NamePelathis said:
We did not "attack" first, at least not yet we haven't.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a response to UN Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990. The invasion of Afghanistan was a direct response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Around the same time he was discussing these moves, the President introduced the idea of the "preemptive strike." That's what we haven't done yet. Some might say that the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities would constitute a preemtive strike. However, Iran has been shooting at us since 1979 and even now has been firing advanced controlled missles at our forces in Iraq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Febus said:
We overthrew the government of Iran in the early 1950s. And installed the Shah of Iran. The CIA did this because the previous ruler nationalized the countrys oil. This is a matter of history. We have meddled in the middle east for many years and as the CIA has stated the U.S would experience "blow back". Blow back is pay back. I wonder if a foreign country overthrew our president if we would honor them for it or would we retalliate?
Last time I checked we supplied lots of weapons to Sadam to fight an eight year war with Iran. Sadam was our partner in that one. I guess we can conviently forget these matters when making a point. Iran has been hitting us back since 1979? I wonder why. We never did anything to them!
We attacked Iraq on bogus info. It was unprovoked. It is a third world country . How in the world could they harm us? You speak of our interests. Oil is high on the list To deny that is to deny the obvious. We did not find what we were looking for. We should come home.
The invasion of Afganistan was not necessary. 911 was said to be executed mainly by Saudi Arabians. This whole thing is a mess and we want to bomb Iran. Nothing like digging the hole deeper.
Israel has lots of atomic warheads. They have the strongest military power in the area. They can take care of themselves. They have proven that.
Thankyou
BTW This filthy assumption on your part was uncalled for:
You said:
I did not "insinuate. I stated it outright. Maybe you are not aware of it, but the phrase you used has its genesis in the male dominance hierarchy of homosexual societiesyou
I was referring to those that had lost their spiritural idendtity through compromising on sanctification. Therefore not knowing "who their daddy" was!
I do not think or speak in vulgaraties. You were way off base buddy!
Threaded Mode
