TJones Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 This is so unlike the Dems. I am SHOCKED, they are finally showing a little backbone. Well, at least a couple of them are.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060624/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 This is so unlike the Dems. I am SHOCKED, they are finally showing a little backbone. Well, at least a couple of them are.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060624/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUlFor those who are not old enough to remember, Mondale was the 1984 VP candidate. Nothing like grasping for straws on this issue.just goes to show you that stupdity is not limited to the GOP.This is a pretty stupid idea. We cant finish the job in Afghanistan or Iraq against an unknown enemy. Attacking iran or Korea would be as stupid as....uh....attacking iraq. Iran and Korea would be united against us and it would be a very hard fought war.Right now we have our butt up in the air in the quagmire in iraq. And our stupid leader can't spell diplomacy.It was just a few months ago that we had cameras and inspectors in Iran and Korea on thier nuclear capbilities. We had them in check, in control. Now they both are developing nuclear capabilities while we wallow in Iraq and our president has his finger on the button and his thumb up his ***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Our leader is far from stupid. That's a very ignorant comment. I'm not a huge Bush supporter right now, but I understand the man probably is a wee bit more intelligent than I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 In 1945, President Truman considered inviting the Russians to the US to witness the test firing of the atomic bomb. One reason for doing so was to send them a message about the might of the US. The idea was scrapped on the possibility that the test would be a failure.We could act to shoot down the missile when and if they decide to fire it. But, what happens if we miss? That Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Our leader is far from stupid. That's a very ignorant comment. I'm not a huge Bush supporter right now, but I understand the man probably is a wee bit more intelligent than I am.No. He is stupid.sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Whatever action we take in N Korea, we need to stay the course and accomplish what we set out to do and not flip-flop and cut-and-run like many of the Dems want to do.In a major national security address Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney was sounding an alarm about premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 No. He is stupid.sorry.So Stupid he won 2 terms as President. So, who is stupider, President Bush for wanting his crappy job, or all your whiny-ass Democrat buddies who were soooooooo concerned about him being in office,and doing such a bad job, that they couldn't get off their lazy, welfare grabbin keisters, and go vote. CRY ME A FRIGGIN RIVER JOHNNYBOY ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Whatever action we take in N Korea, we need to stay the course and accomplish what we set out to do and not flip-flop and cut-and-run like many of the Dems want to do.I think that says it all right there. BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi government has crafted a far-reaching amnesty plan for insurgents, officials close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday, even as guerrillas killed at least 34 Iraqis in a barrage of bombs and rockets in the capital and the U.S. military conducted a sweeping hunt for two missing American soldiers. Is that part of staying the course? Allowing our puppet in Iraq to release insurgents-some who have attacted and killed and wounded our troops? And no TJ, he won in 2004 only because he was selected by a SC stunted EC in 2000. It's amazing all of your freedom loving, patriotic, gung-ho shoot first forget the question Republicans are so comfortable with your General Election losing President. BTW: Keep using that "cut n' run" strategy. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalparadise Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 but I understand the man probably is a wee bit more intelligent than I am.I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 Ok nmain, I know I am just a dumb hick Republican, WHY, was the Electoral College invented ? Please explain to me.Look, you guys tried to blame Florida in 2000 because they couldn't understand the ballot, how come the Republicans understood just fine, since we are just a bunch a dopes, was it that the ballot was so simplistic, that the well educated and highly advanced Democrats just lost it in translation ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 No. He is stupid.sorry.That's a pretty bold statement to make, especially if you aren't going to clarify the extent of "stupidity" or to provide a premise other than your opinions that Bush's policies are flawed when, in recent and prior posts, you have claimed not to know why we went to war in Iraq. Just because you personally don't understand all the factors at present doesn't mean that you have necessarily had the opportunity to come to know all of them. This administration does have a tendency to keep things classified that may affect a broadly-defined notion of national security, afterall.Seems like you should at least back off on the ad hominems for 30 years or so, once the White House records start to become declassified. Then Bush will either look like a total ass as was the case with Richard Nixon, or he might come across as the misunderstood protagonist as with Dwight D. Eisenhower with respect to the McCarthyism issue.In the mean time, I can assure you that ad hominems won't win your arguments for you...and they certainly won't convince people of your arguments. In fact, you'll find that people dig in to their existing positions when they feel personally attacked in this way. And if you aren't convincing people of your argument in its present form, then I've got to ask this question: why are you arguing like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I guess it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I guess it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 This is a pretty stupid idea. We cant finish the job in Afghanistan or Iraq against an unknown enemy. Attacking iran or Korea would be as stupid as....uh....attacking iraq. Iran and Korea would be united against us and it would be a very hard fought war.You need to remember, there is more than one way to wage war........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Actually no mustard or serrin gas projectiles have been found in iraq. They did find some pre-1991 shells that were degraded beyond any use.That's a contradictory statement. You say no weapons were found, then that pre-1991 weapons were found. Which is it?And what does age have to do with anything? They are what they are. If you have two weapons - one filled with very low-grade uranium and one with high-grade uranium - they are both nuclear weapons, are they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Was that an implicit approval of Iraq's use of these weapons against Iran? Are these the ones we sold Iraq? The same ones we found burried and so degraded even Cheney and Bush won't use them as WMDs? You gotta love that Rick "Man-on-dog" Santorum...you'd almost think the Gang that couldn't shoot straight set him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Was that an implicit approval of Iraq's use of these weapons against Iran? Are these the ones we sold Iraq? The same ones we found burried and so degraded even Cheney and Bush won't use them as WMDs? You gotta love that Rick "Man-on-dog" Santorum...you'd almost think the Gang that could't shoot straight set him up. No Amnety. That is just precius. That's a contradictory statement. You say no weapons were found, then that pre-1991 weapons were found. Which is it?And what does age have to do with anything? They are what they are. If you have two weapons - one filled with very low-grade uranium and one with high-grade uranium - they are both nuclear weapons, are they not? No that is not right. The pre-1991 weapons were useless. The US knew this. They were just plain useless. And we knew it. Can you imagine trying to sell the american public on going to war to disarm a nation of useless weapons. Oh....wait....that IS what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 No that is not right. The pre-1991 weapons were useless. The US knew this. They were just plain useless. And we knew it.What is your source for this claim? Or is it just your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 No Amnety. That is just precius. No that is not right. The pre-1991 weapons were useless. The US knew this. They were just plain useless. And we knew it. Can you imagine trying to sell the american public on going to war to disarm a nation of useless weapons. Oh....wait....that IS what happened. Wouldn't the discovery of these now-degraded shells after many years of having UN weapons inspectors being allowed to search for such weapons (in unpredictable increments of time) be an indicator that Saddam couldn't be trusted? I mean, he was supposed to turn these things over many many years ago...right? Even if he didn't have active shells, it seems like a reasonable person could conclude that based upon his actions to date, he probably had intentions that were not conducive to the long-term physical safety of the U.S. or its allies. If he didn't, well then he sure seemed to be going out of his way to make it look like he did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I have been trying to make that point for some time, Niche. Saddam did everything but send an engraved invitation to the coalition to attack him. While we possibly could have taken alternative actions, I think the one we took was the correct one. That was the popular view of the country at the time, as I recall. And it was the majority view of Congress. In fact, some Dems were so convinced were should be there that Mr. Flip-Flop Kerry even campaigned on the demand that Bush not pull out of Iraq before the job was finished. In fact, he even expressed that Bush was going to (are you ready for this?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Wouldn't the discovery of these now-degraded shells after many years of having UN weapons inspectors being allowed to search for such weapons (in unpredictable increments of time) be an indicator that Saddam couldn't be trusted? I mean, he was supposed to turn these things over many many years ago...right?Even if he didn't have active shells, it seems like a reasonable person could conclude that based upon his actions to date, he probably had intentions that were not conducive to the long-term physical safety of the U.S. or its allies. If he didn't, well then he sure seemed to be going out of his way to make it look like he did...Wait guys. These 500 wmds were not found recently!They were found long ago before the war. Santorum just dug up the declassified report where it was disclosed and shot his mouth off like it was newly discovered.Shoot, even the president wasn't stupid enough to step into that trap.Just remember, in the end, the ONLY person who was telling the truth about WMDs was Saddam. sad but true.hey, why dont we get a list of allegations about WMDs and see if any of them were true.The mobile biological labs. Not true.The yellowcake. Not true.The aluminum tubes. Not true.The unmanned aerial planes capable of spraying chemicals. Not true.The nuclear capability. Not true.Geez. whoever told congress and the admin that this stuff was true should be put on trial for treason and shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Geez. whoever told congress and the admin that this stuff was true should be put on trial for treason and shot.Actually, as I recall, the foremost source regarding WMDs in Iraq was the former head of the Republican Guard, who defected the the U.S. He was shot up when he returned to Iraq to try and make some form of amends with Saddam.I guess you got what you wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I thought this thread was about N. Korea and not about Iraq and some fiction about an un-named Republican guard that not even the chuckle-heads in the White House believed.I'm with H2B: We could act to shoot down the missile when and if they decide to fire it. But, what happens if we miss? That Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 For those who are not old enough to remember, Mondale was the 1984 VP candidate. Nothing like grasping for straws on this issue.just goes to show you that stupdity is not limited to the GOP.So what you are saying is Mondale and Clinton's ex-military strategist genius Perry have no credibility in the NEW Democrat Order, and should be ignored. I whole heartedly agree John. Wow, we finally agree on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 anyone who thinks we should start a war with north korea half-cocked like we did with iraq (a major clusterf&ck from the beginning) needs their heads examined. NK is no iraq but a relatively sophisticated (and huge) war machine that unlike north korean civilians, they are well fed and fiercely loyal to "the great leader". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 anyone who thinks we should start a war with north korea half-cocked like we did with iraq (a major clusterf&ck from the beginning) needs their heads examined. NK is no iraq but a relatively sophisticated (and huge) war machine that unlike north korean civilians, they are well fed and fiercely loyal to "the great leader".I'm curious as to what will happen when 'God' dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Actually, as I recall, the foremost source regarding WMDs in Iraq was the former head of the Republican Guard, who defected the the U.S. He was shot up when he returned to Iraq to try and make some form of amends with Saddam.I guess you got what you wanted.What about...........The mobile biological labs. Not true.The yellowcake. Not true.The aluminum tubes. Not true.The unmanned aerial planes capable of spraying chemicals. Not true.The nuclear capability. Not true.anyone who thinks we should start a war with north korea half-cocked like we did with iraq (a major clusterf&ck from the beginning) needs their heads examined. NK is no iraq but a relatively sophisticated (and huge) war machine that unlike north korean civilians, they are well fed and fiercely loyal to "the great leader".Well said! North Korea: Total Armed Forces * Active forces: 1.14 million * Special forces: 100,000 estimated (world's largest) * Manpower fit for military service: 3,694,855North Korea possesses the world's fifth largest military and is the most militarized nation in proportion to population (estimated at 22 million. Military spending is $5.2 billion or 22.9% percent of North Korea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I'm curious as to what will happen when 'God' dies.he already did...in 1994. kim il sung is "the eternal president" even though he's been dead fo a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13704198/Now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted July 5, 2006 Author Share Posted July 5, 2006 The one missile that we asked not to be fired was fired, and broke after about a minute of flight. Good news for US, but, the fact that he disregarded the request will be interesting to see how it gets dealt with.Let's throw a little "DIPLOMACY" at him ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.