|
|
|
|
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 1:03:09 PM | The only legitimate counterargument that I see to all this is the possiblities that the Iraqi war isn't being waged by Iraqis themselves, but rather Iraqis supported and joined by combatants from all around the Islamic world. In that sense, th Iraq War is really a war between the United States and the entire extremist Islamic world.
If you consider this, then perhaps we're already fighting the 'Iranian insurgency', only with Iraq as the battleground. Even if this were the cause, of course, the reality is still that geographically an Iranian invasion would stretch us far, far too thin.
As I've said before, if our real goal is to stem the funding of the extremist then we have to look towards the Saudis, and ultimately, ourselves. Its ironic that our oil dependency is at the same time strangling our economy and providing in large part the funding of the worldwide insurgency against our hegemony.
Which again, gets back to the point that the War Against Terror is an economic war, and fighting it militarily is a bit like using a car to sail.
Or maybe... fighting it 'solely' militarily...
And again --> blaming this on the "Republicans" is like blaming the right leg for running. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 1:07:56 PM | Like the invasions have gone so well up to this point WHY NOT open a 3rd front  funny things is despite all that has happened almost half of Americans will still vote republican in the next election (sigh) at least I've managed to live 34 years of my life before world war 3. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 2:52:28 PM | Boricua4you,
You: "Iran took american's hostage and pretty much dictated a American presidency by not releasing them until jimmy carter was out the whitehouse."
What you obviously fail to mention is that the Iranians took the Embassey hostage not for fun, not because they are irrational and hostile, as you are trying to make it seem -- no no -- the reason they did this was very simple:
The American government, through the CIA, toppled a democratically elected leader in Iran. His name was Dr. Mossadegh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
There are people, such as yourself, who believe it was America's "God Given Right" to remove Iran's democratically elected leader. But those same people, such as yourself, fail to create an argument which would suggest WHY America is allowed to do this to other nations. Who exactly gave USA the right to do such things ?
Then you whine about what the CIA calls "Blow Back"
Action: USA topples a democratically elected government in Iran because the country decided to nationalize it's oil/gas industry out of the hands of "Western" companies
Reaction: The reaction is that thousands of Iranian people, mainly Iranian students, not the Iranian government, stormed and took hostage the US embassey.
Obviously you failed to mention this in your biased interpretation of the events, but we both know that is because you only know what the TV told you to know and while the TV showed you the Iranian hostage crisis, the TV never told you it was because of the fact that the US government, years prior, toppled their government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said: "You said Iran has not invaded anyone in over 3 century's...Your right , they have terror group's like hezbollah carry out their dirty work like launch dummy bomb's into Israel for them."
This makes hardly any sense. Israel is the country that is widely recognized by the international community, including the United Nations, to be the aggressor, not Lebanon. The UN has voted against Israel countless times, not Lebanon. I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about besides nonsense. Even the most recent war saw Hezbollah successfully defend their country against a US-financed Israeli onslaught that destroyed thousands of innocent civilians lives and a large portion of Lebanese civilian infrastructure, something that is entirely against International Law as defined by the U.N.
But hank you for acknowledging, that Iran is a peaceful and isolationist country who haven't invaded another nation in 3 centuries (that's 300 years). Israel is only 60 years old -- or have you forgotten this ? During just 60 years, apart from the 1967 war, Israel has in every single war fired and invaded first -- this is a historical fact.
As for your comment on Hezbollah? You couldn't be more clueless: Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization simply because Israel and America say so --- far from it --- in reality Hezbollah is a national resistance group that was formed when Israel illegally invaded and (till this day) occupied parts of Northern Lebanon (i.e. Shabba Farms).
