Watching the GOP debates is really quite amusing. These clowns talking about bombing Iran, spending 40 billion on new war ships, reimplemplenting torture, assassinations of political enemies, undocumented WMD threats blah, blah, blah.

And this party wants to unseat Obama? Really? I mean really?

This group of utter knuckleheads (sans Paul) apparently haven't read the polls. Americans en masse are tired of that shit. 2/3 think Iraq was a waste of time, half think Lybia was a joke, and a half think Afghanistan is a joke.

The party of jingoists that remain hell bent on American exceptionalism will never win the White House back. The horror of Iraq is still fresh in the mind of the vast majority.

Conservative writer Past Buchanon is SHFH here.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=367877

Only a true knucklehead could double the national debt in 2 years.

War party? Which one are you talking about?

majorspark;974804 wrote:War party? Which one are you talking about?

+1

At this point Obama can be considered war party light.

But the GOP has got to be fucking kidding with being cool with torture, going into Iran, and increasing military spending. Absofuckinglutely retarded.

rydawg5;974799 wrote:Only a true knucklehead could double the national debt in 2 years.

Start a thread on that subject if you like. Bush almost doubled it in his term and Reagan tripled it in his. There's your start.

majorspark;974804 wrote:War party? Which one are you talking about?

Read Pat's article....he pretty much explains it.

Footwedge;974869 wrote:Read Pat's article....he pretty much explains it.

I read it. I love Pat. He forgets his history in this article. That said Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, or Obama: Neither are any more or less likely to attack Iran.

Maybe...I should call them the party of chickenhawks...much more appropos.

Candidates that served their country....

Michele Bachman? Nope
Newton Grinch? Nope
Willard Romney? Ummm No
Huntsman No
Pee Wee Herman. Sorry...never "fought for our freedoms".

Ron Paul? Served 5 years during Vietnam.

Anyone care to connect the dots here?

edit add....

Forgot about Richard Sanitarium....my bad.....never served either...what a shocker, eh?

Lets get this Iran nuke issue straight. The time to dissuade Iran from possessing nuclear weapons by peaceful means has long since passed. Any strategic bombing effort at this point will only buy a few years. They have the technology. The only way we can stop them is to invade and occupy Iran. Germany was developing and producing advanced jet planes underground while all their cities were reduced to rubble. Absent a land invasion those jets would have eventually took flight. You got a lot of political posturing going on right now.

Footwedge;974884 wrote:Maybe...I should call them the party of chickenhawks...much more appropos.

I have told you time and time again the bravehawks are the worst. Be aware of them.

Footwedge;974884 wrote:Pee Wee Herman. Sorry...never "fought for our freedoms"..

So we were fighting for our freedoms in Vietnam? Glad you finally admit it.

Footwedge;974884 wrote:Ron Paul? Served 5 years during Vietnam.

Neither one of these two were in the shit (experienced combat). Paul served in uniform as a flight surgeon and Herman wore a suit and tie and worked in ballistics for the naval department. Both served the country and the war effort in Vietnam.

Footwedge;974884 wrote:Maybe...I should call them the party of chickenhawks...much more appropos.

Candidates that served their country....

Michele Bachman? Nope
Newton Grinch? Nope
Willard Romney? Ummm No
Huntsman No
Pee Wee Herman. Sorry...never "fought for our freedoms".

Ron Paul? Served 5 years during Vietnam.

Anyone care to connect the dots here?

edit add....

Forgot about Richard Sanitarium....my bad.....never served either...what a shocker, eh?

By the way you forgot Obama in your list.

majorspark;974898 wrote: So we were fighting for our freedoms in Vietnam? Glad you finally admit it.

I put "fighting for our freedoms" in quotation marks for good reason.

Neither one of these two were in the **** (experienced combat). Paul served in uniform as a flight surgeon and Herman wore a suit and tie and worked in ballistics for the naval department. Both served the country and the war effort in Vietnam.

Paul enlisted in the armed forces and his commanders chose to utilize him as a physician. Had he been told to jump into the front lines, he would have done so. Pee Wee didn't enlist for shidt. Big difference.

As for Obama, yes he's a chickenhawk too. More connections of the dots...I'm sure you'd agree.

Footwedge;974903 wrote:And this party wants to unseat Obama? Really? I mean really?.....

As for Obama, yes he's a chickenhawk too. More connections of the dots...I'm sure you'd agree.

While it is true that they're all chickenhawks (minus Paul) I'll still opt for ANY of them to boot Obama to the curb. It's that simple.

By the way, how much military experience did you say you have again, Footie?

believer;974916 wrote:While it is true that they're all chickenhawks (minus Paul) I'll still opt for ANY of them to boot Obama to the curb. It's that simple.

