It is the type of bomb they wanted upgraded and the "urgent" nature. And if you do not think they want it for Iran, I have some Obama approved oil leases I can sell you.
It is the type of bomb they wanted upgraded and the "urgent" nature. And if you do not think they want it for Iran, I have some Obama approved oil leases I can sell you.
Oh, I'm right there in the "expecting war" camp with you and the Air Force and Aunt Mable's cousin's housecat. I fully expect it by 2014 at the absolute latest, regardless of who is in office. If (when) Obama gets reelected, then it will be go time. I've been saying that for a long time now. Expecting it and thinking it's unnecessary are not mutually exclusive. I expect politicians, both democrats and republicans, to spew this stuff. It just unsettles me when people eat it up with a spoon and cheer them on.
Ah, and I bet a nickle SMOD could have yelled "Who wants me to start a new war?" at ORU yesterday and got a standing ovation from 4,000 people.
Pretty sure he knows what they want it for.
Oh, I'm right there in the "expecting war" camp with you and the Air Force and Aunt Mable's cousin's housecat. I fully expect it by 2014 at the absolute latest, regardless of who is in office. If (when) Obama gets reelected, then it will be go time. I've been saying that for a long time now. Expecting it and thinking it's unnecessary are not mutually exclusive. I expect politicians, both democrats and republicans, to spew this stuff. It just unsettles me when people eat it up with a spoon and cheer them on.
Ah, and I bet a nickle SMOD could have yelled "Who wants me to start a new war?" at ORU yesterday and got a standing ovation from 4,000 people.
Pretty sure he knows what they want it for.
I really, really doubt that.
Well that's real depressing since even the most ardent proponents of bombing Iran admit that it won't stop them from acquiring a nuclear weapon IF they are intent on it.
The best case scenario is it might delay them for 2-3 years.
And then what Rick?
We go back to bombing them some more?
The neocons will then say we have to put boots on the ground and occupy the country because that's the only way to permanently prevent them from rebuilding.
Like I said, we've all heard this song and dance before.
And we have all heard the do nothing song and dance before. It always ends up with us still having to bomb or put boots on the ground. Only difference is the other country has time to get even stronger and it cost us more money and American lives.
The first half may be true, but the second half - not so much.
I don't always agree with Ridgehunter or Hobbes, but on this topic I can't say anymore than they already have. I'm completely on the same page.
I think it is true and Iraq is a good example. If Bush had sent in the troops to start following a heavy series of airstrikes instead of screwing around with the UN, the whole thing would have been over much sooner. Or better yet Bush 1 or even Clinton had done the job and removed Saddam. Instead they screwed around trying to appease everybody and in the long run it cost more American lives and money. That does not even take into account the lives of all the Iraqis lost in both wars and during the UN sanctions. Estimates by outside sources put the number of children under 5 who died because of the sanctions between 350,000 and over 500,000.
I don't want to hijack this thread or risk retribution from a moderator - Therefore, would someone send me a PM to elaborate on this thought?
I'm a cradle Catholic and have lived in Oklahoma most of my life. I have never heard this before and have not experienced any prejudice. I'm just curious and won't be offended by anyone's comment.
And the 3 of us are on the same page as nearly every paleoconsevative in America.
It's the *!$@#@ neoconservatives again. They never saw a mid-east war they didn't like.
They don't like paying for them though. They borrow the money to finance their wars.
Every war ever fought has been on borrowed money.
