barack the house
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 06:41 AM
Original message |
OK so Hillary is prepared to Nuke Iran, so what else could we get |
|
Edited on Fri Apr-25-08 06:54 AM by barack the house
mean, think of each one of us here, on the board. I don't feel in good conscience we would nuke a nation. With good logic, we know Iran wouldn't sacrifice their econimic growth and oil to nuke Israel, so that one has no credibility. So, with good conscience we woudn't wipe out millions of human life, just because one time an Iranian leader was misquoted. Just as much, as we wouldn't expect the same in return for hillary's remark on nuking. But, what else will we get from her potential presidency, we know now of stories of tagging things like passports and licences they can track us from space(reported on Jeff Farias in the last 2 days). Sen. Obama as a constitutional law graduate respects, and honors Americans privacy, he voted to protect us, in immunity against telecom companies. Fundamentally, I personally feel we are safer under Senator Obama than Senator Clinton.
It's the constitution, cupid. In love of the document that is America.
|
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 06:54 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't need a Democratic Candidate beating their chest and talking about |
|
obliterating any country.
|
barack the house
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Just on its face value it demeans the Democratic party who have a great diplomacy record worldwide |
|
Edited on Fri Apr-25-08 07:01 AM by barack the house
since Carter. Our words should be measured in world affairs in order not to create tensions that wre never there initially.
|
MyNameGoesHere
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 07:03 AM
Response to Original message |
3. hey if they are both on the ticket then we can nuke Iran and invade Pakistan too. |
|
I mean your candidate, who espouses unity, hope and change would go uninvited into other countries following those bad bad turrists.
|
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. We already have been doing that in Pakistan. |
|
And isn't Pakistan where Al qaeda is?
I don't need any obliterating talk. She talks like we're in a new Cold War.
|
MyNameGoesHere
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Sure the candidate of hope, change, and unity |
|
will continue the policy of invading sovereign nations, just like * I say we go for it, a nuker and a invader on the same ticket.
|
bronxiteforever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 07:17 AM
Response to Original message |
6. The one guide we have for Clinton's foriegn policy is the Iraq War vote |
|
In the House 61% of Democratic Reps voted against it In the House 42% of Democratic Senators voted against it Clinton voted for it
|
harun
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 07:21 AM
Response to Original message |
7. A HRC presidency would get us GW'rs 3rd term, same as McCain (n/t) |
aquarius dawning
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-25-08 07:28 AM
Response to Original message |
8. There's no need to nuke Iran. |
|
Conventional weapons would work just fine. At the same time, the use of nuclear weapons is, unfortunately, an event that any President needs to be aware of and prepared for. I don't doubt for a second that Obama is just as prepared to use these weapons in certain circumstances as was every President before him since FDR. Any Presidential candidate that is not prepared for such a thing probably doesn't need to hold the office.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 08:42 AM
Response to Original message |