Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you forgetting the part where they were ruled by a madman who mass murdered his own people? They owe us.
"THEY" werent our target. The Iraqi people were very thankful for our presence. Ask the soldiers who served there.Are you forgetting the part where they were ruled by a madman who mass murdered his own people? They owe us.
Lot of countries are ruled by madmen that murder their own people....some are our allies.
They did not ask to be invaded.
They did not ask to have their country destroyed.
They were not a threat to us.
That would be like someone breaking into your house and trashing the place, and when you got mad he would say "well, I got rid of that roach problem you had.... and then trying to charge you to fix it....would you pay up?
Sanctions sometimes do work - South Africa, Libya, for example - and it is impossible to imagine the Iranian people would allow the government to starve them to death in order to be able to build nukes. The Iranians are already rioting in the streets about the price of gasoline and fresh meat. The Iranian military is not a threat. They have a negligible air force, minimal air defenses, and while they do have a fairly large number of short and medium range missiles, they have only a small number that can reach beyond Iraq. Iran might be able to launch some missile attacks against our bases in Iraq and Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Their regular army is poorly equipped but the Republican Guard is better equipped but has no means of projecting military power far beyond its borders. In short, there is very little Iran could do to retaliate against a US attack to destroy its nuclear program.No sacrifice will be necessary. If the job cannot be done with sanctions, the Iran will be bombed out from the air. No invasion, no US casualties.Of course we can stop Iran from acquiring nukes and most countries neither want them or need them. North Korea is a special case. NK and SK have been preparing for so long for war that even without nuclear weapons it is estimated that in the first 24 hours of a war, a million people would be killed and millions more as the war continued. Clinton actually ordered his DoD to draw up plans for attacking NK because he was so frustrated trying to deal with them, but SK nixed it because it would have devastated their country.They haven't yet, but if we had succeeded in preventing them from acquiring nukes, they wouldn't be able to. Now you want to give up trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in effect, fashioning future policies on past failures.
Read my previous post. If someone is dead set on obtaining nuclear weapons, you're not going to stop them.
Jesus Christ... North Korea has them despite crippling sanctions and a half starving population.
That situation does not exist in Iran. There is no equivalent to SK it could devastate in retaliation if we bombed out its ability to produce nukes. If Iran makes a dash to build nukes it will be bombed out, if not by the US, then by Israel which has vastly superior air power to Iran. There is no rational justification for allowing a country that chants death to America and threatens frequently to wipe out another country to acquire nukes.
How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice for this fantasy Iran campaign?
I have already been pointed out, via North Korea, that sanctions don't work. And if you think Iran is just going to stand idle while we drop bombs on them, you are an idiot. They have advanced weaponry and a ruthless military, and they WILL use them.
Your premise of "we'll bomb them so they don't bomb us" is juvenile and absurd.
Ok, let's change that to continental US. Feel better?NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
"THEY" werent our target. The Iraqi people were very thankful for our presence. Ask the soldiers who served there.
Sorry, but ill take the word of the people who were actually there over your opinion, which is based soley on your dumbass political beliefs."THEY" werent our target. The Iraqi people were very thankful for our presence. Ask the soldiers who served there.
We invaded their country, of course they were the target. I know all about how they felt about us, it was not friendship and happiness. Quit parroting the propaganda.
Ok, let's change that to continental US. Feel better?NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
Sorry, but ill take the word of the people who were actually there over your opinion, which is based soley on your dumbass political beliefs.
NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
Ok, let's change that to continental US. Feel better?NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
Even when you change it to continental US (moving the goalposts I see), there were still 5 attacks that Japan managed to wage against targets in the continental US.
https://www.history.com/news/5-attacks-on-u-s-soil-during-world-war-ii
No one calling them imminent threats; they are strategic threats, and we don't cycle between them, we respond to them as they arise. Perhaps you are confusing the period of shock and anxiety that followed the 911 attacks with current assessments of Iran and NK.NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
They take turns being the "imminent" threat, there is few that we cycle between...can't have a lapse in the fear, that would be bad.
Fear is a necessary component for control.
NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
You don't think we would notice a squadron of military aircraft heading our way today?
