Should Poland continue to support Bush's war on terror?

Coincides nicely with the end of the world in 2012. So I guess Iran will be the cause.

M-G

If it's meant to be written as our fateful destiny, then so be it. Doesn't say much for the powers that be steering it away from that position tho.

Dzien dobry Seanus,



Iran is not a threat today or maybe tommorrow but they the potential to be one in the future... I'd rather deal with them now before they become more powerful...



To me it's not important the asssumption for the shield.... I have already mentioned many benefits from this shield regardless if there is a threat or not.... Better safe than sorry I like to say.... Nothing wrong with a purely defensive weapon...

OK, the shield aside (check BBC for a fresh new article on it), u suspect Iran of procuring a lethal weapon, get in there and sort it out. U have some inspectors but they don't have much teeth. It doesn't need to be all out war, just get Ritter and his dudes in there and doing there thing

that is what the IAEA is for and that's what there doing..

I know that, I just wanted to hear it from ya. Why the scaremongering among people then? What is there to fear? Hi btw

hey man, hope all is well....

this is the only way government can actually convince the public that taking a hard stance is necessary.... Most people only care about there own as*es.... So if you tell them they are in danger they will support action....

on the other side, it's meant just as much to freighten Iran.... to show them were being serious.....

U r being serious by inspecting them under their Treaty obligations. But a questioning public should know that America has the power to do what is being done in NK, nuclear disarming. Hawks have been threatening war for some time, I'd understand that were Iran to be in breach of their obligations but u said urself that operations ceased in 2003. I repeat, where's the threat? The threat is inaction, just like what happened in the build up to 9/11 when Bush ignored REPEATED warnings. How in God's good name could Bush have slipped up so badly? Ur people won't be in danger for years

To be honest if it was not for China's support with their economic and political influence they hold in NK it would have not been so easy... Now I know things are not solved just yet but they are heading in the right direction and hold a lot of promise....



if the US for once second backs off, there's no doubt Iran would see that as a victory and wouldn't think twice about restarting their program... Iran only stopped their program once they were named part of the axis of evil (which was a little overboard but either way it did make its point) and saw that Iraq was named in that axis also and as a result it was attacked..

But Matty, regular inspections will as good as negate the possibility of non-compliance on their part. As u said on another thread, innocent until proven guilty. Don't victimise them too early. U waited a day and an age to take Saddam to task over his alleged WMD's but George Bush snr supplied him with the know-how. Iran didn't receive the same so, trust me, their R+D is very much in its infancy.

China also accepted the scrap metal from the WTC so that wasn't such a bad deed on their part. They've helped u out more than once.

unfortutely its a much more complicated when talking about nations..... Much more is at stake...... setting a murder free by accident doesnt even compare to ignoring a nation pursuing nukes (nukes can kill millions of people)..... we dont have the luxury to wait till were 100% sure. Anyways it's clear Iran was pursuing weapons in 2003.... They have been dodging the IAEA about the questions of that program ever since.... who even knows if they don't have programs that we don't know about...... I say keep the pressure up, Iran will be the loser of this tension and not the US...



why bring this up you know that we don't agree on the US being behind 911..... and yes they helped us out, but they also screwed us just as much.......

R u ignoring a nation pursuing nukes Matty? I know what nukes can do, so I want to be clear. U seem to be belittling the efforts of the current inspectors, time to beef things up maybe? I say keep the pressure up too, but war isn't the way to go about that.

So, u'd attack a country that is innocent in that it hasn't unleashed any nukes? U have the potential to do MUCH more damage than a one-off murder. Antagonise them and they're gonna be more furious and likely to produce WMD's

that's what your doing with the IAEA, and some scare mongering to keep Iran on its toes...... War should be a the last resort, but it is the way to go about it if need be...



I wouldn't say it's innocent, kind of hard to let things slide with a country that calls for the destruction of another.....



let them, their just digging their own graves....

Let me remind u that u have advocated war b4 and u were disappointed when the US administration scaled down/throttled back on its aggressive tone. U hardly made it sound like "last resort".

Let the IAEA do its work, its an internationally recognised body. Has Iran been proven guilty of heinous attacks?

Let them? I'd rather not!!

now that the political support has died down, it is a last resort in people's minds.... now in my mind it should be one of the first resort given that we should deal with it now while Iran is still fairly weak....



besides the gross human rights abuses, the 2003 program, calling for the destruction for another country, and supporting militias in Iraq then no they have not been proven guilty....

If they are guilty as u r implying, why haven't they been strongly punished? Calling for the destruction of another country was political rhetoric. America supports militias in Iraq too. Did u read that MSN article on Iraq I posted earlier?

U said "War should be a the (sic) last resort" above. Then u said, "now in my mind it should be one of the first resort". What's it to be? Some clarification please.

If u believe Iran is weak then u r wrong. Weak is a relative word, u have to qualify it somewhat.

Gross human rights abuses occur in many countries Matty, that's a fact. Look at Iraq, Saddam killed thousands and where was the intervention at this time? The 2003 program, u r holding them to account for that? They gave it up for God's sake!!

they should, they haven't because the political support in the US is not there anymore.... Plus were fairly bogged down in Iraq...



true, still doesn't make it acceptable....



supports militias to stabilize Iraq, while Iran supports militias to destabilize the country... same methods but one produces positive results while the other does not...



well, in my mind it should be done while Iran is weak, however unfortunately it should be our last resort in this case because their is no political support and our resources are going into Iraq.... it would be a high cost that should only be paid when we really have too.....



yes it is relative, weak as compared to the US......



it should have occurred however at the time we where trying to contain the Iranian revolution...... the prorities have changed.....'



Yes only after the Invasion of Iraq.... either way like I said before there might be programs the US doesn't know about..... If Iran is having trouble to be honest about the 2003 program(something we know off).... it's fair to be asking what else can they be hiding...

First point, so now America, the land of due process and justice, believes that wrongs should go unpunished? What kind of message does that send out to would-be wrong-doers?

2nd point, it's unacceptable, I agree with u, but Sharon has also called for the severe bombing of Iran. There's evil on both sides.

3rd point, the stabilisation efforts through militia use have yielded very few positive outcomes. They have led to divided loyalties and have been met with limited success. It's close to being a failure actually

4th point, Iran is weakish now, why not have a go? Again, u r ambivalent, giving first and last resort almost simultaneously. Ignore the political support dimension, if u were leader, what would u be doing?

5th point, we'll see just how much weaker if u attack them

6th point, the Iranian Revolution, why was that a problem? Any WMD's were gonna be fired on the US? I remind u of ur debate with Foreigner4 on this one. Killing is killing, it must be snuffed out ASAP

7th point, then increase ur sweeps for WMD's. Get in their faces and ask hard questions. Don't live in paranoia, go in and do sth about it, don't sit back idly. Hammer them with Treaty provisions and the need for sound and thorough enforcement, Iran hasn't withdrawn from the IAEA, what does that tell u?

You should be asking Europe this question..... America is powerful but it can't deal with all problems on it's own....



Olmert is in office now and he's much more moderate..... Also this was at a time Iran was building a nuke......



I agree with that, the war on terror is not easy, we learn along the way what methods work and which don't.... their is no magic formula..



Why not because there's no political support in the US.... this is not my fault, I blame the anti-war protesters.. What would I do????? well finish the job in Iraq and if by that time Iran has not shown more good will, turn my attention to them.... I would also be trying to convince Europe to step up to the plate and not rely on US to do all the dirty work....



it would be a two week conventional war before Iran would be destroyed, however a guerilla war like in Iraq would last up to a decade..... I consider that fairly weak.....



well the problem was, From a military perspective, we had many bases in the middle east that could have become easy targets.. Also at the time we were in the cold war and couldn't afford to lose our strategic position so close to Russia... Obviously no one takes Russia into account anymore, how quick we forget....

Now to the economic realm....

The Iranian revolution wanted the US to totally withdrawel from the entire middle east... Two problems with that... At the time we invested already billions of dollars in the middle east oil infrastructure and other industries... Why should America have to spend all that money with the permission of those countries and then give it away for free because of a political change... That was not going to happen... We needed the oil and we couldn't afford to lose our investments.. The Iranians were not being pratical and we couldnt let the revolution spread...

And lastly the political realm....
We where allies with many middle eastern states and the revolution was a threat to this good relationship... We would lose all influence in that region and we couldn't let Russia take over...

Here is just a small portion...



don't worry I'm not living in paranoia.... I feel very safe living in the US.... however just because I don't feel threatened doesn't mean that Iran should not be punished.... I don't feel threatened today but that can change very quickly once Iran has a nuke....and we are trying to hammer them kind of hard but with Europe not standing 100% behind us its making it much more difficult..... America should not be the only ones paying the costs here....

I'm not happy with the fact that the war, along with other economic things have plunged us into a rather nasty Recession. You can call it whatever you like, but the dollar went from being fairly solid, to being worth about 50 cents now - something must give, but what? The American people have given until they bled, along with many of her children, who've been coming back in body bags, or missing arms and legs...

Wait untill you see the effects on the off spring of Gulf war vets because of being exposed to Depleted Uranium!

Ranj

I've just flown accross two continents and at no time could I get a signal on my phone!

And all the while the US govt gains. This is the crux of the matter, the people suffer for the betterment of a select few in govt. Despicable!!

Welcome back Hairball

LOL...................

youtube.com/watch?v=WViDpecnHgg, SPOT ON, this guy sees it much more clearly than any other politician I've known

BUSH'S WAR ON TERROR

I can't believe that intelligent people would even debate this issue...Do you understand that the United States of America is now in debt to the tune of $52 TRILLION ?...the WOT is just another looting/murder mechanism of the Globalists/Zionists, and they have finally achieved their goal of bleeding the USA dry...Poles: You lived under Communism...How can you fall for a sucker play such as this?!!...maybe the old joke about 'How many Poles does it take to screw in a lightbulb' really is true!

you need to get your facts straight...... also security is much more important than any money....

And to think that US taxpayers money is being used to fund it, rather than the SUPER wealthy Zionists like Rothschild and Rockefeller families. They should be stripped of their wealth for bleeding America dry. They should do their own dirty work and leave the world's only hyperpower alone. And they say the Scots are stingy...these Zionists should be shot

I'm a taxpayer and I don't mind my money being spent to kill the terrorists....

Matthias, you are the 'terrorist' they want to eliminate, eventually...and as far as Poland, all she will get is 'Chuj w górze ten dupa'...the USA cannot be secure when it is $52 trillion in debt!'

Oh please.... your taking parania to a whole new level... they eliminate me they can say goodbye to my tax money...... truth is they want to eliminate those that kill innocent people.... Im willing to give my money to fight that.....



first your lying becaue the US is not $52 trillion in debt it more like $15 trillion and if you knew anything about econmics is not great but it's not the end of the world.... I could explain it to you but that would require an hour conversation which I don't care to discuss....