dude... no one is buying your picture that obama is a war monger itching to invade iran :rolleyes:
He's not itching...but he's sure as hell not against it. Thet's for sure. He's said it so many times.
He drop down just like the rest. I don't think anyone is buying that he won't attack Iran either.
but some are...
edit: and He's avidly sucking cock and sleeping with the people that do...
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.
He's not itching...but he's sure as hell not against it. Thet's for sure. He's said it so many times.
He drop down just like the rest. I don't think anyone is buying that he won't attack Iran either.
but some are...
edit: and He's avidly sucking cock and sleeping with the people that do...
That last part was real classy. I'm sure you have pictures, qoutes, links to back your claim and aren't just making an ass out of yourself on a message board?
Anyway, we can make this argument go around forever and not get anywhere, as it has been going for nine pages now.
I want to just provide some historical perspective.
You cite the U.N. as being the police of the world, and that we should follow it. Fine. Maybe we should.
But if you look closely at it, all of the biggest nations on it, and some of our closest allies, were at one point or another militarily decimated by us.
That's right.
Germany: WWI and WWII
Japan: WWII
Russia got off easier, since their's was a cold war, but still both sides lost people.
Great Brittain: The Revolutionary War.
See?
They're our allies now, but at one point or another we were at war with them.
So by saying that Obama's saber rattling is counterproductive, then maybe you think we should nuke them? Or occupy their cities with help from Russia? Maybe build a big wall down the middle of Tehran (if it's still called that.)
So no, using the threat of force to bring peace isn't unprecendented, and in fact the Iraq war is somewhat of an anomoly.
Now I know that there are countries that we have gone to war with that aren't our allies, but our greatest allies were at one point our greatest enemies.
Something to think about.
That last part was real classy. I'm sure you have pictures, qoutes, links to back your claim and aren't just making an ass out of yourself on a message board?
Anyway, we can make this argument go around forever and not get anywhere, as it has been going for nine pages now.
I want to just provide some historical perspective.
You cite the U.N. as being the police of the world, and that we should follow it. Fine. Maybe we should.
But if you look closely at it, all of the biggest nations on it, and some of our closest allies, were at one point or another militarily decimated by us.
That's right.
Germany: WWI and WWII
Japan: WWII
Russia got off easier, since their's was a cold war, but still both sides lost people.
Great Brittain: The Revolutionary War.
See?
They're our allies now, but at one point or another we were at war with them.
So by saying that Obama's saber rattling is counterproductive, then maybe you think we should nuke them? Or occupy their cities with help from Russia? Maybe build a big wall down the middle of Tehran (if it's still called that.)
So no, using the threat of force to bring peace isn't unprecendented, and in fact the Iraq war is somewhat of an anomoly.
Now I know that there are countries that we have gone to war with that aren't our allies, but our greatest allies were at one point our greatest enemies.
Something to think about.
Answer me this, before you look yourself like a naive fool.
Who is Obama lying to?
He's lying to someone now isn't he?
can you grasp that scenario?
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 last part was real classy. I'm sure you have pictures, qoutes, links to back your claim and aren't just making an ass out of yourself on a message board?
Anyway, we can make this argument go around forever and not get anywhere, as it has been going for nine pages now.
I want to just provide some historical perspective.
You cite the U.N. as being the police of the world, and that we should follow it. Fine. Maybe we should.
But if you look closely at it, all of the biggest nations on it, and some of our closest allies, were at one point or another militarily decimated by us.
That's right.
Germany: WWI and WWII
Japan: WWII
Russia got off easier, since their's was a cold war, but still both sides lost people.
Great Brittain: The Revolutionary War.
See?
They're our allies now, but at one point or another we were at war with them.
So by saying that Obama's saber rattling is counterproductive, then maybe you think we should nuke them? Or occupy their cities with help from Russia? Maybe build a big wall down the middle of Tehran (if it's still called that.)
So no, using the threat of force to bring peace isn't unprecendented, and in fact the Iraq war is somewhat of an anomoly.
Now I know that there are countries that we have gone to war with that aren't our allies, but our greatest allies were at one point our greatest enemies.
Something to think about.
are you being serious or is this some kind of a joke?
