You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 7:29 AM

WHY?

Why is there no public statement filled with outrage from our "Leader "to the gunning down of the recruiter by the Muslim radical. Is he going to increase security around recruiting centers? Why was it a very short time ago he said America is no longer really a nation of Christians but said to the French press that actually America could be considered a Muslim country? He totally brushed off the foiled attempts on the Muslims in NYC. On his trip to the Mideast said he will stress all things about himself which will connect him to the Muslim world - even Stewart has a bit where he asks why we have not met these Muslim relatives he talked about in a prior speech somewhere there Just as a side note think he now is saying it is okay fr Iran to be nuclear!! Gesus

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 7:38 AM

I don't know, but there are so few Dr Tillers left that I think something must be done to protect them from harm. Very touchy idea politically, but the current situation is not tenable.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 7:44 AM

Just looks like the life of an army recruiter or any military person is far less important than the doctor. He has " old' himself as a champion of the "little guy". Perhaps it is politically convenient when the whacko was a religious conservative and very politicaly inconvenient when the whacko was a Muslin-dunno-sure looks that way

bigdavy
Bigdavy  (Level: 131.8 - Posts: 529)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 8:47 AM

WHY aren't the names of these forum threads more descriptive?

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 9:19 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Travel/story?id=7742900&page=1 probably nothing toi this as probably the tape just released from Bin Laden wil be a hoax dunno

fainodraino
Fainodraino  (Level: 113.1 - Posts: 240)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 9:53 AM

I think it's hilarious, or sad...or both...that Obama says that Iran, which is sitting on a lake of oil, needs nuclear energy, but the U.S. must...MUST go to wind, solar, etc.

Good grief.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 10:02 AM

Actually Obama is saying that Iran has a right to nuclear power, but not nuclear arms.

It's an excellent parry that could lead to an oversight of their activities that hold them to exactly that.

As for nuclear and wind in the US, we need both.

Obama wants to spend a bundle of dough to develop what will only be a drop in the bucket of green energy.

fainodraino
Fainodraino  (Level: 113.1 - Posts: 240)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 10:07 AM

But any half-brain knows that Iran doesn't want nuclear power, they want nuclear weapons.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 10:08 AM

Believe, Andy, that logic says Iran does not need nuclear power as it sits on huge supplies of oil and natural gas. Just hope Israel is ready to get pushed under the bus.....

fainodraino
Fainodraino  (Level: 113.1 - Posts: 240)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 10:19 AM

Israel will probably pre-emptively strike Iran. My opinion.

foogs
Foogs  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 848)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 10:38 AM

"We," Don?

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 2:25 PM

Oil is a finite resource, Iran has every right to pursue nuclear energy. Every Western leader claims that a government's first priority is defence of the realm, Iran has every right to pursue nuclear arms too. Why isn't anyone taking a pop at Britain for newing Trident at a cost of £25 billion+ ? How is that fitting in with our non proliferation treaty pledge ?

fainodraino
Fainodraino  (Level: 113.1 - Posts: 240)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 2:28 PM

Do you WANT Iran to have nukes?

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 3:48 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/03/arkansas.shooting/ sorry just posted this on the wrong thread but worth repeating

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 4:01 PM

You know, cloggs, that if Iran has a nuke and uses a dirty bomb or delivers it by missile to your area, the nuclear fallout or fire isn't going to approach where you live, then stop and think - "You know, this guy supported us, so we'll just bypass any damage to him and his home."

No - you'll be charred just like everybody else in the area.

If you truly don't understand how much more dangerous it is for Iran to have nukes than it is for some other countries, then you haven't done your homework. I haven't heard England leaders talk about wanting to wipe another country off the face of the earth, the way Iran's leaders have talked about Israel.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Wed, 3rd Jun '09 7:05 PM

Either Obama or the :Press have their priorities wrong. Do the math. Who poses the worst threat of terror? All of the facts on this one case haen't even emerged yet and this guys life was as worthy of a public statement of outrage from the White House as the doctor got-guess Gibbs said a starement was released too Arkansas media if they requested ithttp://rr.com/news/news/article/rr/9000/7914300/Dead_soldiers_family_sought_quiet_in_Arkansas sorry just don't get it

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 7:51 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/story?id=7758485&page=1that source should be liberal enough to prove that homegrown terrorists are not necessarily "Right Wingers' or the leap of faith that so many of you make that all Right-wingers are practicing Christian folks. Incidentally we have a new CZAR - think "Corporate Czar" If you don't thing this guy appointing people with a whole bunch of power not subject to approval by anyone nor accountable to anyone but him does not 'smack' of a Tony Soprano approach-believe you need to seriously rethink a few things - Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 10:54 AM

Not corporate czar a "Pay Czar' either way it will keep those rich "fat cats" in line Who is this guy? How did he get this job? Who approved of him by some kind of unbiased eye? Finally, who is he accountable to? silly silly questions...

