We will start withdrawing from Iraq by Summer 2006

[YourGrandpa]

Another? That is nothing like the Iraq situation.

Obviously if S Korea tests a warhead on a neighboring country, we will condemn it, along with the rest of the world, and come to the defense of the country if it is our ally. Iran has said they are building nuclear power plants, along with the Russians' help, but have not stated they are building warheads. I have never cared much for Iran, and wish they had a different government, but I wouldn't even consider invading them unless they attacked someone else.

I also believe all the talk about nukes and mushroom clouds here in the US is ridiculous. No one on the planet wants to nuke us, because we have enough nukes to destroy civilization. Think about it -- even being the US, would you drop a nuke on an enemy like Russia, and just sit still waiting for the reprisal? And Russia doesn't even have a history of nuking people who attack them. No one wants to nuke the US, because they know we can and will destroy them completely without leaving our couches. Also, Iran has agreed to inspectors before, and they would again with the right diplomatic pressure.

So that's what I think about the future situations you've laid out.

How is that pertinent to the Iraq discussion?

"Another" is applied to, "unstable country". I brought up the nuclear thing because Iraq is developing nuclear power as we speak. Though you still did not answer MY questions. You answered your twist on my question. I clearly stated, "Iran says they are building nuclear technologies and refuse inspections sanctioned by the U.N.. What do you do?" I didn't say," Iran conforms to sanctioned policies and everything ends happily ever after. What do you do?."

Now give my question a try.

Though I am glad to see you have enough backbone to stand up against nuclear holocaust. It's just saddening to know that, that's what it would take for you to justify millitary action.

BTW, didn't Iraq attack Kuwait?

[MidnightQ4]

Yes that's what he is saying. Let's just clear the air here:

1. We invaded a country that WAS a threat. We didn't invade a country that was not a threat. Based on our intelligence and our best understanding of the situation at the time, and the fact that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors in any way, that means they were a threat by definition. So to say they were not a threat is simply false. Everyone in the UN agreed they were a threat, or else we would not have sent UN inspectors to Iraq to assess the situation!!! OMFG it's so obvious! So let's not call it invading a sovereign, non-threatening country cause that's nonsense.

The country was not a threat to US - nor to anyone but its own people. Everyone in the UN did not agree they were a threat -- sanctions were placed on Iraq because of their invasion of Kuwait, and UN weapons inspectors were sent in to make sure they destroyed all non-conventional weapons. Inspectors and our own intelligence services said that yes, they did destroy everything they had that was of any significance.
That testimony which was contradictory to the administration's stance, was not provided to Congress or the public, but instead we were given forged documents, aluminum tubes and "unmanned aerial vehicles," which were all completely fabricated.

Everyone in the UN was working together to decide whether or not to invade. The inspectors did not report such things because they were not allowed free reign to inspect what they wanted. They only reported on what they were allowed to see, which of course was not going to turn up anything bad. DUH! Again, it’s not a matter of IF we found something or IF there was something to find or not. It was a matter of not cooperating with inspectors, combined with our best guess based on intelligence that they had weapons. And again, we were not the only ones who had this intelligence, it was a combined effort of all the nations in the UN. So to blame the bad intelligence solely on the US is stupid. Other countries had the same intel that they had weapons. And since Iraq was so unhelpful in disproving that, we had no choice but to go in and find out for ourselves.

2. So far as the "needing weapons to defend themselves" arguement goes. The real message we are sending is that if you try to develop these weapons, that is what will cause your country to be invaded, so don't do it. Otherwise if you have nothing to hide and cooperate with the UN inspectors, you have nothing to worry about. That is the message that we sent loud and clear. And yes I think North Korea and the other countries got that message. The next time we send UN inspectors somewhere evil dictators are going to think twice about fucking around with them. Because we made it perfectly clear what the result of that will be.

