Obama fails: North Korea attacks South Korea, Iran to aquire nuke

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bucs90, May 23, 2010.

  1. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    History will see some future catastrophic military event as being rooted and caused by the outright embarrassment of a foreign policy that Barack Insane Obama has attempted.

    Iran's president called him out as a political newcomer. Actually made fun of him, saying something about the sweat behind his ears as a newcomer or something. That SOB in Iran out-maneuvered the President of the United States, politically, to align with strong allies of ours- Brazil and Turkey- to buy enough time and create enough smoke and mirrors to finish his nuke. Israel will act on this. Obama looks like the foolish linebacker in a football game who bit on a reverse and is still looking for the ball. What a clown. What a joke. Did you liberal retards have no clue about the evil in this world when you elected him? Experience is necessary for a reason. Obama's soft stance made Turkey and Brazil have no fear of aligning with a dictator. And you think Venezuela had no influence over close neighbor Brazil's move?

    And now, Hillary Clinton confirms today tha a South Korean vessel was sunk by a North Korean submarine torpedo. S. Korea is going to the UN Security Council with the incident. North Korea's Kim Jong Ill stated ANY sanctions or military response would be met with "all out war". He's toying with Obama. Sink a S. Korean ship, threaten all-out war for any retaliation. And what will Obama do? He'll give a speech of disapproval. The South Koreans will live in fear of whats next. Our troops on the N/S Korean border will be on high alert, but without presidential leadership or a mission statement. Kim Jong Ill is absolutely mocking our president. He fired a torpedo and sunk a ship of one of our strongest allies, and dares us to retaliate.

    And now, this morning, on MSNBC's meet the press, PA D-Senate primary winner Sestak (spell check on name) admitted to the MSNBC host that the Obama administration offered him the job of Secretary of the Navy if he would agree not to run against Arlen Spector.:eek:

    You must be joking. Obama, in an attempt to keep a Senator he could control politically, offered the job of Secretary of the Navy to a politican as a deal to not run against Spector. Given, Sestak (spell check) was in the Navy 31 years. But is Obama naming Naval secretary based on best person for the job..........or based on what politician he can most advantageously bribe with the job? Chicago politics at work now influencing the military in a time of war. Disgusting.


    So.......Iran out-maneuver's Obama and aligns with allies to buy time. North Korea fires torpedo, sinks South Korean ship, threatens all-out war if Obama so much as requests sanctions- a triple-dog-dare apparantly. Then, it's revealed Obama offered a senate primary candidate the Secretary of the Navy job in exchange for that politician to not run against Arlen Spector.


    How much lower can this country be dragged? We got 2.5 more years to find out.
    You've got
     
  2. Mr Clean
    Offline

    Mr Clean Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    10,055
    Thanks Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,826
    So far he's got a better record than the last guy at preventing attacks on US soil.

    And what happens in Korea is Korea's problem.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    Why is this so hard for cons to understand?
     
  4. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Obama's foreign policy is the same as Bush's foreign policy.
     
  5. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    and the guy before the last guy.
     
  6. my2¢
    Offline

    my2¢ Registered Text Offender

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,031
    Thanks Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,718
    Because it is their turn to blame America first.
     
  7. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Number of attacks or severity? Bush had 1. Obama has had Major Hassan, NYC, the Wichita military recruiter jihadist attacks, the Austin IRS building terrorist attack, the underwear bomber, etc. Also, our law enforcement people are much more prepared and trained for this stuff now. Thats why some attacks, like the Fort Dix and Dallas plots, were stopped.

    Bush did have 9-11. Too bad Clinton chose BJ's over taking out Bin Laden when the CIA literally reported they had him, LITERALLY, in the cross-hairs of a rifle and Clinton wouldn't approve the order to take him out. That one backfired on us with 9-11.

    And you say "What happens in Korea is Korea's problem?" Wow. Would you have said the same in WW2 Europe about Germany invading Austria, Belgium, France, England, etc???

    Or, by your logic, we should build a huge wall on the Mexican border, and all those people who "are just good people looking for jobs" should stay in Mexico and suffer. Because hey, what happens in Mexico is Mexico's problem. Thats not very global citizen-like of you now is it?
     
  8. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Two reasons:

    1- There have been more attacks and attempted attacks on US soil by Islamic jihadists in 1.5 years under Obama than there was in 8 years under Bush. Fact.

    2- The one attack, 9-11, that Bush had was the direct result of Bill Clinton being more busy with BJ's than giving the order for the CIA to kill OBL, when the CIA literally had him in the crosshairs of a rifle.


    :eusa_whistle:
     
  9. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,388
    Thanks Received:
    19,853
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,430
    Didn't Bush allow four separate attacks on 9-11? That is what I counted

    Did you forget the Anthrax attacks? Shoe Bomber? Fort Dix? Lackawanna 6?

    What about the terrorist attacks on abortion clinics that were ignored by the Bush administration?
     
  10. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    as long as you count oklahoma city, wtc '93, etc, for clinton.
     

Share This Page