Posted on 06/21/2009 8:46:25 AM PDT by fiscon1
Ah, there we have it. I believe that response is #1 on the Top Ten List of Liberal responses to... anything?
And im clear now,, you argue that a person fighting long odds against a tyrant, should never be assisted. Not even as much as *a word* of encouragement.
Glad France didnt see it that way.
And im clear now,, you argue that a person fighting long odds against a tyrant, should never be assisted. Not even as much as *a word* of encouragement.
Glad France didnt see it that way.
Not at all, hon’, it’s a common sense response. If you are that much in a lather over something, just don’t sit at the keyboard, go over there and actually help out! Spirit of volunteerism, and all that.
Cheers!
He is helping out, right here. He has that young womans back against cold timid souls who get angry that her photo was shown, revealing Ron Paul for the empty human that he is.
Yeah, a common sense response to the drooling morons who live in your world. Why don’t you go and join Hamas? Or have you already? Spirit of idiocy, and all that.
If you are referring to France’s aid (such as it was) during the American Revolution:
1. France didn’t help the American Revolution out of charity. France wanted to stick it to the Brits, because the Brits whooped them during the French and Indian (Seven Years) war a decade or so earlier. France was still smarting over the loss of Canada!
2. France (typically) crashed the party when it was almost over. French troops first made landfall at Yorktown; by then the Northeast and MidAtlantic were largely Brit-free; the British were trying to hold on in the South—and since they lost at Kings Mountain and (especially) Cowpens, they weren’t doing all that well in Dixie, either.
He *was*. The question is, has he toned it down, or is he just lusting after power for himself? Top lapdog under the Mullahs still beats also-ran or peon.
And that leaves unaddressed the gunning down of unarmed women in the streets: if they're having a "Death to the Great Satan!" foreign policy in any case, it is still a step forward to let the people *choose* their elected officials.
No, I'm saying it's best to let events play out in Iran on its own.
How will that advance U.S. interests OR the values of Freedom and Democracy?
Cheers! Cheers!
—How will that advance U.S. interests—
If we’ve let U.S. interests spread that far across the world, we’ve got problems far beyond which goatlover runs Iran.
I prefer
Μολσον Λαβαττσ
Cheers!
Who said anything about charity? Not me.
Very true that France saw a chance to benefit, just as our assiting the removal of the Mullahs would benefit the USA and our good ally Israel.
The process of France acting in their interest, helped us get a start. A good result for others can easily result from our actions, motivated by our self-interests.
—The process of France acting in their interest, helped us get a start. —
Don’t ignore the big picture. France was an empire. And empires ALWAYS fall, sooner or later. And as for French assistance, my point was WE DID NOT NEED THEIR HELP.
How is letting U.S. interests spread across the world a problem?
...Oh. You mean a problem for *your* side.
Cheers!
“If we’ve let U.S. interests spread that far across the world, we’ve got problems far beyond which goatlover runs Iran.”
Ahhh , the channel changes again! Now we aren’t in the best way to change Iran channel, we are back on the America never-ever even *slightly* cares about anyone else channel! Hit the remote again,,, i wanna hear you defend Buchannon some more!
Read post 114 then get back to me re. imperial overreach.
As for “cheers”, if you are implying that I’m on the side of goathumping ragheads, you can take that “cheers” and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
The placement of the men’s hands just before the blood starts pouring out of her mouth and nose makes me a little suspicious, I have to admit.
Well,,,im liguistics arent my “strong suit” according to you-know-who. But i see this thread your way enough that im just gonna go with your preference, BEFORE i google it!
One of the non political forums I participate in is infested mostly with liberals. I posted asking if anyone was following what was happening in Iran. The responses from the liberal horde consisted mainly on such sentiments as:
We can not rely on twitter news since the sender is most likely biased. Who knew the NYT twittered?
George W Bush is at fault for anything that goes wrong in that region.
Because of Bush’s intervention in Iraq we can not intervene in Iran.
The Mideast is like a vast no man’s land which none may enter. They have to be left alone to slaughter each other at will. Now this has some merit but I refuse to believe every Mideasterner is a frothing at the mouth hater of the US. And Israel is kind of stuck in the middle over there.
We can not criticize the election results or demand the UN monitor the elections because we did not allow our elections to be monitored after what happened in 2000. Surely you remember the riots, the shootings, the hangings, the attacks on the dorms?
The late Shah’s supporters are somehow behind this and have a stake in the outcome.
The US supported the late Shah so we have no right to say anything about Iran politics.
Yes it is true Libs are a bunch of impotent weenies who could not perform with a fistful of little blue pills. And that is just the dames.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.