What's new
By:

The Debates

Crap!

Im on the crapper and my legs fell asleep. I cant get up. My life alert is in the other room.
 
Stoked said:
Well why all know why people are voting against Romney. Religiousism
Click to expand...

I think it's muted his support a bit, actually.

Edit to add: I think that's one reason why candidates like Bachmann and Rerry were briefly popular in the primariues.
 
Stoked said:
Do you truly believe 15-20 years will be enough for that much change to take place?
Click to expand...

Well, I expect to live another 30, and that you'll have probably 10-15 years beyond that. So I think that 30 years from now might be pushing it, but 40-45 would not be out of bounds.
 
One Brow said:
Well, I expect to live another 30, and that you'll have probably 10-15 years beyond that. So I think that 30 years from now might be pushing it, but 40-45 would not be out of bounds.
Click to expand...

You want me to be 95? F that.

70 and I am out bitches. Im almost 1/2 way to the finish line.
 
The Thriller said:
N. Vietnam was building nuclear missiles? Iraq and Afghanistan too?

Link?

Lets name the last nation building project that worked out well. Please list.
Click to expand...

There's an old Chinese proverb that says you cannot persuade anyone by offering up ignorance. Purposefully misconstruing what others have written is a good way to get less people to hear what you have to say.

The Thriller said:
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."
Click to expand...

Is there a reason you believe this when Bill Clinton, GWB, John Kerry & the congressional armed forces committees did not? Do you have insider knowledge the people at the top were not privy to?

Also, Iraq was shooting down our planes in the no fly zone. Your containment would have kept US forces in constant danger while stripping them of the ability to protect themselves. I also strongly disagree with your wonton disregard for the lives of our armed forces. "They signed up dirka dirka" is no way to manage those who protect us.

The Thriller said:
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.
Click to expand...

In other words, pretend nukes are not a problem worth worrying about.

The Thriller said:
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.
Click to expand...

History of nukes is short, and our interventionist policies has prevented others from using them. It's a contradiction to attack our foreign policy and crediting it at the same time.


The Thriller said:
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.
Click to expand...

The federal government already gives billions in aid to Detroit on an ongoing basis. We already have a discussion about poverty in the US & your thoughts would be welcomed there.
 
Stoked said:
Ohh interesting. America has elected their first black president (even though the race goes by the moms right?) and may have its first Mormon one.

Do you think we will see a gay president in our lifetimes?
Click to expand...

That barrier may have already been broken.

220px-James_Buchanan.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top