Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Netanyahu makes stunning speech to Congress


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

So who in the State Department wants to see US troops shooting Muslims and Negroes on Al Jazeera and the cover of The New York Times? let's see a show of hands. nobody? That's why..

 

WSS

 

Nobody wants to see the loss of life at the hands of US troops but when you look at the example of Rwanda, Darfur and even Kosovo being reactive is not the best plan. The hesitation to conflict isn't simply a State Department issue, when it comes to military action everyone on Capitol Hill wants their own agenda to be supported as we are seeing with the call to action against the Islamic State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

There is no genocide happening in Israel. There is a ground and air war between two factions, Israel has proven time and again they are quite capable of defending themselves. For the populus to call for declarations of support for a country that doesn't need it while ignoring the Boko Haram situation in Africa speaks volumes to what type of foreign policy our citizens truly care about.

 

so what exactly do "our citizens" truly care about? Boehner and crew slap the potus in the chops with an end around showing - of how the right wing does politics.... Netanayhu included

 

and then follows up with a limp dick on DHS funding... sigh

 

but foreign policy? seriously have you been waiting tooo long? lines, big stick? jv team? no?

 

so yo lefty - get back to us in 2016 - then the conservatives will put the balls back in the WH and the Iranian mullahs will go screaming back into the dunes with their asses on fire...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

so what exactly do "our citizens" truly care about? Boehner and crew slap the potus in the chops with an end around showing - of how the right wing does politics.... Netanayhu included

 

and then follows up with a limp dick on DHS funding... sigh

 

but foreign policy? seriously have you been waiting tooo long? lines, big stick? jv team? no?

 

so yo lefty - get back to us in 2016 - then the conservatives will put the balls back in the WH and the Iranian mullahs will go screaming back into the dunes with their asses on fire...

 

 

Back to the boxes again.

 

Our citizens care about the foreign policy Fox News and CNN sell them, typically fueled by pundits looking to make sure we know who we should be scared of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Back to the boxes again.

 

Our citizens care about the foreign policy Fox News and CNN sell them, typically fueled by pundits looking to make sure we know who we should be scared of.

 

 

maybe in your world - the media is your oyster....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we're back to dissing REAGAN?

 

with no discussion of Obamao and his using the IRS, the FBI/HOLDER INJustice dept, OSHA,

the EPA, the BLM, and the BATF as political weapons....

 

and trading 5 sicko terrorists for a deserter ??????, and "Fast and Furious", Lerner Emailgate,

etc etc etc etc...

 

and we have to diss Bush and Reagan? sad. Reminder ..... ObaMao has been president for SIX FREAKING

YEARS.

 

The arms for hostages to iran? no political advantage, paid a political price for doing the right thing.

 

Obamao is too corrupt to do that, ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The best part of this is the irony. I really hope you are 25 because if you are old enough to remember Reagan you'd remember his administration illegally sold arms to Iran....haha thanks for the laugh

 

 

well I was about that back in 85 during that famous "scandal" Iran-Contra sale of arms to Iran moderates ( heres your clue and please pay attention)

 

It wasnt to the ayatollah..... but factions to overthrow the wacked mullah dont piss off Oliver North with mishandling the facts....

 

Note the date, 1985, the hostages were in Lebanon. money to go to fund contra rebels in Nicaragua...

 

in the scale of such "scandals" compared to the Total mishandling of the situation now in the ME,

 

the irony is how a corrupt scandal ridden administration goes on in its ineptitude foriegn policy and calls itself

 

capable of negotiating a nuclear deal with the mullahs. yea right. your veiled allegiance to Barry is admirable though lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, FairHooker brought Reagan into it and coupled it with the picture of the Ayatollah. Bacon just responded.

 

and bacon needs to also know that it was during Reagans inaugral in 1981 when suddenly the hostages held

in Iran were released ... hmmm coincidence?

 

go back through the Carter years, cal can tell you that too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

compared to what we got as leadership in WH

 

give me a Ronald Reagan conservative type in 2016, otherwise

 

as the last chance this country will EVER have to correct its course

 

but dont let that piss you dissenters off too much coming from a tea party conservative as myself

 

when all is said and done looking back 10 years from now- if we even get that,

 

this was a warning that went unheeded by the now wholely progressive corrupt

 

politicians on both sides of the aisle, and the low info / useful idiots / wheres my free shit voting block gets...

 

that means you too woody :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • REGISTERED
  • bullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.png
  • 947 posts

Posted Today, 09:42 PM

Is it just me but the post 9/11 mantra has been, "the US will not negotiate with terrorists". Not only did the Reagan administration negotiate, they illegally circumvented Congress to bribe them.bacon

*****************************************************************

seriously? Go look it up....check the years Reagan was president, then go look up

what year 9/11 happened..... and then quietly and serenely wonder how idiotic your post is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • REGISTERED
  • bullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.png
  • 947 posts

Posted Today, 09:42 PM

Is it just me but the post 9/11 mantra has been, "the US will not negotiate with terrorists". Not only did the Reagan administration negotiate, they illegally circumvented Congress to bribe them.bacon

*****************************************************************

seriously? Go look it up....check the years Reagan was president, then go look up

what year 9/11 happened..... and then quietly and serenely wonder how idiotic your post is.

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your take on the claim that the arms sales were to a moderate faction in Iran more sympathetic to the US?

 

WSS

 

 

Also Congress eventually reversed the decision about funding the Contras.

Which should mitigate any anger over pardons. no?

WSS

 

I think the sale of arms to Iran facilitated a better relationship with a more US friendly as well has the transfer of US hostages.

