# Not bluffing about using military force against Iran



## skye

We are getting closer and closer.... not too late yet for  terrorist Iran to come to its senses, it still has a few weeks  for averting military action... but time is running out quick!


Kerry: The Clock Is Ticking On Iran « CBS DC


----------



## Connery

It is about time we stop giving Iran the time to develop their nuclear missile program...


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Good.  It is about time.  - Jeremiah


----------



## Jos

I wonder what will happen to that "shitty little country"


----------



## irosie91

whattashame---   Iranian cuisine  WAS so elegant


----------



## varelse

I wonder what history books will say about this country when it's gone


----------



## varelse

irosie91 said:


> whattashame---   Iranian cuisine  WAS so elegant








?


----------



## Lipush

skye said:


> We are getting closer and closer.... not too late yet for  terrorist Iran to come to its senses, it still has a few weeks  for averting military action... but time is running out quick!
> 
> 
> Kerry: The Clock Is Ticking On Iran « CBS DC


----------



## Mad Scientist

Can't wait to go up against China and Russia can ya'? Send in the Army and Marines who have *already* done 4, 5, 6 or more tours in the Middle East.

Should be loads of fun!


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

American Communist, its not about Iran sentencing an American citizen to 8 years for being Christian on a Friday night or Nukes or even oil.
Its about putting these silly Sand ******* in there place to prove to the world that America has the biggest DICK, and Iran will get fucked by it.
Iran has a choice, they can take it in the c*nt ......... gently?
or they can take it in the ASS ........... violently.
As for now, lets all put our heads down in a moment of silence for the people of Iran............................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## tjvh

Go Bu... I mean Obama!!! My observation that Obama's *second term* is nothing more than *Bush's fourth term* is about to be proven right on the money. Will Liberals call an attack on Iran an illegal War too? I tend to doubt it. But no worries... I will.


----------



## there4eyeM

varelse said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> whattashame---   Iranian cuisine  WAS so elegant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


SHE da 'bomb'!


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

Yea that Iranian chick is hot, but remember shes got a mutilated vagina, you don't want to go there bro.


----------



## hoosier88

skye said:


> We are getting closer and closer.... not too late yet for  terrorist Iran to come to its senses, it still has a few weeks  for averting military action... but time is running out quick!
> 
> 
> Kerry: The Clock Is Ticking On Iran « CBS DC



Bluffing seems to be exactly what it's about, ahead of Prexy Obama's visit to Israel & other points in the Middle East.  I can't imagine that we would want to interpose ourselves between Israel & Iran in a shooting match.

Yah, Israel wants us to attack Iran for them.  We've already done that, we - with British cajoling - overthrew PM Mossadegh in Iran in '54, & re-installed the feckless Shah of Iran back on the Peacock Throne.  He was a good little tool, plowing oil monies into useful & v. expensive US weapons systems - but he lost control (really, track of) his own country.  & we were fool enough not to run our own intelligence nets in Iran.  

Consequently, State Dept. relied upon Savak's reports (Iranian internal security agency @ the time, trained by CIA, big on torture, rape, murder).  Those reports were fanciful fabrications & utterly useless.  Look how well that all turned out for us!  We're STILL living with the results of that colossal blunder.

& Israel wants us to go in & double down on the Rx?  No thanks ...


----------



## Bill Angel

I think it's somewhat ironic that Iran's nuclear policy is ultimately made by an Ayatollah whose process of selection we in the west know very little about, while the Pope's selection gets a great deal of scrutiny and publicity.
Last time I checked, the Vatican wasn't suspected of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.


----------



## hoosier88

Ever since the resurgence of Ayatollah Khomeini, the US has apparently deliberately blinded itself on events in Iran.  We didn't run intel nets in Iran under the Shah - he didn't want us to.  Our nets under Prexy Truman ran better, & Truman refused to join with UK in deposing PM Mossadegh over the oil concession.  The Brit PM approached Prexy-elect Eisenhower in terms of warding off Soviet interest in Iran, & he bit (he also had the Dulles bros. @ Dept. State & CIA, champing @ the bit to do something or other about the Cold War).

Iran was actually cooperating with us after 09/11, helping us connect with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan & sundry other items of interest.  Right up until Prexy *W* declared them to be part of the Axis of Evil.  Everything slid off the rails right there, as you can imagine.  So - we know v. little about the inner workings of the Iranian gov. because we don't want to know.  We don't have humint running there - TMK, & I really wouldn't expect to know about those nets unless things went seriously wrong.

I'm sure we do sigint, for all the good it does us.  But we don't have intel officers nor assets who speak Persian, Farsi, Pushtu, Kurdish - or not nearly enough.

The farm saying was:  "You don't give farm animals names, they're not pets, they're meat."  That's the only real explanation I can devise for our curious ignorance of the facts on the ground in Iran (& Iraq, & Afghanistan, & Pakistan ...)


----------



## skye

In this  schizophrenic presidency of Barack Obama which  is  like two administrations in one ...  perhaps we   can  see  that  Obama is bluffing  after all....   when he talks about taking military action against Iran and that all options are on the table?   Why? because Vice President Joe Biden told AIPAC that Obama isnt bluffing. 

On March 4, Biden told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:

The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing.

Translated: hes bluffing.   





Obama's Iran Bluff | The Nation


----------



## hoosier88

skye said:


> In this  schizophrenic presidency of Barack Obama which  is  like two administrations in one ...  perhaps we   can  see  that  Obama is bluffing  after all....   when he talks about taking military action against Iran and that all options are on the table?   Why? because Vice President Joe Biden told AIPAC that Obama isnt bluffing.
> 
> On March 4, Biden told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
> 
> The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing.
> 
> Translated: hes bluffing.
> 
> Obama's Iran Bluff | The Nation



Yah, Israel wants the US to attack Iran.  The question is:  What do we get out of attacking Iran?  We've already built up Iran by invading/deposing S. Hussein & thoroughly wrecking Iraq - infrastructure, hospitals, universities, military, upset their internal balance of power, wrecked their national economy for decades to come, set their professionals fleeing the country, internal displacement of population.  

How does attacking Iran's nuclear assets - & that's all I'm hearing about us doing.  Surely no one's fool enough to think that we're going to try to invade the place - how does that help the US?  We don't have the manpower nor the political will to do it, & the attempt would make Iran a martyr to the Islamic cause - even though they're Shiia rather than Sunni.


----------



## skye

hoosier88 said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this  schizophrenic presidency of Barack Obama which  is  like two administrations in one ...  perhaps we   can  see  that  Obama is bluffing  after all....   when he talks about taking military action against Iran and that all options are on the table?   Why? because Vice President Joe Biden told AIPAC that Obama isnt bluffing.
> 
> On March 4, Biden told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
> 
> The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing.
> 
> Translated: hes bluffing.
> 
> Obama's Iran Bluff | The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yah, Israel wants the US to attack Iran.  The question is:  What do we get out of attacking Iran?  We've already built up Iran by invading/deposing S. Hussein & thoroughly wrecking Iraq - infrastructure, hospitals, universities, military, upset their internal balance of power, wrecked their national economy for decades to come, set their professionals fleeing the country, internal displacement of population.
> 
> How does attacking Iran's nuclear assets - & that's all I'm hearing about us doing.  Surely no one's fool enough to think that we're going to try to invade the place - how does that help the US?  We don't have the manpower nor the political will to do it, & the attempt would make Iran a martyr to the Islamic cause - even though they're Shiia rather than Sunni.
Click to expand...




It must be clear to everybody that Iran is a mortal enemy of the US and the West. America is called the Great Satan for historical reasons!A nuclear Iran would irrevocably  alter the world's balance of power in favor of the Islamists, whose policy is jihad against the infidel
Iran would become like another North Korea, unpredictable but much more dangerous because of their fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic beliefs.

Unfortunately, action against Iran, if needed, will become a necessity, not one of doubt or appeasement or consideration of other factors such as economy or political ones.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

American Communist said:


> Can't wait to go up against China and Russia can ya'? Send in the Army and Marines who have *already* done 4, 5, 6 or more tours in the Middle East.
> 
> Should be loads of fun!



Not necessary.  It will happen so fast they won't even know what hit them until the IAF are out of there.   Do you liberals ever get out of fear monger mode?  Give it a rest!  Gee!


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

skye said:


> In this  schizophrenic presidency of Barack Obama which  is  like two administrations in one ...  perhaps we   can  see  that  Obama is bluffing  after all....   when he talks about taking military action against Iran and that all options are on the table?   Why? because Vice President Joe Biden told AIPAC that Obama isnt bluffing.
> 
> On March 4, Biden told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
> 
> The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing.
> 
> Translated: hes bluffing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Iran Bluff | The Nation



The Knesset has announced they are giving Obama some sort of recognition award.  This is him getting in position for it.  I would not be surprised in the least to learn he has paid off some folks with our money to claim a peace treaty has been agreed upon and HE did it!  A peace treaty with Muslims isn't worth the paper its written on.  - Jeremiah


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

skye said:


> In this  schizophrenic presidency of Barack Obama which  is  like two administrations in one ...  perhaps we   can  see  that  Obama is bluffing  after all....   when he talks about taking military action against Iran and that all options are on the table?   Why? because Vice President Joe Biden told AIPAC that Obama isnt bluffing.
> 
> On March 4, Biden told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
> 
> The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing.
> 
> Translated: hes bluffing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Iran Bluff | The Nation



The Knesset has announced they are giving Obama some sort of recognition award.  This is him getting in position for it.  I would not be surprised in the least to learn he has paid off some folks with our money to claim a peace treaty has been agreed upon and HE did it!  A peace treaty with Muslims isn't worth the paper its written on.  Especially with Obama behind it.   - Jeremiah


----------



## hoosier88

skye said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Obama's Iran Bluff | The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must be clear to everybody that *Iran is a mortal enemy of the US and the West*. America is called the Great Satan *for historical reasons*!  A nuclear Iran would irrevocably  alter the world's balance of power in favor of the Islamists, whose policy is jihad against the infidel
> Iran would become like another North Korea, unpredictable *but much more dangerous because of their fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic beliefs.*
> 
> Unfortunately, action against Iran, if needed, will become a necessity, not one of doubt or appeasement or consideration of other factors such as economy or political ones.
Click to expand...


(My bold)

We helped make Iran our "mortal enemy" - although this rhetoric seems overblown to me.  The West will have to answer for its own failings.  "historical reasons" - this is the US - we don't DO history - we scarcely do our own, let alone that of the other side of the World.

Iran is not dangerous because of their beliefs - if that were the issue, we'd have bombed or invaded Wahhabist Saudi Arabia as soon as we figured out that their domestic politics is to export their wanna-be terrorists & Wahhabist doctrine to the rest of the World, & devil take the hindmost.  

Israel, Pakistan, India, PRC, PDRK, the Russian Federation, UK, France have nuclear weapons.  There is another tier of countries that could fairly quickly become nuclear powers.  If beliefs or political instability were the issue, we'd have neutralized Pakistan long ago - either destroyed or hijacked their nuclear industry & weapons.  

I still don't see any upside to us striking @ Iran's nuclear industry/sites.  Israel's wishing it so does not count as a reason for us to do it.  They are our client, not the other way around ...


----------



## Billo_Really

Connery said:


> It is about time we stop giving Iran the time to develop their nuclear missile program...


That's a pretty irresponsible comment, considering you haven't even proven they're trying to develop one.


----------



## Billo_Really

Jeremiah said:


> Not necessary.  It will happen so fast they won't even know what hit them until the IAF are out of there.   Do you liberals ever get out of fear monger mode?  Give it a rest!  Gee!


You war-mongering assholes need to be stopped at all costs!


----------



## Billo_Really

skye said:


> We are getting closer and closer.... not too late yet for  terrorist Iran to come to its senses, it still has a few weeks  for averting military action... but time is running out quick!
> 
> 
> Kerry: The Clock Is Ticking On Iran « CBS DC


This is the same bullshit we went through leading up to the Iraq war.

I can't believe people are actually stupid enough to believe this garbage again?


----------



## Katzndogz

Iran and North Korea should kick obama's ass all over the Pacific.  Just kick it.


----------



## hoosier88

Katzndogz said:


> Iran and North Korea should kick obama's ass all over the Pacific.  Just kick it.



Neither one can project force any great distance.  N. Korea is a US concern only because of its shared border with S. Korea.  We have troops & bases there, & will come to the aid of S. Korea again, if need be.

Iran similarly can only threaten the Strait of Hormuz.  But doing so would bring down NATO, Japan, India, the Tigers, the Little Tigers - SEATO (?), ... all the industrialized/post-industrialized countries that rely upon Persian Gulf oil/nat gas.  Not even the other-Worldly gov. of Iran can hope to withstand that combination.


----------



## Bill Angel

skye said:


> It must be clear to everybody that Iran is a mortal enemy of the US and the West. America is called the Great Satan for historical reasons!A nuclear Iran would irrevocably  alter the world's balance of power in favor of the Islamists, whose policy is jihad against the infidel
> Iran would become like another North Korea, unpredictable but much more dangerous because of their fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic beliefs.
> 
> Unfortunately, action against Iran, if needed, will become a necessity, not one of doubt or appeasement or consideration of other factors such as economy or political ones.



The USA is deploying a missile shield to counter the possibility of a North Korean attack.

U.S. Is Bolstering Missile Defense to Deter North Korea



> WASHINGTON  The Pentagon will spend $1 billion to deploy additional ballistic missile interceptors along the Pacific Coast to counter the growing reach of North Koreas weapons, a decision accelerated by Pyongyangs recent belligerence and indications that Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, is resisting Chinas efforts to restrain him.



Why isn't it enough to deploy a similar missile shield in the Middle East to guard against the possibility of missle attacks from Iran? The language coming out of North Korea is every bit as belligerent as the language and threats coming from the Iranians.


----------



## skye

Bill Angel said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must be clear to everybody that Iran is a mortal enemy of the US and the West. America is called the Great Satan for historical reasons!A nuclear Iran would irrevocably  alter the world's balance of power in favor of the Islamists, whose policy is jihad against the infidel
> Iran would become like another North Korea, unpredictable but much more dangerous because of their fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic beliefs.
> 
> Unfortunately, action against Iran, if needed, will become a necessity, not one of doubt or appeasement or consideration of other factors such as economy or political ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA is deploying a missile shield to counter the possibility of a North Korean attack.
> .......................................... .........
> 
> Why isn't it enough to deploy a similar missile shield in the Middle East to guard against the possibility of missle attacks from Iran? The language coming out of North Korea is every bit as belligerent as the language and threats coming from the Iranians.
Click to expand...



North Korea is unpredictable and is being taken seriously by the US.  Iran has to be taken even more seriously and anti-missile systems  are already in place at all strategic locations.
The Iron Dome system as developed by Israel is only effective against short range low capability  missiles such as those used by Hamas.

The problem with the existing  anti missile defence system against an Iranian attack is that they are not 100% effective... certainly a few nuclear armed Iranian  missiles could penetrate the system  with consequent devastating  results and the possibility of an all out nuclear war!

Once again, the Iron Dome is only designed as a short range system and is not effective against larger Iranian missiles.


----------



## Mr Natural

With the Iraq fiasco over and Afghanistan coming to an end, we'll need a new war.

We wouldn't be America without a war somewhere.


----------



## skye

Mr Clean said:


> With the Iraq fiasco over and Afghanistan coming to an end, we'll need a new war.
> 
> We wouldn't be America without a war somewhere.



Thank you for those pearls of wisdom


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

Bill Angel, ill say it again, America just want to fuck them up simply because we don't like them.
These fuckers from Iran here in the United States are the most irritating dumb fucks of the land, but they are protected by laws because there feet are on American soil, so we cant kill them or beat and abuse them here, but we sure can fuck them up over there, no laws against that.
Almost everyone in America has had some kind of dealing or altercation with an Iranian here in America .................. but we must exercise restraint or go to jail, we want revenge, and we will have it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Rct_Tsoul said:


> Bill Angel, ill say it again, America just want to fuck them up simply because we don't like them.
> These fuckers from Iran here in the United States are the most irritating dumb fucks of the land, but they are protected by laws because there feet are on American soil, so we cant kill them or beat and abuse them here, but we sure can fuck them up over there, no laws against that.
> Almost everyone in America has had some kind of dealing or altercation with an Iranian here in America .................. but we must exercise restraint or go to jail, we want revenge, and we will have it.


I used to work with an Iranian architect who had jewish friends that just hated Israeli's.

Attacking Iran is illegal and there are laws against it.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about time we stop giving Iran the time to develop their nuclear missile program...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty irresponsible comment, considering you haven't even proven they're trying to develop one.
Click to expand...


Even if we cannot prove it 100% yet, we must be ready to strike if we discover they are close to developing a nuke. For if a weapon with such destruction should fall into the hands of the  Iranian regime, and then subsequently Hezbollah, it will be a dark day for the world. That is a risk that I would not be willing to take.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> Rct_Tsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Angel, ill say it again, America just want to fuck them up simply because we don't like them.
> These fuckers from Iran here in the United States are the most irritating dumb fucks of the land, but they are protected by laws because there feet are on American soil, so we cant kill them or beat and abuse them here, but we sure can fuck them up over there, no laws against that.
> Almost everyone in America has had some kind of dealing or altercation with an Iranian here in America .................. but we must exercise restraint or go to jail, we want revenge, and we will have it.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to work with an Iranian architect who had jewish friends that just hated Israeli's.
> 
> Attacking Iran is illegal and there are laws against it.
Click to expand...


Funny you say "attacking Iran is illegal and there are laws against it." Could you provide a link where these laws are published. I am pretty sure if America wants to attack someone, they will do it. Who in the world is going to stop us? We spend more on our military than the next 12 countries combined, INCLUDING Russia and China. 

There is one thing that America should fight for, and that is the security of future generations. Iran with nukes jeopardizes many lives, and if there is something that we can do to prevent it, it is our duty to do so.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting closer and closer.... not too late yet for  terrorist Iran to come to its senses, it still has a few weeks  for averting military action... but time is running out quick!
> 
> 
> This is the same bullshit we went through leading up to the Iraq war.
> 
> I can't believe people are actually stupid enough to believe this garbage again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the difference between Iraq and Iran is that when we were going to war with Iraq, there were IAEA reports that were contrary to what the Bush Administration was stating. Its just that those reports never made any wide coverage. Also, there was plenty of "grey" areas surrounding Iraq.
> 
> With Iran, there is actual tangible evidence that supports the international community's theory that they are attempting to develop nukes. Their Fordow site is raising huge suspicion in the IAEA since they are denied entrance the this facility. They also have enriched uranium to around 25-35% already. Then Iran announces that they are installing a whole new round (8,000) of centrifuges which is believed to be able to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
> 
> I think there are major differences in Iraq and Iran. However, our legitimacy and credibility were damaged with the Iraq war. That is going to make it hard for us to claim legitimacy in attacking Iran. However, I feel that stopping a dangerous group of people from obtaining such a detrimental weapon should be worthy of military force, if all else fails. And it seems that the negotiations, and economic sanctions are not stopping the regime. That only leaves us with one option.
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> Even if we cannot prove it 100% yet, we must be ready to strike if we discover they are close to developing a nuke.


That's illegal.  You cannot attack a country that hasn't attacked you first.  Otherwise, it's a war of aggression, no different than the nazis going into Poland.



WethePeopleUS said:


> For if a weapon with such destruction should fall into the hands of the  Iranian regime, and then subsequently Hezbollah, it will be a dark day for the world. That is a risk that I would not be willing to take.


Iran is a signatory to the _*"Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".*_


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> Funny you say "attacking Iran is illegal and there are laws against it." Could you provide a link where these laws are published.


Article 51 of the UN Charter.



WethePeopleUS said:


> I am pretty sure if America wants to attack someone, they will do it. Who in the world is going to stop us? We spend more on our military than the next 12 countries combined, INCLUDING Russia and China.


If we attack Iran, it will put us in a direct military confrontation with Russia.  And if we fight Russia, we also fight China, because of their defense pact.  Those two country's can stop us.  In fact, they can barbacue this country in less than a 1/2 hour.  Are you willing to risk that?



WethePeopleUS said:


> There is one thing that America should fight for, and that is the security of future generations. Iran with nukes jeopardizes many lives, and if there is something that we can do to prevent it, it is our duty to do so.


We have enough nukes to kill the entire population of the world 37 times.

I think we're pretty secure.


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> I think the difference between Iraq and Iran is that when we were going to war with Iraq, there were IAEA reports that were contrary to what the Bush Administration was stating. Its just that those reports never made any wide coverage. Also, there was plenty of "grey" areas surrounding Iraq.
> 
> With Iran, there is actual tangible evidence that supports the international community's theory that they are attempting to develop nukes. Their Fordow site is raising huge suspicion in the IAEA since they are denied entrance the this facility. They also have enriched uranium to around 25-35% already. Then Iran announces that they are installing a whole new round (8,000) of centrifuges which is believed to be able to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
> 
> I think there are major differences in Iraq and Iran. However, our legitimacy and credibility were damaged with the Iraq war. That is going to make it hard for us to claim legitimacy in attacking Iran. However, I feel that stopping a dangerous group of people from obtaining such a detrimental weapon should be worthy of military force, if all else fails. And it seems that the negotiations, and economic sanctions are not stopping the regime. That only leaves us with one option.


No one has provided any smoking gun showing they've weaponized their nuclear program.  The last 3 NIE's all said they haven't.  Leon Panetta said they hadn't.  Until it can be proven their program has been weaponized, there is no sense in talking about what we're gonna do if that's the case.

It is strange people calling Iran a threat, when they haven't attacked another country in over 200 years.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we cannot prove it 100% yet, we must be ready to strike if we discover they are close to developing a nuke.
> 
> 
> 
> That's illegal.  You cannot attack a country that hasn't attacked you first.  Otherwise, it's a war of aggression, no different than the nazis going into Poland.
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> For if a weapon with such destruction should fall into the hands of the  Iranian regime, and then subsequently Hezbollah, it will be a dark day for the world. That is a risk that I would not be willing to take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran is a signatory to the _*"Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".*_
Click to expand...


Actually in the case for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation there are six criteria for the attack to be justified, according to the modern just war principle: just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and finally, proportionality. 

And Iran wouldn't be the first country in the world who was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and broke away from it right before they announced they were going to test their first bomb. North Korea is a prime example. So just because they are a party to the NPT doesn't mean they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and are using the treaty as a shield. 

The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - NORTH KOREA'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY

This is a link from 2003 when North Korea announced their withdrawal from the NPT.


