Democrats wary over Iran claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter Idris
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 96
  • Views Views 9K
Haha - Just don' go into Iran eh! Learn from the past....

I don't think anyone wants to "go into" Iran. The only reason the U.S. occupied Iraq is because people in the Pentagon thought deposing Saddam and setting up democratic elections would be a cakewalk. There is a difference between defeating an enemy militarily and occupying a country. Any confrontation with Iran would be about massive destruction to its infrastructure and military capability, not occupation.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone wants to "go into" Iran. The only reason the U.S. occupied Iraq is because people in the Pentagon thought deposing Saddam and setting up democratic elections would be a cakewalk. There is a difference between defeating an enemy militarily and occupying a country. Any confrontation with Iraq would be about massive destruction to its infrastructure and military capability, not occupation.

Saddam was doing fine without out us intervention. Sadly he killed people who apposed him. - But he was seen as a us allie, because suited requirements. Been said before tons of times.
 
What do you think is the solution then dude?

A solution for Iraq?!?!? Now that is a toughy... I think I would start by pulling out troops, to show the US genuinely wants Iraq to be self reliant. Then I would offer amnesty to all of those who had commited any war related crimes, and have Maliki publicly call for a cease fire between the two factions and, at the same time, call for a meeting to at least try to sort out differences in an agreed upon place between al-zawahri and al-sadr. I think a meeting of this proportion would get the attention of many of the major players in Iraq. These two should put their reasons for fighting on the table and at least try to work them out, if they cant they should try to compromise for their people. They should know that at this point if they could stop the violence the US could remove 80% of its troops and the remaining troops would be only to train police and military personel and not to interfere with government or sectarian related disputes. US should only be there to help get the country on its feet.

I think this would be the best start, however I think it is far fetched. To get those two in one place would be a feat on its own, not to mention neither of these two would trust that the US would not interfere with the meeting.

On the other end of the spectrum the US could flood the land with a massive increase in troops and literally take the country by ultimate force. Close all borders, institute a curfew and do a nationwide disarming. There would be much bloodshed, however it could work. Right now there is less than 150,000 troops in Iraq, imagine if there were 500,000 or even 600,000... That is not even half the US military. Martial law could be instituted, if you are seen with a gun you can be shot on sight, turn over your weapons or die. It sounds incredibly barbaric but desperate times call for desperate measures. I would also put a stop on all transportation for 1 month, if you are seen in a car or even getting into a car, you should be considered a threat in this scenario, and subsequently shot.

Again I think this is far fetched, however instilling fear in people does work, but then how is that different than Saddams reign?

My real answer to your question is this, I do not know what I would do, the situation has spun so far out of control at this point that no matter the direction, the outcome will probably not be good. Basically nothing short of a true blue miracle or act of God will really help Iraq at this point, that is my opinion at least.
 
Saddam was doing fine without out us intervention. Sadly he killed people who apposed him. - But he was seen as a us allie, because suited requirements. Been said before tons of times.

Saddam was doing fine without U.S. intervention?....uh, yeah I guess so. Not sure what your point is there.

Saddam stopped being percieved as a U.S. ally after the Iran/Iraq War ended.
 
Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;

yeah when you think of what those young fellas probably went through, it kind of removes the sympathy card and replaces it with a feeling of revenge doesnt it
The need for revenge is a very human emotion and it often overlooks justice. Christ asked us to love and pray for our enemies, he asked God to forgive those who nailed him to the cross.

Amongst all this conflict there is the need to search for God, the same God who created Americans, Iraqi and Iranians. The same God who created all the Earth and all the things on the Earth for all men to use.

The Bible talks much about justice for the poor, the oppressed the widow and orphan. The Iraqi war has created a lot of these marginalised people. How are we going to answer to God if we have been involved in adding to the grinding misery of these people?

Where is God in out thoughts when we are looking for a solution to the Iraq crisis? From my perception we overlook God and only search for a strategic and political solution.

If we are sincerely looking for a solution, then we must put God at the centre of all our thoughts.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric
 
Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;


The need for revenge is a very human emotion and it often overlooks justice. Christ asked us to love and pray for our enemies, he asked God to forgive those who nailed him to the cross.

Amongst all this conflict there is the need to search for God, the same God who created Americans, Iraqi and Iranians. The same God who created all the Earth and all the things on the Earth for all men to use.

The Bible talks much about justice for the poor, the oppressed the widow and orphan. The Iraqi war has created a lot of these marginalised people. How are we going to answer to God if we have been involved in adding to the grinding misery of these people?

Where is God in out thoughts when we are looking for a solution to the Iraq crisis? From my perception we overlook God and only search for a strategic and political solution.

If we are sincerely looking for a solution, then we must put God at the centre of all our thoughts.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric


Salaam,

Well interesting ..but again it is the Chrsitian religon that has brought upon the death and misery..

Look,,Bush say GOD TOLD HIM TO INVADE..

And when he mention God,,to which god did he refer to,the God in the Bible,Jesus..

So are you both listening to the same god?

Here you are preaching lovea nd forgivenenss,and here is bush and neocons and evangelist who spread the propehcies of the messiah return,and for that return war must happen in the middle east.

So tell me,while you debate this between evangelicals and so who control public opinion or rahter the powerful in the US,,,,who is listening to you?

While you debate,Bush will be sending more troops to murder Iraqis/Afghan to herald the RAPTURE>

[PIE]Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

[/PIE]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

So who is right?

Not you,you are just a lone person,while the nuclear button is pushed by bush and his evangelical neocons..


So i ask you

[PIE]How are we going to answer to God if we have been involved in adding to the grinding misery of these people?[/PIE]

Tell me knowing that you religion is casuing the grief,should not Iraqis/Afghan solve the solution since you cant solve it?

As i have said before.

THE WEST TALK<MUSLIM DIE
 
Greetings and peace be with you Zulkiflim;, and thanks for your reply.

Look,,Bush say GOD TOLD HIM TO INVADE..

And when he mention God,,to which god did he refer to,the God in the Bible,Jesus..

So are you both listening to the same god?

I pray to a God who is kind and compassionate, who is fair and just, who is loving and merciful to all people.

I don't know what God Mr Bush prays to.

Sorry I am stuck for time.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
 
Of course President Bush never said "God told me to invade"....but the myth continues to grow.
 
It was on TV! Next you'll be saying he's the greatest intellectual in the history of mankind...:rolleyes:

October 7, 2005 During the October 6 press briefing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied comments attributed to President Bush in a forthcoming BBC television series. The three-part documentary, Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, includes an interview with a former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, where he recounts an incident at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in June 2003. The series starts on Monday and documents the recent history of attempts to bring peace to the Middle East.

Mr. Shaath says that President Bush told a Palestinian delegation: "God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... and I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it."

At the briefing, a reporter asked if McClellan was aware of the comments ascribed to President Bush and McClellan replied, "No, that's absurd. He's never made such comments." Pushed further about the statements, McClellan responded, "No, I checked into that [BBC] report and I stand by what I just said."

Mr. Shaath provided further context to the statement saying, "It was really a figure of speech. We felt he was saying that he had a mission, a commitment, his faith in God would inspire him ... rather than a metaphysical whisper in his ear," he said


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4320586.stm

So, no, he did not make this statement on "television".
 
Salaam,

Well interesting ..but again it is the Chrsitian religon that has brought upon the death and misery..

I believe it is the Islamic religion that has brought the death and misery

Look,,Bush say GOD TOLD HIM TO INVADE..

Please see Keltoi's post, it was no more than hearsay

And when he mention God,,to which god did he refer to,the God in the Bible,Jesus..