No, Iraq doesn't have any WMDs -- the real message we are sending with this war is "We don't care if you have WMDs or not, we will invade you if our president decides we should - and without consulting any experts if he doesn't want to." I thought you said this war had nothing to do with WMDs though? Didn't you just say that?

omg, can’t you comprehend shit? Of course I said it has nothing to do with the existence OR nonexistance of WMD’s. It has everything to do with the cooperation with UN inspectors. And YES, we don’t care if you have WMD’s or not solely as a basis for invading, we will invade you if you don’t cooperate with the UN.

And the president doesn’t just wake up one morning and decide he wants to invade another country. That decision is based on the recommendation of experts who have spent their entire lives making those decisions. The president just has to give the final word. So ya, not talking to experts? Please, don’t be so dumb! Come on you’re smarter than that.

The thing is, you are failing to look at it from the long term point of view, or really any point of view other than a few people who are too stupid to not be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Seriously about that whole Fallugia thing, we told them we were coming and that anyone who didn't want to die needed to get the fuck out. So if anyone got burned up then it's their own fault for living amidst the insurgents. Guilty by association.

Now this is a very important point I'm going to make so I want you to read carefully:

Dropping nukes on Japan was imo the worst thing we ever had to do, but it was the right decision to overall save lives. However you would think that today Japan would hate our guts to this day for doing that. But they don't, Japan loves us. Why? Because we helped them rebuild their country, just like we are doing with Iraq.

Imagine Iraq will be like Japen in 30 years and love us for freeing them from the tyrany of Saddam, freedom from sanctions which starve their people because Saddam doesn't give a flying fuck, freedom from being raped and killed because they don't go along with Saddam's wishes. How could they not like us and thank us for helping them out so much? Ya they might hate us now, but in the future they will change their minds when they see how much better it is for them. When they have a thriving economy, with free trade and lots of jobs, they can thank the U.S. for putting them in that place.

Not to mention, when other countries see how well Iraq is doing thanks to us, they will want to do the same thing. So eventually it will change the whole area of the world to be more like Europe where everyone gets along and are not worried about who's going to attack who next.

The problem with that scenario, is that it is quickly becoming obvious even to people who wholeheartedly supported this war, that the scenario you are painting is not reality. There is nothing to suggest that we are rebuilding Iraq, or making things better for them in any recognizable way whatsoever. Next spring we will have been there for 3 years, and things are getting worse instead of better. We are over there actively making things worse. Rebuilding has been sidelined to pay for security because politicians are getting murdered daily, along with everyone else. Can you cite any specific reasons why you believe what you do?

Yes, let me list a few:

1. Elections = a government that is responsible to the people and can be replaced.
2. People not being tortured and raped.
3. People not being buried in mass graves over religious issues.
4. Economic reform that will lead to a better economy and more trade with other nations.
5. Iraqi people coming out and saying that they are thankful for what we have done.
6. The vast majority of the people are behind the new government and actively voting etc. with extremely high turnout rates in spite of the insurgent threat. Much higher than any US election.
7. The lifting of sanctions!

As for being there for 3 years, you make it sound like that is a long time or something. It isn’t. Things are not supposed to be magically better overnight. It will take years, like 10-20 until things get better. Why does everyone keep focusing on right now? God it gets tiring.

Not Japan, because that is a different country, different people, different circumstances. We didn't occupy Japan this way.

We won’t occupy Iraq either, we are just there right now because their army sucks. Seriously we are not trying to maintain occupation in Iraq, only idiots would think that.

You don't believe it just because it happened that way in Japan do you?

No I don’t, but I do strongly believe that it will end up in a similarly good way for both us and them. Remember, Japan didn’t get their shit going within a year or two after the war either. And as for us helping to rebuild, congress just asked for another 100 billion to give to Iraq. How can anyone say that is not helping them to rebuild?

Well let's wait till push comes to shove and then see what Iran does. When we threaten to go in and remove the regime we'll see if they stand up to us then. That may sound like a cocky arrogant attitude, but you have to realize that it is the world as a whole that wants to prevent Iran from building nukes, not just the U.S.