What else is Hezbollah responsible for you ask ? Well in case you didn't know, perhaps because your TV/News never told you this, Hezbollah is responsible for the building of HUNDREDS of homes, schools, hospitals and parks --- that which were destroyed illegally by Israel (under international law and the fourth Geneva convention) -- and THAT is why Hezbollah is loved by all the people in Lebanon, and why they are and have been democratically voted into power
Therefore your assumption of Hezbollah being a terrorist organization is not only entirely false and misleading, it's grossly biased and not at all connected to reality.
One's man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a shame people like you don't know this yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said: "Ahmadinejad already has his mind made up about triggering this war. Moscow is using Iran just like Ahmadinejad use's Hezbollah to attack Israel.Iran is just a pawn for Moscow."
The first reason why you are wrong is because you said Ahmadineajad has the power -- anyone with even the slightest bit of intelligence with regard to Iranian politics would know he is a figurehead and he has NO power what-so-ever in attacking another nation. The power lies with the Imam Khomeni and guess what? He has said Nuclear Weapons are against Islam -- that Iran will NEVER obtain a nuclear weapon and that Iran would NEVER attack another nation (defending his nation from an Israeli/US attack based on lies is a whole different story).
The second reason why you are wrong is that Moscow is not "using" Iran -- they are politically aligned because they have the same interests: a belief in a multi-polar world, not a uni-polar world envisioned by America/Israel.
You say Moscow is "using" Iran -- but why don't you admit that USA is "using" Israel ?
Or maybe it is, as most suggest, it is Israel who is "using" America 
Iran is not controlled by Russia just because your TV told you this. You couldn't formulate even one logical sentence to suggest or prove Russia controls Iran. They are both independent countries who have every reason to want to resist US plans to dominate the middle-east. Remember America is thousands of miles away -- Iran borders Russia. Why would Russia want to support a US invasion of Iran, especially when Russia has billions of dollars of economic deals (oil and natural gas) involved with Iran.
Then you say simply because Iran and Russia are against this, against US imperialism based on proven lies, that Russia MUST be controlling Iran -- of course this makes no sense at all and I really wish I knew where you get your information from.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said: "China who is poised to be the next superpower is getting ever so close with Moscow and looks like they maybe leaning toward's a military pact."
Because the Chinese work hard and because American's are fat, in debt, obsessed with protecting Israel, clueless citizens who do nothing but consume, watch the O.C. and shop. Don't act as if American's would work to manufacture the stuff they consume -- they don't make clothes, they buy them.
As for your military pact, perhaps you are unaware of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Iran has observing member status and USA is never allowed to any meetings) which has China-Russia as the twin pillars:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
"SCO countries (full members and observers) comprise a hefty 25% of Earth's land area. Although the declaration on the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation contained a statement that it "is not an alliance directed against other states and regions and it adheres to the principle of openness", many observers believe that one of the original purposes of the SCO was to serve as a counterbalance to NATO and the United States and in particular to avoid conflicts that would allow the United States to intervene in areas near both Russia and China.
The United States applied for observer status in the SCO, but was rejected in 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said"You can show this map to any general or leader in history who have led a war and they would all tell you the same thing...It's not If the U.S invades Iran...But a matter of when."
I'm really sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and quite frankly you are rambling like an idiot. The US is in no position, politically, economically or even militarily, to invade and occupy Iran. Not only is this not feasible, it's not possible.
Israel could launch air strikes -- which would by default involve America vis a vis the obvious fact that Israel and America are in this together, but even then, the only thing America could do is assist in an air war.
There is no possibility of a ground war invasion or occupation of Iran simply because the US would get owned. Iran is not Iraq. The American's can't even hold down Afghanistan and Iraq, their country is slipping into a massive recession, they are about to elect a democrat President, and you are saying America is on the verge of invading and occupying Iran.
You are pretty funny, but you aren't at all accurate. ANY sort of attack on Iran would see the Straits of Honruz close (90% of the middle-eastern oil comes through Iran's straits) and then you would see the price of oil jump from $130 / barrel to approx. $600 / barrel.
It would cost American's (and other Westerners) $500 to fill up your gas tank. This is not a joke by the way.
For this, and many other obvious reasons, the US has no intentions of attacking Iran. But USA will continue a dismal policy of containment against Iran, vis a vis the UN, applying economic/financial sanctions -- the European Union will join in, as they are the Western world.
Other than that expect nothing much else other than the emergence of the multi-polar world and the decline and destruction of the concept of a Uni-polar world (something that should have been already painfully obvious to you by now) | |
|
| |
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:12:37 PM | [Well it's disturbing in the most sinister way that I am sure would make Herr Goebbel's heart warm, when you see the nature of many replies across the politics and current events forum how deeply the meme-mythology of the Neo-Conservatives has become imbedded into the psyche of the average person, unquestionably the truth...and more disturbingly that if you dare to question this meme, that you are seditious - a traitor to your people and way of life just for questioning that the evil - the terror - is striking against us.]
Do you think so? I see alot of that in the posts but lately I have also been encouraged by posts that seem to question the validity of both sides of the political spectrum and both political parties. Could it be that the Country may just be waking up and finding that we have been duped and that neither party is really interested in anything more than their own personnal enrichment? I think that if people are really waking up at a time when we can achieve political change in November by voting for what we think is right rather than across party lines then maybe, just maybe we can right this ship before she founders or good. Frankly I am excited, even though,the Presidency is a waste this time around because of two very poor candidates and a "lesser of two evils" scenario, we could really send a message by making sure we hold our senators and congressmen accountable and send those who are not serving the greater good home. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:22:32 PM | | In the last century millions of people died in war and just plain old mass killings. In this century even more people will die that way. And we're way overdue for a pandemic. I think the consequence of the US attacking Iran is nuclear retaliation against US cities. That is why it will be Israel that attacks Iran. Then when Iran retaliates against Israel, the US can come to the aid of its ally. None of this bothers me because it is finally safe to eat tomatoes again. I have sensible priorities. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/23/2008 8:31:27 PM |
But hank you for acknowledging, that Iran is a peaceful and isolationist country who haven't invaded another nation in 3 centuries (that's 300 years). Israel is only 60 years old -- or have you forgotten this ? During just 60 years, apart from the 1967 war, Israel has in every single war fired and invaded first -- this is a historical fact.
THIS IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH!
I served in Israel - -please support this non sense!
| |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/24/2008 8:24:25 AM | "THIS IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH!"
You served in Israel ? You were born in Canada, yet you served in Israel ? How is this possible considering Canadian armed forces have no operations in Israel -- and never have ?
And if what I said was "far from the truth" why then can you not prove me wrong ?
I said Iran is a peaceful and isolationist country who have not attacked or invaded another nation in over 300 years -- this is a historical fact. If I was lieing, you would have been able to show me a time in which Iran has been hostile and a time in which they have attacked and invaded another country (as Israel has done repeatedly yet Israel has only been around for 60 years)
Israel has attacked, invaded and been more hostile than Iran and Israel is only 60 years old.
Iran is over 30 centuries old -- let's not forget that. | |
|
| |
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/24/2008 1:33:26 PM | | ^^ It's because if one is born to Jewish mother , or one formally and fully converts, one is or can be automatically an Israeli citizen as well. Therefore any Jewish person is a "dual citizen" by birth (or, possibly, by full conversion). Dual citizenship never made me question anyone's "loyalty" frankly; I have it with Italy due to my dad having been born there and having applied formally -- even though I didn't serve in the military there (obviously not , as I was living here at that age) and I don't vote there with the overseas ballots or whatever because I don't feel I have the right since I'm not living there. My dad doesn't vote there either. Anyway we have enough problems trying to make heads or tails out of the American political mess , let alone the one(s) over there! | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 1:56:37 AM | America would never attack iran, unless they want their economy to get even worse, damage the world economy and really start a 3rd world war, every time america has attacked iran or done something "naughty" iran has always retaliated in its own way. A retaliation from iran may not be imediate but it will be long term and effective. If you think small groups like alqaida are a threat, you have no idea what iran's capabilities are in Europe and America. Countries like UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and ofcourse Israel will see the biggest damage.
