Sense of history? Lets see; since the last 60 something years America has invaded more than 25 countries and killed civilians using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The country was formed based on genocide, slavery and discrimination. It has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, frequently attacks other countries on false premises (Philippines, Greece, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), supports dictators and undercover agents who destabiliase countries using death squads; ignores international laws and refuses to account fot its war crimes in an international court. As compared to <insert country in ME that has unilaterally done the above> Now tell me about historical sense. And try reading a book sometimes. :crazy:
:bugeye: Sam, it's your lack of history that makes the bullshit above sound smart. I can't really help you in this regard, but I do hope someday you learn some world history. Untill then, America will continue to be the enemy in your mind.
Aside from the U.S. having the world's largest nuclear stockpile, everything she said is true. Take off your blinders. Go ahead and love your country, but when you flat out ignore what we've done, you look like an idiot no different than recent German and Japanese revisionist history of WWII that they deny. You're the one with a lack of history. - N
Yes, though I'd have to look it up. It gets an annual (?) revenue, billions of dollars worth. Surely, all countries that deserve help. Terrorists do not. Not so much the weapons wouldn't have been created, as by Israel. Israel, I mean, would have never made those weapons, because they would have not had the necessary resources, knowledge, and funding to do such things. Gods will prevails over all. And God does not like terrorism. Oh, of course. But not when it is entirely and solely because of the aid, the true glory goes to the US, not Israel.
Here you go. "Secret US air force team to perfect plan for Iran strike" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2512097.ece) and "CNN "the war with Iran has begun" (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4a_1189066259) Just in case y`all think Ahmadinejad reasonable speeches in the US may make a difference.
But how can you call a nation terrorism. I know you’ve said if it is your view than it is so in your head, but words have meanings, and surely one should word what things are by the definition of that word. Because of this, I would not call Palestine a Terrorist or Terrorist State, but a State that rivals Israel. Well, you could say the same for the US if England never was, but it was and the US is. And until you can show that the US is handing over money, it is only a accusation. I cannot speak for God, nor quote him on his thoughts of terrorism. However, murder is a sin. We’ll it seems we are both stuck on our beliefs.
Of course, it is what it is. Israel is stronger, I'm not saying otherwise. What I am saying, is that no glory goes to them. They don't deserve to brag, or say they won, if they have the help and constant backing of the most powerful nation on Earth. Had we had it too, we could brag foolishly like that as well.
Yea, but you shouldn't. Bragging is un-becoming of anyone...Besides glory goes to God and God alone; nothing is possible without He.
I'm not. I am proud of Syria, but I am not bragging. So, like I said, it is no victory for the Israelis. Give Syria the same funding, the same equipment, etc, and you see an easy Syrian victory. Do not be proud, they have done nothing that we can't have done with the immense advantage that they hold. Glory goes to Mankind. Mankind is stronger than God.
I wasn't trying to imply you when I said "you". I was referring to the generallity use of you. You, however, are wrong; God is greater than all!
Back in Post 153 of this thread, I began speculating on the name of our new American outpost on the Iranian frontier. We have a winner: Combat Outpost Shocker. That'll seal up that 900-mile border/That's all this fort's for Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Zignev Brezinski and Henry Kissinger (former Secretaries of State) were on CNN discussing the possibility of an attack by the U.S. on Iran. They differ on the need to contain Iran but both agreed that one essential element is missng for an attack on Iran... available military resources for the 'what if' variable. All contingencies need to be planned for .... an air strike may lead to a need for further action on the ground. 'What if' Iran cuts off oil supplies to the West, Iraq pipelines are destroyed and oil infrastructure is disabled in Saudi Arabia. What if chavez in Venezuela reduces supplies in sympathy? Fundies take over a nuclear Pakistan? Then what? There just aren't a half million American thousand troops on standby that could be moved into the region. It's unlikely European countries would supply troops if a US attack was unilateral. It's not that the various 'what ifs' are probable as much as they are possible. The US military isn't ready for possible outcomes. They didn't prepare for a post Iraq invasion and are not prepared for potential scenarios of a post Iran attack...there just aren't physical troops available. If the USA intends to attack Iran then they need to implement a draft, train another half million troops and have them ready 'just in case' the Middle East literally collapses into anti-American chaos.
The Mideast has never been this anti-American before, and we were a lot better prepared to protect our interests before getting bogged down in Iraq. The neoconservatives simply lacked any notion of the psychological response to American occupation. They expected Iraq not only to heal, but to heel, which were both ignorant assumptions. Now we in the USA are left extremely vulnerable to a petroleum-supply crisis, at the same vulnerable point in time when our economy is (partly in relation to the resource challenge) beginning to noticeably soften.
an attack on Iran is along the same lines. Nobody has a crystal ball so therefore all reasonable possibilities need to be planned for. Even 'if' Bush was to consider the potential consequences of an attack on Iran, the USA has no means of preparing for those consequences. There's not a half million troops stored in the closet.
No, they aren't. But unlike our Iraq adventure we may have help with Iran. Even France is talking about war with them...
Why not nuke all Arabs? Why not nuke all ragheads? Why not kill everyone on the planet? Why not bomb Earth until humans are gone?
I don't know if you can read French but go to French sources and listen to the people. Unlikely? Any French leader supporting American aggression would be out of office in a nano-second. The same here in Canada. Even if some scenario developed where the USA turned into Mary Poppins, there is such vehemence and hatred of Bush and the US policy that it would overshadow any reasonable assessment of a situation. Bush isn't just disliked but hated.
