ANSWERS: 4
  • The whole damn country as far as I'm concerned.
    • mushroom
      That would be called genocide. We didn't nuke Khrushchev for having shot down Gary Powers.
    • Archie Bunker
      Nope. We didn't. And it's not genocide. It's war. People always die in war.
    • bostjan64
      1. We are not at war with Iran (21 Jun 2019). 2. Even in war, there are rules and limits. The Nazis tried to justify the Holocaust by saying it was war. If we attempted to wipe out an entire nation including hundreds of millions of innocent people, we would be no better. 3. Even if we were at war and there were no international war crimes laws, mass murder of innocents would still be morally and ethically wrong.
    • Wakko
      Not that I'm a libtard at all, but ANY lives lost in response to the downing of an UNMANNED drone is just looking to start WW3. SURELY you aren't so right wing to exercise logic. "Yeah, let's bomb 'em so they can bomb us and everyone dies".
    • Archie Bunker
      I was being facetious, bostjan. I'm not advocating wiping out acivilian population to prove a point. What I have no problem doing is striking military significant targets in Iran to prove the point that - 1 - you cannot shoot at us without repercussions - 2 - you will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. When those strikes occur, civilians will undoubtedly die. Civilians always die in war. The US tries harder than most to minimize civilian casualties in warfare.
    • bostjan64
      Regrading point 1: Imagine the tables are turned and Iran is flying a military drone off the coast of Miami. Do you think we would hesitate for one second to shoot it down? If they come back and say that they were in international waters, but we have the wreckage of the drone, would we be inclined to believe them? Point 2: Who governs who gets nuclear weapons or not? If it the USA, then why allow North Korea to have them? For the record, Iran doesn't seem to have a nuclear weapon yet. North Korea has them and doesn't make any level of effort to lead anyone into thinking otherwise. Conclusion: The USA has this inexplicable hardon for the middle east. We knowingly lied to the UN about Iraq having WMD, and, at that moment, the USA's credibility regarding invading other countries over their weaponry was obliterated.
    • Archie Bunker
      A couple of points. 1 - if the drone is in international waters, no. 2 - The world has said no to more nuclear weapons. The rest of the world just isn't doing anything about it. As far as North Korea goes, they're not threatening to wipe their neighbors off the face of the earth (just said it again yesterday) and they're not the world's most prolific sponsor of terrorism. You're comparing apples to carburetors. Conclusion - Yes, there were WMDs in Iraq. Chemical weapons ARE classified as WMDs. No, there were no nuclear weapons. And most of the terrorism around the world is coming from that one little pocket. As far as our credibility, it may not be the best (I thank Obama for that), but it's better than Iran's.
  • i dont think any lives should be lost
    • Wakko
      None should, Pearl. Only nazis want that shit.
  • Whatever the actual reasoning, Trump publicly stated that 150 Iranian lives were worth more than a trashed several million dollar drone, and I agree. I don't think killing any number of Iranians would help the tense situation in any way, shape, or form. Unfortunately, I don't have any faith that the Iranian government feels at all the same way, not about Iranian lives, and especially not about American lives. But, as much as I don't care for the Iranian government, I love the Iranian people and wish the best for them.
    • Archie Bunker
      I also think that retaliation has to be quick and violent. There's an old quote....sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to kill a fly with a seldgehammer.
    • bostjan64
      Where I'm from, that's an idiom with negative connotation to mean to escalate things too quickly. I always picture someone smashing things in their bathroom with a sledge all to dispose of a pesky harmless insect.
    • Archie Bunker
      But it proves a point. It's a "don't fuck with me" point or you'll get hammered. Where I'm from, when you knock a man down, you make sure he doesn't get up again. To keep pushing a man down is pointless if he keeps getting up. But it also sends a message to the other flies to stay away. Another one for you is this "Men aren't hanged for stealing horses. Men are hanged so that horses won't be stolen."
    • bostjan64
      Maybe just stick to the point. I don't think any of these idioms are helping in this case.
  • An airstrike would be overkill for a downed drone, on the other hand Iran has been trying to pick a war for a long time now and if something is not done they will continue and escalate. And no, Iran does not care about lives lost on either side, they are just jealous, angry and power hungry. They need to be dealt with quietly and efficiently without unintended casualties or public posturing. And yes, 'we can do it... we have the technology!' All this hoopla in the press is acting! They're trying to keep people distracted while they rob the taxpayers blind to support a public war that never had to happen. The truly scariest part of all of this is that Nancy Pelosi is 3rd in line for POTUS! One thing is for sure... No matter what Trump does he will be criticized!
    • Archie Bunker
      You're right on the last part. Personally, I think he should have hit some targets, but I understand why he stopped. He at least is showing that he's willing to talk (with no preconditions) with Iran. He put the ball in their court. But it also gives him some leverage with our allies as he builds a case against Iran.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy