Let's Bomb Iran NOW!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jun 16, 2007.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Iran has been meddling in our affairs and has been a thorn in our side way too long. We should have dealth with them instead of Iraq. I don't care what the "context" of that lunatic's remarks were. Either way what he said was a threat against the U.S. and Israel. Plain and simple.
  3. brazenbrown

    brazenbrown New Member

    Who cares what he said!!! :crying:

    Iran's actions speak much louder than words!!:wink:

    Iran has camps suspected of being used to train and equip terrorists who are killing coalition troops in Iraq.

    Iran is building a nuclear bomb!

    Iran supports Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    And just for kicks they held a holocaust denial party, just shows you what kind of rezhim-e we're dealing with.

    Lieberman repeats calls for military action in Iran

    More terrorism backed by Iran

    Abbas aides: U.S. Pledges end to embargo

    Hamas bans masks for Gaza gunmen

    Apparently they will only wear their cowardly masks when fighting Israel. I wonder if they keep their masks on when they are rewarded with their 72 virgins??:lol:

    “Wearing masks should only be near the borders and in fighting the Zionist enemy, not in the streets and near people's homes,” Abu Hilal said.

    It might just be time to show Iran what we're made of!! Where are the bunker busters when you need them??:thumbup1:
  4. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    The Pentagon recently said that it's official. Iran is shipping weapons to our enemies. They have been caught red handed. Or maybe they were just shipping weapons to help rid Iraq and Afghanistan of the Americann "rezhim-e." Apparently that is ok. LOL!
  5. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator

    So, if I quote anything about any belief, I can not be held liable for having repeated it and supporting the position. All I have to do is blame it on the first person to have said it. Circular Logic at best.
    We will not bomb Iran first. We will wait until they provide weapons to some group that uses them against us and we can link Iran to them. Then the ire of the American people will demand action. Albeit,after the fact that we have taken another hit in the likes of 9/11.
    We are in a worldwide war and we have forgotten who our enemy is. Our elected officials are just jockying for power and fighting amongst themselves , at the expense of our nations future.
  6. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    We've already found the link to Iran . We should now take those roadside bombs we captured and set a few off in iran. Let their people see what its like since they voted the idiot in.
  7. Alex Jones

    Alex Jones Guest

    Tie Guy, Good news for you. We have a uniform and a gun for you. Let us know when you're ready to catch the next plane to Iraq.
  8. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I guess Alex supports Iran's meddling in Iraq. Which means he supports the death of our soldiers. What a patriot.
  9. Alex Jones

    Alex Jones Guest

    I oppose U.S. meddling in Iraq. I opposed it from the start. That would have saved thousands of our soldiers lives. I always think it's strange how people are willing to let others die for them in battle but aren't willing to go themselves. Hmm...........
  10. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Meddling in Iraq...LOL Now that is funny. I guess anytime the U.S. rids the world of an evil regime and trys to bring freedom to that country it will just be considered meddling by Liberals. You said "people are willing to let others die for them in battle." Well, that is why people join the military. To go fight so that others don't have to. But of course Liberals would only have us believe that most people join the military for the GI Bill or because they have no where else to go. LOL!
  11. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    What Patriotism really means;
    By your favorite Republican Ron Paul
    (I'm starting to like this guy):lol:

    Why do "Today's Conservatives/Reps.think they have a patent on the term Patriotism?

    A warmonger is, pejoratively, someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. It is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war.

    Jingoism is chauvinistic patriotism, usually associated with a War Hawk political stance. In practice, it refers to sections of the general public who advocate the use of threats or of actual force against other countries in order to safeguard a country's national interests.
  12. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    My favorite republican? Wow. I wasn't even aware of that! LOL Unbelievable. And patriotism is a supportive attitude for a fatherland or other group. We don't own the patent. We just understand what it means. It's a pretty simple concept that you Liberals can't seem to understand.
  13. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I especially like how they always say "we"...
  14. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

    Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliche "Support the Troops" is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

    Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of "patriot"?
  15. Alex Jones

    Alex Jones Guest

    I support Ron Paul. A true conservative. George Bush is a liberal by my standards. Turn off Fox News and read a book.
  16. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Any foreign policy that Liberals don't agree with usually brings out the "abuse of government power" cliches. So you see...I can play the cliche game too. And last I checked fighting terrorists was in our best interests.
  17. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    IMO -

    360 million Arabians are led by oppressive dictators, who sponsor half of the world’s terrorist groups and pose a threat to the Middle East’s one democracy, Israel, by refusing to recognize it’s right to exist.

    The U.S. felt that the people of Iraq are entitled to the same freedoms as Europeans and Americans, so we toppled Sadam. Do you really think it’s going to end there?

    I personally doubt that we’ll walk away after the time, money, effort and lives given to free Iraq (who knows how Iran will pan out) and leave the UAE, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. to work it out among themselves.

    I’m no historian and have never been in the service but when we invaded Iraq, I felt then that that was just the beginning. The entire Middle East, home to some of the most repressive regimes in the world, and a hotbed for terrorism and Jihad, is a place we won’t be vacating until it’s all cleaned up….

  18. brazenbrown

    brazenbrown New Member

    All this Ron Paul Patriot crap is really starting to irritate me!!

    The only reason the terrorists aren't here yet is because we've taken the fight to them. For almost 6 years since 911 we've been protected and all you left swinging cry babies can only say the whole battle against terrorism is flawed and not for real....

    Oh, wait a just a second...Here come the terrorist now...


    Are you happy now??:mad: Maybe we still have time to negotiate with them before they blow us up??

    And whada know it's not even Fox news reporting it, it's ABC.


    P.S. Good post Sammie
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I can believe that! Here's someone wanting to truly cut the size and scope of gov't and I can totally understand where you might be opposed to such endeavors. That why I call the 2 parties the same thing, Republocrats because at the end of the day nothing changes and it generally gets worse!
  20. brazenbrown

    brazenbrown New Member

    Oh contraire, I'm not opposed to reducing the size of government. Rather I'm for a more effective government.:thumbup1:

    It's also important to remember that while you may believe 'big government is bad' or 'big government is good' that it's not really a question about the size of government that's important. It's a question of what the government is doing...:wink:

    I'd rather have a prolific government that ensures the welfare of its people, than a tiny one that does nothing when a terrorist strikes. By the same token, a large government can also waste money for no good reason, which is where the argument that a big government is a bad thing comes from.:whistling

    In the end, it's really not a question of size, but of efficiency. An efficient government is a good thing, and an inefficient one is a bad thing. So the next time someone tells me that I shouldn't vote for X or Y because they favor big government, I'll just have to ask them whether they favor efficient government, as that's really the important question.:thumbup1:

    Hope I've cleared up my position for you.:thumbup: