As I said, Obama will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and distribute them to terrorists. The fact that democrats don't see that as a legitimate threat would render them ineligible for leadership if the public were not so indoctrinated that they swoon over a clearly unqualified pol because he is half african.
Bush compares Obama to Nazi appeaser
- Thread starter stock_trad3r
- Start date
As I said, Obama will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and distribute them to terrorists. The fact that democrats don't see that as a legitimate threat would render them ineligible for leadership if the public were not so indoctrinated that they swoon over a clearly unqualified pol because he is half african.
McCain is in real trouble, and if you are claiming that Obama is weak on national defense, then McCain is much weaker is on national defense.
Two years ago, when McCain was not running for any office said that America and Israel should deal with Hammas which is a terrorist organization. Obama has never said that he will deal with Hamas. So, apparently following the republicans' classification , McCain is the appeaser
Two years ago, when McCain was not running for any office said that America and Israel should deal with Hammas which is a terrorist organization. Obama has never said that he will deal with Hamas. So, apparently following the republicans' classification , McCain is the appeaser
You also said Saddam had WMD, NK had to be stopped with military action, blah, blah, blah...
Far right wingers like you are pathologically paranoid.
<img src=http://www.woodburydems.com/images/Bush%20-%20Fear.jpg>
Far right wingers like you are pathologically paranoid.
<img src=http://www.woodburydems.com/images/Bush%20-%20Fear.jpg>
Its nice to know that democrats like Obama never resort to using fear tactics.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080518/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_4
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080518/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_4
The issue in not so much appeasement or in other words signing an agreement. Appeasement only exists once an agreement is signed or otherwise agreed to.
The problem is talking leader to leader does put these thugs on level footing as the US.
Example, Hames is an elected government, we should talk to all elected governments. Problem is that that have declared death to another nation with an elected government.
For a president to sit with Hamas we would need them to abide by international protocols( for the stupid, that means not calling for the extermination of a race and country)
The problem with Chamberlain was him on the tarmac waving that piece of paper declaring "peace in our time" based on the signature and word of Hitler.
At least Reagan ,when he talked to the evil empire always said "peace through strength" and "trust but verify"
The problem is talking leader to leader does put these thugs on level footing as the US.
Example, Hames is an elected government, we should talk to all elected governments. Problem is that that have declared death to another nation with an elected government.
For a president to sit with Hamas we would need them to abide by international protocols( for the stupid, that means not calling for the extermination of a race and country)
The problem with Chamberlain was him on the tarmac waving that piece of paper declaring "peace in our time" based on the signature and word of Hitler.
At least Reagan ,when he talked to the evil empire always said "peace through strength" and "trust but verify"
When the cops talk to the alleged criminals they have surrounded, they are not on equal footing at all. They understand the value of negotiation even when they have the edge and the power.
All this comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany is just a joke.
Was any country was able in the mid/late 30's to destroy Germany with nuclear weapons?
Nope.
Germany was a relative superpower in their day, Iran is not.
Can we destroy Iran right now?
Yep.
Can they destroy us, today or in the near future?
Nope.
Did we need to attack NK to disarm the danger there?
Nope.
Just fear mongering by the right, nothing more...
All this comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany is just a joke.
Was any country was able in the mid/late 30's to destroy Germany with nuclear weapons?
Nope.
Germany was a relative superpower in their day, Iran is not.
Can we destroy Iran right now?
Yep.
Can they destroy us, today or in the near future?
Nope.
Did we need to attack NK to disarm the danger there?
Nope.
Just fear mongering by the right, nothing more...
It is becoming clear. Can anyone even imagine young sweet adorable girls being drafted and coming home minus a leg, half face missing? This is serious stuff that is a very real possibility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-...-abrams/attention-a-mccain-presi_b_89379.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-...-abrams/attention-a-mccain-presi_b_89379.html
The fact is Saddam did have WMD. Every intell service said so, as did most of the leading democrats. The question was whether he posed or could pose an imminent threat to the US. Again, every intell service agreed he might one day.
Of course, none of that history has anything to do with Iran, which we know for a fact is developing enriched, ie bomb grade, uranium. The simple question is what to do. We let the europeans negotiate with them for years with no result. Democrats want to continue the head in the sand strategy.
Frankly, I'm not sure what is the best policy. We should have been developing an internal resistance in Iran. There are plenty of people there who hate the current regime. We should have taken action against them already on the border. It seems likely if we don't deal with them now, we will have to later when they have nuclear weapons.
Eventually, most every mid level country is going to get nuclear weapons...
Your argument simply doesn't wash.
Russia had nukes, did they ever use them against the US?
Nope.
Why not?
Because their leaders were not suicidal.
Neither are Iran's...
Just fear mongering from the right because that they hope the they can frighten in the sheeple to vote in John "daddy" McBush...
Your argument simply doesn't wash.
Russia had nukes, did they ever use them against the US?
Nope.
Why not?
Because their leaders were not suicidal.
Neither are Iran's...
Just fear mongering from the right because that they hope the they can frighten in the sheeple to vote in John "daddy" McBush...