Iran Nuclear Crisis:How Come All Staunch Obama Supporters Remain Silent? Cat Got Oprah's Tounge?

[lake avenue]

Because there's not much to say. I didn't vote for him so he could do this, just like people didn't vote for bush to start a war over oil. This just seems like a sad attempt at raising your self-worth.

Nobody in their right mind wants a war over anything right now. We're under any real threat, and there's so many things the United States could be spending their money on besides our ridiculously huge military budget.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Bigger crisis no one wants to talk about is the US nuclear arsenal still on 'launch on warning.' Ya that's a good idea, not like computers ever get glitchy.

Obama cronies are more concerned about the rights of Transexual and Confused Gendered over Iran building Nukes that could eventually head this way.

Not really. More like tv news isn't news but entertainment. "Our nuclear arsenals are subject to accidental launch which would kill us all." = Not entertaining. "Gays and transsexuals march in a parade." = Very entertaining

You don't 'feel' that an accidental launch of a US Missile annihilating Tehran would be entertaining?

I bet MSNBC would run it 24/7 explaining in great detail the reason Peasantpimp obama NEEDED TO NUKE The Mullahs...

And it is entirely possible that they could beat CNN to 'report' it, but there can be no doubt that they'd out passion their defense of the lie.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Republican's answer to everything is attack. Whether it's gays in this country or Muslims in Iran.

ROFLMNAO

Yes, because the Sexually Abnormal aren't attacking anyone?

Hey can anyone tell me the name of that Deviant baker that the Republicans forced to bake a Cake to celebrate the growing AIDs infections in Africa?

What WAS that guys name?

Anyone...

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

no need to worry, Obama is sending an army of Navy Corpse Men and Seals from the San Diego zoo to Iran to stop the madness.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because there's not much to say. I didn't vote for him so he could do this, just like people didn't vote for bush to start a war over oil. This just seems like a sad attempt at raising your self-worth.

Nobody in their right mind wants a war over anything right now. We're under any real threat, and there's so many things the United States could be spending their money on besides our ridiculously huge military budget.

Bush didn't start any war over oil. That's left wing propaganda. It worked on you. Bush and democrats agreed to remove a regime in Iraq that posed a threat not unlike the iranian threat that shithead is now appeasing if not aiding.

 

[lake avenue]

Because there's not much to say. I didn't vote for him so he could do this, just like people didn't vote for bush to start a war over oil. This just seems like a sad attempt at raising your self-worth.

Nobody in their right mind wants a war over anything right now. We're under any real threat, and there's so many things the United States could be spending their money on besides our ridiculously huge military budget.

Bush didn't start any war over oil. That's left wing propaganda. It worked on you. Bush and democrats agreed to remove a regime in Iraq that posed a threat not unlike the iranian threat that shithead is now appeasing if not aiding.

Bush started a war over oil. That's right wing propaganda. It worked on you.

See how much sense that argument makes? None. You can't just say "your opinion is shit" without providing any real argument. Conspiracy theories with no real backing.

I'm sure that it's just a coincidence, however, that oil profits soared at the beginning of the war

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

 

[lake avenue]

I guess we'll also ignore the fact that Bush's security council had a section on their plans for a "post-Saddam Iraq" that specifically outlined suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts.

 

[Vigilante]

About Oil you say, and some parrot that opinion, when even the N.Y, Times ....

NY Times Just Blasted Out of Existence Biggest Myth About George W. Bush Iraq War

 

[Antares]

The Mullahs are making the Boi King and his puppet look quite stupid.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I guess we'll also ignore the fact that Bush's security council had a section on their plans for a "post-Saddam Iraq" that specifically outlined suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts.

ROFLMNAO!

You should know that Bush had and obama HAS a plan to deal with 'first contact' with intelligent alien life which comes to earth.

And what's more, having contingencies, is what effective management does... and given that in Post Saddam Iraq, the Iraqi government, elected by the Iraqi people handled the Iraqi oilfield contracts, this sorta discredits you, personally... rendering you as one which is known to be foolish, who tends to advise the reader that things which are not true, are truth; thus you're not a person worthy of trust.

See how THAT works?

 

[lake avenue]

I guess we'll also ignore the fact that Bush's security council had a section on their plans for a "post-Saddam Iraq" that specifically outlined suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts.

ROFLMNAO!

You should know that Bush had and obama HAS a plan to deal with 'first contact' with intelligent alien life which comes to earth.

...okay? I don't believe that's the topic at hand. You also failed to even acknowledge my other post, funny enough.

And what's more, having contingencies, is what effective management does... and given that in Post Saddam Iraq, the Iraqi government, elected by the Iraqi people handled the Iraqi oilfield contracts, this sorta discredits you, personally... rendering you as a foolish person who tends to advise the reader that things which are not true, are truth; thus you're not a person worthy of trust.

See how THAT works?

Jumping to conclusions about someone who just joined this community based on a single post is terribly uneducated of you. So really, you've only rendered yourself foolish.

Secondly, this plan isn't about an Iraq government handling oil fields, it's about the U.S government handling oil fields.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I guess we'll also ignore the fact that Bush's security council had a section on their plans for a "post-Saddam Iraq" that specifically outlined suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts.

ROFLMNAO!

You should know that Bush had and obama HAS a plan to deal with 'first contact' with intelligent alien life which comes to earth.

...okay? I don't believe that's the topic at hand. You also failed to even acknowledge my other post, funny enough.

And what's more, having contingencies, is what effective management does... and given that in Post Saddam Iraq, the Iraqi government, elected by the Iraqi people handled the Iraqi oilfield contracts, this sorta discredits you, personally... rendering you as a foolish person who tends to advise the reader that things which are not true, are truth; thus you're not a person worthy of trust.

See how THAT works?

Jumping to conclusions about someone who just joined this community based on a single post is terribly uneducated of you. So really, you've only rendered yourself foolish.

Secondly, this plan isn't about an Iraq government handling oil fields, it's about the U.S government handling oil fields.

Your several concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted. (You did the very best you could... )

 

[lake avenue]

I guess we'll also ignore the fact that Bush's security council had a section on their plans for a "post-Saddam Iraq" that specifically outlined suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts.

ROFLMNAO!

You should know that Bush had and obama HAS a plan to deal with 'first contact' with intelligent alien life which comes to earth.

...okay? I don't believe that's the topic at hand. You also failed to even acknowledge my other post, funny enough.

And what's more, having contingencies, is what effective management does... and given that in Post Saddam Iraq, the Iraqi government, elected by the Iraqi people handled the Iraqi oilfield contracts, this sorta discredits you, personally... rendering you as a foolish person who tends to advise the reader that things which are not true, are truth; thus you're not a person worthy of trust.

See how THAT works?

Jumping to conclusions about someone who just joined this community based on a single post is terribly uneducated of you. So really, you've only rendered yourself foolish.

Secondly, this plan isn't about an Iraq government handling oil fields, it's about the U.S government handling oil fields.

Your several concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted. (You did the very best you could... )

Again, failing to address my post. Glad to see I haven't had to be here long to weed out the jokers on this forum.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because there's not much to say. I didn't vote for him so he could do this, just like people didn't vote for bush to start a war over oil. This just seems like a sad attempt at raising your self-worth.

Nobody in their right mind wants a war over anything right now. We're under any real threat, and there's so many things the United States could be spending their money on besides our ridiculously huge military budget.

Bush didn't start any war over oil. That's left wing propaganda. It worked on you. Bush and democrats agreed to remove a regime in Iraq that posed a threat not unlike the iranian threat that shithead is now appeasing if not aiding.

Bush started a war over oil. That's right wing propaganda. It worked on you.

See how much sense that argument makes? None. You can't just say "your opinion is shit" without providing any real argument. Conspiracy theories with no real backing.

I'm sure that it's just a coincidence, however, that oil profits soared at the beginning of the war

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

You're a dupe. Of course oil supply is a significant dynamic in any conflict in that region. But only propagandists push that angle when fooling dupes. Iraq was considered a security threat and was dealt with accordingly and with bipartisan support. That flawed aftermath was propagated into a lefty political opportunity and you bought it.

 

[lake avenue]

Because there's not much to say. I didn't vote for him so he could do this, just like people didn't vote for bush to start a war over oil. This just seems like a sad attempt at raising your self-worth.

Nobody in their right mind wants a war over anything right now. We're under any real threat, and there's so many things the United States could be spending their money on besides our ridiculously huge military budget.

Bush didn't start any war over oil. That's left wing propaganda. It worked on you. Bush and democrats agreed to remove a regime in Iraq that posed a threat not unlike the iranian threat that shithead is now appeasing if not aiding.

Bush started a war over oil. That's right wing propaganda. It worked on you.

See how much sense that argument makes? None. You can't just say "your opinion is shit" without providing any real argument. Conspiracy theories with no real backing.

I'm sure that it's just a coincidence, however, that oil profits soared at the beginning of the war

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

You're a dupe. Of course oil supply is a significant dynamic in any conflict in that region. But only propagandists push that angle when fooling dupes. Iraq was considered a security threat and was dealt with accordingly and with bipartisan support. That flawed aftermath was propagated into a lefty political opportunity and you bought it.

A security threat? Of course it was a security threat- that's why we didn't get UN support for it amirite?

 

[Moonglow]

Considering that negotiations are ongoing. It would be premature at best to say what is going to happen...

The mere idea of negotiating with a criminal gang like Iran is a total failure.
Were you born yesterday, too?

Well we could put sanctions on them like a republican...

They need to be removed. That's part of what sanctions were suppose to inspire. The opportunity presented itself a couple of years back but shithead failed to seize the moment. That's because failure is his reputation.

So you have no problem with the Ruskies? Just the Iranians?

The Russians aren't a criminal gang on the lam aiming to kill all Americans and eliminate every vestige of western culture. Duh.

