- Nov 26, 2003
- 269
- 0
- 0
- 45
I guess you consider yourself to be some sort of intellectual type.
I feel bad for you.
the process of gutting america`s defense/military....
- Thread starter gardenweasel
- Start date
I guess you consider yourself to be some sort of intellectual type.
I feel bad for you.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I guess you consider yourself to be some sort of intellectual type.
I feel bad for you.
Don't feel bad for me.
Think for yourself.
we know they`ll try...and if we`re prepared,they`ll fail..unless he`s too busy gutting missile defense and the military......
but,if he continues considering the release of gitmo detainees onto american soil,gutting the military and missile defense,and playing p.c. games with the w.o.t.and acting as though 9/11 never happened.....then, if we get hit on his watch,his presidency deserves to go down the tubes....
..i fully expect bock`s next initiative to be to save ourselves the expense of dismantling our newest defense projects by just selling them to the iranians.... this way we could fund the deficit and usher in a new utopia!.....for this administration,it`s not at all absurd..
yes,we did succeed in iraq.....why?...because we didn`t quit(as the dem.leadership would have liked us to)......
did al qaeda get the upper hand in iraq?..ridiculous... were they defeated?..are they still there?... or are we there finishing iraq`s security apparatus?.....
only a leftwing lackey would claim we didn`t kill many of their leaders and fragment their leadership(by killing them)..they came to iraq to fight us and got run out on a rail.......btw,where is osama bin laden?...what`s he been doing lately?...playing yahtzee in some cave?...
as far as obama goes,theres no surprise element now....we`ve been hit extremely hard on our own soil....
there`s no more,"we had no idea they could do that" ......we`re post 9/11..not pre 9/11....
it`s obama`s FIRST priority to keep us safe....his MAIN priority...
'Missile defense' in Poland helps protect us how, exactly?
Our explanation that we're just trying to protect Russia from Iran's missiles (of which they don't even have any that can reach Russia, but that's very much beside the point) is beyond the pale. And some people wonder why we're pretty much universally reviled around the world.
I mean, seriously.
the linchpin of liberal foreign policy is abandoning one`s allies...you demonstrate this time and again...
you saw what happened in georgia(or were you sleeping?)...we should be on a fast track bringing them into nato...
we do what`s in the best interests of our allies...if they didn`t want the missile systems,they wouldn`t ask for them...
we don`t(until now) operate foreign policy based on what russia or iran or north korea`s interests are..we don`t cut and run from our middle eastern interests because osama bin laden doesn`t like us....
..we operate foreign policy based on what`s in OUR best interests...and our allies best interests ....WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT THE LAME ASSED OLD EUROPEANS THINK...what have they done for us?...
you`re talking about running a lord chamberlain style "capitulation first" foreign policy...and we saw how well that worked in europe....
you learned nothing from watching europe...from watching carter give iran to the mullahs.....and watching reagan style diplomacy....real carrot and stick(emphasis on stick) diplomacy that brought the soviet union to it`s knees........
how many times do you have to get hit in the head with a shovel to learn that weak foreign policy encourages despots and crazies?....
Last edited:
Your posts are making less and less sense and that's no small feat.
You talk about how we're abandoning our allies(because we might not be putting missile defense systems in Poland? lol), but then say 'WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT THE EUROPEANS THINK?'
Huh? If most European countries are generally considered our allies, where does that come from?
Predictably, you didn't answer my question about how these systems protect america.
How about this one? Who *do* they protect and from who?
Europe? The continent that you say we shouldn't give a fuck what they think?
Lemme guess, you buy into W's admins comments that they are meant to protect Russia from Iran. lmfao.
As far as ME 'interests', W set the withdrawal timetable in Iraq and Obama's sending more troops to Afghanistan.
Not sure who exactly you're blaming for what in the ME, but your post is even more of a convoluted mess than usual.
Gitmo closing oh god were doomed. Obama going to let them go. Show me where he said that. Bush did let 14 go and we don,t have a clue where any are. Yes Bush the savior ok there release. Misselles that will protect us sitting any where that don,t work more the 50% of the time. Are you kidding.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
We will never be able to stop every attack. Especially when we are spending the insane amount of money to keep our troops all over the world.
As for Gitmo, convict them or let them free. That is pure bullshit.
We did not succeed in Iraq. Are you kidding me? Do you know how much we spent over there? For what?
You sound just like Bush.
Even if they had the capability to do it, what could North Korea possibly gain by attempting a missile strike on Alaska or Hawaii, knowing full well that the US would likely retaliate by bombing them into the stone age? Kim Jong Il may be a narcistic megalomaniac but even he's not crazy enough to wish that on his own country.
abandoning our allies...i.e. abandoning viet nam/cambodia/laos to mass slaughter thanks to the media and the left after 1975... hamstringing the military with ridiculous rules of engagement(de-militarized zones and safe havens)...
""Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and that they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Vietcong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to win it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Americans, is on the hands of the anti-war activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the Communists."...
the same thing that was attempted in iraq by the media,the bds crew,and democrats that would rather see the u.s. lose so they can gain power and influence...
quislings,in other words......
the same group,made up of lemmings like yourself that would like to see us abandon poland,georgia and the ukraine...as well as israel...our real allies...countries that stand for all the things that we stand for...
that`s pretty simple...straight forward...stated clearly...
old europe has been on the wrong side of practically every major conflict in modern huistory...and we`ve had to bail their asses out more than once because they(like you) would rather stick their heads in the sand than confront despots and dictators...
btw...don`t hold your breath waiting for dear leader to address the n.korean missile launch...and a dinghy full of tough somali pirates...lol
breathe...in and out...
Hey Weezil, since you started this thread, the same question goes for you. And try to give me a real answer instead of one of your usual paranoid rantings.
- Nov 26, 2003
- 269
- 0
- 0
- 45
I agree about N.K. and KJI. They have little or nothing to gain by it.
The videos that weaz posted though weren't so specific to N.K. but just missile attack threats in general.
But to your point Trench......I'd rather be safe than sorry.
I never really thought much about missile attacks here in the US....I've always just assumed a bomb would be smuggled in and detonated remotely. Those vids made it seem missile attack was a very real possibility though. Ugghhh....."can't we all just get along" :grouphug:
That's a fair answer. Thanks.
Missile defense sounds good in theory. The problem is it's exhorbitant cost and in a real world scenario, it may or may not work. Teddy Roosevelt didn't say "Speak softly and wear a suit of armor" because he knew the best deterrent is a big stick.
