Do you support pre-emptive war with Iran?

[Tom Horn]

Gee! Who'd have thought it would be so easy? Why, they'll doubtless welcome their liberators. The very thought gives one those warm feelings we had when that happened in Iraq!

Actually it did happen in Iraq.

If Turkey hadn't reneged on their promise to let 4th ID invade from the north, we'd have beaten the resistance to Saddam's arms caches in the sunni triangle and there would have been no uprising.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I support the eradication of islam from the face of the earth.

Iran is collateral damage.

Alright there's one genocidal lunatic, supporting Trump and a pre-emptive Trump invasion of Iran. Anybody else?

Nope, no war with Iran....now, did you support the war in Libya and Syria using proxy mercenaries funded and trained by USA.INC? Because that is EXACTLY what happened and is happening.

Nope. That was Obama's biggest mistake. The U.S. needs to completely wash its hands of the middle east.

Problem with that is this.........we've already funded their ability to carry out a war with US (Obama's biggest mistake(?)) AND there has been too many squirmishes or nose tweaking that if we did just walk away........they will come after US full speed and we will have NO choice but to defend ourselves by means of war.

It shouldn't be a question of whether anyone supports this because I really don't think anyone in this country really want a war with Iran or anyone else, but because of past blunders the majority of the ME countries, Russia, China, North Korea, etc are drooling over our blood & will happen whether we support it or not.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Nope. If we just leave them alone they'll implode of their own accord. Keep the sanctions in place, unfortunately it's impossible to grab back the money that the obummer admin gave them like a bunch of ******* morons, but actually going to war with them is a loser.

Good for you Westwall. I hope your sentiment prevails in the batshit insane Trump admin.

I have no interest in such a war.

I didn't support Bush's disasters in 2003....never have.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I support the eradication of islam from the face of the earth.

Iran is collateral damage.

Alright there's one genocidal lunatic, supporting Trump and a pre-emptive Trump invasion of Iran. Anybody else?

Nope, no war with Iran....now, did you support the war in Libya and Syria using proxy mercenaries funded and trained by USA.INC? Because that is EXACTLY what happened and is happening.

Nope. That was Obama's biggest mistake. The U.S. needs to completely wash its hands of the middle east.

So....how long before the inevitable war.....chuckles ?

And if it does not happen by then.....will you agree to leave the board ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Let's see if she has the guts to answer.

 

[peabody]

America cannot bomb Iran into submission as Iran is too big a country. America does not have the will to send more than 500,000 servicemen to Iran, to conquer and occupy it. America is financially weak, with a national debt of over $20 trillion and cannot afford another war that would spill over to the entire Muslim World.

 

[deltex1]

Let's just get us all on record about this before the inevitable Trump invasion. Who here will admit right now to supporting an Iran invasion?

I support a preemptive war...but not an invasion. We can cripple them from the air and sea. I presume you are qualifying the preemption as justified.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Let's just get us all on record about this before the inevitable Trump invasion. Who here will admit right now to supporting an Iran invasion?

I support a preemptive war...but not an invasion. We can cripple them from the air and sea. I presume you are qualifying the preemption as justified.

Pre-emptive war is never okay. Pre-emptive war is just another term for invading a country.

 

[Dale Smith]

America cannot bomb Iran into submission as Iran is too big a country. America does not have the will to send more than 500,000 servicemen to Iran, to conquer and occupy it. America is financially weak, with a national debt of over $20 trillion and cannot afford another war that would spill over to the entire Muslim World.

America cannot bomb Iran into submission as Iran is too big a country. America does not have the will to send more than 500,000 servicemen to Iran, to conquer and occupy it. America is financially weak, with a national debt of over $20 trillion and cannot afford another war that would spill over to the entire Muslim World.

Going into Iran is just as wrong as it was going into Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. If Trump does this? He will no longer have my support because he isn't any different than the Barrypuppet or the Bushpuppet. He will simply be fulfilling the goals of PNAC.

 

[deltex1]

Let's just get us all on record about this before the inevitable Trump invasion. Who here will admit right now to supporting an Iran invasion?

I support a preemptive war...but not an invasion. We can cripple them from the air and sea. I presume you are qualifying the preemption as justified.

Pre-emptive war is never okay. Pre-emptive war is just another term for invading a country.

Suppose we get irrefutable evidence Iran will hit Jerusalem with a nuke on a date certain...do we sit idly by and do nothing or do we ask the UN to pass a resolution to condemn the action or do we preempt Iran's capability to carry out the attack?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Let's just get us all on record about this before the inevitable Trump invasion. Who here will admit right now to supporting an Iran invasion?

I support a preemptive war...but not an invasion. We can cripple them from the air and sea. I presume you are qualifying the preemption as justified.

Pre-emptive war is never okay. Pre-emptive war is just another term for invading a country.

Suppose we get irrefutable evidence Iran will hit Jerusalem with a nuke on a date certain...do we sit idly by and do nothing or do we ask the UN to pass a resolution to condemn the action or do we preempt Iran's capability to carry out the attack?

First, that would never happen because Iran knows it would be a country made of glass the next day if it did. Second, stopping an imminent attack on an ally is not pre-emptive war.

 

[Dale Smith]

Let's just get us all on record about this before the inevitable Trump invasion. Who here will admit right now to supporting an Iran invasion?

I support a preemptive war...but not an invasion. We can cripple them from the air and sea. I presume you are qualifying the preemption as justified.

Pre-emptive war is never okay. Pre-emptive war is just another term for invading a country.

Suppose we get irrefutable evidence Iran will hit Jerusalem with a nuke on a date certain...do we sit idly by and do nothing or do we ask the UN to pass a resolution to condemn the action or do we preempt Iran's capability to carry out the attack?

Iran isn't going to drop a nuke on anyone...especially Israel. I don't blame Iran for wanting to arm themselves to guard against the globalists that are eyeing what they have. Iran has been watching the globalists run roughshod over the Middle East and in the mean time creating radical muslim extremists that have then been dispersed all over Europe, America and Canada. Have you ever thought as to why they are not migrating to South America or Mexico? Of course they wouldn't go there...those countries are already in chaos. I like your postings but we are going to have to disagree on this point. Israel is a Rothschild creation and it all goes back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Israel is not our friend or ally....never has been. The Christianity believe that Israel is full of God's chosen people is a fallacy that the globalists have used to keep us defending it. The likelihood is HUGE that very few people in Israel have any blood ties to the 12 Hebrew tribes.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Let's just get us all on record about this before the inevitable Trump invasion. Who here will admit right now to supporting an Iran invasion?

Hey OlfFool (TheOldSchool), check post 103....let's see how confident you are about this inevitable invasion.

Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[OldLady]

Iran is one of the leading sources of terrorism in the world and one of the leading sources of destabilization in the Middle East.

Iran also starts trouble and then attempts to fall back, using the self-defense / victim card.

One man's terrorist is another man's nationalist, rebel, patriot. What does Iran want? Can it be satisfied with something that would persuade it to stop funding "soldiers" who take the war to innocent civilians in a non-war zone?
Obama's policy was to kill as few civilians as possible in this war against terrorism, for that very reason. It was frustrating for the military but it took the teeth out of "payback" as a justification for terrorists' slaughter of innocents.
I sure hope Trump is taking his briefings very, very seriously these days. I was never more than lukewarm about Obama's stance in all this, but now we're talking war with Iran? Over speed boats and a few unarmed missiles? I would look to the UN for some additional backup if Iran has actually violated the treaty. I don't know what would come next, but we would have much more authority if we weren't rising to the bait alone.

"One man's terrorist is another man's nationalist, rebel, patriot."
.
Sooo, logically, there is no difference between Al-Queda and the Women who marched in Washington two weeks ago? Are you sure you want to adopt relativism to that degree?