I served in the regular forces in iran for 13 month and they had excellent capabilities, the IRGC is far more experienced with much more capabilities. What you see on tv from the IRGC is childs play, they have developed so many intelligent AI systems in the robotic sector in the IRGC R&D sector that they dont share or show. Iran has one of the best engineers for computer sience and AI from its' sharif university, most of whom end up in places like America! don't take my word for it, experts say the same things!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=s957W6jomBc
i wont go into detail but iran's capabilities through the middle east is far greater than america's influence and capabilities by every mean except perhaps technology. The level of reach iran has, starts from Afghanistan and reaches all the way to Egypt. israel thinks the distance and missile defence systems will protect them from an Iranian attack, they are fully expecting iranian shahab missile attack upon them if any attack is made on iran, the iranian strategy would be long term campaign of bombings within and outside israel to their interests.
America has only just started to open and blow the dusts off plans to attack and invade iran which they made in the 80's, iran since 1979 has planned for such occasion, every strategic decision made has been for such a day, war with America and Israel. I can't see any way of America winning a "war" against iran, they will win battles, but the war will be won by iran. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:53:31 AM | edpersian: "America would never attack iran, unless they want their economy to get even worse, damage the world economy and really start a 3rd world war"...
Oh, yeah? Well,how do you know that isnt what we want, huh? Were happiest with some kind of war going on, things are just too complex at home here and too boring, at least we get that big team spirit thing going on with a war, ya know? Anyway, Jesus will come down when its all over and gather His flock.  | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:45:10 AM |
You served in Israel ? You were born in Canada, yet you served in Israel ? How is this possible considering Canadian armed forces have no operations in Israel -- and never have ?
Who said I was born in Canada? More non sense?
I served in the IDF - Jews that do Alliyah to Yisroel become instant citizens and ALL Israelis are blessed with mandatory service.
I have no responsibility to prove that your untruths are wrong. It is your responsibility to back up your false accusations.
A foray into reality - not wiki will go a long way in your search for the truth.
| |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:11:13 AM | There is one consequence to an attack that isn't geo-political. The human cost. By some conservative estimates over 1,000,000 Iraqis have died since the start of the most recent madness. And so far other than the use of DU weapons no nukes have been involved. The following is an excerpt from a paper produced by Physicians for Social Responsibility (Global Research, June 21, 2008 ) ..about what the potential effects of using just two 340kt, B61-11 earth-penetrating nuclear weapons in Iran...
... within 48 hours, fallout would cover much of Iran, most of Afghanistan and spread on into Pakistan and India. Fallout from the use of a burrowing weapon such as the B61-11 would be worse than from a surface or airburst weapon, due to the extra radioactive dust and debris ejected from the blast site. In the immediate area of the two attacks, our calculations show that within 48 hours, an estimated 2.6 million people would die. About two-thirds of those would die from radiation-related causes, either prompt casualties from the immediate radiation effects of the bomb, or from localized fallout. Over 1,000,000 people would suffer immediate injuries including thermal and flash burns, radiation sickness, broken limbs, lacerations, blindness, crush injuries, burst eardrums and other traumas. In the wider region, over 10.5 million people would be exposed to significant radiation from fallout, leading to radiation sickness, future excess cancer deaths, genetic abnormalities in future generations, as well as high rates of stillbirths, miscarriages, malignancies and hypothyroidism. Most if not all medical facilities near the two attack sites would be destroyed, or located within the radiation "hot zone" and thus unusable. Little or no medical care would be available to the injured in the aftermath of an attack, leading to many avoidable deaths.
