War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon!

[protectionist]

Saudi arabia can fight it...America should focus on ourselve for once...-more investment into our infrastructure and science programs...Reforms for our educational system.

To dump it into the lap of another country ... is to GAMBLE with the survival of the USA. I don't gamble with stakes that high.

 

[protectionist]

Dear Conservatives

you all do know if we go to war against Iran a lot of Iranian fetuses and pregnant women will be killed...do you want abortions done with Military weapons ?

Yes _____

No_____

In the famous words of Sylvester Stallone >> "A man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do"

 

[protectionist]

Why is it okay for the US to fund terrorism, but not Iran?

Stupid post.

 

[protectionist]

If we have a war against Iran a lot of Iranians will die ...for US political reasons

Well then Iran can prevent that > just by surrendering when we arrive.

 

[protectionist]

who is going to stop the Empire from funding terrorism ???

The OP answered that.

 

[protectionist]

[ Let the next president worry about the ramifications, just like did Clinton.

Clinton left weakling 43 a nightmare of Peace and prosperity and projected Government budget surplus..........

You did say neither Iran no the US should fund terrorism correct..? that means a tacit agreement that the US does fund terrorism ...it does and then some

since the end of World War II, the United States has:

* Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.

* Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.

* Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

* Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.

* Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, according to Chapter 18 of his book Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.

All of these are wars of sorts done to defend the American people. There haven't been enough of them. Morsi should have been taken out, instead of leaving it to the Egyptians. Thank God they got the job done.

 

[protectionist]

Exactly. People can't support going to war against Iran till we curtail all clandestine operations in the ME. As long as we are mucking about in Syria, funding Al-Qaeda, funding this rebel group or that rebel group to achieve our goals, etc. We have no right to be launching an invasion of Iran or criticizing them for "supporting" terrorists. We do that same damn thing.

Our elites have policy goals in the ME, their elites have policy goals in the ME. Our press is going to spin it one way, their press is going to spin it the other way. If you believe everything our corporate and state press push on us with out thinking about it in an unbiased critical fashion, you have become a jingoistic partisan tool of the establishment. Nothing more than cannon fodder.

We have a right to do anything that is necessary to secure our survival.

 

[protectionist]

What terrorist group is Obama funding today? Or ever? You need to name them or what you are saying is pure BS.

/QUOTE]
Syrian official: US 'supporting terrorism' with rebel training ...
View attachment 46187
Al-Nusra raids rival US-trained militants in Syria, kills 11: Group


The terrorists fighting us now? We just finished training them ...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[protectionist]

Who the fuck cares................he'd double down on sanctions which have helped force them to the table now...................It didn't matter then that we got a deal and it doesn't matter now.................we could impose them until hell freezes over and it wouldn't make a damned difference................................

There was never a reason to force the issue now on their terms................which is what happened...................and we will give them more money to play with. It is money that will not go to the people there................It will go into the hands of the leadership there.............and will continue to be used for increased military procurement..........................including cruise missiles from Russia with Love, and ICBM tech which only use is to deploy Nuclear warheads................

Only a fool would think they need them............and only a fool would recognize that it is for the purpose other than their lies on it's for nuclear power................

A fool runs this country supported by foolish posters like tyrone.

100% true. And this is why there is no alternative but to go into Iran, fight the Iranians, defeat them, take over the whole country, scour it inside out for nuke anything, destroy everything nuke, and keep massive numbers of troops there, to insure they don't try again. Anything less than this is GAMBLING with USA survival.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

No need for straw manning. Iran is building nukes. The whole world has seen it on TV. Defense is mandatory, and will pay for itself in our SURVIVAL.

If Iran is building nukes you better tell the IAEA, CIA, Mossad etc. because they seem to be in denial.

And the whole world really doesn't watch Faux news, no matter what you cultists think.

Oh, and nobody buys your defense bull$hit. If you weren't incredible hypocrites you would change the name to war department again.

 

[Bfgrn]

How cute..."war is a word"...

What "war" is Lindsey Graham talking about in the OP?

Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:

Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:

Graham: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?

Carter: No. The United States.

Graham: We. Win.

Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.

This is part of the stupid Atlantic article which was refuted in item # 1 of the OP. Here it is again>>

No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT "a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS" Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.

BULLSHIT...

First of all, you didn't answer my questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

Second...Iraq was not "under US control". The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny.

Iraq demanded US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2008 forcing Bush to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

 

[protectionist]

If Iran is building nukes you better tell the IAEA, CIA, Mossad etc. because they seem to be in denial.

And the whole world really doesn't watch Faux news, no matter what you cultists think.

Oh, and nobody buys your defense bull$hit. If you weren't incredible hypocrites you would change the name to war department again.

Sounds like you've been watching Faux MSNBC. I those loons are saying that he IAEA, CIA, and Mossad deny that Iran is building nukes, they're even farther out in the lunatic frnge than I thought

EARTH TO JS: The Iranians building nuclear weapons is on TV every day. And almost everybody is aware of the Iranian threat. Even Obama and Kerry agree to that. They just have an idiotic way of trying to defend against it.

 

[protectionist]

BULLSHIT...

First of all, you didn't answer my questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

Second...Iraq was not "under US control". The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny.

Iraq demanded US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2008 forcing Bush to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

I don't recall you asking these questions, but here's the answers.>>

1) American troops + a coalition of allies.

2) We won't. Iran will.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about SOFA. It doesn't mean squat. When the defense of the American people from nuclear attack is at stake, nothing is off the table (including keeping troops in Iraq) And ISIS could gain enough wealth to acquire nukes, and they are seeking them.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

BULLSHIT...

First of all, you didn't answer my questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

Second...Iraq was not "under US control". The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny.

Iraq demanded US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2008 forcing Bush to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

I don't recall you asking these questions, but here's the answers.>>

1) American troops + a coalition of allies.

2) We won't. Iran will.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about SOFA. It doesn't mean squat. When the defense of the American people from nuclear attack is at stake, nothing is off the table (including keeping troops in Iraq) And ISIS could gain enough wealth to acquire nukes, and they are seeking them.

US troops will be dying every single day we occupy Iran...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Dear Conservatives

you all do know if we go to war against Iran a lot of Iranian fetuses and pregnant women will be killed...do you want abortions done with Military weapons ?

Yes _____

No_____

In the famous words of Sylvester Stallone >> "A man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do"

Rambo '16 ..U B Moron

 

[protectionist]

US troops will be dying every single day we occupy Iran...

Yeah, so ? You're gonna not fight a war because your troops are gonna die ? They die in every war. What if Roosevelt had said we're not gonna fight, because US troops will die ?

 

[CremeBrulee]

Quick question: Doesn't war with Iran pretty much guarantee an attempted attack on U.S. interests with whatever they are cooking up in the mountains?

Was just tryin to enjoy these rice krispy treats and came in here. Shit is serious. War NOW!

 

[protectionist]

Quick question: Doesn't war with Iran pretty much guarantee an attempted attack on U.S. interests with whatever they are cooking up in the mountains?

Was just tryin to enjoy these rice krispy treats and came in here. Shit is serious. War NOW!

War usually means attacks in various places. Just like in World War II. Europe, Asia, North Africa. So ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

US troops will be dying every single day we occupy Iran...

Yeah, so ? You're gonna not fight a war because your troops are gonna die ? They die in every war. What if Roosevelt had said we're not gonna fight, because US troops will die ?

Send yourself send your family I do not care about them...I care about the rest of the troops

 

[CremeBrulee]

Just seems a bit odd. In order to prevent the worst case scenario (Iranian nuclear attack), we have to engage in an action that will almost certainly lead to that scenario.