Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#6 - TimBisley (05/05/2013) [-]
But they attacked us! You should be a good goy and protect us! What are you, an anti-semite?
But they attacked us! You should be a good goy and protect us! What are you, an anti-semite?
#8 to #6 - dusteplad (05/05/2013) [-]
OMG, you like totally can't say that, that's racist. you should be ashamed.
OMG, you like totally can't say that, that's racist. you should be ashamed.
User avatar #1 - dilara (05/05/2013) [-]
smart content. thumb.
User avatar #7 - wellimnotsure (05/05/2013) [-]
1. Any state that allows religion to dictate law should be wiped from the earth.
2. Their leader is a total nut job who is a holocaust denier
3. They are assholes in international relations
4. Iran is too easy a name to make puns out of
#9 to #7 - karmakoala (05/05/2013) [-]
1. Most European countries are based on Christianity.
2. George Bush is a total nut job, and many of the american far right deny the holocaust.
3. If you're american, British, or from the west in general, just think about this point for a moment.
4. Iran out of points to make.
User avatar #21 to #9 - wellimnotsure (05/06/2013) [-]
No one said European countries and the united states aren't ****** and that George bush isn't an idiot. Do your bashing after someone says something stupid not before
#23 to #21 - karmakoala (05/06/2013) [-]
No, that was stupid.
User avatar #24 - jacodpwns (05/06/2013) [-]
thats a lot of reasons, we shall proceed
User avatar #22 - poakmarshall (05/06/2013) [-]
3 other reasons: 1: 'Murica 2: 'Murica 3: 'Murica
#11 - GmCity (05/05/2013) [-]
< Are you kidding me just look at all these reasons, not to mention the comments below.
User avatar #10 - lavitts (05/05/2013) [-]
Is that the color of oil?
User avatar #5 - chaotixx (05/05/2013) [-]
You ******* guy you!
User avatar #3 - mrmuffins (05/05/2013) [-]
I see allot of evidence here, I agree.
Let's invade Iran!

Detect the sarcasm...
User avatar #2 - kamansel ONLINE (05/05/2013) [-]
funny, but i disagree
#4 to #2 - prominant (05/05/2013) [-]
For the sake of discussion, do elaborate yourself please?
User avatar #12 to #4 - kamansel ONLINE (05/06/2013) [-]
I'll admit an "invasion" to spread freedom or whatever is stupid and not ok. However, they are a threat not only to the US but to our allies, and while im fine with Islam, just like all religious groups they have fanatics, and their government seems to have a few of them to put it lightly. i do not think invading or occupying or liberating would be helpful, in fact i think it would be really bad idea in the long run, but a preemptive strike on their nuclear sites, a show of force, would give up time for more diplomatic means to take effect or for us to bolster our defenses and allied defenses. It isnt about intent, i mean sure they could just want it for the energy and not a bomb, but it is about the capability, because sooner or later a extreme fanatic will get a hold of either the plans, or more likely will rule the country and they dont want anything other than the destruction of the US and Israel.
#13 to #12 - prominant (05/06/2013) [-]
The U.S. also has many fanatics, and nuclear technology is much more available here; surely the U.S. are a bigger threat to Iran than Iran are to the U.S?
User avatar #14 to #13 - kamansel ONLINE (05/06/2013) [-]
Oh yes we are, but the nuclear launch codes and one of the most guarded things in the US and we have fail safes, but most importantly we give a crap what the rest of the world thinks because we are intertwined on a global scale. The US is probably the most dangerous nation in the world, and we do have fanatics, tons of them, but they dont have much swing in the government. We just want to get rich and exploit every other nation into giving us what we want, we are a greedy selfish country, but we dont want to kill others and frankly we couldnt much get away with it. Iran gets a nuke, makes it a suitcase bomb and smuggles it in the country and plants it in grand central station, how many do you think that would kill? and guess what, their population would clap and cheer. One wayward cruise missle misses and hits a civilian building and kills 2000 innocent people, we want our leaders heads on a pike because they made a mistake. The rules in our countries are vastly different, and they dont have the same limiting factors as the US does.
