Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
It's a matter of days now, perhaps hours.dilloduck said:It is---thank God no one has.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's a matter of days now, perhaps hours.dilloduck said:It is---thank God no one has.
Kathianne said:It's a matter of days now, perhaps hours.
Opinion only or the link would have been there.dilloduck said:
liberalogic said:Do you guys really think that we are capable of waging another war in the Middle East? Are we really capable of dealing with another country that we'd have to take over after an invasion? Where is this money coming from? On top of us having our resources drained, we will be igniting more hatred from the Islamic fundamentalist community, which will leave us even more vulnerable to attack on our home soil. The war on terror is not just against Iran and Iraq-- it's against an ideology. There is no one face to it; taking out Iran is not the solution.
Also, why is it okay for us to have nuclear weapons? That's kind of hyppocritical and weakens our credibility in the global community.
I'm not saying that we should let him blow anyone off the planet, but a little bit of talking can't hurt...
dilloduck said:No--we are the ONLY country who had them and has used them--so far.
manu1959 said:i forget....were we not at war then? i seem to recall being attcked first?
dilloduck said:Ya we were--they attacked us at Pearl Harbor etc. remember? They wanted to become a world power and we embargoed the hell out their oil supply so they pre-emptively tried to take us out. They lost because we pulled together a bunch of people to make nukes and we used em.
So in fact--yes--we are the only country that has used them so far and anyone who thinks nuclear war is survivable needs to read more.
Kathianne said:Why did we commit this conspiracy? Why did we choose to make them bomb us?
Must have been bad intel.dilloduck said:We didn't--we hoped they would just cave in to our desires.
liberalogic said:The gun control comparison is interesting and I think that's a shrewd observation-- and yes, I do support gun control; I support it on the grounds that if you are an American citizen, you can only have a gun if you demonstrate that you will use it appropriately.
In my comparison to Iran, though, I was just trying to show that having the bomb and then telling others not to have it hinders our message...it's like someone eating sweets right in front of you, but then saying you can't have any because they are bad for you. It makes us come across as if we are above the law, which we are not.
And I do think that he is "crazy," but we even with that said, going to war is simply too risky...I know you guys are conservatives and I'll assume Hawks, but to me this is a common sense issue-- we need to exercise EVERY option before military intervention and we cannot go at this alone...we need allies. There's a reason why George H. W. Bush (41) built up a strong coalition for Desert Storm-- because he knew it was too risky to do it alone...obviously, his son didn't inherit the common sense gene.
Kathianne said:Must have been bad intel.
dilloduck said:You very well could be right---I guess in the 1930's and 1940's things were tough too and we just followed our best hunch. Good thing we eventually won!
Kathianne said:Yeah, we got lucky.
dilloduck said:Maybe we'll get lucky with Iran too. Wouldn't that be neat?
manu1959 said:let iran build their bomb......
someone tell W to give france and germany and china and russia a call and let them know we are sitting this one out.
Kathianne said:Yep, if only they would hit them first...
dilloduck said:Europe can't do anything to stop them and Russia and China don't want to stop them.
manu1959 said:agreed.....which is why i said what i said.....israel will take care of it