Amazing since they are part of the negotiations also, including China, the biggest supplier and trainer of Iranian nuclear reactors, but they too have stated that they want the Iranians to curtail any nuclear arms ambitions..So you have proven yourself biased against only Oblama while giving credence to other negotiators which seek the same goal as Oblama...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The mere idea of negotiating with a criminal gang like Iran is a total failure.
Were you born yesterday, too?

Well we could put sanctions on them like a republican...

They need to be removed. That's part of what sanctions were suppose to inspire. The opportunity presented itself a couple of years back but shithead failed to seize the moment. That's because failure is his reputation.

So you have no problem with the Ruskies? Just the Iranians?

The Russians aren't a criminal gang on the lam aiming to kill all Americans and eliminate every vestige of western culture. Duh.

Amazing since they are part of the negotiations also, including China, the biggest supplier and trainer of Iranian nuclear reactors, but they too have stated that they want the Iranians to curtail any nuclear arms ambitions..So you have proven yourself biased against only Oblama while giving credence to other negotiators which seek the same goal as Oblama...

Iran is and has been a threat and a criminal gang on the lam for 36 years. It's irrelevant whatever angle china or Russia or any one else wants to play. This is about an abject failure of a president creating a major problem and people too partisan and/or too young to get that.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Because there's not much to say. I didn't vote for him so he could do this, just like people didn't vote for bush to start a war over oil. This just seems like a sad attempt at raising your self-worth.

Nobody in their right mind wants a war over anything right now. We're under any real threat, and there's so many things the United States could be spending their money on besides our ridiculously huge military budget.

Bush didn't start any war over oil. That's left wing propaganda. It worked on you. Bush and democrats agreed to remove a regime in Iraq that posed a threat not unlike the iranian threat that shithead is now appeasing if not aiding.

Bush started a war over oil. That's right wing propaganda. It worked on you.

See how much sense that argument makes? None. You can't just say "your opinion is shit" without providing any real argument. Conspiracy theories with no real backing.

I'm sure that it's just a coincidence, however, that oil profits soared at the beginning of the war

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

You're a dupe. Of course oil supply is a significant dynamic in any conflict in that region. But only propagandists push that angle when fooling dupes. Iraq was considered a security threat and was dealt with accordingly and with bipartisan support. That flawed aftermath was propagated into a lefty political opportunity and you bought it.

A security threat? Of course it was a security threat- that's why we didn't get UN support for it amirite?

You're just a post-2003 lefty dupe. Democrats taking advantage of a situation they initially supported having gone south and all in the name of political opportunity.

 

[lake avenue]

Because there's not much to say. I didn't vote for him so he could do this, just like people didn't vote for bush to start a war over oil. This just seems like a sad attempt at raising your self-worth.

Nobody in their right mind wants a war over anything right now. We're under any real threat, and there's so many things the United States could be spending their money on besides our ridiculously huge military budget.

Bush didn't start any war over oil. That's left wing propaganda. It worked on you. Bush and democrats agreed to remove a regime in Iraq that posed a threat not unlike the iranian threat that shithead is now appeasing if not aiding.

Bush started a war over oil. That's right wing propaganda. It worked on you.

See how much sense that argument makes? None. You can't just say "your opinion is shit" without providing any real argument. Conspiracy theories with no real backing.

I'm sure that it's just a coincidence, however, that oil profits soared at the beginning of the war

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

You're a dupe. Of course oil supply is a significant dynamic in any conflict in that region. But only propagandists push that angle when fooling dupes. Iraq was considered a security threat and was dealt with accordingly and with bipartisan support. That flawed aftermath was propagated into a lefty political opportunity and you bought it.

A security threat? Of course it was a security threat- that's why we didn't get UN support for it amirite?

You're just a post-2003 lefty dupe. Democrats taking advantage of a situation they initially supported having gone south and all in the name of political opportunity.

not a lefty nor am I a democrat. sorry bud.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bush didn't start any war over oil. That's left wing propaganda. It worked on you. Bush and democrats agreed to remove a regime in Iraq that posed a threat not unlike the iranian threat that shithead is now appeasing if not aiding.

Bush started a war over oil. That's right wing propaganda. It worked on you.

See how much sense that argument makes? None. You can't just say "your opinion is shit" without providing any real argument. Conspiracy theories with no real backing.

I'm sure that it's just a coincidence, however, that oil profits soared at the beginning of the war

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

You're a dupe. Of course oil supply is a significant dynamic in any conflict in that region. But only propagandists push that angle when fooling dupes. Iraq was considered a security threat and was dealt with accordingly and with bipartisan support. That flawed aftermath was propagated into a lefty political opportunity and you bought it.

A security threat? Of course it was a security threat- that's why we didn't get UN support for it amirite?

You're just a post-2003 lefty dupe. Democrats taking advantage of a situation they initially supported having gone south and all in the name of political opportunity.

not a lefty nor am I a democrat. sorry bud.

You pretend not to be. The anti-iraq bit was and still is a lefty scam. Blame bush and crew for a failure to predict and for the mishandling of the aftermath but the lead-up was legit.