a question for those that were against the war against terror in Iraq...

[TTAfreak]

are you for, or against action against Iran?

its already clear that MOST LIBERALS think we should first wait on Iran to use nuclear weapons against us BEFORE we do something about the problem?

what if we invaded Iran, and then it was found that the intell was bad and they actually DIDNT HAVE NUCLEAR capabilities? (this scenario is most commonly known as "Bush lied" syndrome)

it would just be nice to have the resident liberals stance on this issue BEFORE it takes place so we can see if you are consistent.

with what we know at the moment, I would say America is justified in taking action against Iran......ya know....BEFORE thousands of Americans pay with their lives.

[bruce]

Originally Posted by TTAfreak

are you for, or against action against Iran?

If you're not meet with absolute silence, it will be but a rare few, that didn't flip-flop on the issue. At one time about everyone was for the war, but, once they fell for the spin about all the alledged downsides, they changed their *minds*.

[weester87]

Paranoid?

We dont need to invade Iran to remove their Nuke capability, the Iraelis had the perfect solution..........AIR STRIKE! And yes, I'm all for it if it is necessary.

Do you really think Bush will do anything? Look at his approval rating! The next administration will have to deal with Iran.

It will take them years before they are able to even test a nuke device and if they do, then we have something to worry about. And if they do develop a nuke device, how are they going to launch it half way around the world? It would be more of a threat to the middle east than to us.

Worry about N. Korea if you need to worry about something...They have nukes and the ability to launch them!

[TTAfreak]

I'm all for it if it is necessary.

well is it necessary? or do we need to wait untill after they have used them?

Do you really think Bush will do anything? Look at his approval rating! The next administration will have to deal with Iran.

just as this administration had to deal with Bin Laden and Al Queda.

It will take them years before they are able to even test a nuke device and if they do, then we have something to worry about.

so only worry about it AFTER they have tested one? LMAO. man you libs are just nutty.

how are they going to launch it half way around the world?

i bet on 9-10 you never thought in a million years that arab terrorists would simultaneously hi jack 4 jumbo jets and fly them into civilians.

[bruce]

Originally Posted by weester87

We dont need to invade Iran to remove their Nuke capability, the Iraelis had the perfect solution..........AIR STRIKE! And yes, I'm all for it if it is necessary.

It will take them years before they are able to even test a nuke device and if they do, then we have something to worry about. And if they do develop a nuke device, how are they going to launch it half way around the world? It would be more of a threat to the middle east than to us.

Worry about N. Korea if you need to worry about something...They have nukes and the ability to launch them!

*if necessary*, what a nice middle of the road, flip-floppish answer.

Oh, and we can count on the fact, that *you said so*, LOL.

Korea, is in a far worse position to actually use them. They need food and lots of it, they're just using nukes, as a bargaining chip, in doubt?, read up on the famine that's been going on for years over there.

[weester87]

And you think that the Clerics in Iran are going to launch a strike against the U.S.? No way Jose! A terrorist group, Yes! A countries leaders who want to remain in power? NO!

You're basing your observations on fear and lack of knowledge of these people. Saddam would have never attacked the U.S., he would have been destroyed and that would have been the end of his power/control. The leaders in Iran are the same, they are dictators and cowards!

[TTAfreak]

stupidity runs rampant.

for anyone to suggest that these terror supporting idiots wouldnt supply said terrorists with weapons that could do Americans harm after 9-11 is more ignorant than just about anything else i can think of.

I would never have thought a countries leader that wanted to remain in power would ever think of attacking a sovreign nation either.....but he did.

looks like the one with a lack of understanding is, as usual, the one that thinks he knows everything.

[BlownZ]

I am for Iraq and I would be FOR Iran. I don't want to see anyone else die on the ground though. I think it's time to test out our latest airpower and bomb them into the dark ages.

Either that or call some debt due and let Israel handle the heavy work for a change.

[BlownZ]

Originally Posted by weester87

And you think that the Clerics in Iran are going to launch a strike against the U.S.? No way Jose! A terrorist group, Yes! A countries leaders who want to remain in power? NO!

You're basing your observations on fear and lack of knowledge of these people. Saddam would have never attacked the U.S., he would have been destroyed and that would have been the end of his power/control. The leaders in Iran are the same, they are dictators and cowards!

\

By this reasoning Saddam wouldnt have invaded Kuwait knowing that it would bring the world powers down on him.

He might have miscalculated or he might have been stupid.

I don't see Iran attacking us...that would be far fetched but I do see them supporting those who would attack us with money and arms. Either way...they lose.

[weester87]

"By this reasoning Saddam wouldnt have invaded Kuwait knowing that it would bring the world powers down on him."

His ego got in the way on that one...After the Gulf War he was no threat to the U.S or anyone else. So why did we invade? That will be debated for years to come....I personally still say it was/is Nation Building!
He would have never made a direct assault on the U.S. What people cant seem to understand were his motivations. HE is/was a dictator not a religious fanatic! Fanatics will die/kill for their beliefs, Dictators need power and obediance, they are cowards!


"I don't see Iran attacking us...that would be far fetched but I do see them supporting those who would attack us with money and arms."

They are supporting terrorism right now as are the syrians, saudis and others.
How many of the terrorists in Iraq are Iraqi????

[TTAfreak]

amazing how saddam can turn that ego on and off when it suits the resident liberals.

[weester87]

"amazing how saddam can turn that ego on and off when it suits the resident liberals."

Well thought out response....I'm impressed....

[TTAfreak]

Originally Posted by weester87

"amazing how saddam can turn that ego on and off when it suits the resident liberals."

Well thought out response....I'm impressed....

its an excellent response.

Blownz's point is dead on. and your response is...."well saddam let his ego get in the way on that one"

lmao....talk about well thought out.

continue

[BlownZ]

Wees...he has a point.

The guy is/was irrational. You are defending an indefensible position.

[weester87]

Irrational....yes

Threat to the U.S.............No!

[TTAfreak]

Threat to the U.S.............No!

this is the indefensible position.

[BlownZ]

Wees...did you consider OBL a threat to the US?

If you are honest...the answer is no.

[TTAfreak]

Originally Posted by BlownZ

Wees...did you consider OBL a threat to the US?

If you are honest...the answer is no.

odds are youll get an answer like.....

I'm all for it if it is necessary.