Is this supposed to be a shot at Christianity for respecting Jesus as Gods only son? We as Christians believe in one God the father, the creator of heaven and earth

So are you both listening to the same god?
Everyone listens to the same God, some people just interpret what he says differently

Here you are preaching lovea nd forgivenenss,and here is bush and neocons and evangelist who spread the propehcies of the messiah return,and for that return war must happen in the middle east.
I have heard a lot of things but I didnt know that Bush was now spreading prophecies..LOL I also didnt know he was involved with evangelist (by the way, what is wrong with preaching the gospel anyways?) Please do tell who these evangelists are and provide proof that they are so

As for neocon, well, do you even know the meaning?

"Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the 'American grain.' It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked."

So that is a compliment if the President were hanging out with these respectable type people, thank you

So tell me,while you debate this between evangelicals and so who control public opinion or rahter the powerful in the US,,,,who is listening to you?
I dont know perhaps congress, who is listening to you?

While you debate,Bush will be sending more troops to murder Iraqis/Afghan to herald the RAPTURE>
Perhaps it is the people in Iraq and afghan that wish for the rapture, that sort of violence in that proportion doesnt exist in the US

[PIE]Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Again, hearsay, please show a video where these exact words spew from the presidents mouth. I can show you videos of Islamic leaders telling their followers that Allah has commanded them to go to war with the west and the Kuffar.. Please justify that

So who is right?
Not you

Not you,you are just a lone person,while the nuclear button is pushed by bush and his evangelical neocons..
The only person with their finger on a nuclear button is Iran, a so called Islamic state, so please again who is looking to see the Rapture? Who is the evil religion, this is a state based on religion and these are their ideas..

So i ask you

[PIE]How are we going to answer to God if we have been involved in adding to the grinding misery of these people?[/PIE]

Tell me knowing that you religion is casuing the grief,should not Iraqis/Afghan solve the solution since you cant solve it?
Why would they solve it? They started it

As i have said before.

THE WEST TALK<MUSLIM DIE

And you say this with just as much ignorance as the rest of your post.

Also please know, I would not typically say that I believe Islam as a whole is a violent religion or that it causes grief to anyone, I think aspects of it do and some people that practice it do. I just thought I would give you a taste of your own offensive medicine :D
 
Last edited:
I also didnt know he was involved with evangelist (by the way, what is wrong with preaching the gospel anyways?) Please do tell who these evangelists are and provide proof that they are so

Would you want to live under such a regime, that ruled by the Bible?
 
Would you want to live under such a regime, that ruled by the Bible?

No, I dont think the US does either. There is a separation of church and state, however if religion were to be used in the correct way to rule it would be ok, but man could and never will do this, for the simple reason that man is man and power corrupts. In true religion there is no corruption so the pieces just do not fit. Check out my signature
 
No, I dont think the US does either. There is a separation of church and state, however if religion were to be used in the correct way to rule it would be ok, but man could and never will do this, for the simple reason that man is man and power corrupts. In true religion there is no corruption so the pieces just do not fit. Check out my signature

Glad to hear it! :smile:

I thought you would be all for it, which would be unwise.
 
Glad to hear it! :smile:

I thought you would be all for it, which would be unwise.

Dont get me wrong, I love my religion, but as far as I am concerned any religion mixed with politics will always be a bad idea, unless it is God himself on Earth.
 
One can believe one's religion to be "perfect", but of course human beings are imperfect creatures. I in no way would want a government and a set of laws based on the Bible, that leaves too much room for false interpretation and abuse. In theory a wonderful idea, but we all know the difference between theory and reality.
 
Saddam was doing fine without out us intervention. Sadly he killed people who apposed him. - But he was seen as a us allie, because suited requirements. Been said before tons of times.

Yeah..that's it. Saddam was doing fine. He suppressed internal opposition at the point of a gun or with a little VX dropped from the sky. In Stalin's time the trains ran on time...ususally.

I suspect that sometime after thte start of Gulf War I, Saddam may have deduced he was no longer an "ally" of the US.
 
Yeah..that's it. Saddam was doing fine. He suppressed internal opposition at the point of a gun or with a little VX dropped from the sky. In Stalin's time the trains ran on time...ususally.

.

If us were so worried, why did they turn a blind eye at that time?!
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top