Originally posted by MerkLMAO!!!!! There's little comparison between the historical eras as everyone who is not a paranoid nut job knows.
Or before WWII. That worked out nice for a couple of our allies and ourselves. France overrun in a matter of weeks, England in a fight for it's life, and America attacked.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're right. Isolationism is a great idea. And I'M the one that doesn't learn from history??? You might want to invest in a mirror. Unless you're hideous.
LMAO!!!!! There's little comparison between the historical eras as everyone who is not a paranoid nut job knows.
Originally posted by MerkBoth use their economic resource in the way they think is correct. That's really none of our business and hardly a reason to kill anybody.
One of them boosts production outside of OPEC for us. One of them doesn't.
One of them holds our people hostage for 444 days, one of them doesn't.
In one we overthrew their elected leader. But if you want to worry about ancient history, maybe we should declare war on Great Britain for burning Washington. Idiot.
Originally posted by MerkDickhead, unless you can show that A) Something the US did in the 1930's was incorrect in the sense that it would have changed the behavior of Nazi Germany or Japan (which I'm sure you can't) or B) That there is any comparison between the situation that existed then and exists now (which you also can't), then all you are doing is repeating a brainless cliche that you have been spoonfed. You're only showing your gullibility and ignorance but you show that every day here.
You're right. Isolationism is a great idea. And I'M the one that doesn't learn from history??? You might want to invest in a mirror. Unless you're hideous.
Originally posted by no1marauder.. or lawyers
In the long, sorry history of the human race, I would think that most rational people would agree that people have been too quick to use violence. Yet, to the right wingers here that is always the first and most preferred option. They have learned nothing from history.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Dickhead, unless you can show that A) Something the US did in the 1930's was incorrect in the sense that it would have changed the behavior of Nazi Germany or Japan."
Dickhead, unless you can show that A) Something the US did in the 1930's was incorrect in the sense that it would have changed the behavior of Nazi Germany or Japan (which I'm sure you can't) or B) That there is any comparison between the situation that existed then and exists now (which you also can't), then all you are doing is repeating a brainless cl ...[text shortened]... onfed. You're only showing your gullibility and ignorance but you show that every day here.
Germany,
With a militry presence in Europe, America could have - alone - or alongside the U.K., put a stop to Hitler when he first marched his weak forces in to the demilitarized area. Or when he decided to demand part of Chzechoslovakia. Thanks to the isolationist attitude, the U.S. was not able to. Pinhead.
Japan,
If America had a strong Navy, and a non-isolationist attitude they could have taken the fight to Japan when they began ravaging China. Notice that once the U.S. applied physical pressure on Japan, Japan was never able to attack the states again. Moron.
"That there is any comparison between the situation that existed then and exists now"
the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew. -Adolf Hitler
the most detested people in all humanity -Ahmadenijad
Without the Jews and without this lackey of theirs, things
could have been quite different. For from every point of view Germany and the United States should have
been able, if not to understand each other and sympathize with each other -Hitler
What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors -Ahmadenijad
The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one." -Hitler
Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces.... Although we don't accept this claim -Ahmadenijad
We can go all day with the similarities between these two men, yet you will still deny them. You will have to pull your head out of your balloon knot by yourself, I cannot do it for you.
The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Originally posted by slimjimGeorge, like you, is just a thug. Guess you guys have been a bit too influenced by Tupac and Cortez.
The US will attack Iran on or about the 19th of this month. It will be with stealth bombers and cruise missiles. Get your little fingers in gear you whiny little turds because Georgie boy is going to give you something else to whine about on the keyboards. He is gonna send the same message that Khaddafi received from Reagan when he dropped one in his living ...[text shortened]... being your drill instructor. Iran better get ready for the Bees. B-1, B2, B57, etc etc. HOORAH!
Originally posted by MerkOne of them holds our people hostage for 444 days, one of them doesn't.
One of them boosts production outside of OPEC for us. One of them doesn't.
One of them holds our people hostage for 444 days, one of them doesn't.
That's not about oil. However, one of them did supply people who attacked the Twin Towers and the other did not. The same one, in fact, supplied Osama himself for that matter.
One of them boosts production outside of OPEC for us. One of them doesn't.
Hmm. There's someone who doesn't do what it's the financial interests of the American elite? Better invade!
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6355169.stm
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country does not fear the US military and that any attack would be "severely punished".
Mr Ahmadinejad made the comments in a rare US television interview on Monday.
He was speaking after US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Shia militias in Iraq who were attacking the US military.
Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran "shied away from all conflict" and that no peace would come with foreign troops in Iraq.
In the interview with ABC Television in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad was asked if he feared a US military attack.
"Fear? Why should we be afraid?" he asked.
Mr Ahmadinejad said he thought the possibility of such an attack was "very low".
"We think there are wise people in the US who would stop such illegal actions," he said.
And he stressed that Iran's position was clear, saying, "Anyone who wants to attack our country will be severely punished."
The Bush administration denies it is planning to invade Iran but has indicated it is willing to use military force to deal with any Iranian interference inside Iraq.
Mr Ahmadinejad was asked repeatedly about Iran supplying weapons to Shia militias.
He said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces and that they would need a "court to prove the case".
"The US is following another policy, trying to hide its defeats and failures and that's why it is pointing its fingers to others," Mr Ahmadinejad said.
"There should be no foreigners in Iraq. And then you see that you have peace in Iraq," he said.
Earlier Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini had called the US allegations baseless propaganda.
He said Washington had a long history of fabricating evidence.
In the US, some Democrats also expressed concerns about levelling such accusations against Tehran.
Democratic Senator Chris Dodd said the Bush administration had tried to falsify evidence before, and it would be a mistake to create a premise for future military action.
On Monday, White House spokesman Tony Snow reiterated that the administration believed the weaponry was coming directly with Iranian government approval.
And a spokesman for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We keep finding the weaponry which we don't believe to be sourced from anywhere else."
-------------
Now, I ask you objectively...who sounds more rational?
Originally posted by shavixmirMaddinnerjacket talks about like, courts and stuff. That would be extremely rational if we were talking about a crime. In this case though, its absurdity.
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6355169.stm
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country does not fear the US military and that any attack would be "severely punished".
Mr Ahmadinejad made the comments in a rare US television interview on Monday.
He was speaking after US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing ...[text shortened]...
-------------
Now, I ask you objectively...who sounds more rational?
I like how he says Iran shies away from all conflict, yet the reporter never presses him on their proxy armies that dont shy away from conflict with the filthy joos.
As for an attack on Iran being illegal, I will say this again. The U.S. is already cleared hot.
Regardless of Iranian weapons, P.L. 107-40 has already granted authorization. If we include weapons, then the U.S. also has P.L.107-243 which authorized Iraq. It would be considered an "Expanding theater of war", a concept recognized by SCOTUS during Vietnam as related to Cambodia.
Wake me up when you kids got somethin'.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThug? I'm talking about the best time to attack Iran this month. You wouldn't want to do it during a full moon right? Oh I forgot. You're one of those whiny little turds I was talking about.
George, like you, is just a thug. Guess you guys have been a bit too influenced by Tupac and Cortez.