1
   

Iran could strike the US by 2015

 
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 04:57 pm
@Silverchild79,
Many of those images you have shown are most certinaly from Terror attacks. You cannot blame the US for a terrorist bombing civilans, that's like blamming the USA for treatment of POW's in Vietname, it's reprehensible logic at best

but if we're showing pictures then it's only fair to say you'll also see more of this

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c174/Silverchild79/protest.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c174/Silverchild79/interogate.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c174/Silverchild79/eatbaby.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c174/Silverchild79/biteface.jpg
0 Replies
 
wvpeach
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 05:43 pm
@Whatever cv,
No I don't blame them a bit. If somebody was rattling their saber at me I'd rattle back. Iran doesn't want to see their people killed. They are scared , and know its coming. The sad part is I do not think we the American people who do not want to kill more innocent people in our name can do a thing to stop it.


Whatever!;40395 wrote:
I don't think they want to get us...the only "get us" they want is US out of the Middle East...given Iraq, can you blame them?:dunno:
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 05:47 pm
@wvpeach,
wvpeach;40407 wrote:
No I don't blame them a bit. If somebody was rattling their saber at me I'd rattle back. Iran doesn't want to see their people killed. They are scared , and know its coming. The sad part is I do not think we the American people who do not want to kill more innocent people in our name can do a thing to stop it.


Look what they are up against. Supposed "patriotic" Americans calling for more preemptive war against a nation that is no actual threat to the US.
0 Replies
 
wvpeach
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 05:56 pm
@wvpeach,
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e35/wvpeach1963/iraqcheckpoint.jpg [SIZE="5"] yep silverchild I suppose your going to tell me these women and children are insurgents? [/SIZE]


[SIZE="5"]Or tell this little guy the US invaded to give him freedom? I think he would have rather lived.[/SIZE] http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e35/wvpeach1963/iraqbandagedbaby.jpg

Even president Bush admitted to over 50,000 deaths due to the US invasion during the first 3 months of the war . He called them collateral damage . And there was no insurgency then. I bet the majority of those 50,000 dead people would tell us to let them be , they don't mind a dictator compared to death.

[SIZE="4"] What does everybody else think?

Life under a dictator , where you may one day have a better life.

Or

Death

what would you choose?[/SIZE]
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:11 pm
@Silverchild79,
They don't care because our number of dead isn't high enough.
0 Replies
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:18 pm
@wvpeach,
wvpeach;40411 wrote:
[SIZE="4"] What does everybody else think?

Life under a dictator , where you may one day have a better life.

Or

Death

what would you choose?[/SIZE]


You act like that was a choice, Saddam killed over a quarter million people while in power, none of them were on accident. The fact is colateral damage is far lower now then in years past. In WWII the civilan death toll was higher then the military death toll altogether, our attack on Germany was also preemptive in that they had yet to attack us. Was WWII illegal? Should we have left the Jews to their fate because "it wasn't out buisness", innocent people always die in war, it's fact. But in Iraq innocent people died in peace as well and with no end in sight. Your stance compelety ignores the injustices that were occuring beofre we got there yet critically holds the US accountable for trying to put an end in sight and then when Al Qeada blows up a hosptial you point the finger at Bush
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:24 pm
@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;40417 wrote:
You act like that was a choice, Saddam killed over a quarter million people while in power, none of them were on accidnet


So us killing half a million is "ok" because it's for their own good, or what? And now what? Another preemptive war against a populace that can't hurt our country? Why? Because of paranoid delusions like the vomit Faux belchs up as "journalism".
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:30 pm
@Silverchild79,
Death tolls must always be viewed in context

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t1556/
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:31 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;40418 wrote:
So us killing half a million is "ok" because it's for their own good, or what?


I would like to see some non bias proof that the US military has killed a half million Iraqi civilians who were not engaged in the insurgency, I assume my wait will be long
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2007 06:35 pm
@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;40420 wrote:
I would like to see some non bias proof that the US military has killed a half million Iraqi civilians who were not engaged in the insurgency, I assume my wait will be long


Considering the US military didn't think it was important enough to track, and the now corrupt Iraq governemt didn't care, yea, it could be a long wait. Of course I used the low figure.
0 Replies
 
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 12:02 am
@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;40417 wrote:
You act like that was a choice, Saddam killed over a quarter million people while in power, none of them were on accident. The fact is colateral damage is far lower now then in years past. In WWII the civilan death toll was higher then the military death toll altogether, our attack on Germany was also preemptive in that they had yet to attack us. Was WWII illegal? Should we have left the Jews to their fate because "it wasn't out buisness", innocent people always die in war, it's fact. But in Iraq innocent people died in peace as well and with no end in sight. Your stance compelety ignores the injustices that were occuring beofre we got there yet critically holds the US accountable for trying to put an end in sight and then when Al Qeada blows up a hosptial you point the finger at Bush


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Germany declared war on the United States, ergo, they were first to act aggressively, we attacked first by deploying troops to Africa. You cherry-pick facts at a sickeningly hight rate.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the US invasion, they had running water, and peace. Did dissidents get killed and tortured? Yep, that's how it works in autocracies. You speak of innocent people dying as if there are no consequences for that.

Imagine for a moment that a foreign army "frees" you and topples the government you hate, but which left you alone because you just did your thing. Awesome, freedom is always good. Then, half of your friends and your little sister are killed or maimed in the ensuing fighting. Do you still like the invaders? Nope. It doesn't matter to you HOW it happened, all you know is your family members and friends are dead and it's THEIR FAULT. Do you give a **** about them freeing you at this point? Nope, but I'll bet you're mad enough to kill a few of them, or at the very least help their enemies.

Yugoslavia's rapid fall into ethnic cleansing is a perfect example of this. Average people joined the factions to fight based on hatred for those who hurt their family, not because of any political affiliation. That is what is happening in Iraq, and that is what WILL happen in Iran.

On a deeper psychological level, does human life mean nothing to you? Are the lives of Iranian and Iraqi civilians an "ok" price to pay to make sure their governments do what we want? I imagine if somebody told you that your life was an acceptable price to pay for their goals, you'd object pretty violently. These aren't just numbers, these are PEOPLE. You're either ignorant and have no concept of what war actually is, or you are borderline sociopathic.
0 Replies
 
mlurp
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 03:09 am
@Whatever cv,
And if we leave? If we don't deal with Iran? what happens? Great posts Silverchild79...........

wvpeach yes your right. And a mothers point of view is good to have. But no matter what we do America is a target. And by every terrorist. And our real partner in the area Israel not to mention our friends or Bush's friends.

To focus on part of the picture is to miss the entire picture.

But I am glad you all have started to see what I have said all along. Iran is the reason we are containing Iraq. And if we win it is only that another country has a better chance (in the future) for a real democracy. Yes now that looks mute. but. we shall see cause Bush will take Iran down before he leaves office. That is his History a slim chance to re-writre history to his favor.
wvpeach
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 04:26 am
@mlurp,
Its apparent Iran was the goal from the beginning, then who's next Syria ?

If and this is a big[SIZE="5"] If [/SIZE]the world lets us get away with it and it doesn't start a world war. I imagine Russia has grown a set where this is concerned. I think China might have a thing or two to say about our invasion of Iran too.

mlurp as a christian I am for avoiding the death of people whenever possible. There is no excuse for this on the part of the US.

If we brought most of our troops home from bases all over the world , closed our borders as they should be and put the navy and air force on the job. Nobody I repeat nobody can take this country on . We cannot be beat right here at home and we are more than able to defend ourselves.

[SIZE="4"] We are not defending ourselves , we are being the aggressors. There is no excuse that can be given for being on the offence .[/SIZE] Not for a christian IMHO


mlurp;40444 wrote:
And if we leave? If we don't deal with Iran? what happens? Great posts Silverchild79...........

wvpeach yes your right. And a mothers point of view is good to have. But no matter what we do America is a target. And by every terrorist. And our real partner in the area Israel not to mention our friends or Bush's friends.

To focus on part of the picture is to miss the entire picture.

