Bostonmaggie: McCain: Tolerance

Saturday, April 05, 2008

McCain: Tolerance

8 comments:

Vigilante said...: A worthy and noble statement. I can agree that McCain represents a step back from 'movement conservatism' from Busheney's apostasy. In theory he does. In image he does (the so-called maverick). But in fact, McCain was an original and unabashed cheerleader for the unprovoked attack on Iraq, the single most egregious error and ignoble and costly misadventure in the history of American foreign policy. For that, as a presidential candidate, he is an unthinkable option for Americans.; 05 April, 2008 13:02
BostonMaggie said...: Please defend unprovoked.

What do you do with an aggressive nation that does not honor the terms of a cessation of hostilities?

What do you do with a nation that ignores 17 UN sanctions?

What is the point of the UN having sanctions if there is nothing to back up their terms?

How long do you wait when it is made clear to you
*here I site the Duelfer Report
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
that sanctions are not working and very shortly there will be nothing to stop an aggressive arms build-up by a rogue leader who has previously demonstrated his hostile intentions?

The world in general and Iraq in specific are better off today then before we went into Iraq.

McCain would have done a better job of it, but it still needed to be done.; 05 April, 2008 13:31
Vigilante said...: Please defend unprovoked.

Sorry, I asked you first in a previous thread.

What do you do with an aggressive nation that does not honor the terms of a cessation of hostilities? ... What do you do with a nation that ignores 17 UN sanctions?

Aggressive nation? Iraq was blockaded through the 1990's to 2003. About observation on UN: you count the UNSC resolutions against Israel. (I don't have time.)

How long do you wait when it is made clear to you
*here I site the Duelfer Report that sanctions are not working and very shortly there will be nothing to stop an aggressive arms build-up by a rogue leader who has previously demonstrated his hostile intentions?

If the Iraqis were such a problem how about bombing the fucking shit out of them? It certainly worked in Serbia, didn't it?

The world in general and Iraq in specific are better off today then before we went into Iraq.

What planet are you on?

Is the USA better off?

Is Iraq Better off?

Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam, Says Former Weapons Inspector

The world would be better off with Osama's head instead of Saddam's. Busheney and McCain didn't get their priorities straight. They still don't. And neither do you, obviously.; 05 April, 2008 15:02
Vigilante said...: Take your comment moderation off. It's unnecessary, time-consuming, and kills spontaneity.; 05 April, 2008 15:03
BostonMaggie said...: The UN has it's uses, however it is largely an anti-semitic body. Therefore their opinion of Israel is tainted. Israel is fighting for their existence. Iraq was not.

We did not bomb them like Serbia because that would not have worked. Different situations require different tactics. I find that fact that you brought up Serbia very interesting. That said, however, I am glad that we didn't bomb "the fucking shit" out of Iraq. The fact that DoD undertook this mission with a eye toward minimizing civilian casualties matters to me greatly.

Your last link cites Hans Blix - zero credibility.; 05 April, 2008 15:33
BostonMaggie said...: Sorry you feel that way about the comment moderation, but it stays.

It isn't to moderate you.; 05 April, 2008 15:36
Vigilante said...: You're definitely a 'high maintenance' chick.; 05 April, 2008 15:41
BostonMaggie said...: lol, you don't know the half of it baby!; 05 April, 2008 15:59

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)