25 Jun 09
I just think whether Liberal or Conservative when a country is threatening with launches of missiles and whatever you can't just sit back. You have to do something. I don't think you can negotiate with the leader of N.K. because He's a nut. I think it will only embolden N.K. to act more aggressively with it's neighbors. Japan & S.K. which mind you is on the same peninsula.
Manny
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI was responding to what you define as Obama's "balls" or possible lack thereof. Your definition of "political balls" appears to be rooted in resort to violence. I think Obama has already shown some impressive "political balls" by opening dialogues with U.S. 'enemies', especially in a pro-violence and "manliness" political culture, in which people like you are a vocal constituents. I think, indeed, it may be you that keeps changing the topic to: 'insult FMF'.
thats another thread.Stop going around hi-jacking threads and changing the subject matter
25 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71I don't have a horse in this race. But the footage of burnt out helicopters being attributed directly to your president by constant juxtoposition was a case of disengenuous TV 'reality shaping' at is worst.
LOL well if you mean you can't blame Jimmy Carter for the disaster with the helicopters I agree. They were U.S. Military. At least he tried something.
The suspicion that Reagan's people might have negotiated to prolong the U.S. embassy staff's ordeal for domestic U.S. political reasons appears to have been too painful for mainstream American's to countenance. Odd that. But, yeah - stick with the crashed helicopters. That was awesomely bad. What a wusie Carter was, eh?
25 Jun 09
I agree you try diplomatic avenues but in some cases that breaks down. Look at history.I guess we can give Obama that chance but I just don't see it. Do you think Hitler was going to be negotiated with? I do think a strong military is the only way to keep your enemies saying "not to day" If some nations don't stand up to N.K. then what is the alternative?
Manny
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by menace71we went through this the other day where many of the left wing posters were trying to convince me the U.S. does not need a strong military to keep enemies at bay.i beg to differ
I agree you try diplomatic avenues but in some cases that breaks down. Look at history.I guess we can give Obama that chance but I just don't see it. Do you think Hitler was going to be negotiated with? I do think a strong military is the only way to keep your enemies saying "not to day" If some nations don't stand up to N.K. then what is the alternative?
Manny
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFYes and the media is the same today.They spin it the way they want it. I have to at least agree it was not Jimmy's fault. There is always conspiracy but our there solid facts on this? Honestly I need to look at that bit of history closer. I don't think Reagan was perfect by any means.
I don't have a horse in this race. But the footage of burnt out helicopters being attributed directly to your president by constant juxtoposition was a case of disengenuous TV 'reality shaping' at is worst.
The suspicion that Reagan's people might have negotiated to prolong the U.S. embassy staff's ordeal for domestic U.S. political reasons appears to have be ...[text shortened]... with the crashed helicopters. That was awesomely bad. What a wusie Carter was, eh?
Manny
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell like it or not force is what kept Western Europe free for many years. The Soviet Union would have rolled over Wester Europe no problem.
we went through this the other day where many of the left wing posters were trying to convince me the U.S. does not need a strong military to keep enemies at bay.i beg to differ
Manny
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by menace71Well, picking up the Hitler ball you brought with you, and running with it, maybe North Korea is going to invade mainland Asia and its armies will reach the gates of Europe and Africa before being stricken by those eastern European winters and endemic African corruption, and then turned back by the freshly tumescent armies marshalled by whoever replaces Barak Obama. Something like that?
If some nations don't stand up to N.K. then what is the alternative?
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by menace71It had no plans to. The archives were opened after 50 years and especially after the fall of wretched communism. For me history gets updated when new facts come to light. Some people settle for the Cold War version of history. The U.S.S.R. had the buffer zone it required. Them "rolling over Western Europe" was all about justifying very serious wealth redistribution back in America (and elsewhere) right there in the key, under the basket, where manufacturers, the pentagon, retired generals and on-the-payroll legislators play their never ending pick up games.
The Soviet Union would have rolled over Wester Europe no problem.
25 Jun 09
Well N.K. invaded S.K. before so why not again? I think if dude in N.K. had the chance he would indeed invade S.K. The South of Korea is where most of that countries agriculture comes from. N.K. is starving so invade why not? Yeah LOL the Hitler ball was a bit much. LOL 😉 The Hitler ball!
Manny