Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It now seems highly unlikely there will be military action against Iran which is becoming the superpower in the Middle East. Looks like Israel and even the rabid, foaming at the mouth war mongers have come to terms with the inevitability of a nuclear Iran. Military action would guarantee $250. oil and a worldwide depression x10.
i don't know. another war would do it. but 1st we need that cry of terror attack to pave the way.
GOP is pretty eager to keep DOD in the drivers seat, sacrificing america's future is probably not a huge decision for them based on last 8 years.
With Obama as president, he will withdraw the troops from Iraq. The US will be a sleeping giant under Obama. 4-8 years later, the other countries would have already built their arms in order to take over any country.
With Obama as president, he will withdraw the troops from Iraq. The US will be a sleeping giant under Obama. 4-8 years later, the other countries would have already built their arms in order to take over any country.
doesnt matter if its mccain or obamacountries are gonna build themselves up militarily and the US cannot tell anyone not to have nuks, when a number of allied countries already have them
doesnt matter if its mccain or obamacountries are gonna build themselves up militarily and the US cannot tell anyone not to have nuks, when a number of allied countries already have them
(I have no political hat on here):
Many experts indicate that Iran is still quite a few years away from being able to make the bomb. This should give either candidate some time to use diplomacy. The military option - however macho it may sound during the debates - may cost us dearly as Iran is really significantly stronger than Iraq.
As to the spread of nukes, the best the West can do is to work to stem the spread using controls, NPT, and such. Israel (unofficially), Pakistan, S Africa (unofficially) and India probably have nukes. Yesterday, US just signed a very significant nuclear deal with India that allows India not to sign NPT and yet develop its nuclear power after decades of ban on transfer of technology. We are moving to a world with more powers and less influence of any one country - neither candidate can stop it. Question is which candidate can position us better. The debates do not even begin to touch the broader picture, and Joe 6-pack does not care.
With Obama as president, he will withdraw the troops from Iraq. The US will be a sleeping giant under Obama. 4-8 years later, the other countries would have already built their arms in order to take over any country.
The US cannot stay in Iraq forever. Both Iraqis and the majority of US opinion want the US out of Iraq! What do you propose.. we stay there forever as an occupying force?
Iran is willing to talk about suspending enrichment in exchange for fuel. Keep in mind that Ahmadinejad is as much puppet and mouthpiece as anything else (a little bit like both Bush and Palin in that regard). A serious role being played by the US alongside actually cooperative Europeans could well make some progress...
The war tone has already been set by the american elite. It does not make a difference who becomes president. War with Iran is certain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
