Who has iran invaded like the nazi’s did?

mags on September 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Try Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel.
Granted, they are more dysfunctional than the nazis, and less competent in general, so the effects are more chaotic and ineffectual, but they have sent people into other countries to attack them.

Count to 10 on September 27, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Good answer. Iran frankly has not had the power to invade like the Nazis did. That’s why they use the weak regime’s tool, terrorism, to attack other nations. Iran has surpassed Syria to become the number one sponsor of terrorism around the world. They have aided terrorists in Iraq to target American troops. They have equipped and aided Hezbollah in Lebanon to undermine the government there, and in Israel.

Many individuals in Iran are quite friendly to the US and open to good relations. But the Iranian regime is a threat to everyone around them, and will continue to be a threat to the US as long as we’re in that area.

wise_man:

I was referring in the deliberate attempts by the left to demonize Bush or their political enemies.

If you tell people that presidents are behind plots to kill Americans, that they carry out illegal wars, then it is not just that president that will be tarred, but the whole process and institution. I think that sometimes the left forgets that.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:25 AM

The left is too simplistic to think to the end result of their tactics. For one thing, they see no connection between a liberal president and a conservative president. They just see the conservatives as evil.

All that matters to the left is that you hold the right opinions (political correctness) and have good intentions. Leftist politicians can promise everything, because they don’t have to keep any promises. The important thing is the good intention

Bush, being somewhat conservative, is therefore an evil fascist madman who must be opposed. If one of their own becomes president, then the presidency is instantly a glorious and untarnished institution.

In other words, forget reasoning. It’s all about feeling.

I keep reading that there were no major gaffes. This was a major gaffe and it ought to be rammed into Obama big time.
What am I missing?

drjohn on September 27, 2008 at 11:50 AM

I agree. The Kissinger exchange and Hanks response is Ad fodder of the highest order!

My wife told me a story after the debate. When she was little, she saw her mom had some baker’s chocolate. She wanted some because it looked so good. But, of course, tasted horrible. That is how she sees Obama after the debate – he looks good, the substance doesn’t match.

I told her she was racist.

Phred on September 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Not LOL but chuckling heartily!

Sensitivity training for the whole fam?

Please, come back to reality.

Count to 10 on September 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM

I came back to reality ever since I found God and realized war is Satanic.

Did not Sadam offer a $25,000 bounty to suicide bombers for every Jew they killed? Oh, yeah, but that’s not Al Queda.

bloggless on September 27, 2008 at 8:50 AM

Obama loves Saddam Hussein Obama has his middle name he can identify with him..

America also, had the “Iraq Liberation Act” that was passed and signed by Bill Clinton and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.. Saddam was funding terrorist that bomb inside of Israel, and lying and denying inspectors access, after 9/11 we could not trust him, fail UN Resolution after resolution, we called his bluff, how he’s dead.

mags on September 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Is mags an Iranian operative, or just a loony lefty? His remarks seem to indicate he is not from the US.

I am with you, mags. I shook my head watching the debate when both candidates claimed with a straight face that Iran is a threat to USA homeland. That kind of lie is what got us into the Iraq disaster. No more soldiers must die in vain; no more families must be torn apart. No more children must be separated from their mothers.

The time for war must be no more.

philnewkirk on September 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Please, come back to reality.

Who has iran invaded like the nazi’s did?

mags on September 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Try Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel.
Granted, they are more dysfunctional than the nazis, and less competent in general, so the effects are more chaotic and ineffectual, but they have sent people into other countries to attack them.

The time for war must be no more.

There are plenty of other post-game analyses to choose from, if you wish to dig into more of the detail.  And yes, I did watch the debate, and was barraging Ed Morrissey with comments throughout, only two of which made……

If they sung it in the style of the beach boys would that still be a threat? Get a life,it is only a collection of buddies together.
The only images shown of iran is them jumping up and screaming. Iran is not camels and desert. They is a jewish community there,represented in parliment.Please look at other images you might be surprised to see the other side of iran.

Iran interfering in your war? Iran supported you in afghanistan,agreeing that if u.s. soldiers were shot down and landed in iran they would co-operate.

Iran held candlelit vigils following 9/11, and strongly condemned it.

There is a rising taking place,they are a proud nation .70% of iranians are under 40 and want change,they report that they were able to overthrown the shah,support them but don’t nuke them.

80 power stations bombed with all that toxic waste for ever in their country.What would it achieve? They have every right to develop nuclear power,it serves there country better if they use nuclear power for their domestic use,and sell there oil-they will get more money that way.

I emplore you to go out side your media for information.
Why can Israel have hundreds of undeclared nukes-not sighed up the NPA.No inspections.

The rest of the world has had enough of U.S hypocrisy and double standards.
‘nuke them’ for helping terrorists,so the U.K had every right to bomb boston and kill all who funded and supported the i.r.a who used it to kill british and irish civilians.
Where you with us or with the terrorists?

I told her she was racist.

I would like to add something, though.

Truth in advertising: I didn’t see the entire debate. I TIVO’d it, and plan to watch it later, perhaps when I’ve had a few drinks and a mellow enough that Obama’s manner doesn’t have me throwing something through my TV screen.

Mr. Obama came off to me as quite polished. What I did see convinced me that, despite the hassles of the last few days, he has had time to prepare. He excels, after all, as does his treasonous party at the smooth lie.

Mr. Obama was style. He came off as if he was reciting his own campaign literature — all promises, “forty acres and a mule”, without the mechanisms worked out to deliver — very smoothly and with all the responses to all the predictable counters rehearsed. He performed stylishly.

Mr. McCain seemed ragged. He seemed, instead of rehearsed, to be more “just flew in, and boy are my arms tired”, and speaking off the top of his head. Hence, the bulldog grip on earmarks and his concentration on spending cuts when that point had passed. But, when it came to the war, the “surge” and other foreign affairs topics, he spoke with sort of an “I seem to remember that you…” tone. It was genuine, and he displayed a knowledge of affairs which bespoke actual experience and thought, not a weekend’s briefing.

In short, he was substance.

So, we had a display of style v. substance. That’s a pretty stark choice to me, n’cest pas?

If you expected McCain to tar and feather Obama in order to win, you failed to observe that the debate accomplished its purpose. And if you want Obama tarred and feathered, you’re going to have to do that on your own and suffer the consequences.

A Statesman does not trash his opponent in order to win the debate. The Statesman proves the opponent’s ineffectual strategy, proves the opponent’s inaccuracies, proves the opponent’s lack of preparation and lack of ability to respond effectively to world crisis. McCain did that hands down without rancor. McCain proved his own strength of character throughout the debate, not ever loosing his composure, always responding particularly to the words and ideas of his opponent, assigning fault according to recorded fact, not fabricated propaganda.

Obama failed to respond in kind. Obama is not presidential material. Obama does not have anything that the POTUS must have in order to serve our nation with grace, dignity and prowess. Obama squandered the opportunity to show America that he is anything other than a flim-flam man.

Obama lost everything beyond his own pea-brained contingency.

McCain won hands down as an officer, a gentleman, a Senator and great Statesman, and a true American hero.

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM

That was extremely well said and worth repeating!

I thought it was interesting that supposedly Obama was going to try to get McCain to lose his temper, and Obama was the one who looked ready to blow a gasket throughout.

Maverick, I also agree with your assessment of the DNC and MSM. I’m not old enough to remember the coverage in Vietnam, but through this election cycle I’ve seen the DNC run with the omissions, half-truths and strait out lies because they know most in the media are aiding and abetting their goal of total control. It’s more than a bit frightening.

John McCain has had to fight a sea of intellectual dishonesty that borders upon the criminal.