Do You Support The Possible Coming Wars With Iran & Syria?

[JakeStarkey]

Who is "we"? The Obama administration's strategy for Iran has been a complete and utter failure. Remember Obama's pledge to sit down and talk with Iran? We see how well that did.
You're right: Obama has not made our situation any better. He was handed a far more secure, peaceful adn stable world and Obama has blown it in 3 years.
Obama is the worst president since Pres. Pol Pot.

Now you're deliberately ignoring what I posted, so since it's worthless debating with you, welcome to ignore.

What you posted is nonsense. Iran is not an ally of Iraq. Obama's policy towards Iran has been an abject failure.
It is worthless for you to debate me because your debating skills, knowledge, and reasoning abilities are inferior.

Iran grows closer to Iraq daily. The two shi'ite powers will continue to grow more closely together and oppose American interventionism in the ME.

You cannot defend your position successfully.

 

[Paulie]

Good to see so many Americans opposing these Wars. Now lets hope our Politicians listen and respect the People.

What wars would that be?

Let me guess. He'll say which wars, and then you'll respond with "you're dumb".

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Good to see so many Americans opposing these Wars. Now lets hope our Politicians listen and respect the People.

What wars would that be?

Let me guess. He'll say which wars, and then you'll respond with "you're dumb".

You know seriously now, he gave NO details or anything of why or if it was in response to anything. Of course most people oppose war but most people also realize sometimes it is the solution that must happen.
Shit, Obama groveled at the feet of our enemies and it wasn't enough. You have to be a realist.

 

[The Rabbi]

What wars would that be?

Let me guess. He'll say which wars, and then you'll respond with "you're dumb".

You know seriously now, he gave NO details or anything of why or if it was in response to anything. Of course most people oppose war but most people also realize sometimes it is the solution that must happen.
Shit, Obama groveled at the feet of our enemies and it wasn't enough. You have to be a realist.

Thanks, Grampa. Yes, saying "do you oppose war?" is absurd. No one is in favor of war, per se. Another straw man by the narco-libertarians.

 

[Paulie]

What wars would that be?

Let me guess. He'll say which wars, and then you'll respond with "you're dumb".

You know seriously now, he gave NO details or anything of why or if it was in response to anything. Of course most people oppose war but most people also realize sometimes it is the solution that must happen.
Shit, Obama groveled at the feet of our enemies and it wasn't enough. You have to be a realist.

War can be a solution to another act of war. If we really think we can somehow create peace through preemptive war, we're insane. As long as we keep creating new enemies, there will always be the potential for more war.

At some point someone needs to have the balls to say enough is enough, and stop bombing, invading, and occupying. We occupy some of the most holiest of land to a global religion, by the barrel of a gun, and you don't think this creates new enemies?

Every new enemy we create by occupying holy lands, cutting shady deals with dictators for the purpose of geopolitics and economics, pick favorites in international disputes, what have you, has the potential of being audacious enough to try and attack us in some way in retaliation for a perceived wrongdoing. And everytime someone attacks us, that will be viewed as an act of war that we should retaliate against. So the cycle never really ends.

We're fortunate to be separated by 2 vast oceans, from anyone who doesn't like us. So this means that for any of them to be able to have any chance at challenging us militarily, they need an Air Force and a Navy that could somehow penetrate our borders. This is an impossible task. There is no one in the world who can challenge us in that regard. And that's whether we're in 150 countries around the world or not.

The only way they can ever get to us is to somehow smuggle weaponry into the country to make calculated attacks in secret. So it seems to me that the borders we ought to be defending MOST, are our OWN. But yet, somehow every year more and more people sneak into this country with God knows what in their possession while we entertain this illusion that as long as we're constantly taking it to them on their turf, that we can somehow prevent terrorism.

It's absurd. At the end of the day, it just breeds more terrorism while we leave our borders wide open and cheer about how we have 30,000 troops guarding the border between the Koreas, instead.

If you can somehow explain this logic, be my guest.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Let me guess. He'll say which wars, and then you'll respond with "you're dumb".

You know seriously now, he gave NO details or anything of why or if it was in response to anything. Of course most people oppose war but most people also realize sometimes it is the solution that must happen.
Shit, Obama groveled at the feet of our enemies and it wasn't enough. You have to be a realist.

War can be a solution to another act of war. If we really think we can somehow create peace through preemptive war, we're insane. As long as we keep creating new enemies, there will always be the potential for more war.

At some point someone needs to have the balls to say enough is enough, and stop bombing, invading, and occupying. We occupy some of the most holiest of land to a global religion, by the barrel of a gun, and you don't think this creates new enemies?

Every new enemy we create by occupying holy lands, cutting shady deals with dictators for the purpose of geopolitics and economics, pick favorites in international disputes, what have you, has the potential of being audacious enough to try and attack us in some way in retaliation for a perceived wrongdoing. And everytime someone attacks us, that will be viewed as an act of war that we should retaliate against. So the cycle never really ends.

We're fortunate to be separated by 2 vast oceans, from anyone who doesn't like us. So this means that for any of them to be able to have any chance at challenging us militarily, they need an Air Force and a Navy that could somehow penetrate our borders. This is an impossible task. There is no one in the world who can challenge us in that regard. And that's whether we're in 150 countries around the world or not.

The only way they can ever get to us is to somehow smuggle weaponry into the country to make calculated attacks in secret. So it seems to me that the borders we ought to be defending MOST, are our OWN. But yet, somehow every year more and more people sneak into this country with God knows what in their possession while we entertain this illusion that as long as we're constantly taking it to them on their turf, that we can somehow prevent terrorism.

It's absurd. At the end of the day, it just breeds more terrorism while we leave our borders wide open and cheer about how we have 30,000 troops guarding the border between the Koreas, instead.

If you can somehow explain this logic, be my guest.

Yes, I can explain it. And in one word.

JIHAD

No matter what we do short of converting this self proclaimed enemy will always exist and be a threat. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it disappear. It only makes you an easier Target.

I'm done here because reasoning with you guys is no different than trying to reason with Islamic extremists. Pointless.

 

[Paulie]

You know seriously now, he gave NO details or anything of why or if it was in response to anything. Of course most people oppose war but most people also realize sometimes it is the solution that must happen.
Shit, Obama groveled at the feet of our enemies and it wasn't enough. You have to be a realist.

War can be a solution to another act of war. If we really think we can somehow create peace through preemptive war, we're insane. As long as we keep creating new enemies, there will always be the potential for more war.

At some point someone needs to have the balls to say enough is enough, and stop bombing, invading, and occupying. We occupy some of the most holiest of land to a global religion, by the barrel of a gun, and you don't think this creates new enemies?

Every new enemy we create by occupying holy lands, cutting shady deals with dictators for the purpose of geopolitics and economics, pick favorites in international disputes, what have you, has the potential of being audacious enough to try and attack us in some way in retaliation for a perceived wrongdoing. And everytime someone attacks us, that will be viewed as an act of war that we should retaliate against. So the cycle never really ends.

We're fortunate to be separated by 2 vast oceans, from anyone who doesn't like us. So this means that for any of them to be able to have any chance at challenging us militarily, they need an Air Force and a Navy that could somehow penetrate our borders. This is an impossible task. There is no one in the world who can challenge us in that regard. And that's whether we're in 150 countries around the world or not.

The only way they can ever get to us is to somehow smuggle weaponry into the country to make calculated attacks in secret. So it seems to me that the borders we ought to be defending MOST, are our OWN. But yet, somehow every year more and more people sneak into this country with God knows what in their possession while we entertain this illusion that as long as we're constantly taking it to them on their turf, that we can somehow prevent terrorism.

It's absurd. At the end of the day, it just breeds more terrorism while we leave our borders wide open and cheer about how we have 30,000 troops guarding the border between the Koreas, instead.

If you can somehow explain this logic, be my guest.

Yes, I can explain it. And in one word.

JIHAD

No matter what we do short of converting this self proclaimed enemy will always exist and be a threat. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it disappear. It only makes you an easier Target.

I'm done here because reasoning with you guys is no different than trying to reason with Islamic extremists. Pointless.

The feeling is mutual on the reasoning part, the only difference being I don't need to run away from the debate. But hey, if you're done, you're done. I won't do as others might and claim this as some kind of victory, it's just a shame you'd prefer not to offer your points.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Unlike some I realize 2 things. My opinion is really only important to me and there is not a prize for continually arguing with someone over the net about issues we clearly don't agree on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What wars would that be?

Let me guess. He'll say which wars, and then you'll respond with "you're dumb".

You know seriously now, he gave NO details or anything of why or if it was in response to anything. Of course most people oppose war but most people also realize sometimes it is the solution that must happen.
Shit, Obama groveled at the feet of our enemies and it wasn't enough. You have to be a realist.

You are groveling at the feet of right wing political correctness.

BHO did no such thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know seriously now, he gave NO details or anything of why or if it was in response to anything. Of course most people oppose war but most people also realize sometimes it is the solution that must happen.
Shit, Obama groveled at the feet of our enemies and it wasn't enough. You have to be a realist.

War can be a solution to another act of war. If we really think we can somehow create peace through preemptive war, we're insane. As long as we keep creating new enemies, there will always be the potential for more war.

At some point someone needs to have the balls to say enough is enough, and stop bombing, invading, and occupying. We occupy some of the most holiest of land to a global religion, by the barrel of a gun, and you don't think this creates new enemies?

Every new enemy we create by occupying holy lands, cutting shady deals with dictators for the purpose of geopolitics and economics, pick favorites in international disputes, what have you, has the potential of being audacious enough to try and attack us in some way in retaliation for a perceived wrongdoing. And everytime someone attacks us, that will be viewed as an act of war that we should retaliate against. So the cycle never really ends.

We're fortunate to be separated by 2 vast oceans, from anyone who doesn't like us. So this means that for any of them to be able to have any chance at challenging us militarily, they need an Air Force and a Navy that could somehow penetrate our borders. This is an impossible task. There is no one in the world who can challenge us in that regard. And that's whether we're in 150 countries around the world or not.

The only way they can ever get to us is to somehow smuggle weaponry into the country to make calculated attacks in secret. So it seems to me that the borders we ought to be defending MOST, are our OWN. But yet, somehow every year more and more people sneak into this country with God knows what in their possession while we entertain this illusion that as long as we're constantly taking it to them on their turf, that we can somehow prevent terrorism.

It's absurd. At the end of the day, it just breeds more terrorism while we leave our borders wide open and cheer about how we have 30,000 troops guarding the border between the Koreas, instead.

If you can somehow explain this logic, be my guest.

Yes, I can explain it. And in one word.

JIHAD

No matter what we do short of converting this self proclaimed enemy will always exist and be a threat. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it disappear. It only makes you an easier Target.

I'm done here because reasoning with you guys is no different than trying to reason with Islamic extremists. Pointless.

Neo-conservatism is merely a political disease, which only sickens our country.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

War can be a solution to another act of war. If we really think we can somehow create peace through preemptive war, we're insane. As long as we keep creating new enemies, there will always be the potential for more war.

At some point someone needs to have the balls to say enough is enough, and stop bombing, invading, and occupying. We occupy some of the most holiest of land to a global religion, by the barrel of a gun, and you don't think this creates new enemies?

Every new enemy we create by occupying holy lands, cutting shady deals with dictators for the purpose of geopolitics and economics, pick favorites in international disputes, what have you, has the potential of being audacious enough to try and attack us in some way in retaliation for a perceived wrongdoing. And everytime someone attacks us, that will be viewed as an act of war that we should retaliate against. So the cycle never really ends.

We're fortunate to be separated by 2 vast oceans, from anyone who doesn't like us. So this means that for any of them to be able to have any chance at challenging us militarily, they need an Air Force and a Navy that could somehow penetrate our borders. This is an impossible task. There is no one in the world who can challenge us in that regard. And that's whether we're in 150 countries around the world or not.

The only way they can ever get to us is to somehow smuggle weaponry into the country to make calculated attacks in secret. So it seems to me that the borders we ought to be defending MOST, are our OWN. But yet, somehow every year more and more people sneak into this country with God knows what in their possession while we entertain this illusion that as long as we're constantly taking it to them on their turf, that we can somehow prevent terrorism.

It's absurd. At the end of the day, it just breeds more terrorism while we leave our borders wide open and cheer about how we have 30,000 troops guarding the border between the Koreas, instead.

If you can somehow explain this logic, be my guest.

Yes, I can explain it. And in one word.

JIHAD

No matter what we do short of converting this self proclaimed enemy will always exist and be a threat. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it disappear. It only makes you an easier Target.

I'm done here because reasoning with you guys is no different than trying to reason with Islamic extremists. Pointless.

Neo-conservatism is merely a political disease, which only sickens our country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kfNRTuvnw4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is the only disease we face.

 

[ekrem]

You can't bomb knowledge away with your Airforce.
Iran has passed the critical treshold, and only a decision inside Iran will prevent acquisition of nukes. Otherwise it is just a matter of time before Iran will join the nuclear club. And it won't be the last.
The only option to persuade Iran and others in the region not to acquire nuclear weapons is to completely remove nuclear weapons from this region => Israel.

Apart from regional implications, an attack on Iran will enable Iran to spend even more on nuclear program. Iran is a state, functions with a budget and has responsibilities towards its citizens. People will easier accept budget-cuts in social programs for the "greater good" of the country, a country that has been attacked. Instead of purchasing new Hospital equipment, money will go to defense. And in defense area nuclear weapon is best insurance. To the regional implications I won't write as that is a shadow-debate as I'm 100% convinced that no big hostilities will happen.

Some people mentioned Iraq and by that they probably meant Desert Storm.
Desert Storm had full backing of regional countries. Russia was within system-chaos, the USA still in its "glory days" and China was very weak 20 years ago, probably not even among the world's top-10 economies. Balance in region and the world was supportive when Desert Storm was undertaken. Today it is different. USA runs on credit, China sits on available cash in dimensions of trillions.

There are some circles pushing for war with Iran. For them it is just "bombing those facilities" as PR campaign, although they know themselves that it will be just the start for more intense hostilities.
But to that it won't come unless Iran makes anything extraordinarily stupid.
NATO (almost all of Europe) has joined to build the missile-shield and this in times of economic crisis. NATO accepted nuclear Iran.

If Israel unilaterally attacks nuclear installations, which are online and connected to Iran's electricity grid, then Israel also should face biological or chemical attacks on Israel's soil.
After all an Iranian is not less worth than an Israeli. And if Iranians seem worth of radiation than Israelis are worth for same therapy.
Where unilateral actions lead we all saw in Iraq. From preached "Iraqis who will await USA with flowers" to Sarkawiz and Sadrs.

Syria on the other hand is different. Smaller than Iran, no industrial base, tiny economy and no potential to turn the region upside-down.
And in Syria there are countries besides USA, which are acceptable to local population, which can manage Syrian transition towards modern governance.

 

[paulitician]

'Perpetual War for perpetual Peace.' This has been our bizarre foreign policy for too many years. Well we've seen all the War,so now can we see all the Peace?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ekrem, you don't get it. Israel will nuke the arab and persian states into smoking ruins if you don't grow up and accept what is. Israel is, and you will cease to exist if you try to overrun Israel. Islamic civilization in the ME will be destroyed, never to return, as Russia, China, western Europe, Japan, and the U.S. all rush in to secure the oil.

Tis what tis. No 12th Mahdi will change that, ever.

 

[eots]

Yes, I can explain it. And in one word.

JIHAD

No matter what we do short of converting this self proclaimed enemy will always exist and be a threat. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it disappear. It only makes you an easier Target.

I'm done here because reasoning with you guys is no different than trying to reason with Islamic extremists. Pointless.

Neo-conservatism is merely a political disease, which only sickens our country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kfNRTuvnw4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is the only disease we face.

Freedom Fighter

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e8HefLOhx0]Support israel to kill palestinians child AND ALL CHILD IN THE WORLD PLZ. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

The bravest, most eloquent 9 year-old kid in the world (English subtitles)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vprhpeLI5Y&feature=related]The bravest, most eloquent 9 year-old kid in the world (English subtitles) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

And here we see Ron Paul's attraction for anti-Semites everywhere.

 

[ekrem]

Ekrem, you don't get it. Israel will nuke the arab and persian states into smoking ruins (...)

In that case, no organism again will live in 20.000 km² Israel.

 

[MikeK]

Iraq not only had WMD, they used them. And they had extensive programs for further development. Fucktard.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a relative term. Back in the days of the American Revolution an ordinary 80mm mortar would be considered a weapon of mass destruction. In WW-I the dreaded mustard gas shell was considered a weapon of mass destruction. The chemical weapons we sold to Iraq during its war with Iran were no more lethal than those mustard gas shells. The inverse progression can be taken back to Medieval siege towers and beyond and it may be said an ordinary hand grenade tossed into a crowded room is a weapon of mass destruction.

In contemporary terms, a weapon of mass destruction is not a hand grenade. It is not an 80mm mortar round, nor is it a mustard gas shell or its destructive equivalent. In contemporary terms a weapon of mass destruction is a nuke and nothing less. So your rationale to justify the Iraq invasion is null and void. Iraq never had a weapon of mass destruction. The Iraq invasion was the unnecessary and immoral consequence of a criminal conspiracy between George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, et. al.