War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon!

[gipper]

Have we learned nothing from decades of military intervention?

War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE...which is why a dipshit warmongering fool like Sen. Graham supports war against Iran.

How different are the policies of any of the GOP hopefuls, except Rand Paul? Not much I am afraid.....

Exactly, but if you weren't a left wing partisan, you would have included all the Ds too.

 

[Billo_Really]

A war with Iran would needlessly and pointlessly end the lives of American service men and service women.

The right's propensity toward war warrants keeping a republican out of the WH, to avoid another failed, illegal war as we saw with the previous administration.

A war with Iran will put us in a direct military confrontation with Russia.

Russia will not allow any regime change in Iran. Russia will not allow Iran to come under NATO's sphere of influence. And since Russia has a defense pact with China, we fight one, we get them both.

And if it gets to that point, it won't be suicide bombers we'll have to worry about, it will be real bombers, with real bombs, bombs as big as ours. Bombs that can barbecue this country in less than a half hour.

 

[Moonglow]

Saudi arabia can fight it...America should focus on ourselve for once...

-more investment into our infrastructure and science programs...Reforms for our educational system.

and CO2 removal with shovels..

 

[gipper]

A war with Iran could bring an end to all life on planet earth.

A war with Iran would needlessly and pointlessly end the lives of American service men and service women.

The right's propensity toward war warrants keeping a republican out of the WH, to avoid another failed, illegal war as we saw with the previous administration.

War is not a partisan issue. Both parties love war because it increases and centralizes the power of the State. Always has and always will.

 

[Bfgrn]

War with Iran? Two questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

 

[irosie91]

War with Iran? Two questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

"war" is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a "cold war" with the USSR for many years-----we
were in a cold war with Cuba too. War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns. It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation. Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
block------of challenge Iranian shipping -----stuff like that. I do not believe that those people who say "war with Iran" are thinking BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
"YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
coming disaster. Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR

 

[Bfgrn]

War with Iran? Two questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

"war" is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a "cold war" with the USSR for many years-----we
were in a cold war with Cuba too. War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns. It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation. Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
block------of challenge Iranian shipping -----stuff like that. I do not believe that those people who say "war with Iran" are thinking BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
"YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
coming disaster. Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR

War with Iran? Two questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

"war" is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a "cold war" with the USSR for many years-----we
were in a cold war with Cuba too. War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns. It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation. Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
block------of challenge Iranian shipping -----stuff like that. I do not believe that those people who say "war with Iran" are thinking BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
"YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
coming disaster. Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR

How cute..."war is a word"...

What "war" is Lindsey Graham talking about in the OP?

Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:

Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:

Graham: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?

Carter: No. The United States.

Graham: We. Win.

Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.

 

[irosie91]

War with Iran? Two questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

"war" is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a "cold war" with the USSR for many years-----we
were in a cold war with Cuba too. War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns. It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation. Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
block------of challenge Iranian shipping -----stuff like that. I do not believe that those people who say "war with Iran" are thinking BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
"YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
coming disaster. Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR

War with Iran? Two questions...

1) WHO will fight it?
2) HOW will you pay for it??

"war" is a word-------it can be construed to mean many DIFFERENT situations-----for example------we were in a "cold war" with the USSR for many years-----we
were in a cold war with Cuba too. War with Iran does not necessarily mean bomber jets and people running around with hand grenades and machine guns. It could mean---simple -----a very unfriendly situation. Were Iran and its Hezbollah thugs to block the strait of Hormuz-----the USA could challenge that
block------of challenge Iranian shipping -----stuff like that. I do not believe that those people who say "war with Iran" are thinking BLITZKRIEG.------it is the idiots of the USA who support the filth of Iranian aggression who are playing
"YOU ARE A WAR MONGERER"-----just as the Nazis in the 1930s accused everyone not willing to lick the ass of Adolf------as being WAR MONGERERS.
It was they who facilitated world war II------not the people who warned of the
coming disaster. Iran is fomenting a disaster-------time to face that reality ---if we do not-------we WILL END UP IN A BLOODY WAR

How cute..."war is a word"...

What "war" is Lindsey Graham talking about in the OP?

Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:

Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:

Graham: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?

Carter: No. The United States.

Graham: We. Win.

Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.

how cute---the war we fought with Iraq was costly. In fact I do not believe that the war we fought with Iraq was well conceived. Lots and lots of big mistakes. SO? you actually imagine you made a point?

 

[protectionist]

"War Against Iran Is Necessary - Soon!"

One of many, many good reasons to keep a republican out of the WH come 2017.

For those who support Iran annihilating the USA.

 

[protectionist]

How cute..."war is a word"...

What "war" is Lindsey Graham talking about in the OP?

Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:

Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:

Graham: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?

Carter: No. The United States.

Graham: We. Win.

Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.

This is part of the stupid Atlantic article which was refuted in item # 1 of the OP. Here it is again>>

No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT "a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS" Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.

 

[protectionist]

I am certainly no fan of Lindsey Graham (he's a immigrationist), but his ideas about Iran are correct....

Indeed, you just know they have WMD, they have links to 9/11, you'll be welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself... Sounds a bit familiar though

No need for straw manning. Iran is building nukes. The whole world has seen it on TV. Defense is mandatory, and will pay for itself in our SURVIVAL.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is part of the stupid Atlantic article which was refuted in item # 1 of the OP. Here it is again>>

No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT "a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS" Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.

That's bullshit!

ISIS is a fully funded, fully supported, CIA creation.

 

[protectionist]

Let the ragheads deal with their own problems for once.

With any luck at all, they'll wipe themselves out and rid the planet of their kind forever.

Admirable wish, but I wouldn't place the survival of the USA on luck.

 

[protectionist]

This is part of the stupid Atlantic article which was refuted in item # 1 of the OP. Here it is again>>

No, the end of the Iraqi war was NOT "a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS" Absolutely not. It was an Iraq with a US won war and Iraq under US control. It was only after the political blunder of pulling troops out in 2011, and creating a vacuum that ISIS moved in. Had the troops stayed there would be no ISIS.

That's bullshit!

ISIS is a fully funded, fully supported, CIA creation.

HA HA HA. That's

 

[Billo_Really]

HA HA HA. That's

And you're an irresponsible piece of shit.

 

[protectionist]

Have we learned nothing from decades of military intervention?

War is ALWAYS the health of the STATE...

What the hell does this mean ? Another goofball leftist talking point ?

 

[protectionist]

And you're an irresponsible piece of shit.

And you're a 100% programmed

 

[Billo_Really]

And you're a 100% programmed

Well, we're in agreement there.

 

[protectionist]

As I've said numerous times.

In 2001 there were four enemies of the US that were OPEC members.

In 2002 there was a coup against Chavez, leader of Venezuela.
In 2003 the invasion of Iraq.
In 2011 the bombing and helping to oust Gaddafi.
Iran has suffered sanctions, as has Venezuela recently.

So, is there any surprise that the right feel Iran needs to be invaded? Is there any surprise that they hate this deal with Iran that takes away their excuse for invading?

It's ridiculous, thinly veiled attempt at invasion, we know why, it's not because of nukes, it's not because of their religion, it's because they're OPEC and hate the US.

The funny thing is though that the Saudis are the main player in OPEC going against the wishes of the US. But as they're "allies" the US won't do anything.

Just because one advocates the invasion of Iran, to defend the US from nuclear attack, doesn't mean that they are supportive of the Saudis and OPEC.

 

[protectionist]

Well, we're in agreement there.

Glad you admit that.