The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Given that the right to self defense is a big part of what you support, how can you argue against Iran getting nuclear weapons when enemy Israel has it as well as Pakistan, India and China?

My arguments r completely unrelated to the well-being of Iran.
The candidates who offer themselves for our votes
r running to represent the interests of AMERICA, not of Iran.
Let Ron Paul run for President of Iran.

Our choices shud be based on the interests of AMERICA.
Nothing else counts. That determines the good sense of our votes.

I live in a port city n I don 't wanna get nuked.
That will govern my analysis of the issue at hand, and my vote.





David

Do you honestly believe there's any chance of you being nuked by Iran? That's an even more ridiculous prospect than the novels written by your chum Heinlein.

Plus (and I think this is what Finn was saying too), Paul's put in a LOT of time and shoe leather there, which Iowans really value. (Not that the other states don't like it, but it seems to be an extra big deal in Iowa.)

A nuke can be delivered by ship izzy. And you live in a port city I gather.

I'm incredibly relaxed about Iran having the bomb. They've got enough on their plate with their near neighbours. In fact, Iran has never attacked anyone since the Shah was ousted. They just want to feel a bit more secure, and I don't blame them. Having said that, if I was an Israeli or a Saudi I would feel a lot different.

or a little boat,
detonating by a timer or remote radio control, b4 it arrives at Customs

Nobody can afford to be relaxed about Iran having an efficient bomb until their ruling elites have been educated in European universities or their derivatives in the overseas territories for 3 or 4 generations.

There is a significant difference, to put it at its mildest, between having the bomb and having an efficient bomb.

And the Shah was too busy attacking his own people to bother about much else other that his preening cock style.

I think the waves from a nuclear war between Iran and any of its neighbours will wash across Southamton.

Where did I say he was ok? I said I understand his popularity among Iowan republicans.

Of course there is a chance, (but u probably don't wanna frase it that way).
More to the point, a nuclear 9/11/1 can be achieved by a small group of men,
as indeed, the actual 9/11 attacks were,
as distinct from being the work of an established political regime.
In any case, the President of Iran is the type of impassioned fellow
who'd LOVE to be remembered for nuking NY!
That woud jingle his chimes. He 'd jubilantly have his gravestone carved,
expressing it just the way he likes it, in the stone of his choice
maybe displaying a mushroom cloud near the Statue of Liberty
and a photograph of him embedded in the stone, with a broad smile!





David

Perry, Gingrich and even Bachmann are looking good right now.

amen! Some people's fears are irrational.

There's a better likelihood that they'll suffer flood from global warming and/or a tsunami.

It's the power of nightmares, keep people frightened and you can control them. As for what Dave said about the President, Mr. Dinnerjacket, he's got very little real power. It's the Ayatollah that wields all the real power. That nasty little business about our embassy had as much to do with the Ayatollah showing who's boss as anything else.

Iran's leadership has been known not to act in the country's own interests before, but even they're not stupid enough to launch a nuclear attack on the most powerful nation on Earth. The end result would be the obliteration of Iran. They want the threat of nuclear action to stop an invasion. It's worked for North Korea, just as not having nuclear weapons ensured the invasion of Iraq.

The problem shows itself when our country is threatened by the likes of bin Laden, and we started two wars to fight one deranged man responsible for 9-11. Our government lied to our own citizens as well as to our allies to start those two wars, and GW Bush had his highest performance rating at that time.

It's scary; fear makes people over-react to situations and tend to take actions that are regretful from hindsight when it's too late.

GW Bush was credited with bringing democracy to Iraq, but the thousand year war within Iraq just continues on.

Wait ... I thought we started the Iraq War to avenge threats made by Saddam against George Bush Sr., and/or to fulfill the dreams of the Project for the New American Century group, and/or because of the oil. Now you're telling me it was to fight OBL?

tico wrote,

That's even worse; we ended up killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis - including children.

From what I remember, we started the war in Iraq on the lies about
Saddam's WMD's.

It's impossible to follow your line of thought, c.i. 2 posts ago you were complaining about us starting the Iraq war to fight OBL, now you claim it was either to avenge threats against Bush 41 or "on the lies about Saddam's WMD's" ... can you pick a point and stick with it?

Maybe if you sat back and reviewed the Bush starting two wars on the back of lies you might come to understand his point. But knowing your posting style im sure you would rather do your favorite thing and stir ****.

I thought that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were because the consequences of doing nothing were perceived as more dangerous than of doing something.

In debate doing nothing has no consequences but in real life doing nothing does have consequences. Because doing something has consequences that can be seen it cannot be compared to doing nothing when doing nothing has been rejected and thus has no consequences in the debate and can be presented as having none in action when it does in fact have consequences. Doing nothing is not a risk free option.

Both of those countries represented a serious obstacle to the general policy of supporting modernisers in the ME generally. After Vietnam they perceived the West as unable to support long wars.

9/11 concentrated minds. "What if" was on everybody's minds.

The members of the Senate went home, and the House republicans rejected the tax cuts approved by the Senate, because they want to "negotiate" their differences. This, after the Super Committeee couldn't arrive at an agreement to cut spending by $1.2 trillion.

I wish all those conservatives who will be paying more in taxes next year a HAPPY NEW YEAR!