To: jmc1969
Oh, Really?
Well, I'LL be disappointed if he follows their suggestion of talking to the Iranians and Syrians.
10 posted on
12/08/2006 10:32:28 AM PST by
nuconvert
([there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business] (...but his head is so tiny...))
To: nuconvert
There's nothing wrong with talking to the Syrians. We DO have an embassy there for a reason. The fact that it would be futile should be considered.
There is no reason to talk to the Iranians. It's as much in our national interest to attack them as it was to invade Iraq. What we don't have is a series of UN resolutions giving us diplomatic cover, for what it's worth, for doing so.
Talk ain't gonna help.
31 posted on
12/08/2006 10:44:54 AM PST by
Dog Gone
To: nuconvert
Well, I'LL be disappointed if he follows their suggestion of talking to the Iranians and Syrians
Oh I don't know, I think we *should* be talking to the Iranians and Syrians.
F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming has 50 MX Peacekeeper ICBMs in the silos, I say let THEM do our talking for us.
Enough screwing around, if we're going to win the War against Islamofascism, it's time to pull out all the stops and just waste the ba$tards and let God (the REAL God) sort 'em out.
53 posted on
12/08/2006 11:16:04 AM PST by
mkjessup
(The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
To: nuconvert
Well, I'LL be disappointed if he follows their suggestion of talking to the Iranians and Syrians.I'd talk to Iran and Syria.
I'd send em both a telegram that said "knock that s##t off" end of messgage.
58 posted on
12/08/2006 11:22:02 AM PST by
NeoCaveman
(Rick Santorum in 2008, or 2012 or whenever we get serious about Islamofascism.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson