Netanyahu Speech

[KingOrfeo]

Iran and the United States have no parallel national security interests.

We both have an interest in destroying ISIS, don't we?

We needn't even ally with them or coordinate with them, just let them fight.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Iranians would be rolled up like sod.

By whom? We and they would be fighting on the same side.

If something goes wrong and the Iranians are rolled up by Americans -- it doesn't end there. And I hope even you would want it to end there.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

What, you mean, put U.S. ground troops in the same theater as the Iranians?

Gee, what could go wrong with that?

Did I say put ground troops in?

No...I said handle the bullshit...as in resolve the conflict.

It would be swift and decisive but it would all be over and everyone could move the fuck on bigger, better, more important shit than who's imaginary superhero is the greatest already.

But nooooooooooOOOOOOooooOOOOooooooooo....left wing fucking pussies.

 

[unregistered]

 

[about_average]

The Iranians would be rolled up like sod.

Bush rolled up the Iraqi's like sod and now we have Daesh because he decided against a permanent occupation force.

So you want a permanent occupation force in Iran, or another Daesh there too?
Those are the two choices.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

You mean Obama decided against leaving a security force behind. Telll the truth for a change.

No need. I give them a Genghis Khan type warning. I'd tell them to be outside and looking towards Mecca on a given day, on that day they would see a demonstration drop of some really refined nuclear technology, and then tell them, "I we hear from afar that you are violating our law, we will return and exact a terrible vengeance."

You know that's never gonna happen.

 

[about_average]

You mean Obama decided against leaving a security force behind. Telll the truth for a change.

You've been educated on the truth numerous times, but seem to keep forgetting it.
Bush signed the agreement removing US forces unless Iraq agreed they could stay. They wouldn't agree. The only way Obama could have kept them there was if the US "invaded" again.

But your reply is very telling, you appear to want a permanent US occupation force in Iran.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You know that's never gonna happen.

And that PC bullshit pussy made fuckwit sentiment is why this will become heinous and as absolutely ugly as possible. Shit should have been handled back in 03.....bunch of fucking morons back in the US wanted us to go win hearts and minds instead....

What the mother fuck....

If the US really wants to stick it's dick back in it needs to bust a fucking nut and be god damn done already and there is no way to be "nice" kumbyah and politically correct about dealing with these fucks except just staying out of it.

Otherwise if we plan to use military force we need to cut the LW hearts and minds bullshit, you morons seem to love and straight pwn the fuckin' piss out of these fucks.

Seriously...pick the largest 5 cities in Syria, Iraq, Iran and fucking LEVEL them bitches and tell the survivors to fucking behave or keepin' it real is gonna go wrong as it can get.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[about_average]

That bullshit has been refuted, get a clue.

You saying "Nuh uh" isn't refuting it.

I notice you don't deny you want a permanent occupation force in Iran.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Disgustipated]

Yep, I'm not running.

You'd have to leave your bunker for 5 minutes to run anywhere, tubby/

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Everyone in the know has said Obama could have negotiated a status of forces agreement but chose not to do so for political reasons, and therefore squandered the victory and the sacrifice.

You may not realize it but we still have troops in Europe and in South Korea. I have always supported a punitive expedition strategy in Afghanistan and in Iraq, not a nation building long term occupation like we had to do in Europe.

So your position is that a newly elected president need not abide by terms negotiated by their predecessor when dealing with sovereign foreign governments?

Because that seems to be your position, and would lead to untold instability across the globe.

Suppose for a moment that President Obama had done exactly that, and the Iraqi government insisted we abide by the agreement already reached and remove troops from their country. Then what? Invade and occupy...again?

 

[about_average]

Everyone in the know has said Obama could have negotiated a status of forces agreement but chose not to do so for political reasons, and therefore squandered the victory and the sacrifice.

I'm fairly certain if you look up the definition of "refute" it won't say, "Someone making a claim."

You may not realize it but we still have troops in Europe and in South Korea.

And you may not realize none of those troops in Europe or South Korea are out patrolling the streets and carrying out domestic counter-insurgent activities to prevent the takeover of a country who's stable government the US has removed.

I have always supported a punitive expedition strategy in Afghanistan and in Iraq, not a nation building long term occupation like we had to do in Europe.

BS.
You want nation building and long term occupation of Iraq (or at least long term occupation), you're bitching because the US didn't ignore the agreement Bush signed and invade again.

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

"could have negotiated..."

"did refuse to negotiate..."

Language sure is a funny and convenient thing, by golly.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So your position is that a newly elected president need not abide by terms negotiated by their predecessor when dealing with sovereign foreign governments?

Because that seems to be your position, and would lead to untold instability across the globe.

Suppose for a moment that President Obama had done exactly that, and the Iraqi government insisted we abide by the agreement already reached and remove troops from their country. Then what? Invade and occupy...again?

He could have, but he refused to do so. Yeah funny how that works.

Just going to ignore the inconvenient truth eh? Typical.

 

[about_average]

You can say this all you want, but if you check my posts you see that I posted many times our need for a punitive expedition instead of the nation building bullshit we always engage in.

Ok, fair enough, we can roll up Iraq and have another Deash move in to occupy the area. That's the other option if we take out the Iranian government and you don't want long term occupation.

Oh, and Obama did refuse to negotiate a status of forces agreement, but he didn't for political reasons.

So you're back to making a baseless claim.

 

[cowslinger64]

He could have, but he refused to do so. Yeah funny how that works.

He followed the law... and you're constantly whining about him being lawless..


Lawless...from Sarah Palin/Fox News to your lips.

 

[miles]

Ulaven_Demorte
This message is hidden because Ulaven_Demorte is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 07:46 PM
Remove user from ignore list
about_average
This message is hidden because about_average is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Yesterday, 08:11 PM
Remove user from ignore list
cowslinger64
This message is hidden because cowslinger64 is on your ignore list.

http://photosen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/three-stooges.jpg