How much would a different elected leader matter in Iran? Ayatollah Khamenei calls much of the shots no matter who is in power.

If you are referring to my suggestion of a regime change, I agree. Elections in Iran mean very little because only government-approved candidates can run. By regime change, I mean a complete makeover of the government, preferably in response to large scale demonstrations such as the ones that toppled the Soviet Union.

I would believe Iran's talk of nuclear energy talk if they weren't drowning in oil. Were not even big on Nuclear energy here in the states are we, due to safety and enviromental purposes?

If you can point me to where I said this, then I will gladly correct the record. Otherwise, please do not try to put words in my mouth.

 

Neither India nor Pakistan have threatened to wipe Israel and the "Great Satin" from the map. Iran is our enemy and will remain our enemy until there is a regime change. We should not be negotiating with terrorists or the criminally insane.

 

I was asking a question. I don't think they should have a nuke but I don't think we should bomb them.

I would believe Iran's talk of nuclear energy talk if they weren't drowning in oil. Were not even big on Nuclear energy here in the states are we, due to safety and enviromental purposes?

 

I agree with you, but wouldn't they optimize their profits if they weren't using too much oil at home? I think I read somewhere that the Saudis were looking at doing this.

You need to put down the whatever your taking and step away for the computed. McCain welcoming war. Right. A man who suffered miserably because of war and a man with two sons in the military, I'm sure he wants more war. NOT. Cancelling elections. Yeah right. Seriously, you're kidding right or do you honestly believe that would happen? Please don't say you do. You have some credibility with me, but if you say you do think the Administration will cancel the election (as if they even had the power to do so), that credibility is lost.

 

 

Is this the same man saying that we will be in Iraq for 100 years?

If you can point me to where I said this, then I will gladly correct the record. Otherwise, please do not try to put words in my mouth.

 

Neither India nor Pakistan have threatened to wipe Israel and the "Great Satin" from the map. Iran is our enemy and will remain our enemy until there is a regime change. We should not be negotiating with terrorists or the criminally insane.[/QUOTE]

 

After, Iran, Korea, after Korea, after Korea, China, after China, Russia, after Russia anyone else that is a possible "threat, crazy person, calls us a bad name, makes fun of my mother, has a gun, has oil, trees, metal, gold, iron, M&M's, water, because God blessed us and we should just take, " I agree Nuke them all. They will all solute the flag, say the pledge of alligence, bow down to my Christian Lord, or we will get rid of them. Can I get an Amen!

Is this the same man saying that we will be in Iraq for 100 years?

 

Certainly you are smart enough to understand the context in which that statement was made. Funny that posters here still hang on that when even most of the talking heads on the news programs understand the context and aren't criticizing McCain about the comment. We've been in Korea how long now and we are not an occupying force and don't have lots of fatalities in Korea, now do we? We've been in Germany long and not an occupying force and don't have lots of fatalities in Germany, not do we? Good Lord, I don't mind the criticism of McCain where its justified, but taking comments out of context and spinning them to try to get your candidate elected, says some things to me. And one of them is that your candidate must not be very strong if that's what it takes to get him elected.

 

And to think that in the closed thread about Obama's lack of support in re the right to bear arms, some Obama supporters accused the McCain supporters about using the Second Amendment issue to stir up hatred amongst a niche group. Sort of ironic isn't it?

 

And it is the same man that has two sons in the military who would be in harm's way if we recklessly invaded Iran. It is the same man that understands the cruelty of war better than you or I can ever understand it. No, I don't think McCain would welcome any war. I'm amazed that you would think he would.

Hitler never planned to die in a bunker but die he did. Crazy leaders make miscalculations. Just because you believe that it would be irrational for Iran to attack Israel does not mean that President Ahmadinejad agrees.

 

Will the faithful remain faithful knowing that Iran possesses nukes and its leaders are afraid to use them against the evil state of Israel? I don't think so.

 

Let's all just cross our fingers and hope that you are correct and pray that President Ahmadinejad is a sane man.

 

 

First, I never mentioned Israel, my statements were aimed at the U.S.

 

Never said he was sane. Just that the leadership (more than one) would not push their cause to the brink of their own annihlation.

MAD was the deterrent during the cold war, Mutually Assured Destruction. Which meant you blow us up we will blow you up. That doesn't really work today politically. The entire world and many in our own country would turn against us if we used nuclear warheads to flatten Tehran. Everything today is about surgical strikes. Besides that I don't think Iran would strike directly at either the US or Israel. They would simply pass a nuclear weapon off to someone else who would use it. That way they would always have an out and a way to deny involvement.

 

 

I think it would be traceable and proven that Iran gave another nation a nuke to use on the United States. (Much in the same way we knew that the Taliban were supporting Al-Qaida) I think we would respond directy to the nation that armed them.

 

The reason everything is about surgical strikes is because we fear collateral damage.

 

I think any nation knows all to well that the US won't strike first with nukes but we would retaliate with like measure any attack upon our person.

I think it would be traceable and proven that Iran gave another nation a nuke to use on the United States. (Much in the same way we knew that the Taliban were supporting Al-Qaida) I think we would respond directy to the nation that armed them.

 

The reason everything is about surgical strikes is because we fear collateral damage.

 

I think any nation knows all to well that the US won't strike first with nukes but we would retaliate with like measure any attack upon our person.

 

I thought that it was traceable for weapons to be found in Iraq too...

Is this the same man saying that we will be in Iraq for 100 years?

 

No. If you're interested here's the quote in context:

 

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years...

 

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for sixty years. We've been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

No. If you're interested here's the quote in context:

 

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years...

 

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for sixty years. We've been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

I have no problem at all with this. In fact, I would think the Iraqis would want us to stay. Iran is a much greater threat to them than we are.

I have no problem at all with this. In fact, I would think the Iraqis would want us to stay. Iran is a much greater threat to them than we are.

 

Apparently they don't. A majority favors immediate US withdraw.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html

I think it would be traceable and proven that Iran gave another nation a nuke to use on the United States. (Much in the same way we knew that the Taliban were supporting Al-Qaida) I think we would respond directy to the nation that armed them.

 

The reason everything is about surgical strikes is because we fear collateral damage.

 

I think any nation knows all to well that the US won't strike first with nukes but we would retaliate with like measure any attack upon our person.

 

I don't think Iran would launch a direct nuclear attack on the United States for that very reason. They would never be able to cripple us from a military standpoint and would likely receive a retaliation that was exponentially worse. However, I do think we should be concerned about Iran's nuclear technology and capabilities getting in the hands of terrorists who could "act independently" of any government. Of course, Iran isn't the only country that we should be concerned about in that regard, IMO...

 

But, I see the potential of some sort of exchange between a nuclear capable Iran and Israel as the most probable threat. Israel is a small, small country...Iran (or any country with nukes) could do a tremendous amount of damage to Israel with a nuclear assault. And, of course, the threat of a pre-emptive strike by the Israelis is always a possibility...

 

Supposing something like that happens...what does the United States do?

Apparently they don't. A majority favors immediate US withdraw.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html

You might want to check the date on the article that you cited. 19 months is an eternity in the polling business. Just ask Hillary Clinton.