or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Ted Cruz Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ted Cruz Thread - Page 29

post #421 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

Don't you know anything about Beelzebub

I was talking Ronnie. Word is he had a ray gun.
post #422 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

. You really belive Hirohito didn't choose to listen to he military when they convinced him imperialist expansion throughout Asia was necessary because hmm they needed the oil or that Hitler did not choose to invade Poland because hmmm he wanted their oil or that George Bush did not choose to invade iraq based on a fear of wmds that just didn't happen to exist hmmm funny thing all that oil they just happened to have or that we have no choice but to destroy the governments of the Middle East and hmm take their oil . Yikes! The most significant reason for world war 2 was that the axis powers decided to do just that ,just go out kick the worlds ass and take their resources .Your perspective would have been very popular in pre war nazi Germany
Wait this is just a joke . Your running a Billy Crystal Josh Gann routine on an old man right . Please say you are


Its just that I need a hug.


Point 1: You argue that war is not appropriate for civilized nations. I argue that it is not always a choice and point to Japan's attack on the U.S. You admit that I am correct while calling me Billy Crystal.

Point 2: Unfortunately, the U.S. did not steal Iraq's oil.
Edited by Lighthouse - 6/11/15 at 7:27am
post #423 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I was talking Ronnie. Word is he had a ray gun.
The soviets went bankrupt trying to build one just like Ronnies
post #424 of 1000
I thought the Soviets went bankrupt because they subscribed to an unsustainable socialist vision, no?
post #425 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

I thought the Soviets went bankrupt because they subscribed to an unsustainable socialist vision, no?

CE that shit!
post #426 of 1000
Guys, this thread is about Ted Cruz, not about how Reagan or LBJ. Ted Cruz is the worst because he wants American soldiers to die in his name and Hillary cares enough to send care packages to people in a far away land (sometimes usable weapons and sometimes lethal ordinance).
post #427 of 1000
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Guys, this thread is about Ted Cruz, not about how Reagan or LBJ. Ted Cruz is the worst because he wants American soldiers to die in his name and Hillary cares enough to send care packages to people in a far away land (sometimes usable weapons and sometimes lethal ordinance).

 

What the fuck is wrong with you? Aren't you a vet? What kind of pog bullshit did you do that makes you think war is an option for this country? Do you understand anything about the deception that led to the occupation and bungling of Iraq? 

 

Fuck me. Let's just allow people to make the same mistakes over and over again. What are the lives of a few thousand kids, anyway? 

post #428 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

What the fuck is wrong with you? Aren't you a vet? What kind of pog bullshit did you do that makes you think war is an option for this country? Do you understand anything about the deception that led to the occupation and bungling of Iraq? 

Fuck me. Let's just allow people to make the same mistakes over and over again. What are the lives of a few thousand kids, anyway? 

Being a vet has nothing to do with this for you. For you it's if people agree with you or not so stop dropping the vet card. I say this as you came out with something about any politician that thinks we should fight a war should STFU and pick up a rifle. I pointed out to you one of the current biggest hawks in the senate did just that...twice...and it was still no good for you. It's fine to be anti-war but stop drawing in the vet thing as I've proven that only means something to you when it means something to you and is otherwise dismissed by you.
post #429 of 1000
Thread Starter 

If you're a vet who is not a hawk you have the ability to learn. If you're a vet and a hawk you have no ability to learn and are unfit to make decisions. It's pretty simple. The fact that there are adults out there who have served and think that we can change the regime in Iran or remove Asad blows my fucking mind. 

post #430 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

If you're a vet who is not a hawk you have the ability to learn. If you're a vet and a hawk you have no ability to learn and are unfit to make decisions. It's pretty simple. The fact that there are adults out there who have served and think that we can change the regime in Iran or remove Asad blows my fucking mind. 

All this does is confirm what I said. Vet status is a red herring with you and it's simply if folks agree with you or not. I'm not saying your position is wrong but I am saying you're being mighty fucking disingenuous every time you drop the vet card.
post #431 of 1000
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


All this does is confirm what I said. Vet status is a red herring with you and it's simply if folks agree with you or not. I'm not saying your position is wrong but I am saying you're being mighty fucking disingenuous every time you drop the vet card.


It is a proxy for the ability to learn. If you train someone to complete a maze and then they can't complete it on their own they are obvisouly unable to process that information. A veteran who is against war is therefore one of superior intelligence to the veteran who is for a new war. 

 

If you were Vietnam vet who voted for the war anhas not since repented in Iraq and has not since repented then you are unfit to lead. If you are an Iraq war vet who would have us start a new conflict then you are unfit to lead. 

post #432 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


It is a proxy for the ability to learn. If you train someone to complete a maze and then they can't complete it on their own they are obvisouly unable to process that information. A veteran who is against war is therefore one of superior intelligence to the veteran who is for a new war. 

If you were Vietnam vet who voted for the war anhas not since repented in Iraq and has not since repented 
then you are unfit to lead. If you are an Iraq war vet who would have us start a new conflict then you are unfit to lead. 


Vets and non-vet presidents have put soldiers in conflict. Your position is that they were of inferior intelligence.

Lincoln, Jackson, Washington, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, Wilson, Obama, Bush, Bush, FDR, Truman . . .
post #433 of 1000
Thread Starter 

Not all wars are bad, doofus. There are three conflicts on the table right now: intervening in Syria, providing combat troops to Iraq, and initiating armed conflict with Iran. All three are extremely ill-advised and should be avoided at all costs.

 

I am willing to support a candidate who is staunchly opposed to anything more than what we are doing now even if they don't line up with my social and domestic views. Foreign policy > domestic policy. 

post #434 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Not all wars are bad, doofus. There are three conflicts on the table right now: intervening in Syria, providing combat troops to Iraq, and initiating armed conflict with Iran. All three are extremely ill-advised and should be avoided at all costs.

I am willing to support a candidate who is staunchly opposed to anything more than what we are doing now even if they don't line up with my social and domestic views. Foreign policy > domestic policy. 

You have a lot of balls... this means you support a drone strike program that has questionable criteria to define the enemy at best. Básically you support an unknown daily masacre of probable civilians but you accuse people of not caring about saving lives...
post #435 of 1000
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarphe View Post


You have a lot of balls... this means you support a drone strike program that has questionable criteria to define the enemy at best. Básically you support an unknown daily masacre of probable civilians but you accuse people of not caring about saving lives...


I care about largescale deployments of American troops that will turn into prolonged occupations. I don't support the drone strikes in Pakistan nor Yemen and if I did I would tell you that their scale is very small so it's not a major point. I support the airstrikes against ISIS and in Syria and those in direct support of the Kurdish YPG/J, airstrikes in Syria against al-Qa'ida, and airstrikes in Iraq against ISIS, all of which are conducted under extremely strict rules of engagement (to the chagrin of some loudmouth pilots). I support the limited backing of certain groups within the Arab Syrian opposition and likewise some of the groups that make up the Hashd al-Sha'abi in Iraq. I think that the best policy against ISIS is similar to the containment of Saddam from 91-03.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Ted Cruz Thread