Israel About to Go Nuclear, Iran to Re-enter Stone Age

[drstevej]

Leibowitz's Canticle
Israel About to Go Nuclear, Iran to Re-enter Stone Age

Netanyahu has said he will strike Iran before the US elections. And he is not a big fan of BHO. Could the strike come during the Democratic convention. What better way to thumb his nose at BHO and his tepid support for Israel.

We live in a dangerous world. Too dangerous to have a rookie as Commander in Chief.

 

[variant]

Leibowitz's Canticle
Israel About to Go Nuclear, Iran to Re-enter Stone Age

Netanyahu has said he will strike Iran before the US elections. And he is not a big fan of BHO. Could the strike come during the Democratic convention. What better way to thumb his nose at BHO and his tepid support for Israel.

We live in a dangerous world. Too dangerous to have a rookie as Commander in Chief.

You know that Romney is the rookie here right?

 

[drstevej]

You know that Romney is the rookie here right?

Nah. He has the respect of the military.

 

[variant]

Nah. He has the respect of the military.

This one is pretty easy.

Rank the major candidates in terms of experience as the commander in chief.

1. Obama
2. Romney <- Rookie.

It's not my fault that you made an argument to have Obama win the election.

 

[drstevej]

This one is pretty easy.

Rank the major candidates in terms of experience as the commander in chief.

1. Obama
2. Romney <- Rookie.

It's not my fault that you made an argument to have Obama win the election.

 

[variant]

...

It's funny that you can't even take your own thread seriously.

(and that your best argument so far was against a Romney Presidency.)

 

[drstevej]

I take the thread a seriously as I take the respondents.

 

[EddyMabo]

I take the thread a seriously as I take the respondents.

You shouldn't take your source very seriously and Obama's support of Israel is no less than other Presidents before him.

 

[morningstar2651]

 

[drstevej]

Obama's support of Israel is no less than other Presidents before him.

You're kidding?

 

[variant]

I take the thread a seriously as I take the respondents.

I'd say you are doing a poor job at both.

What with how you posted a very probably wrong source and used it to support Barrack Obama.

 

[EddyMabo]

You're kidding?

Remind us all again how Obama stopped the annual billion in tax payer dollars and forced Israel to conform to at least some international laws and withdraw from territory.

Oh none of that happened? Well I'll be.

 

[JustMeSee]

Pitiful attempt at a thread.
Israel is not going to nuke Iran.

 

[SharonL]

You know Clint Eastwood was really right on talking to an invisible president - people only see what they want to see in him.

 

[sk8Joyful]

I'd say you are doing a poor job at both.

What with how you posted a very probably wrong source
and used it to support Barrack Obama.

Please help the audience understand:

This is your 4th put-down of the OP. -
How does that positively encourage Dialogue?

Are you saying that only democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, & other related ists are welcome here? - No Constitutionalists, Republicans, Conservatives are welcome here?
When
did repeated put-downs, to ridicule , intimidate , & silence the latter here, become okay??

is not this Political section, supposedly, available... for
everyone? to state their perspectives, experiences, beliefs, & opinions.
.

 

[variant]

Please help the audience understand:

This is your 4th put-down of the OP. -
How does that positively encourage Dialogue?

What positive dialog should I encourage with someone who posts that Israel is about to unleash nuclear war and then unwittingly trashes his own candidate?

What positive dialog did the thread encourage? maybe you should ask yourself that.

Are you saying that only democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, & other related ists are welcome here? - No Constitutionalists, Republicans, Conservatives are welcome here?
When
did repeated put-downs, to ridicule , intimidate , & silence the latter here, become okay??

is not this Political section, supposedly, available... for
everyone? to state their perspectives, experiences, beliefs, & opinions.
.

You can hold differing opinions than me, just don't expect me not to ridicule you when you post junk and make horrible arguments.

If you want to have a better debate, have a better debate!

I don't govern who posts here and you do not govern my tone.

Should I be more "politically correct" for your delicate sensibilities?

 

[variant]

You know Clint Eastwood was really right on talking to an invisible president - people only see what they want to see in him.

I would say debating and ridiculing an empty chair is the height of pompousness.

 

[Crandaddy]

I can see no reason to believe that Iran poses any serious threat--certainly not to the US, but not even to Israel. If they tried anything, they would be wiped off the map. I don't believe that Ahmadinejad is that crazy.

Iran is just Iraq all over again.

We're being lied to.

 

[variant]

I can see no reason to believe that Iran poses any serious threat--certainly not to the US, but not even to Israel. If they tried anything, they would be wiped off the map. I don't believe that Ahmadinejad is that crazy.

Iran is just Iraq all over again.

We're being lied to.

Iraq did not posses nuclear weapons and was invaded.

North Korea did posses nuclear weapons and they get talks, aid and food.

Libya did not poses nuclear weapons and was invaded.

It is appropriate that Iran should seek to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Iraq did not posses nuclear weapons and was invaded.

So Iraq did not possess WMD, you say?

North Korea did posses nuclear weapons and they get talks, aid and food.

So what did Obama do to defuse North Korea's danger??,
besides "talks, aid and food."

Libya did not poses nuclear weapons and was invaded.

So Libya does not either possess WMD, you say?

It is appropriate that Iran should seek to develop nuclear weapons.

in your own opinion?

Appropriate: Nuclear-energy for its own citizens, maybe.

Appropriate: Nuclear weapons to "Annihilate Israel" as Iran threatened doing for decades, NO.
so
Why do you think it is "Appropriate" ? for Israel to be annihilated?

Also since THIS thread is about
"Israel About to Go Nuclear, Iran to Re-enter Stone Age"
maybe
other countries should be discussed in another thread? -

Just asking, as often unrelated comments are 'judged'
in the same thread as okay, while others are not. - How are we to know what's what?