Rudy VS. Ron Paul & David Cross

@xsomexcrazyxmofox

not which lie. There were perfectly legitimate, valid, truthful reasons to go in. Why do you insist on making such a cheap analysis of this? why dismiss a threat as nothing when its glaring you in the face?

As it happens we have a similiar problem on the horizon. Iran is getting closer to possessing nukes. Would you allow that? or would you accept the consequences of saying NO you cant have them?

Well you failed to answer me. Have you read the PNAC?

As for Iran, I don't see anything wrong with them trying to build nukes under the CURRENT global situation. Imagine for a minute that the United States was the country trying to develop nukes and all these countries that despise the US and have nukes are telling us not to build them. Are we going to listen? Of course not. All nations need to band together and destroy all nuclear weapons, including Iran.

There is something wrong with Ahmadinejad getting nuclear weapons. I'm sorry. That is a MORONIC thing to say. Maybe you would like to live in a boardering country once they have them? We know what Ahmadinejad would do if he got a nuke. A theocrat, holocaust denier. How can you know so little about this topic??? You show off your naivety making such a stupid statement.

The Project for a new Amer Cent. made the right call on Iraq for the many reasons i listed below.

Time after time you fail to see my point. I was saying going to war with Iran is not going to help any more than our negotiations are working right now. If we go to war with them what are they going to want to build? Strong weapons.

The PNAC is as near fascist as you can get in a democracy.

No. You fail to see my point. We can do as you suggest, ask nicely, and watch as they eventually get a bomb and then dictate orders to us and the surrounding countries.




OR we can say, NO the day will never dawn when you have a nuke, and demolish their nuclear facilities via air strikes and accept the probable consequences of saying that an irrational theocratic dictator.

You dont have to like your options, but you have to ask yourself, which would be worse?

Again, not what I said. I didn't suggest that. I suggested nuclear disarmament on a global scale. If nobody has any nuclear weapons then it becomes a lot easier to tell who is making them for aggressive purposes. If everyone were disarming their weapons and Iran were building theirs I would agree that military actions may be necessary but right now its a toss up. Are they building them because they feel threatened or because they intend to threaten?

the US has them, status-quo fact, and do not want to use them.

Iran has stated they want one so that they can immediately detonate it.

Please recognize the difference.

I don't believe our government has any moral opposition to using them (we still use DU rounds) we are just held to higher standards.

And if that is true that does change things but I had not heard that before. And I'd need to hear it from somebody that doesn't make up their "facts" (such as Glenn Beck, Micheal Savage etc.)

Jeeezzz, well there is your problem. You just need to do a bit more research :). I'll help you get started...

Named party leaders swore on a stack of Qur'ans that they dont want nukes. Right after tearing up every treaty they have ever signed and later punctuated by Ahmadinejad who admitted "this to vindicates our nuclear program"... woops, slip of the tongue...

BUT DONT TAKE IT FROM ME....

watch?v=inmGbd3Nx1w

and certainly not glenn beck