Cain says God persuaded him to run for president

[javaguru]

"Iran announced three years ago it had built an unmanned aircraft with a range of more than 600 miles (1,000 kilometers), far enough to reach Israel.


Ahmadinejad unveiled Iran's first domestically built unmanned bomber aircraft in August 2010, calling it an "ambassador of death" to Iran's enemies. "

LOL at Java saying they are not a threat.

Last time I checked...the United States is farther than 600 miles from Iran....just sayin...If Israel disappeared tomorrow it would only reduce the United States deficit (foreign aid) and reduce the hatred of the United States in southwest Asia...There are three reasons Muslims hate us based on government reports...killing them, occupying their land, and supporting Israel.

I asked for a reason OTHER than Israel....just sayin'.

 

[javaguru]

Ohhh, come on now! Don't you you think you are just picking a little bit?? What would you do? What would your policy be towards Iran? Would you walk up to Ahmadinejad and give him a big, sloppy kiss?? It is impossible to use diplomacy with dictators. Read history, folks are talking about Jefferson in this thread, he did not put up with dictators. Reagan did not put-up with dictators, and both policies worked. Anyone, who thinks this guy is not a serious threat is off their rocker. They say Iran has access to warheads that can travel 2,000 miles, so they could easily reach Israel, which Iran would have no qualms using nukes on Israel, they hate them with all their being. Israel is probably our greatest ally save the British. Therefore, we would be obligated to step in and fuck them up. As long as we are the leaders of the "free world," we have an obligation to put rogue dictators in check..

Give them an ultimatum.. They have an (x) amount of time to turn over their warheads to the UN or dismantle their weapons asap. If they do not comply, we send a "special forces" unit in there to dismantle the weapons. If they continue to get cute, we send the CIA in to take out Ahmadinejad via assassination, there will not be much of a backlash from the indigenous people because they basically hate him. We put in a "puppet" leader, who is pro-democracy, it has been done time and time again. This guy has repeatedly threatened Israel and the U.S., he has to go... Fuck him, if all else fails, send Mother Green in her killing machine to commit genocide... it will be there pleasure.. they are about through wiping out Al-Qaeda...

I am telling you, if we do not resolve this issue, Israel will do a preemptive strike, they do not give a fuck.. and they will not lose, read history.. Then we will be fighting the entire Middle East, they all hate Israel----so we are better of dealing with it.. We still have the power, via economics, military, ect...

Thomas Jefferson never put up with with dictators? Every country he had to deal with was a dictatorship..lmao.Google the Louisiana Purchase and Barbary Pirates...as a marine I would assume you were indoctrinated about the "shores of Tripoli" in your theme song. The Barbary Pirates were a threat to trade and Napoleon wasn't...both dictatorships....Napoleon was a European problem much like Iran is a southwest Asian problem.

FYI, Ben Franklin used diplomacy with the French dictatorship to fund the United States Revolution and actually intervene with their navy.

You need to ditch the idealistic cold war propaganda ...The United States has dealt with dictatorships since the founding of the country. We supported Momar,Mubarak, and the Shaw in Iran...not to mention Saudi Arabia and a host of other dictators around the world throughout history.

 

[mrplunkey]

SO your policy of beigne reactive to sit back and wait untli somethings happen. Well that worked out so fabolus during Pearl Harbor worked great for us in WWI and WWII.
It worked wonderfull for 9/11 9 (even though Clintion had him in Tora Broa but didnt go thorough with it)
sittiing around and being recactive is the stupideist policital idea we could
have.
The world is tided to gethethar, And a sense of Individnaliam that has plagued American;s interior and abroud has continually ramped up more had more disontent.
Takig a colllelctive producative offfence is what would work. Not Dircety attacting any one of them , but keeping it clear that if they react.. there will be consequesnsces.
Speask softly and Carry a big stick

extemists and bullies dont just go away, they reforum remulate for greater attacks. they never backoff.....

