Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On one hand, we say that the people of Iran are helpless captives to an oppressive government and on the other, Hillary Clinton, vows to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel? What is the morality of obliterating a captive people?
I'll just respond by stating in any military action you have specific targets, and our capability of launching high precision weapons from great distances is second to none.
If we do anything or not in if this were to occur, I ain't gettin' into that with this question.
But technically, we can do rather remarkable things.
I'll just respond by stating in any military action you have specific targets, and our capability of launching high precision weapons from great distances is second to none.
I did not hear the terms tactical strikes, surgiical strikes, measured response, I heard "obliterate".
I'll just respond by stating in any military action you have specific targets, and our capability of launching high precision weapons from great distances is second to none.
If we do anything or not in if this were to occur, I ain't gettin' into that with this question.
But technically, we can do rather remarkable things.
Well, we could ask the 500, 000 Iraqi civilians killed since we invaded if that's true........if we have a big seance.
This is not about our military power. This is about a foreign policy statement. Are we ready to support the obliteration of the Iranian people if their leaders strike Israel?
Well, we could ask the 500, 000 Iraqi civilians killed since we invaded if that's true........if we have a big seance.
Rather an exaggerated figure you are putting forth here...Iraq Body count has the figure of civilian deaths at between 83,000 and 90,550, and most of the deaths were caused by Sunni VS Shiite conflict, which is bad enough that I do not see the need to exaggerate.
Rather an exaggerated figure you are putting forth here...Iraq Body count has the figure of civilian deaths at between 83,000 and 90,550, and most of the deaths were caused by Sunni VS Shiite conflict, which is bad enough that I do not see the need to exaggerate.
Don't confuse the anti-war crowd with real numbers and logic. The aim of liberalism has never been accuracy or real results...it's enough that they feel good about themselves in their various positions. It makes them feel more justified in their anti-war views if American forces are responsible for half a million deaths as opposed to less than 20% of that number, so in their minds, 500,000 IS the accurate number, reality be damned.
The inability to see the world as it is, as opposed to how they wish it was, is directly responsible for nearly all of their flawed policies...gun control, the "war on poverty", their opposition to the current war (or any war that a democrat doesn't start), their position on global warming, the desire to appease our enemies, etc.
I thnik if you will look at the past such as bill clintons presidency the democrats prefer to bomb the hell out of them rather than send troops. They say that the people of Iraq were better off with saddam in power killing the shia and kurds . They also say it is none of our business if people in the sudan are being kiled off by the thousands all the time.But then if some where like Bosnia in europe happens we must act becasue europe says so. But otherwise we can call for protest and feel our moral obligation has been met.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.