Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Russia tests Obama


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 01:41 PM

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!"

#32 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 01:44 PM

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:

#33 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:11 PM

That's Troy, not Phil.

#34 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 05:53 PM

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?

#35 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,512 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 07:29 PM

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.

#36 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 09:21 PM

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.

#37 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 24 December 2008 - 10:18 AM

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? RULES THAT THREATEN THE SECURITY OF ISRAEL!

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 sh*t 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.



It's good to know that you KNOW the world, and ME is a much safer place with Saddam enriching himself and threatening his neighbors with his non-existent power. Yeah, hindsight has been proven to be accurate with regard to the nuclear progam, but you can't set here today and say: YUP, KNEW HE DIDN'T HAVE IT THEN FO SHO! Cause if you did know, you must've been working with or for Saddam's regime.

AGAIN, HOW ARE THE DEMS GOING TO DEAL WITH THE THREAT? History is behind us, bigger threats loom...Explain!!!

#38 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 24 December 2008 - 12:30 PM

I don't know that my neighbor might or might not be creating explosives in his basement to blow up my house, excuse me while I take him out...just to be sure.


OK, I'm back. Do you truly enjoy making up boogeymen? The idea that any threat on the horizon is greater than the one the world faced during the Cold War is a little silly - the biggest worldwide threat these days (at least man made) is some kind of supervirus, and I doubt a bunch of cave dwelling Neanderthals are going to have a lot of success with that anytime soon.

The solution of course is to minimize the threat which requires more than just cowboy boots and bombs. I am sure that Obama will have a great competent staff to assist him, and his goal of adding troops to Afganistan and reducing them from Iraq is the smart move. I realize that your brain is stuck in some kind of Reaganesque fantasy world where only people with red lapel pins can save us, and people with blue lapel pins are in league with Stalin, but the real world is just a wee more complicated than that.

#39 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 25 December 2008 - 08:34 AM

Here's the facts. Germany was not a threat to the US...They were not worth thousands of American lives and billions of dollars of our trouble. They were contained...and would have never became a major power in the region again as long as Hitler was in charge.


Thanks, Neville Chamberlain

#40 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,493 posts

Posted 25 December 2008 - 09:31 AM

Cooking is bitch-slapping people in this thread.

#41 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 25 December 2008 - 09:28 PM

Cooking is bitch-slapping people in this thread.


Just ask him out already.

#42 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 25 December 2008 - 10:04 PM

Thanks, Neville Chamberlain


I would find a different way to put a signature on your posts - now people know your real name!

#43 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 26 December 2008 - 07:33 AM

I would find a different way to put a signature on your posts - now people know your real name!


You just bitch slapped yourself. :D

#44 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,930 posts

Posted 26 December 2008 - 09:07 AM

See, I'm that good!


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.