Bigfatbillsfan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Mitt Promising His Full Support............To help protect our ally, Israel That's what your article talked about, but if, (in your desperation) you want to incorrectly label that as "war-mongering", go ahead. No one expects any sense out of your posts anyway kraP. . Someone may also want to explain to Park the difference between backing a nation in an attack and fighting the war for them. I don't believe Romney said he would order the attack himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Someone may also want to explain to Park the difference between backing a nation in an attack and fighting the war for them. I don't believe Romney said he would order the attack himself. You are a total idiot. This issue is pretty complex, so you should probably just sit it out. Backing the attack would be supporting it, Israel can't do it themselves, and on top of that there is the straights of Hormuz issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You are a total idiot. This issue is pretty complex, so you should probably just sit it out. Backing the attack would be supporting it, Israel can't do it themselves, and on top of that there is the straights of Hormuz issue So can you show me where Romney says that he would be willing to commit the United States armed forces to combat in Iran? Supporting the attack is no the same thing as carrying it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) So can you show me where Romney says that he would be willing to commit the United States armed forces to combat in Iran? Supporting the attack is no the same thing as carrying it out. The "attack" would be all out war of the hugest magnitude in an area of the world we can't help but stick our nose in for obvious reasons. If anyone says they "support the attack as POTUS" (which I did not hear Mitt say btw) there is only one thing that would mean. And that would be that I will not vote for him. It's simple...any POTUS I want needs to speak to OUR interest. OUR interests are not Israel and Iran going to war under any circumstances. It's really that simple. I personally would like to hear both POTUS candidates posture in a way that communicates that to the voters. I understand there are things better kept close to the vest, and things we all do not know. But we do live in a democracy and these are the facts of life. There's a storm brewing and it's the type that can go one way or the other if certain things happen and certain people are in power. The American people have to decide who is in power. It's that simple. I'm just a guy. But I have 1 vote. To me, if you don't speak on the issue for fear of not saying something I like...you might as well have said the wrong thing. I'm not a 1 issue guy, but this is a big one. A huge one. I am kind of young but most of my buddies who served are out but our younger brothers are in still...and it effects are nation even if you don't have people servings in a million ways. Whatever you think on MItt's taxes (which BTW I actually do think are not off limits but that's just me), this certainly if you are running for POTUS deserves more than vague statements designed for me to simply move along and punch the ballot for you. This IS your job as president. More than anything else, this is the one single thing I vote to give you power to act on unilaterally in this day in age. And if I had to pick 1 thing (which I hate doing) this is what it is. This is POTUS. Commander in chief. People may disagree but on that 1 issue, to me Obama is miles ahead of where I see Mitt at this time. It isn't even close. I understand people hate Obama for a variety of reasons maybe even as Commander of our military. I don't. Edited July 30, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The "attack" would be all out war of the hugest magnitude in an area of the world we can't help but stick our nose in for obvious reasons. If anyone says they "support the attack as POTUS" (which I did not hear Mitt say btw) there is only one thing that would mean. And that would be that I will not vote for him. It's simple...any POTUS I want needs to speak to OUR interest. OUR interests are not Israel and Iran going to war under any circumstances. It's really that simple. I personally would like to hear both POTUS candidates posture in a way that communicates that to the voters. I understand there are things better kept close to the vest, and things we all do not know. But we do live in a democracy and these are the facts of life. There's a storm brewing and it's the type that can go one way or the other if certain things happen and certain people are in power. The American people have to decide who is in power. It's that simple. I'm just a guy. But I have 1 vote. To me, if you don't speak on the issue for fear of not saying something I like...you might as well have said the wrong thing. I'm not a 1 issue guy, but this is a big one. A huge one. I am kind of young but most of my buddies who served are out but our younger brothers are in still...and it effects are nation even if you don't have people servings in a million ways. Whatever you think on MItt's taxes (which BTW I actually do think are not off limits but that's just me), this certainly if you are running for POTUS deserves more than vague statements designed for me to simply move along and punch the ballot for you. This IS your job as president. More than anything else, this is the one single thing I vote to give you power to act on unilaterally in this day in age. And if I had to pick 1 thing (which I hate doing) this is what it is. This is POTUS. Commander in chief. People may disagree but on that 1 issue, to me Obama is miles ahead of where I see Mitt at this time. It isn't even close. I understand people hate Obama for a variety of reasons maybe even as Commander of our military. I don't. I agree that Iran and Israel going to war are not in our best interest or in the best interest of the world at large Israel is one of our allies and I don't think that we should be turning our back on our allies because it isn't in our best interest. If this was just a pissing contest between the two nations I would understand your sentiment and probably agree. But Israel has been publicly threatened by the president of Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The question is simple...if Iran is really so insane why is the regime still oporurating? Seriously...what the !@#$ is that word? It's a perfectly crumulent word. You just need to stop trying to refudiate him and embiggen your vocabulary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Iran just wants a shiny new toy they can show off to the world. If they're smart, the moment they finish their bomb is the same moment they dismantle it into several pieces, send each piece to a different location. The only time they'll re-assemble the bomb is for a parade. Iran knows Israel has multiple nukes and if they tried to wipe Israel off the map, Israel would hit them back harder. They might even tone down some of their rhetoric once they realize they may be provoking Israel into a first strike. I'm less concerned about Iran wiping Israel off the map than I am about some rogue element within Iran commandeering the device and driving it up to a US Military Base. And you're convinced Iran is hell bent on building the bomb even though they say they're not and nuclear inspectors crawling all over the place find no compelling evidence they are either? Must be taking the word of the same folks cooked up the Iraq WMD story: faux news, junkyard Judy miller, joe LIEberman, Glenn "money bags" beck etc Dude you're so freakimg gullible you'd buy the Brooklyn bridge from the same sheister .... Twice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 And you're convinced Iran is hell bent on building the bomb even though they say they're not and nuclear inspectors crawling all over the place find no compelling evidence they are either? Must be taking the word of the same folks cooked up the Iraq WMD story: faux news, junkyard Judy miller, joe LIEberman, Glenn "money bags" beck etc Dude you're so freakimg gullible you'd buy the Brooklyn bridge from the same sheister .... Twice! I could be wrong, but since I haven't heard too much about nuclear inspectors in Iran and this is the latest info I could find, I'm not so sure inspectors are crawling all over Iran. Do you have a link? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/iaea-iran-nuclear-inspection-deal-talks-fail.html "The agency team came to the meeting in a constructive spirit with the desire and intention of finalizing the paper," Nackaerts said of a draft agreement revised to address concerns Iran conveyed to Amano during a May 21 meeting in Tehran. "However, there has been no progress and, indeed, Iran raised issues that we have already discussed and added new ones. This is disappointing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) I know faux news does a good job filtering information that gets inside the 4 walls of your trailor, so you need to step outside the park and look at other and more recent sources, that is if you're truly interested in having a balanced and informed view on anything Like this excerpt from today's Reuters news: "I can't say it with certainty but if everything proceeds normally then there should be further negotiations," Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi told Austria's Der Standard. "A breakdown (in talks) is in nobody's interests. The gaps can only be closed through talking." Salehi said, however, that Iran's right to uranium enrichment had to be recognized from the outset. "It's a matter of principle," he said. -------- http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE86T07S20120730?irpc=932 Sounds pretty encouraging and reasonable to me. Sees the value in talks provided the west respects their right to nuclear energy use. Edited July 31, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) I know faux news does a good job filtering information that gets inside the 4 walls of your trailor, so you need to step outside the park and look at other and more recent sources, that is if you're truly interested in having a balanced and informed view on anything Like this excerpt from today's Reuters news: "I can't say it with certainty but if everything proceeds normally then there should be further negotiations," Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi told Austria's Der Standard. "A breakdown (in talks) is in nobody's interests. The gaps can only be closed through talking." Salehi said, however, that Iran's right to uranium enrichment had to be recognized from the outset. "It's a matter of principle," he said. -------- http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE86T07S20120730?irpc=932 Sounds pretty encouraging and reasonable to me. Sees the value in talks provided the west respects their right to nuclear energy use. So, I comment with the utmost civility and respect and you criticize my trailor (sp)? Further negotiations are equivalent to crawling all over that country with inspectors? I'm not going to waste my time on you. You are a fraud and deserve nothing but scorn from this board. You play a game that you are a libertarian but ooze the stench of liberalism out of your Barbara Streisand designer Depends and besmirch the name of any real Joesixpack. If I was concerned about stinky stuff I pick up off the bottom of my shoe I'd address you further. I'll just scrape you off and laugh at the thought of you being flushed down the nearest storm drain with the first substantial rain. I picture you, after reading this, doing the Howard Dean scream. Edited July 31, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Morons. Get your own trademark, you !@#$ing Wednesday. So, I comment with the utmost civility and respect and you criticize my trailor (sp)? Further negotiations are equivalent to crawling all over that country with inspectors? I'm not going to waste my time on you. You are a fraud and deserve nothing but scorn from this board. You play a game that you are a libertarian but ooze the stench of liberalism out of your Barbara Streisand designer Depends and besmirch the name of any real Joesixpack. If I was concerned about stinky stuff I pick up off the bottom of my shoe I'd address you further. I'll just scrape you off and laugh at the thought of you being flushed down the nearest storm drain with the first substantial rain. I picture you, after reading this, doing the Howard Dean scream. Yeah...that's a stompin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Yeah...that's a stompin'... Certainly better than anything you've ever been able muster up .Lol not like that's saying anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Certainly better than anything you've ever been able muster up .Lol not like that's saying anything No, what I meant was that now 3rd's going to get a stompin' from you, just like the other half-dozen or so of us who never noticed any such thing at all from you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 By PAT BUCHANAN Has Mitt Romney given Israel a blank check for war? So it seemed from the declaration in Jerusalem by his adviser Dan Senor, who all but flashed Israel a green light for war, signaling the Israelis that, if you go, Mitt's got your back: “If Israel has to take action on its own in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision.” “No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel's right to defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with it.” What does “stand with” Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on Iran, mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to their targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air cover while Israeli planes strike Iran? http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120801/OPINION02/708019967&source=RSS Is Ron Paul still sitting on his hands on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120801/OPINION02/708019967&source=RSS Is Ron Paul still sitting on his hands on this one? here you go man, Obama marchin in step w/ Romney and Paul's view on it ... ------------ With Romney safely diverted by trying to explain himself in London, President Barack Obama then dropped the bunker buster with a public signing ceremony for the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act while simultaneously leaking a story telling how National Security Adviser Tom Donilon had briefed Benjamin Netanyahu in detail on plans to attack Iran. In the signing photo op, Obama could be seen surrounded by Richard Stone, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Harold Berman, and Howard Friedman. Friedman is a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), while Stone is chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. The United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which originated in Berman’s office, was reportedly drafted in part by AIPAC. The bill signed by Obama basically provides Israel with a blank check drawn on the U.S. taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military edge” over all of its neighbors combined. It requires the White House to prepare an annual report on how that superiority is being maintained. In criticizing the bill, Rep. Ron Paul observed, “This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to ‘reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.’ However, according to our Constitution, the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country.” Paul voted “no” and was joined by only one other congressman, John Dingell of Michigan. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts