It's time to wag the dog!
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 14 of 58

Thread:
It's time to wag the dog!

  1. #1
    Red Blooded American The Doctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    15,853

    Default It's time to wag the dog!

    Obama's foreign policy failed so miserably that his ratings are showing more losses every day so he's got to wag the dog to keep folks from discussing another minute about Libya, the lies, the deceptions, the mis-directions and the verifiable inaccuracies that were reported for weeks as four brave men died in another terrorist attack that this administration refused to recognize as a terrorist attack until the last debate when he was called on it in front of the world. Even Candy Olbermann couldn't cover that one.

    Since there is no way out of that mess approaching a foreign-policy debate that will be impossible to cover up, he's decided to announce talks with Iran about Nuclear capabilities as if the past three and a half years, this wasn't a giant problem. How sad this administration's lack of leadership has proven to be for America.


    NYT: Iran, US agree to one-on-one nuclear talks - World news - The New York Times | NBC News
    The best things in life aren't things!

  2. Remove Advertisements
    PerformanceBoats.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
    Obama's foreign policy failed so miserably that his ratings are showing more losses every day so he's got to wag the dog to keep folks from discussing another minute about Libya, the lies, the deceptions, the mis-directions and the verifiable inaccuracies that were reported for weeks as four brave men died in another terrorist attack that this administration refused to recognize as a terrorist attack until the last debate when he was called on it in front of the world. Even Candy Olbermann couldn't cover that one.

    Since there is no way out of that mess approaching a foreign-policy debate that will be impossible to cover up, he's decided to announce talks with Iran about Nuclear capabilities as if the past three and a half years, this wasn't a giant problem. How sad this administration's lack of leadership has proven to be for America.


    NYT: Iran, US agree to one-on-one nuclear talks - World news - The New York Times | NBC News
    So US/Iran nuclear talks are a bad thing?
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.

  4. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    So US/Iran nuclear talks are a bad thing?
    I don't think so. I never subscribed to the idea that having talks with your "enemy" shows weakness. You know the best way to destroy an enemy? Make him your friend. Now I'm not saying we need to become friends with Iran, but it's not in either of our interests to engage in a shooting war. I've read something that said Hezbollah has a lot of undercover people here in the US, that the US government knows this, and that they would probably do things if we ever strike Iran. Anyway, I don't see the harm in sitting down with Iran and trying to come to an agreement that both countries can live with.

    When I first read about this, and from what I understand there is no meeting planned, just dialogue about a meeting, Iran requested the meeting specifically after the election. I think they might be worried what Romney might do if he wins. They might be motivated to reach some agreement before he would actually take office. I read Obama didn't want to strike until after the election. Anyway, it would be smart on their part to wait until after the election so they know whom they will be dealing with.

  5. #4
    Senior Member bville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glasgow, KY
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    This is a trial balloon to see what the reaction well be ,and if it could possible help Obama get re elected.

  6. #5
    gn7
    gn7 is offline
    Senior Member gn7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    25,975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    So US/Iran nuclear talks are a bad thing?
    They can be if they are nothing more than a stall tactic.
    Have we, or anybody else ever once talked any country out of developing a nuke? Have we or anybody else ever "physically" stopped a coutry from developing a nuke that was in fact actually developing one?

    Maybe, just maybe, Isreal did with the bombing of Iraq's facitility back in '81. Maybe.
    Gut feeling on this is that if Iraq has intentions of developing a nike, history had shown we won't talk them out of it, and we would take physical action agaisnt them. But thats not to say the program won't see one big ass bump in the path. But I doubt we will be the one to cause it.

    If "somebody else" stops the progress, batton down the hatches because I think it could get ugly rather quickly.



    100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

  7. #6
    Red Blooded American The Doctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    15,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    So US/Iran nuclear talks are a bad thing?
    When they are only for a diversion from the disaster in Libya, yes. This issue should have been addressed the day he took office instead of sealing his records as the problem has been a major concern throughout this administration's entire term. The fact that he's addressing it now is solely to divert the American voters away from being impeached over the deaths of 4 Americans in Libya where security was loosened rather than increased by this administration.

    Kinda like your attempt to discredit Romney by posting up info from the Salt Lake Tribune and calling it a Mormon Newspaper? About as effective as a Chick-fil-A boycott, that turned out to be, but we understand your motivation and sympathize.
    The best things in life aren't things!

  8. #7
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gn7 View Post
    They can be if they are nothing more than a stall tactic.
    Have we, or anybody else ever once talked any country out of developing a nuke? Have we or anybody else ever "physically" stopped a coutry from developing a nuke that was in fact actually developing one?

    Maybe, just maybe, Isreal did with the bombing of Iraq's facitility back in '81. Maybe.
    Gut feeling on this is that if Iraq has intentions of developing a nike, history had shown we won't talk them out of it, and we would take physical action agaisnt them. But thats not to say the program won't see one big ass bump in the path. But I doubt we will be the one to cause it.

    If "somebody else" stops the progress, batton down the hatches because I think it could get ugly rather quickly.
    I was asking Doc.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.

  9. #8
    Red Blooded American The Doctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    15,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    I was asking Doc.
    Yeah Bob. This wasn't an attempt to find truth, it was an attempt to discredit and you ruined it - now STOP IT, WOULD YOU!
    The best things in life aren't things!

  10. #9
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
    When they are only for a diversion from the disaster in Libya, yes. This issue should have been addressed the day he took office instead of sealing his records as the problem has been a major concern throughout this administration's entire term. The fact that he's addressing it now is solely to divert the American voters away from being impeached over the deaths of 4 Americans in Libya where security was loosened rather than increased by this administration.

    Kinda like your attempt to discredit Romney by posting up info from the Salt Lake Tribune and calling it a Mormon Newspaper? About as effective as a Chick-fil-A boycott, that turned out to be, but we understand your motivation and sympathize.
    It wasn't an attempt to discredit Romney, Doc, I thought it was just interesting that the biggest paper in Utah was endorsing Obama for the second time, in spite of all Romney's Heavenly perfection. I was just interested in hearing some views on the subject. I don't see how that was discrediting Romney.If nothing else, it gave you an opportunity to make some more really lame excuses.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.

  11. #10
    Senior Member ICECREAMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bville View Post
    This is a trial balloon to see what the reaction well be ,and if it could possible help Obama get re elected.
    I agree it's a stink bomb they're floating for some affect. The article is a lot of words saying a whole lot of nothing, unnamed people talking in circles. If in fact Iran does want to have a chat, It will be with Romney. They have no respect and no fear of the eunuch in the WH.

    But if they do want to talk, I'm sure it's because they see a changing of the guard in the WH from a Wimp to a person that will be more apt to shoot a minute man up their ass just to get their attention. I'm sure we all see the resemblance to the last crisis with Iran and a pussy leaving the WH, they may actually want a pow wow.

  12. #11
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
    Yeah Bob. This wasn't an attempt to find truth, it was an attempt to discredit and you ruined it - now STOP IT, WOULD YOU!
    Ruined it? LOL...grow up you juvinile nutswinger. I swear, I've never in my life heard someone so blinded on a candidate. Next thing you'll be telling us that Rom's election is "divine internvention". What does your "living prophet" Monson say? Maybe he'll appoint Romney some sort of diety status?
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.

  13. #12
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bville View Post
    This is a trial balloon to see what the reaction well be ,and if it could possible help Obama get re elected.
    No doubt about that. I'll believe actual "talks" are taking place when I see it.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.

  14. #13
    steelcomp was here
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    n/e TN
    Posts
    26,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ICECREAMAN View Post
    I agree it's a stink bomb they're floating for some affect. The article is a lot of words saying a whole lot of nothing, unnamed people talking in circles. If in fact Iran does want to have a chat, It will be with Romney. They have no respect and no fear of the eunuch in the WH.

    But if they do want to talk, I'm sure it's because they see a changing of the guard in the WH from a Wimp to a person that will be more apt to shoot a minute man up their ass just to get their attention. I'm sure we all see the resemblance to the last crisis with Iran and a pussy leaving the WH, they may actually want a pow wow.
    I'll believe that when I see it.
    If God is your co-pilot, change seats!
    Acts 2:38, the perfect answer to the perfect question.

  15. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ICECREAMAN View Post
    I agree it's a stink bomb they're floating for some affect. The article is a lot of words saying a whole lot of nothing, unnamed people talking in circles. If in fact Iran does want to have a chat, It will be with Romney. They have no respect and no fear of the eunuch in the WH.

    But if they do want to talk, I'm sure it's because they see a changing of the guard in the WH from a Wimp to a person that will be more apt to shoot a minute man up their ass just to get their attention. I'm sure we all see the resemblance to the last crisis with Iran and a pussy leaving the WH, they may actually want a pow wow.
    Where do you get this wimp shit? Obama drastically increased UAV strikes on suspected terrorists, he ordered the bin Laden raid, he helped in the downfall of qadafi, who has a history of supporting terrorism. What more should he have done, invaded Iran and Pakistan? I really doubt anyone is going to be shooting off any minutemans. And that would definately lower our standing in the eyes of the world.
    Last edited by ram78d10; 10-20-2012 at 10:20 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Tags for this Thread

Digg This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95