Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

The Threat of Israel's WMD Arsenals

243 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

You must be one of the only two people that don't know that the insurgency of enemy in Iraq was Iran. Iran has no rights. None. Tell me the last time we kidnapped, tortured and held captive 400+ citizens of any country. The people of Iran yearn for freedom. The Mullah's of Iran must go. Interestingly, I haven't heard Obama say that very thing...and he won't.

There's a lot of things that we can rationalize "must" happen in the world and that one, like the other ones, are none of your business taxpayer. The people of Iran yearn for freedom, and they and they alone can chart the future course of that freedom. Self-determination is freedom, not foreign invasions and more puppetry.

Your problem with Iran unlike our fiscal problem is going to solve itself. They're a few elections away from massive reforms. The youth are getting older and new youth are coming up to voting age. Or else, what? You're suggesting that Iranian freedom is the responsibility of the federal govt?

Israel is not the bad guy. Iran is. That's not propoganda...that's fact man.

Any source that has to tell you the "bad guy" from the "good guy" is propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
spacecowboy342

You must be one of the only two people that don't know that the insurgency of enemy in Iraq was Iran. Iran has no rights. None. Tell me the last time we kidnapped, tortured and held captive 400+ citizens of any country. The people of Iran yearn for freedom. The Mullah's of Iran must go. Interestingly, I haven't heard Obama say that very thing...and he won't. Israel is not the bad guy. Iran is. That's not propoganda...that's fact man.

How many do we got in Guantanamo?
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

Because of the biased policy those leader take.

Edited by jeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

How many do we got in Guantanamo?

Yeah it's just like some guy in Iran telling his friends on the internet that Americans have no rights because of Guantanamo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

You must be one of the only two people that don't know that the insurgency of enemy in Iraq was Iran. Iran has no rights. None. Tell me the last time we kidnapped, tortured and held captive 400+ citizens of any country.

Guantanamo Bay ... Oh, sorry, they were Unlawful Combatants, weren't they, so they didn't count.

:innocent:

The people of Iran yearn for freedom. The Mullah's of Iran must go. Interestingly, I haven't heard Obama say that very thing...and he won't. Israel is not the bad guy. Iran is. That's not propoganda...that's fact man.

And are you saying that America should "encourage" that to happen, and should that include hands-on intervention if necessary?

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

All the small govt principle he SEEMS to support in his own country flies out the window when he crosses the magic line known as the national borders. For some reason, he expects swell results from the federal govt every time they stick their nose in brown peoples' business overseas. The reason he does is because he listens to the poison like Rush Limbaugh and they unconsciously cause him to support foreign policy that equates to more oil from the Middle East. Republicans aren't intelligent enough to understand that their beloved oil pipelines shouldn't have shat to do with federal tax money or federal control. When it's something they want to do, they're perfectly fine with the federal government doing it. I see that as a naive hypocrisy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

the enemy in Iraq was Iran.

So if Chinese armies invaded Canada it's worth noting that Commander in Chief joc would sit on his hands.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

So if Chinese armies invaded Canada it's worth noting that Commander in Chief joc would sit on his hands.

I'm sorry. That made absolutely zero sense. I have no idea what you are saying, or even alluding to. The fact is We won the Iraq war hands down...Shock and Awe...OVER! We decimated the Republican Guard...destroyed vast amounts of military infrastructure and totally owned both the air and the ground. So who then were we fighting in Iraq? Better question: Who was fighting us? The Iraqis? Perhaps some...but ...no. The Iranians continued to arm and give transportation and covert help to insurgents.

So, what exactly were you blathering on about with Commander in Chief joc? :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Guantanamo Bay ... Oh, sorry, they were Unlawful Combatants, weren't they, so they didn't count.

:innocent:

Torture is cutting off fingers...hitting toes with hammers...causing unbelievable pain. THAT is torture. Putting panties on someone's head is not torture. Please! We did NOT torture anyone at Gitmo.

And are you saying that America should "encourage" that to happen, and should that include hands-on intervention if necessary?

What I'm saying is that once Bush uttered the Bush Doctrine...he should have been as threatening with his words to Iran as he had been during the build-up to the war with Iraq. He should have given the ultimatum to Iran to cease the insurgency or face the consequences. He didn't...and Iran didn't back down.

Do you remember why Iran let the hostages free in the '70's? Four words: Fear of Ronald Reagan.

Edited by joc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Torture is cutting off fingers...hitting toes with hammers...causing unbelievable pain. THAT is torture. Putting panties on someone's head is not torture. Please! We did NOT torture anyone at Gitmo.

What I'm saying is that once Bush uttered the Bush Doctrine...he should have been as threatening with his words to Iran as he had been during the build-up to the war with Iraq. He should have given the ultimatum to Iran to cease the insurgency or face the consequences. He didn't...and Iran didn't back down.

Do you remember why Iran let the hostages free in the '70's? Four words: Fear of Ronald Reagan.

So the man who had launched an illegal, unjustified and unwanted (by anyone at all outside the Neocon circle) invasion of a country that was no conceivable threat whatsoever should have followed it up with another full scale war, involving the same commitments all over again, to tell iran to stop fighting Uncle Sam in somewhere that the only reason they were fighting was because Uncle Sam had overthrown the government in the first place? Or do you think that the Mad Mullahs would have been so afraid of Uncle Sam that they'd withdraw all their insurgents and say "Oops, sorry, won't do it again" the moment that Uncle Sam threatened to bomb them back to the stone age? So the Mad Mullahs weren't actually mad then, but were quite amenable to doing the right thing as soon as they were bullied by Uncle Sam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

So the man who had launched an illegal, unjustified and unwanted (by anyone at all outside the Neocon circle) invasion of a country that was no conceivable threat whatsoever should have followed it up with another full scale war, involving the same commitments all over again, to tell iran to stop fighting Uncle Sam in somewhere that the only reason they were fighting was because Uncle Sam had overthrown the government in the first place? Or do you think that the Mad Mullahs would have been so afraid of Uncle Sam that they'd withdraw all their insurgents and say "Oops, sorry, won't do it again" the moment that Uncle Sam threatened to bomb them back to the stone age? So the Mad Mullahs weren't actually mad then, but were quite amenable to doing the right thing as soon as they were bullied by Uncle Sam?

Bush had 50-55+% support from the people for the war at least the way the media was asking the polling questions. But there was no loud 70+% opposition to steamroll Bush like Obama just got flattened over Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Torture is cutting off fingers...hitting toes with hammers...causing unbelievable pain. THAT is torture. Putting panties on someone's head is not torture. Please! We did NOT torture anyone at Gitmo.

What I'm saying is that once Bush uttered the Bush Doctrine...he should have been as threatening with his words to Iran as he had been during the build-up to the war with Iraq. He should have given the ultimatum to Iran to cease the insurgency or face the consequences. He didn't...and Iran didn't back down.

Do you remember why Iran let the hostages free in the '70's? Four words: Fear of Ronald Reagan.

Or perhaps because of the arms Reagan gave them, Remember Iran-Contra? And water boarding is torture. We lost the right to the moral high ground when we started imprisoning people without trials conviction are even charges being filed. I could see this from the Soviets or the Chinese but we are supposed to be better than that. What is the difference between Gitmo and a Russian gulag? The weather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Space Commander Travis

Or perhaps because of the arms Reagan gave them, Remember Iran-Contra? And water boarding is torture. We lost the right to the moral high ground when we started imprisoning people without trials conviction are even charges being filed. I could see this from the Soviets or the Chinese but we are supposed to be better than that. What is the difference between Gitmo and a Russian gulag? The weather

yes, there was American far-sighted foreign policy for you there; supply arms to the Mad Mullahs (via Israel!), at the same time as supporting Saddam, the man who was later to be the the New Hitler, while he was fighting Iran. From the same school of far-sighted forward thinking as supported the Mujahedeen when they were fighting the Russkies, without pausing to wonder what might happen once they'd created an army of fanatical Islamic fundamentalists.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

only fanatics plays this game ... regardless of race, religion or political affiliations ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

And what was the point of selling this arms to them? Simply as an attempted bribe, that's all; 'if we sell you [or rather, Israel sells you (!), and then we give them the arms in exchange for the ones they sold to you, and take the payment from them], perhaps you might see your way to releasing the hostages you're holding in Lebanon? We'd be ever so grateful. Thx'. So much for Iran being afraid of the Ron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

well ... the mistresses needs new diamonds and pearls for the annual gala balls ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

yes, there was American far-sighted foreign policy for you there; supply arms to the Mad Mullahs (via Israel!), at the same time as supporting Saddam, the man who was later to be the the New Hitler, while he was fighting Iran. From the same school of far-sighted forward thinking as supported the Mujahedeen when they were fighting the Russkies, without pausing to wonder what might happen once they'd created an army of fanatical Islamic fundamentalists.

Nothing new for us as we also armed and trained Ho Chi Minh to fight to fight the Japanese in WWII and were willing to support the some of the most brutal and repressive dictators in history as long as they proclaimed themselves anti- communist such as the Shah of Iran. Edited by spacecowboy342
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I'm sorry. That made absolutely zero sense. I have no idea what you are saying, or even alluding to.

So, what exactly were you blathering on about with Commander in Chief joc? :unsure2:

I'm alluding to a foreign invasion of your next door neighbors. Don't be surprised, Mister President, when you have a border crisis on your hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.