So what did we accomplish exactly by invading Afghanistan? Are there no more terrorists? Nope...there's actually even more now. IS Bin Laden captured? Nope...couldn't manage that either. So what was the point and why are you so quick to defend something that was a blatant failure?
EXACTLY. That is where Bush failed. He never finished in Afghanistan and went to Iraq which was beyond stupid and unnecessary.
Obama has said this repeatedly that he would never have left Afghanistan and we should redeploy troops to Iraq to finish up with Al Queda.
In the days after 9/11 the world was with us and then Bush went and pissed it all away. Obama will build our relationships with our past allies which is something that McCain will not do. Our country could become in grave danger if our only Allies are Isreal, Japan and the UK.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
EXACTLY. That is where Bush failed. He never finished in Afghanistan and went to Iraq which was beyond stupid and unnecessary.
Obama has said this repeatedly that he would never have left Afghanistan and we should redeploy troops to Iraq to finish up with Al Queda.
In the days after 9/11 the world was with us and then Bush went and pissed it all away. Obama will build our relationships with our past allies which is something that McCain will not do. Our country could become in grave danger if our only Allies are Isreal, Japan and the UK.
What could we have done in Afghanistan that needs/needed to be finished up? What is the objective there and how is it going to help us in the future? Is staying in Afghanistan going to end terrorism? All signs point to us invading and occupying these countries as leading to MORE terrorism.
Our country would be just fine if we'd stop attacking other countries and use defense for just what it means.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
To use RainDog's logic: Bush never said he wouldn't ever talk to those leaders and since Obama has never been in the position to maybe he will back out, too.
My logic, eh? Well, that's it then. This passive-aggressive call out has convinced me. I'm on your side now!
Of course I didn't really think I wasn't, but eh? You know.
Even if Obama or Bush did talk with Iran, that in no way means they wouldn't still use aggression. I will say Obama makes it seem he is more willing to listen...of course he does, he's gotta win votes from the left. However, his constant talks of threatening Iran with force are much more telling in my eyes than him saying he would talk with them. As usual, Obama gets away with saying things pointing in two different directions and it's all fine and good.
Using Abookamongstthemany's logic: Why does it always have to be some extreme either/or? Couldn't it be that international relations are much more complex than either "I promise to never hurt you. Let's talk!" or "You brownies is all gonna die!"
Couldn't it be that having a strong hand when dealing with known violent regimes is good for diplomacy - and could in fact lead to less violence, maybe even no violence?
My logic, eh? Well, that's it then. This passive-aggressive call out has convinced me. I'm on your side now!
Of course I didn't really think I wasn't, but eh? You know.
Using Abookamongstthemany's logic: Why does it always have to be some extreme either/or? Couldn't it be that international relations are much more complex than either "I promise to never hurt you. Let's talk!" or "You brownies is all gonna die!"
Couldn't it be that having a strong hand when dealing with known violent regimes is good for diplomacy - and could in fact lead to less violence, maybe even no violence?
I, too was slightly confused, and reread your post. I still don't know what he/she's talking about. I think he/she has selective reading.
Here's a ponderance for you. If you and he agree, and you and I are making the same point, does that mean that he/she and I have been argueing the same side of the argument for the last hour, wasting our lives? (I think that if the first answer is no, the second is still yes.
My logic, eh? Well, that's it then. This passive-aggressive call out has convinced me. I'm on your side now!
Of course I didn't really think I wasn't, but eh? You know.
Using Abookamongstthemany's logic: Why does it always have to be some extreme either/or? Couldn't it be that international relations are much more complex than either "I promise to never hurt you. Let's talk!" or "You brownies is all gonna die!"
Couldn't it be that having a strong hand when dealing with known violent regimes is good for diplomacy - and could in fact lead to less violence, maybe even no violence?
I don't believe threatening a country with violence in a region where we have meddled, exploited, devastated and destroyed time and time again isn't the way to go, imo, no matter who is the one doing the threatening be it Nader, Bush, McCain or Obama. That is my point here. I don't view it as productive, progressive or in any way a 'change'. Simply saying you will talk with Iran while demonzing them in speeches whenever it suits your purposes doesn't say too much to me.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't believe threatening a country with violence in a region where we have meddled, exploited, devastated and destroyed time and time again isn't the way to go, imo, no matter who is the one doing the threatening be it Nader, Bush, McCain or Obama. That is my point here. I don't view it as productive, progressive or in any way a 'change'. Simply saying you will talk with Iran while demonzing them in speeches whenever it suits your purposes doesn't say too much to me.
That demonizing goes both ways, though. And you can't simply say "I promise, from the bottom of my heart, to never use violence against you. Now, let's have a conversation."
The fact is, the Iranian government isn't the most rational government around. Willingness to discuss issues with them, even with muscle flexing, is a huge step in the right direction. We haven't discussed anything with them for 2 decades, I believe.
Now, I'm off to see a free concert and drink some beer. You all have a good one!
I believe you were the one commenting on our lack of a wordly information.
But back on point, Obama didn;t say any of the things you are accusing him of.
really.. I guess thee BBC has turned into a tabloid then
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
That demonizing goes both ways, though. And you can't simply say "I promise, from the bottom of my heart, to never use violence against you. Now, let's have a conversation."
Why not? At least promise to not preemptively use violence against them.
The fact is, the Iranian government isn't the most rational government around. Willingness to discuss issues with them, even with muscle flexing, is a huge step in the right direction. We haven't discussed anything with them for 2 decades, I believe.
because we have been busy being their enemy. you know...like what happens when you threaten someone and have a past with them and using violence against them
Obama is either lying to the world, or Israel, about his true intentions.
Either way, he's lying to someone.
If I were an Obama fan, I wouldn't be fluffing off his ongoing rhetoric of upholding Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war on another country according to the best interests of the apartheid regime folks who are running the show in Israel right now. "Unbreakable alliance" he says....one and the same.
In a nutshell, Iran is a insubordinate little shit and must be schooled....yet again ....apparently.
Obama Peace Train 08!
yeah...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
they take an inch and make it into a mile to fit their pre concieved perceptions
it happens more and more around here
Call them whatever you want....
War is coming to their soil on the exact same premise of terrorism...
forest form the trees my friend.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
War is coming to their soil on the exact same premise of terrorism...
forest form the trees my friend.
so you're railing against the person that has clearly stated he will actually engage in diplomacy with iran?
you guys are really stretching to make Obama out to be a war monger, it used to be comical now it is just silly... but perhaps some people think all politicians are secretly programmed to be military industrial complex new world order puppets :rolleyes:
by the way... have you guys completely missed the little iranian threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" constantly the past few years... or perhaps that doesnt fit your already determined agenda so you ignore it (now go ahead and stretch that out to me saying i am advocating war with Iran :rolleyes: )
so you're railing against the person that has clearly stated he will actually engage in diplomacy with iran?
you guys are really stretching to make Obama out to be a war monger, it used to be comical now it is just silly... but perhaps some people think all politicians are secretly programmed to be military industrial complex new world order puppets :rolleyes:
by the way... have you guys completely missed the little iranian threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" constantly the past few years... or perhaps that doesnt fit your already determined agenda so you ignore it (now go ahead and stretch that out to me saying i am advocating war with Iran :rolleyes: )
When you weigh it out...the diplomacy vibe is falling short.
Iran never said it's going to wipe israel off the map....oh ffs... cmon people.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
When you weigh it out...the diplomacy vibe is falling short.
Iran never said it's going to wipe israel off the map....oh ffs... cmon people.
On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map. The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world
On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map. The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world
Of course he didn't.:rolleyes:
See bolded. He's right. Same as Bush is not the entire United States, and that guy should also be wiped from the pages of history.
no brainer. Wiping a country from the map?...never happened.
never said.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"Barack Obama has pledged unwavering support for Israel in his first foreign policy speech since declaring himself the Democratic nominee for president.
He told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), a prominent Jewish lobby, Israel's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable".
He also said he would do "everything" to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon. "
"Turning his attention to Iran, Mr Obama said the US-led war in Iraq had emboldened the Islamic state, which posed a real, grave danger.
"My goal will be to eliminate this threat," he said.
Mr Obama said "aggressive, principled diplomacy" was needed to deal with Tehran but added that he would "always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel". "
Ultimately Obama will unleash the hounds on the Iranian terrorists unless Iran bows down.
Bombs in Iran 08!
You are taking his quotes out of context just like you accuse everyone else of doing to your man in Iran.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
But I do agree with what I'll call, aggresive diplomacy. Done right, it avoids conflict in my opinion. Though, it must be managed well or it goes over the line. So you need the right people handling it...as we've seen.
I agree our country needs more Pacifism. But we disagree that Obama won't lead to this. I think he will rebuild our countries relationships with past Allies that hated Bush. That way if we find ourselves in another war we would have more help and support fighting it. I also believe a preemptive war like we did in Iraq would not occur under Obama.
I believe sometimes he does talk tough but that to me is a sign of Leadership not being a Hawk.
And if Nader did nothing after 9/11 then he would have been a bigger failure then Bush. And his own country would have removed him from office.
Talking tough is not a sign of Leadership. Talking reasonable would be. Just take any number of management courses and I'm pretty sure Leaders are expected to treat others with respect and not ominious potential threats.
