawk missiles. Invade Iran now and you'll produce thousands of suicide bombers who will eagerly detone suit-case nukes in the US and Europe. I'm afraid they already have such weapon if they consider them an option.
    Despite my comments above, I share your general concerns however. And cynical as it sounds I'm afraid a consolidated European foreign policy will only be possible when a suitcase nuke goes off in a European city. Let's hope it doesn't happen anytime soon. I think by invading Iran Bush would only make it happen sooner.
    Pole

  • roybatty
    roybatty
    I just think a proactive stance against Iran ,by sending in an invasion force, could well be worse than just sitting around letting them get on with it.All kinds of canned worms will be opened.

    I guess what could be worse is Iran looking the other way while a nuke is "stolen" from them by a terrorist organization and detonated in the U.S., europe or any place.

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    A good question to ask is who supplied Iran with the parts in order to build a nuke plant to start with. Without a nuke plant or uranium....well there are no viable nukes as warheads. So again I ask....who supplied these parts?

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    The Poles?

  • roybatty
    roybatty
    YOu seem to be using a piece of Iranian propaganda to prove your point, even making it a bit more dramatic than it was the case. The humanitarian aid from Israel didn't matter that much with the help they had received from all the other countries. The Iranian authorities were able to afford refusing the Israeli help thus achieving a propaganda effect. We have no positive evidence to think otherwise. And certainly this does not constitute positive evidence to invade a big country causing the death of millions of Iranians and tens of thousands of Western soldiers, which (having been to Iran and having talked to the people) I think would be inevitable.

    I'm not sure how it got turned around by my stance isn't to invade Iran. I really don't think that's needed at this point IF europe follows through with forcing Iran to see the bad economic results from pursuing a nuclear arms program. I just don't they will. Just as Germany, France, Russia and China broke the U.N. sanctions imposed upon Iraq, they would not only to this again but probably not even allow them pass the U.N. security consul.

    My point is that the europeans do not want Iran to have nukes but they're not willing to do anything to stop them. This includes both militarily and economically. And ,without sounding too melodramatic, when a nuke goes off in London or New York or Amsterdam, we'll all sit around and bitch about "Bush not doing enough" or "Blair should have stopped Iran" or "Why didn't Dominique de Villepin do enough to prevent countries like Iran from passing nukes..."

    Just makes me angry that the world is less secure because certain people don't want their business dealing with Iran touched. We all sit around and bitch about Bush and Big Oil, well, what about big business in europe and the effect of Iranian sanctions would have on them?

    Regarding Israel and Iran. I'm not a big defender of Israel but there is no way any one can convince me that somehow someone in Iran wouldn't use a nuke against Israel. I don't picture Iran "attacking" Israel knowing that Israel has at least 200 nukes but a radical leader in Iran not caring and attacking Israel anyway???? hmmm....maybe I've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

    Personally, I hope that the situation with Iran doesn't result in military action by the U.S. or europe. However, a nuclear stockpile sitting in Iran and another in Israel, that is a small fire burning next to a tanker truck.

  • Pole
    Pole

    roybatty,
    So you only meant economic sanctions at this stage? Then I'd have to agree. I just wasn't sure what you meant when you mentioned "people bitching about Bush doing nothing", with Bush recently mentioning the possibility of carrying out a military operation.
    Tetra:
    ::The Poles?
    Last time I heard they said it was Alberta Indians. ;-) Poland has only a small nuclear reactor used for purely scientific purposes. For the record: the nuclear rods Iran has were designed and provided by one of the most irresponsible states on earth: Russia.
    Pole - of the "I have good reasons to be a russophobe" class

  • googlemagoogle
    googlemagoogle

    i dont know if this applies to all european countries, but here we don't refer to our politicians as "leaders" anymore.

    and for what i know, iran is not planning to build a nuke.

    and really, it wouldn't bother me. as long as one nation has a nuke, it does not matter if another one got one too.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit