Ron Paul? or a lefty/progressive Democrat?

[bruce MN]

Ever winning the Presidency?

Fuggidaboutit.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/18/11756929-poll-63-percent-in-us-back-military-action-...

[BA Deere]

Here`s the corner that all policians, especially presidents have painted themselves in.  If a "Iran" gets a nuke and the leader goes nuts, threatening the rest of the world, remember having a nuke means never having to say that "you`re sorry".  Politicians that allowed that to happen would pay dearly at the next election, Ron Paul gave many "sound bites" in the debates of "Iran has the right to defend herself...why should Iran be the only country without a nuke?"  That talk is all fine and goood from a easy chair, but if God forbid the unthinkable would happen, a "president Paul" would take alot of heat for that postion.  I have more of a "World according to Garp" philosophy "if 9/11 happened once, odds are it won`t again"  I would get rid of the TSA and tell passengers "you`re flying at your own risk, if you see a highjacker tackle him!"  so I would probably have alot more patience with a Ron Paul than most, however that isn`t the popular mindset today. 

[kraft-t]

Isreal has 200 nuclear weapons and they have a history of attacking americans. Maybe we ought to take out their nukes.

[kraft-t]

Nearly 50 years we fought a cold war because those Ruskies had nuclear bombs and they were coming to "get us". We fought the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict trying to keep those **bleep** commies under control

Such a waste of people and wealth and for what/ We aid north korea and we trade with communist China and Vietnam and think little of it. In fact China is more of a nuclear threat than Iran is.

Mutually assured destruction worked wonders for 5 decades and you are worried about apipsqueek country that ios trying to build one. With thousands of nukes in our arsonal any such aggressor would be toast and they kknow it and we know it.

I wonder how we would respond to sanctions that required our disarming. Wouls we really allow North korea or Iran influence our nuclear program. I think not. For people that seem to believe in the safety in an armed public, you seem to do a Romney type flip flop when it comes to nations arming to defend them selves.

The truth is we don't know whether Iran would be a threat any more than Joe Six pack knows whether the armed guy next door will flip out. Thus you want us toaccept you owning apersonal arsonal an dyou don't want the pipsqueek nation a half a wprld away to own a nuke. Ithought weapons made us all safe. Right?

[BA Deere]

Well Don, this is probably why I`m not a politician because I`d tell N Korea and Iran "go ahead make your nukes but know this if you threaten us in anyway, your tinhorn nation will become a giant plate of glass in less than 2 minutes".  However in the polictical world I would be labeled as "unstable"  "dangerous" and I wouldn`t get elected.  If I was in office and let Iran get a nuke and something bad happened I`d get the blame.  Kind of like when I tease you Dems about your leaders wanted to attack Sadam.  Well wink wink we both know if there had been another terrorist attack the Dems would`ve looked weak, had they not supported the war, sooo politics first, right?  Can`t let the other party get the drop on you.

[kraft-t]

Perhaps the problem is with our leaders being too boastful in public. Like TR said speak sftlyt and carry a big stick. WE got the bigstick and we just ought to shut up and let them wonder what we wmight do. All this macho talk wins is nothing ndit i electoral engineering at the worst,

It's pretty sad when our presidents must have abeligerant attitude because that is what the idiot masses want to hear.

[kraft-t]

Should be made privately   and in a civil manner.  How does that foreibn lleader know whether the president is serious or merely trying to cultivate support for the election.

All that evil empire talk or axis of evil talk is counter productive.