This news report was from my Comcast server so I don't offer a link.

Quote:

---

Iran said on Saturday it would not back down "one iota" in its nuclear row with major powers, voicing defiance on the day of an informal deadline set by the West over Tehran's disputed atomic ambitions.

Western officials gave Tehran two weeks from July 19 to respond to their offer to hold off from imposing more U.N. sanctions on Iran if it froze any expansion of its nuclear work.

That would suggest a deadline of Saturday but Iran, which has repeatedly ruled out curbing its nuclear activities, dismissed the idea of having two weeks to reply.

The West accuses Iran of seeking to build nuclear warheads under cover of a civilian power program. Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, denies the charge.

"In whichever negotiation we take part ... it is unequivocally with the view to the realization of Iran's nuclear right and the Iranian nation would not retreat one iota from its rights," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.

---

One of my fears about Obama and his lack of political experience is regarding Iran and it's insistence to continue it's nuclear activities. Obama went to speak with Ahmadinejad with the belief that talking will calm him down. In his case, I don't believe that will happen.

This is the leader who says the Hitler Concentration Camps never existed. He also has stated many times that Israel should be removed from this earth.

His treatment of his own citizens is so brutal, one could not really expect to merely 'speak kindly' to him and obtain results.

I'm afraid we will go too far the opposite of Bush and this man will follow through on his many threats.

How would you expect Obama to respond and how should McCain respond to this impending dilemma?

Ahmadinejad is considered insane by many reporters and nuclear is not something that should be left in the hands of such a person.

Check the link and get a glimpse of what this man is all about.

Fiery Spirited Zionist: Iran regime terrorizing its own citizens

Iranian president, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," is yet another nutcase tyrant. He hates Americans and he really hates Israelis, and Jews everywhere.


I think Obama attempts to take on Iran's nuclear capability similar to how Ronald Reagan handled Pakistan with heavy sanctions. I look for Obama to have a lot more leverage with UN than Dubya ever did. And I suspect, if ultimately push comes to shove, we will make strategic bombing a practice. Of course when Reagan favored sanctions everybody loved him, because he then ended up using their country to do the dirty work and provided incentives.

Pakistan:Leaving U.S. Sanctions in Place Would Be Grave - International Herald Tribune

Pakistan followed by cobbling together a nuclear weapon heavily reliant on Chinese technology, inducing U.S. nuclear sanctions in 1979. Then the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Ronald Reagan turned a blind eye to Islamabad's nuclear ambitions in return for its support of the Afghan rebels.


In McCain's case, I have a more difficult time getting a handle on. One moment his thoughts declare we could be in a war for the next hundred years if necessary (according to his judgement) and the next he tries to distant himself from Dubya's bull headed reactionary ways. He may be just trying to hedge his bets for the election, but I sure hope he doesn't plan on a long drawn out invasion into Iraq.

PW your concerns are well founded.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama Needs a History Lesson

Good link, Tom.

"History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

History seems to be low priority around this election. Doesn't anyone realize a wrong choice could spell the end of life? (Not that anyone can be certain what the right choice should be).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

As Sir Winston Churchill said: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

History seems to be low priority around this election. Doesn't anyone realize a wrong choice could spell the end of life? (Not that anyone can be certain what the right choice should be).

---

Not just this election. I'm thinking of all the public that voted for Dubya, not once, but twice. Bad news is that some of them will even vote McCain, which in effect will be history repeating itself yet again in Dubya's third term. :eek:

Bobby, I ask one more time. Do you really think we would be better off if Gore had been elected in 2000? If so, in what ways? In light of his subsequent behavior, I don't believe we would be.

All you had to do is ask me. Of course. Gore wouldn't had spent half the money we currently are racking up in Iraq.

National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home

Bobby . Gore was an Iraq hawk in the Clinton Adm . Look up his record on the issue. Either he was lying then or now.

http://f528.mail.yahoo.com/ya/downlo...Inbox&inline=1

http://f528.mail.yahoo.com/ya/downlo...Inbox&inline=1

Tom, I can't get into either of those links. Try again please.

