@AThousandYoung saidHappened as well in Hiroshima. Should have bombed wherever Hitler was in 1941.
Iranian leader and 60 schoolchildren dead to American bombs
So, we should NOT have bombed Hiroshima , saved the children , which would have cost several hundred thousand WWIi soldiers their lives?
You fellers write half-posts. I read yours to my grandmother, neither of us get your point.
As Goober on Mayberry used to say,,,,,,,”Do it a’gin!’
@AThousandYoung saidThe attack will not make everyone happy, but see the big picture. No nukes anymore.
Yes killing their children is a great way to get people to support your bombing campaign against their abusive leaders.
If a house w children is close to a nuclear bomb factory, which must be bombed, should we bomb the factory?
You don’t have to answer, but there would be big time discussions to come to a conclusion
. Point is, you would say absolutely not!!!! Then, why would there be discussion? Something not well thought out by you? The big picture? It is…… Nukes wiping out a nation, like Israel.
Tough one, huh little feller. You don’t have to answer.
@AverageJoe1 saidRational military scientists know that bombing enemy civilians just makes them fanatically supportive of their rulers even if they otherwise hate them. We’ve known this since after studying the results of the WW2 strategic bombimg campaigns. Trump is just proving that the Ayatollahs are right that the West cannot be trusted and must be resisted at all costs.
The attack will not make everyone happy, but see the big picture. No nukes anymore.
If a house w children is close to a nuclear bomb factory, which must be bombed, should we bomb the factory?
You don’t have to answer, but there would be big time discussions to come to a conclusion
. Point is, you would say absolutely not!!!! Then, why would there be dis ...[text shortened]... ukes wiping out a nation, like Israel.
Tough one, huh little feller. You don’t have to answer.
@no1marauder saidCollateral damage, very unfortunate but impossible to avoid.
It's all over the web; here's one link: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tragic-air-strike-iranian-school-1782210
OR, tell us marauder, there would have been only one other option…..to not attack.
Please elaborate and come to a conclusion, keeping in mind the necessity of removing nuclear weapons.
Certainly you cannot say we should, after useless negotiations, NOT have attacked? Or, would you. Interesting.
We have been at war for 47 years with these cretins. They want to kill us.
My neighbor hates me, has 5 spring loaded shotguns mounted and aimed at my door. He has told everyone’Death to Average Joe’,
Marauder? Tell us what I should do.
@AThousandYoung saidThis response is evasive crap. Respond, or call me pos and drop off
Rational military scientists know that bombing enemy civilians just makes them fanatically supportive of their rulers even if they otherwise hate them. We’ve known this since after studying the results of the WW2 strategic bombimg campaigns. Trump is just proving that the Ayatollahs are right that the West cannot be trusted and must be resisted at all costs.
@AverageJoe1 saidI don’t know what you want me to respond to but I don’t mind calling you a poc
This response is evasive crap. Respond, or call me pos and drop off
@AThousandYoung saidI posted “The attack will not make everyone happy, but see the big picture. No nukes anymore.
I don’t know what you want me to respond to but I don’t mind calling you a poc
If a house w children is close to a nuclear bomb factory, which must be bombed, should we bomb the factory?
You don’t have to answer, but there would be big time discussions to come to a conclusion
. Point is, you would say absolutely not!!!! Then, why would there be discussion? Something not well thought out by you? The big picture? It is…… Nukes wiping out a nation, like Israel.
Tough one, huh little feller. You don’t have to answer.”
Debate much? Plz answer, for our entertainment. Tell us how to not have collateral damage when we are setting about saving the world from nuclear destruction.
@AverageJoe1 said
I posted “The attack will not make everyone happy, but see the big picture. No nukes anymore.
If a house w children is close to a nuclear bomb factory, which must be bombed, should we bomb the factory?
You don’t have to answer, but there would be big time discussions to come to a conclusion
. Point is, you would say absolutely not!!!! Then, why would there be discussio ...[text shortened]... w to not have collateral damage when we are setting about saving the world from nuclear destruction.
If a house w children is close to a nuclear bomb factory, which must be bombed, should we bomb the factory?
That's a stupid scenario you poc. Might as well ask "If a house with AverageJoe needs to be bombed, should we bomb the house?"
Since you want to play games, since "it must be bombed" let someone else do it. They have to because it "must" happen.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou really need to stop with this idiotic "strategy" you have of calling something other people tell you a "lie" when it can be verified by a 10 second Google search:
This is exactly what you said…
“That's the mediator the US sent over talking.”
Go on, lie some more
"The negotiations were indirect, with Iran and the United States communicating through Omani mediators."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/third-round-u-iran-nuclear-095954458.html
He even met with Vice President Vance yesterday to update him on the negotiations.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/omans-fm-says-peace-within-reach-after-briefing-vance-on-us-iran-negotiations/
@AverageJoe1 saidThere were no nuclear weapons to remove, Sparky.
Collateral damage, very unfortunate but impossible to avoid.
OR, tell us marauder, there would have been only one other option…..to not attack.
Please elaborate and come to a conclusion, keeping in mind the necessity of removing nuclear weapons.
Certainly you cannot say we should, after useless negotiations, NOT have attacked? Or, would you. Interesting.
We have ...[text shortened]... ed at my door. He has told everyone’Death to Average Joe’,
Marauder? Tell us what I should do.
@Sleepyguy saidIt's the republican playbook for generations now:
Bombing them into freedom. Here we go again. You said in the other thread there is no indication that Trump intends to occupy. I agree and hope it is true. I hope this works, the regime is toppled and the Iranian people take back their country and find a way to live in peace with the rest of the world. But if we're not going in with boots on the ground, that means it all ri ...[text shortened]... m of the Iranian people. I could taste the deja vu. All that was missing was John Bolton's mustache.
Cut benefits for the poor.
Cut taxes for the elite.
Start a war in the middle east.
Rinse and repeat.
@AverageJoe1 saidNo you fvcking moron.
""""They are still insisting Maduro is the rightful President""""
Yeah, and 84% of our citizens insist that we need photo ID.
Sooooooooo, you are backing the Venezuelan people (People) who think Maduro is still president. (even tho you know he is not)
But you do NOT back EIGHTY FOUR PERCENT OF US who think we need photo ID.
You have shown an air of conflic ...[text shortened]... worse than Hitler himself. At least Hitler told us, in his book, 'we have to get rid of the jews'.
The point is: it’s not the US’s business to interfere with other countries’ personal affairs. Whether you deem them just or not.