Of course the whole world wants to prevent Iran from building nukes. But Israel and the US are the only countries in the world screaming that Iran is even trying to produce nukes. With the exception of Britain, it sounds just like the lead up to the Iraq war. And if you believe for a second that Iran would back down when "push comes to shove" then you aren't being honest with yourself. Every country in the world right now knows that our military is breaking its back in Iraq -- our own commanders have announced it publicly, so it must be pretty bad, eh -- not even fucking Argentina is scared to take us on militarily if we try to invade them. Sure, we have a massive amount of good people who will sign up and destroy some foreign ass if someone tries to invade us, but that's not quite the same, is it? Like Rummy said, "You go to war with the Army you have," and the one we have right now is gradually turning into one that doesn't scare anybody. And you can thank the Iraq war for that.

Well, I kinda agree with this, cause frankly we are doing the guerilla war thing in Iraq which is not how we should be fighting it. It’s like Vietnam all over again which I was afraid of when we first decide to go to war. See we need to basically be less PC about how we fight over there. We need to put the fear of god in those people so that the innocent people will get out of the fucking way and let us do the job. Basically the bad press of killing innocent people is holding us back from achieving a complete victory. I think if we just started leveling towns that we suspected of hiding the insurgents, as we did in Fallujah then things would be going better all around. It sounds bad, but seriously in the end it would be better for everyone as there would be less of this war of attrition crap going on, and therefore less chance for civilians to get caught in the middle of it.

In WWII we didn’t bother trying to save civilian lives, we just carpet bombed entire cities. It’s time to return to the old days of fighting wars imo.

Planting bases? Paying them less for oil? Oil is a world market my friend. If the price of crude is $50 a barrel, well that's the price of crude. Sure some people might work out a deal once in a while to get X barrels for Y price, but I don't buy the idea that we are getting special favors based on strong arm tactics.

Have you ever talked to anybody outside the US? :icon27:

Ya I have actually. I had a German friend who I work with, and ya he thinks the US is a bunch of imperialist assholes. Of course when I asked him for examples of territories we have added as the 51st state he couldn’t really argue anything.

The only people we are killing are the insurgents and those that live amoungst them. I don't feel sorry for anyone killed in Fallugia, sorry but I just don't. They were hiding the enemy and living with them, therefore they are insurgents themselves.

Yea, those children who got shot in the back as they were running with white flags in their hands were hiding the enemy!!! :icon27:

I don’t know about that, but I have to ask, wtf were they doing in a war zone? Don’t they have parents who take care of them and get them out of there? Fucking poor kids, being used as human shields.

Because, again, you are looking so short term. You really need to stop that. In the long term, to stop terrorism we have to change the mindset of people overall. Basically we have to wake up the people over there and get them to realize that these insurgents really are the enemy so that they will not have anywhere to hide. Terrorists only exist because countries allow them to setup shop in their land.

Now you're using your head! So let's stop turning Iraq into the place that breeds terrorists. :icon27:

We aren’t, we are getting rid of the rest of them, then the rest of Iraq will continue it in an ongoing basis. But first we have to get rid of what is there.

[MidnightQ4]

BTW, didn't Iraq attack Kuwait?

This brings up a very good point, because if we had gone in and taken care of Saddam back then I'm sure we wouldn't be in this mess right now. But because of the peer pressure of popular world opinion we didn't do it. (because GW senior couldn't find justification) But it was the right thing to do, and we failed to do it. Now look where we are.

Similarly, ousting Saddam was the right thing to do. Not the easy thing to do, not the popular thing to do, but the right thing. Happily we will never know the full benefit of doing this, because now we won't have some horrible castastrophe such as Kuwait being nuked or something to spell it out for us. But that's the point. We are doing the stuff now, so we don't have that happen in the future. It's like the unsung hero kinda thing, we do the right thing and don't get much credit for it, simply because the bad thing we prevented never came to pass. So we can't point to it and say, see, we prevented Kuwait from being nuked, but yet that's exactly the kind of thing we ARE doing.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

could you actually get more facts wrong? just shut up already you uneducated retarded immoral fuckwit. thanks in advance.

