Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

A typical democrat enemy lover

Comments

40 comments

  • dheffley
    quote:Originally posted by Aspen79se
    Diplomacy is the only way to address the other countries people flocking there. A country can't control what a private citizen does; regardless of how authoritarian its government. Bringing other countries on board to help stabilize Iraq would negate the need for the foreign fighters to go there. Unfortunately answerers for the problem are not black and white, nor are they easy. Will Poloski's trip solve anything? I doubt it. I even doubt it will effect Syria's perception of the US one way or the other. But, I could be wrong. We all could be wrong.


    The democrats style of diplomacy is to give the other country 100 billion of our tax money to buy them off from violence. That stops the up front support as long as we pay, but does nothing for the covert actions. History proves this ALWAYS happens.

    The republicans answer is to let the democrats do it, then blame them.

    Teddy said, "walk softly and carry a big stick", not "pay them off then blame each other."

    You have to be willing to fight the fight, and you have to let your adversary know you mean business. And, politicians who play partisan politics while American soldiers are in harms way are the lowest form of life on the planet. Even worse than the terrorist.
    0
  • newtgingrich
    A country has to have a single voice on foreign policy. America has always had that tradition. The day you start to have rogue members of congress making their own deals with foreign countries is the day you are headed for BIG trouble. What is Pelosi makes a deal or promises with Syria and then republicans win back the house and the presidency ? This would set a HORRIBLE precedent and is exactly the reason why foreign policy has to be conducted with a single voice, whether you agree with it or not
    0
  • Aspen79se
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    quote:Originally posted by Aspen79se
    Diplomacy is the only way to address the other countries people flocking there. A country can't control what a private citizen does; regardless of how authoritarian its government. Bringing other countries on board to help stabilize Iraq would negate the need for the foreign fighters to go there. Unfortunately answerers for the problem are not black and white, nor are they easy. Will Poloski's trip solve anything? I doubt it. I even doubt it will effect Syria's perception of the US one way or the other. But, I could be wrong. We all could be wrong.



    The democrats style of diplomacy is to give the other country 100 billion of our tax money to buy them off from violence. That stops the up front support as long as we pay, but does nothing for the covert actions. History proves this ALWAYS happens.

    The republicans answer is to let the democrats do it, then blame them.

    Teddy said, "walk softly and carry a big stick", not "pay them off then blame each other."

    You have to be willing to fight the fight, and you have to let your adversary know you mean business. And, politicians who play partisan politics while American soldiers are in harms way are the lowest form of life on the planet. Even worse than the terrorist.


    True, but you have to make compromises in international dealings; like it or not. Depending on what exactly the compromises are, they may be worth making if it gets the troops out. That would allow the US to rebuild the military and refocus its energy on Bin Laden in Afganistan. Which would be a better use of resources.
    0
  • dheffley
    No compromises! Do you want a government that compromises you in times of war?

    Compromises are for issues like import/export issues and such.
    0
  • nemesisenforcer
    poor, pathetic, deluded hag. She probably hopes that she'll be eaten last by the crocodile.
    0
  • Aspen79se
    quote:Originally posted by dheffley
    No compromises! Do you want a government that compromises you in times of war?


    What do you think a treaty is? It's a compromise on terms between contries so that both end up getting something of what they want. This is how the international community works.

    Again, we are not at war with Syria. And, Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. So, who are we at war with? Is this about the "War on Terrorism"? If it is, the turnout will be the same as "The War on.." (Drugs, homelessness, or whatever abstact idea we've declared war on).
    0
  • dheffley
    No, a treaty is an agreement, not a compromise. You can make compromises in a treaty, but that makes for a bad treaty.

    We are at war. Ask any soldier stationed in Iraq or Afganistan.
    0
  • kristov
    What we need in that highly sensitve area of the world is a foreign leader that we can trust to protect American interests. This should be a fellow who runs a secular government and is not in league with the radical forces of Islam. He should also have full control of his own country and if it means taking a hard line against those who might speak out against him we could look the other way since it is in our best interests to do so. I have heard about a fellow named Saddam who seems to have all of those qualities and while getting buddy buddy with him may not seem pleasent, in the long run it can't possibly have a bad effect on the United States. Let's send a couple of good Republicans from the Reagan administration over to find him and chat and while they are there they might as well sell him a few hundred million dollars in arms.
    0
  • TooBig
    All the Dems can do is talk and if talking worked like they think the Middle East would be the safest Place on earth. That's all the Dems have done is talk and the terroist grow bolder. Maybe she should stay over and talk talk talk all she wants they will just sit and listen and laugh at her. Dems the best friends the terroist ever had.
    0
  • sig232
    Danny Said: Because we are at war and have Americans in harms way of the very people Syria supports and arms. I don't care if you are republican or democrat, you don't snuggle with the enemy. Pelosi is a puke who wants to play partisan politics with one thing in mind, and that is to discredit Bush. The problem is, she's willing to hurt her own country to do it. She should be hanged.

    I think the hanging idea has some real merit![:0][:0]
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?