I thought this was just a campaign stunt.
The Debates
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
I thought this was just a campaign stunt.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
N. Vietnam was building nuclear missiles? Iraq and Afghanistan too?
Link?
Lets name the last nation building project that worked out well. Please list.
To answer your question, you contain not invade. Iraqi containment was working splendidly and at a fraction of the fiscal and life price. Secondly, lets consider people as people and not just as enemies. These things don't happen inside of a vacuum. Iran wants WMDs about as much as we want them to have them. They're merely rattling their saber as N. Korea does. they don't actually plan on obtaining or using WMDs. They'll yell and flex with the motive of obtaining humanitarian aid, exactly as NK does. They want us to think that they're truly interested in obtaining nukes when in reality, they're just calling for a trade, "we'll stop developing this weapon (of which we're far away from obtaining) if you do/give us x."
I say, continue with the sanctions. If they somehow obtain a nuke, then let the surrounding countries deal with them. Right now, they have a common enemy with most ME countries, the evil "western" influences headed by the Great Satan, United States. Invading them only does further damage and increases the claim that we are seeking for world domination. Just look at how wonderfully it worked out when Iran wanted to use the excuse that we were heading the rebellions a few years back when in reality we did nothing. It took away that wild card that they constantly use because we're too quick to push the red button and interfere.
If Iran ever were to obtain a nuke, then all of a sudden that enemy shifts. Think Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, or anyone else wants Iran to have a nuke? Nope. Even if it meant the total destruction of Israel, think even the most bitter enemies of Israel would want to use a nuke and then have all that fallout fall on their own people? Nope.
That's why, sanction them, and if they still obtain a nuke, let time and pressure from surrounding countries keep them in check. The responsibility of having nukes alone is enough to keep them from using it. Just look at history. Only 1 country has actually used a nuke on another country.
The best thing we could do in the world right now is retract our overbearing influence, not enlarge it.
If folks in the ME or Africa want Democracy or better rights, then they must fight and obtain them by themselves. We cannot give it to them or fight their wars for them. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.
Detroit is economically and socially a dump. We're literally spending on average $3 billion in Egypt to help them out economically. Think Detroit could use $3 billion? Just the amount of money we've pissed away in the Iraqi War could have completely demolished and rebuilt Detroit and probably about another dozen cities in that region.
Civil liberties in the south? Racism, class warfare, and sex warfare run rampant. Didn't you hear? A rep from Missouri basically proclaimed that rape isn't rape unless it's real rape and that pregnancy through rape is god's will. How can we fight theocracies in Iran when our own is declaring a war on women?
Lets fix America first before we go waste more time, American lives, and money on foreign countries.
Last edited:
I'm not for that. Reread the post.
Also, how you feeling about the wager? Seems like a good time to post this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Are repubs going to finally evaluate their radical platform after they lose this election? Or will they continue to filibuster everything and bitch about how Obama buys off voters poor people, Mexicans, and women with promises of welfare checks, citizenship, and condoms?
I for one hope they come back down to earth. Eisenhower wants his party back. Moderation in all things and compromise isn't a dirty word.
More than likely but it happened. Both of them tried to use this to their advantage.
So, I've got to know. If Romney wins, what does that say about the dems platform?
Sexual orientation should not be a consideration in politics, hack.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Bush was already pres
Not in my lifetime. Maybe in yours.
You're right. That's actually a string of dirty words.
I thought we'd see a woman president before a black prez. I don't see gay as out of the question.
Nothing. If the right wins it is because of racism and they are wrong.
hahah Thriller is talking about moderation? Jajaja
Maybe you should get a message to your Dem senate leader...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/2/reid-says-he-cant-work-romney/
You cannot be that much older than I am.
As for your "almost having a woman pres..." comment. That is only because there were enough racists in the dem party voting against Obama that Hillary stood a chance.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hack again.
It will sound like what the left is doing now. Maybe one day people will wake up.