Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 131 To 140 Of 397 Comments
THE WHINER VERSUS THE IRON LADY
Iran has threatened to wipe Israel from the map and has threatened to obliterate Israel from the scene of the universe among other things. As such, I see no reason why Iran would not attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Iran is a large country. Israel is a small country. Iran would take heavy casualties but they would likely survive an all out nuclear assault from Israel. Due to its small size a nuclear attack on Israel would be far more devestaing than a nuclear attack on Iran would be.
Israel does have an option. They can preemptively eliminate Iran's military capabilities. This will likely involve the use of nuclear weapons. Israel will probably need to act within the next twelve months. Russia is busily upgrading Iran's military capabilities. Once the upgrades are complete, any type of attack on Iran by either Israel or the US will be almost impossible. Rather than passively wait for the Iranians to destroy them the Israelis should and probably will take preemptive action and destroy Iran's military capabilities. When Israel takes the necessary action to defend itself, the best thing the IS can do is to stay out of Israel's way.
Iran definitely would use nuclear weapons on Israel. I suspect the Israelis are smart enough to know this and I suspect they are planning accordingly. Preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is not a just a matter of strategic positioning for Israel. It is a matter of Israeli survival.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.04.2008 @ 12:19
CAN WE JUST WALK AWAY FROM IRAQ?
There will be no permanent bases in Iraq. Even if the Iraqi government approved of such a plan, the restrictions they would place on how the bases could be used would mean that these bases would have negative ulility for the US and Coalition forces.
Selling the Iraqis heavy weapons such as tanks, plances, etc is probably a good idea. Unfortunately Congress would be unlikely to approve and the media would be hysterical. Too many people have become invested in seeing us fail. Also, the Iraqis are probably don't want to purchase weapons from us any way. This would open them up to charges of being an American puppoet, whcih they are not. The Iraqis like everyone else in the Middle East are waiting for the soon coming complete American withdrawl and they are planning accordingly. Once the Americans have withdrawn, the Iraqis can buy weapons from Russia, China, or even India. Russian and Chinese weapons are superior to American weapons any way.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 1.04.2008 @ 13:18
THE SEDUCTIVE BUT EMPTY CAMPAIGN OF BARACK OBAMA
I'm nost sure whetehr this Barack Obama would make a good president or not. What does seem clear is he comes accross as an honorable and decent man and this what Ameridcans want in a president. Specifically they want soemone who can repair the damage done by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration may not have received fair coverage in the media but is clear that the results of the policies of theBush Administration have undermined America's position in the world. Clearly Aemricans want and need a change in course. Many people think the honorable and decent Barack Obama will repair America's global positon.
While I do not know if Obama would be a good president or not, it is clear that America cannot afford another failed Presidency. America's global position is already precarious. America may already be finished as major world power. Even if the US is not currently done as a major world power, it would be after another failed presidencey.
At best another failed presidency would finish the United States as a major world power. At worst, the very survival of the country would be placed in grave danger or the country might not survive at all. In summary, who ever wins the next Presidental election needs to be successful. The country cannot afford another failed presidency. The voters need to vote as though the survival of the country depends on the choices they make becuase it does.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 27.01.2008 @ 23:10
CONTEMPLATING A POST NATO WORLD
All of this money and time spent by these learned people to identify the problems facing Western Europe and the United States and they still failed to identify the biggest threat facing the free world. This is Russia. Russia has the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world and it is increasing its conventional military strength at a rapid rate. Also, Russian leadership has identified the United States as its number one enemy.
We4stern civilization faces a number of problems. It is already in a precarious position. I'm not sure Western civilization is strong enough to absorb a loss in Afghanistan and expect to survive let alone remain a major force in world affiairs. If other members of NATO will not fight, somehow the United States will need to step in and fill the gap. It is my understanding that the US plans to increase its armed forces by 75,000 or so troops. If this is done and the recent security gains in Iraq can be held after the bulk of our forces have withdrawn, these additional 75,000 troops can be used to fill in the gaps in Afghainstan. Hopefully this will be enough to turn the tide in our favor in Afghainstan. This is one I do not think we can afford to lose.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 22.01.2008 @ 23:26
THOSE WHO LIVE BY IDENTITY POLITICS...
The Republican party is already splintering. If the Democatic party splinters, we could be getting a multi party system. I think its highly unlkely that we will be getting a multiple party system but it seems it could happen.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 15.01.2008 @ 01:46
COULD CONSERVATIVES WORK WITH A PRESIDENT OBAMA?
I have no doubt that Conservatives can work with a President Obama. I think a better question is, can a President Obama work with Conservatives? The most powerful group within the Democratic party appears to be the group that is often referred to as the "angry left." This is the faction of the Democratic party that is best represented by groups like Moveon.org and George Soros. To date, this group has not shown a willingness to compromise with anyone. In order to operate effectively, any Democrat has to find some way to keep these people in the fold. They will invariably pull hard, in a direction away from Conservative, any Democratic president. As such, I think the better question will be can a President Obama work with Conservatives?
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 6.01.2008 @ 23:56
"THIS MORNING AS FOR SOME DAYS PAST..."
Ultimately we will be completely leaving Iraq any way. The military cannot maintain the current forces there for much longer, as it is being worn down, and the American people will not tolerate it. The bases that were supposedly being built are likely for the Iraqi forces we are training. There likely never was a plan to stay long range. No matter who wins the next election the US will be withdrawing from Iraq.
What is not being discussed about the so called "occupation" is Iraq has a soverign government now. It may not be as effective as we might like but it is a soverign government non the less. Some of the Iraqi leaders have said US forces are still needed. Ideally the wishes of those Iraqis and Iraqi leaders who trusted us should be taken into account.
Even so, the primary goal of American leaders needs to be to look out for American interests. The US cannot remain in Iraq. The American people will not support it and the military is being worn down to the point that it cannot maintain the forces there. In addtion to this, whlile the US is busy in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan far greater threats to American national security of Russia and China are being virtually ignored. This will need to change.
A premature withdrawl from Iraq will be a huge victory for the forces of Islamic terrorism and a huge defeat for us. If we will secure the borders, fully develop our own oil and gas reserves, build more refineries, and palce a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries it is very likely that we can mitigate this defeat.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 6.01.2008 @ 15:35
RE: MY "UNBEARABLE TRUTH" POST
Rick
Apology accepted. You are spot on that the solutions will be found in local communities. At least they should be. Social Conservatives are sick and tired of having the courts stomp all over them. In pushing to have these issues decided on the state and local level is probably an area where so called social conservatives and the Republican party establishment may be able to compromise. It seems to me that, if the Republican party and the Conservative movement are to survive, we will all need to find a way to work constructively together.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 6.01.2008 @ 23:48
FACING UP TO THE UNBEARABLE TRUTH
Busboy33
There really is not much for so called religous conservatives to compromise on. They don't have any thing of value that they can part with. As a starting point for a compromise, I would suggest allowing state and local governments through their elected officials decide on issues like abortion and homosexual marriages. This is not something the courts should be deciding arbitraily. Often times the courts have been used to strip rights away from so called religous conservatives. Let the voters decide on whether or not we will have things like abortion, homosexual marriages, whether or not prayer is schools shall be allowed, and whether or not we can have nativitiy scenes at Christmas. The powers that be within the Republican party need to focus on returning power to the voters and not on ignoring or fighting against religious conservatives.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 6.01.2008 @ 23:38
"As a Christian Conservative, I get a knot in my stomach at the thought of Mike Huckabee as POTUS." I agree, BubbaJ. When Huckabee stances on the various issues become more known his candidacy will likely sink like a rock, as it should.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 4.01.2008 @ 21:57
