Ok, understood. But... Who is the bigger aggressor out of U.S. or Iran? Who has invaded more countries and started more wars? Who has been responsible for overthrowing other governments throughout the world? a) United States b) Iran Who is really more dangerous?
for god's sakes .. Japan vowed to fight to the death before surrender .. (eg; kamikazees, hari-kari) ... Why oh why does the left insist on making us the enemy? Explain to the next marxist you meet that in Africa today there are more slaves than all those combined during the transatlantic-slave-trade and gauge their response.
"hypocritical" ... are you sure that is the word your reaching for? "I know what you're thinking punk, did I fire 5 or 6 shots ... considering this is a magnum, the most powerful gun in the world and ... blah, blah ....."
You are the most dangerous. You fail to understand the concept of America. You are like Obama who only wishes to see the negative of this great country. You are an apologist. Assume America never existed. What a world of misery there would be.
America. has plenty of great traits. Foreign policy is not one of them. If you condone starting wars, overthrowing governments, imperialising nations, etc. as good attributes, then we just disagree.
you know what i find remarkable ... the "left" quotes fox news more than any one .. I just recently began watching Fox News again, and yes I agree with the leftists ... they are the only TV news source asking interesting questions .
Obama not even qualified to be French.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441402775482322.html President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement. Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion. French President Nicolas Sarkozy flanked by President Barack Obama, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. .President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy. Le Monde's diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy's speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran's latest deception. Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions. "We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama. "We say that we must reduce," he went on. "President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions . . . "I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions." We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.
The left argues against a Christian VOTING his beliefs yet they argue that a religious and social nut running Iran on behalf of radical muslim clerics and religious leaders should be allowed to develop possess and potentially distribute nuclear weapons. Is there no brain power on the left? Are they hell bent on destruction of the west? Could there be anything less intelligent than saying there are no good reasons to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to nuts who might use them and or give them to terrorists. What is the liberal position on stealth bombers, ICMBs and submarines? Should we just let them acquire those things as well.