I think Gore would have been a terrible president. We might all be wearing turbans and speaking Arabic by now if we'd had Kerry or even Clinton and most definitely if it had been Carter... How soon people forget how shocked, angry and fearful everyone felt following the 9-11 attack, and how happy they were at Bush taking action so the terrorists would know we weren't going to lie down and let them kill us all. Memories fade quickly for some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

All you had to do is ask me. Of course. Gore wouldn't had spent half the money we currently are racking up in Iraq.

National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home

---

Bobby, I respectfully suggest that what Gore or Kerry would not have spent in Iraq, either would have made up for in domestic give-aways, so I think the bottom line would have not been much different, and maybe Al Queda may have been stronger. I guess we'll never know for sure.
John

That's my point as well. Gore would had spent it with give-aways at home, instead of give-aways in Iraq. I keep reminding people that Iraq is not going to become the 51st State of the U.S. not even in a hundred years from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

I think Gore would have been a terrible president. We might all be wearing turbans and speaking Arabic by now if we'd had Kerry or even Clinton and most definitely if it had been Carter....... How soon people forget how shocked, angry and fearful everyone felt following the 9-11 attack, and how happy they were at Bush taking action so the terrorists would know we weren't going to lie down and let them kill us all. Memories fade quickly for some.

---

In all fairness to Gore, Kerry, Clinton, and Carter, I think they would had enough sense to go after the correct perpetrator for the 9/11 attack. Dubya scapegoated Iraq for Afghanistan shortly after losing track of OBL.

And in all respect to you Bobby. We don't know the real reasons we're in Iraq. It's a well kept secret - but one guess is to make an ally in the middle east where we have none (other than Israel) and need at least one strong one. It also puts us in the area where we could keep a watch for Bin Laden. And another very strong reason may be to do with Iran and all their nuclear threats... Can't get much closer to Iran than to be positioned in Iraq. We won't know if this is a good or no-good decision by Bush and his Congress, until some time has passed. As for the money spent - our government spends on any and every thing. There is no limit to what we spend and what our bureaucrats steal and waste of taxpayers money, so why complain about the cost of this? The taxpayers pay and will keep paying, whether it's to support a war or study the sex life of s tse tse fly.

I hear you. Oops! Baby's in my arms and I'm typing using one hand. Bare with me. We had this discussion on the political board not so long ago. My argument is how Dubya handled the Iraqi war and went about it. The costs are astronomical, but the amount, in my personal view (political ideology), is still accumalating and I'd rather had spent the money at home. I'm just guessing on the Iran issue, but to run with your proposal, it is possible that closing bases in Europe will mean a shift in strategic location to the Middle East region. But I don't think Dubya was ever thinking that when he took on the Iraqi war responsibility. His father "Herbert" Bush and the Gulf War saga was just a decade earlier and In my opinion all he considered was having Schwarzkopf ride around in parades when he got back home.

The problem with these arguments is that it was no secret why the Iraq war happened . All the arguments for the war were laid out and debated for almost a year before it was authorized . Congress voted to authorize the war after the debate using the best intel. Available at the time.

As for a President Gore and his policies toward Iraq ? Well we cannot be sure that he would've had the spine ;but his past statements indicated that he would take Saddam down :

[I]"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." Vice President Al Gore - Larry King Live, December 16, 1998
"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen." Vice President Al Gore - ABC News' "Special Report,” December 16, 1998

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

In McCain's case, I have a more difficult time getting a handle on. One moment his thoughts declare we could be in a war for the next hundred years if necessary (according to his judgement)...

---

Sigh... I can't believe you're still using that Bobby.

Quote:

---

“We've been in South Korea... we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."

---

He said NOTHING about 100 years WAR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

He said NOTHING about 100 years WAR.

---

I see you conveniently left out the first part of the transcript:

Quote:

---

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — ” (cut off by McCain)
McCain: “Make it a hundred.”

---

See below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I see you conveniently left out the first part of the transcript:

---

And I can't believe you have the audacity to to whine about me leaving out a pertinent portion of the quote. The 100 years part was already mentioned, I added the context. I stand by the truth, he said NOTHING about 100 years of WAR. He was IN FACT speaking about a peacetime presence in Iraq.

You mean like the peacetime presence you currently have where people are still getting killed daily? That one?