Biden to Iran: US will talk, but is ready to act [Archive] - Debate Policy

Yurt

02-07-2009, 08:08 PM

Biden to Iran: US will talk, but is ready to act

MUNICH – Vice President Joe Biden warned Saturday that the U.S. stands ready to take pre-emptive action against Iran if it does not abandon nuclear ambitions and its support for terrorism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/biden_europe;_ylt=AidVhbLA_cbZPO9asKNfcU8EtbAF

geee, that reminds me....

moderate democrat

02-07-2009, 09:04 PM

...of invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq who didn't have WMD's and who had diddly-squat to do with 9/11 even while our real enemies remained at large?

I can imagine it would.

Yurt

02-07-2009, 11:02 PM

of course you are wrong about what i was talking about, but you know that

preemptive action, booed by dems, now will of course laud it because your messiah approves

quaint

biden against preemptive action by bush

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NEWS/71129018

dems against bush having preemptive power

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8963

the silence regarding biden's statement is as expected

moderate democrat

02-08-2009, 07:51 AM

PostmodernProphet

02-08-2009, 07:56 AM

See the difference?

yes, the difference is distinguished by the threats Dems are blind to........

moderate democrat

02-08-2009, 08:04 AM

yes, the difference is distinguished by the threats Dems are blind to........

there IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN a real threat from AQ forces in the Afghan/Pakistan border region.

There never was any real threat from Saddam Hussein.

The difference is not threats that democrats are blind to, the difference is the invisible threats (like Harvey the rabbit) that somehow only republicans see.

DragonStryk72

02-08-2009, 02:11 PM

PMP, Yurt, just a thought here, but he isn't arguing with you. If you've noticed, he's pointing out the hypocrisy just like you guys are. Can't you guys just agree to agree and move along?

Sitarro

02-08-2009, 02:45 PM

there IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN a real threat from AQ forces in the Afghan/Pakistan border region.

There never was any real threat from Saddam Hussein.

The difference is not threats that democrats are blind to, the difference is the invisible threats (like Harvey the rabbit) that somehow only republicans see.

I guess you haven't seen the long list of every prominent democrat, not a state Senator from Illinois, but National Dim figures. All were saying that Saddam had to be dealt with.

I'm sure Red has this list.

Yurt

02-08-2009, 03:05 PM

PMP, Yurt, just a thought here, but he isn't arguing with you. If you've noticed, he's pointing out the hypocrisy just like you guys are. Can't you guys just agree to agree and move along?

debate policy....

thats what i am doing....and he is in fact arguing directly against me by saying he is right about what i was talking about, he is not and he knows it.

what is the hypocrisy? and why should i have to agree to disagree and move on? does it bother you that we debate policy?

Yurt

02-08-2009, 03:07 PM

I guess you haven't seen the long list of every prominent democrat, not a state Senator from Illinois, but National Dim figures. All were saying that Saddam had to be dealt with.

I'm sure Red has this list.

exactly...further, biden is now for preemptive action against iran but was opposed to it when bush was for it....

that is the hypocrisy of liberals like mf and i fail to see why i should have to agree to disagree. i would have liked dragon to explain more of what he was talking about. perhaps he is tired of debating policy....

moderate democrat

02-08-2009, 03:50 PM

I guess you haven't seen the long list of every prominent democrat, not a state Senator from Illinois, but National Dim figures. All were saying that Saddam had to be dealt with.

I'm sure Red has this list.

If you could find a long list of national democrats who were advocating the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq as a means of "dealing with" Saddam, it would be a surprise to me.

A bullet could have "dealt with" Saddam
A cruise missile could have "dealt with" Saddam
An indiginous uprising subsidized by the CIA could have "dealt with" Saddam

ALL of those options were ones that I certainly was fully supportive of, and ALL of those options would have cost WAY less than a half a trillion dollars and 30K+ dead and wounded Americans.

PostmodernProphet

02-08-2009, 05:11 PM

PMP, Yurt, just a thought here, but he isn't arguing with you. If you've noticed, he's pointing out the hypocrisy just like you guys are. Can't you guys just agree to agree and move along?

???....I'm not arguing with Yurt.....if you think Moderate Dem agrees with us, I think you've misread his post......he thinks going into Iraq was a mistake.....

PostmodernProphet

02-08-2009, 05:16 PM

moderate democrat

02-08-2009, 05:18 PM

it shouldn't be.....they voted to do exactly what we did.......or did you choose to forget that.....

a minority of democrats in congress voted to give Bush the authority to use force as a last resort.

Now... if you could find that list of democrats who advocated invading, conquering and occupying Iraq as a means of dealing with Iraq, that would be real nice.

Yurt

02-08-2009, 06:42 PM

If you could find a long list of national democrats who were advocating the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq as a means of "dealing with" Saddam, it would be a surprise to me.

A bullet could have "dealt with" Saddam
A cruise missile could have "dealt with" Saddam
An indiginous uprising subsidized by the CIA could have "dealt with" Saddam

ALL of those options were ones that I certainly was fully supportive of, and ALL of those options would have cost WAY less than a half a trillion dollars and 30K+ dead and wounded Americans.

where are these dems who were against it? you know, in 2003...before it started to be somewhat unpopular

PostmodernProphet

02-08-2009, 06:54 PM

a minority of democrats in congress voted to give Bush the authority to use force as a last resort.

Now... if you could find that list of democrats who advocated invading, conquering and occupying Iraq as a means of dealing with Iraq, that would be real nice.

I would say the issue is, the Dems voted to support what we DID.....not what you want to characterize it as......

Kathianne

02-08-2009, 06:57 PM

I would say the issue is, the Dems voted to support what we DID.....not what you want to characterize it as......

and that is the point he hates. They agreed, just didn't set parameters.

Same now with the stimulus bill, no parameters. On unemployment? Get food stamps. What? A former CEO with parachute in millions? No problem, get foodstamps.

GIGO.

Yurt

02-08-2009, 07:00 PM

and that is the point he hates. They agreed, just didn't set parameters.

Same now with the stimulus bill, no parameters. On unemployment? Get food stamps. What? A former CEO with parachute in millions? No problem, get foodstamps.

GIGO.

if i remember correctly, the dems didn't really start objecting to the iraq war until 2004, before then, i believe, they were silent as no one knew if we would win and have peace quickly and so the dems kept mum for fear of looking like doves and being on the wrong end of a great military engagement and it wasn't until it became somewhat unpopular that the dems finally started speaking up, say around the elections of 04'...

Kathianne

02-08-2009, 07:05 PM

if i remember correctly, the dems didn't really start objecting to the iraq war until 2004, before then, i believe, they were silent as no one knew if we would win and have peace quickly and so the dems kept mum for fear of looking like doves and being on the wrong end of a great military engagement and it wasn't until it became somewhat unpopular that the dems finally started speaking up, say around the elections of 04'...

I'm unsure on that, but do remember the criticism started in earnest by mid 2004. Deservedly. That's when the 'strategy should have changed.' It didn't. All during that time, no news conferences.

I don't like Obama, I think he's terrible for the country, but he is getting on tv tomorrow, I'll be watching. Who knows, he might sell me?

Bush never tried, his fault alone.

moderate democrat

02-08-2009, 10:25 PM

I would say the issue is, the Dems voted to support what we DID.....not what you want to characterize it as......

I would not be surprised that you would want to ignore the congressional record that showed that a MINORITY of congressional democrats voted for the measure to authorize Bush to use force as a last resort ONLY, and that few, if any, went on record supporting the past president's idiotic and foolhardly use of force as the first resort.

moderate democrat

02-08-2009, 10:27 PM

and that is the point he hates. They agreed, just didn't set parameters.

Same now with the stimulus bill, no parameters. On unemployment? Get food stamps. What? A former CEO with parachute in millions? No problem, get foodstamps.

GIGO. a MINORITY voted for the use of force as a LAST resort. A MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted against that measure.

And if a majority of republicans votes against a measure that can be shown to have shortened or lessened this economic catastrophe, then your party will DESERVE their long stint in the political wilderness, IMHO.

Sitarro

02-08-2009, 10:58 PM

If you could find a long list of national democrats who were advocating the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq as a means of "dealing with" Saddam, it would be a surprise to me.

A bullet could have "dealt with" Saddam
A cruise missile could have "dealt with" Saddam
An indiginous uprising subsidized by the CIA could have "dealt with" Saddam

ALL of those options were ones that I certainly was fully supportive of, and ALL of those options would have cost WAY less than a half a trillion dollars and 30K+ dead and wounded Americans.

Look at this site, it might open your eyes........ doubt it but here it is anyway.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

moderate democrat

02-08-2009, 11:01 PM

Look at this site, it might open your eyes........ doubt it but here it is anyway.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I have read them all a bunch of times....I still don't see any of them that call for the invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq. How are ya coming on THAT list of quotes?

Sitarro

02-08-2009, 11:30 PM

I have read them all a bunch of times....I still don't see any of them that call for the invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq. How are ya coming on THAT list of quotes?

democrats aren't very good at coming up with a way to actually deal with adversity, they just bitch about something needing to be done and when someone with balls does do something , they whine about how it's done......... what a joke they're collective asses are.

moderate democrat

02-08-2009, 11:38 PM

democrats aren't very good at coming up with a way to actually deal with adversity, they just bitch about something needing to be done and when someone with balls does do something , they whine about how it's done......... what a joke they're collective asses are.

nice tap dancing.

your boy screwed up by invading Iraq, and by destroying the economy ... and the electorate sent your party packing because of it.

you really need to quit blaming anyone but yourself, or you'll stay in the wilderness.

sorry.

Sitarro

02-09-2009, 12:03 AM

nice tap dancing.

your boy screwed up by invading Iraq, and by destroying the economy ... and the electorate sent your party packing because of it.

you really need to quit blaming anyone but yourself, or you'll stay in the wilderness.

sorry.

The only way the dimoshits could win was to destroy the economy and talking against this country at war........ they were more successful than they had hoped and now they are stuck with trying to bring it back with their silly pork barrel spending stupidity.

Yurt

02-09-2009, 12:16 AM

nice tap dancing.

your boy screwed up by invading Iraq, and by destroying the economy ... and the electorate sent your party packing because of it.

you really need to quit blaming anyone but yourself, or you'll stay in the wilderness.

sorry.

from the one who blames everyone but democrats and obama...bush evil, republicans evil....

Yurt

02-09-2009, 12:19 AM

I have read them all a bunch of times....I still don't see any of them that call for the invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq. How are ya coming on THAT list of quotes?

is there a reason you can't come up with this list?

if i remember correctly, the dems didn't really start objecting to the iraq war until 2004, before then, i believe, they were silent as no one knew if we would win and have peace quickly and so the dems kept mum for fear of looking like doves and being on the wrong end of a great military engagement and it wasn't until it became somewhat unpopular that the dems finally started speaking up, say around the elections of 04'...

come on, let's see those quotes of all the dems against iraq before 04...

fact is, they kept quiet until the elections neared and the war finally started to get somewhat unpopular. if you take off your partisan hat, you might just see things differently.

moderate democrat

02-09-2009, 06:55 AM

is there a reason you can't come up with this list?

come on, let's see those quotes of all the dems against iraq before 04...

fact is, they kept quiet until the elections neared and the war finally started to get somewhat unpopular. if you take off your partisan hat, you might just see things differently.

fact is: a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution. If you care to read the floor speeches of democrats who voted FOR that authorization, you would see that many of them(a minority of congressional democrats) stated their beliefs that Bush would use this authorization only as a last resort.

Psychoblues

02-09-2009, 07:01 AM

These warmongers will fight you tooth and nail to defend their own ideas about how it all came about, md.

fact is: a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution. If you care to read the floor speeches of democrats who voted FOR that authorization, you would see that many of them(a minority of congressional democrats) stated their beliefs that Bush would use this authorization only as a last resort.

How many of them ever wore the uniform or put their own lives in harms way for the defense for what they now seem so eager to defend on this harmless internet message board?!?!?!?!?!????!?!?!??!

Could I buy you a beer?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

moderate democrat

02-09-2009, 07:11 AM

These warmongers will fight you tooth and nail to defend their own ideas about how it all came about, md.

How many of them ever wore the uniform or put their own lives in harms way for the defense for what they now seem so eager to defend on this harmless internet message board?!?!?!?!?!????!?!?!??!

Could I buy you a beer?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

at this hour...coffee!:coffee:

Yurt

02-09-2009, 10:34 AM

fact is: a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution. If you care to read the floor speeches of democrats who voted FOR that authorization, you would see that many of them(a minority of congressional democrats) stated their beliefs that Bush would use this authorization only as a last resort.

(yawn)

not surprised you can't find this "majority" of dems who spoke out against iraq until 04 sometime....

moderate democrat

02-09-2009, 10:36 AM

(yawn)

not surprised you can't find this "majority" of dems who spoke out against iraq until 04 sometime....
check the rollcalls for the use of force resolution. a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. that is a fact.

(yawn)

Yurt

02-09-2009, 02:00 PM

check the rollcalls for the use of force resolution. a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. that is a fact.

(yawn)

and yet they didn't speak out against bush's actions until later, thus by omission agreeing with and supporting his actions. i understand why you won't produce evidence of dems speaking out against iraq until 04....it destroys your argument.

hjmick

02-09-2009, 02:03 PM

You know what Biden's satement reminds me of? It reminds me that, during the campaign, Biden suggested that Obama would be "tested" during the first six months in office. This most recent staement from him makes me feel as if he is stoking the fires for just such a test.

Just a little bit.

actsnoblemartin

02-09-2009, 02:25 PM

confusing iraq with iran is fundamentally dishonest

...of invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq who didn't have WMD's and who had diddly-squat to do with 9/11 even while our real enemies remained at large?

I can imagine it would.

moderate democrat

02-09-2009, 03:15 PM

confusing iraq with iran is fundamentally dishonest

what in the world does this post even MEAN? Where have I ever confused Iraq with Iran?

Can you show me?

moderate democrat

02-09-2009, 03:16 PM

and yet they didn't speak out against bush's actions until later, thus by omission agreeing with and supporting his actions. i understand why you won't produce evidence of dems speaking out against iraq until 04....it destroys your argument.

A majority of democrats in congress spoke loudly in the rollcalls in question. Why do you ignore that fact?

Yurt

02-10-2009, 03:04 PM

A majority of democrats in congress spoke loudly in the rollcalls in question. Why do you ignore that fact?

YET WERE SILENT THEREAFTER, THUS TACITLY AGREEING....and let's see those rolecalls...YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT AFTER THE ROLE CALLS THEY CAN STILL VOICE THEIR OPINION AFTER THE DEBATE ON THE FLOOR, BUT THEY DIDN'T

why? because they waited until the war became unpopular, hardly anyone listens to role call debates, they chickened out because they didn't want to be seen as chickens if the war went well, thus they APPROVED bush's actions after the bill was passed.

sheesh, debating you is like log rolling, you just keep rolling the log over and over until somebody falls off

moderate democrat

02-10-2009, 03:08 PM

YET WERE SILENT THEREAFTER, THUS TACITLY AGREEING....and let's see those rolecalls...YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT AFTER THE ROLE CALLS THEY CAN STILL VOICE THEIR OPINION AFTER THE DEBATE ON THE FLOOR, BUT THEY DIDN'T

why? because they waited until the war became unpopular, hardly anyone listens to role call debates, they chickened out because they didn't want to be seen as chickens if the war went well, thus they APPROVED bush's actions after the bill was passed.

sheesh, debating you is like log rolling, you just keep rolling the log over and over until somebody falls off

if you want to look at congressional roll calls, go look em up.

And democrats were NEVER silent about the war. Kerry might have been....Hillary might have been...but there were a lot of congressional democrats who were against it from day one and continued to speak out against it.

If you want to go look up THEIR speeches, you can go look them up as well. I have more important stuff to do in my life than do your research for you.

Yurt

02-10-2009, 03:12 PM

if you want to look at congressional roll calls, go look em up.

And democrats were NEVER silent about the war. Kerry might have been....Hillary might have been...but there were a lot of congressional democrats who were against it from day one and continued to speak out against it.

If you want to go look up THEIR speeches, you can go look them up as well. I have more important stuff to do in my life than do your research for you.

NO, YOU ASK FOR PROOF FROM OTHERS, NOW IT IS YOUR TURN TO PROVIDE PROOF...

i don't want you to be hypocritical, so kindly provide proof, else you forfeit your right to ever demand proof from anyone

do your research for you

hmmm

moderate democrat

02-10-2009, 03:19 PM

NO, YOU ASK FOR PROOF FROM OTHERS, NOW IT IS YOUR TURN TO PROVIDE PROOF...

i don't want you to be hypocritical, so kindly provide proof, else you forfeit your right to ever demand proof from anyone

hmmm

I certainly don't think that I have made a habit out of demanding proof from anyone. If you don't believe me that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force, that's fine with me. Same with my statement that democrats have been vocal in their opposition to the war since day one. I have no burning desire to get you to believe those statements. Knowing that they are true is good enough for me.

Yurt

02-10-2009, 03:27 PM

I certainly don't think that I have made a habit out of demanding proof from anyone. If you don't believe me that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force, that's fine with me. Same with my statement that democrats have been vocal in their opposition to the war since day one. I have no burning desire to get you to believe those statements. Knowing that they are true is good enough for me.

you've demanded proof yesterday and today, you do have a habit of asking for proof...if you ever ask me for proof, forget it, don't even ask

but i can understand why you won't in this case...as in the other matter, you know that proof would show you are wrong