By the way, how much military experience did you say you have again, Footie?

Not as much as you!!

I was drafted while in college. Number 59. I went to my cattle call physical and was prepared to go. Nixon ended the war 2 weeks later. So I did a little better than Dick Cheney who had "better things to do" or Rush who apparently, had a really sore ass crevice. :laugh:

Which is a more likely scenario

1. Iran Gets a Nuclear Weapon. Decides to use it against the United States or Israel eventually and seal their own fate.

2. The United States decides we should enter into war with Iran, spending hundreds of billions or trillions of Dollars over the next ten years causing our economy to finally collapse and putting America into a depression that they may not recover from. We CANNOT afford to do this.

In my opinion, the second scenario is far more likely. This is the same rhetoric we heard before the Iraq war. Sadaam had WMDs, was going to wipe out the region, attack the US. We don't have to invade countries to keep our Defense strong.

pmoney is right on the...money.

This is the same rhetoric we heard before the Iraq war. Sadaam had WMDs, was going to wipe out the region, attack the US. We don't have to invade countries to keep our Defense strong.

Not that I necessarily think an invasion of Iran is in order, but basing what we do about Iran on what happenened in Iraq is a logical disconnect. The situations may be very different. We should however, APPLY what we LEARNED in Iraq and move more carefully when it comes to boots on the ground and have a clear exit strategy.

HitsRus;976072 wrote:Not that I necessarily think an invasion of Iran is in order, but basing what we do about Iran on what happenened in Iraq is a logical disconnect. The situations may be very different. We should however, APPLY what we LEARNED in Iraq and move more carefully when it comes to boots on the ground and have a clear exit strategy.

The situations aren't really that different. It's the US trying to tell a nation what to do and if they don't listen we go in and kill thousands upon thousands of them.

Might makes right.

Anyone who thinks we're in any danger of getting into a tussle with Iran is off their meds. The candidates making these statements are just thumping their chests and playing to the base in the primary...not unlike Bam and his "complete and immediate withdraw" from Iraq on the campaign trail.

Even if they do get a nuke, they don't have the balls to use it...they know full well they'd get turned into a parking lot in short order.

The situations aren't really that different

That's an assumption on your part. I think public perception of the war in Iraq would be a lot different today if Sadaam really did have WMD, and/or if we made a quick exit.

if you truly believe that we have faulty intelligence about Iran, and that we would be again willing to undertake a long occupation, well then yeah...I could see how you would think the situation is not all that different.

Even if they do get a nuke, they don't have the balls to use it...they know full well they'd get turned into a parking lot in short order.

Whether they use it or not, having it alters the balance of power in the region. Sure, if push came to shove we could nuke them back into the stone age, but do you really want to have to engage in brinksmanship in solving the regions affairs? Moreover, if they just took one U.S. city 'hostage'...would it be worth it??? (you do know they have a history of taking hostages?)

HitsRus;976893 wrote:That's an assumption on your part. I think public perception of the war in Iraq would be a lot different today if Sadaam really did have WMD, and/or if we made a quick exit.

if you truly believe that we have faulty intelligence about Iran, and that we would be again willing to undertake a long occupation, well then yeah...I could see how you would think the situation is not all that different.



Whether they use it or not, having it alters the balance of power in the region. Sure, if push came to shove we could nuke them back into the stone age, but do you really want to have to engage in brinksmanship in solving the regions affairs? Moreover, if they just took one U.S. city 'hostage'...would it be worth it??? (you do know they have a history of taking hostages?)

How in the fuck is Iran going to take a US city "hostage"? Seriously. They have a history of taking hostages consisting of people who put in place the dictators they just deposed.

I believe that whether or not Iran does or does not have WMD is completely irrelevant to whether or not we should go to war with them. We have no right to either way. We are not, should not, and have no right to be telling other nations what to do.

Inb4 "but but but Israel".

As for fish claiming it's just posturing for the base...fuck us, seriously fuck the United States if the base of one of our two parties would be happy about starting an unprovoked war with a country, especially one that would make us in 3 concurrent wars at the same time. The difference between Obama saying "we should be out now" or whatever he said and the GOP candidates talking about bombing Iran is that one should have been what we did and the other is morally wrong and insane.

We must attack them to preserve our freedom. Freedom isn't free. They hate us because we are free. God bless America!!!!!!!

dwccrew;977165 wrote:We must attack them to preserve our freedom. Freedom isn't free. They hate us because we are free. God bless America!!!!!!!

+1 Would read again.

I Wear Pants;977170 wrote:+1 Would read again.

tl;dr

dwccrew;977259 wrote:tl;dr

Reps.