Bush compares Obama to Nazi appeaser

There is a big difference between taking out a couple nuke plants regardless what they are used for and taking out the "ENTIRE" country.

Taking out the entire middle east is that because the ghost of Saddam is still around or more likely the oil is still there?

Face the truth you right wing screwballs, a few plants can be taken out with a few cruise big boomers. Please explain why John McBush feels it is best ro invade another country and destroy the USA national treasury in the process?
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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.

Can they destroy us, today or in the near future?

Nope.
More...

If you knew anything about what cops do or ask a cop , they would hardly call it negotiation.

The word is interrogation.

Appeasement has nothing to do with relative strength.
Some would say we are appeasing the limp wristed green movement at our expense
 
Idiot.

When they have a suspect surrounded, they call it negotiation because they are trying to end the conflict by talking...without the use of force. Use of force happens only after all other means fail...as a last resort.

Interrogation happens when the suspect in in custody.

Geez...no wonder these morons voted for Bush, water was seeking its own level...

Quote from Mercor:

If you knew anything about what cops do or ask a cop , they would hardly call it negotiation.

The word is interrogation.

Appeasement has nothing to do with relative strength.
Some would say we are appeasing the limp wristed green movement at our expense
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Idiot.

When they have a suspect surrounded, they call it negotiation because they are trying to end the conflict by talking...without the use of force. Use of force happens only after all other means fail...as a last resort.

Interrogation happens when the suspect in in custody.

Geez...no wonder these morons voted for Bush, water was seeking its own level...
More...

Ok, Maybe the cops told you they want to "negotiate" but it was anything but negotiation
 
Quote from Batterup:

There is a big difference between taking out a couple nuke plants regardless what they are used for and taking out the "ENTIRE" country.

Taking out the entire middle east is that because the ghost of Saddam is still around or more likely the oil is still there?

Face the truth you right wing screwballs, a few plants can be taken out with a few cruise big boomers. Please explain why John McBush feels it is best ro invade another country and destroy the USA national treasury in the process?
More...

I don't know that McCain's policy is to invade Iran, which I agree would be a bad idea. But you are wrong to imply that Obama's policy is to take out their nuke plants. He will do nothing of the kind. In fact, he will do nothing. His wing of the democrat party believe that a strong America is a threat to the world, and they encourage other countries gaining parity with us. Of course, they won't come right out and say it, but that is exactly what they believe.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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...
More...

So if Iran gives nukes to hezhbollah and they attack Israel, you would want a full scale retaliatory strike against Iran? What if they denied responsibility?

The Soviet Union was run by rational people. Iran is not. Big difference.
 
It should be apparent to even libtards that a very real threat of force is what makes diplomacy work. Can you imagine a "sit down" between an Obama Dip-o-dork and some Iranian loony tune? The US Diplomat says "We're dead serious. Give up this nuclear dream of death or we're coming for you."

"HAHAHAHAHAHA snort HAHAHAHA snort snort HAHAHAHAHA! Cough cough. HAHAHAHA!" would be the reply (or words to that effect in Diplospeak). Obama would be better off offering head. At least in that case, the Iranian would promise to ditch nukes even though they wouldn't stop.

I suppose one could make the argument that a McCain administration would fare better. And I suppose I can buy it - slightly. You can bet your bottom dollar that Iran watches US politics like we watch the markets. I don't care if Regean was dug up, reanimated, installed into office and Cheney was his VP and visited Iran with a shotgun in hand. Iran isn't going to buy the hard line. They know the hawks are dead and buried, and the party of appeasement has the congress and pretty much rules the land.

Christ, even Bush knows we'll be Appeasement Central for the next couple years at least. Another generation of US voters need to learn that you don't escape bad people by giving into them. Clearly we'll get to study that lesson once again.
 
Folks here and in the media are missing several key points.

I wouldn't assume Obama is an appeaser rather than a war monger. Other than his disdain for the war in Iraq (because it's Bush's) he makes no substantive comments whatsoever about his military plans in the Middle East. From Obama's web site:"I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism"

Comments to the Chicago Tribune during his Senate campaign in 2004:
“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.

“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.

“… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”



In a speech last summer:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

This election is typical sanctimonious Left wing duplicity. The same bozo pinkos who voted in Peace President's FDR in 1940 and LBJ in 1964 will now vote for a guy they know dick about.

Has Obama answered ANY direct questions regarding specific war game scenarios? While Hillary and McCain risk fallout from a dovish electorate by being directly hawkish, Sen. Change is coy and elusive.

You can bet this. If the economy falters, President Change, Speaker in waiting Emmanuel “Gold”, (jeez Chicago rules the world) and the rest of their pink cohorts will suddenly discover the virtues of war. Islam will certainly turn up the global jihad heat post-bush and the Israel lobby will make sure our response is more than “negotiations.”
 
Israel can take care of themselves, not our business.

Thus far, I have seen no irrational actions by Iran.

They have helped to accomplish $125.00++ a barrel oil.

Given the right wing are capitalists to the bone, I would think the right would secretly admire such capitalistic rationality...Lord knows, if a right winger could do the same thing to increase their own profitability through rhetoric and fear mongering, they would...and they have, just look at the military industrial complex and their gains over the past 5 years. Follow the money, you will find no irrationality at work here.



Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

So if Iran gives nukes to hezhbollah and they attack Israel, you would want a full scale retaliatory strike against Iran? What if they denied responsibility?

The Soviet Union was run by rational people. Iran is not. Big difference.
More...
 
when asked where the iraq troops should go, Obama has said he would send them to afghanstan....he says they should have gone there first....

What will he do if thing go badly and we have 4000 deaths after 5 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top