TOP
Retired Teacher
Seriously he did...WE? Who, Biden? He let them do it! He gave them the money to do it!
Seriously he did...WE? Who, Biden? He let them do it! He gave them the money to do it!
Iran with nukes is a bit more than another country doing something the US does not like or agree with.Well then use your words as there is a clear split in the Magats now.
Are you in the @Earl camp who is aligned with others on this site and on the Ted Cruise, Marco Rubio, side of saying if another country is doing something the US does not like or agree with then the US needs to put on their World Cop hat and stop them directly or thru proxies which leads to situations like this ...
"President Trump announces the United States has “complete and total control of the skies over Iran.”...
Or are you in the Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon camp that says America First and to stay out of foreign conflicts and focus on things at home.
The Democrats wouldn’t allow their own president to run again.He did not stand for reelection. allow their own president to run again.
Triggered?Jarhead should .just shut the fuck up, it's clear he hasn't a clue.
You don’t have a clue that you don’t have a clue.Triggered?
So by 'a bit more' what you are saying is you are ok and want the US to be the world's police man as long as you agree a Country the US will attack or go to war with is "doing a bit more" then you think they should be doing.Iran with nukes is a bit more than another country doing something the US does not like or agree with.
“Death to Israel, death to America.”
Get a clue.
And Russia wouldn't have started a war if Trump was in officeNo way the war in the Middle East that is currently raging would’ve happened if Biden were still president!
Both silly and no way to show otherwise, that was my point. Thank you!And Russia wouldn't have started a war if Trump was in office
So by 'a bit more' what you are saying is you are ok and want the US to be the world's police man as long as you agree a Country the US will attack or go to war with is "doing a bit more" then you think they should be doing.
Do you agree with that definition of your position?
Do you also agree that you will not be the only person in the US (or world) who gets to decide what is acceptable in a 'bit more' and people who are not you might think 'chemical weapons potential' or 'extreme cyber attack potential' are also a 'bit more' and thus the US can and should go to war or attack over those too?
Or are you dumb enough to believe that 'only what i think is a "bit more" should allow the US to go to war or attack but not what others think'.