Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
NP - that doesn’t justify killing children. If this president wanted to attack Iran, he needed to get Congressional approval before doing so.
1. It probably does. You wouldn’t take their side risk of killing 100 kids to save 20,000+ people?
2. I agree re Congressional approval.
How did 20,000 people get saved?
How many protesters did the Iranian regime kill so far this year? How many more would have died in the months ahead?
Look, I actually am not in favor of this aggression. But we should all recognize that this is a complicated situation.
For those who are opposed bc of potential civilian cost, we have to consider the alternative.
For those concerned about US intervention (citing Iraq or Afghanistan), we need to also weigh cases where the US did NOT intervene and the result was tragic. See Syria and Rwanda.
I get that people are wound up and that many are here with predetermined agendas, but the reality is that this is a complicated issue that merits far more serious discussion than it’s receiving here.
It’s borderline insane to talk about this in terms of “saving” people when its the same regime that killed the VA and USAID and god knows that, resulting in how many deaths? The same regime that invades its own cities and murders its own citizens. The same regime covering for pedophiles. The same regime threatening to steal elections. The same regime that started a war IN THE MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATIONS to appease our local Middle East welfare states while we live without healthcare and so many safety nets.
The only agenda now should be trying to keep it together long enough to remove Trump from office.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So you admit, we are no better than the enemy. Innocent children be damn. Oh shucks, I already knew this administration cared naught for little girls. Epstein Island, everybody say it loud.
You’re being silly. Get serious and we can have a conversation.
OMG we just took out the leadership of the biggest stare supporter of terrorists in the world but we were supposed to do it with zero casualties. We were just supposed to ask nicely for the Ayatollah to not give nuclear suitcase bombs to Hamas and Hezbollah and they would have totes done it!!!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So you admit, we are no better than the enemy. Innocent children be damn. Oh shucks, I already knew this administration cared naught for little girls. Epstein Island, everybody say it loud.
You’re being silly. Get serious and we can have a conversation.
So you can't handle the truth. Got it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
NP - that doesn’t justify killing children. If this president wanted to attack Iran, he needed to get Congressional approval before doing so.
1. It probably does. You wouldn’t take their side risk of killing 100 kids to save 20,000+ people?
2. I agree re Congressional approval.
How did 20,000 people get saved?
How many protesters did the Iranian regime kill so far this year? How many more would have died in the months ahead?
Look, I actually am not in favor of this aggression. But we should all recognize that this is a complicated situation.
For those who are opposed bc of potential civilian cost, we have to consider the alternative.
For those concerned about US intervention (citing Iraq or Afghanistan), we need to also weigh cases where the US did NOT intervene and the result was tragic. See Syria and Rwanda.
I get that people are wound up and that many are here with predetermined agendas, but the reality is that this is a complicated issue that merits far more serious discussion than it’s receiving here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So you admit, we are no better than the enemy. Innocent children be damn. Oh shucks, I already knew this administration cared naught for little girls. Epstein Island, everybody say it loud.
You’re being silly. Get serious and we can have a conversation.
OMG we just took out the leadership of the biggest stare supporter of terrorists in the world but we were supposed to do it with zero casualties. We were just supposed to ask nicely for the Ayatollah to not give nuclear suitcase bombs to Hamas and Hezbollah and they would have totes done it!!!
Why are you so stupid?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So you admit, we are no better than the enemy. Innocent children be damn. Oh shucks, I already knew this administration cared naught for little girls. Epstein Island, everybody say it loud.
You’re being silly. Get serious and we can have a conversation.
Anonymous wrote:3 U.S. troops KIA.
America First amirite??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So you admit, we are no better than the enemy. Innocent children be damn. Oh shucks, I already knew this administration cared naught for little girls. Epstein Island, everybody say it loud.
You’re being silly. Get serious and we can have a conversation.
OMG we just took out the leadership of the biggest stare supporter of terrorists in the world but we were supposed to do it with zero casualties. We were just supposed to ask nicely for the Ayatollah to not give nuclear suitcase bombs to Hamas and Hezbollah and they would have totes done it!!!
Anonymous wrote:
Exactly! For some reason, talking about the oppression of women and gays by Islam is not politically correct among progressives. Why??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
NP - that doesn’t justify killing children. If this president wanted to attack Iran, he needed to get Congressional approval before doing so.
1. It probably does. You wouldn’t take their side risk of killing 100 kids to save 20,000+ people?
2. I agree re Congressional approval.
How did 20,000 people get saved?
How many protesters did the Iranian regime kill so far this year? How many more would have died in the months ahead?
Look, I actually am not in favor of this aggression. But we should all recognize that this is a complicated situation.
For those who are opposed bc of potential civilian cost, we have to consider the alternative.
For those concerned about US intervention (citing Iraq or Afghanistan), we need to also weigh cases where the US did NOT intervene and the result was tragic. See Syria and Rwanda.
I get that people are wound up and that many are here with predetermined agendas, but the reality is that this is a complicated issue that merits far more serious discussion than it’s receiving here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So you admit, we are no better than the enemy. Innocent children be damn. Oh shucks, I already knew this administration cared naught for little girls. Epstein Island, everybody say it loud.
You’re being silly. Get serious and we can have a conversation.
Anonymous wrote:
NP - that doesn’t justify killing children. If this president wanted to attack Iran, he needed to get Congressional approval before doing so.
Anonymous wrote:
So you admit, we are no better than the enemy. Innocent children be damn. Oh shucks, I already knew this administration cared naught for little girls. Epstein Island, everybody say it loud.