Unless you are with Pete for turning Iran into a glass bowl, you should try to read my whole post:
What does Iran want? Can it be satisfied with something that would persuade it to stop funding "soldiers" who take the war to innocent civilians in a non-war zone?
My point is that Iran sees it differently. In order to stop them from funding "terrorists," you've got to understand their point of view. I didn't say you have to agree with it. But if there's any way to get them to stop, you've got to start by understanding where they are. Or blow them to kingdom come. Which no one will do, because Iran is buddies with Russia, and whoever bombs Iran is going to get it from Russia. Do you really want the games to begin? Because they will.

 

[Pete7469]

Unless you are with Pete for turning Iran into a glass bowl, you should try to read my whole post:
What does Iran want? Can it be satisfied with something that would persuade it to stop funding "soldiers" who take the war to innocent civilians in a non-war zone?
My point is that Iran sees it differently. In order to stop them from funding "terrorists," you've got to understand their point of view. I didn't say you have to agree with it. But if there's any way to get them to stop, you've got to start by understanding where they are. Or blow them to kingdom come. Which no one will do, because Iran is buddies with Russia, and whoever bombs Iran is going to get it from Russia. Do you really want the games to begin? Because they will.

Being willing to turn Iran into a radiant lake doesn't mean it's something I want to happen.

Show me someone you think can do the job....

Someone who will deliver Iran/US relations that are simply less adversarial and I'll support it.

We tried with the meat puppet ******. What a mother **** of all goat ***** that was. He should have just offered them fully assembled nukes while prostrated before the Ayatollah at the UN, begging for forgiveness and promising to purge the country of infidels.

So if Trump starts negotiations with a willingness to make Baghdad a well lit coastal resort city by significantly expanding the Persian Gulf northward, he's probably going to get their attention.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Let's just get us all on record about this before the inevitable Trump invasion. Who here will admit right now to supporting an Iran invasion?

I support a preemptive war...but not an invasion. We can cripple them from the air and sea. I presume you are qualifying the preemption as justified.

Pre-emptive war is never okay. Pre-emptive war is just another term for invading a country.

Suppose we get irrefutable evidence Iran will hit Jerusalem with a nuke on a date certain...do we sit idly by and do nothing or do we ask the UN to pass a resolution to condemn the action or do we preempt Iran's capability to carry out the attack?

Inform the Jews, do a joint operation...destroy the capability

 

[xyz]

Iran is one of the leading sources of terrorism in the world and one of the leading sources of destabilization in the Middle East.

Iran also starts trouble and then attempts to fall back, using the self-defense / victim card.

One man's terrorist is another man's nationalist, rebel, patriot. What does Iran want? Can it be satisfied with something that would persuade it to stop funding "soldiers" who take the war to innocent civilians in a non-war zone?
Obama's policy was to kill as few civilians as possible in this war against terrorism, for that very reason. It was frustrating for the military but it took the teeth out of "payback" as a justification for terrorists' slaughter of innocents.
I sure hope Trump is taking his briefings very, very seriously these days. I was never more than lukewarm about Obama's stance in all this, but now we're talking war with Iran? Over speed boats and a few unarmed missiles? I would look to the UN for some additional backup if Iran has actually violated the treaty. I don't know what would come next, but we would have much more authority if we weren't rising to the bait alone.

Wrong. Nationalists target the people in power, the military targets etc. Terrorists target civilians. Huge difference.

National Socialists were not Nationalists? Did they not target civilians?

 

[westwall]

Iran is one of the leading sources of terrorism in the world and one of the leading sources of destabilization in the Middle East.

Iran also starts trouble and then attempts to fall back, using the self-defense / victim card.

One man's terrorist is another man's nationalist, rebel, patriot. What does Iran want? Can it be satisfied with something that would persuade it to stop funding "soldiers" who take the war to innocent civilians in a non-war zone?
Obama's policy was to kill as few civilians as possible in this war against terrorism, for that very reason. It was frustrating for the military but it took the teeth out of "payback" as a justification for terrorists' slaughter of innocents.
I sure hope Trump is taking his briefings very, very seriously these days. I was never more than lukewarm about Obama's stance in all this, but now we're talking war with Iran? Over speed boats and a few unarmed missiles? I would look to the UN for some additional backup if Iran has actually violated the treaty. I don't know what would come next, but we would have much more authority if we weren't rising to the bait alone.