#15 to #14 - prominant (05/06/2013) [-]
Who's to say that there aren't Americans that can do this to Iran? It is wrong to completely say their country would clap and cheer because not all of Islam is like that and I am not Islamic by the way. But to progress we need to get that thought out of the way, we cannot think that this country is inferior or superior, we need to recognise it's place in the world; correct. But what your saying now, is it completely impossible for the U.S to do such things to Iran? I think that the U.S should only invade when threatened, as for now Iran are pretty much powerless and at no point in history will it ever be a good idea to attack the U.S. Another point to clarify, can a suicide bomber ever actually be labelled to a country?
User avatar #16 to #15 - kamansel ONLINE (05/06/2013) [-]
Yes they can be identified, not by country but by group and there are known links from certain groups to countries. and you are right, not Islamic people are like that, the problem comes when the people in charge are fanatics. It would be nearly impossible for an american to do that to Iran, because 1. getting the nuclear material would be almost impossible to get in the first place. 2. getting into Iran would be extremely difficult, and they would be captured and then they would take the bomb and return it to us if you know what i mean. i dont think we are superior or anything but we do have to understand our place as it has been for a little over 100 years now, the police of the world, and i dont mean go around telling people what to do or how their country should be run etc. but when a countries actions threaten other nations, i think we should tell the sides to shut up, sit down, and stop killing eachother. People hate us for it, but if we can deter war, why shouldnt we? i know that sounds arrogant but we are the only country on earth that can sustain it.
#17 to #16 - prominant (05/06/2013) [-]
That's a huge title, 'police of the world', considering in the interest of the oil industry they would go to war? I disagree with you wholeheartedly, the U.S is no mother of the world and it's not the greatest most powerful country, it doesn't need to interfere with any other country and it can leave well alone other countries. It's not just arrogant, it's extremely ignorant to think that the world couldn't go on without the U.S.
User avatar #18 to #17 - kamansel ONLINE (05/06/2013) [-]
i never said the world couldnt go on with out the US, i think it could, but think of what the world would be like, hell there could be a nuclear war and the world would go on. Again, i said only get involved when a country is threatening another country, interneral affairs i dont think we should even give a second thought to. im not talking about doing things in the best interest of the US, im saying doing whats best to keep as many international wars from happening. Riots, revolutions, rebels, whatever, let them fight it out, but when someone says they are going to nuke another country, we should be at the table. i didnt say and dont think we are the greatest country in the world, we have our pros and cons just like everyone else, and ive been to south america, europe, japan and china, so i do know what other countries are like and in some aspects i wish we were more like them. but we ARE the most powerful nation in the world. and are you saying that if nukes were to go off in Tel Aviv, and Iran clamed responsibility, or North Korea nuked or invaded the South that we should sit by and say it isnt our problem?
#19 to #18 - prominant (05/06/2013) [-]
I am saying that leave the countries to their business, policing as a whole doesn't work and it should be down to the individual countries that care to deal with things like that. Because the U.S doesn't invade doesn't mean there's going to be a nuclear war. If anything, prodding N. Korea makes it worse. There are several ways to interpret what will be but for the majority, you're saying the problems can be solved via U.S intervention, and I think while that's true; it's ridiculously smug and not the only answer.
User avatar #20 to #19 - kamansel ONLINE (05/06/2013) [-]
I agree, in most cases, the US should leave everyone else alone. and a show of force isnt always needed, but there are times when policing is needed and a show of force is the only thing they will understand and respond to. not always, but sometimes. Two countries are fighting over a boarder, fine whatever, when one wants to conquer and slaughter another nation and the defender cant help themself, then i think we should step in, not invade, not start a war, just flare our guns and tell them to put away their guns. there are tons of options but most of them need some kind of firepower behind them to make them work. Trade embargo? great! how do you keep other nations from shipping to them? etc.
 Friends (0)