How would Dems thwart the Iranian threat?

[Maximus Zeebra]

If I remember correctly all these other countries attacked Iraq too.



Which would make all those countries as wrong as the U.S. so please if you're going to go splatter your Anti-American pro-European bullshit. Make sure half your continent isn't as involved in this war as the U.S. is.

Wow, lots of troops from Europe there, almost 10.000 troops. Thats about 1/15 of that of the US. I must admit then we are heavily involved, especially considering that 1(UK) of the 3(UK,FR,DE) most important EU states went in this war that turned out bad. And that number 4(spain) retreated after realizing France and Germany were right.
When will number 4 and 5 retreat(Poland and Italy)?

I fear Italy will never leave, they always side with aggressors, but Poland might leave in near future.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

If I remember correctly all these other countries attacked Iraq too.

No country except Italy, the UK, and Australia will follow you into Iran.. Maybe not even the UK will do that.

 

[Iriemon]

Selling guns is not an act of war. It's called business. You've made the wild assumption that selling weapons equals supporting. If you're going to make that claim you might as well claim that anybody who sells guns is supporting the people they're selling to.

That fits with the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." argument, doesn't it.

 

[Iriemon]

Well if I wanted to say that I would've said that. What I said was that they've shown a tendency to walk the line of what they can get away with politically, and I don't think that we'll see them just completely toss caution to the wind and lose track of where they are politically.

Hasn't dissuaded them in the past from misrepresenting things to achieve their agenda. I've seen no change in character to warrant my trust.

 

[Hatuey]

That fits with the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." argument, doesn't it.

Very much so.

 

[Hatuey]

Wow, lots of troops from Europe there, almost 10.000 troops. Thats about 1/15 of that of the US. I must admit then we are heavily involved, especially considering that 1(UK) of the 3(UK,FR,DE) most important EU states went in this war that turned out bad. And that number 4(spain) retreated after realizing France and Germany were right.
When will number 4 and 5 retreat(Poland and Italy)?

I fear Italy will never leave, they always side with aggressors, but Poland might leave in near future.

Look at the peak numbers. Not the current numbers to realize the actual involvement Europe has had in this war. How many times has Europe been attacked by islamic extremists without a single reaction? All you've done is negotiate and then wait to be bombed or have another hostage situation. Munich ring any bells?

 

[Inuyasha]

That fits with the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." argument, doesn't it.

Guns don't kill people but they sure do help and they are a bigger help than knives, swords or bows and arrows. But the truth is i prefer bombs...real big ones.:2razz:

 

[Red_Dave]

We all know, or we all should know that the Iranians pose a greater threat to worldwide peace (because of their nuclear capabilities) than Iraq does, and that Iran has been supplying Iraq with much of the insurgency through unprotected borders.

Lets take the onus off of George Bush's strategies of dealing with the Imajihadist of Iran for a moment, by speculating that Iran's dictator holds off pushing the nuclear button until February of 2009 when Hillary is fully ensconced as America's 44th president by occupying the suite at 1600 Penn Ave. Besides Hillary's annoitment as president--the Democrats will have secured the majority in Congress and the Senate respectively.

So I ask you Dems and liberals alike; what would be your strategy(s) (if any) in dealing with this 21st century bout with nuclear terrorism?

While not a classical liberal ild advocate fermenting the mullahs overthrow by there own people rather than a full scale invasion which would only encourage the iranian people to rally around there leadership.

 

[jamesrage]

We all know, or we all should know that the Iranians pose a greater threat to worldwide peace (because of their nuclear capabilities) than Iraq does, and that Iran has been supplying Iraq with much of the insurgency through unprotected borders.

Lets take the onus off of George Bush's strategies of dealing with the Imajihadist of Iran for a moment, by speculating that Iran's dictator holds off pushing the nuclear button until February of 2009 when Hillary is fully ensconced as America's 44th president by occupying the suite at 1600 Penn Ave. Besides Hillary's annoitment as president--the Democrats will have secured the majority in Congress and the Senate respectively.

So I ask you Dems and liberals alike; what would be your strategy(s) (if any) in dealing with this 21st century bout with nuclear terrorism?

I do not think the dems would do anything except try to appease the Iranians.

 

[Inuyasha]

I do not think the Democrats would do anything except try to appease the Iranians.

And what form would this appeasement take in you opinion?

 

[jamesrage]

And what form would this appeasement take in you opinion?

Bribes,caving into any of their demands or perhaps turning a blind eye while they annihilate a enemy of thiers in hopes they get rid of or don't use any WMDs.

 

[TheHarshTruth]

The Dems are no different that the Reps. They both will waiver on the issues giving money to their special interest groups for as long as they are allowed. As far as an Iranian threat. They'll both keep the threat going for as long as possible. It's just too easy and no sense passing up such opportunities.