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> Actually in the case for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation there are six criteria for the attack to be justified, according to the modern just war principle: just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and finally, proportionality.


I'm sorry, but that is just not true.  According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, there are only two legal ways one country can attack another:

if you yourself are attacked (or the attack is imminent)
you receive UNSC authorization to do so
Any other reason is a war of aggression.




WethePeopleUS said:


> And Iran wouldn't be the first country in the world who was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and broke away from it right before they announced they were going to test their first bomb. North Korea is a prime example. So just because they are a party to the NPT doesn't mean they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and are using the treaty as a shield.
> 
> The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - NORTH KOREA'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY
> 
> This is a link from 2003 when North Korea announced their withdrawal from the NPT.


Israel hasn't signed that treaty and they won't allow UN inspectors onto their sites.  I would be more worried about their nukes than I would about the possibility of Iran's.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you say "attacking Iran is illegal and there are laws against it." Could you provide a link where these laws are published.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 51 of the UN Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure if America wants to attack someone, they will do it. Who in the world is going to stop us? We spend more on our military than the next 12 countries combined, INCLUDING Russia and China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we attack Iran, it will put us in a direct military confrontation with Russia.  And if we fight Russia, we also fight China, because of their defense pact.  Those two country's can stop us.  In fact, they can barbacue this country in less than a 1/2 hour.  Are you willing to risk that?
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing that America should fight for, and that is the security of future generations. Iran with nukes jeopardizes many lives, and if there is something that we can do to prevent it, it is our duty to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have enough nukes to kill the entire population of the world 37 times.
> 
> I think we're pretty secure.
Click to expand...


First-There is no way Russia would realistically get involved. Their military has been rapidly corroding over time, and they have even said themselves recently that it was nowhere near the American military. They have stated that they need to invest billions to bring their military up to par with ours. Second- China, will never enter a conflict with the U.S. on behalf of Iran. The rapid changes that China is going through, and with them showing signs of becoming a major world player because of the growing size of their economy, they would hardly do something to jeopardize that. The U.S. and Chinese economies are so heavily dependent on each other now, there is no way they would enter a military conflict with us. Thirdly- For you to say that China and Russia could stop us I implore you to do some research. The Pentagon has recently stated that America already has as many fighter jets as Russia and China combined. That being said, we have started incorporating the F-22 Raptors, which are the most elite fighter jets in the world. They are years ahead of any other jet in the world. America owns the air, and water and has for a long time. You need not play into the fear that America will be overthrown, or beaten by Russia and China. Have faith in what billions upon billions of dollars have gone into in order to protect us.

And yes, we hold 2/3 of all the worlds nukes. However, why would we allow a dangerous country to posses a weapon we are trying to get rid of. Every president sets out the country's nuclear plan for five years. Obama has made it his mission to reduce both the U.S. and Russia's massive arsenals, and also deter any other country from obtaining them. There are already too many countries now in the world that posses nukes. We do not need to have Iran, who is known for sponsoring terrorism, posses such a weapon.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the difference between Iraq and Iran is that when we were going to war with Iraq, there were IAEA reports that were contrary to what the Bush Administration was stating. Its just that those reports never made any wide coverage. Also, there was plenty of "grey" areas surrounding Iraq.
> 
> With Iran, there is actual tangible evidence that supports the international community's theory that they are attempting to develop nukes. Their Fordow site is raising huge suspicion in the IAEA since they are denied entrance the this facility. They also have enriched uranium to around 25-35% already. Then Iran announces that they are installing a whole new round (8,000) of centrifuges which is believed to be able to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
> 
> I think there are major differences in Iraq and Iran. However, our legitimacy and credibility were damaged with the Iraq war. That is going to make it hard for us to claim legitimacy in attacking Iran. However, I feel that stopping a dangerous group of people from obtaining such a detrimental weapon should be worthy of military force, if all else fails. And it seems that the negotiations, and economic sanctions are not stopping the regime. That only leaves us with one option.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has provided any smoking gun showing they've weaponized their nuclear program.  The last 3 NIE's all said they haven't.  Leon Panetta said they hadn't.  Until it can be proven their program has been weaponized, there is no sense in talking about what we're gonna do if that's the case.
> 
> It is strange people calling Iran a threat, when they haven't attacked another country in over 200 years.
Click to expand...


You are right, there has been no "smoking gun" so to say. But the past 3 IAEA reports you speak of all have said that their reports are inconclusive because they had to tell Iran prior to them arriving in the country (which gives them time to move things around, and alter the soil near the sites so the testing results show lower radiation) and the shadiest move by Iran is strictly forbidding IAEA inspectors to visit their Fordow site. If you had nothing to hide, and your nuclear program was strictly for power and medicinal purposes, why would you deny the very people who could clear your name entrance to an important site? I don't think I need to answer that question, for there is only one answer. 

Iran the country as we know now has only been around since 1979. And since their creation they have supported terrorist groups around the world with money and equipment. One of their most well know surrogate groups, I'm sure you've heard of them, Hezbollah, have carried out numerous attacks against Israel. And I think I remember Iran saying it vowed to see the destruction of Israel. So, if we allow them to acquire nukes, and pass them off to their surrogate group(s), we can kiss thousands, even millions of people good-bye. I wouldn't want that blood on my hands, knowing I could have done something to prevent it.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the case for a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation there are six criteria for the attack to be justified, according to the modern just war principle: just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and finally, proportionality.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is just not true.  According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, there are only two legal ways one country can attack another:
> 
> if you yourself are attacked (or the attack is imminent)
> you receive UNSC authorization to do so
> Any other reason is a war of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Iran wouldn't be the first country in the world who was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and broke away from it right before they announced they were going to test their first bomb. North Korea is a prime example. So just because they are a party to the NPT doesn't mean they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and are using the treaty as a shield.
> 
> The American Society of International Law ASIL Insights - NORTH KOREA'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY
> 
> This is a link from 2003 when North Korea announced their withdrawal from the NPT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel hasn't signed that treaty and they won't allow UN inspectors onto their sites.  I would be more worried about their nukes than I would about the possibility of Iran's.
Click to expand...


I am telling you what is considered justified in the academic/scholarly world. Now I know everyone would like to think that the UN is the world's government, but the fact remains they fall short of enforcing anything. Let me provide you with an example. When Colin Powell went to the UN to plead the U.S.'s case against Iraq, the UN voted against the U.S. using military force against Iraq. We did not have enough clear evidence to support our claim. Did that stop us? Did China and Russia run into Iraq and protect Saddam? No. Not a single country a party to the UN stepped in our way. We unleashed one of the largest bombing campaigns in history, and not one country stepped in to help Saddam. Now I ask you. What was the purpose of the UN. For if we went their for their approval, got denied, and went to war anyway without any repercussion, wouldn't you agree that the UN failed? Therefore the UN can say what they will about what is "legal" grounds for war. But the fact remains that if Iran shows signs of getting close to obtaining the most dangerous weapon known to man, we will stop them.


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> I am telling you what is considered justified in the academic/scholarly world. Now I know everyone would like to think that the UN is the world's government, but the fact remains they fall short of enforcing anything. Let me provide you with an example. When Colin Powell went to the UN to plead the U.S.'s case against Iraq, the UN voted against the U.S. using military force against Iraq. We did not have enough clear evidence to support our claim. Did that stop us? Did China and Russia run into Iraq and protect Saddam? No. Not a single country a party to the UN stepped in our way. We unleashed one of the largest bombing campaigns in history, and not one country stepped in to help Saddam. Now I ask you. What was the purpose of the UN. For if we went their for their approval, got denied, and went to war anyway without any repercussion, wouldn't you agree that the UN failed? Therefore the UN can say what they will about what is "legal" grounds for war. But the fact remains that if Iran shows signs of getting close to obtaining the most dangerous weapon known to man, we will stop them.


The trouble is, us going into Iraq, is no different that the German's invading Poland.  And ever since the end of WWII, wars of aggression have been codified as crimes against humanity. Have you heard of the Nuremberg Principles?  Well, we co-authored those.  How does that make us look by violating an international law we co-wrote?

The fact is, we are a nation based on the rule of law.  That is part of what makes up being an American.  That's who we are.  When you respect the law, you are demonstrating American values.  People that advocate lawlessness, might as well be German.

Article 51, is a treaty Congress ratified.  That means it carry's the same weight as the US Constitution.  And by violating that, we violated the Constitution.

The worst thing about the Iraq war is that we're going to whind up payine over $6 trillion tax payer dollars on this bullshit war, without getting anything in return.


----------



## ima

Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.


----------



## Bill Angel

Rct_Tsoul said:


> Bill Angel, ill say it again, America just want to fuck them up simply because we don't like them.
> These fuckers from Iran here in the United States are the most irritating dumb fucks of the land, but they are protected by laws because there feet are on American soil, so we cant kill them or beat and abuse them here, but we sure can fuck them up over there, no laws against that.
> Almost everyone in America has had some kind of dealing or altercation with an Iranian here in America .................. but we must exercise restraint or go to jail, we want revenge, and we will have it.


I believe that  there is evidence to refute categorical assertions that Iranians in the USA are "irritating dumb fucks".

List of Iranian Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The link is to a list of notable Iranian-Americans of all Iranian ethnic backgrounds, including both original immigrants who obtained American citizenship and their American descendants.


----------



## hoosier88

Iran may be a direct threat to Israel.  Certainly their rhetoric is aimed @ Israel & the US - but we are far away, & Iran simply doesn't have a weapons delivery system @ this point.  Nor do they have the miniaturized nuke that would need to sit atop an ICBM.

We - the US & UK - helped create the Ayatollah regime in Iran.  We deposed a freely elected nationalist PM who nationalized the UK oil concession.  & we overthrew the PM so that UK could have "its" oil.  

If Iran has become a rogue regime, it's because the League of Nations & UN failed them.  Once their PM was overthrown, the Iranians understood their position.  (The US had been admired throughout the Middle East, up to that point.)  The Israelis have helped train the Islamists - with the terrorist campaign against the UK & UN in Palestine, the various wars & campaigns in Lebanon & elsewhere, the strikes @ Syrian & Iraqi reactors, targeted assassinations & on & on.  

I don't see the US risking a general war in the defense of Israel.  The parties in the Middle East need to come to some reasonable resolution of their issues.


----------



## ima

An Iran-Israel all out war would make for good TV.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am telling you what is considered justified in the academic/scholarly world. Now I know everyone would like to think that the UN is the world's government, but the fact remains they fall short of enforcing anything. Let me provide you with an example. When Colin Powell went to the UN to plead the U.S.'s case against Iraq, the UN voted against the U.S. using military force against Iraq. We did not have enough clear evidence to support our claim. Did that stop us? Did China and Russia run into Iraq and protect Saddam? No. Not a single country a party to the UN stepped in our way. We unleashed one of the largest bombing campaigns in history, and not one country stepped in to help Saddam. Now I ask you. What was the purpose of the UN. For if we went their for their approval, got denied, and went to war anyway without any repercussion, wouldn't you agree that the UN failed? Therefore the UN can say what they will about what is "legal" grounds for war. But the fact remains that if Iran shows signs of getting close to obtaining the most dangerous weapon known to man, we will stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble is, us going into Iraq, is no different that the German's invading Poland.  And ever since the end of WWII, wars of aggression have been codified as crimes against humanity. Have you heard of the Nuremberg Principles?  Well, we co-authored those.  How does that make us look by violating an international law we co-wrote?
> 
> The fact is, we are a nation based on the rule of law.  That is part of what makes up being an American.  That's who we are.  When you respect the law, you are demonstrating American values.  People that advocate lawlessness, might as well be German.
> 
> Article 51, is a treaty Congress ratified.  That means it carry's the same weight as the US Constitution.  And by violating that, we violated the Constitution.
> 
> The worst thing about the Iraq war is that we're going to whind up payine over $6 trillion tax payer dollars on this bullshit war, without getting anything in return.
Click to expand...


