Senator Clinton Well Could beat McCain...

Onceler said:
Would you disagree with such an action?
Click to expand...

Would you disagree with the fact that Obama stated that he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan? Because THAT is what we are discussing.

Why is McCain a warmonger and not Obama and Hillary? When Obama and Hillary clearly stated they would attack inside Pakistan, while McCain sang a song?
 
Darla said:
Obama said he would attack pakistan if they were a threat to Israel?

+10 SF faux "the dems did it too!" points.

But, they're still faux.
Click to expand...
No, the Ds were asked in debates what they would do with Iran if they were a direct threat to our ally Israel. But heck you can pretend ignorance all you want to support your own candidate, because you want to pretend you are somehow anti-war while leaving in place the machinery that causes these idiotic wars.
 
Damocles said:
Did you notice the word "formal"?

In this case back room diplomacy is worked. The government could not openly take a position that allowed the attacks therefore a back room deal is worked that allows for the limited forays without fraying the current relationship.

But yes, if there is no permission it is an invasion.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking retarded?

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.
Click to expand...


OK, so according to you we invaded Pakistan. That's pretty stupid.
 
Superfreak said:
Would you disagree with the fact that Obama stated that he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan? Because THAT is what we are discussing.

Why is McCain a warmonger and not Obama and Hillary? When Obama and Hillary clearly stated they would attack inside Pakistan, while McCain sang a song?
Click to expand...


How can you compare the two?

Obama is talking about what he would do in the case of finding out where OBL was. I agree with his statement.

McCain, in a very goofy & irresponsible way, sang a song about bombing a country in the most volatile region in the world, and a country that we have a tenuous relationship with at best. At best, that is not becoming of someone who hopes to be a commander in chief. Words like that can have real consequences, harmless as their intent may be.

And McCain has been nothing but a warmonger in this campaign; I know he's been doing it for "the base," and look for a moderation of his rhetoric in the general election, but let's not candycoat it. He's been ridiculous.
 
Superfreak said:
Would you disagree with the fact that Obama stated that he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan? Because THAT is what we are discussing.

Why is McCain a warmonger and not Obama and Hillary? When Obama and Hillary clearly stated they would attack inside Pakistan, while McCain sang a song?
Click to expand...


You also fail to distinguish the target of the attack. Attacking Al Qaeda operatives is not invading attacking Pakistan. Bombing Tehran is attacking Iran.

And spare me the BS about McCain's diplomacy efforts. I've heard seen the song and dance before.
 
Dungheap said:
Are you fucking retarded?




OK, so according to you we invaded Pakistan. That's pretty stupid.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question. If another nation, for whatever reason, began limited military action in the US without the US permission, what would you call it?

Personally, I would call it an invasion.
 
Dungheap said:
You also fail to distinguish the target of the attack. Attacking Al Qaeda operatives is not invading attacking Pakistan. Bombing Tehran is attacking Iran.

And spare me the BS about McCain's diplomacy efforts. I've heard seen the song and dance before.
Click to expand...
Because you don't listen doesn't mean the words were not spoken and the reality is that the silly song was not his position, but a soundbyte the left could "use" that he foolishly let loose before answering a question.
 
Onceler said:
How can you compare the two?

Obama is talking about what he would do in the case of finding out where OBL was. I agree with his statement.

McCain, in a very goofy & irresponsible way, sang a song about bombing a country in the most volatile region in the world, and a country that we have a tenuous relationship with at best. At best, that is not becoming of someone who hopes to be a commander in chief. Words like that can have real consequences, harmless as their intent may be.

And McCain has been nothing but a warmonger in this campaign; I know he's been doing it for "the base," and look for a moderation of his rhetoric in the general election, but let's not candycoat it. He's been ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I personally agree with Obama's position as well. But that does not change the fact that the left continues its chant of McCain is a warmonger when all he did was sing a parody. One that he quickly clarified. A point I must say you and many others continue to IGNORE.

