Pool question: Anyone want to guess how many states go nuclear if a Democrat gets elected? I’d say four, minimum.

Does anyone here think that this isn’t their goal? Does anyone think that the Democrats plan is to limit nuclear power to states in the middle east? They would love for the region to go nuclear because in their minds the US hegemony has caused so many problems that the region going nuclear would cancel out the Evil American power as to end all conflict because of the ramifications of MAD.

Any reason to get all of our troops out of the Middle East. Just shows how ignorant these people are.

China has to fear a nuclear Japan. But Japan would have to have nukes to counter North Korea. If Iran gets nukes that might entice Saudi Arabia and even Turkey to get nukes. And I dont think the russians would like a nuclear Turkey.

Egypt is on the list as well as saudi arabia. The wealthy gulf states could have them as well. In fact the whole middle east could soon go nuclear.

States that WILL go nuclear under a Democratic White House are….Iran, South Korea, Syria…and what’s even probably more significant and ultimately threatening…Venezuela.

He had and used poison gas on Iran and the Kurds. Those are WMDS. He was making an effort to get more technology to build more.

The Gulf War and sanctions erroded his weapons. But he played a shell game with UN inspectors and we never fully knew what he had and didnt have.

The WMD arguement is what the US took to the UN. It was only one of the issues we had against Iraq. But Russia and China and France were so busy making millions off of Saddams oil (It was really those countries who used blood for oil. They didnt care who Saddam murdered as long as they sold him weapons)

The US never finished the WMD arguement at the UN so it was largely irrelevant. The UN didnt back the war so it didnt matter if Iraq had WMDs or not.

Darn, we should have waited until Saddam had his finger on the button.

Stupid Bush.

“In a brief confrontation in the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, five armed Iranian fast boats took aggressive actions on Sunday around three United States Navy warships in international waters, according to a Pentagon spokesman…”

While sipping my coffee this am (12/17), I notice that Fox News is interviewing this very same Harvard University professor.

Samantha Power happens to be a campaign spokesman for none other than B. Obama Hussein. She was championing Obama’s call to open dialogue/negotiate with terrorists.

Juxtaposing Powers reflections in the HBO presentation with this BHO political campaign effort lays bare the utter vacancy of Obama’s foreign affairs skills.

Buckle up . . .it’s gonna be a rough ride.

Not likely, I served during the liberation of Kuwait.

DMeNTe on January 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Maybe I got into the middle of this and missed something. I thought you asked why we had bases in Saudi. But since you were probably there, I guess I misunderstood. Sorry.

we weren’t going to war with an innoncent nation, who “may get WMD’s” and “may use against us” via terrorist. Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terror for over a decade before the war.

Augustine’s Just War theory applies, whether in the post-9/11, War on Terror, context. OR, simply the issue of Saddam vs. US post Cease-Fire Agreement.

Not likely, I served during the liberation of Kuwait.

DMeNTe on January 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Well then, thank you. And now I don’t understand. When did anyone ever offer the reason for Desert Storm as having to do with Saddam’s nuclear capabilities?

DMeNTe on January 7, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Here’s what Tony said when making his case:

TONY BLAIR: The danger is that if we allow Iraq to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons they will threaten their own region, there is no way that we would be able to exclude ourselves from any regional conflict there was there as indeed we had to become involved last time they committed acts of external aggression against Kuwait.

JEREMY PAXMAN: But right now there is no danger, it’s a danger some time in the future.

TONY BLAIR: I’ve never said that Iraq was about to launch an attack on Britain but if you look at the history of Saddam Hussein there is absolutely no doubt at all that he poses a threat to his region.

If he was to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the rest of his region, there is no way that Britain could stand aside from that, or indeed the rest of the world.

And that is precisely why we have had 12 years of United Nations resolutions against him.

You are confusing Desert Storm with this Iraq war.

JiangxiDad on January 7, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Not likely, I served during the liberation of Kuwait.

check that out sometime from the Hoover Institute.

No but seriously, I do think they did tell us he did have them. Remember? He’s got em, let’s get him. At least that was the headlines in the British press…

DMeNTe on January 7, 2008 at 4:31 PM

You are confusing Desert Storm with this Iraq war.

one problem we have, is this whole issue has been spun into we only went to war because of “pre-emption” of a future war based on what Saddam may do, etc. When in fact it was that, given his history, plus the fact we were already justified and had been for years.

it really came down to, “is war worth it”? Does the cost of Containment, especially in context of post-9/11 outweigh War and the aftermath.

not getting that message and facts out, while the Left has spun and lied about it for years and thanks to our media got away with it. Has led to the sane Paul supporters out there buying into it. many of which are evangelical Christians.

At least that was the headlines in the British press…

DMeNTe on January 7, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Hold it. Stop. Cut. Halt. Cease. Arrêt.

The BBC recently did an internal review that concluded it was biased and had anti-American leanings, IIRC.