How;s tha tfor a :"progressive:" idea. ? Since your to stupid to know that im NOT Potgressive., and that Im a constervative. More Conscervative than 906% of yll on here.

sleepy pills kicking in,,,, Fuck yu alll goodnigt=

So is that your Iran policy?

"Takig a colllelctive producative offfence"

What exactly does that mean? You're saying a whole lot of nothing.

 

[mrplunkey]

So your take-away from that is that we should stay forever?

Typical.

It's difficult to have an adult conversation with someone who resorts to gotchas and bullying* rather than engaging in any sort of meaningful exchange of ideas.


*"roundbrown", "irregardless", "Cybercollege", "Vibrams"...

Yeah, you'd never resort to name-calling or sarcasm.

 

[ledhead]

Thomas Jefferson never put up with with dictators? Every country he had to deal with was a dictatorship..lmao.Google the Louisiana Purchase and Barbary Pirates...as a marine I would assume you were indoctrinated about the "shores of Tripoli" in your theme song. The Barbary Pirates were a threat to trade and Napoleon wasn't...both dictatorships....Napoleon was a European problem much like Iran is a southwest Asian problem.

FYI, Ben Franklin used diplomacy with the French dictatorship to fund the United States Revolution and actually intervene with their navy.

You need to ditch the idealistic cold war propaganda ...The United States has dealt with dictatorships since the founding of the country. We supported Momar,Mubarak, and the Shaw in Iran...not to mention Saudi Arabia and a host of other dictators around the world throughout history.

Lol @ your entire post..

First, Jefferson conned Napoleon... He knew he needed money to fund his wars, which Jefferson knew the French were going to lose (spreaded his army to thin).

Lol @ Ben Franklin using diplomacy with the French.. He was another con-man. The French hated the British, they would have done anything to get rid of them.. You forgot to mention the French sent some ground troops too.. America was desperate, they would have taken money from the Devil...

Lol @ supporting all them other dictators---the fuckin' CIA put them all in power...

Lol @ your foreign policy---spoken like a true pussy, I should not expect anything less from a Quaker...

Lol @ your redneck buddy, is he still traumatized from what Sherman did his great-great granddaddy? Christ they did not have electricity until 1935, being a Quaker, I am sure you can empathize..

Oh my, I am sure you both would have burned your bras---learn the real meaning behind that..


Seriously, have you ever been experienced? Well I have (Hendrix).... If you were, all you did was capture a few demoralized stragglers. Mother Green and her killing machine went on a mass murder spree...


Realpolitiks rock!!!

I can't say enough about the two Marine divisions. If I use words like 'brilliant,' it would really be an under description of the absolutely superb job that they did in breaching the so-called 'impenetrable barrier.' It was a classic- absolutely classic- military breaching of a very very tough minefield, barbed wire, fire trenches-type barrier.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, U. S. Army
Commander, Operation Desert Storm, February 1991

 

[Mr. dB]

Yeah, you'd never resort to name-calling or sarcasm.

It's not really necessary to defeat and discredit one's opponent every time one engages in a discussion. Or divert...

 

[cap gunz]

Was it God or Pokemon?

 

[redsamurai]

Yeah, you'd never resort to name-calling or sarcasm.

acknowledge he has a valid point and move one. He's 100% right, when it becomes clear you've run out of intellectual steam you go right to the snarky names. You can't "unresist" it....

 

[mrplunkey]

It's not really necessary to defeat and discredit one's opponent every time one engages in a discussion. Or divert...

So after you've started some of the most divisive threads in EF history, participated in some of the most partisan name-calling and made some of the most snide and sarcastic comments on record, you've now decided that I should play nicely?

 

[Mr. dB]

Another redirection...

(1) "some of the most divisive threads in EF history"??? Isn't that a bit dramatic? Heck, my threads usually generate about half a page.

(2) Name-calling? Really?

(3) Snide and sarcastic I'll admit.