Originally posted by Staga
You really haven't learnt anything about recent happenings, for example in N.Y and in Iraq ?
Do you expect a country like Iran to use conventional weapons against US nuclear arsenal?
Of course not or you would be naive; if third world country would attack against US it would use biological and chemical weapons and use different ways to delivere them to US.
Now what I don't understand why pre-emptive strike is acceptable if it's done by US or Israel but if some other country would hit you first you'd scream bloody murder?
btw when was last time Iran attacked against some country? When was last time US did the same?
I was simply pointed out the differences in attacking.
Example....what strategic good would a gass attack on DC or NYC do?
Answer....nothing except incite fear and anger.
What strategic good would a conventional strike on Nuke facilities in Iran do? Alot, It is a specific target, not an attempt to kill as many civilians as possible.
I don't buy into the fact that the US supports Israel therfore terrorists need to attack America instead. Truth be told I beleive with nukes Iran would gladly take the chance to strike Israel and hope for the best. This is were a preemtive strike BY ISRAEL would be justified.
Just cause syria or jordan may support Iran does not mean we strike them first, not unless there is a viable reason IE support of terrorism.
But in the end I'm not trying to justify anything here I asking if YOU beleive they will or will not do it?
EDIT:
Staga are you also saying that you disagree with UN policy. You mentioned Sudan earlier...If you try and somehow blame the US for that you belong in a mental hospital. If you think that the US and Israel are the only ones that don't want Iran to have nukes you are just blind. This has been a UN effort of diplomacy for the last 2 years. No one here is just gonna attack someone out-right if there is a chance to diplomatically handle this or at least delay it a couple of years.