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 155.2 - Posts: 2478)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 11:05 AM

hi, just thought I would spare Linda the embarassement of posting on her own thread, FOUR times in a row.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 11:16 AM

LoL nope, Martina, was three times in a row now it is only once-in a row that is -thank you so much.,.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 12:56 PM

I vote for a new thread. The Linda Obama bashing forum. Airing today and every day live on Sploofus. It could just be her thread where she could post all the blogs of Anti Obama slurs.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 1:00 PM

Nope that has been done with poor results ask anyone who was here during the endless campaign. Actually, Beverly in her exuberance starts most of the political threads-not all- and I reply in kind

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 1:00 PM

Please feel free to point out where i said i want Iran to have nukes. It's not what i want that counts, but if i was an Iranian living in a world where zionists had nukes, too bloody right i'd want them too.The NPT calls for countries that have nukes to work towards getting rid of them, not just stopping proliferation. Where does Britain renewing Trident fit into that scenario ?

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 2:11 PM

Nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible nations are DEFENSIVE weapons, Dave.

Iranian leaders have expressed a desire to obliterate Israel.

Do the math, buddy.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 2:19 PM

I don't believe ANYONE should have nuclear weapons, that said. Who determines, Andy, which nation is responsible enough to have them. Will it be an Islamic country, or Israel. I don't get the logic. They are both terriorist countries in my opinion.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 2:26 PM

SURPRISE countries already have them and after Obama's speech in Egypt looks like a green light for more to get them. Have you noticed N.Korean isn't letting anyone in to check on what they are doing-it is all a big guess and now it is a guess of which nut-job will use one

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 2:38 PM

It was always a guess who would use them, but so far, only us. Nuclear weapons are out of Pandora's box, in a hundred years if we survive as a civilization for that long, everyone who wants them and can afford them will have them. Probably fit in your pocket by then. You can't turn the clock back on technology without blasting us all back to the stone age; it's amazing they've been kept under control this long. We can't sit on the technology forever, especially with huge financial shifts going on around the planet and formerly poor countries becoming rich and formerly rich countries becoming poor.

All the more reason why every single one of us ought to be behind the president's peace initiative.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 2:56 PM

I am for peace initiative no matter who is talking it beats being in stone age if we survive as a species at all.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 3:28 PM

Well, Bobo, Israel has never expressed an interest in annihilating a neighbor. Iran has.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 3:50 PM

They may not threaten it but I am sure they would like it. Come on be serious. They are very intent on not living among enemies. I don't think I would rule it out of the question for them to use nuclear weapons if they had to.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 4:23 PM

If they are left with no options and perceive imminent threat I believe they will use whatever force necessary to take Iran's capabilities I say good for them Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 4:52 PM

More nonsense, Bobo.

Put it away, please.

Thanks

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 5th Jun '09 8:05 PM

Once again Collieure you are using your pompous tone "put it away" why don't you put it away. What was your point in that insult. "Once again nonsense bobo" So my opinions are nonsense and your are what? Exactly Yours. That doesn't make them doctrine as I said before. You should give it a rest, because I sure won't.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 1:59 AM

The point, Bobo, is that you haven't considered the consequences of what you suggested.

Israel would annihilate how many millions of neighboring peoples?

And the nuclear fallout would not blow back on its own lands?

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 2:38 AM

Collioure
Nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible nations are DEFENSIVE weapons, Dave.

And what constitutes a responsible nation is a matter of conjecture. You are aware that few nations on this planet regard a country that has given us Abu Graaib, Gitmo and special rendition is hardly "responsible" ? There's also the small matters of The Shrub getting a second term, and your obsession with fire arms. Then of course there is the slavish devotion to the zionist thugs in Israel, Responsible ? I think not.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 4:04 AM

Dave, I think you hit it right on the nose when you posted, "I think not."

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 6:13 AM

And i think your pathetic jibe proves my point.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 7:15 AM

Dave, I responded as I did because you tried to equate lesser matters with the way responsible nations manage nuclear arms. Apples vs orange argument which does not compute.

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 9:41 AM

Lesser matters ? I wonder if you'd think that if realatives of yours were being tortured in Gitmo, or your kids were having their flesh burnt off in Gaza. Unfortunately people like you are often seen as typical of Americans, and that is why your nation is as unpopular now as it has ever been. Fortunately i know not all Americans are like you.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 10:21 AM

Funny thing, I just rewatched a marvelous boxed series for the umteenth time. Actually there were two boxed sets. "The Winds of War" and "War and Remembrance" great cast most gone now but I once again see the reason why Israel was created and needs to be supported and allowed to exist and be recognized- Linda

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 10:27 AM

That the Jews need a homeland is not disputed, that it needs to be in Palestine is. If you all are so keen, how about Texas ?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 10:38 AM

