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

[Yurt]

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/...9asKNfcU8EtbAF

geee, that reminds me....

[moderate democrat]

...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]

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/p.../NEWS/71129018

dems against bush having preemptive power

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8963

the silence regarding biden's statement is as expected

[moderate democrat]

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/p.../NEWS/71129018

dems against bush having preemptive power

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8963

the silence regarding biden's statement is as expected

I was exactly right about what you were talking about...

And democrats are not against ALL preemptive action... just stupid, counterproductive preemptive action. See the difference?

[PostmodernProphet]

See the difference?

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

[moderate democrat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[moderate democrat]

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]

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