Stumble This | You should also watch “Librarian with "McCain=Bush" Sign Charged with Tresspassing” |
john mccain,bush,cheney,war,iran,russia,nuclear Republicans and Military Men on John McCain
Comments 
playlists with this video
Insanity on Film by Constitutional_Patriot
• McCain vs. McCain by winkler1
• Constitutional Violations by Constitutional_Patriot
• That's F'ed up by winkler1
• People I'd Like to Strangle by rottenseed
who voted for this video
NetRunner
- mintbbb
- Issykitty
- rougy
- shuac
- gemini70
- kronosposeidon
- Throbbin
- Biminim
- BoneyD
- theali
- bamdrew
- Jordass
- Kreegath
- charliem
- dead_tofu
- Zonbie
- Norsuelefantti
- srd
- tagomi77
- Openmine
- RedSky
- Violator99
- blutruth
- crotchflame
- kceaton1
- mani
- lesserfool
- calvados
- CaveBear
- winkler1
- bigbikeman
- fizziks
- ElJardinero
- Constitutional_Patriot
- Bidouleroux
- Majortomyorke
- Lendl
- imstellar28
- daxgaz
- Memorare
- Mysling
- rubadub
- Offsajdh
- JustT1m
- Ickster
- moonsammy
- fluidfxmedia
- Enzoblue
- therealblankman
- Xax
- QuadraPixel
- thinker247
- nathanofborg
- maximillian
- jimnms
- jwray
- eric3579
- HoRnO
- rottenseed
- Plonq
- grahamslam
- blahpook
- kwaran
- littledragon_79
- tmcdermid
- jdbates
- Raigen
- wax66
- tacotime
- MrConrads
- tehmog
- dgandhi
- dystopianfuturetoday
- Trancecoach
- joedirt
- dsousa
- ant
- mj0lnir
- jiyanibi
- BcrdNCola
- DavidRaine
- MrFisk
- volumptuous
- maatc
- Johnald_Chaffinch
who voted against this video
quantumushroom
who has this post bookmarked
liverpoolfc
- dead_tofu
Republicans And Military Men On John McCain Related Videos
Librarian with "McCain=Bush" Sign Charged with Tresspassing |  Gallup: McCain-Bush Bigger Liability Than Obama-Wright |  Bush & Cheney - Plenty Of Time! |
Donald Rumsfeld
But what it will do is this, it will unleash the nuclear genie.
So for all those Americans out there tonight who say, "you know what, taking on Iran is a good thing", I just told you if we take on Iran, were gonna use nuclear weapons.
And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie aint going back in the bottle, until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation....so tell me...you want to go to war with Iran, PICK YOUR CITY!"
- Scott Ritter, UN Weapons Inspector.
"Those WMD's gotta be somewhere" *crowd laughs* "Nope..."
"Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb Iran"
Geeeeezus... What the hell is wrong with these people? Since when did joking about the death of thousands of people become acceptable behavior for anyone let alone the LEADERS of America? How did/can anyone vote for them?
And THEY'RE the ones with "values"?!?!?
Hold on while I throw up...
SHIT.
Please America, don't elect this warmongering fascist. Do the rest of the world a favor for once.
Do yourself a favor for once and stop cow-towing to american
imperialism. Stand up to the bully. The rest of the world has the power right now to stop america: stop trading in dollars, stop buying our debt. China alone could probably trigger a collapse of our economy.
John McCain is absolutely sadistic.
You wanna stop this illegal war, and all others? Who cares about november--you have all the power you need right now. Create a grassroots campaign which takes a hard look at the reality of this war--start viewing soldiers as you do murderers, rapists, and thieves...start looking down on people who sign up to invade other countries...start condemning not only the leadership but the men and women who enable their policies by following their atrocious orders. If you signed up for a particular reason (say to repel an invasion) then if at any point the reason you initially signed up for is no longer valid--you should be gone. For example, if Russia declared war on us and invaded alaska tomorrow--you might feel compelled, and rightly so, to enlist to defend this country. However, if 10 years down the road you find yourself in Russia occupying their country and trying to turn it into an American territory...you need to resign...the initial conditions of your enlistment are no longer valid, and there is no longer any moral sanction in your role as a solider.
There is no glory or honor in irrational, illegal, aggressive war, and there is no glory or honor in being a solider in such a war. There is nothing honorable about serving as a solider in war...unless...your country is under attack, and our country is not under attack. I would have nothing but contempt for anyone who enlisted in the past 4 years. If you do want to enlist...don't sign a four year contract...being a solider should be just like any other job, if you don't support the current policy you should be able to give your two weeks notice and be gone. If they don't allow this--don't sign up. Its naive and borderline irrational to sign four years of your life away on the premise that current or future leaders will be acting as they currently claim.
If you wanna defend this country, purchase a firearm right now. Keep it at your home, learn to use it smartly and safely, purchase training from local police officers (this is cheap--$50-100), and practice with it on a regular basis--educate yourself on the realities of our foreign policy, and stop pretending that there is anything praiseworthy about the murder and occupation of the citizens of a sovereign nation.
I agree about not supporting irrational, illegal war, just save your fire for the politicians giving the orders.
Why though? Why are the soldiers not equally responsible? If anything, the soldiers are more responsible.
If you only ever attack the leaders, all you do is pave the way for a new leader. You have to attack the source of the leaders power: his followers--or nothing will ever change. Here we are about to oust Bush, and elect John McCain!
"And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie aint going back in the bottle, until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation....so tell me...you want to go to war with Iran, PICK YOUR CITY!"
This is the same argument that weasel George Galloway tries to make -- painting the Iranians (or muslim world in general) as harmless, saying that the Bush administration are complete fear-mongers, but saying that we should shape our foreign policy on the belief that they'll perform terrorist atrocities on us if we don't do as they tell us.
How can the talks of a nuclear Iran be fear-mongering when you're using the threat of a nuclear Iran to discourage attacking them?
Or was he not talking about Iran. What then, Al Qaeda? Do you think they spend a lot of time debating proportionality of response? Do you think the group that crashed jumbo jets into skyscrapers full of civilians are holding back on their nuclear ambitions because they think the US is playing nice now?
You know what, I don't really know the answer to all these, but I know that anyone who speaks with the certainty that Scott Ritter does is full of it.
edit - and his statement is all based on a ridiculous premise, anyway. Why on Earth would we use nuclear weapons against Iran.
Since we're the only global villain, it's worth it for you to keep us in our place. Then you won't need to build up your own armies against one another; with an isolated America "paid off" other nations may finally live in peace, with $0 spent on defense.
Help make this dream a reality. Your Muslim future depends on it.
>> ^rychan:
How can the talks of a nuclear Iran be fear-mongering when you're using the threat of a nuclear Iran to discourage attacking them?
Christ. All I have to say is that if John McCain is elected president, I'm fucking moving to Canada.
But if you die in Canada, you die in REAL life!!
http://xkcd.com/180/
The only thing: Al Qaeda will make a bomb whether we take them to 6 party talks or teaty talks or not. Iran, may not.
Cannot compare criminals with nations. If that were true then US, Canada and any other nation worthy of the title would be comparative to criminal.
An Iran with nuclear weapons is as dangerous as an America with nuclear weapons. But if we attack them, they will retaliate. And they will have every right to do so, because we attacked first. And it doesn't matter if we bomb them with our own nuclear weapons or if we merely bomb one of their buildings with a simple missile. An attack is an attack--they care not for the severity.
So you're saying that if Iran has nuclear weapons, they will use them in response to ANY attack without considering proportionality of response? The first time they're attacked it's a million civilians dead?
How can you allow such a nation to have nuclear weapons?
>> ^rychan:
The only thing: Al Qaeda will make a bomb whether we take them to 6 party talks or teaty talks or not. Iran, may not.
Cannot compare criminals with nations. If that were true then US, Canada and any other nation worthy of the title would be comparative to criminal.
Scott Ritter seemed to be using Al Qaeda and Iran in the same argument. I don't see why he'd be intentionally vague and use the term "Islamic [nuclear] weapon" instead of "Iranian nuclear weapon".
If he said "If we nuke Iran, they Iran nuke us" his argument would make some sense as far as proportionality, but no sense as far as where they'd be getting their nuclear weapon since our attack was to destroy their nuclear facilities. Maybe it failed. And he thinks Iran will nuke a city in response. Sounds like a terrible thing to do, but OK. His argument is that Iran is reckless and dangerous with nuclear weapons.
If he said "If we nuke Iran, then Al Qaeda will nuke us" his argument is dumb, because like you said, Al Qaeda will do anything to nuke us already.
Even though yes its that damn music again ill upvote because this is serious business and especially for that last line
Thank you for mentioning this hackneyed opus
>Do yourself a favor for once and stop cow-towing to american
imperialism. Stand up to the bully. The rest of the world has the power right now to stop america: stop trading in dollars, stop buying our debt. China alone could probably trigger a collapse of our economy.
SHHHHH
>> ^rychan:
>> ^thinker247:
An Iran with nuclear weapons is as dangerous as an America with nuclear weapons. But if we attack them, they will retaliate. And they will have every right to do so, because we attacked first. And it doesn't matter if we bomb them with our own nuclear weapons or if we merely bomb one of their buildings with a simple missile. An attack is an attack--they care not for the severity.
So you're saying that if Iran has nuclear weapons, they will use them in response to ANY attack without considering proportionality of response? The first time they're attacked it's a million civilians dead?
How can you allow such a nation to have nuclear weapons?
>> ^Jordass:
Even though yes its that damn music again ill upvote because this is serious business and especially for that last line
Thank you for mentioning this hackneyed opus
What's that tune called?
It's the score from Requiem For A Dream.
One talks about timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, and turning over the country's defense to local security, and the other wants permanent bases for 100 years.
When Russia invades Georgia, one is just a hair short of demanding we send troops to Georgia, while the other stresses the need for diplomacy.
When Iran has no nuclear program, one says we have to attack now to prevent them from getting one, the other just says we need to work with the U.N. with diplomacy and possibly economic sanctions to prevent it.
I can see why you can't tell the difference, they're like totally identical in that they both have different responses to all three foreign policy questions in the U.S., because one responds all-military all the time, and the other is pretty close to all-diplomacy all the time.
People who try to encourage this "they're both the same" meme, knowingly or not, is aiding this warmongering moron get elected. I want more from Obama than he's promising too, but he's better than anyone else who's going to be on the ballot.
After all, the same kind of fool pushed the "they're both the same" meme with Bush and Gore, and I don't think anyone thinks they'd have been the same today.
See, it is actually you who is aiding these morons, by believing every word they say, as if there's no such thing as elections. It took Bush to teach most of you that politicians talk alot of shit to get what they want, I guess some still didn't get it.
Permanent bases for a hundred years, gimme a break. You should be so lucky. Considering the direction we are heading this will be your smallest worry.
Iran poses a major thread to the US. Nukes got nothing to do with it, except that they would make a regime change alot harder. Question is: Do you want to preserve your lifestyle?
Seriously, stop watching videos and go read a book!
You're right about Obama being the better candidate tho. Out of two, so what's that worth? By the way, I never said that they're the same. I said it won't make a difference who gets elected, that's all. Yes, some details will be slightly different, but I'm looking at the big picture here.
I hate it too, but it's the truth. I don't like McCain, but this video made me hate him slightly less, because he's not lying about the fact that the future looks pretty grim.
Ritter: My concern is that we will use nuclear weapons to break the backbone of Iranian resistance, and it may not work. But what it will do is this: It will unleash the nuclear genie.
[snip]
And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie ain't going back into the bottle, until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation!
So tell me: You want to go to war with Iran? Pick your city! Pick your city! Tell me which one you want gone! Seattle, LA, Boston, New York, Miami... Pick one! 'Cause at least one's going! And that's something we should all think about before we march down this path of INSANITY!
Of course Obama is only the lesser of two evils, Ron Paul '12! (who thinks we'll make it to '12?)
and his statement is all based on a ridiculous premise, anyway. Why on Earth would we use nuclear weapons against Iran.
I don't think you could say it with any certainty but my guess is if McCain was dead set on taking out Iran he would have to. You haven't got the military resources to defeat them any other way. Bush burnt you guys when he didn't consider the consequences of a drawn out occupation.
You trans-global America-haters, I beg you, WALL US IN! Help remove the 40 million illegals from America and repatriate them to their countries of origin.
--------------
But who would cut your grass, clean your pool, take out your garbage, clean your house, nanny your children, do all the jobs American's either don't want or are too lazy to do?
Your economy could not survive without those 40million below minimum wage workers.