All minor and nothing compared to what NK can do to us today. Similarly, with respect to a nuclear armed Iran. Logic dictates that a strong non proliferation policy should be a part of our national defense policy.Ok, let's change that to continental US. Feel better?NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
Even when you change it to continental US (moving the goalposts I see), there were still 5 attacks that Japan managed to wage against targets in the continental US.
https://www.history.com/news/5-attacks-on-u-s-soil-during-world-war-ii
No one calling them imminent threats; they are strategic threats, and we don't cycle between them, we respond to them as they arise. Perhaps you are confusing the period of shock and anxiety that followed the 911 attacks with current assessments of Iran and NK.
NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
You don't think we would notice a squadron of military aircraft heading our way today?
Toomuchtime said that during WWII, neither Germany nor Japan had the capabilities of attacking the US. I simply showed where they were wrong. And no, we weren't talking about today's technology, because they also brought up N. Korea as being a "poor country" that today can reach the US. Then, they pointed to Germany and Japan (primary powers during WWII), as not having the ability to launch an attack on US soil.
And, while an aircraft squadron would be noticed by today's radar, not so much for submarines that are capable of launching missiles.
None of this is about 911. We were talking about nuclear threats, and none of them have been called imminent and no freedoms or rights have been taken away because of them. Soleimani is a separate issue. He posed an imminent threat of terrorist attacks, not a nuclear attack, and his execution was justified and appropriate because he was responsible the escalating attacks against Americans in Iraq recently that led up to the attack on our embassy. Our nuclear non proliferation policies are entirely separate from our policies concerning terrorism.No one calling them imminent threats; they are strategic threats, and we don't cycle between them, we respond to them as they arise. Perhaps you are confusing the period of shock and anxiety that followed the 911 attacks with current assessments of Iran and NK.
We blew up an Iranian general a couple days ago because he was an imminent threat. We sent 3000 more troops back to Iraq because of the threat of Iran.
It has never gone away, 9/11 has been used to keep us in a perpetual state of war and to take away more freedoms and rights than the terrorist ever could have hoped for.
None of this is about 911. We were talking about nuclear threats, and none of them have been called imminent and no freedoms or rights have been taken away because of them. Soleimani is a separate issue. He posed an imminent threat of terrorist attacks, not a nuclear attack, and his execution was justified and appropriate because he was responsible the escalating attacks against Americans in Iraq recently that led up to the attack on our embassy. Our nuclear non proliferation policies are entirely separate from our policies concerning terrorism.
NK has successfully tested missiles that can reach most of the US.NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
You don't think we would notice a squadron of military aircraft heading our way today?
Toomuchtime said that during WWII, neither Germany nor Japan had the capabilities of attacking the US. I simply showed where they were wrong. And no, we weren't talking about today's technology, because they also brought up N. Korea as being a "poor country" that today can reach the US. Then, they pointed to Germany and Japan (primary powers during WWII), as not having the ability to launch an attack on US soil.
And, while an aircraft squadron would be noticed by today's radar, not so much for submarines that are capable of launching missiles.
There is zero proof that N.K could come anywhere near out shores.
NK has successfully tested missiles that can reach most of the US.NK has not stopped acting like a threat, and Iran is not a new one. There are more threats today because technology has made the world smaller. During WWII neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland, but today even impoverished little NK can. Our great oceans can no longer protect us as they used to. This is why a strong non proliferation policy has to be seen as an essential part of our national security policy.
During WWII "neither Germany nor Japan could have mustered a significant threat against our homeland"? Are you fucking serious? What the hell do you call Pearl Harbor? I'd say that Japan projected a serious threat on the homeland with that one.
You don't think we would notice a squadron of military aircraft heading our way today?
Toomuchtime said that during WWII, neither Germany nor Japan had the capabilities of attacking the US. I simply showed where they were wrong. And no, we weren't talking about today's technology, because they also brought up N. Korea as being a "poor country" that today can reach the US. Then, they pointed to Germany and Japan (primary powers during WWII), as not having the ability to launch an attack on US soil.
And, while an aircraft squadron would be noticed by today's radar, not so much for submarines that are capable of launching missiles.
There is zero proof that N.K could come anywhere near out shores.
The Hwasong-15 (Korean: 화성 15호; Hanja: 火星 15号; lit. Mars-15) is an intercontinental ballistic missile developed by North Korea. It had its maiden flight on 28 November 2017,[6] around 3 a.m. local time. It is the first ballistic missile developed by North Korea that is theoretically capable of reaching all of the United States mainland.[7]
Hwasong-15 - Wikipedia
