I doubt they will end up doing anything. The options are unappealing, and it is far from certain they would be effective. If it was simple, the Israelis would have already done it, no matter what obama said. I understand that the candidates are trying to appeal to the national security wing of the party, but they need to make it clear where they stand on the Bush/neo-con doctrine of preemptive attacks and using war as a tool to force democracy on the middle east. To listen to that debate, you would think they learned nothing from the twin disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. Some, like Santorum, seem eager to repeat the mistake. The latest neo-con spin is that Obama somehow "lost" Iraq, first by failing to force a coalition government on them, then by failing to negotiate a satisfactory status of forces agreement that would have allowed U.S. troops to remain indefinitley. There is some basis for both claims, but they assume that Bush or someone else would have accomplished both objectives, which seems dubious to me. Plus, it assumes we want to have a large military presence in iraq indefinitely. Maybe if we eliminated our presence in places like Germany, Korea or Japan we could afford it or maybe we could have taken control of the Iraqi oil fields and used some of that to pay for it, but Bush and his crowd did neither. It would have been interesting if the debate had gotten into some real issues like this, but they were too busy trying to catch the candidates out or make them look bad.
First insult, you lose. Let the mods worry about it, you (should) have more important things to do today.
Lose what rectum? So you've spent seven years on a web site devoted to trading, even though you have no interest in trading whatsoever. Trading, the last bastion of pure capitalism and you're a admitted flaming communist. You cry about MMGW but work and profit in the petroleum industry. And yet you have the haughty audacity to question the content of other members posts? Hypocrite: 1) A member of the ET TRADING web site know as Ricter aka Rectum.
Here's what happened leading up to 9-11: It was the Clinton era, the budget was being balanced by reducing the military's budget. The word "terror" was removed from the dictionary. Clinton types don't want the public to ever think they need defense. I used google and searched the news media for the word "terror" and it was non-existant. Presidents have the power to do that, in WW2 there were a lot of words that were blacked out. I only tracked that one word and that only during those Clinton years... so we had planes that were getting shot down by shoulder fired launchers. We had hundreds of witnesses to one occurance of that but the FBI assumed jurisdiction when they didn't have legal cause for it and eventually they determined that an electrical problem in the fuel tank was at fault... it was all just cover up and manipulation of the information going out to the votery... So the Muzzies were being shut out of the news when they did terror attacks. They had to do one that could not be ignored so they flew planes into the Twin Towers... Sun Tsu pointed out that it's suicide to not have a military and it's very expensive to use the military. The Democrats go with the first option and force the Republicans to go with the second when the correct thing to do is to have a fantastic military and never use it... Probably we are seeing the same cycle play out again but this time it's about Iran.. it's not like, with our two party system, that we are capable of learning from history...