RNC Convention Thread

[DanS.]

Originally Posted by MintJulep

And that is exactly what Neville Chamberlin did.

Why are you being obtuse on purpose? You're not stupid. We already covered what Chamberlin did. This is just your way of skipping by what I said while at the same time trying to make it look like you responded.

[Comicsartist]

Originally Posted by MintJulep

The Munich Agreement

That wasn't diplomacy, that was a debacle. Czechoslovakia wasn't even invited to the meeting and it dealt with their land.

[DanS.]

Originally Posted by MintJulep

When was the last terrorist attack here? The date has slipped my mind.

Has it been 10 years like it was between the previous two excluding McVeigh?

[DanS.]

Originally Posted by winthrop

Why limit it to "here"? Because the lives of our "allies" have no meaning
to you?

yeah...terrorist attacks on US and western assets over seas has increased.

[Comicsartist]

Originally Posted by winthrop

Why limit it to "here"? Because the lives of our "allies" have no meaning
to you?

Amen!

There have been more terrorist attacks since 9-11 than ever before.

[RK77]

Originally Posted by MintJulep

The Munich Agreement

Sorry charlie.......

The Munich Agreement lead 6 months later to a military action.

That action did the damage.

Try again.......

[RK77]

Originally Posted by MintJulep

When was the last terrorist attack here? The date has slipped my mind.

August 31st, 2008. Orchestrated by the Bush administration against young unarmed students who were detained for no reason other than not liking Bush.

Purpose: to terrorize those who would protest the lying sacks of shit in minnesota.

If you don't like that one----I can give you others.

[Heretic]

Originally Posted by DRS112

I think you're confused. The Munich Agreement didn't cause a war or for people to die. Sometimes war is inevitable. But what you seem to believe is that the other two options shouldn't even be pursued.

Which is
1) diplomacy
2) No diplomacy but a "cold war" scenario.

R's seems to want to skip those two options and go straight to war.

Does diplomacy guarantee no war? No...but it decreases the likely hood of it. And because of that there is NO reason not to pursue it first.

The right wing need the threat of war and the "values" bullshit to have even half a chance. Were they left with nothing but REAL issues that matter the party would collapse utterly and their ring leaders lined before the wall for treason.

Originally Posted by MintJulep

When was the last terrorist attack here? The date has slipped my mind.

Since 09/11 occurred on Jr.'s watch despite advanced warning You've no room to comment on that. Because your boy, Jr. gave al-Qaeda what they most wanted TWICE, which is our military bogged down in two wars going badly, they've pleanty of access to Americans to kill. Your treasonous party has left us more vulnerable to terrorism now than before 09/11. Your party destroys our freedom and REAL american values from the inside while doing nothing to stop al-Qaeda from attacking from without.

[CosmicRocker]

so called "preventive wars" like Vietnam are doomed to failure.
It's just a sure receipe for a war.
It was supposed to stop the domino effect, which was a misreading of the nationalist impulses of Asia , joining Soviet Russia to encircle the west.

But there are times when an enemy,that will strike - like Al_Queda need to be delt with before they grow stronger.

The signs were all there for 9-11. we had the INTEl - it was just hung up in channels, and Bush chose not to listen.

You have to decide if the hostile power is a " clear and present danger".

If it is -then a strike can prevent a larger war.

If it's not, then you may just be feeding the dogs of war.


It's a fine line.

[Comicsartist]

A wonderful time - the War:
when money rolled in
and blood rolled out.

But blood
was far away
from here -

Money was near.

Langston Hughes