[MidnightQ4]

If you're going to call my facts wrong, then back it up.

[jester!]

"I don’t know about that, but I have to ask, wtf were they doing in a war zone? Don’t they have parents who take care of them and get them out of there? Fucking poor kids, being used as human shields. "

I dont need to refute your so called facts. Thats all I need to read. Never argue with an idiot as they say...

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

If you're going to call my facts wrong, then back it up.

how about you source your claims seeing as you're the one making all sorts of (absurd) assertions here

[Tormentius]

If you're going to call my facts wrong, then back it up.

Everything you've said in this thread is wrong but you're a fucking moron so we don't expect you to grasp it.

[MidnightQ4]

um, ok. Everything you guys have said is wrong. Which wasn't much btw, mostly just calling the war bad and stuff and whining and complaining about how people die because of war. I've spent too much time already on this thread, I'm not going to bother looking up sources for anything unless someone can point out some glaringly incorrect statements.

By the way, I did list sources for some of my posts already. Perhaps you guys didn't notice cause your too dumb I dunno.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

um, ok. Everything you guys have said is wrong. Which wasn't much btw, mostly just calling the war bad and stuff and whining and complaining about how people die because of war. I've spent too much time already on this thread, I'm not going to bother looking up sources for anything unless someone can point out some glaringly incorrect statements.

By the way, I did list sources for some of my posts already. Perhaps you guys didn't notice cause your too dumb I dunno.

you have to be way more rigorous than you have been in sourcing your claims. you don't have any credibility until then.

plus i'd suggest you check your moral capacity.

you seriously think it's okay to fireball a city because you give 3 days warning? what about the sick and elderly in the city, they can get out? you seriously think it's logical to assume that innocents will leave but the insurgents will stay to be firebombed given a few days notice of the incoming assault?

you just aren't thinking straight son and you're as bad as Saddam when it comes to moral reasoning. sorry but you're evil and stupid

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

[quote="MidnightQ4"]

I'm not condoning the use of banned weapons. Of course if I was making the decisions I would have just used some fuel-air munitions and blown the entire town to bits.
[quote="MidnightQ4"]



good going Saddam. you're the same as him. over 50000 innocent women and children dead since the start of this war
you're scum. come to terms with it and move on

[seremtan]

you see why i gave up on this thread. it's like arguing with butter

[Nightshade]

The insurgents were there, they just hadn't mobilized on the first day. Basically what is left of Saddam's army and his close followers who were priviliged in the old way of things are the ones fighting us. What do you mean they weren't there? Where did they come from then?

Seeing as you're quite obviously the single stupidest poster to hit this board in its history, I'm only going to waste enough time to address this farcical statement.
See if you can follow me on this, ok? The insurgency started AFTER WE INVADED. It never would have occurred had we not illegally invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US. Ok? Is that hard to follow? We single-handedly created the situation that exists in Iraq today.
And you have yet to show a shred of credible proof that Iraq was directly threatening the US.
The fact that you can vote and reproduce scares the shit out of me.

[YourGrandpa]

"Another" is applied to, "unstable country". I brought up the nuclear thing because Iraq is developing nuclear power as we speak. Though you still did not answer MY questions. You answered your twist on my question. I clearly stated, "Iran says they are building nuclear technologies and refuse inspections sanctioned by the U.N.. What do you do?" I didn't say," Iran conforms to sanctioned policies and everything ends happily ever after. What do you do?."

Now give my question a try.

Though I am glad to see you have enough backbone to stand up against nuclear holocaust. It's just saddening to know that, that's what it would take for you to justify millitary action.

BTW, didn't Iraq attack Kuwait?

Any takers?

[Nightshade]

Your first sentence is confusing. You referring to Iran seeking nuclear weapons?

[jester!]

"Another" is applied to, "unstable country". I brought up the nuclear thing because Iraq is developing nuclear power as we speak. Though you still did not answer MY questions. You answered your twist on my question. I clearly stated, "Iran says they are building nuclear technologies and refuse inspections sanctioned by the U.N.. What do you do?" I didn't say," Iran conforms to sanctioned policies and everything ends happily ever after. What do you do?."

Now give my question a try.

Though I am glad to see you have enough backbone to stand up against nuclear holocaust. It's just saddening to know that, that's what it would take for you to justify millitary action.

BTW, didn't Iraq attack Kuwait?

Any takers?

What would I do if I were the US? Fuck off.

I wouldnt start a war of aggression and then claim it was for "Spreading Freedom, we are a peace loving nation that loves life, not death" to paraphrase Bush.

If and only if Iran started shit would I then have the moral and, yes I know its a joke, but legal right to go to war. Until then...

Fuck off.

:icon26:

[werldhed]

If you're going to call my facts wrong, then back it up.

I have too much other shit to get done to go through and point out all your incorrect "facts", but here are a few I noticed skimming through. (keep in mind this is in addition to the incorrect information I already called you on)

1. We invaded a country that WAS a threat. We didn't invade a country that was not a threat. Based on our intelligence and our best understanding of the situation at the time, and the fact that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors in any way, that means they were a threat by definition. So to say they were not a threat is simply false. Everyone in the UN agreed they were a threat, or else we would not have sent UN inspectors to Iraq to assess the situation!!! OMFG it's so obvious! So let's not call it invading a sovereign, non-threatening country cause that's nonsense.

As Nightshade just pointed out, this is wrong. Iraq was not a threat to us any more than Russia is a threat to us.

Terrorists only exist because countries allow them to setup shop in their land.

Again, this error has already been pointed out. Terrorism occurs everywhere. I suppose Northern Ireland is to blame for harboring terrorists, too?

The insurgents were there, they just hadn't mobilized on the first day. Basically what is left of Saddam's army and his close followers who were priviliged in the old way of things are the ones fighting us. What do you mean they weren't there? Where did they come from then?

Nope. It has been estimated by military leaders that Saddam's loyalists were eradicated/captured within the first few months. Almost all of those left fighting are foreigners who are loyal to Zarqawi (sp?) or other factions. Again, according to the military.

We are not telling them how to live. Are you saying they don't want to have a voice in their government? That they enjoy the life under a dictator who steals their daughters away and rapes them, and puts people in torture chambers when they don't follow his rules? Or commits thousands of their countrymen to die in mass graves over religious differences? Are you saying they prefer that way of life?

3. People not being buried in mass graves over religious issues.

I recall you saying something else about Saddam being a religious fanatic, but I can't be bothered to look for it. The point is, Saddam's regime was fanatically secular, and religious tolerance was a big point of it. Typically, if people were punished for their faith, it was due to politicians trying to use their position to push their religion. Saddam even helped finance the construction of many Shi'ite mosques.

There you go. You don't have the answers because you don't have your facts straight. Learn a bit of what's really going on, then we can talk.

[MidnightQ4]

If and only if Iran started shit would I then have the moral and, yes I know its a joke, but legal right to go to war. Until then...

Fuck off.

:icon26:

You say if “Iran started shit”. What exactly do you mean by that? I take that to mean that Iran would have to actually attack some country with WMDs? What is the level of “starting shit” that you would deem acceptable for the U.S. and whoever else wants to join in to go and put the smack down on Iran?

IMO Iraq did start shit. They just didn’t blow up any cities yet. But what they did was imo equally an act of aggression that required intervention. I would say if Iran goes forward with their nuclear program, and then refuses to allow UN inspectors into their facilities, that would be starting shit. Would that be enough of a reason to attack them? According to you it wouldn’t. So please define exactly what they would have to do to make it morally and legally acceptable to deal with them?

This seems to be a common thread with you guys who are against the war. Everyone wants to wait until one of these countries wipes a whole city off the planet with a nuke or chemical bomb before we ever lift a finger to do anything about it. So you are basically condoning the killing of innocent people through inaction. Whereas the U.S. has the goal to prevent this scenario from happening by being proactive about addressing the threats before they can be enacted.

It will be interesting to me to see what Iran does in 10-15 years when they have nuclear capabilities. We already know they don’t like the Jews being in Gaza because they think they have some biblical right to that land, even though they don’t live there. I know it’s retarded right? Just like Saddam invaded Kuwait, Iran could just as easily invade Israel and lob nukes at any country that tries to stop them. That might not happen, but it is definitely in the realm of possibilities.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

jesus christ

[MidnightQ4]

If you're going to call my facts wrong, then back it up.

I have too much other shit to get done to go through and point out all your incorrect "facts", but here are a few I noticed skimming through. (keep in mind this is in addition to the incorrect information I already called you on)

1. We invaded a country that WAS a threat. We didn't invade a country that was not a threat. Based on our intelligence and our best understanding of the situation at the time, and the fact that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors in any way, that means they were a threat by definition. So to say they were not a threat is simply false. Everyone in the UN agreed they were a threat, or else we would not have sent UN inspectors to Iraq to assess the situation!!! OMFG it's so obvious! So let's not call it invading a sovereign, non-threatening country cause that's nonsense.

As Nightshade just pointed out, this is wrong. Iraq was not a threat to us any more than Russia is a threat to us.

Please explain why they were not a threat. Just saying so doesn’t count for anything. I claim they were a threat because they refused to cooperate with UN inspectors. I find that very threatening, because if they didn’t have something to hide then they should have cooperated. So that is my reason for them being a threat. What is your reason they were not a threat? The fact that in the end they didn’t have WMDs? We did not know that at the time 100% for sure, so that is not a valid argument. See you are assuming they were not a threat, based on evidence that came out later. However at the time we invaded, based on our assessment they were a threat.

Terrorists only exist because countries allow them to setup shop in their land.

Again, this error has already been pointed out. Terrorism occurs everywhere. I suppose Northern Ireland is to blame for harboring terrorists, too?

So where then is this argument coming from that we are creating terrorism? All we have created is an uprising of the people who hate the US. However that is not what I would call terrorism in this case, it’s more like war. I do agree though that those people are the potential terrorists, so I think it’s great that we are taking the war to them and getting rid of them.

The insurgents were there, they just hadn't mobilized on the first day. Basically what is left of Saddam's army and his close followers who were priviliged in the old way of things are the ones fighting us. What do you mean they weren't there? Where did they come from then?

Nope. It has been estimated by military leaders that Saddam's loyalists were eradicated/captured within the first few months. Almost all of those left fighting are foreigners who are loyal to Zarqawi (sp?) or other factions. Again, according to the military.

I’m sure it is a mixture of people some who were loyal to Saddam are surely still out there. But whatever the mix of the insurgents is I think it’s good that we are dealing with them over there and causing them to rise up so that we can tear them down.

We are not telling them how to live. Are you saying they don't want to have a voice in their government? That they enjoy the life under a dictator who steals their daughters away and rapes them, and puts people in torture chambers when they don't follow his rules? Or commits thousands of their countrymen to die in mass graves over religious differences? Are you saying they prefer that way of life?

3. People not being buried in mass graves over religious issues.

I recall you saying something else about Saddam being a religious fanatic, but I can't be bothered to look for it. The point is, Saddam's regime was fanatically secular, and religious tolerance was a big point of it. Typically, if people were punished for their faith, it was due to politicians trying to use their position to push their religion. Saddam even helped finance the construction of many Shi'ite mosques.

There you go. You don't have the answers because you don't have your facts straight. Learn a bit of what's really going on, then we can talk.

Then who were all those kurds he used nerve gas on?

He was fanatically secular yet he funded the construction of mosques?

[jester!]

If and only if Iran started shit would I then have the moral and, yes I know its a joke, but legal right to go to war. Until then...

Fuck off.

