Bush has mind control on France

there are threats all over the world. there are despot leaders all over the world. At some point in time, the fable of the boy who cried wolf starts to become applicable.... especially after we have wasted 31K dead and wounded, a half a trillion dollars and five years on a boneheaded invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq. The point being: if you are going to actually try, in the wake of 9/11, and get the citizenry of America to back invading and deposing of bad guys.... you had better make sure it is worth our while to do so. YOur team has failed miserably. Let the democrats try to do a better job for four years.... we certainly cannot make things MUCH worse than they are now!
 
there are threats all over the world. there are despot leaders all over the world. At some point in time, the fable of the boy who cried wolf starts to become applicable.... especially after we have wasted 31K dead and wounded, a half a trillion dollars and five years on a boneheaded invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq. The point being: if you are going to actually try, in the wake of 9/11, and get the citizenry of America to back invading and deposing of bad guys.... you had better make sure it is worth our while to do so. YOur team has failed miserably. Let the democrats try to do a better job for four years.... we certainly cannot make things MUCH worse than they are now!

More idiocy from you. You reinforce exactly what conservatives say about your party. You do not give one RAT's Ass what danger there is, you will oppose any action JUST because Bush is in office.
 
More idiocy from you. You reinforce exactly what conservatives say about your party. You do not give one RAT's Ass what danger there is, you will oppose any action JUST because Bush is in office.

No one believes your president anymore. I think Iran is definetly a rouge state, and their nuclear ambitions are problematic. But, I'll be damned if I believe you or george bush again. You didn't fool me the first time on iraq, you're not going to fool me again.

I'm going to trust the word of the IAEA and their inspectors in iran. I'm not going to believe anything bush says.
 
No one believes your president anymore. I think Iran is definetly a rouge state, and their nuclear ambitions are problematic. But, I'll be damned if I believe you or george bush again. You didn't fool me the first time on iraq, you're not going to fool me again.

I'm going to trust the word of the IAEA and their inspectors in iran. I'm not going to believe anything bush says.

And lets see, FRANCE and the IAEA DO say Ira is a threat, FRANCE says War may be required.... But do pretend otherwise.
 
And lets see, FRANCE and the IAEA DO say Ira is a threat, FRANCE says War may be required.... But do pretend otherwise.

Look a little deeper. Why is Iran now a threat? Maybe because up until four years ago their Great Satan was thousands of miles away. Now, they're next door holding up a puppet (in Iran's eyes) regime...So if Iran invaded Canada and toppled it's PM and destroyed its infrastructure the US would sit back and go "wassup?". Bush (well, Cheney and his cabal really) has done nothing but light fires from the moment he took office. It'll take a Dem president a full term just to get them under control, let alone put them out...
 
Look a little deeper. Why is Iran now a threat? Maybe because up until four years ago their Great Satan was thousands of miles away. Now, they're next door holding up a puppet (in Iran's eyes) regime...So if Iran invaded Canada and toppled it's PM and destroyed its infrastructure the US would sit back and go "wassup?". Bush (well, Cheney and his cabal really) has done nothing but light fires from the moment he took office. It'll take a Dem president a full term just to get them under control, let alone put them out...

So, magically the Iranian Nuclear programs have only been going on since 2003? What a joke.
 
France can prepare by calling its firms like Peugeot and TOTAL back to France from Iran. Otherwise it is talk.
 
More idiocy from you. You reinforce exactly what conservatives say about your party. You do not give one RAT's Ass what danger there is, you will oppose any action JUST because Bush is in office.

I most certainly DO care about what danger is REALLY out there. I am certain that there was not any immediate danger from Iraq. I am certain that the immediate danger that faces us is not from islamic nation states anywhere near as much as it is from a nationless extreme ideology. I am certain that the current leadership of America does not know what they are doing and what they ARE doing is counterproductive to America's safety. You can categorize that sentiment as "idiocy", you can...but I would appreciate you actually addressing my point rather than dismissively avoiding it.

and please remember: I was fully supportive of George Bush's actions in Afghanistan. I volunteered to go back on active duty to help him fight the very legitimate fight against islamic extremism and AQ. I only stopped supporting his foreign policy when he invaded Iraq.
 
there are threats all over the world. there are despot leaders all over the world. At some point in time, the fable of the boy who cried wolf starts to become applicable.... especially after we have wasted 31K dead and wounded, a half a trillion dollars and five years on a boneheaded invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq. The point being: if you are going to actually try, in the wake of 9/11, and get the citizenry of America to back invading and deposing of bad guys.... you had better make sure it is worth our while to do so. YOur team has failed miserably. Let the democrats try to do a better job for four years.... we certainly cannot make things MUCH worse than they are now!