 

That really isn't my point. My point has always been the context by which we evaluate our leaders and there is a skew that seems to be very pervasive in this forum. A President who facilitated the sale of arms to a terrorist state, against the will of the US Government, while lying to the US people is deified and a Presidential candidate is being vilified for using a personal e-mail account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bacon is just another lib who won't talk about Obamao scandals...etc.

 

Really boring. As in, just another bit of political crap thrown against the wall,

to hide the fact, that

 

Obamao/hillary have been covering up the Benghazi scandal desperately....

 

and, Obamao didn't send arms for hostages, he traded FIVE TOP VICIOUS TERRORISTS

OUT OF GITMO FOR>>> a deserter.

 

But bacon won't talk about that. Personally, I didn't have a problem with Iran contra. It's giving

comfort and support to terrorists groups, and trying for a "treaty" with Iran while excluding Congress

like, again, a stupid ass marxist dicktater.

 

That bothers me. And working, hook and crook, to weaken our 2nd Amendment. And any "agreement" would

be stupidass with Iran, because they will take the goods they receive, and just go underground, with

accelerated vigor, with their nuke plans, exactly like the soviets did, with the treaty that barred the

development of offensive bio weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. The lefties still love that Jane Traitor bitch Fonda laughed while

posing on a viet cong anti aircraft gun.

 

And they cheered Pelosi when she defied the Bush admin, and went and

personally met with Assad.

 

Oh, and the Kennedy thing. Really, Bacon? gripe on this:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/11/while-dems-are-complaining-about-gop-senators-letter-to-iran-guess-what-ted-kennedy-did-in-1983/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it was the cowardice of the Iraq soldiers in the south, that bolted

and ran for cover, that ditched it all.

 

Not ready, Obamao made sure of that.

so after the the results of our Iraqi War games, why do you think the U.S. will have any measurable success here? What is the U.S. Middle East Track record? Grim at best?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bacon is just another lib who won't talk about Obamao scandals...etc.

 

Really boring. As in, just another bit of political crap thrown against the wall,

to hide the fact, that

 

Obamao/hillary have been covering up the Benghazi scandal desperately....

 

and, Obamao didn't send arms for hostages, he traded FIVE TOP VICIOUS TERRORISTS

OUT OF GITMO FOR>>> a deserter.

 

But bacon won't talk about that. Personally, I didn't have a problem with Iran contra. It's giving

comfort and support to terrorists groups, and trying for a "treaty" with Iran while excluding Congress

like, again, a stupid ass marxist dicktater.

 

That bothers me. And working, hook and crook, to weaken our 2nd Amendment. And any "agreement" would

be stupidass with Iran, because they will take the goods they receive, and just go underground, with

accelerated vigor, with their nuke plans, exactly like the soviets did, with the treaty that barred the

development of offensive bio weapons.

 

 

I'm more than willing to discuss any action for which President Obama or his cabinet have been indicted by a grand jury, tried and convicted.

 

If you want to discuss Benghazi for which no indictments came out but I'm probably guessing that you are simply going to say that it's a Democrat Liberal Conspiracy cause that's easier than arguing with actual facts.

 

BTW the current President had enemy #1 Osama Bin Laden killed on his watch without trading anything to terrorists.

 

And as a side note the bolded statement above is exactly what the Reagan Administration did during Iran-Contra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A country isn't a "terrorist group". And, why spout off about Reagan or Bush, then, since

they were never "indicted and tried and convicted".

 

As usual, your own criteria is rife with hypocrisy. And, learn some stuff about that bin laden raid. The wheels

were set into motion for months by Bush, long before Obamao was ever elected, he put the works into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54247.html

 

But go ahead, as usual, you libs bitched and bitched and bitched that stupid

Bush should never have concentrated on just a meaningless figurehead - that

bin laden wasn't the problem.

 

Yeah, and now gloat that bin laden was wiped out after obamao was pres.

 

hypocritical idiots. Liberalism is a mental disorder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A country isn't a "terrorist group". And, why spout off about Reagan or Bush, then, since

they were never "indicted and tried and convicted".

 

As usual, your own criteria is rife with hypocrisy. And, learn some stuff about that bin laden raid. The wheels

were set into motion for months by Bush, long before Obamao was ever elected, he put the works into pla

 

The arms were meant to appease a "moderate" faction within Ayatollah's regime, so I guess we can take that for what it's worth.

 

I mentioned their administrations, not them personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54247.html

 

But go ahead, as usual, you libs bitched and bitched and bitched that stupid

Bush should never have concentrated on just a meaningless figurehead - that

bin laden wasn't the problem.

 

Yeah, and now gloat that bin laden was wiped out after obamao was pres.

 

hypocritical idiots. Liberalism is a mental disorder

 

For probably the last time. I have yet to attempt to paint you into a descriptive box so I'd appreciate the same consideration.

 

I did not name Bin Laden as enemy #1 I just think that for a solid 5 years, at minimum, public perception was that way.

 

Post 9/11 I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and was probably wrong but like most 25 year old Americans my anger got the best of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so after the the results of our Iraqi War games, why do you think the U.S. will have any measurable success here? What is the U.S. Middle East Track record? Grim at best?

We have the best trained fighters in the world. They are hamstrung with bullshit ROE and not allowed to do what we trained them to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me but the post 9/11 mantra has been, "the US will not negotiate with terrorists". Not only did the Reagan administration negotiate, they illegally circumvented Congress to bribe them.

Don't blane Reagan. He was senile. Nancy was calling the shots using tarot cards, that is when she was not giving blowjobs to visiting celebs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...