Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85242 35212

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace
Register FAQ GFWiki Community Donate Arcade ChocoJournal Calendar

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Tomzilla
Critically Insane


Member 2968

Level 5.51

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 06:50 PM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 04:50 PM #1 of 112
The question isn't 'Should we launch a preemptive strike on Iran', the real question is: 'Will the world support this decision?'

To answer the former, yes, we should. Not an all out invasion, but we need to target their nuclear facilities. Either that or utilize Night Phoenix's strategy.

Considering the latter question, the reason I brought it up is because - quite frankly - I highly doubt the average citizen would jump on the: "Let's go after Iran!" bandwagon. I just see the similarities of what is happening today with what occurred in Vietnam. While war is inevitable and there are always casualties, the support of the citizens seems to play a major role in influencing war as a whole. Now, there's a major difference between the right decision and the people's decision. At times, both decisions become one, but usually it isn't the case.

Currently, I don't think people would support it. Iraq is on the public's mind, and they aren't interested in another war, even if the war on Iraq was justified (at least for my reasons), people won't support it.

I could be wrong, but just ask anyone if we should go in and take care of the problem. I think we should; Iran threatened us with nuclear fire. I'm not the type to just sit and wait for someone to attack me. I prefer to hit them first; however, not everyone shares this outlook - and it seems as if the majority disagree, but whatever.

That's my two cents.

Most amazing jew boots
Tomzilla
Critically Insane


Member 2968

Level 5.51

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 09:57 PM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 07:57 PM #2 of 112
Originally Posted by Watts
Since when? This whole issue is about preventing Iran getting a nuke. They only said 'harm and pain'.
Let's look at it like this:

Iran wants to get a nuke. It also wants to inflict 'harm and pain' upon the United States. If we add these two facts together, what'll be the result? It's not a perfect equation, but you can see where I'm going with this, and how I can interpret as a threat involving 'nuclear fire'.

I realize I may be stretching it a bit, but really, what else is Iran threatening us with that could inflict 'harm and pain'? There is oil of course, but I see it simply as a threat involving the exchange of nuclear weapons.


Originally Posted by Gumby
Tomzilla: People just don't have the stomach for what it takes to win a war.
Well, there was a time of when people did have it, but even then, it took a big 'push' to snap 'em into it.

How ya doing, buddy?
Reply


Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.