Words like.... " I will invade your country if you don't do what I want you to" ... are those harmless in comparison to a song? Do those words lack real consequences??????

Again... point to something that equates McCain to being a war monger. Because all we have right now is that he

1) Sang a song (poor taste) then clarified that we should really use diplomacy

2) Supports adding troops to Iraq to try to stabilize it.

Please... which "warmongering" statements have I missed????
 
what I've learned from this thread:

1) Sending more troops to iraq, isn't escalating the war.

2) Obama isn't sufficiently anti-war enough. So if you vote for him as the only viable candidate to end the iraq war, you're a hypocrite.

3) The democratic candidates are just as bad as the republicans, on the Iraq War. Share the blame equally!
 
Look. I agree with both Obama and McCain about attacks in Pakistan, as well as showing strength against Iran if they should become a threat to our allies. I also agree with McCain that it is irresponsible to speak about attacking Iran while we are working diplomatically to get them to agree not to build nukes.
 
Dungheap said:
You also fail to distinguish the target of the attack. Attacking Al Qaeda operatives is not invading attacking Pakistan. Bombing Tehran is attacking Iran.

And spare me the BS about McCain's diplomacy efforts. I've heard seen the song and dance before.
Click to expand...

So if we bomb suspected terrorist sites in Iran, Iran wouldn't have a problem with it because we really wouldn't be invading them?

Before you answer... didn't Clinton (among many others) just vote to declare the Revolutionary guard a terrorist group?
 
Any candidate that says for certain they wouldn't be willing to defend American on antiwar principles is 100% unequivocally, unfit for office.
 
Superfreak said:
So if we bomb suspected terrorist sites in Iran, Iran wouldn't have a problem with it because we really wouldn't be invading them?

Before you answer... didn't Clinton (among many others) just vote to declare the Revolutionary guard a terrorist group?
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda attacked us.

Iran hasn't.
 
This is the problem with Democrats, they want to limit the war on terror to one guy in a cave, when Radical Islam is a far larger problem. They all have two top agendas, the destruction of America, and the Destruction of Israel. We kill one of them, one will take his place, we have to destroy the root causes of radical Islam, or we are simply playing a useless game of 'whack a mole'.
 
Damocles said:
Yet, if we find them hiding those who did it would be all okay with Iran because "limited forays" isn't invasion. Right? That's what I "learned" from Dungheap.
Click to expand...

That is correct. If you bomb terrorists going through a country, you really aren't bombing that country.
 
Damocles said:
Yet, if we find them hiding those who did it would be all okay with Iran because "limited forays" isn't invasion. Right? That's what I "learned" from Dungheap.
Click to expand...

Why should we attack an iranian paramilitary group that hasn't attacked us?

Do you realize the US government designates dozens of groups around the planet, as terrorist organizations?

We've deemed the basque separtists, and the tamil tigers as terrorist organizations....does that give us liscence to bomb Spain and Sri lankan hideouts of those groups?

Don't be ridiculous
 
Cypress said:
Why should we attack an iranian paramilitary group that hasn't attacked us?

Do you realize the US government designates dozens of groups around the planet, as terrorist organizations?

We've deemed the basque separtists, and the tamil tigers as terrorist organizations....does that give us liscence to bomb Spain and Sri lankan hideouts of those groups.

Don't be ridiculous
Click to expand...


WTF is this insanity on this thread, Iranians are in Iraq, training terrorists to Kill Americans, their ordinance is killing Americans.

You have to be kidding me... I truly fear for our future.
 
WRL said:
WTF is this insanity on this thread, Iranians are in Iraq, training terrorists to Kill Americans, their ordinance is killing Americans.

You have to be kidding me... I truly fear for our future.
Click to expand...

wrong as usual. The vast, overwhelming number of foreign fighters in iraq are from our "ally" saudi arabia, syria, and other arab countries. By our own military's admission, there's only ever been a tiny handful of iranian fighters captured in iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top