Talking tough is not a sign of Leadership. Talking reasonable would be. Just take any number of management courses and I'm pretty sure Leaders are expected to treat others with respect and not ominious potential threats.
I'm sorry but talking tough is a sign of leadership. Parents coaches teachers etc do it all of the time. By talking tough I don't necessarily mean threaten but it means standing your ground and not backing down in certain instances.
Someone who talks tough all of the time is a douche like Bush, but a president is expected to use threats at times for diplomacy. All Presidents have and will continue to use this tool.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I'm sorry but talking tough is a sign of leadership. Parents coaches teachers etc do it all of the time. By talking tough I don't necessarily mean threaten but it means standing your ground and not backing down in certain instances.
Someone who talks tough all of the time is a douche like Bush, but a president is expected to use threats at times for diplomacy. All Presidents have and will continue to use this tool.
So presidents should be encouraged to coerce other countries into submitting to what they want by threatening them with violence?? And you don't see how that causes resentment and anger which in turn fuels distrust and terrorism....especially in regions like the middle east where our foreign policy speaks for itself and has cause these people so much suffering. We are supposed to come in like bullying assholes and tell them if we don't get our way we will bomb the shit out of them?
You reason with people to get them to see your point of view, not threaten them with violence. If your reasons are true and hold water then you wouldn't need to resort to violent threats in the first place.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm sorry but talking tough is a sign of leadership. Parents coaches teachers etc do it all of the time. By talking tough I don't necessarily mean threaten but it means standing your ground and not backing down in certain instances.
Someone who talks tough all of the time is a douche like Bush, but a president is expected to use threats at times for diplomacy. All Presidents have and will continue to use this tool.
Maybe I'm misreading something here, but what you just wrote appears to be somewhat contradictory.
You say that by talking tough you don't mean threaten, but then go on to say a president is expected to use threats.
I wonder, where did this expectation come from that leaders are supposedly supposed to be tough talkers? Maybe it comes from a long line of traditionally incompetent leaders who attempt to compensate their own inability to actually "lead" effectively by using so called "big talk".
Even though we have the capabilities to bully other people around, we don't need to go around throwing it in other people's faces. I'm pretty sure it is a given that the U.S. is a powerhouse. Why the need to always ruffle our feathers towards other countries?
you think he meant the israeli "government" by saying "occupying regime"?
he is clearly refering to the entire state of Israel dude, clear as day
He means Zionism dude.
look into it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You are taking his quotes out of context just like you accuse everyone else of doing to your man in Iran.
Oh right...diplomacy.
Drop all nuclear ambitions or perish.. we command you. We own you. Do as we say.
No, we have a right to nuclear power.
Ok....you're terrorists....you want to destroy the world....attack.
Nice diplomacy scenario.
Sounds like master slave to me but whatever get you Obama fans through the night.
Love is Blind so they say..and some people love them some Obama that's for sure.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
EXACTLY. That is where Bush failed. He never finished in Afghanistan and went to Iraq which was beyond stupid and unnecessary.
Obama has said this repeatedly that he would never have left Afghanistan and we should redeploy troops to Iraq to finish up with Al Queda.
In the days after 9/11 the world was with us and then Bush went and pissed it all away. Obama will build our relationships with our past allies which is something that McCain will not do. Our country could become in grave danger if our only Allies are Isreal, Japan and the UK.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
What could we have done in Afghanistan that needs/needed to be finished up? What is the objective there and how is it going to help us in the future? Is staying in Afghanistan going to end terrorism? All signs point to us invading and occupying these countries as leading to MORE terrorism.
Our country would be just fine if we'd stop attacking other countries and use defense for just what it means.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course I didn't really think I wasn't, but eh? You know.
Using Abookamongstthemany's logic: Why does it always have to be some extreme either/or? Couldn't it be that international relations are much more complex than either "I promise to never hurt you. Let's talk!" or "You brownies is all gonna die!"
Couldn't it be that having a strong hand when dealing with known violent regimes is good for diplomacy - and could in fact lead to less violence, maybe even no violence?
I, too was slightly confused, and reread your post. I still don't know what he/she's talking about. I think he/she has selective reading.
Here's a ponderance for you. If you and he agree, and you and I are making the same point, does that mean that he/she and I have been argueing the same side of the argument for the last hour, wasting our lives? (I think that if the first answer is no, the second is still yes.
I don't believe threatening a country with violence in a region where we have meddled, exploited, devastated and destroyed time and time again isn't the way to go, imo, no matter who is the one doing the threatening be it Nader, Bush, McCain or Obama. That is my point here. I don't view it as productive, progressive or in any way a 'change'. Simply saying you will talk with Iran while demonzing them in speeches whenever it suits your purposes doesn't say too much to me.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
pandering
The fact is, the Iranian government isn't the most rational government around. Willingness to discuss issues with them, even with muscle flexing, is a huge step in the right direction. We haven't discussed anything with them for 2 decades, I believe.
Now, I'm off to see a free concert and drink some beer. You all have a good one!
really.. I guess thee BBC has turned into a tabloid then
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Why not? At least promise to not preemptively use violence against them.
because we have been busy being their enemy. you know...like what happens when you threaten someone and have a past with them and using violence against them
*completely jealous* I'm stuck in a house with a broken central air unit and it's 90 degrees out! Tomorrow and the repairman can't come soon enough!
Have a good one and enjoy!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Obama is either lying to the world, or Israel, about his true intentions.
Either way, he's lying to someone.
If I were an Obama fan, I wouldn't be fluffing off his ongoing rhetoric of upholding Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war on another country according to the best interests of the apartheid regime folks who are running the show in Israel right now. "Unbreakable alliance" he says....one and the same.
In a nutshell, Iran is a insubordinate little shit and must be schooled....yet again ....apparently.
Obama Peace Train 08!
yeah...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
they take an inch and make it into a mile to fit their pre concieved perceptions
it happens more and more around here
Call them whatever you want....
War is coming to their soil on the exact same premise of terrorism...
forest form the trees my friend.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
so you're railing against the person that has clearly stated he will actually engage in diplomacy with iran?
you guys are really stretching to make Obama out to be a war monger, it used to be comical now it is just silly... but perhaps some people think all politicians are secretly programmed to be military industrial complex new world order puppets :rolleyes:
by the way... have you guys completely missed the little iranian threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" constantly the past few years... or perhaps that doesnt fit your already determined agenda so you ignore it (now go ahead and stretch that out to me saying i am advocating war with Iran :rolleyes: )
When you weigh it out...the diplomacy vibe is falling short.
Iran never said it's going to wipe israel off the map....oh ffs... cmon people.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world
Of course he didn't.:rolleyes:
See bolded. He's right. Same as Bush is not the entire United States, and that guy should also be wiped from the pages of history.
no brainer. Wiping a country from the map?...never happened.
never said.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
you are flat out amazing :rolleyes:
why is it so many people are ignoring reality all of the sudden?
you think he meant the israeli "government" by saying "occupying regime"?
he is clearly refering to the entire state of Israel dude, clear as day
You are taking his quotes out of context just like you accuse everyone else of doing to your man in Iran.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
Hahaha...not so much...even less now.
But I do agree with what I'll call, aggresive diplomacy. Done right, it avoids conflict in my opinion. Though, it must be managed well or it goes over the line. So you need the right people handling it...as we've seen.
Talking tough is not a sign of Leadership. Talking reasonable would be. Just take any number of management courses and I'm pretty sure Leaders are expected to treat others with respect and not ominious potential threats.
I'm sorry but talking tough is a sign of leadership. Parents coaches teachers etc do it all of the time. By talking tough I don't necessarily mean threaten but it means standing your ground and not backing down in certain instances.
Someone who talks tough all of the time is a douche like Bush, but a president is expected to use threats at times for diplomacy. All Presidents have and will continue to use this tool.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
So presidents should be encouraged to coerce other countries into submitting to what they want by threatening them with violence?? And you don't see how that causes resentment and anger which in turn fuels distrust and terrorism....especially in regions like the middle east where our foreign policy speaks for itself and has cause these people so much suffering. We are supposed to come in like bullying assholes and tell them if we don't get our way we will bomb the shit out of them?
You reason with people to get them to see your point of view, not threaten them with violence. If your reasons are true and hold water then you wouldn't need to resort to violent threats in the first place.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Maybe I'm misreading something here, but what you just wrote appears to be somewhat contradictory.
You say that by talking tough you don't mean threaten, but then go on to say a president is expected to use threats.
I wonder, where did this expectation come from that leaders are supposedly supposed to be tough talkers? Maybe it comes from a long line of traditionally incompetent leaders who attempt to compensate their own inability to actually "lead" effectively by using so called "big talk".
Even though we have the capabilities to bully other people around, we don't need to go around throwing it in other people's faces. I'm pretty sure it is a given that the U.S. is a powerhouse. Why the need to always ruffle our feathers towards other countries?
He means Zionism dude.
look into it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Oh right...diplomacy.
Drop all nuclear ambitions or perish.. we command you. We own you. Do as we say.
No, we have a right to nuclear power.
Ok....you're terrorists....you want to destroy the world....attack.
Nice diplomacy scenario.
Sounds like master slave to me but whatever get you Obama fans through the night.
Love is Blind so they say..and some people love them some Obama that's for sure.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")