redblueamerica.com

lady butler prints
nylon print band
orchid print sarongs
http://infstuff.freehostia.com/printc20.... dcc print sharing
http://infstuff.100webspace.net/printdf3... checker board print
http://mitglied.lycos.de/infastuff/print... print head ip4200

obama denounces farakan endorsement
barrack obama 2008 election
roman catholics for obama
http://prezabama.vip.interia.pl/obamaa68... mccain obama debate saddleback
http://ownplaces.orgfree.com/obama9ff.ht... barack obama fathers religion
http://mitglied.lycos.de/ownplaces/obama... obama health care program

cheap 32 plasma televisions
silver dollar dulcimer
hot dog cards
http://dokie-vcf.tripod.com/gold5875.htm... business powerpoint template
http://dokie-vcf.tripod.com/gold2566.htm... coldframe collapsible cheap
http://dokie-vcf.tripod.com/gold2497.htm... asset allocation gold

You sound very proud of our suposed martial status, but perhaps you should return from the 1940's. China can easily defeat us, anytime. An oil embargo by the Arabs would destroy us unless our wonderful president has a secret stash of ethenol somewhere. We don't want to lose the support of the Saudis, or Dubai, or the UAE. Plus, I doubt a nuclear retaliation against any martial action short of nuking Tel Aviv will sit well with the UN. As to your "...cannot win a war against the USA." line, many have before, and we're losing one now, the same way Napoleon conquered Moscow, but then lost more than half of his army to cold, disease, and guerilla tactics. Just take out the cold, and you've got Iraq. Replace the desert with a jungle, and you've Vietnam, replace it with a burning Washington D.C., and you've got the War of 1812.

It goes to show that with all that supposedly experience she has had in the White House, she must have been baking cookies when the real diplomacy was being done. That was a very amateurish answer for an experienced politician and one which makes her completely unsuited for any kind of negotiations with Iran or its allies in the future. Imagine how such talk can fuel fanatism in an already hostile country.
It reminds me of Bush's gaffe that they we will "bomb Afganistan back to the Stone Age". So are we going to trade one bimbo for another?

Clinton's comments were irresponsible at best, and incredibly dangerous and reckless otherwise. Her handlers made a huge strategic gaffe on this one, and she bought in on it in typical fashion.

It boggles the mind that any reasonable political figure vying for the position of Commander in Chief would use this kind of insidious language.

As someone who is intimately involved in these issues on a daily basis. She scares the hell out of me.

Vagabonda, well crafted post!

I don't even like Obama much, but Hillary's comments were stupid. Look, no nation in the world needs reminding that using nuclear weapons is stupid, and no country would be dumb enough to launch a nuke a priori against the USA. Or against Russia, China, France... any nuclear nation. Or non-nuclear nation. That's pretty much understood. While Iran may be meddling in Iraq, even they under Khameini (who's the real leader, Ahmedinejad is just a figurehead) haven't outright attacked US troops in Iraq with a strike squad, let alone tried to hit the US mainland. Furthermore, talking of "obliteration" raises the specter of genocide, and this is only going to rally more Iranians to the current regime when it had been flailing before.

The problem is that, in the messiness of the real world where such obvious action is unlikely, Hillary's comments put our hands more dangerously tight on the trigger in the midst of delicate circumstances that require finesse-- even if they do require force. What if there's a major terrorist attack on US soil, or even a major attack that kills hundreds of US troops on Iraq? Even if there's not firm evidence, Iran would likely get the blame for it. Justifications for "obliterating" a country have a way of morphing and creeping well beyond the original statements. Iran knows this and also knows the potential temptations for US policymakers to "strike out" in retaliation as a show of strength, so if anything, this kind of rhetoric impels them even further to seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

This is one of the reasons why diplomatic language, while tough, is also carefully couched, as the British diplomat Lord Mark Malloch-Brown pointed out. Calling for something that is tantamount to the genocide of a people-- including millions of Kurds and Iranian Christians, who are our allies if anything-- always angers moderates in countries throughout the world, and turns people away from us.

Janmb-- many countries *have* won wars against the USA in recent decades. That's kinda what happened in Vietnam, after a decade of war and hundreds of thousands of casualties, and it's also what's happening now in Iraq and even Afghanistan, in painful slow motion. A country doesn't need to invade us to embroil us in a war (though the 9/11 attacks were something an invasion, on al-Qaeda's part). Unfortunately, the USA has had a tendency to get involved in conflicts where we don't know the local territory and encounter a determined insurgency, and thus wind up being defeated, as we were in Vietnam and probably will be in Iraq. So yes, other countries can defeat us if we're stupid enough to launch dumb wars that work against our national interest.

And John, the fact that Hillary's comments constitute an "Armageddon card" are precisely the problem-- they've done studies recently, and even a localized nuclear war would lead to catastrophic results for the planet due to the nuclear winter effect. A US nuke attack on Iran would lead to crop failures worldwide due to the fallout's blocking of solar radiation, and would hit us in the USA especially hard, as we are now dependent on imports of food due to our large population.

In addition, any radioactive cloud over Iran wouldn't stay there, the local winds would send it directly into Russia and kill or injure millions of Russians. IOW, Russia would (justifiably) consider such a US attack as an act of war against Russia itself, prompting the obligatory massive retaliation on US soil.

All this apocalyptic stupidity is dangerously foolish and it's bringing the world closer to the brink.

It would be far better for all countries in the world, including Russia and the USA, to step back from the brink and cut our nuclear arsenals perhaps to a few hundred nukes-- more than sufficient for any deterrent against an invasion, yet forestall these dangerously idiotic plans to design "low-yield" or "tactical" nukes that only move us closer to breaking the nuclear taboo. Nukes have to be considered absolutely unacceptable for use in war, and that means all sides must step away from the brink and reduce our arsenals to a minimum mutual deterrent. We certainly shouldn't be indulging any fantasies or rhetoric that even hint at a nuclear strike which would plunge the world into catastrophe.

It does NO HARM to remind any one of them NOT to begin a NUKE war with anyone on the planet or they might not even live to regret it.
We can't allow ANY COUNTRY to think they will get away with using nukes at all.
Also I believe countries are sophisticated today enough to know they cannot win a war against the USA.
They all know if they send a missle in our direction that they'll be blown off the map as we have the greatest stockpile of military weapons in the world.