Wrong. Nationalists target the people in power, the military targets etc. Terrorists target civilians. Huge difference.

National Socialists were not Nationalists? Did they not target civilians?

Yes, they were. But they were primarily a TOTALITARIAN government. Thus they can't be terrorists. They were far more efficient killers than any terrorist group could ever hope to be, but then that is also true of the Soviet Union and any other authoritarian government. Which is why ANY regulation on firearms, and the corresponding decrease in the civilian populations ability to defend itself, is a step towards authoritarianism.

 

[xyz]

Iran is one of the leading sources of terrorism in the world and one of the leading sources of destabilization in the Middle East.

Iran also starts trouble and then attempts to fall back, using the self-defense / victim card.

One man's terrorist is another man's nationalist, rebel, patriot. What does Iran want? Can it be satisfied with something that would persuade it to stop funding "soldiers" who take the war to innocent civilians in a non-war zone?
Obama's policy was to kill as few civilians as possible in this war against terrorism, for that very reason. It was frustrating for the military but it took the teeth out of "payback" as a justification for terrorists' slaughter of innocents.
I sure hope Trump is taking his briefings very, very seriously these days. I was never more than lukewarm about Obama's stance in all this, but now we're talking war with Iran? Over speed boats and a few unarmed missiles? I would look to the UN for some additional backup if Iran has actually violated the treaty. I don't know what would come next, but we would have much more authority if we weren't rising to the bait alone.

Wrong. Nationalists target the people in power, the military targets etc. Terrorists target civilians. Huge difference.

National Socialists were not Nationalists? Did they not target civilians?

Yes, they were. But they were primarily a TOTALITARIAN government. Thus they can't be terrorists. They were far more efficient killers than any terrorist group could ever hope to be, but then that is also true of the Soviet Union and any other authoritarian government. Which is why ANY regulation on firearms, and the corresponding decrease in the civilian populations ability to defend itself, is a step towards authoritarianism.

O.k., I see your point about firearms to a certain extent and agree with it.

But: I don't think ISIS has any regulations on firearms, they are a totalitarian government, and they are terrorists.

 

[westwall]

Iran is one of the leading sources of terrorism in the world and one of the leading sources of destabilization in the Middle East.

Iran also starts trouble and then attempts to fall back, using the self-defense / victim card.

One man's terrorist is another man's nationalist, rebel, patriot. What does Iran want? Can it be satisfied with something that would persuade it to stop funding "soldiers" who take the war to innocent civilians in a non-war zone?
Obama's policy was to kill as few civilians as possible in this war against terrorism, for that very reason. It was frustrating for the military but it took the teeth out of "payback" as a justification for terrorists' slaughter of innocents.
I sure hope Trump is taking his briefings very, very seriously these days. I was never more than lukewarm about Obama's stance in all this, but now we're talking war with Iran? Over speed boats and a few unarmed missiles? I would look to the UN for some additional backup if Iran has actually violated the treaty. I don't know what would come next, but we would have much more authority if we weren't rising to the bait alone.

Wrong. Nationalists target the people in power, the military targets etc. Terrorists target civilians. Huge difference.

National Socialists were not Nationalists? Did they not target civilians?

Yes, they were. But they were primarily a TOTALITARIAN government. Thus they can't be terrorists. They were far more efficient killers than any terrorist group could ever hope to be, but then that is also true of the Soviet Union and any other authoritarian government. Which is why ANY regulation on firearms, and the corresponding decrease in the civilian populations ability to defend itself, is a step towards authoritarianism.

O.k., I see your point about firearms to a certain extent and agree with it.

But: I don't think ISIS has any regulations on firearms, they are a totalitarian government, and they are terrorists.

They have the simple regulation that they kill you if you are not one of them. Thus, the first thing they do, is disarm the populace upon arrival.