The problem with your mindset, IMO, is it is just such an attitude that allowed 9/11 to happen. Turning a blind eye to threats because they're "all over the world."

Then, when it blows up in our faces and someone dies, the people with such a mindset are the first to start pointing fingers.
 
shoulda left iraq alone so it could eyeball iran and vice versa. Kept the conflict regional. Instead, the world is now an unsafer place. Thank you Mr Bush!

I disagree the world is a less safer place simply because the US invaded Iraq. Iraq is a less safer place, and the Middle East a less stable region.

But if the entire world is a less safer place because of the threat Iran poses, then that threat needs to be addressed by the entire world, and obviously, throwing words at them has had little, if any impact.
 
No one believes your president anymore. I think Iran is definetly a rouge state, and their nuclear ambitions are problematic. But, I'll be damned if I believe you or george bush again. You didn't fool me the first time on iraq, you're not going to fool me again.

I'm going to trust the word of the IAEA and their inspectors in iran. I'm not going to believe anything bush says.

Yeah, trust the world and IAEA because they have our best interest at heart and don't just ignore the shit out of threats, or wait until the threats have turned to actions before they do too little too late.

So in other words, you'll wait until a nuke goes off in LA or NYC and then go "oh, I guess it WAS a real threat ...."
 
The problem with your mindset, IMO, is it is just such an attitude that allowed 9/11 to happen. Turning a blind eye to threats because they're "all over the world."

Then, when it blows up in our faces and someone dies, the people with such a mindset are the first to start pointing fingers.

I have never suggested turning a blind eye to anything. I have stated over and over again that I totally support aggressively going after islamic extremism on a variety of levels, including, but not limited to military might.
 
I disagree the world is a less safer place simply because the US invaded Iraq. Iraq is a less safer place, and the Middle East a less stable region.

But if the entire world is a less safer place because of the threat Iran poses, then that threat needs to be addressed by the entire world, and obviously, throwing words at them has had little, if any impact.

With the world relying on oil supplies, the world vicariously becomes an unsafer place. Why should the world take on a problem the US created?
 
With the world relying on oil supplies, the world vicariously becomes an unsafer place. Why should the world take on a problem the US created?

The US created the Iranian Nuclear hunt? The US forced the rest of the world to use Oil? What a crock of horse shit.
 
The US created the Iranian Nuclear hunt? The US forced the rest of the world to use Oil? What a crock of horse shit.

Who is at the forefront of the Iranian nuclear "hunt"? Mali? Mongolia? Of course the US didn't force the rest of hte world to use oil, but what it did do, as I said in my original statement, was exacerbate the problem. You tried putting out a fire with gasoline. If you go into the jungle and wound a tiger and he gets pissed off at you and mauls you, is it his fault you came into his jungle and shot at him, or is it you own damn stupid fault?
 
Who is at the forefront of the Iranian nuclear "hunt"? Mali? Mongolia? Of course the US didn't force the rest of hte world to use oil, but what it did do, as I said in my original statement, was exacerbate the problem. You tried putting out a fire with gasoline. If you go into the jungle and wound a tiger and he gets pissed off at you and mauls you, is it his fault you came into his jungle and shot at him, or is it you own damn stupid fault?

Once again for clarity, you have already admitted the ambitions of Iran to gain Nuclear weapons predates 2003, So exactly HOW did we cause Iran to pursue nuclear weapons? And you may want to check your facts, Europe is HEAVILY involved in th Iran Nuclear situation, France has said it may mean WAR. And they don't mean US Iran they mean Europe may need to go to war with Iran.
 

Forum List

Back
Top