This article is speculation, but it's based on sound scientific theory. Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside??? Some of you would benefit from trying to get you head around the "what if" the shoe was on the other foot...
Lets all try to remember that Iranians are human beings, (*not all twisted psychos, like the current administration would have us all believe) They have same hopes, dreams and aspirations of any people and don't deserve to be summarily executed as collateral damage to forward the imperialistic goals of the US.
Peace | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:15:11 AM | oddsrhuge, I never saw a problem that a land mine or a field of unexploded cluster bombs cant fix.
re:"""""They have same hopes, dreams and aspirations of any people and don't deserve to be summarily executed as collateral damage to forward the imperialistic goals of the US."""
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you "dont share the fantasy" and "live the lie", well, watch your back........
White Americans are the only "real" people....... | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:19:05 AM | Invading Iran on the ground........... hmmm, or we could just ask Iraqis who are old enough to remember (which shouldn't be hard to find I'm sure). The Iranian people rallied behind Khomeini, after Saddam invaded the oil-rich coastal province of Khuzestan, and , seeing as though Iran's population is so large, after a few months the tide turned and the Arabs were beaten back into their own country. Saddam at that point began to sue for peace terms, but the ayatollahs were implacable once aroused. Determined to crush the Iraqi state and sweep the Middle East, completely heedless of the human cost, the Iranians insisted the war continue. Teenage boys and pre-teens in some cases twelve or younger, became fanatical suicide attack squads.
Iran lost between half a million and 1 million of its citizens (and still was not prepared to surrender) , while around 100,000 Iraqis died. The ayatollahs still refused any terms with the original invaders. Finally in '88 Khomeini, just before he died, was more or less forced to recognize that it had to end sometime, and the ayatollahs ruling council accepted a compromise cease-fire.
Seeing as though he was easily as bull-headed as , say, George W.Bush, Saddam Hussein believed and proclaimed he'd "won" -- even though his poorly thought out invasion eight yrs prior had cost his country scores of billions of dollars and at least 100,000 Iraqi lives..... stop two on his world tour was of course Kuwait ..... and the rest is history.
But the fact remains, does the US (much less Israel by itself) honestly feel it can sustain that kind of financial and human loss (troops, etc) over the course of however many years it would take (and judging from Iraq an occupation of Iran would probably by necessity be just about endless). And do either of them also think that a majority of their citizenry has the real stomach or the desire for this?? If anything, some of the Israeli hardliners may, but your average American?? They are upset when 5 or 7 US troops get killed in one day in Iraq..... I doubt they would stand for numbers of flag-draped coffins probably unseen since Vietnam (with a Vietnam-era draft probably by necessity thrown in to top it off.....). Sounds like fun....... | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:34:09 AM | "I have no responsibility to prove that your untruths are wrong. It is your responsibility to back up your false accusations."
So I say Iran has not attacked or invaded another nation in 3 centuries, a historical fact, and that Iran is a peaceful and isolationist country, another historical fact.
You obviously cannot disprove this. So what do you do ?
You say that you have "no responsibility" to prove my "untruths" wrong (which isn't even a word) and then go one step further in saying it is MY responsibility to back up my claims.
Unfortunately this is not how debates work. I know my statements are true because I have studied it. Tell me when was the last time Iran openly, through hostile actions, decided it wanted to attack and invade another nation.
I dare you to show me a time.
p.s. Iraq started the Iraq-Iran war by invading Iran -- this is a fact. Iraq and Saddam was supported, armed and financed by the US government (remember Rumsfeld's famous picture with Saddam?) Iran simply defended her land.
Funny that only a decade later Iraq, who was once America's allie, turned out to be a problem requiring a solution. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:42:38 AM | 1 million Iraqi fatalities? How is THAT conservative?
And uh... what about Iran's wars with Russia? I do believe they instigated the final conflict.
I mean, we are talking about Persia? Historically speaking and taking in the breadth of their history, are they not one of the more bellicose nations in history? Just... historically speaking?
I just mean to say, stop mentioning the 3 centuries thing because its, uh, kinda false. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:49:54 AM | ^^ I've never heard a 1 million figure for Iraqi civilian casualties either. It's probably over 100,000, but 1 million seems a stretch. There are however over 2 mill displaced as a result of the invasion and occupation.
QUOTE: p.s. Iraq started the Iraq-Iran war by invading Iran -- this is a fact. Iraq and Saddam was supported, armed and financed by the US government (remember Rumsfeld's famous picture with Saddam?) Iran simply defended her land.
Funny that only a decade later Iraq, who was once America's allie, turned out to be a problem requiring a solution.
^^ Iraq did start it, yes. And after they did, the US administration saw it as a great opportunity to back a dynamic (& definitely non-Islamist) aggressive winner as a US surrogate in the region.....and thus they backed Saddam Hussein. Some say they armed him with the WMD's he then used not only on Iranian soldiers but eventually on some of his own citizens as well (the Kurds to the north) . Ironically he hung for that, for Halabja.
It's actually quite typical that America had this kind of situation develop with Saddam. The gov't has made a bad habit of allying with very bad elements, as a "lesser of two evils" Machiavellian sort of approach, and then having to deal with said bad elements later on (the Soviet Union in WWII, Saddam Hussein in the instance discussed here, the Arab Islamist fanatic mujaheddin during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, etc....). | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:02:23 AM | sorry I added an extra zero in my count of casualties...oops. Around 100.000 have been killed so far...so don't worry...thats just a drop in the bucket...like wiping out Billings, Montana. You'd barely notice.
Peace | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:19:00 AM | oddsrhuge, oh, what's a few hundreds of thousands, why its just a rounding factor.
Anyway, were fat, rich, dumb white people who like to drive around in things that are the size of people's entire homes in many other countries, what do we care?
It "might" matter if it drives the cost of gas up.....but really.....isn't it kind of "fun" to read about other people suffering while we live in lap of luxury here, anyway? | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 9:54:26 AM | Apparently it depends upon the source...but these are all death toll estimates from the same war...so basically pick the one that you're all most comfortable with. But as my friend Stefano points out...what does it matter? ... None of them were fat white westerners, so if they didn't want to be killed, why did they insist on living in Iraq???? ...Silly Buggers.
***************************************************************
Iraq Body Count: March 19, 2003 - May 2, 2008 - 83,221 - 90,782
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count: April 28, 2005 - May 2, 2008 - 41,962
Brookings Iraq Index: May 2003 - March 2008 - 104,317
The Associated Press: April 2005 - February 13, 2008 - 31,245 dead 35,436 wounded
The Iraq Family Health Study (the “WHO study”):March 2003 - June 2006 151,000
The Lancet, “Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq”: March 19, 2003 - July 31, 2006 - 426,369 - 793,663
Peace | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:11:18 AM | This is all good stuff! This is what it comes down to: War is power and money! The US has become what it is-- be it good or bad. We as Americans are part of the greatest nation on the face of the earth. We can not afford to have it destroyed from within or from another nation. So- that being said we must continuel to fight in order to maintain our position in the world. Our Military is who we are!! That being said-- why would we want our countries president to be so anti military? Obama for president--- no way. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:21:58 AM | Greatest nation on the face of the earth?
lol. yeah right, with just 200 years of history and culture.
Your militry doesnt have to be used in lame duck campaigns.
lol Obama peobably would use the military in a more responsible manner. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:45:27 AM | Yes Frankster-- sorry- we are the greatest nation on earth. Your country knows what we have done for you. We Americans are fighters--- make no mastake about that. Our Military will aways be the best in the world. Obama will nevor be president of US-- no miltary experience , anti miltary, thinks the world would love us is we just sit down and say please be are friend. Says -- their will always be war. The only reason their is peace is because of the war that perceded it!  | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
