Obama compared to Bush

Started by lil bitchiness3 pages

Originally posted by Bardock42
Russia has faster missiles than the US?

And Iran has Nuclear Weapons?

It is in everyone interest, particulary to that of India, China and Russia for America to keep thinking they just own/have nothing of value, are poor and stupid.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is in everyone interest, particulary to that of India, China and Russia for America to keep thinking they just own/have nothing of value, are poor and stupid.

even if that is 100% true, it doesn't mean that Iran has ICBMs

Originally posted by inimalist
even if that is 100% true, it doesn't mean that Iran has ICBMs

It also does not mean they don't. And it is therefore not an oppertunity to ''nuke'' anyone, just because America suspects they may be unable to defend themselves.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Because before your nuke would hit Iran, two more would land in America - one from Iran and the other one from Russia because you're nuking her backyard.

Although, Im sure few more nukes from other Arab countries would land in America too.

Because starting a nuclear war is all about flexing a muscle.
Get a grip.

They can shoot all the nukes they want but they won't hit us as long as the legendary Tommy Oliver is there to save us. 😄

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It also does not mean they don't. And it is therefore not an oppertunity to ''nuke'' anyone, just because America suspects they may be unable to defend themselves.

Is there anything indicating that Iran has nuclear capabilities and, on top of that, the ability to strike to the US with them, besides "Well, they might, why not."?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It also does not mean they don't. And it is therefore not an oppertunity to ''nuke'' anyone, just because America suspects they may be unable to defend themselves.

I might argue about the value of positive and negative evidence, I get your point. I am not arguing for nuclear or ANY military action against Iran.

All I am saying is that, imho, as best we (as in people who follow this but aren't privy to classified info) can discern, Iran probably doesn't have nuclear capabilities that would enable it to defend itself against an American nuclear onslaught.

however, that point is pretty redundant considering that Iran couldn't touch America with conventional warfare anyways.

🙂

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
We aren't at war? The Iraq war has been over for years and we aren't at war with Iran. We didn't care about the Japanese people because all of the propaganda that was used to influence us to hate them. Like this.

If you don't think its right to nuke them then why do you think we should? Do you want to kill 1000s of innocent people? After we did it to Japan, we actually apologized and admitted being wrong for doing so. We don't need a nuke to handle a small country like Iran.

Are troops are still in Iran, and Bush never bothered to take them out. He let 1000's of our people die. Who cares, they are still innocent people who we killed, and we didn't give a shit about them, and now we care, stupid.

I don't think we should either, I am just wondering why haven't we nuked them. Well we did it to Japan. Yes, and we will do the same in this case 🙂.

asdfasdfoasidjf[90q2348 nv048rugw-qe9r8unv 9uifnhi0sfn9qv8n98m75v891374yrnm87edhfn8v734mhv873mhr8v7chqmt8n79qwhmdf7mhqc7fm434yvm d7yfmqcsoidnv3p9ejf nkasdjfv9f4hyd nipc8y578934yt8c msfg908uhy v4ng89nh4598

Great to see just about everybody else voted for the first one as well.

oh please, America does not want another war mongering President, and if you did something as ridiculous as attacking Iran, either it will piss off the reds or its own allies.

obviously if it done something as idiotic as actually nuked Iran (if this happens ill be looking out my window for the flying pigs) then the EU will most likely be thinking of throttling America alongside the reds.

Originally posted by Burning thought
oh please, America does not want another war mongering President, and if you did something as ridiculous as attacking Iran, either it will piss off the reds or its own allies.

obviously if it done something as idiotic as actually nuked Iran (if this happens ill be looking out my window for the flying pigs) then the EU will most likely be thinking of throttling America alongside the reds.

so, in your opinion, putting more forces into Afghanistan and extending full military operations into Pakistan is not warmongering?

Why is attacking a consistent US ally with nuclear capability seen as worse than attacking a consistent US enemy with no nuclear capability?

Obama. No question. I feel sorry for the two idiots who voted for McCain in the above poll.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why is attacking a consistent US ally with nuclear capability seen as worse than attacking a consistent US enemy with no nuclear capability?

-having an ally in the middle east is nice
-no chance of harsh retaliation

I see your point, and at least personally, I am not suggesting one for the other. Overt military strength in that region is ultimately detrimental, imho, to American security interests, even if it serves an immediate benefit.

Originally posted by Dusty
Obama. No question. I feel sorry for the two idiots who voted for McCain in the above poll.

yes, it is unfortunate that not everyone has the good graces to believe exactly as you do

I don´t believe the idea of Nuking Iran is even a consideration, what have they done except fund some freedom fighters and have their president talk some silly aggressive crap.

Japan on the other hand, did actually attack the US in a big way.

Anyway Israel will probably do it eventually as they get put more and more under pressure, and some lunatic nothing to loose Palestinian who´s family was killed by artillery bombs for no reason sets of a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv.

Originally posted by Dusty
Obama. No question. I feel sorry for the two idiots who voted for McCain in the above poll.

yeah I know.Obama might turn out to be as corrupt and evil like the last three presidents we have had,we dont know yet for sure.I'm willing to give him a chance,but at least with Obama things MIGHT change.If MCcain had been elected,things would have stayed the exact same way.

Originally posted by inimalist

yes, it is unfortunate that not everyone has the good graces to believe exactly as you do

I know, isn't it?

Ar first I didn't think it would be much of a difference if Obama or MCcain got elected.Don't get me wrong,I was for sure pulling for Obama when it was obvious Ron Paul wasn't going to get in or have a chance and it came down between these two,but Obama it seems was a far better choice than I thought he would be than Mccain.They said he is already going to shut down Guantanamo bay so no more tortures can take place and he has also said to have ordered some kind of investigation into a UFO sighting or something.Mccain would never have done wither of these two things so at least with Obama,things look like they are going to improve for sure.If Mccain had gotten in things would have stayed the same and the world would be still be screwed up for sure the next four to eight years.

I give Obama props for those two things.He might not be so bad after all.He might have just voted to reinstaet the patriot act like Mccain did cause he knew he there would be no chance for him to get selected to put in by the government if he held the same postition that ron paul did.

Jesus, people. He JUST got elected. Let's wait until he's half-way through his term before we start making comparisons.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I was for sure pulling for Obama when it was obvious Ron Paul wasn't going to get in or have a chance

Wait, there was a point when you though Ron Paul was anything but a joke candidate?