I would be extremely careful comparing a treaty that Congress ratified to the U.S. Constitution. They are far from the same.


----------



## varelse

Not really. Treaties become the law of the land, arguably equal to- or even superseding- COTUS, as the United States lose the ability to pass any law contrary to that treaty- for example, we can't use hollowpoints in war because we agreed to treaties prohibiting it


----------



## WethePeopleUS

varelse said:


> Not really. Treaties become the law of the land, arguably equal to- or even superseding- COTUS, as the United States lose the ability to pass any law contrary to that treaty- for example, we can't use hollowpoints in war because we agreed to treaties prohibiting it



I beg to differ. Treaties can be nullified, sometimes with ease. Try and nullify the Constitution, or even a part of it, and see what happens lol!


----------



## WethePeopleUS

ima said:


> Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.



Don't know what drugs you are on but Iran has never "kicked our ass" lol


----------



## varelse

WethePeopleUS said:


> Try and nullify the Constitution, or even a part of it, and see what happens lol!






Have you recently tried making and selling firearms within state?


----------



## WethePeopleUS

varelse said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try and nullify the Constitution, or even a part of it, and see what happens lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you recently tried making and selling firearms within state?
Click to expand...


Look I am a huge gun supporter. I grew up hunting, and shooting guns. And still, I agree with most of the laws they are trying to pass. I'm sorry but civilians should not be able to buy AR-15's with 50 round mags. I would propose to the feds that licensed gun ranges could carry the "assault weapons" and high round mags so if you wanted to shoot one, you could still do so. Also, the feds are proposing stricter background checks. What a violation of our 2nd Amendment (sarcasm). I am surprised they didn't have more thorough background checks already. Where in the new laws or restrictions (whatever you want to call it), is the government saying citizens cannot buy or own firearms? When our country has some of the highest gun-related crimes in the world, I would say we need to do something. Not every citizen in our country is fit to own a firearm, and I am not sad to say that. 

But in my opinion, the government is using the band-aid approach where they try and do a a "quick fix" and think that is going to solve the problem. You can ban certain guns and mags, but you can't ban crazy. Even if we ban all firearms in the country, people are still going to find other means for killing people. Ban guns, people will start using bombs or other tools. So obviously banning the instrument used to commit murder will not get rid of why people want to kill. We need to address why there are people, especially kids out there, that are willing to kill as many people as they can before they themselves get killed.  

And in answer to your question, yes, I just recently bought a new Remington 12-guage shotgun. Wasn't that hard. I had to wait longer than 15 minutes, but luckily I don't get mad at that.


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> I would be extremely careful comparing a treaty that Congress ratified to the U.S. Constitution. They are far from the same.


I'm not comparing anything!  The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution itself say's any treaty ratified by Congress shall be given the same weight as the Supreme Law of the Land.  That's what it say's.  Article 51 has been ratified by Congress.  That treaty, has the same weight as the Constitution.  And in that light, you can't just arbitrarily disregard it when convenient.  In order to change anything in the Constitution, you have to have a Constitutional Convention.  Congress can't just enact a law (or repeal one) that is un-Constitutional.

In addition to Article 51, there are the Nuremberg Principles, which makes a war of aggression, the highest crime a nation could commit.  And a "war of choice", is a "war of aggression".  You do not "choose" to go to war.  That's what the nazis did.  And that's why it's illegal.  You go to war because you have no other choice.  And as citizens, we owe it to the troops to make sure that when we put them in harms way,   we only do so as a last resort.

BTW, we co-authored the Nuremberg Principles and most of the UN Charter.  It doesn't reflect well on us not following laws we co-wrote.


----------



## Billo_Really

ima said:


> An Iran-Israel all out war would make for good TV.


They should have a reality show of all the underground party's in Iran.  70% of the population is under 30 and as the following video shows, they're no different than we were in our 20's.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulm4Gj406E8]illegal Rave Party in Iran - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be extremely careful comparing a treaty that Congress ratified to the U.S. Constitution. They are far from the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not comparing anything!  The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution itself say's any treaty ratified by Congress shall be given the same weight as the Supreme Law of the Land.  That's what it say's.  Article 51 has been ratified by Congress.  That treaty, has the same weight as the Constitution.  And in that light, you can't just arbitrarily disregard it when convenient.  In order to change anything in the Constitution, you have to have a Constitutional Convention.  Congress can't just enact a law (or repeal one) that is un-Constitutional.
> 
> In addition to Article 51, there are the Nuremberg Principles, which makes a war of aggression, the highest crime a nation could commit.  And a "war of choice", is a "war of aggression".  You do not "choose" to go to war.  That's what the nazis did.  And that's why it's illegal.  You go to war because you have no other choice.  And as citizens, we owe it to the troops to make sure that when we put them in harms way,   we only do so as a last resort.
> 
> BTW, we co-authored the Nuremberg Principles and most of the UN Charter.  It doesn't reflect well on us not following laws we co-wrote.
Click to expand...


Yea I understand all of that, but you seem to live in an "ideal" kind of world. I see you saying a lot of things we hypothetically cannot do. That would be great if everyone, including ourselves, followed the rules. However that is far from the reality of the situation. For example, when we started fighting the guerrilla campaign in Iraq, we starting committing violations of the Geneva Convention. We were torturing people, killing indiscriminately, and other violations. How we got away with this without any of our troops or senior officials getting tried in an international court is by saying that we were fighting an enemy that did not abide by the Geneva Convention, so in turn we did not have to follow it. We said we were not going to afford the enemy a luxury they did not afford us. Nobody in the international community argued to loud. When Bush and his administration went to war with Iraq, which was clearly a war of aggression, nobody in his administration, including Bush himself, got tried for violation of international law. So you see my friend, in reality we lay out the laws for us and the rest of the world to follow, and we chose to follow them when it best suits us. Military areas is not the only place we do what we want, when we want. Look at the case where Brazil sued the U.S. at the World Trade Organization over US cotton farmers getting favored in the world market. We really just do what we want. Here is a link to that story if you get bored one day. Its long and wordy lol:

WTO | dispute settlement - the disputes - DS267


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> Yea I understand all of that, but you seem to live in an "ideal" kind of world. I see you saying a lot of things we hypothetically cannot do. That would be great if everyone, including ourselves, followed the rules.


I look at it from the point that we are a country based on the rule of law.  

So it freaks me out when we act so hypocritically about it.




WethePeopleUS said:


> However that is far from the reality of the situation.


Sad, but true.



WethePeopleUS said:


> For example, when we started fighting the guerrilla campaign in Iraq, we starting committing violations of the Geneva Convention. We were torturing people, killing indiscriminately, and other violations. How we got away with this without any of our troops or senior officials getting tried in an international court is by saying that we were fighting an enemy that did not abide by the Geneva Convention, so in turn we did not have to follow it.  We said we were not going to afford the enemy a luxury they did not afford us.


I know that's what went down, but we were required to abide by the GC.  All war crimes are treated as stand alone issues.  It's done deliberately to prevent the argument you just used.  According to IHL, just because one side commits war crimes, that doesn't give the other side the right to commit them as well.



WethePeopleUS said:


> Nobody in the international community argued to loud.


Oh they did.  The media didn't cover much of it.



WethePeopleUS said:


> When Bush and his administration went to war with Iraq, which was clearly a war of aggression, nobody in his administration, including Bush himself, got tried for violation of international law.


He was convicted in a Malaysian tribunal.  But it was just ceremonial and had no teeth to it.

Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes in Malaysia Tribunal: Complete Text of Judgment



WethePeopleUS said:


> So you see my friend, in reality we lay out the laws for us and the rest of the world to follow, and we chose to follow them when it best suits us.


I hate to agree with that, but I do.



WethePeopleUS said:


> Military areas is not the only place we do what we want, when we want. Look at the case where Brazil sued the U.S. at the World Trade Organization over US cotton farmers getting favored in the world market. We really just do what we want. Here is a link to that story if you get bored one day. Its long and wordy lol:
> 
> WTO | dispute settlement - the disputes - DS267


We don't have too much clout in the WTO.  They fuck us a lot!


----------



## ima

WethePeopleUS said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what drugs you are on but Iran has never "kicked our ass" lol
Click to expand...


1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

ima said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what drugs you are on but Iran has never "kicked our ass" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.
Click to expand...



Was Iran able to influence an American Presidential election by holding our citizens as hostages: yes. I hardly see how that is "kicking our ass." 

Did the Iranian military, or civilians "shoot down our rescue operation:" NO.
You have no legitimacy when saying that. Our helicopters never even made it to Tehran because the weather effected our choppers ability to fly and numerous technical failures.

So I am still confused how Iran kicked our ass twice. That statement would imply that the U.S. and Iran went toe-to-toe twice and the U.S. got their ass kicked both times lol. There is just no truth in that statement.


----------



## varelse

WethePeopleUS said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try and nullify the Constitution, or even a part of it, and see what happens lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you recently tried making and selling firearms within state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look I am a huge gun supporter. I grew up hunting, and shooting guns. And still, I agree with most of the laws they are trying to pass. I'm sorry but civilians should not be able to buy AR-15's with 50 round mags. I would propose to the feds that licensed gun ranges could carry the "assault weapons" and high round mags so if you wanted to shoot one, you could still do so. Also, the feds are proposing stricter background checks. What a violation of our 2nd Amendment (sarcasm). I am surprised they didn't have more thorough background checks already. Where in the new laws or restrictions (whatever you want to call it), is the government saying citizens cannot buy or own firearms? When our country has some of the highest gun-related crimes in the world, I would say we need to do something. Not every citizen in our country is fit to own a firearm, and I am not sad to say that.
> 
> But in my opinion, the government is using the band-aid approach where they try and do a a "quick fix" and think that is going to solve the problem. You can ban certain guns and mags, but you can't ban crazy. Even if we ban all firearms in the country, people are still going to find other means for killing people. Ban guns, people will start using bombs or other tools. So obviously banning the instrument used to commit murder will not get rid of why people want to kill. We need to address why there are people, especially kids out there, that are willing to kill as many people as they can before they themselves get killed.
> 
> And in answer to your question, yes, I just recently bought a new Remington 12-guage shotgun. Wasn't that hard. I had to wait longer than 15 minutes, but luckily I don't get mad at that.
Click to expand...


Try reading that again, slowly and for comprehension.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

varelse said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you recently tried making and selling firearms within state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look I am a huge gun supporter. I grew up hunting, and shooting guns. And still, I agree with most of the laws they are trying to pass. I'm sorry but civilians should not be able to buy AR-15's with 50 round mags. I would propose to the feds that licensed gun ranges could carry the "assault weapons" and high round mags so if you wanted to shoot one, you could still do so. Also, the feds are proposing stricter background checks. What a violation of our 2nd Amendment (sarcasm). I am surprised they didn't have more thorough background checks already. Where in the new laws or restrictions (whatever you want to call it), is the government saying citizens cannot buy or own firearms? When our country has some of the highest gun-related crimes in the world, I would say we need to do something. Not every citizen in our country is fit to own a firearm, and I am not sad to say that.
> 
> But in my opinion, the government is using the band-aid approach where they try and do a a "quick fix" and think that is going to solve the problem. You can ban certain guns and mags, but you can't ban crazy. Even if we ban all firearms in the country, people are still going to find other means for killing people. Ban guns, people will start using bombs or other tools. So obviously banning the instrument used to commit murder will not get rid of why people want to kill. We need to address why there are people, especially kids out there, that are willing to kill as many people as they can before they themselves get killed.
> 
> And in answer to your question, yes, I just recently bought a new Remington 12-guage shotgun. Wasn't that hard. I had to wait longer than 15 minutes, but luckily I don't get mad at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading that again, slowly and for comprehension.
Click to expand...


Ohhhh excuse me. No I haven't made a gun in about 40 years, and I don't sell guns, I buy them.


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> Was Iran able to influence an American Presidential election by holding our citizens as hostages: yes. I hardly see how that is "kicking our ass."
> 
> Did the Iranian military, or civilians "shoot down our rescue operation:" NO.
> You have no legitimacy when saying that. Our helicopters never even made it to Tehran because the weather effected our choppers ability to fly and numerous technical failures.
> 
> So I am still confused how Iran kicked our ass twice. That statement would imply that the U.S. and Iran went toe-to-toe twice and the U.S. got their ass kicked both times lol. There is just no truth in that statement.


Didn't the choppers run into each other?


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> Ohhhh excuse me. No I haven't made a gun in about 40 years, and I don't sell guns, I buy them.


You seem to be pretty rational for a gun guy?

I'm not sure I can handle a gun guy who's_*..................normal!*_


----------



## ima

I say: who cares if Iran nukes Israel? Not me.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Iran able to influence an American Presidential election by holding our citizens as hostages: yes. I hardly see how that is "kicking our ass."
> 
> Did the Iranian military, or civilians "shoot down our rescue operation:" NO.
> You have no legitimacy when saying that. Our helicopters never even made it to Tehran because the weather effected our choppers ability to fly and numerous technical failures.
> 
> So I am still confused how Iran kicked our ass twice. That statement would imply that the U.S. and Iran went toe-to-toe twice and the U.S. got their ass kicked both times lol. There is just no truth in that statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't the choppers run into each other?
Click to expand...


Something like that. There was a bad sand storm on the night they decided to go with the operation. This caused extremely low visibility, and the choppers could not handle the sand that they had to navigate through. One of the choppers did run into another chopper, and crashed, and after numerous other technical difficulties, the mission was aborted.


----------



## Nosmo King

A few important things to think about:

Should the U.S. attack Iran, will we be ready willing and able to finish the job?  Would that include boots on the ground and full on regime change?  And if that's the case, would Conservatives consent to a tax increase to pay for it, or would they insist on the Bush model and run up the debt unnecessarily?

And do you consider Iran a bigger genuine threat than the former U.S.S.R.?  Surely the Soviets had a larger, more deadly arsenal at their disposal.  We contained the Soviets for forty years after they developed the hydrogen bomb.  Could we contain Iran the same way?

War ain't a game and it ain't a salon discussion of political consequences.  It's all too terrible to enter into naively.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

loinboy said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh excuse me. No I haven't made a gun in about 40 years, and I don't sell guns, I buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be pretty rational for a gun guy?
> 
> I'm sure I can handle a gun guy who's_*..................normal!*_
Click to expand...


haha say what you want. I got my first gun when I was 8 years old. I was raised to respect them, and not use them for anything but the protection of your home, and for hunting. I have never been arrested, especially for a gun-related crime. I am 26 years old and own 7 guns: 2 pistols, 3 shotguns, and 2 rifles. I respect guns and know the dangers than can cause. So you know what, your right, I'm not "normal." The majority, or normal people, are going crazy over the government tampering with their 2nd amendment (even though they really aren't), and are making statements like, "you can have my guns over my dead body." They are throwing a fit. States are threatening to not uphold federal law, which is treason, because of them thinking they are gonna have their guns taken away. That seems to be the norm these days lol. Wheeww. I'm glad I'm not normal.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Nosmo King said:


> A few important things to think about:
> 
> Should the U.S. attack Iran, will we be ready willing and able to finish the job?  Would that include boots on the ground and full on regime change?  And if that's the case, would Conservatives consent to a tax increase to pay for it, or would they insist on the Bush model and run up the debt unnecessarily?
> 
> And do you consider Iran a bigger genuine threat than the former U.S.S.R.?  Surely the Soviets had a larger, more deadly arsenal at their disposal.  We contained the Soviets for forty years after they developed the hydrogen bomb.  Could we contain Iran the same way?
> 
> War ain't a game and it ain't a salon discussion of political consequences.  It's all too terrible to enter into naively.



Thank you for that post. It was very insightful. I would like to build on your statements if I could. I think the big difference between the situation we were facing during the Cold War, and the situation we are facing today with Iran is the value of life. I think the Soviet regime actually valued life. They did not want to die, not really, otherwise we (U.S. and Soviet Union) would have wiped each other out during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mean that was a situation where both countries had their finger on the trigger, and after a long day of deliberation, Kennedy decided to listen to one of his advisers that was telling him not to go that far. I think with Iran, and many other places in the Middle-East, is the fact that they do not value human life. We can see it in the way they treat the people in their country, especially women. Women are seen as less than human. As objects of reproduction and slavery to the men of the house. They definitely have no value for those who are non-Muslims. Iran has supplied numerous rockets and missiles to Hezbollah so that they could turn around and attack Israel. Who knows if Iran develops a nuke, and supplies it to their surrogate terrorist group (s), what will come of it. We all know the rhetoric of the Iranian regime, is to wipe Israel and the U.S. off the map. I am not so worried about us, as I am Israel. I have no personal ties to Israel. I have no relatives there, and I am not Jewish. The reason I am standing up for Israel, is the fact that I value life. I would not want to see hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people get slaughtered, if we (the U.S.) could have done something to stop it. I do not know how I would live with myself if Iran were able to pull off an attack sometime down the road, where thousands of people died, and I chose to do nothing to prevent it, when I had the chance. I would not want that blood on my hands. If we are in a position to head atrocities from happening, I think that we should. Not only as Americans, but as human beings. We are all the same when it comes down to it, just different ideas, and that what makes humans so unique. I will continue to stand up for humanity, and stand against all those who seek to destroy it. I think it comes down to doing the right thing. And the protection of an entire country is the right thing in my opinion. 

Further, I am not so sure we would have to put ground troops in Iran. From what I have heard (which I know is minimal) the Department of Defense has stated that precision bombing of their nuclear sites is what is going to happen. The DoD has stated that it does not intend to involve the Iranian population, nor have I heard of a regime change. The bombing I think is more or less a message to the Iranian government that we will not allow them to possess a nuclear bomb of any sort. And if we only bombed the nuclear sites, what is Iran going to do? Invade America (lmao) or Israel (lol). I hardly think so because they are dealing with so many internal issues, such as rising inflation and a deteriorating economy due to the toughest round of sanctions ever imposed on a country. 
I know this all could change the instant we drop bombs in Iran, but for right now, that is the information at hand. And we also have to think about the fact that Iran, since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, has pushed our buttons and threatened us. We have never pushed back, which I think makes Iran perceive us as a paper tiger. All bark and no bite. So we have gotten to the point now in 2013 where we have a country that thinks it can do whatever it wants, despite a majority of the international community condemn their actions. I think that maybe once we show them that we are serious about this, and are not playing games where we shout back and forth at each other, they will fall into line. Lets look at it from the Iranian stand point: if we show we are willing to use force to stop them from obtaining a nuke, how much do they really want to risk to develop one. If they are sitting there thinking all the U.S. does is yell, and never follows it up (well at least with Iran), what is their incentive for stopping the program. Even with the economic sanctions, I can bet the government isn't feeling them. It is the citizens that are feeling them. But if we show the Iranians that were are not playing a game, and we mean business about this, even to go as far as bombing their nuclear sites, then maybe they will reconsider their position. 

Who knows lol it is such a tricky situation. But anyway you look at it, a nuclear armed Iran is a bad situation for the entire world, not just the U.S., and we should not allow that to happen. We are not alone in this endevour either. There are numerous countries that do not want to see a nuclear armed Iran.


----------



## ima

We have even less reason to attack Iran than we did to attack Iraq.


----------



## Too Tall

hoosier88 said:


> Ever since the resurgence of Ayatollah Khomeini, the US has apparently deliberately blinded itself on events in Iran.  We didn't run intel nets in Iran under the Shah - he didn't want us to.  Our nets under Prexy Truman ran better, & Truman refused to join with UK in deposing PM Mossadegh over the oil concession.  The Brit PM approached Prexy-elect Eisenhower in terms of warding off Soviet interest in Iran, & he bit (he also had the Dulles bros. @ Dept. State & CIA, champing @ the bit to do something or other about the Cold War).
> 
> Iran was actually cooperating with us after 09/11, helping us connect with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan & sundry other items of interest.  Right up until Prexy *W* declared them to be part of the Axis of Evil.  Everything slid off the rails right there, as you can imagine.  So - we know v. little about the inner workings of the Iranian gov. because we don't want to know.  We don't have humint running there - TMK, & I really wouldn't expect to know about those nets unless things went seriously wrong.
> 
> I'm sure we do sigint, for all the good it does us.  But we don't have intel officers nor assets who speak Persian, Farsi, Pushtu, Kurdish - or not nearly enough.
> 
> The farm saying was:  "You don't give farm animals names, they're not pets, they're meat."  That's the only real explanation I can devise for our curious ignorance of the facts on the ground in Iran (& Iraq, & Afghanistan, & Pakistan ...)



I guess it was Bush's fault that the Shah was deposed, the Ayatollah installed and our Embassy was invaded and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.


----------



## Nosmo King

WethePeopleUS said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few important things to think about:
> 
> Should the U.S. attack Iran, will we be ready willing and able to finish the job?  Would that include boots on the ground and full on regime change?  And if that's the case, would Conservatives consent to a tax increase to pay for it, or would they insist on the Bush model and run up the debt unnecessarily?
> 
> And do you consider Iran a bigger genuine threat than the former U.S.S.R.?  Surely the Soviets had a larger, more deadly arsenal at their disposal.  We contained the Soviets for forty years after they developed the hydrogen bomb.  Could we contain Iran the same way?
> 
> War ain't a game and it ain't a salon discussion of political consequences.  It's all too terrible to enter into naively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that post. It was very insightful. I would like to build on your statements if I could. I think the big difference between the situation we were facing during the Cold War, and the situation we are facing today with Iran is the value of life. I think the Soviet regime actually valued life. They did not want to die, not really, otherwise we (U.S. and Soviet Union) would have wiped each other out during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mean that was a situation where both countries had their finger on the trigger, and after a long day of deliberation, Kennedy decided to listen to one of his advisers that was telling him not to go that far. I think with Iran, and many other places in the Middle-East, is the fact that they do not value human life. We can see it in the way they treat the people in their country, especially women. Women are seen as less than human. As objects of reproduction and slavery to the men of the house. They definitely have no value for those who are non-Muslims. Iran has supplied numerous rockets and missiles to Hezbollah so that they could turn around and attack Israel. Who knows if Iran develops a nuke, and supplies it to their surrogate terrorist group (s), what will come of it. We all know the rhetoric of the Iranian regime, is to wipe Israel and the U.S. off the map. I am not so worried about us, as I am Israel. I have no personal ties to Israel. I have no relatives there, and I am not Jewish. The reason I am standing up for Israel, is the fact that I value life. I would not want to see hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people get slaughtered, if we (the U.S.) could have done something to stop it. I do not know how I would live with myself if Iran were able to pull off an attack sometime down the road, where thousands of people died, and I chose to do nothing to prevent it, when I had the chance. I would not want that blood on my hands. If we are in a position to head atrocities from happening, I think that we should. Not only as Americans, but as human beings. We are all the same when it comes down to it, just different ideas, and that what makes humans so unique. I will continue to stand up for humanity, and stand against all those who seek to destroy it. I think it comes down to doing the right thing. And the protection of an entire country is the right thing in my opinion.
> 
> Further, I am not so sure we would have to put ground troops in Iran. From what I have heard (which I know is minimal) the Department of Defense has stated that precision bombing of their nuclear sites is what is going to happen. The DoD has stated that it does not intend to involve the Iranian population, nor have I heard of a regime change. The bombing I think is more or less a message to the Iranian government that we will not allow them to possess a nuclear bomb of any sort. And if we only bombed the nuclear sites, what is Iran going to do? Invade America (lmao) or Israel (lol). I hardly think so because they are dealing with so many internal issues, such as rising inflation and a deteriorating economy due to the toughest round of sanctions ever imposed on a country.
> I know this all could change the instant we drop bombs in Iran, but for right now, that is the information at hand. And we also have to think about the fact that Iran, since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, has pushed our buttons and threatened us. We have never pushed back, which I think makes Iran perceive us as a paper tiger. All bark and no bite. So we have gotten to the point now in 2013 where we have a country that thinks it can do whatever it wants, despite a majority of the international community condemn their actions. I think that maybe once we show them that we are serious about this, and are not playing games where we shout back and forth at each other, they will fall into line. Lets look at it from the Iranian stand point: if we show we are willing to use force to stop them from obtaining a nuke, how much do they really want to risk to develop one. If they are sitting there thinking all the U.S. does is yell, and never follows it up (well at least with Iran), what is their incentive for stopping the program. Even with the economic sanctions, I can bet the government isn't feeling them. It is the citizens that are feeling them. But if we show the Iranians that were are not playing a game, and we mean business about this, even to go as far as bombing their nuclear sites, then maybe they will reconsider their position.
> 
> Who knows lol it is such a tricky situation. But anyway you look at it, a nuclear armed Iran is a bad situation for the entire world, not just the U.S., and we should not allow that to happen. We are not alone in this endevour either. There are numerous countries that do not want to see a nuclear armed Iran.
Click to expand...

Your argument hinges on a supposition that the Iranians do not value human life.  You cite the plight of women as your paradigm.  Could our enemies during the Cold War make the same claim?  Certainly the United States did not value the lives of its Black citizens.  And the Soviets did not have a sterling record on human rights.

If that's the justification for attacking Iran, it really needs to be flushed out more thoroughly.  We cannot simply place a negative attribute on a nation like a bumper sticker on a pick up truck and call it true.

And surely attacking Iranian nuclear facilities would justify an Iranian response.  Even if there is no civilian co-lateral damage, any nation so provoked will surely try everything within their means to respond in kind.  

I admire your zeal to protect life.  But remember, our track record as a nation does not live up to your ideal.  We have already used nuclear weapons against civilians.  We have dumped tons of napalm on civilians.  We launch drone strikes that kill civilians.  Defending life with such a porous record will not _seem_ hypocritical, it will be hypocritical.

We have been provoked by other rogue nations before.  Libya, North Korea just to name two.  Yet we never blatantly attacked any nation until we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan ten years ago.  Are our options so few, our recourse so restricted, our foreign policy capitol so depleted that we would have to resort to attack?  Or is the imagination of Hawks and Neo-Cons so stoked that we will continue to lurch toward war if only to feel good about ourselves in some perverse way?


----------



## hoosier88

Too Tall said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since the resurgence of Ayatollah Khomeini, the US has apparently deliberately blinded itself on events in Iran.  We didn't run intel nets in Iran under the Shah - he didn't want us to.  Our nets under Prexy Truman ran better, & Truman refused to join with UK in deposing PM Mossadegh over the oil concession.  The Brit PM approached Prexy-elect Eisenhower in terms of warding off Soviet interest in Iran, & he bit (he also had the Dulles bros. @ Dept. State & CIA, champing @ the bit to do something or other about the Cold War).
> 
> ...
> The farm saying was:  "You don't give farm animals names, they're not pets, they're meat."  That's the only real explanation I can devise for our curious ignorance of the facts on the ground in Iran (& Iraq, & Afghanistan, & Pakistan ...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I* guess it was Bush's fault *that the Shah was deposed, the Ayatollah installed and our Embassy was invaded and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.
Click to expand...


(My bold) 

The Shah was deposed because he was unfit to rule his country.  He was uninformed about his countrymen's thoughts & feelings because he did not want to know them.  

We were blindsided because we installed the Shah - knowing that he was weak.  We listened to what he wanted in-country - he was selling oil & buying US weapons systems with the proceeds.  We hoped the ride would never end.  The Ayatollah Khomeini captured the government because the Shah & Savak made political disagreement a crime.  There was no other option for political resistance to take.

The hostages were held as long as they were partially because Candidate Reagan's campaign cut a deal with Iran - hold on to the hostages, it's helping my candidacy.  Later, in Iran/Contra, we saw how that played out.


----------



## Billo_Really

WethePeopleUS said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh excuse me. No I haven't made a gun in about 40 years, and I don't sell guns, I buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be pretty rational for a gun guy?
> 
> I'm [not] sure I can handle a gun guy who's_*..................normal!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> haha say what you want. I got my first gun when I was 8 years old. I was raised to respect them, and not use them for anything but the protection of your home, and for hunting. I have never been arrested, especially for a gun-related crime. I am 26 years old and own 7 guns: 2 pistols, 3 shotguns, and 2 rifles. I respect guns and know the dangers than can cause. So you know what, your right, I'm not "normal." The majority, or normal people, are going crazy over the government tampering with their 2nd amendment (even though they really aren't), and are making statements like, "you can have my guns over my dead body." They are throwing a fit. States are threatening to not uphold federal law, which is treason, because of them thinking they are gonna have their guns taken away. That seems to be the norm these days lol. Wheeww. I'm glad I'm not normal.
Click to expand...

I just realized a mistake I made in my post which changed the whole meaning of what I was intending to say.

Sorry, my bad!


----------



## BecauseIKnow

Since when has the Iranian issue became our issue? Israel should deal with its own concerns. Once again these moronic lowlife's fell for the media trick yet again. You guys are brainwashed so easily.


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

Well, instead of rounding up Iranians and putting them in OVENS, we should boil them in oil pumped right off there own land, we can fire up that boiling oil with the reactor they built. I know this sounds fucked up the Iranians are a threat to the earths jean-pull.
We might as well say that Iran is going to get fucked up for GP, it doesn't matter what the fuck they do, there finished.

Oh yea the UN, who gives a fuck about laws they create and are unable to enforce upon a nation with insurmountable strength.


----------



## Grandma

There's no more a nuclear threat from Iran than there was from Iraq.

Iran has MASSIVE oil deposits, in fact they're supplying much of Europe at $8/gallon.

Oil is what the warmongering is all about, kiddies.

Oil.


----------



## Connery

BecauseIKnow said:


> Since when has the Iranian issue became our issue? Israel should deal with its own concerns. Once again these moronic lowlife's fell for the media trick yet again. You guys are brainwashed so easily.



Brig. Gen. Hajizadeh  made this an issue with the following as other Iranian officials have.

"Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said last month, according to Fars."

Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News


----------



## Billo_Really

Connery said:


> Brig. Gen. Hajizadeh  made this an issue with the following as other Iranian officials have.
> 
> "Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said last month, according to Fars."
> 
> Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News


My, aren't we the disengenous one?

Taking a quote out of context just to prove your bullshit lie.

That was said as a response to a US attack.



> _An Iranian military commander said that his country has detailed contingency plans to strike nearly three dozen U.S. military bases in the region *should Iran be attacked*, Iranian media reported Wednesday._


Context is everything and we both know why you omitted it.


----------



## Connery

loinboy said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brig. Gen. Hajizadeh  made this an issue with the following as other Iranian officials have.
> 
> "Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said last month, according to Fars."
> 
> Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> My, aren't we the disengenous one?
> 
> Taking a quote out of context just to prove your bullshit lie.
> 
> That was said as a response to a US attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _An Iranian military commander said that his country has detailed contingency plans to strike nearly three dozen U.S. military bases in the region *should Iran be attacked*, Iranian media reported Wednesday._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Context is everything and we both know why you omitted it.
Click to expand...



Nope the  fact that the person said this is enough for any responsible party to take the statement at face value and prepare for such a contingency. If you would  like to go that route what according to Iran what constitutes and attack?


----------



## Billo_Really

Connery said:


> Nope the  fact that the person said this is enough for any responsible party to take the statement at face value and prepare for such a contingency. If you would  like to go that route what according to Iran what constitutes and attack?


The context in which something is said, means everything as to what   their point was in saying it.

_Nice try, though!_


----------



## Connery

loinboy said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the  fact that the person said this is enough for any responsible party to take the statement at face value and prepare for such a contingency. If you would  like to go that route what according to Iran what constitutes and attack?
> 
> 
> 
> The context in which something is said, means everything as to what   their point was in saying it.
> 
> _Nice try, though!_
Click to expand...



I asked you a direct question for which you have not responded.


----------



## ima

Connery said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the Iranian issue became our issue? Israel should deal with its own concerns. Once again these moronic lowlife's fell for the media trick yet again. You guys are brainwashed so easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brig. Gen. Hajizadeh  made this an issue with the following as other Iranian officials have.
> 
> "Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said last month, according to Fars."
> 
> Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News
Click to expand...

Just because they can reach them doesn't mean they will, because they know that we'd bomb them back to the stone age. So stop drooling, it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Too Tall

ima said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran already kicked our ass TWICE!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mess with Iran, they are bad people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what drugs you are on but Iran has never "kicked our ass" lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.
Click to expand...


Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.

The rescue mission was aborted when one of the helicopters collided with a C-130 , killing 8 soldiers.  No one was shot down.


----------



## ima

Too Tall said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what drugs you are on but Iran has never "kicked our ass" lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> *The rescue mission was aborted when one of the helicopters collided with a C-130 , killing 8 soldiers.  No one was shot down.*
Click to expand...


You can believe anything you want, but that mission was shot down. No way they crash into EACH OTHER!!!!


----------



## Connery

ima said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has the Iranian issue became our issue? Israel should deal with its own concerns. Once again these moronic lowlife's fell for the media trick yet again. You guys are brainwashed so easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brig. Gen. Hajizadeh  made this an issue with the following as other Iranian officials have.
> 
> "Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said last month, according to Fars."
> 
> Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because they can reach them doesn't mean they will, because they know that we'd bomb them back to the stone age. So stop drooling, it ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...


Whether it happens or not, preparedness is the keystone to an effective defense.


----------



## ima

Connery said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brig. Gen. Hajizadeh  made this an issue with the following as other Iranian officials have.
> 
> "Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, told reporters the U.S. has 35 bases around Iran and all are "within the reach of our missiles" and could be hit "in the early minutes after an attack," according to an English-language report from Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency. The bases were no threat but instead an "opportunity" for the Iranian military, Hajizadeh said last month, according to Fars."
> 
> Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they can reach them doesn't mean they will, because they know that we'd bomb them back to the stone age. So stop drooling, it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether it happens or not, preparedness is the keystone to an effective defense.
Click to expand...


Not messing with shit that doesn't concern you is also effective.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Grandma said:


> There's no more a nuclear threat from Iran than there was from Iraq.
> 
> Iran has MASSIVE oil deposits, in fact they're supplying much of Europe at $8/gallon.
> 
> Oil is what the warmongering is all about, kiddies.
> 
> Oil.




So I fail to see how Iranian oil exports to Europe have any bearing on our status with them. Perhaps if we imported oil from Iran, then maybe you can say "it's all about oil." You know how much oil we import from Iran: 0%

We actually import our oil from Canada, Latin America, and parts of Africa. Since the oil embargo's of the 70's and 80's the U.S. has sought to decrease it's dependency on Arab oil. 

Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised : NPR

For the first time in a while, I think it is safe to say that our beef with Iran IS for the weapons they are trying to acquire. We have never been threatening war with Iran over any other issue. We have not once said, that we are going after them because of their humanitarian violations. We have never said we are going after their oil, while in fact we are trying to get all of their oil customers to stop purchasing from them. We have never said we were going after them when they created their surrogate terrorist group Hezbollah. What we HAVE said we will go after them for is their creation of a nuclear weapon. I do not see where the confusion is....

It's pretty simple. We have stated that we will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. If they proceed, against our wishes, as well as the international community, and seek to develop a nuclear weapon, we will stop them. 

Groundwork for war has already begun to circulate within the Senate. A bipartisan resolution was introduced last week to fully support Israel militarily, politically, and economically if they commit to engaging Iran in a military conflict. This first resolution lays the groundwork for the Senate to authorize the President FULL USE of the American war machine. So in short, our government is gearing for war. The paperwork is already started.


----------



## Connery

ima said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they can reach them doesn't mean they will, because they know that we'd bomb them back to the stone age. So stop drooling, it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it happens or not, preparedness is the keystone to an effective defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not messing with shit that doesn't concern you is also effective.
Click to expand...


They wish to talk about negatively effecting US interests then of course it concerns the US.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

ima said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> *The rescue mission was aborted when one of the helicopters collided with a C-130 , killing 8 soldiers.  No one was shot down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe anything you want, but that mission was shot down. No way they crash into EACH OTHER!!!!
Click to expand...


Actually in the 70's when we didn't have all the high-tech equipment we have now it is very possible. They started the mission when it was still dark outside, and there was a really bad sandstorm that the choppers had to fly through. Visibility was poor, and technical malfunctions in the chopper caused it to crash with one of the supporting gun ships. YOU can believe whatever you want, however the rest of us will stick to the facts lol


----------



## ima

WethePeopleUS said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> *The rescue mission was aborted when one of the helicopters collided with a C-130 , killing 8 soldiers.  No one was shot down.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe anything you want, but that mission was shot down. No way they crash into EACH OTHER!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually in the 70's when we didn't have all the high-tech equipment we have now it is very possible. They started the mission when it was still dark outside, and there was a really bad sandstorm that the choppers had to fly through. Visibility was poor, and technical malfunctions in the chopper caused it to crash with one of the supporting gun ships. YOU can believe whatever you want, however the rest of us will stick to the facts lol
Click to expand...


Where did you get your "facts"? from the same people who CLAIM to have killed Osama bin Laden?


----------



## Too Tall

ima said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> *The rescue mission was aborted when one of the helicopters collided with a C-130 , killing 8 soldiers.  No one was shot down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe anything you want, but that mission was shot down. No way they crash into EACH OTHER!!!!
Click to expand...


I supervised the installation of the navigation equipment on the helicopters and was on the USS Nimitz when they launched.  We listened to the radio calls from Desert One after the crash.

Where is your source of any aircraft being shot down?


----------



## Billo_Really

Rct_Tsoul said:


> Well, instead of rounding up Iranians and putting them in OVENS, we should boil them in oil pumped right off there own land, we can fire up that boiling oil with the reactor they built. I know this sounds fucked up the Iranians are a threat to the earths jean-pull.
> We might as well say that Iran is going to get fucked up for GP, it doesn't matter what the fuck they do, there finished.
> 
> Oh yea the UN, who gives a fuck about laws they create and are unable to enforce upon a nation with insurmountable strength.


You make such a good German!


----------



## Billo_Really

Connery said:


> I asked you a direct question for which you have not responded.


You're actually asking what constitutes an attack?

Getting bombed!  That's an attack.


----------



## Billo_Really

Too Tall said:


> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.


You know what caused the hostage crisis, don't you?

It's what our CIA did to that country in 1953.


----------



## hoosier88

loinboy said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what caused the hostage crisis, don't you?
> 
> It's* what our CIA did to that country in 1953*.
Click to expand...


(My bold)

*L.* is being kind.  It was Prexy Eisenhower (& the ever-champing @ the bit Dulles bros. - John Foster @ Dept. State, Allen @ DCIA) who allowed themselves to be talked (by MI-5) into overthrowing PM Mossadegh, a legimitately elected head of state.  Prexy Truman had been approached by the UK - miffed about Iran nationalizing "their" oil concession - & Truman said No - we don't do that (Iran had been our ally in WWII - well, the country was de facto partitioned between the USSR on the north & the UK on the south, but still), & that's an internal affair to Iran.  

When Eisenhower was coming in, UK changed the pitch to anti-Communism - & Eisenhower & the Dulles Bros. bit on the bait.


----------



## Too Tall

loinboy said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what caused the hostage crisis, don't you?
> 
> It's what our CIA did to that country in 1953.
Click to expand...


Actually, it was Carter deposing the Shah and installing the Ayatollah.  Untill that happened we had a lot of Americans in Iran, including oil company employess and defense technicians.  Read Ken Follett's book "On Wings of Eagles" for background.

I taught Iranians how to operate their C-130's at Lockheed and had a number of friends IN Iran to continue pilot and maintenance training while the Shah was in power.  Then came the Ayatollah's and they all were forced out of the country.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

ima said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe anything you want, but that mission was shot down. No way they crash into EACH OTHER!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the 70's when we didn't have all the high-tech equipment we have now it is very possible. They started the mission when it was still dark outside, and there was a really bad sandstorm that the choppers had to fly through. Visibility was poor, and technical malfunctions in the chopper caused it to crash with one of the supporting gun ships. YOU can believe whatever you want, however the rest of us will stick to the facts lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get your "facts"? from the same people who CLAIM to have killed Osama bin Laden?
Click to expand...


Ok conversation over. You are clearly too ignorant to have a logical conversation with lol Ohh hey, how is Elvis doing? Is he hanging out with 2pac and Biggie, and John Lenin down in Jamaica with Bob Marley hahaha


----------



## skye

WethePeopleUS said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the 70's when we didn't have all the high-tech equipment we have now it is very possible. They started the mission when it was still dark outside, and there was a really bad sandstorm that the choppers had to fly through. Visibility was poor, and technical malfunctions in the chopper caused it to crash with one of the supporting gun ships. YOU can believe whatever you want, however the rest of us will stick to the facts lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your "facts"? from the same people who CLAIM to have killed Osama bin Laden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok conversation over. You are clearly too ignorant to have a logical conversation with lol Ohh hey, how is Elvis doing? Is he hanging out with 2pac and Biggie, and John Lenin down in Jamaica with Bob Marley hahaha
Click to expand...


Elvis is certainly not doing any of that! where have been your life?under a rock?

He is eating a peanut  butter and banana sandwich...that's what he is doing and never forget it!


----------



## WethePeopleUS

Too Tall said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what caused the hostage crisis, don't you?
> 
> It's what our CIA did to that country in 1953.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was Carter deposing the Shah and installing the Ayatollah.  Untill that happened we had a lot of Americans in Iran, including oil company employess and defense technicians.  Read Ken Follett's book "On Wings of Eagles" for background.
> 
> I taught Iranians how to operate their C-130's at Lockheed and had a number of friends IN Iran to continue pilot and maintenance training while the Shah was in power.  Then came the Ayatollah's and they all were forced out of the country.
Click to expand...


That was my understanding of it. Of course I wasn't around at the time, so I only know what I read, but I read that it was caused by the overthrow of the American-backed Shah in 1979. When the Ayatollah returned from exile, he had it out for America, and endorsed the take-over of the American Embassy in Tehran. It was actually carried out by around 3,000 college students if I remember correctly.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

skye said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your "facts"? from the same people who CLAIM to have killed Osama bin Laden?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok conversation over. You are clearly too ignorant to have a logical conversation with lol Ohh hey, how is Elvis doing? Is he hanging out with 2pac and Biggie, and John Lenin down in Jamaica with Bob Marley hahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Elvis is certainly not doing any of that! where have been your life?under a rock?
> 
> He is eating a peanut  butter and banana sandwich...that's what he is doing and never forget it!
Click to expand...


HAHA are you sure it isn't peanut butter and raisins?


----------



## skye

WethePeopleUS said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok conversation over. You are clearly too ignorant to have a logical conversation with lol Ohh hey, how is Elvis doing? Is he hanging out with 2pac and Biggie, and John Lenin down in Jamaica with Bob Marley hahaha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elvis is certainly not doing any of that! where have been your life?under a rock?
> 
> He is eating a peanut  butter and banana sandwich...that's what he is doing and never forget it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHA are you sure it isn't peanut butter and raisins?
Click to expand...


Lord no!   

Fried peanut butter and banana  sandwich ...everybody knows that!


----------



## Billo_Really

Too Tall said:


> Actually, it was Carter deposing the Shah and installing the Ayatollah.  Untill that happened we had a lot of Americans in Iran, including oil company employess and defense technicians.  Read Ken Follett's book "On Wings of Eagles" for background.
> 
> I taught Iranians how to operate their C-130's at Lockheed and had a number of friends IN Iran to continue pilot and maintenance training while the Shah was in power.  Then came the Ayatollah's and they all were forced out of the country.


You got that backwards and it wasn't Carter!

Our CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected President in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah of Iran, whose tyranny was similar to that of Saddam Hussein and Iranian's haven't liked us ever since.

They were so sick of the Shah, that in 1979, they ousted him and put in Khomeini.  

The hostage crisis was payback for the Shah.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

skye said:


> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elvis is certainly not doing any of that! where have been your life?under a rock?
> 
> He is eating a peanut  butter and banana sandwich...that's what he is doing and never forget it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA are you sure it isn't peanut butter and raisins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lord no!
> 
> Fried peanut butter and banana  sandwich ...everybody knows that!
Click to expand...


That sounds sooooo good!!! 

Dammit now you have me craving one haha


----------



## hoosier88

Too Tall said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what caused the hostage crisis, don't you?
> 
> It's what our CIA did to that country in 1953.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, *it was Carter deposing the Shah and installing the Ayatollah.*  Untill that happened we had a lot of Americans in Iran, including oil company employess and defense technicians.  Read Ken Follett's book "On Wings of Eagles" for background.
> 
> I taught Iranians how to operate their C-130's at Lockheed and had a number of friends IN Iran to continue pilot and maintenance training while the Shah was in power.  Then came the Ayatollah's and they all were forced out of the country.
Click to expand...


(My bold)

Prexy Carter did not depose Shah Reza, nor install A. Khomeini.  Against the advice of CIA & State Dept. & probably the alphabet soup of US intellgence agencies, Carter admitted the Shah to medical treatment in the US (after Reza hade fled Iran ahead of the Ayatollah's takeover there).  The IRG exploded, stormed our embassy, took hostages.  We could have declared war, I suppose.  But it seemed like a poor trade (& besides, it was our fault we were so poorly informed about facts on the ground in Iran.  We listened when the Shah asked we not run intelligence networks in Iran.)

I recommend *All the Shah's men - an American coup & the roots of Middle East terror* - Stephen Kinzer, John Wiley c 2003.  228pp, index, notes, bibliography.  Map, photos.  The UK/US coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq, PM of Iran, & the re-imposition of the Shah.  Oil, WWI, WWII, intrigue.  The Dulles bros., Eisenhower, CIA - the beginning of bad US/Iran relations, the cause of many problems for US & the Middle East.


----------



## ima

Connery said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it happens or not, preparedness is the keystone to an effective defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not messing with shit that doesn't concern you is also effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They wish to talk about negatively effecting US interests then of course it concerns the US.
Click to expand...


They're talking about nuking Israel. Please tell me, how is supporting Israel in OUR national interest?


----------



## mudwhistle

skye said:


> We are getting closer and closer.... not too late yet for  terrorist Iran to come to its senses, it still has a few weeks  for averting military action... but time is running out quick!
> 
> 
> Kerry: The Clock Is Ticking On Iran « CBS DC



Maybe he'll take their guns too.......


----------



## ima

Too Tall said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> *The rescue mission was aborted when one of the helicopters collided with a C-130 , killing 8 soldiers.  No one was shot down.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe anything you want, but that mission was shot down. No way they crash into EACH OTHER!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I supervised the installation of the navigation equipment on the helicopters and was on the USS Nimitz when they launched.  We listened to the radio calls from Desert One after the crash.
> 
> Where is your source of any aircraft being shot down?
Click to expand...

I was on the ground shooting anti-aircraft missiles and got one myself.


----------



## ima

WethePeopleUS said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WethePeopleUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually in the 70's when we didn't have all the high-tech equipment we have now it is very possible. They started the mission when it was still dark outside, and there was a really bad sandstorm that the choppers had to fly through. Visibility was poor, and technical malfunctions in the chopper caused it to crash with one of the supporting gun ships. YOU can believe whatever you want, however the rest of us will stick to the facts lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your "facts"? from the same people who CLAIM to have killed Osama bin Laden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok conversation over. You are clearly too ignorant to have a logical conversation with lol Ohh hey, how is Elvis doing? Is he hanging out with 2pac and Biggie, and John Lenin down in Jamaica with Bob Marley hahaha
Click to expand...


So you have ACTUAL proof that Sammy was killed?


----------



## mudwhistle

hoosier88 said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what caused the hostage crisis, don't you?
> 
> It's what our CIA did to that country in 1953.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, *it was Carter deposing the Shah and installing the Ayatollah.*  Untill that happened we had a lot of Americans in Iran, including oil company employess and defense technicians.  Read Ken Follett's book "On Wings of Eagles" for background.
> 
> I taught Iranians how to operate their C-130's at Lockheed and had a number of friends IN Iran to continue pilot and maintenance training while the Shah was in power.  Then came the Ayatollah's and they all were forced out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> Prexy Carter did not depose Shah Reza, nor install A. Khomeini.  Against the advice of CIA & State Dept. & probably the alphabet soup of US intellgence agencies, Carter admitted the Shah to medical treatment in the US (after Reza hade fled Iran ahead of the Ayatollah's takeover there).  The IRG exploded, stormed our embassy, took hostages.  We could have declared war, I suppose.  But it seemed like a poor trade (& besides, it was our fault we were so poorly informed about facts on the ground in Iran.  We listened when the Shah asked we not run intelligence networks in Iran.)
> 
> I recommend *All the Shah's men - an American coup & the roots of Middle East terror* - Stephen Kinzer, John Wiley c 2003.  228pp, index, notes, bibliography.  Map, photos.  The UK/US coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq, PM of Iran, & the re-imposition of the Shah.  Oil, WWI, WWII, intrigue.  The Dulles bros., Eisenhower, CIA - the beginning of bad US/Iran relations, the cause of many problems for US & the Middle East.
Click to expand...


Still, while Democrats are in power they tend to let our allies fall into the hands of radicals.

In Obama's case he's actually facilitating this.


----------



## Billo_Really

mudwhistle said:


> Still, while Democrats are in power they tend to let our allies fall into the hands of radicals.


What a fuckin' hypocrite!

Saddam Hussein was a US ally and republican's took him out and now the country is run by radical Shiite's aligned with Iran.

BTW, people like the Shah, Hussein, Pinochet, etc, are not people we should be ally's with in the first place.


----------



## Connery

ima said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not messing with shit that doesn't concern you is also effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wish to talk about negatively effecting US interests then of course it concerns the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're talking about nuking Israel. Please tell me, how is supporting Israel in OUR national interest?
Click to expand...


Supporting peace in the region is in our best interests.


----------



## hoosier88

mudwhistle said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, *while Democrats are in power they tend to let our allies fall into the hands of radicals.*
> 
> In Obama's case he's actually facilitating this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> So, can you give us some examples of the above?
Click to expand...


----------



## BruSan

ima said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The hostages which brought down a president, and 2) the rescue mission that was shot down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking over the US Embassy and holding Americans hostage was an act of war, and the President was too weak to do anything about it.  The American people replaced him.
> 
> *The rescue mission was aborted when one of the helicopters collided with a C-130 , killing 8 soldiers.  No one was shot down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe anything you want, but that mission was shot down. No way they crash into EACH OTHER!!!!
Click to expand...


Oh really?

Midair helicopter collision kills 7 Marines - CNN.com


----------



## BruSan

Jeremiah said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait to go up against China and Russia can ya'? Send in the Army and Marines who have *already* done 4, 5, 6 or more tours in the Middle East.
> 
> Should be loads of fun!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary.  It will happen so fast they won't even know what hit them until the IAF are out of there.   Do you liberals ever get out of fear monger mode?  Give it a rest!  Gee!
Click to expand...


Oh sure, let's recap shall we:

Korea; you weren't alone and they fought you to a draw.
Vietnam; kicked your azz out of there and you left a pile of helicopters on the seabed in your haste to leave. Have you forgotten those pic's?
Somalia; handed your azz to you before you even *got* boots on the ground.
Iraq; you're leaving with pie on your face.
Afghanistan; you're leaving there also. You just haven't figured out how to put a positive spin on it yet; regardless it ain't gonna be pretty.

What's up with your big hurry to get your azz whupped yet again.


----------



## WethePeopleUS

BruSan said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait to go up against China and Russia can ya'? Send in the Army and Marines who have *already* done 4, 5, 6 or more tours in the Middle East.
> 
> Should be loads of fun!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary.  It will happen so fast they won't even know what hit them until the IAF are out of there.   Do you liberals ever get out of fear monger mode?  Give it a rest!  Gee!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh sure, let's recap shall we:
> 
> Korea; you weren't alone and they fought you to a draw.
> Vietnam; kicked your azz out of there and you left a pile of helicopters on the seabed in your haste to leave. Have you forgotten those pic's?
> Somalia; handed your azz to you before you even *got* boots on the ground.
> Iraq; you're leaving with pie on your face.
> Afghanistan; you're leaving there also. You just haven't figured out how to put a positive spin on it yet; regardless it ain't gonna be pretty.
> 
> What's up with your big hurry to get your azz whupped yet again.
Click to expand...


You forgot the first Gulf War, where we stomped Iraq's ass out of Kuwait, and back to their country. Also, we may be leaving Iraq with a pie in our face, but we did win that war. We invaded Iraq to topple Saddam's regime, and we did that very quickly. Pretty much kicked the Taliban's ass and Al-Qaeda's ass in Afghanistan too. We can't call a insurgency in the country now a "defeat." It was well known that the fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan were not all natives. They were coming from all around to get a piece of America.


----------



## BruSan

WethePeopleUS said:


> BruSan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary.  It will happen so fast they won't even know what hit them until the IAF are out of there.   Do you liberals ever get out of fear monger mode?  Give it a rest!  Gee!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure, let's recap shall we:
> 
> Korea; you weren't alone and they fought you to a draw.
> Vietnam; kicked your azz out of there and you left a pile of helicopters on the seabed in your haste to leave. Have you forgotten those pic's?
> Somalia; handed your azz to you before you even *got* boots on the ground.
> Iraq; you're leaving with pie on your face.
> Afghanistan; you're leaving there also. You just haven't figured out how to put a positive spin on it yet; regardless it ain't gonna be pretty.
> 
> What's up with your big hurry to get your azz whupped yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the first Gulf War, where we stomped Iraq's ass out of Kuwait, and back to their country. Also, we may be leaving Iraq with a pie in our face, but we did win that war. We invaded Iraq to topple Saddam's regime, and we did that very quickly. *Pretty much kicked the Taliban's ass and Al-Qaeda's ass in Afghanistan too*. We can't call a insurgency in the country now a "defeat." It was well known that the fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan were not all natives. *They were coming from all around to get a piece of America*.
Click to expand...


Wow; just wow, your grasp of reality leaves me shocked and awed!

You think they won't come from all over to support Iran when at least a couple have signed agreements to do so?

You're in for some serious butthurt if you think you can p*** on Iran and no other major power will come to it's aid.

In before "we're the biggest and the best and can take 'em all on" bullcrap, you're broke fer chrissake. Think China's gonna float you a loan to play demagogue?


----------



## ima

WethePeopleUS said:


> BruSan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary.  It will happen so fast they won't even know what hit them until the IAF are out of there.   Do you liberals ever get out of fear monger mode?  Give it a rest!  Gee!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure, let's recap shall we:
> 
> Korea; you weren't alone and they fought you to a draw.
> Vietnam; kicked your azz out of there and you left a pile of helicopters on the seabed in your haste to leave. Have you forgotten those pic's?
> Somalia; handed your azz to you before you even *got* boots on the ground.
> Iraq; you're leaving with pie on your face.
> Afghanistan; you're leaving there also. You just haven't figured out how to put a positive spin on it yet; regardless it ain't gonna be pretty.
> 
> What's up with your big hurry to get your azz whupped yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the first Gulf War, where we stomped Iraq's ass out of Kuwait, and back to their country. Also, we may be leaving Iraq with a pie in our face, but we did win that war. We invaded Iraq to topple Saddam's regime, and we did that very quickly. Pretty much kicked the Taliban's ass and Al-Qaeda's ass in Afghanistan too. We can't call a insurgency in the country now a "defeat." It was well known that the fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan were not all natives. They were coming from all around to get a piece of America.
Click to expand...


We went into Iraq to find WMDs, and we found NONE!!!!!! Cheney and Bush should have been tried at The Hague for war crimes against humanity.
And we haven't won anything in Iraq. Haliburton maybe, but not the American people.


----------