But I am glad you all have started to see what I have said all along. Iran is the reason we are containing Iraq. And if we win it is only that another country has a better chance (in the future) for a real democracy. Yes now that looks mute. but. we shall see cause Bush will take Iran down before he leaves office. That is his History a slim chance to re-writre history to his favor.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 05:40 am
@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;40419 wrote:
Death tolls must always be viewed in context

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t1556/


Exactly what "context" do you view the death toll on 9/11?
0 Replies
 
mlurp
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 01:50 pm
@wvpeach,
wvpeach;40448 wrote:
Its apparent Iran was the goal from the beginning, then who's next Syria ?

If and this is a big[SIZE="5"] If [/SIZE]the world lets us get away with it and it doesn't start a world war. I imagine Russia has grown a set where this is concerned. I think China might have a thing or two to say about our invasion of Iran too.

mlurp as a christian I am for avoiding the death of people whenever possible. There is no excuse for this on the part of the US.

If we brought most of our troops home from bases all over the world , closed our borders as they should be and put the navy and air force on the job. Nobody I repeat nobody can take this country on . Ithe aggressors. There is no excuse that can be given for being on the offence .[/SIZE] Not for a christian IMHO


Hey I didn't start the war. I came here pointing out this very issue. Then it meant nothing to any of you. Now that it is a reality I am the war monger?
I think the Bible is right and this is one whopper of a family feud. And in the end Christ will make it peaceful just after the Beast does the same, then changes course 3 1/2 years later. I'll leave Syria for you and others to speak of.
But thanks for even acknowledging I even posted.
0 Replies
 
mlurp
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2007 01:57 pm
@mlurp,
I just asked the question below. Seems all the other members know so much more than I and my opinions are worth nothing. Good it saves me my time.
I still pose the question below. But it seems if we withdrawl it will all be ok. looooooool, wrong! I guess while our boarders have been open doors the only people to cross them are looking for work. Humm wrong. But you all can live in your world I won't try to disturbe you again.

mlurp;40444 wrote:
And if we leave? If we don't deal with Iran? what happens? Great posts Silverchild79...........

wvpeach yes your right. And a mothers point of view is good to have. But no matter what we do America is a target. And by every terrorist. And our real partner in the area Israel not to mention our friends or Bush's friends.

To focus on part of the picture is to miss the entire picture.

But I am glad you all have started to see what I have said all along. Iran is the reason we are containing Iraq. And if we win it is only that another country has a better chance (in the future) for a real democracy. Yes now that looks mute. but. we shall see cause Bush will take Iran down before he leaves office. That is his History a slim chance to re-writre history to his favor.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 07:45 pm
@mlurp,
mlurp;40492 wrote:
Iran is the reason we are containing Iraq.


Oh...

Is that the new "Iraq Reason of the Week?"

That's a new one... can't say I've heard it before.
mlurp
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 07:49 pm
@Sabz5150,
Thats why I reposted it for fools like some I see here.
So for the fools that have trouble understanding anything but themselfs. I will again ask, And if we leave? If we don't deal with Iran? what happens?
it is just a simple question. can we try to answer it and leave the B.S. out for a change?
wvpeach
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 07:50 pm
@Sabz5150,
Really? That was apparent from the beginning . Iran knows it, they know our government has been planning the bombing of Iran before we ever went to Iraq. Bush almost did it last year. I suspect he is waiting till about six months before the next election , so he can whip his republican war monger supporters into a lather and hand the election to a republican.


Sabz5150;40600 wrote:
Oh...

Is that the new "Iraq Reason of the Week?"

That's a new one... can't say I've heard it before.
0 Replies
 
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Oct, 2007 08:40 pm
@mlurp,
mlurp;40602 wrote:
Thats why I reposted it for fools like some I see here.
So for the fools that have trouble understanding anything but themselfs. I will again ask, And if we leave? If we don't deal with Iran? what happens?
it is just a simple question. can we try to answer it and leave the B.S. out for a change?



If we leave Iraq, Iran will back the Sh'ia militias and help to install a theocratic regime similar to that of Iran, and several hundred thousand people will die in the fighting. Iran will not, I say again, will NOT attack Israel or the US for fear of massive retaliation.

If we stay in Iraq, Iran will back Sh'ia militias and hundreds of thousands of people will die. Then, once America is bankrupt and short several thousand more soldiers, Iran will help install a theocratic regime in Iraq.

The outcome is the same whether we stay of leave, the only variable is the number of US dead.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2025 at 03:02:06