Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Axis? Your choice of words is quite telling. Do you call cooperation between Iran, Syria and the obama administration an alliance?Social democrat, please. So are you another one who thinks there has not been a Saudi, Israel and US axis for years?Hillaryous, coming from a Liberal idjut.
When the US starts supplying weaponry to Iran and Syria I will call that an alliance.Axis? Your choice of words is quite telling. Do you call cooperation between Iran, Syria and the obama administration an alliance?
When the US starts supplying weaponry to Iran and Syria I will call that an alliance.Axis? Your choice of words is quite telling. Do you call cooperation between Iran, Syria and the obama administration an alliance?
Looks like you have to deny reality when it stares you in the face. Oh well.
With dictators? Well that is a grand old American tradition.Should we honor alliances? Obama doesn't think so
It's not about the oil its about the idea that we have a right to unilaterally attack Iran, their oil fields or otherwise. We dont, even the ignoramus (GW) understood that we need coalitions. The coalition on Iran is against us. That's also why Bush inserted us in the negotiations in the first place.I thought we didn't need their oil, since Obozo is switching us to green energy to fight global cooling.You don't seem qualified to identify sane and logical actions. This is particularly evidenced by your "taking out their oil fields" comment. Do your parents know you are on the internet?So the alternative to doing something sane and logical is to do what you think. Right. Iran is a modern country that can be brought into submission to a civilized world through sanctions. We don't have to bargin with supporters of terrorism. We have the power to tell them to f..k off and if they don't like it then we will just start taking out their oil fields. If these islamo radical countries want to live in the 15th century so be it but we are not going to allow them to have any influence in a modern world. They have already stated that they will continue to support terrorism and once they get their 120 billion they will go on a military build up. For what reason, if what you say is true they have no enemies that are going to attack them.
If you wish to be a modern Neville Chamberlain then so be it. I perfer not to have to worry about a suitcase nuke.
It's not about the oil its about the idea that we have a right to unilaterally attack Iran, their oil fields or otherwise. We dont, even the ignoramus (GW) understood that we need coalitions. The coalition on Iran is against us. That's also why Bush inserted us in the negotiations in the first place.I thought we didn't need their oil, since Obozo is switching us to green energy to fight global cooling.You don't seem qualified to identify sane and logical actions. This is particularly evidenced by your "taking out their oil fields" comment. Do your parents know you are on the internet?So the alternative to doing something sane and logical is to do what you think. Right. Iran is a modern country that can be brought into submission to a civilized world through sanctions. We don't have to bargin with supporters of terrorism. We have the power to tell them to f..k off and if they don't like it then we will just start taking out their oil fields. If these islamo radical countries want to live in the 15th century so be it but we are not going to allow them to have any influence in a modern world. They have already stated that they will continue to support terrorism and once they get their 120 billion they will go on a military build up. For what reason, if what you say is true they have no enemies that are going to attack them.
If you wish to be a modern Neville Chamberlain then so be it. I perfer not to have to worry about a suitcase nuke.
Is that under the UN Charter or the Nuremberg Principles?um no genius. we absolutely have a right to attack iran to protect our interests, either unilaterally or otherwise
It means they think you are batshit crazy."the coalition on iran is against us...."?????????????????????????
what does this even mean???
So does that mean Obozo is going to let them join the illegals and dead folks in voting in our next election???It means they think you are batshit crazy."the coalition on iran is against us...."?????????????????????????
what does this even mean???
Why would you say that?Obama is "in charge of the deal". That's why there's no deal.
Go sleep it off, you insolent drunkard.
And you. Why would you say something so ignorant?There is no deal. It is a farce and yet another Obama deception.If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.
Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"
This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.
Republicans needed a hero. In the 90's, they started the "Ronald Reagan Legacy Project". Republicans involved simply rewrote history. They turned Reagan into something he wasn't. His has been the only right wing president not involved in some major scandal or some awful fiasco, so he was the only one they could "use".I still can't understand why the majority of Reps like Reagan so much. He was just a living vegetable who didn't understand what was happening around him. And it's not he had done anything worthwhile during his presidency.
Not like he sold weapons to finance death squads or anything.His has been the only right wing president not involved in some major scandal or some awful fiasco, so he was the only one they could "use".
