• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Looks like Americans go against the war with Iran

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I hope you don't live in 'this bloodthirsty, willfully ignorant country."

And if you don't, and you don't want to BE bombed, I suggest that you and yours don't bomb anybody else first.

You don't like us. I'm sorry about that. There are a few countries I don't like, either. However, I don't think that any of our citizens have strapped bombs on our backs and blown up other nation's day care centers because we didn't like their religion.

I don't see American courts beheading people because they wanted to convert away from the 'proper' religion, either.

But I'll tell you what: you and your neighbors don't threaten to bomb, knife or kill anybody, and we wont l bomb, knife or kill you.

I'm really sorry if you live too close to someone who DOES threaten to do this, mind you. I suggest, in that case, you move.
I'm an American, smart one. I'm just not a brainwashed jingoist sipping the Flavor Aid. I do believe that the American government has betrayed the people.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
He's pointing out the glaring disconnect between your avatar and your warmongering words.

My avatar is the burgundy ribbon of Multiple Myeloma, like the pink ribbon is the symbol of breast cancer. "Faith, Hope, Love," is about the fight against that cancer, which I am fighting with 'faith, hope and love.'

And I'm not the one doing the war mongering. That would be the leaders of those nations which declare that they WILL use WMD's against their enemies if they get them...you know, like Syria did?

I am telling you that it doesn't matter how much we want peace. If they don't, there will be no peace. As to how that works, ask Neville Chamberlain.

I am telling you that if it is a choice between a bomb strike that costs a dozen lives and takes out the capacity to build nukes, and allowing one of the terrorists to use one of those nukes on a city (American or not) then it is incredibly irresponsible NOT to take out the facility. I do not think we are starting a war.

I honestly believe that we are trying to PREVENT one, and to prevent an unholy amount of lives lost.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
That's good. Let's continue pummeling the bad guys then.
Sure, but let's do it smart and in a way that doesn't escalate into a large, prolonged, costly mess, and doesn't create even more bad guys in the process. Our enemies aren't randomly generated spawns. They're often created by conditions we have some control over.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The notion that there will be a war with Iran ignores a key aspect. The Iranian leaders are wimps. They are smart enough to know they can’t take on the U.S. directly. That’s why they use proxies. Because they are big talkers but are small actors.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
My avatar is the burgundy ribbon of Multiple Myeloma, like the pink ribbon is the symbol of breast cancer. "Faith, Hope, Love," is about the fight against that cancer, which I am fighting with 'faith, hope and love.'

And I'm not the one doing the war mongering. That would be the leaders of those nations which declare that they WILL use WMD's against their enemies if they get them...you know, like Syria did?

I am telling you that it doesn't matter how much we want peace. If they don't, there will be no peace. As to how that works, ask Neville Chamberlain.

I am telling you that if it is a choice between a bomb strike that costs a dozen lives and takes out the capacity to build nukes, and allowing one of the terrorists to use one of those nukes on a city (American or not) then it is incredibly irresponsible NOT to take out the facility. I do not think we are starting a war.

I honestly believe that we are trying to PREVENT one, and to prevent an unholy amount of lives lost.
America has no moral authority to force other countries to not pursue nuclear weapons as we are the only nation to ever use them in an act of war - against mostly civilians no less. Not to mention all the countries we've bombed to rubble besides.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The notion that there will be a war with Iran ignores a key aspect. The Iranian leaders are wimps. They are smart enough to know they can’t take on the U.S. directly. That’s why they use proxies. Because they are big talkers but are small actors.
Iran is rated 14 on the military capability index out of 120 if I remember correctly.

It would be a death wish on their part.

They do however have a fairly effective and modern anti air network so it's still good to never underestimate any enemy.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes. Consider; if an action that takes 1000 lives prevents the loss of 10,000, that's what it means.
How did you calculate that ratio?
I don't understand the basis. It could be religious. It could be lust for power on the part of the leaders...either keeping it or gaining it. All I understand is that they DO want war. Or rather, they want the ability to destroy Israel and anybody else they don't like. Their leaders have SAID so. For instance, Khamenei (you know who he is, right?) said this: #Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.”
It's a stretch to say with certainty that means they want war.
Our politicians have said things which could be read that way.
Does it mean our country wants war?
(I do think that many here do want war with Iran.)
Like what?
Supporting war correlates with re-election.
Bush started 2, & won re-election.
Obama campaigned on ending them, but continued them, & won re-election.
'almost gone to war accidentally' means we DID NOT GO TO WAR, "close" only counts in horseshoes. One either uses a nuclear weapon or one does not. "almost" means you do not.
I think you're missing the tremendous risk here.
Let's try an analogy....
You play Russian roulette a few times, & come up chamber empty.
Does this mean Russian roulette doesn't pose dangerous risks?
It was dumb luck that some individuals were able to stop the nukes
from being unleashed.
Do you know of these incidents?
See above quote. Took me, quite literally, five seconds to find on google, and if I were to search longer, I'd find a bunch more.
And on this basis, you'd wage total war against Iran & any allies they'ed enlist?
Do you imagine that it would be an easy war?
Or that massive death & destruction would be worth it?

What would you think of our simply leaving the mid-east
so we wouldn't have to be threatened by Iran?
The above tweet from Khamenei is scarey not only for what it actually states, but because it was made as a sort of retraction/apology for a previous quote where his political opponents thought that he was going soft on Israel, advocating a consortium of people from Palestine, Iran, Iraq and others 'who were here before Israel was established, He specifically omitted inviting the Jews to join said consortium...and he still got in trouble.
And yet, Iran has never attacked Israel.
What the heck more do you want?
Proof of a build up of offensive (as opposed to defensive) weapons.
Proof of actual intent, rather than what appears to be rhetoric.
This would be a good idea before killing hundreds of thousands of them again.
My dear debate opponent, I am not advocating OUR use of nukes.
I'm not claiming that.
But I thought your premise for attacking them was to prevent their
becoming a nuclear power.
As for N.Korea, he's imploding quite sufficiently without our interference. N.Korea is going to cost us a bloody fortune, but not in weapons. WE are going to be putting that nation back together after it finally destroys itself. Why? Because we've always done that. Because that's what we do.
So you oppose attacking N Korea only because of the high cost?
And therefore would allow them to remain a nuclear power,
threatening our ally to the south?
Israel...the only reason anybody considers them dangerous is because they object to the notion that their neighbors want to destroy them simply because they exist.
But this makes them a major threat in the area.
And they've a record of attacking their neighbors,
& taking land, resulting in continued hostilities.
Again...'almost' means 'didn't.'
I think you're dismissing a significant problem.
Something can be a very dangerous risk, even
if the worst possibility hasn't occurred yet.
If you shoot at me and I'm still standing, without any holes in me, afterwards, it doesn't matter how close you came. You didn't shoot me.
I don't know what this means.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
America has no moral authority to force other countries to not pursue nuclear weapons as we are the only nation to ever use them in an act of war - against mostly civilians no less. Not to mention all the countries we've bombed to rubble besides.
Hitler almost won. If we hadn't forced imperial Japan to capitulate with extreme prejudice......

Oh Godwin.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Who are you talking about?
Maybe you need to reread the post, it had nothing to do with any government or geographical area.
I'm talking about people who accuse anyone critical of the Israeli government of being antisemite, along with those who blame any and all Jewish people for the things the Israeli government does. It's racecard bull****.
 
Top