I would be honored if the nation of Israel moved to Texas - they can start here in my back yard. The whole country of Israel is the size of New Jersey. If Israel can't have the land God gave them, the people could be very happy here in God's 2nd promised land.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 10:40 AM

Will leave the historical and Biblical stuff to those who know much more about it than I do. I understand it to be that Judaism is a religion with a culture that has built up around it with roots being in Palestine. Linda

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 12:43 PM

Judaism is a religion with a culture that has built up around it with roots being in Palestine. Linda

I rest my case.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 1:11 PM

Said at the start I am neither historically nor Biblically very well versed so please don't rest your case on what I think. I do know that if you don't believe someone or something has any right to exist there is no basis for negotiation of things like boundaries-Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 1:22 PM

For the life of me just cannot understand why tthis man was not mentioned while speaking in Egypt. he came closer than anyone else seems to me-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_El_Sadat#The_Egyptian.E2.80.93Israeli_Peace_Treaty Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 1:42 PM

Lesser matters compared to the devastation of one nuclear weapon, Dave.

Vastly lesser matters.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 2:16 PM

If I may speak for clevercloggs, I don't think he is suggesting Israel as a state doesn't have a right to exist. Just that the people of Palestine also have a right to a homeland. Who is the aggressor here? I think Israel with all the powerful allies has the upper hand and now the situation has become that of an aggressor. Palestine also deserves a right to a homeland, whether it is in the bible or not. Jan I don't believe the US is in the bible not even in Revelations. I don't think a country is ordained simply by a decree in a book written over 2000 years ago.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 2:54 PM

I believe Cloggs says Israel has a right to exist somewhere but not Palestine. No scholar, but if our "Leader' really was not a politician believe he would have made the point that in order to negotiate ANYTHING both parties have to accept the right of the other to exist. He spoke about it not being right for Israel to expand settlements. Then current controlling force in Palestine does not recognize Israel's right to exist any more than Iran does-Iran says they should be wiped off the face of the earth. Believe it was not a simple oversight not mentioning Sadat as he knew that right had to be recognized in order for any peace to be negotiated. Iran has the green light for nuclear and Israel is under the bus-explain it factually different, please. Israel is not going to pack up and leave willingly and I would have hoped we would have not hung them out to dry-but our "Leader" did just that

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 3:32 PM

Don't like thinking or speaking fr other people but my impression was Cloggs thought Israel deserved a homeland' but that "Homeland' was not in the Middle East. In order even to negotiate peace which our "leader' says is his goal-boundaries and such. mutual agreement MUST be there that the other party DOES and has a right to exist. The only reason I can see for not mentioning Sadat in Egypt of all places was that Sadat saw that reality and that reality is not popular in the "Arab World" as a whole let alone in its neighbor-Palestine....

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 3:47 PM

My case is simple,all people deserve a home land. Because nobody else wanted the European Jews that does not mean you can stick them in the middle of Palestine and call it Israel. The only claims Jews have for Palestinian lands are biblical, and you know what i think of those.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.8 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 6:03 PM

I agree I don't necessarily agree with Israels right to the land because of a biblical right. However they were refugees after World War 2, and the allies agreed to resettle the jews in the area known as Israel. It is my understanding that the boundaries were formed in 1948. I believe that those boundaries should be upheld and the arab countries surrounding should recognize their right as a state to exist. Everyone take all their marbles and go home and play nice period. I just don't feel like debating scripture constantly on an internet site. It seems you just can't stay away from talk of religion on here. It just is not that simple well the bible says it is their land so just displace everyone else who has lived there the past 2000 years. That is why Israel and her allies are so hated, its not just religious.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sat, 6th Jun '09 6:31 PM

I don't talk religion nor pretend to be an expert in history. Do know that Obama in his great speech extended an invitation to an organization (Hamas) which is on his own list of terrorist organizations to sit down and negotiate. Hamas does not recognize Israels right to exist so where is the bargaining issue with boundaries? Israel under the bus... Even if I agreed with the premise-I don't- that Israel does not belong in the Middle East, does anyone expect Israel will just pack up and move?. Incidentally at the time we are extending the hand of peace to Iran they are using it to buy time to develop things like counter missiles -some sort launched today...

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 3:07 AM

The British government spoke to the IRA, via Sinn Fein, would you rather the troubles were still raging there and on the mainland ?

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 105.1 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 4:05 AM

Hamas fails to meet a fundamental tenet of any peace there, Dave - the existence of Israel.

Sinn Fein participated in a process that still recognized the British right to be in Northern Ireland.

If only I did not have to keep pointing out these key differences to you.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21605)
Sun, 7th Jun '09 5:34 AM

Israel will be even more "screwed' if Hezbollah comes out ahead in Lebanon-choice soon-looks like they have a strong chance. They are also deemed a terrorist organization but perhaps everyone should be hopeful with them as well and Obama maybe will extend his hand invite them to sit down and "negotiate". They lob a few into Israel on a pretty regular basis too-Linda


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus