Reply With Quote
Why, what would McCain do with no troops?They will be afraid to attack if McCain is elected.
Yes clambaked, it would surprise me. I agree with Espuelas. It will happen if the Dali-Bama gets elected within a year. They will be afraid to attack if McCain is elected.would it surprise anyone if there were a desperate attack on american soil just before the election?
Why, what would McCain do with no troops?They will be afraid to attack if McCain is elected.
i can't gauge your sarcasm, but i feel mccain takes a tougher stance on defense. frankly i don't believe that only diplomacy works. if you recruit ,literally, re people, and mothers to strap on explosive in the name of allah and blow up innocent people then i don't feel that "talking" does enough. obama wants to pull out of iraq, victory or no victory, i don't know because he doesn't make that clear enough to me. what makes me feel 'whole-heartedly, without a doubt; that he would possibly redeploy more troops----the same area where he wants our bravest and courageous men and women to run to from with their tails between their legs. i just don't have that assurance from him.
It's a nice straw man, but I don't recall Obama ever advocating for a "diplomacy-only" foreign policy. In fact, he came under fire for saying that if Pakistan wouldn't cooperate with our efforts to root out terrorists in their country that we would have to act unilaterally in going after terrorists in thier country. This was the basis of Bush's line that all he knew about Obama is that he wanted to "bomb Pakistan."
well doesn't ObaMESSiden's proclaimed "failed foreign policy" mean going to war? i read that as "let's talk". he did say "bomb pakistan" but i don't know what his obaMESSidecons want him to say this week.
Yeah, its failed policy when you go to war with a nation claiming that they attacked you on 9/11 when they really had nothing to do with it.
Its failed policy when you go to war unilaterally without exhausting diplomatic options.
It's failed policy when you can't even finish the job in Afghanistan before starting another war.
It's not failed policy when you go in like Bush 41 did.
you have turned into an extremely ungrateful welfare baby.
perhaps your mental condition is due to malnutrition that has affected you for the long term.
I like war. It makes for interesting tv.
/most Americans
He did seal the deal. There were no WMD. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we let them in. Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11.
Bush 41 gets a raw deal, but I respect him for raising taxes after Reagan's trickle down nightmare. It killed him politically, but it set the stage for Clinton's economic success.
The fact remains that Saddam was complying with UN mandated I.A.E.A. weapon inspection procedures before the U.S. decided to attack Iraq anyway....i think we gave saddam numerous deadlines. see above before you start replying.
You believe those liberal lies?
You should really check other sources out and verify. Otherwise you are nothing but a Kool-Aid Drinking Lemming!
He gets a raw deal for several reasons. He did make some mistakes, and raising taxes was one of the. So was leaving Iraq the way he did after Desert Storm.
Tax rates had nothing to do with the economic boom. I am confident it would have been better if taxes were lower.
Bull . He was keeping them from feely inspecting the sites. Delaying the inspections long enough to move things.
Dan, have I ever said you are an idiot? If not, let me make that point clear.
The Repugs are well-known for dirty tricks.
Nixon's assholes secretly negotatiated pre-election with VN to make sure there was no success in the Paris peace talks, promsing the VN that they'd get a better deal when Nixon was elected.
Repugs secretely negoatiated with Iran about the hostages so they wouldn't be release on Carter's watch, which would have been a election boost for Carter.
criminal head and his criminal gang absolutely refused to respond seriously to pre-9/11 attack "chatter", knowing they could exploit any attack as justification for invading Iran, and sure enough, head incessantly tied Saddam to 9/11 so the over 50% of Americans in 2004 still believed head's lie.
If there were to be an attack before these elections, then it will most definitely have Repug complicity, but it will also mean all the head's Imperial anti-Cons utional GWOT/GWOA will have been for nought, except to waste govt money on MIC contracts.
Well...
I see Boutons is a fully certified conspiracy theorist.
Or should I say 'certifiable?'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions