Iran warns 'we have dug mass graves for your soldiers'

[BloodEclipse]

My take is they are digging their own graves.
They may need more.


Iran warns 'we have dug mass graves for your soldiers' in response to U.S. attack threat | Mail Onlinehttp://www.stanford.edu/~callisto/Travel/Montreal/images/QC1200.jpg

 

[ihateiraq]

that was pretty cordial of them. maybe theyre not such bad guys after all.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

The U.S. will not go to war with Iran; That would be suicide for us.

Eitherway, I dont see the Military having the muscle to hold Iraq, Iran, A stan, and what appears to be Nkorea.

 

[BloodEclipse]

The U.S. will not go to war with Iran; That would be suicide for us.

Eitherway, I dont see the Military having the muscle to hold Iraq, Iran, A stan, and what appears to be Nkorea.

Suicide huh?

I think with Iran being the largest exporter of Terrorism, it would be suicide to continue to allow them to build weapons that will assuredly be used against us.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Suicide huh?

I think with Iran being the largest exporter of Terrorism, it would be suicide to continue to allow them to build weapons that will assuredly be used against us.

Yes. I doubt China will miss a beat, nor would Nkorea, perhaps even Mexico would feel lucky, not to mention that Europe would undoubtedly not back this attack.


I think America is doing a great job maintaining it's course of self-destruction, Iran is not needed.


War with Iran, IMO, appears more zionist in motive than anything else.

 

[BloodEclipse]

War with Iran, IMO, appears more zionist in motive than anything else.

Can you expand on that some?
Are you saying that Zionists want us to attack Iran thus reducing a threat to Israel?
That if the US attacked Iran it would be for the security of others and not ourselves?

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Can you expand on that some?

What part would you like expanded exactly? How America dumps billions of US aid into Israel, with nothing in return except 'good faith' alliances that have cost us so dearly in playing cannon fodder for.

http://wrmea.org/component/content/...rect-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html

I've seen some pretty staggering figures, that would undoubtedly irratate Americans if they saw it.

Or understood the influence of AIPAC as on the American agenda.

American Israel Public Affairs Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying that Zionists want us to attack Iran thus reducing a threat to Israel?

Im not saying that, but Im also not saying that isnt a possible.

That if the US attacked Iran it would be for the security of others and not ourselves?

I dont see any attack as benefitual. Which is my point.

 

[Cru]

I think the US needs to honestly just defend our own land for a while. Tighten up border security and work on our republic, and stop worrying about "democracy" everywhere else.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I think the US needs to honestly just defend our own land for a while. Tighten up border security and work on our republic, and stop worrying about "democracy" everywhere else.

Marked for major repping when applicable - All out.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I think the US needs to honestly just defend our own land for a while. Tighten up border security and work on our republic, and stop worrying about "democracy" everywhere else.

You see no benefit to being abroad as a means of protecting our security?
Americans all over the world should move home to America and we should put gators in the moat?

What part would you like expanded exactly? How America dumps billions of US aid into Israel, with nothing in return except 'good faith' alliances that have cost us so dearly in playing cannon fodder for.

Why is your only stated concern what we spend on Israel?
We give money to countries all over the world.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1261.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1262.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1263.pdf

 

[Cru]

You see no benefit to being abroad as a means of protecting our security?
Americans all over the world should move home to America and we should put gators in the moat?

I think that there CAN be some good by being out and about in the world. But I think we spend so much more time and effort meddling in other nations business that we bring more trouble on ourselves than we need to.

Look how long it took for the US to get involved in BOTH WWI and WWII... we stayed neutral as long as possible and we didn't have every country in the world hating us. Sure Russia and some other countries hated us, but now when we stick our noses in everybody's affairs claiming it's for our own security, I believe this is a large part of why world can't stand us as a nation.

There have always been wars, and there will always be conflict, but I don't see why we go LOOKING for it.

Even if Iran is a legitimate threat at this point, after the way our leaders have handled Iraq, N. Korea, Afghanistan, it still looks like we are just moving on to another country we want to pick a fight with.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

So are the mass graves that we have built for them? I bet we have more than they do.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I think that there CAN be some good by being out and about in the world. But I think we spend so much more time and effort meddling in other nations business that we bring more trouble on ourselves than we need to.

Look how long it took for the US to get involved in BOTH WWI and WWII... we stayed neutral as long as possible and we didn't have every country in the world hating us. Sure Russia and some other countries hated us, but now when we stick our noses in everybody's affairs claiming it's for our own security, I believe this is a large part of why world can't stand us as a nation.

There have always been wars, and there will always be conflict, but I don't see why we go LOOKING for it.

Even if Iran is a legitimate threat at this point, after the way our leaders have handled Iraq, N. Korea, Afghanistan, it still looks like we are just moving on to another country we want to pick a fight with.

I am of the belief that if we would have entered WWI and WWII earlier, so many lives would have been saved. Our waiting around cost precious lives.
How many lives alone would have been saved if we didn't need to storm the beaches?
The world hates us not because we are "in their business", they hate us because we are successful. Obama is doing everything he can to fix that.

 

[Cru]

I will concede that it is POSSIBLE that lives might have been saved if we had entered these wars earlier, but I will also say it is POSSIBLE that many many more could have been lost. It's hard to determine how history would have changed by altering any one event.

I will agree to disagree with you on the point of why the world hates us. I do not believe the nations around the world hate us because we are successful. I think that nations want the right to run their countries the way they see fit, without constant fear that the US will attack them if we don't like their policies.

I understand that many people will use the argument "women" or "children" or whatever group of people is treated so poorly in country X and we need to prevent that from happening. I feel for the people that live there, but that is there culture and their society and their issue to figure out. We as a nation did not have other countries attacking us when women didn't have the right to vote or we used slaves as a dominant form of labor. I can't say I agree with all the policies of every other nation but I believe that each culture is different and they have the rights to run their nations the way they see fit. If the people choose to revolt as the colonies did against England, then so be it, but the people have to want to make it happen, we can't be expected to police the world and enforce our beliefs on them.

I hope you do not take my opinion as an attack on your beliefs because I respect that you have the right to a differing view. I post this just as a way to expound on my thoughts and if you see some validity in it then at least you understand where I coming from, and if not, then no harm done other than I wasted a minute or two of your life.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I will concede that it is POSSIBLE that lives might have been saved if we had entered these wars earlier, but I will also say it is POSSIBLE that many many more could have been lost. It's hard to determine how history would have changed by altering any one event.

I will agree to disagree with you on the point of why the world hates us. I do not believe the nations around the world hate us because we are successful. I think that nations want the right to run their countries the way they see fit, without constant fear that the US will attack them if we don't like their policies.

I understand that many people will use the argument "women" or "children" or whatever group of people is treated so poorly in country X and we need to prevent that from happening. I feel for the people that live there, but that is there culture and their society and their issue to figure out. We as a nation did not have other countries attacking us when women didn't have the right to vote or we used slaves as a dominant form of labor. I can't say I agree with all the policies of every other nation but I believe that each culture is different and they have the rights to run their nations the way they see fit. If the people choose to revolt as the colonies did against England, then so be it, but the people have to want to make it happen, we can't be expected to police the world and enforce our beliefs on them.

I hope you do not take my opinion as an attack on your beliefs because I respect that you have the right to a differing view. I post this just as a way to expound on my thoughts and if you see some validity in it then at least you understand where I coming from, and if not, then no harm done other than I wasted a minute or two of your life.

So you think culture and rights of nations trump Human rights?
I also don't see us as the world police.
There are 195 countries in the world, how many of those do we occupy or meddle in?
I do not take your disagreement with me as an attack. You are presenting yourself nicely and we are engaged in a discussion.

 

[Cru]

I have what I believe are the general "human rights" that every person is born with. I also believe that WE in the United States are losing more of our rights as we go forward in time, while we preach that we are gaining rights for others. I think our first priority should be to ensure liberty in our own country and stop using these other countries issues as a distraction from what the government is taking away from us. It may seem callous or cold, but I think we need to fix the problems at home before we try to fix the world.

Along the same lines, in general terms, who is to decide what are the correct "human rights?" I have my beliefs that are based off of my spiritual values combined with logic and thought that I have put into it. This does not mean that what I consider every persons human rights are the absolute correct and definitive set of rights for every man (or woman.) So I ask who specifically can choose which rights people in every nation should live by? I believe that the people of various culture must make those decisions for themselves.

It is possible to overthrow oppressive powers, it has been done throughout history, but I don't believe we can be the ones who come in and say "oh man, you are so oppressed, we'll come in and fix EVERYTHING so you can be just like the USA!"

There are two things I want to make sure that I am clear on:
1. I am not against humanitarian aid for the places that need and WANT it, but I am against trying to spread "democracy" across the whole world when we ourselves are having severe problems within our own government being corrupt and imperfect.

2. I love my country and I think the US is the best place in the world to live! But I think we have brewing problems in our own soil that need to looked at before we try to spread "our type of government and society" across the Earth.

As far as how many of the 195 countries, I do not know the actual number we occupy, but I would say that we some influence on 100% of them. Even if not directly, I am sure that we indirectly affect them with our foreign policies.

 

[mconley]

I think the US needs to honestly just defend our own land for a while. Tighten up border security and work on our republic, and stop worrying about "democracy" everywhere else.

Arizona has tried this and the feds have basicly wrote them off as traders to the united states way of life.

Here is my 2 cents, We are already in Iran, we just dont know it yet. Nobody can tell me that our special ops guys are not already in Iran doing their thing. We will go to war in Iran, and this country will be brought to its knees financally, causing another great depression. This will force any the people of the US to comply with all demands given by the Government of the United States in order to get the gov. soup and bread. This will include the total surrender of the civilians firearms, this will be done one of two ways more than likely. With lies like " I am calling on all american citizens to give up their weapons to the United States Government, as all of you know the value of the dollar has droped, and the military is not able to arm all of their soldiers, so in order to protect our boders all the weapons will be distributed to the members of the armed forces." or " Due to all the looting caused by this great depression, I am issueing Martial law in the united states, all who wish to keep their satus as citizens will give up their weapons in this voluntery action, but for those of you who wish to keep your firearms, you will be considered rebels and action will be taken."

All for one simple reason. He wants to be in control of all, and it is much easier to control a people who are tired, hungry, fearful, and unarmed. Look in history at how easily a people are controled in this manor.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." —

REP POINTS FOR 1ST PERSON TO FILL IN THE BLANK OF THE QUOTE AND THE PERSON AND DATE THE QUOTE WAS MADE.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Cru]

Hitler, 1938 German weapons act.

(I googled it, I don't have Hitler quotes committed to memory)

 

[mconley]

yup +1

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

above quote was made by Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942 - If my googling is correct.

I don't know that I buy your total logic - I don't know that Iran is on the top of the list - if only because other things occupy the mind of those in power right now. That said - there is no question in my mind that the objective of some of the most powerful people in Washington DC right now is absolute power - even if it is in the ostensible pursuit of "noble aims". I doubt seriously that the many regimes such as hitler's could have started out by sounding like a horrible idea. By definition they almost always start out with a Populist ring to them. History teaches that when we go down that road - we're on the road to Hell. For that reason, we need to be very careful what we replace Obama with... Even if Congress needs an enema (an it does) - we don't need to just refill it with of another color.