Trauma, Jake, Englewood, Shallow are you going to support a US invasion of Iran?

[*Jamal*]

Yeah, I support it.  Lets go in, and bomb these asshole ayatollah motherfuckers. 

Look @ Egypt... Muslim nation, they're peacefull, so we leave them alone.  Iran has always been where all the crazy motherfuckers are from, I can't stand the motherfuckers, and diplomacy will fail.  So yeah, I wouldn't mind us bombing the fuck out of them.  I'd rather do it the easy way, though, like I said, bomb them, less ground troops, less casualties.  There'd be more civilian casualties, but a civilian Iranian casualty is better than an American troop casualty, in my mind, whether yall agree with it or not, I could care less. 

Of course we'll try diplomacy, and it won't work.  So we'll end up there eventually.  This is some monumental shit that's going down, too, guys, this is history in the making, good or bad.  It's pretty crazy, if you would have said 10 years ago that the U.S. would go in and wipe the whole middle east up, bomb the shit out of people, invade three countries and kill everything in site, nobody would have believed we had the balls to do it.

It's going to stretch us incredibly thin, though, if Bush tries that, so he better have his shit together.  An Iran invasion would likely deep-six republican chances for winning the 2008 election, people aren't ready for 3 wars in 8 years.  Even I would rather see them wait, but then again when you've got a good thing going...   Ultimately, I support the president in his global policy, because I think the fundamental belief behind it, "do unto others before they do unto you", lol, is sound.  America was once the most feared nation in the world, and fear harbors respect.  Our complacency has made the world forget just what kind of dragon we are, so I guess it's time to breathe a little fire, scare the shit out of everybody, and continue running shit.  Maybe after 3 wars in 8 years, when we say something, people will fucking listen. 

Reply with your bullshit all you want, I won't grace this thread again. 

LOL @ all this bullshit coming from the same guy who said "Someone ripped me off and I want to get them back... I'm not man enough to confront that person, so I will be the little white, Christian pussy that I am and slash their tires"

[*Jamal*]

Look @ Egypt... Muslim nation, they're peacefull, so we leave them alone.

This just shows how little you know, and how ignorant you are. You're a moron with no knowledge, speaking bullshit about something you have no clue about, and I'm glad your dad is burning in hell with all the other Mormon child molesting, niece-fuckers.

[Don Rizzle]

Look @ Egypt... Muslim nation, they're peacefull, so we leave them alone.

This just shows how little you know, and how ignorant you are. You're a moron with no knowledge, speaking bullshit about something you have no clue about, and I'm glad your dad is burning in hell with all the other Mormon child molesting, niece-fuckers.

i loved how trauma supports bush's view of imposing "democracy" accross the world and then brings up Eqypt which Mubarak or whatever his name has been the dictator there for god knows how many years and is currently grooming his son to take his place, and what about their surpession of christians isn't that reaspn alone for an assult on egypt?

[Shallow]

LOL @ all this bullshit coming from the same guy who said "Someone ripped me off and I want to get them back... I'm not man enough to confront that person, so I will be the little white, Christian pussy that I am and slash their tires"

There's no need to associate white, Christian, and pussy as being the same. Your post implies that they go together. I'm white and Christian; if someone ripped me off I wouldn't do anything vengeful about it, and I wouldn't want to, because I believe in my Christianity. The white part has nothinng to do with it, and pussy doesn't apply.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

Yeah, I support it.  Lets go in, and bomb these asshole ayatollah motherfuckers. 

Look @ Egypt... Muslim nation, they're peacefull, so we leave them alone.  Iran has always been where all the crazy motherfuckers are from, I can't stand the motherfuckers, and diplomacy will fail.  So yeah, I wouldn't mind us bombing the fuck out of them.  I'd rather do it the easy way, though, like I said, bomb them, less ground troops, less casualties.  There'd be more civilian casualties, but a civilian Iranian casualty is better than an American troop casualty, in my mind, whether yall agree with it or not, I could care less. 

Of course we'll try diplomacy, and it won't work.  So we'll end up there eventually.  This is some monumental shit that's going down, too, guys, this is history in the making, good or bad.  It's pretty crazy, if you would have said 10 years ago that the U.S. would go in and wipe the whole middle east up, bomb the shit out of people, invade three countries and kill everything in site, nobody would have believed we had the balls to do it.

It's going to stretch us incredibly thin, though, if Bush tries that, so he better have his shit together.  An Iran invasion would likely deep-six republican chances for winning the 2008 election, people aren't ready for 3 wars in 8 years.  Even I would rather see them wait, but then again when you've got a good thing going...   Ultimately, I support the president in his global policy, because I think the fundamental belief behind it, "do unto others before they do unto you", lol, is sound.  America was once the most feared nation in the world, and fear harbors respect.  Our complacency has made the world forget just what kind of dragon we are, so I guess it's time to breathe a little fire, scare the shit out of everybody, and continue running shit.  Maybe after 3 wars in 8 years, when we say something, people will fucking listen. 

Reply with your bullshit all you want, I won't grace this thread again. 

How do you reply to a guy who's only justification for a massive bombing campaign upon a soveriegn nation is, "that is where all the crazy mutherfuckers are from"?   

I'll tell you what I'd tell him, to fear the fire, God is waiting for you Trauma.  And I'm not saying that because I'm a Muslim, if anything Jesus said in the Bible is proved to be true, your home after this life is hell!

He even admitted that it has nothing to do with self-defense, that he loves Bush's "do unto others before they do unto you" attitude.  So this has nothing to do with self-defense and resistance, and everything to do with oppression and subjagation.  What's different from him and the Nazi's who followed Hitler into going into a new war every few years?     

[Ant]

^^^^ agreed on that.  If anything Trauma should be the strongest supporter of aethism on this forum.  Jesus said "do onto others" and Trauma poked fun at the quote saying "do onto others before they do onto you."  Its a blatant slam at the teachings of Jesus.  I don't believe in the afterlife, but if it exists, I feel a whole lot safer than someone like Trauma should feel.

[nibs]

*Jamal*:
LOL @ all this bullshit coming from the same guy who said "Someone ripped me off and I want to get them back... I'm not man enough to confront that person, so I will be the little white, Christian pussy that I am and slash their tires"

look.  people need to understand, this is 100% the point.  bush doesn't have to fight this war.  noone is his family is going to fight this war.  this is why he can declare war willy-nilly.  the soldiers, the military...they are pawns.  

the motivation is very simple.  iraq was a problem, they knocced off the problem.  democracy and a thriving economy in iraq would be a bonus, but the problem is already solved.

now iran is looking like a problem.  they'll get softened up by a sound bombing.   if they don't shape up they'll get invaded a couple years later.

Nima:
this shit is really fucked up... my relatives are trying to move out of Iran for a few months.. everybody is scared and shit.

fucked up thing is, none of my cousins can fly out because they keepin all the young males there incase something really pops off so they go to war..

how can anybody support this?

look at trauma's tone.  he answered your question very clearly, you simply don't like the answer.  this war shit isn't about "right and wrong".  it's about the strong imposing their will over the weak.  the bottom line is that the american president does not care about the iranian people, and he does not care about the u.s. troops.  that isn't the priority.  understand, the bush administration wants this to work out "for the best" in the end, for political reasons.  for p.r. reasons.  but ultimately the guy doesn't care.  and trauma's statement accurately reflects a large segment of the american population.  

the united states is governed by a group of malevolent individuals.  the united states is a malevolent and malicious force in the world.  primarily driven by selfishness and satisfyling their mutual self interests.  and the american people that disagree with them are truly powerless.

[nibs]

Muharram 1426 A.H. :
How do you reply to a guy who's only justification for a massive bombing campaign upon a soveriegn nation is, "that is where all the crazy mutherfuckers are from"?   

I'll tell you what I'd tell him, to fear the fire, God is waiting for you Trauma.

you don't seem to understand that guy's point.  you are trying to rationalize with a person who's argument isn't a moral argument.  it's a survival of the fittest argument.  the strong survive.  the strong impose their will on the weak.

What's different from him and the Nazi's who followed Hitler into going into a new war every few years?

now be reasonable.  the ideology is different.  the motivation is different.  hitler was responsible for genocide.  and ultimately hitler failed.  bush has not failed.  yet.

[rafsta]

when we say something, people will fucking listen. 

Reply with your bullshit all you want, I won't grace this thread again. 

A: what makes you think what you say is correct, and needs attention ?

B: i bet £1,000,000 you read this.

C: there arent enough letters in the alphabet so i will stop.

p.s think of hitler, think of the world being destroyed, and most importantly think before you speak.


bush will kill us all... why are you happy that history is in the making good or bad ? why is it that if your country starts a war it makes you proud, and makes you think you are being heard... you dont mean shit, not to anyone or anything. burn bitch... burn.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

Muharram 1426 A.H. :
How do you reply to a guy who's only justification for a massive bombing campaign upon a soveriegn nation is, "that is where all the crazy mutherfuckers are from"?   

I'll tell you what I'd tell him, to fear the fire, God is waiting for you Trauma.

you don't seem to understand that guy's point.  you are trying to rationalize with a person who's argument isn't a moral argument.  it's a survival of the fittest argument.  the strong survive.  the strong impose their will on the weak.

What's different from him and the Nazi's who followed Hitler into going into a new war every few years?

now be reasonable.  the ideology is different.  the motivation is different.  hitler was responsible for genocide.  and ultimately hitler failed.  bush has not failed.  yet.

Your point is totally valid.  Understand that, the reason I replied from a moral perspective to Trauma is very self-righteous at times, and considers himself to be a very devout Mormon.

[*Jamal*]

considers himself to be a very devout Mormon.

So he fucks little kids and has slept with all his family members? That explains it...

[Sikotic™]

considers himself to be a very devout Mormon.

So he fucks little kids and has slept with all his family members? That explains it...

LOL

Other than that, this thread is depressing. If we do go to war with Iran, the US is gonna get fucked in the ass with no vaseline.

[*Jamal*]

the motivation is very simple.  iraq was a problem

How was Iraq threatening our security? How is Iran threatening our security? Iraq was fucked up and had no power to do shit... there were no WMDs, which was our "reason" (excuse) to go and kill people and get some oil...

[nibs]

*Jamal*:
How was Iraq threatening our security?

i didn't say iraq was threatening the u.s. security.  i said iraq was a problem.  if you believe that dictators with wmd are potentially a problem, then iraq was a problem in the foreseeable future.   did they have wmd at the time?  no.  it's clear that they didn't.

iraq was weak, iraq was the low hanging fruit.  saddam was easily rolled over.  had saddam been left in power, iraq could have been a force within 5-10 years as the u.n. sanctions were about to be lifted.  had the u.s. waited, they wouldn't be able to do anything major in that region. 
because the u.s. acted when it did,  iraq is now being used as a staging ground for the iran assault.  if the u.s. knocks out iran and syria, there will be a power void in that region for the next 50 years.  period.

How is Iran threatening our security?

iran is a problem.  this is about shifting the balance of world power, or maintaining the balance of world power.  a nuclear iran would upset that balance.    iran does not represent an immediate threat.  iraq didn't represent an immediate threat.  this is more shaping the global balance for the next 50 years. 

there were no WMDs, which was our "reason" (excuse)

exactly.  you can't be honest with the american public as they will say no.  but if you trump up a threat, alot of people will go along.

to go and kill people

no.  there was an agenda much broader than simple murder.  it's about shaping the balance of power.

and get some oil...

not just oil.  reconstruction costs.  the military is privatized.  these people make billions of defense contracts on everything from weapons systems to delivering the mail and serving food to the troops.   war is a huge cash cow.

[*Jamal*]

if the u.s. knocks out iran and syria, there will be a power void in that region for the next 50 years.  period.

iran is a problem.  this is about shifting the balance of world power, or maintaining the balance of world power. 

Ok, so you admit that the U.S. invaded on reasons based on lies. You also admit that the great amount of money to be made by certain people played a role. That's cool.
You say there will be a power void in that region. That's only half of it. Another reason is to solidify Israel's power and control of the region, plain and simple. As long as a country benefits us, it's okay for them to have any kind of weapons they want. It doesn't even matter if the country is ruled by an oppressive leader/regime. You also state that it is about maintaining a balance of power. You should look into the definition of the word "balance" because in the context we're discussing, it doesn't exist. Killing people, destroying nations, and setting up puppet states isn't creating anything that will balance world power... it is taking away the little power that one side has...