It's not a platform for leftist tripe.
Yep- why not!
Concur.
Why not indeed--if the tanker traffic in the Straits of Hormuz can be adequately protected and the nuke program set back at least by several years I don't see any downside at all.
Obama wants to "negotiate" with a madman and meanwhile hope that the regime collapses under it's own contradictions.
That's not a plan, it's pre-emptive surrender.
Any action taken will have to be before the Presidential election, because there'll most certainly be none afterwards.
"That's not a plan, it's pre-emptive surrender.
Any action taken will have to be before the Presidential election, because there'll most certainly be none afterwards."
Damn KG. You've got a way with words -- and with ideas.
I love that "pre-emptive surrender" lolol
rg
Yes, unfortunately we must take action on Iran, there is really no other way. You cannot negotiate with those who are hell bent on deception and destruction.
It won't be done though.I think we all know that.
And sooner or later a US city will be nuked.
THEN and only then, we may see a change...
Maybe, Oswald. My guess though is that once the initial outrage died down, it'd be back to business as usual, with the usual apologists bleating about the immorality of collective punishment, the difficulties involved in identifying the perps etc etc etc.
There'd be no retaliatory strike and if American citizens started stringing up muslims from lamp posts the government would crack down on them.
That's why I said 'may'!
You guys are being to pessimistic. We're going to attack Iran before the elections.
The question for the west should really be 'When', not 'Should'. It's been 30 years since 'Death to America' started from Iran. 30 years and they're still saying the same thing.
Whatever language we're waffling on about, they ain't getting the message. Time to stop talking and use the big stick, before they have one of their own.
Commenting by HaloScan
