I stumbled across a discussion forum @ Commentary Magazine. com, of whether or not the US or Israel would respond with nuclear weapons if Iran were to nuke a population center in Israel and whether or not the leaders (mullahs) of Iran are convinced that we would respond, right now. I joined the discussion and my comment was along the lines of the following:
In the comment above, "Sean" states that there is a question as to whether the US or Israel would respond to the use of a nuclear weapon against one of Israel's population centers by "nuking" them back. So far, the mullah's have a pretty good record on their judgment along those lines.
For example, they had NO FEAR of President Jimmy Carter, and they acted accordingly to rub our face in the dirt for every minute of his presidency that they felt safe doing so. Then, they stopped and released our hostages only hours before Ronald Reagan took office, also rightly judging that he was going to kick #@* and take names later. All through the election process, Ronald Reagan refused to speculate what he might do to Iran if he was elected. So the Mullahs had to look at his record of dealing with riots as the Governor of California. That was enough for them. (I have watched to see if anyone would comment along these lines in the current electoral process. The answer is "No." The "drive-by" media has no time for research and real thought in these matters. They form an opinion, drive by the site of anything happening and conclude that it confirms what they already thought and then they present it as news. They have a political agenda and it's so clear, it makes you want to gag.)
When we invaded Iraq, the Iranians (if you believe the latest estimate from the CIA) halted their pursuit of nuclear weapons (as did Libya), rightly judging that the then and current occupant of the US Presidency would react with real action to their program, and not just whining and talking as the Democrats BRAG THAT THEY WOULD DO!
Keep it up, Dems. You never have understood what bad men fear and what they laugh at. If a Democrat wins the Presidency, it will be open season on the good guys around the world.
That doesn't translate into total safety if a Republican wins, either. Just a better chance that the Islamists and the tyrants will have to weigh the consequences of their choices and maybe back off of the nuclear options.
The Democrats, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee have already told them that if they win, the Hamas's, the Hezbollah's, and the nations like Iran and North Korea have nothing to worry about.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think your wrong about Ron Paul. All bets are off when a person takes the reigns of a nation. No one can know what actions a new President will take as that is quiet evident with present and passed Presidents. I would much rather have a person who knows what the Consitution says and means and acts on it; than someone who is going to represent no change in the statis quo. Both parties candidates for the most part are affiliated with the CFR who represent the one world governnment people. Sometimes good people are deceived by the lack of knowledge. If you really knew what was going on you would want Ron Paul as President. Check out how many candidates are CFR members.
ReplyDeleteI live in Ron paul's congressional district and have voted for him for congress every time he has run. As a congressman, with a Republican majority, he could not control international policy decisions. I love his knowledge of and commitment to the US Constitution. But I believe there have been times we had to and will have to stand up to foriegn threats that the framers did not and could not envision. I do not want a president, so committed to the principles of doing nothing outside the borders of the US, that North Korea, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah could go on a worldwide killing spree and Nuke sale spree, and know they had a free hand in doing so. Ron Paul is nothing if not TOTALLY wedded to his principles.
ReplyDelete