Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,084 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is it just a coincidence? Bush labels Iran part of "the axis of Evil" and then invades one of the other named countries, which just happens to be one with which Iran had a very long and very inconclusive war. What is the one thing that would keep the US from invading Iran, deposing the mullahs, and establishing a Western style of Democracy? Nukes. And big surprize, they're working like mad dogs to get them. Gosh, I wonder why?

Is it January 20, 2009 yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,397 Posts
I thought they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map"?

No it isn't my 26th birthday yet. :D

Think thier leader has stated this many times. Appears once again a liberal isn't listening.

If a dem gets in at 2009 stand-by for another WTC incident. Remember the previous administration had plenty of hints this was going to go down. Not to mention the embassies that got hit in Africa, our ship that got hit and what did they do? Nothing. And that is what will happen again. We will end up like Columbia with a country within a Country. And like Al Keda in Afghanistan, another society within our borders. Cause we don't want to hurt anyone, upset anyone, or heaven forbid, have someone MAD at us.

FUG 'em. Nuke 'em till they glow. :flame:

Handle it and finish it now on their turf before it comes over here.

As for Iran... once the UN moves into Afghanistan and frees up our troops, wouldn't surprise me if they are next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,084 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I admittedly could be wrong about this, but the last time I checked the worst terrorist attack and most costly military action ever taken against the United States, which cost more lives even than Pearl Harbor, occurred during a Republican administration with Bush at the helm.

Remind me again how it's someone else's fault?


Is it January 9, 2009 yet?​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,397 Posts
I admittedly could be wrong about this, but the last time I checked the worst terrorist attack and most costly military action ever taken against the United States, which cost more lives even than Pearl Harbor, occurred during a Republican administration with Bush at the helm.

Remind me again how it's someone else's fault?



Is it January 9, 2009 yet?​

First you explain how the terrorist attack was BUSH's fault.

We all await.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
Bush responsible for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East?

Ummm...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...over.

They aren't the first in the area, nor will they be the last...the beat was going before Dubya, and will be going after Hillary...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
The thing is that we are not the only country who would bomb or covertly stop in some fashion a nuclear program in Iran. Israel comes to mind rather easily. I don't think that Iraq would mind if Israel used their airspace to stop Iran either.

Since they don't yet have the bomb, it's different than say, North Korea, who probably already has it.

Did Bush make them want to do it? Probably not. Their superiority complex did.

Also, Nukes is not the only thing stopping us from going into Iran. Two unfinished wars in other Muslim countries might have something to do with it as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
I think we pissed off iran with the first regim change, the iran iraq war, and then to top it off the great speakers axis of evil (gee just say crusade you ass). too bad i can't blame him, but they would have done it anyway. every country wants the best protection they can have from everyone else simple as that.

oh and the president of iran is a figure head with a big mouth. the same guy (not the big mouth) has been running the country for years. if you want to change the world change our habits for energy and the middle east would be marginalized.

Isreal can only take out targets through the air like they did when they hit iraqs nucklier program. it is way to far to hit everything iran has. iran has also spred out and baried a great deal of there program so hitting a few sites does not end the program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
#1 what we are seeing is the insanity of the liberal-communist lefts mind set.

-it is not the fault of the muslim terrorists who are dedicated to the destruction of western society (who has coddeled the cancer of liberalisim)..it is the fault of our military, christians, and republicans

- when, and WHEN not if, we get hit again....the communist left will blame america (shit see above)for causing it.

#2 stiengar please do not take this as a personal attack...i dont not know you...but it seems the statements you make lead me to believe that you must become much more careful in your decision making...i'd like to think you can make good decisions...but it is the information you use and the pattern you use it in that is of concern

the media does not know the whole story and they seem to to ignore the whole story to further thier ideology....use the utmost of scrutiny in anything on TV, radio, or print...they all are telling you exactly what they want you to know...and how to think

#3 The problems in Iraq are what the media does not tell you

- the overt interference by Iran and Syria (where do you think they get the IED's from?)
- the strife in Iraq is PRODOMINATELY shia vs. sunni (payback for the saddam years)
- Muslim terrorists are 100% fully committed to WORLDWIDE sharia law ...no compromises ...no negotiations...convert or die

#4 the only things preventing these other attacks (the mass majority which have never hit the media) are the things they (commie left) hate...the military, the intelligence agencies, and republicans

#5 the left better hope we win ...if we pull out of iraq...the muslim extremists will be able to concentrate more on attacks here and the further conversion of europe (who just might be waking up)

if the terrorists win out...you think there is going to be open gay dudes holding hands walking down the street...you think you'll be able to protest...you think you'll be able to say what you want...you dont think you mom, sister or any other girl will be nothing but a clit-less burkaed piece of property...

so until the commie, whiny, soccer playing, athestic, homosexual, high and mighty left picks up a rifle and figures out THEY have the most to lose if muslims win out

they better hope and pray we win in iraq....and invade iran...and syria

because the things they hate most are all that stand in the way of them losing every non earned freedom they have
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,070 Posts
Iraq and Afganistan were regional rivals to Iran, so their removal as states with functioning foreign policy has helped Iran gain influence. (The US supported Iraq with armaments in the war with Iran, remember.)

The lack of planning over the post-war regime in Iraq has certainly allowed Iran to boost its influence there, so the seemingly inevitable split of Iraq into three will give Iran strong influence over one of those parts.

The US's political lack of will to substitute energy use away from oil has maintained a dependency on imported oil, of which Iran is a significant supplier with long-lasting reserves and physical location such that it can influence oil shipping in the Arabian Gulf.

Israel, a key US ally, has just fought a war with Iranian-sponsored Hezbullah.

Looking forward to the next move....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,084 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I will happily recant my original post if someone can prove that the Iranians were indeed constructing atomic facilities before the "axis of evil" speech. It is a third world country with no obvious regional enemies (Israel is more rhetorical and doesn't share a border, and Iraq was defanged by us) yet the Iranians are pumping tremendous resources into building a nuclear program. This seems highly out of scale to deal with potential adversaries in the region. Think about it. They did fight Hussein to a standstill during his heighday, and that was with a conventinal army. Who are they building this bomb to protect against? I think its us. Why? Because our leader named them as bad guys, and then invaded their neighbor. I have to admit, if the local bully told me he hated me and my buddy, and then kicked my buddy's a**, it would make me nervous. I would think he was coming for me next, and would want some sort of protection, like a thermonuclear missile.

Granted, we're bogged down as it is. But I doubt we're perceived that way overseas.

And if anyone (other than that bastard Muslim extremists, may they rot in hell) are responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, its the guy in charge, Bush. Granted Clinton didn't do enough to deter Al Quaeda, but Bush was President, and could have bombed them all to kngdom come if he chose to, he has Executive powers that allow him to do so. To say that one party or the other is better at fighting terrorists is to ignore this one basic fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,193 Posts
Think thier leader has stated this many times. Appears once again a liberal isn't listening.

If a dem gets in at 2009 stand-by for another WTC incident. Remember the previous administration had plenty of hints this was going to go down. ..., or heaven forbid, have someone MAD at us.

FUG 'em. Nuke 'em till they glow. :flame:

Handle it and finish it now on their turf before it comes over here.

As for Iran... once the UN moves .... they are next.
:plus1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,499 Posts
...
And if anyone (other than that bastard Muslim extremists, may they rot in hell) are responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, its the guy in charge, Bush. Granted Clinton didn't do enough to deter Al Quaeda, but Bush was President, and could have bombed them all to kngdom come if he chose to, he has Executive powers that allow him to do so. To say that one party or the other is better at fighting terrorists is to ignore this one basic fact.

Do you know how long it took to plan and train for those attacks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,531 Posts
A basic fact that Bush was responsible for the WTC attacks?
:rotfl: Holy shit, you're not even a good troll.
It appears you really love that leftist kool-aid.
How, exactly, would bombing the shit out of Al Qaeda (and where, exactly were we going to bomb) between the end of January, when Bush took office and the 11th of September of the same year, have stopped anything?
Were all the attackers gathered in some foreign country labelled "Al Qaeda" for us to take out? We found out in investigations long after the attack that they did enter the U.S. in the spring and early summer months of '01, so now Bush would have had to know exactly who they were, where they were and what they were going to do and "bombed them to kindom come" all within a few short months.
Oh, and also in a pre-9/11 world, where nobody took Islamic terrorism seriously thanks to klinton, how would this be even remotely possible?

Yes, it is a "basic fact" that we have the capability to bomb anyone "to kingdom come". Yet the only "leader" that could have done so to even have a remote possibility of stopping the attacks of 9/11 wasn't Bush.
Had there been any kind of response to the first WTC attacks, the embassy attacks or the attack on the USS Cole, they MAY have been scared enough to be somewhat deterred. But becuase we had a White House occupant that didn't care about anything other than his own power and raping whomever he could, we did nothing about any Islamic terrorist threat, and particularly nothing about Al Qaeda, when we on more than one occasion could have either taken out Bin Laden or imprisoned him.

Now, on to your Iran Nuclear nonsense. Do you have ANY knowledge of history? Iran has been going after nuclear power and weapons for more than 30 years. Hell, we gave them a reactor decades ago.
Here is a nice, brief history that skims over the basics.
No, you won't find this out from CNN, AirAmerica and the other leftist kool-aid dispensers.
Iran's Nuclear Program: Recent Developments
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
Bush responsible for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East?

Ummm...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...over.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! I love it! LMFAO :rotfl:

Yea, this was an ill prepared thread. I was surprised BDA held back a little without his normal "fucking moron whining little stupid bitch..." :idunno: He must be getting soft. :D

Anyway, can we please stop with the nonsense of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? That is just idiotic and proof of the political party's influence on the public through terror. So they're ALL over there fighting and killing innocent people, and when they're done (we've withdrawn) they're ALL going to come to the USA and start killing us here?

Good golly miss Molly, HIDE! Terror Alert [insert color here]! RUN! HIDE YOUR CHILDREN! George Bush was right!!! :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,084 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I will reiterate. If the Bush administration was so much more capable than their predecessors, they had the ability to launch numorous sorts of punitive strikes against identified targets in Afghanistan. The attacks on the Cole and US embassies had already occurred. No one is arguing that the actions of the Clinton administration were sufficient, I simply argue that until attacked, the actions of the Bush administration were similarly insufficient, leaving conjecture of would have happened or what will happen until opposition rule as mere rhetoric.

That the Shah had nuclear ambitions was no secret, but even the source you cite says that setting up the capacity for nuclear weapons was sidelined during the Iran/Iraq war. Indeed their test reactor was not operational until a year after the axis of evil speech.

Unfortunately, as much as I can't stand our moronic president, I suspect it takes longer than a year to set up a nuclear reactor. Thus I must in good faith recant.

recant
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top