War With Iran This Fall?

[DavidS]

The Iranians are responsible for most of the turmoil in the middle east now and the Saudis can not tolerate that. Iran killed the PM in Lebanon and he was Saudi and was influencing Saudi policy there.
Syria is aligned with Iran. The Arab world can't stand that.
The Arab League with a new SC is pretty much irrelevant in recent years. Impotent to the core. Any Isreali attack, and I doubt there will be any, would be condemned outright but unless it is a full scale invasion, will not be responded to by the Arab world by troops and materials to support Iran.

Most people on this planet think the US is responsible for "most of the turmoil in the Middle East."

How many other countries are sending troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy countries who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland?

MLK's "greatest purveyor of violence on the planet" hasn't changed.

Who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland? Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off of the map for years and they're building nuclear weapons. I think that's enough of a threat.

 

[georgephillip]

The Iranians are responsible for most of the turmoil in the middle east now and the Saudis can not tolerate that. Iran killed the PM in Lebanon and he was Saudi and was influencing Saudi policy there.
Syria is aligned with Iran. The Arab world can't stand that.
The Arab League with a new SC is pretty much irrelevant in recent years. Impotent to the core. Any Isreali attack, and I doubt there will be any, would be condemned outright but unless it is a full scale invasion, will not be responded to by the Arab world by troops and materials to support Iran.

Most people on this planet think the US is responsible for "most of the turmoil in the Middle East."

How many other countries are sending troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy countries who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland?

MLK's "greatest purveyor of violence on the planet" hasn't changed.

Who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland? Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off of the map for years and they're building nuclear weapons. I think that's enough of a threat.

Israel has over two hundred nuclear weapons and the fourth of fifth most deadly conventional army in the world. What possible threat does Iran pose in comparison to Israel's? (not to mention the US's killing machine)

 

[St.Blues]

by Antiderivative;


rw kooks love to neg me, lie out their ass, and leave me nasty messages: boedicca, willowtree, jroc, liability, Cal girl, Dr. House, Daveman, Diamond Dave, political chic, The Rabbi, Warrior102, Colin.

These people are subhuman and fuck goats..

Candy Corn is a lying piece of shit.

Well then................

 

[Warrior102]

The Iranians are responsible for most of the turmoil in the middle east now and the Saudis can not tolerate that. Iran killed the PM in Lebanon and he was Saudi and was influencing Saudi policy there.
Syria is aligned with Iran. The Arab world can't stand that.
The Arab League with a new SC is pretty much irrelevant in recent years. Impotent to the core. Any Isreali attack, and I doubt there will be any, would be condemned outright but unless it is a full scale invasion, will not be responded to by the Arab world by troops and materials to support Iran.

Most people on this planet think the US is responsible for "most of the turmoil in the Middle East."

How many other countries are sending troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy countries who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland?

MLK's "greatest purveyor of violence on the planet" hasn't changed.

Who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland? Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off of the map for years and they're building nuclear weapons. I think that's enough of a threat.

Then move to Iran idiot.

 

[High_Gravity]

by Antiderivative;


rw kooks love to neg me, lie out their ass, and leave me nasty messages: boedicca, willowtree, jroc, liability, Cal girl, Dr. House, Daveman, Diamond Dave, political chic, The Rabbi, Warrior102, Colin.

These people are subhuman and fuck goats..

Candy Corn is a lying piece of shit.

Well then................

You wonder why you're neg repped? Look at your post. You French Kiss your father with that mouth?

HAHAHAHAHA Good one Warrior.

 

[High_Gravity]

If we do go to war with Iran, lets just fuck them up, blow the shit out of their infrastructure, I don't want our Military going into Iran nation building and winning hearts and minds.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well the oil pipelines have been built in Afghanistan, we've blown up Iraq, we're blowing up Libya/Pakistan/Yemen/Syria and god knows what other arab country, by the time we get bored with that I'm sure we'll "liberate" another oil rich country so we can bring them "freedom."

So yeah, finding an excuse and bombing a country we've already tried to destroy in other ways sounds about right. Our other methods were ending democracy in Iran and giving a madmen gas to kill them from the inside out, what's left? Our newest favorite warmongering tool, cruise missiles.

 

[Warrior102]

If we do go to war with Iran, which side will GeorgePhillip be on?
My guess is he'll be wearing the turban

 

[martybegan]

Most people on this planet think the US is responsible for "most of the turmoil in the Middle East."

How many other countries are sending troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy countries who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland?

