jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Nixon cleaned up Johnson.
Reagan cleaned up Carter.
Bush cleaned up Clinton.
I feel sorry for the next republican president...............
Bush cleaned up Clinton? What the hell are you talking about?
Nixon cleaned up Johnson.
Reagan cleaned up Carter.
Bush cleaned up Clinton.
I feel sorry for the next republican president...............
Yeppers, we can always count on the Democrat Party's expertise on foreign policy to "clean up the messes."
Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter did a superb job. And now what ... Obama bowing down to Saudi kings, diluting the worth of our money and depleting our nuclear advantage?
Vi
Nuclear advantage? HA! With MAD (mutually assured destruction), does it really matter? There are enough nukes to blow the world over. If we have them, any country should be allowed to have them. No one has the right to place conditions on this matter.
And how can anyone fight for state's rights and autonomy, but not grant that same autonomy to independent countries? It reeks of hypocrisy through and through. You keep saying that the government should stay out of our lives, but you're encouraging them to impose their will on other people's lives. Do you see the utter contradiction here?
Or balls like grapefruit.Maybe if you count the Big 5, but the minor players don't have nearly enough nukes to achieve MAD, it's not MAD if they wipe out one of our cities, and we wipe them off the map (assuming that we have a president with big enough balls to go through with something like that.)
And yes, I mean big enough balls, having to carry around the kind of guilt associated with wiping out a city, or an entire nation is not something I would want to deal with. Likely any president that ordered retaliation would either require serious counseling or blow their brains out.
I have an idea, lets take a backseat on this and let the countries who are actually in imminent dager from this threat handle it. Israel, attack if you wish. Countries of Europe, get your ass in gear and do something, we will no longer do it for you; Middle Eastern nations, we will buy your oil but you people fix your own fucking self created problems...we are done with you.
Maybe if you count the Big 5, but the minor players don't have nearly enough nukes to achieve MAD, it's not MAD if they wipe out one of our cities, and we wipe them off the map (assuming that we have a president with big enough balls to go through with something like that.)
And yes, I mean big enough balls, having to carry around the kind of guilt associated with wiping out a city, or an entire nation is not something I would want to deal with. Likely any president that ordered retaliation would either require serious counseling or blow their brains out.
Yes, let's see what happens...![]()
Yes, Bush cleaned up Clinton. Clinton practically put out the calling card on 9/11.
Yes, let's see what happens...![]()
Yes, Bush cleaned up Clinton. Clinton practically put out the calling card on 9/11.
That is the legacy of the far right, fear and hypocracy. I'd be inclined to add a few other traits, ignorance for one, and most certainly, egoism and and vindictiveness.And please, answer my previous question. How can you be in favor of complete state autonomy (when a state is PART of a nation) but not allow autonomy for countries to produce what MANY other countries already have? It makes NO sense. Where do you demarcate? How do you justify? We cannot allow Iran to have nukes because they're evil? Many parts of the world think we're evil. We have nukes. Many parts of the world think Israel's evil. They have nukes. Many parts of the world think Russia's evil. They have nukes.
You're fear is causing you to retreat to hypocrisy. Your fear is making you irrational.
That is the legacy of the far right, fear and hypocracy. I'd be inclined to add a few other traits, ignorance for one, and most certainly, egoism and and vindictiveness.
And please, answer my previous question. How can you be in favor of complete state autonomy (when a state is PART of a nation) but not allow autonomy for countries to produce what MANY other countries already have? It makes NO sense. Where do you demarcate? How do you justify? We cannot allow Iran to have nukes because they're evil? Many parts of the world think we're evil. We have nukes. Many parts of the world think Israel's evil. They have nukes. Many parts of the world think Russia's evil. They have nukes.
You're fear is causing you to retreat to hypocrisy. Your fear is making you irrational.
CrackerJax, I find it ammusing how much you hate Iran. Is there a persian bully in your childhood past? jk
When you say that saudi arabia has given israel permission to use the airspace, you prove no point. It has NOTHING to do with the muslim sects. Saudi Arabia is an extension of the US, just as Israel is. People say Saddat had ties to the CIA. For those who dont know who that is...he was the leader of the Saudis.
Also, you say that Iran having nuclear weapons destabilizes the region. It seems logical but it is just regurgitated conservitve propoganda. You tell me what is more destabilizing to a region... FOUR countries invaded and attacked by western forces in a 3 year time span? Or one of those underdog countries attempting (bravely) to obtain nuclear power. Quite frankely, nuclear weapons arn't in the interets of Iran and they know that. look how far it got Kim Jung Il (he is isolated now and dying alone of cancer)
Actually if you were an Iranian, you would not revolt against your government. Sorry to say.
Mr. Bush cheated on his election, and some how he managed to be an even BIGGER FOOL than mr. Ahmedinejad. Hard to believe but true. I didnt see anyone rioting. Including you.
I think you were kidding with your entire post there...
You're not serious right? Oh, where shall I begin nooby!![]()
Israel blew up thier reactor last time, what makes this time so different has anything "changed?"
A lot has changed. Everything is now way deep underground and Iran is spinning 7000 centrifuges enriching uranium PAST reactor grade up to weapons grade.