Do You Support The Possible Coming Wars With Iran & Syria?

[Wacky Quacky]

Over 10,000 people were not killed by an idea.
You failed to refute any point I made. In fact you supported one: The UN revealed itself as toothless and we did in fact enforce their own resolutions. This was something the Left harped on continuously.
Do you really want to say the world is not better off with Saddam gone?

Whether or not I refuted anything is up to whether or not you acknowledge anything I posted, which you didn't. Simply saying that I didn't refute anything, when I responded individually to each part of post, doesn't make it true and is a cop out.

The UN is a tricky situation. If we leave then we open ourselves to attacks from other nations citing that we went rogue and they were "preemptively" stopping us from attacking them. But, if we stay with the UN in order to keep the trust of the other nations then we MUST go through them and for the most part, watch them do nothing.

As for Saddam, that's yet to be seen. Saddam was the one keeping Iran in check, and we can see where Iran's gone since Saddam was ousted. Saddam was evil, but may have very well been the lesser of two evils, and I know party hacks like yourself love the lesser of two evils.

 

[The Rabbi]

Over 10,000 people were not killed by an idea.
You failed to refute any point I made. In fact you supported one: The UN revealed itself as toothless and we did in fact enforce their own resolutions. This was something the Left harped on continuously.
Do you really want to say the world is not better off with Saddam gone?

Whether or not I refuted anything is up to whether or not you acknowledge anything I posted, which you didn't. Simply saying that I didn't refute anything, when I responded individually to each part of post, doesn't make it true and is a cop out.

The UN is a tricky situation. If we leave then we open ourselves to attacks from other nations citing that we went rogue and they were "preemptively" stopping us from attacking them. But, if we stay with the UN in order to keep the trust of the other nations then we MUST go through them and for the most part, watch them do nothing.

As for Saddam, that's yet to be seen. Saddam was the one keeping Iran in check, and we can see where Iran's gone since Saddam was ousted. Saddam was evil, but may have very well been the lesser of two evils, and I know party hacks like yourself love the lesser of two evils.

In order to refute somethng you have to make, like, some kind of believable argument. All of your arguments are "well, it might be worse."
But it is not worse. Things are considerably better.
No one is going to attack us because we left the UN. Except maybe France.

 

[Charles_Main]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

I would support Action to Degrade or Destroy Iran's Nuclear Program, and Action against the Governments of Both Countries, but would stop short of Supporting a full scale invasion of either.

 

[Charles_Main]

Over 10,000 people were not killed by an idea.
You failed to refute any point I made. In fact you supported one: The UN revealed itself as toothless and we did in fact enforce their own resolutions. This was something the Left harped on continuously.
Do you really want to say the world is not better off with Saddam gone?

Whether or not I refuted anything is up to whether or not you acknowledge anything I posted, which you didn't. Simply saying that I didn't refute anything, when I responded individually to each part of post, doesn't make it true and is a cop out.

The UN is a tricky situation. If we leave then we open ourselves to attacks from other nations citing that we went rogue and they were "preemptively" stopping us from attacking them.

Exactly who has the Capability to Carry out a Preemptive attack on the US with out Suffering a Devastating Counter Attack?

Get a clue dude the UN is the US. We fund more than Half of it, we make up Most of it's Military Capability, and It is wholly dependent on our Logistical Capabilities to do anything. If we left the UN the UN would die.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Over 10,000 people were not killed by an idea.
You failed to refute any point I made. In fact you supported one: The UN revealed itself as toothless and we did in fact enforce their own resolutions. This was something the Left harped on continuously.
Do you really want to say the world is not better off with Saddam gone?

Whether or not I refuted anything is up to whether or not you acknowledge anything I posted, which you didn't. Simply saying that I didn't refute anything, when I responded individually to each part of post, doesn't make it true and is a cop out.

The UN is a tricky situation. If we leave then we open ourselves to attacks from other nations citing that we went rogue and they were "preemptively" stopping us from attacking them. But, if we stay with the UN in order to keep the trust of the other nations then we MUST go through them and for the most part, watch them do nothing.

As for Saddam, that's yet to be seen. Saddam was the one keeping Iran in check, and we can see where Iran's gone since Saddam was ousted. Saddam was evil, but may have very well been the lesser of two evils, and I know party hacks like yourself love the lesser of two evils.

In order to refute somethng you have to make, like, some kind of believable argument. All of your arguments are "well, it might be worse."
But it is not worse. Things are considerably better.
No one is going to attack us because we left the UN. Except maybe France.

We let Iran off it's leash and gave them an ally in the form of the new Iraqi government, that's not making things better.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whether or not I refuted anything is up to whether or not you acknowledge anything I posted, which you didn't. Simply saying that I didn't refute anything, when I responded individually to each part of post, doesn't make it true and is a cop out.

The UN is a tricky situation. If we leave then we open ourselves to attacks from other nations citing that we went rogue and they were "preemptively" stopping us from attacking them. But, if we stay with the UN in order to keep the trust of the other nations then we MUST go through them and for the most part, watch them do nothing.

As for Saddam, that's yet to be seen. Saddam was the one keeping Iran in check, and we can see where Iran's gone since Saddam was ousted. Saddam was evil, but may have very well been the lesser of two evils, and I know party hacks like yourself love the lesser of two evils.

In order to refute somethng you have to make, like, some kind of believable argument. All of your arguments are "well, it might be worse."
But it is not worse. Things are considerably better.
No one is going to attack us because we left the UN. Except maybe France.

We let Iran off it's leash and gave them an ally in the form of the new Iraqi government, that's not making things better.