MLK's "greatest purveyor of violence on the planet" hasn't changed.

Who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland? Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off of the map for years and they're building nuclear weapons. I think that's enough of a threat.

Israel has over two hundred nuclear weapons and the fourth of fifth most deadly conventional army in the world. What possible threat does Iran pose in comparison to Israel's? (not to mention the US's killing machine)

The threat is the fact that Israel's population is basically concentrated in two smaller locations (Tel Aviv and the Jerusalem area), which lends itself to vulnerablity to a first strike using Nuke/Chem/Bio munitions. Israel's conventional army is a good guarantee against conventional war, but the only reason Israel still exists in the modern age is that the other countries know that any nuke/chem/bio attack will be met with the revenge destruction of most of the middle east's capital cities.

Iran is a concern as there may be a though in thier inner circles that they could weather a retailiatory strike. In addition you have this whole "12 imam "mahdi"" crap, which then means the government as a whole is suicidal anyway.

 

[High_Gravity]

If we do go to war with Iran, which side will GeorgePhillip be on?
My guess is he'll be wearing the turban

No sir, she will be wearing a burka.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well the oil pipelines have been built in Afghanistan, we've blown up Iraq, we're blowing up Libya/Pakistan/Yemen/Syria and god knows what other arab country, by the time we get bored with that I'm sure we'll "liberate" another oil rich country so we can bring them "freedom."

So yeah, finding an excuse and bombing a country we've already tried to destroy in other ways sounds about right. Our other methods were ending democracy in Iran and giving a madmen gas to kill them from the inside out, what's left? Our newest favorite warmongering tool, cruise missiles.

Nope, we haven't touched Syria.

 

[Jack Fate]

Most people on this planet think the US is responsible for "most of the turmoil in the Middle East."

How many other countries are sending troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy countries who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland?

MLK's "greatest purveyor of violence on the planet" hasn't changed.

Who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland? Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off of the map for years and they're building nuclear weapons. I think that's enough of a threat.

Israel has over two hundred nuclear weapons and the fourth of fifth most deadly conventional army in the world. What possible threat does Iran pose in comparison to Israel's? (not to mention the US's killing machine)

Suicide bombers.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well the oil pipelines have been built in Afghanistan, we've blown up Iraq, we're blowing up Libya/Pakistan/Yemen/Syria and god knows what other arab country, by the time we get bored with that I'm sure we'll "liberate" another oil rich country so we can bring them "freedom."

So yeah, finding an excuse and bombing a country we've already tried to destroy in other ways sounds about right. Our other methods were ending democracy in Iran and giving a madmen gas to kill them from the inside out, what's left? Our newest favorite warmongering tool, cruise missiles.

Nope, we haven't touched Syria.

U.S. Military Helicopters Launch Attack Inside Syria - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. military helicopters struck a network of foreign fighters in Syria, a U.S. military official said Sunday, killing eight people and earning recrimination from Damascus, which condemned the raid as "serious aggression."

So for US standards this is a small version of warmongering, but an attack nonetheless.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well the oil pipelines have been built in Afghanistan, we've blown up Iraq, we're blowing up Libya/Pakistan/Yemen/Syria and god knows what other arab country, by the time we get bored with that I'm sure we'll "liberate" another oil rich country so we can bring them "freedom."

So yeah, finding an excuse and bombing a country we've already tried to destroy in other ways sounds about right. Our other methods were ending democracy in Iran and giving a madmen gas to kill them from the inside out, what's left? Our newest favorite warmongering tool, cruise missiles.

Nope, we haven't touched Syria.

U.S. Military Helicopters Launch Attack Inside Syria - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. military helicopters struck a network of foreign fighters in Syria, a U.S. military official said Sunday, killing eight people and earning recrimination from Damascus, which condemned the raid as "serious aggression."

So for US standards this is a small version of warmongering, but an attack nonetheless.

Ah I thought you meant during the current crisis, we have actually been in Syria a few times to kill insurgents and I approve those raids, Syria let Iraqi insurgents and other foreign fighters use Syria as a kind of bed and breakfast.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Iranians are responsible for most of the turmoil in the middle east now and the Saudis can not tolerate that. Iran killed the PM in Lebanon and he was Saudi and was influencing Saudi policy there.
Syria is aligned with Iran. The Arab world can't stand that.
The Arab League with a new SC is pretty much irrelevant in recent years. Impotent to the core. Any Isreali attack, and I doubt there will be any, would be condemned outright but unless it is a full scale invasion, will not be responded to by the Arab world by troops and materials to support Iran.

Most people on this planet think the US is responsible for "most of the turmoil in the Middle East."

How many other countries are sending troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy countries who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland?

MLK's "greatest purveyor of violence on the planet" hasn't changed.

Most people believe pro wrasslin is real. Do you?
What else is new?
And how many of us are strapping bombs on, walking into elementary schools and public places to kill innocent civilians?

 

[Dr.Drock]

The Iranians are responsible for most of the turmoil in the middle east now and the Saudis can not tolerate that. Iran killed the PM in Lebanon and he was Saudi and was influencing Saudi policy there.
Syria is aligned with Iran. The Arab world can't stand that.
The Arab League with a new SC is pretty much irrelevant in recent years. Impotent to the core. Any Isreali attack, and I doubt there will be any, would be condemned outright but unless it is a full scale invasion, will not be responded to by the Arab world by troops and materials to support Iran.

Most people on this planet think the US is responsible for "most of the turmoil in the Middle East."

How many other countries are sending troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy countries who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland?

MLK's "greatest purveyor of violence on the planet" hasn't changed.

Most people believe pro wrasslin is real. Do you?
What else is new?
And how many of us are strapping bombs on, walking into elementary schools and public places to kill innocent civilians?

We don't have to, we just kill toddlers with cruise missiles.

NATO admits fault as toddlers killed in Libya

 

[Gadawg73]

Well the oil pipelines have been built in Afghanistan, we've blown up Iraq, we're blowing up Libya/Pakistan/Yemen/Syria and god knows what other arab country, by the time we get bored with that I'm sure we'll "liberate" another oil rich country so we can bring them "freedom."

So yeah, finding an excuse and bombing a country we've already tried to destroy in other ways sounds about right. Our other methods were ending democracy in Iran and giving a madmen gas to kill them from the inside out, what's left? Our newest favorite warmongering tool, cruise missiles.

Nope, we haven't touched Syria.

U.S. Military Helicopters Launch Attack Inside Syria - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. military helicopters struck a network of foreign fighters in Syria, a U.S. military official said Sunday, killing eight people and earning recrimination from Damascus, which condemned the raid as "serious aggression."

So for US standards this is a small version of warmongering, but an attack nonetheless.

So we hit Al Qaeda terrorists coming into Iraq from Syrian and you believe that to be a bad thing?
And you do not know that it is Iranian influence with Syria that allows that?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Nope, we haven't touched Syria.

U.S. Military Helicopters Launch Attack Inside Syria - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. military helicopters struck a network of foreign fighters in Syria, a U.S. military official said Sunday, killing eight people and earning recrimination from Damascus, which condemned the raid as "serious aggression."

So for US standards this is a small version of warmongering, but an attack nonetheless.

Ah I thought you meant during the current crisis, we have actually been in Syria a few times to kill insurgents and I approve those raids, Syria let Iraqi insurgents and other foreign fighters use Syria as a kind of bed and breakfast.

Good point, my timeline was a little out of wack.

The sad thing is though just 3 years ago is viewed as a different group of attacks , but I agree with you.

 

[Gadawg73]

Most people on this planet think the US is responsible for "most of the turmoil in the Middle East."

How many other countries are sending troops half-way around the world to invade and occupy countries who posed no risk to the invaders' homeland?

MLK's "greatest purveyor of violence on the planet" hasn't changed.

Most people believe pro wrasslin is real. Do you?
What else is new?
And how many of us are strapping bombs on, walking into elementary schools and public places to kill innocent civilians?

We don't have to, we just kill toddlers with cruise missiles.

NATO admits fault as toddlers killed in Libya

Your claims that we target toddlers with cruise missles is beyond bizzarre.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Nope, we haven't touched Syria.

U.S. Military Helicopters Launch Attack Inside Syria - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. military helicopters struck a network of foreign fighters in Syria, a U.S. military official said Sunday, killing eight people and earning recrimination from Damascus, which condemned the raid as "serious aggression."

So for US standards this is a small version of warmongering, but an attack nonetheless.

So we hit Al Qaeda terrorists coming into Iraq from Syrian and you believe that to be a bad thing?
And you do not know that it is Iranian influence with Syria that allows that?

Yep, I do view it as a bad thing, I view the war on terror as a bad and unwinnable thing.

Besides we're funding Al Qaeda in Libya, so we no longer have a concrete anti-Al Qaeda stance.