:icon26:

You say if “Iran started shit”. What exactly do you mean by that? I take that to mean that Iran would have to actually attack some country with WMDs? What is the level of “starting shit” that you would deem acceptable for the U.S. and whoever else wants to join in to go and put the smack down on Iran?

IMO Iraq did start shit. They just didn’t blow up any cities yet. But what they did was imo equally an act of aggression that required intervention. I would say if Iran goes forward with their nuclear program, and then refuses to allow UN inspectors into their facilities, that would be starting shit. Would that be enough of a reason to attack them? According to you it wouldn’t. So please define exactly what they would have to do to make it morally and legally acceptable to deal with them?

This seems to be a common thread with you guys who are against the war. Everyone wants to wait until one of these countries wipes a whole city off the planet with a nuke or chemical bomb before we ever lift a finger to do anything about it. So you are basically condoning the killing of innocent people through inaction. Whereas the U.S. has the goal to prevent this scenario from happening by being proactive about addressing the threats before they can be enacted.

It will be interesting to me to see what Iran does in 10-15 years when they have nuclear capabilities. We already know they don’t like the Jews being in Gaza because they think they have some biblical right to that land, even though they don’t live there. I know it’s retarded right? Just like Saddam invaded Kuwait, Iran could just as easily invade Israel and lob nukes at any country that tries to stop them. That might not happen, but it is definitely in the realm of possibilities.

Are you actually stupid enough to believe that any country will ever without some SERIOUS reason drop a nuke? Honestly. Forget all your fear, and how your scared of the fucking world deep down, and just fucking think.

What happened when the people ruling Afganistan actually did something and took out the WTC? The VAST majority of the world jumped their ass either through support or actual troops.

Iraq didnt do shit other then be in the wrong place at the wrong time this go around ie. The US wants a US friendly stable platform in the middle east, and oh hows that oil looking great kthx. Yeah they fucked up once well the PEOPLE suffered for it due to the US/UN intervention, nothing changed, and honestly the people think it was better before the US went in and took out any kind of stability, was it great? No, was it better before you got there, yes it was for many of them. You can sit there and say well GTFO then stupid poor people! And you just look more and more like a fucking ignorant american every damn post, gg though your a great troll obviously. Why should the UN have the power to go in and do inspections in Iran?

Until Iran declares war and sends over some troops well then all they are doing is talking.

Hey here you go. DEATH TO AMERICA. Ok, there you go, bomb me now please because I am obviously a threat...

No Iran isnt going to invade Gaza, because Isreal has pulled out of Gaza you thick shit.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/4135.asp
http://home.muzi.com/news/ll/english/1379124.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4841500
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world ... 957345.stm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 1117.shtml

Seriously now. Nobody is going to drop a nuke, but you sure are a scared little boy arent ya? Deep down the US as a people, yes this is a generalization, are just fucking scared of the world because they know deep down, that they are fucking up over and over and people are starting to see it. :icon26:

How many times have you condoned the innocents lost in the US war of aggression in iraq? Oh they arent innocent because they didnt leave, right.

The US population is guilty by association with the US government and therefore are viable targets by anyone and everyone. Sound familiar?

:icon26:

[seremtan]

btw that dickhead iranian president's comments about israel ought to be taken in the context of israel have a nuclear arsenal of approx. 200 warheads, which (lol) makes israel a bigger nuclear power than britain, which is on the security council, and israel isn't (lol)

[R00k]

This midnight guy will be singing the praises of this war even after the entire government, people and military have called it a failure and pulled out. Then 5 years from now he will be blaming our problems on the fact that we didn't 'give it a chance.'

It's just like all the people who still believe trickle-down, supply-side economics works, but we'll never know because we never gave it enough of a chance.

Those poor warmongers and oligarchs, always getting the short end of the stick.

[R00k]

It's even funnier that midnight has talked himself into being a neo-liberal so he can continue his support for our interventionist policy....... and apparently still thinks of himself as a conservative.

[YourGrandpa]

What would I do if I were the US? Fuck off.

Yes, fuck off will fix everything.


Just admit you don't have an alternative and move on.


Next?