Who is "we"? The Obama administration's strategy for Iran has been a complete and utter failure. Remember Obama's pledge to sit down and talk with Iran? We see how well that did.
You're right: Obama has not made our situation any better. He was handed a far more secure, peaceful adn stable world and Obama has blown it in 3 years.
Obama is the worst president since Pres. Pol Pot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In order to refute somethng you have to make, like, some kind of believable argument. All of your arguments are "well, it might be worse."
But it is not worse. Things are considerably better.
No one is going to attack us because we left the UN. Except maybe France.

We let Iran off it's leash and gave them an ally in the form of the new Iraqi government, that's not making things better.

Who is "we"? The Obama administration's strategy for Iran has been a complete and utter failure. Remember Obama's pledge to sit down and talk with Iran? We see how well that did. You're right: Obama has not made our situation any better. He was handed a far more secure, peaceful adn stable world and Obama has blown it in 3 years. Obama is the worst president since Pres. Pol Pot.

You are deflecting, grasshopper. The point is that the bushies' war crimes have inevitably driven Iraq and Iran into each other arms more every day.

 

[Avorysuds]

Oh I do wonder who could pick up all these people that don't want unconstitutional massively costly wars...

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh I do wonder who could pick up all these people that don't want unconstitutional massively costly wars...

With Ron Paul polling about 10% I can tell you who it isn't.

 

[Paulie]

Iraq had the second largest army in the region. The Left predicted we would get bogged down, it would be a quagmire, it would be another Vietnam. And jumped on any piece of supporting evidence.
Iraq was a rogue state with a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. It is now the only democracy in the Arab world. Afghanistan was a repressive brutal regime that sponsored terrorism.
Both nations have been turned around.
I would hardly call that "precious little to show" for our involvement. Neither would the inhabitants.

Cheney himself predicted it would be a quagmire. And he was right.

You never know the true will and potential of a people until you intrude upon their own territory.

You would do the same thing as the "insurgents" did if a nation invaded us and went door to door in your neighborhood.

I always knew you were a nit-wit. This just confirms it.

Never fails with you, everytime someone says something you don't have a good response for its "yeah well you're stupid"

You're a fucking joke, my man.

 

[Paulie]

The only thing I ask is don't put me on ignore Rabbi. Anything but that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cheney himself predicted it would be a quagmire. And he was right.

You never know the true will and potential of a people until you intrude upon their own territory.

You would do the same thing as the "insurgents" did if a nation invaded us and went door to door in your neighborhood.

I always knew you were a nit-wit. This just confirms it.

Never fails with you, everytime someone says something you don't have a good response for its "yeah well you're stupid"

You're a fucking joke, my man.

There is no response to abject stupidity other than to either ignore it or make fun of it. Turdbrain.

 

[Paulie]

I always knew you were a nit-wit. This just confirms it.

Never fails with you, everytime someone says something you don't have a good response for its "yeah well you're stupid"

You're a fucking joke, my man.

There is no response to abject stupidity other than to either ignore it or make fun of it. Turdbrain.

When most rational people in a debate discussion would prefer to give reasoned rebuttals to something they didn't agree with, you take a different approach. Good for you!

 

[dblack]

Never fails with you, everytime someone says something you don't have a good response for its "yeah well you're stupid"

You're a fucking joke, my man.

There is no response to abject stupidity other than to either ignore it or make fun of it. Turdbrain.

When most rational people in a debate discussion would prefer to give reasoned rebuttals to something they didn't agree with, you take a different approach. Good for you!

Rabbi's a maverick in that way.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The poll results speak for themselves.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

In order to refute somethng you have to make, like, some kind of believable argument. All of your arguments are "well, it might be worse."
But it is not worse. Things are considerably better.
No one is going to attack us because we left the UN. Except maybe France.

We let Iran off it's leash and gave them an ally in the form of the new Iraqi government, that's not making things better.

Who is "we"? The Obama administration's strategy for Iran has been a complete and utter failure. Remember Obama's pledge to sit down and talk with Iran? We see how well that did.
You're right: Obama has not made our situation any better. He was handed a far more secure, peaceful adn stable world and Obama has blown it in 3 years.
Obama is the worst president since Pres. Pol Pot.

Now you're deliberately ignoring what I posted, so since it's worthless debating with you, welcome to ignore.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is the King of the Unsubstantiated Comment, so letting him post is to your advantage. His inability to effectively argue almost any position that conflicts with his world view inevitably strengthens that of his opponent.

He is a progressive right wing statist who believes in government solutions to abortion and other rw social values issues.

 

[paulitician]

Good to see so many Americans opposing these Wars. Now lets hope our Politicians listen and respect the People.

 

[The Rabbi]

We let Iran off it's leash and gave them an ally in the form of the new Iraqi government, that's not making things better.

Who is "we"? The Obama administration's strategy for Iran has been a complete and utter failure. Remember Obama's pledge to sit down and talk with Iran? We see how well that did.
You're right: Obama has not made our situation any better. He was handed a far more secure, peaceful adn stable world and Obama has blown it in 3 years.
Obama is the worst president since Pres. Pol Pot.

Now you're deliberately ignoring what I posted, so since it's worthless debating with you, welcome to ignore.

What you posted is nonsense. Iran is not an ally of Iraq. Obama's policy towards Iran has been an abject failure.
It is worthless for you to debate me because your debating skills, knowledge, and reasoning abilities are inferior.

 

[The Rabbi]

Good to see so many Americans opposing these Wars. Now lets hope our Politicians listen and respect the People.

What wars would that be?