So, to sum up what I've been able to gather, the problem seems to be this:
The Isreali's and Palestinians are trying to work out a peace agreement, but Hamas, which some countries consider a terrorist organization, is elected into power. This puts a crimp in the peace talks.
The leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calls for the desctruction of the Occupying Regime. From what I've been able to gather, some people, maybe even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, consider the Jewish people occupiers, as some arab states don't consider Isreal a legitimate state. So I would consider this to mean that calling for their destruction is calling for the deaths of all of the people living there now.
Please explain to me if this is wrong.
He's not itching...but he's sure as hell not against it. Thet's for sure. He's said it so many times.
He drop down just like the rest. I don't think anyone is buying that he won't attack Iran either.
but some are...
edit: and He's avidly sucking cock and sleeping with the people that do...
i saw the other day he said something about the plight of the israelis and how it was israel's neighbors that abandoned the peace process....yeah, israel's gone all out for peace, right?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm not sure what you are referencing.
What lies in particular are you speaking of?
This thread is about AIPAC and Obama's positions and loyalties within this organisation. I'm thinking you're not fully aware of what AIPAC is with regards to the US political system and foreign policy, congress etc...etc..
Obama is aligning himself with rogue Zionist policies in the middle east, yet he's wearing a peace t-shirt. It's blasphemous.
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.
i saw the other day he said something about the plight of the israelis and how it was israel's neighbors that abandoned the peace process....yeah, israel's gone all out for peace, right?
There's no limit on what they will say and do. I think that is one of the more dependable things we've all become accustomed to over the years.
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
He's not itching...but he's sure as hell not against it. Thet's for sure. He's said it so many times.
He drop down just like the rest. I don't think anyone is buying that he won't attack Iran either.
but some are...
edit: and He's avidly sucking cock and sleeping with the people that do...
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)
(")_(")
That last part was real classy. I'm sure you have pictures, qoutes, links to back your claim and aren't just making an ass out of yourself on a message board?
Anyway, we can make this argument go around forever and not get anywhere, as it has been going for nine pages now.
I want to just provide some historical perspective.
You cite the U.N. as being the police of the world, and that we should follow it. Fine. Maybe we should.
But if you look closely at it, all of the biggest nations on it, and some of our closest allies, were at one point or another militarily decimated by us.
That's right.
Germany: WWI and WWII
Japan: WWII
Russia got off easier, since their's was a cold war, but still both sides lost people.
Great Brittain: The Revolutionary War.
See?
They're our allies now, but at one point or another we were at war with them.
So by saying that Obama's saber rattling is counterproductive, then maybe you think we should nuke them? Or occupy their cities with help from Russia? Maybe build a big wall down the middle of Tehran (if it's still called that.)
So no, using the threat of force to bring peace isn't unprecendented, and in fact the Iraq war is somewhat of an anomoly.
Now I know that there are countries that we have gone to war with that aren't our allies, but our greatest allies were at one point our greatest enemies.
Something to think about.
Answer me this, before you look yourself like a naive fool.
Who is Obama lying to?
He's lying to someone now isn't he?
can you grasp that scenario?
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)
(")_(")
I'm not sure what you are referencing.
What lies in particular are you speaking of?
How do you mean?
Edit: No. We were seriously at war with the countries I mentioned.
The Isreali's and Palestinians are trying to work out a peace agreement, but Hamas, which some countries consider a terrorist organization, is elected into power. This puts a crimp in the peace talks.
The leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calls for the desctruction of the Occupying Regime. From what I've been able to gather, some people, maybe even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, consider the Jewish people occupiers, as some arab states don't consider Isreal a legitimate state. So I would consider this to mean that calling for their destruction is calling for the deaths of all of the people living there now.
Please explain to me if this is wrong.
And I'm not even including Middle Eastern countries.
i saw the other day he said something about the plight of the israelis and how it was israel's neighbors that abandoned the peace process....yeah, israel's gone all out for peace, right?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
This thread is about AIPAC and Obama's positions and loyalties within this organisation. I'm thinking you're not fully aware of what AIPAC is with regards to the US political system and foreign policy, congress etc...etc..
Obama is aligning himself with rogue Zionist policies in the middle east, yet he's wearing a peace t-shirt. It's blasphemous.
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)
(")_(")
There's no limit on what they will say and do. I think that is one of the more dependable things we've all become accustomed to over the years.
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)
(")_(")