Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Russia tests Obama

44 posts in this topic

Posted

Obama will wait until they have conquered the Southern Half of the US before realizing the Russians might be up to something...

nah he will just wait till they take over georgia...haha get it...georgia...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is going to be interesting to see if Obama takes a hardline approach to our enemies. If he does, man, is that going to piss his base off or what? I'll applaud him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thinking with your head instead of your dick when dealing with nations with conflicting interests will not piss his supporters off. You are completely clueless if you think that Democrats, as a voting block, think that singing kumbaya will solve the worlds problems. We just also know that blowing up anything we don't like is not such a swift idea either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thinking with your head instead of your dick when dealing with nations with conflicting interests will not piss his supporters off. You are completely clueless if you think that Democrats, as a voting block, think that singing kumbaya will solve the worlds problems. We just also know that blowing up anything we don't like is not such a swift idea either.

Jimmy Carter

/end thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thinking with your head instead of your dick when dealing with nations with conflicting interests will not piss his supporters off. You are completely clueless if you think that Democrats, as a voting block, think that singing kumbaya will solve the worlds problems. We just also know that blowing up anything we don't like is not such a swift idea either.

How do dems decide that? What is the criteria? How much talking should take place before action becomes the best option? Should talking continue indefinitely?

I'd also like to add, that even if the voting bloc of the dem party has balls, the rest of the world MAY not believe that's the case. The perception to the rest of the world (even according to your own VP) is that he will be tested due to the possibility that he is weak, and the Dem party is weak. And I'm not really trying to get panties in a wad here...Just believe this is probably the perception among our enemies of the Dem party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Their perception of Bush was that he was an idiot that could be drawn into anything if you attacked him. Thus 9/11.

[/Htar retardologic]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How do dems decide that? What is the criteria? How much talking should take place before action becomes the best option? Should talking continue indefinitely?

I'd also like to add, that even if the voting bloc of the dem party has balls, the rest of the world MAY not believe that's the case. The perception to the rest of the world (even according to your own VP) is that he will be tested due to the possibility that he is weak, and the Dem party is weak. And I'm not really trying to get panties in a wad here...Just believe this is probably the perception among our enemies of the Dem party.

I can tell you the criteria is not "We want to invade a country, we found a guy thats telling us what we want to hear about that country, quick lets invade under this pretense before people find out!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can tell you the criteria is not "We want to invade a country, we found a guy thats telling us what we want to hear about that country, quick lets invade under this pretense before people find out!"

Thanks, Phil Donahue. :patriot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's Troy, not Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can tell you the criteria is not "We want to invade a country, we found a guy thats telling us what we want to hear about that country, quick lets invade under this pretense before people find out!"

Or you could invade them because they are not compliant with the rules that they are supposed to be following because they attacked Kuwait and Israel for no reason whatsoever, and following these events, and knowing the preconditions, the same country feels the need to fire on US fighter planes in an attempt to provoke a war (which, btw, firing on our planes can be construed as an act of war).

I find it interesting that all the people screaming that IRAQ HAD NO WMD, sure as hell couldn't prove that point. Saddam didn't know his own status.

So, again, can you answer the question or just fling your BS all over the place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No one could prove Iraq didn't have a Vaporizing Death Ray or a time machine to go back and assasinate George Washington either.

Burden of proof was on the guys sending thousands of our men and women to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi men and women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They attacked Kuwait over a longstanding land dispute, not "no reason". They attecked Israel in order to try and draw them into the Gulf War so the Arab allies to the US would defect - once we began operations in Kuwait.

Israel has been far more non compliant with UN "Rules" than Iraq should we invade them?

Here's the facts. Iraq was not a threat to the US. They did not have ties to Al Queida. They had no active nuclear program. They were not worth thousands of American lives and billions of dollars of our trouble. They were contained with our no fly zones, and would have never became a major power in the region again as long as Hussein was in charge.

Before the war it was certainly proved that the yellowcake poo Bush mentioned in his speech leading up to war was a sham. His reliance on this baloney as "proof" should have been enough to make everyone take a closer look at what was really happening.

In this case hindsight was proven the doubters correct, and the "we can't take a chance" crowd terribly terribly wrong. The few holdouts that insists years and years later that somehow Syria is holding onto secret WMDs for an Iraq that does not even exist are just pathetic, but people who continue to defend this action as a level headed decision are only one small notch above them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites