Definitely not! Perhaps Ron Paul or Romney. One or the other.
Personally, I find Obama's ideas on wealth distribution set on a road to Socialism. I'm not looking for a fight on this thread but just expressing my own thoughts, impressions and worries. Yes, most power rests in Congress but his party will follow him even if they silently disagree with him. Whether health care or taxes it will take a generation to fix what's been tampered with.
Just a thought...
I will be voting for him but not with the hope I did last time, he has not been as good as I had hoped and has not followed through with quite a few promises, though I do understand the difficulties with congress.
NDAA, Assassinations of US Citizens, $14T in debt, dumb ideas,
The guy's a crook.
Ron Paul 2012.
I am almost delighted to say this, but we agree on something for once.
It felt good to say that.
He, in my opinion, is our only hope for surviving this. From what I see and what I hear and what I understand, we can not or will not survive another 4 years.
My concern is, how do we get this message out? I mean, time is short.
The best way is to talk about him.
Get your friends and families to see the utter nonsense and criminality of the other candidates, and then show Paul's stellar record. Most of them will likely groan when you bring it up, but just sit them down one day and give them a presentation that takes 10 minutes. Then you can leave it at that.
They'll probably be less passionate, but they'll spread the word a little.
Whenever he has a moneybomb I buy myself some Ron Paul gear - just so that other like minded individuals can see that they aren't alone.
Also, when Pro-Obama supporters say that Ron Paul is racist, or whatnot, you can point out that a) he really isn't, and that b) Obama did basically the same thing that Paul did with his newsletters regarding gay marriage.
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM110_wct_ … _obama.pdf
OH, and then you can point out that Paul voted FOR making MLK's B-day a national holiday.
Here's a good article that puts things in perspective
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-gro … r=Politics
Ron Paul's stellar record - enlighten me. What successful legislation has he authored? Has he ever made any executive decisions - or merely been a House member and physician? How would he work with a Republican majority in both houses given his open contempt and hostility for most Republican leaders, policies and ideas?
How would he handle a nuclear Iran saber rattling over the straight of Hormuz? I don't remember those evil Israelis threatening to block the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf - even though they have nukes.
Your right, he's never gotten a successful piece of legislation passed.
Not even the ones declaring wars in Iraq. LOL
Here's the list! Enjoy!
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He proposed a declaration of war against Iraq.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against the NDAA.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
That is a personal voting record. Where is the demonstrated leadership? Where is the accomplishment?
He showed up in Congress and voted - that is the expected. His unexpected is to berate and annoy. The was a war declaration on Iraq. It didn't match his or you choice of words but his sense of history ends a very, very long time ago.
Since the invention of nuclear weapons the US has fought several wars without the Ron Paul war declaration formula being followed. Though they were all wars and all approved by Congress a formal war declaration that would satisfy Ron Paul hasn't existed since December 1941.
He is a long time politician having done little more than run for office, been a burr under the saddle of the House and fulfilled his attendance and voting obligations. He is not unique - in any way.
The accomplishment and leadership comes from being elected repeatedly for 20 years AND never giving up on his principles.
If you can't understand than, then the conversation is moot.
WE DID NOT DECLARE WAR ON IRAQ. Saying that we did is one step away from lying. Just because the media calls them wars does not make it so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … tes#Formal
If you look at the list, you'll find that the formally declared wars are ones that ended relatively quickly, and the others were complete and utter quagmires.
"The accomplishment and leadership comes from being elected repeatedly for 20 years AND never giving up on his principles."
Really - so all of those Senators who have been in Congress for decades and held to their principles are demonstrating leadership? The guy who keeps his job and does it is a leader? That will be news to all those federal employees.
Seems to me the only leadership Ron Paul has shown is as the icon of a cult of personality that has popped up around him.
"Hail to thee oh holy Ron - where the hell is my pitch fork."
If you scrape off the Doctor from Ron Paul all that is left is nut.
Just because troops are deployed, young service people die - and kill - and a foreign policy aim of the United States is served doesn't make it a war. Isn't that the functional definition of a war. The use of force to accomplish a foreign policy aim.
A Congressional authorization of the use of force against Iraq that gave the previous president, and this one, the power to use what ever force he deemed necessary to accomplish a policy goal is a war declaration regardless of the language employed. Ron Paul, you and the other Paulniacs want the word war used. The Constitution, however, offers no formula restriction on what does or does not constitute a declaration of war.
When your principles are "destroy corruption" then, yes, staying true to them for 20+ years is quite an accomplishment.
When your views give unrelenting passion to millions of people, then yes, you're a leader.
It's disgusting that you're calling the same beliefs as many of our founding fathers "nuts". I guess that just shows how much kool-aid the government has put into our water.
And, finally, UCV - wars are declared by Congress. Congressional authorization is NOT a declaration of war.
Tyrannical usage of the military is also not war.
Neither is killing US Civilians without trial.
So ideological purity and a mass following are Ron Paul's accomplishments? How about his white supremacist following or his open bigotry? Ar you sure you are talking about Ron Paul or Mussolini?
Despite his age, Ron Paul has very little in common with George Washington.
Keep your anger up. It is the best Paulniacs can do. Reminds me of Perrotnistas or Buchananites. The underlying principle of Paulism is to cede the field to Muslim terrorists and pretend that we are not in a fight for our civilization - just like 1000 years ago.
I am amazed that Ron Paul doesn't remember the ancient and persistent threat of radical and expansive Islam to Western Civilization. But than it doesn't fit his paranoid delusions.
Paul recognizes the threat certain Islamic fanatics pose, but he opposes our misguided, ineffective military methods of dealing with them. Evidence indicates that stationing US troops in 80? countries around the world actually increases hostility toward the US and feeds terrorism.
That is because we no longer kill our enemies, we coddle them and buy them. We prosecute our soldiers for doing there job, and let the enemy sue them and press charges against them... what a joke we have become.
That is the failure of the Socialist Democrat and Liberal Progressive agenda.
It is called apeasement... and it is a failure.
Oh man, we're REALLY nice to our enemies. You sure got us there, TMMason!
Here's our Secretary of State announcing that dead babies aren't important!
Here we are delivering bullets to journalists! (Fast forward to 3:11 to see the bullets being delivered)
Man! We're just like Jesus, we're so nice!
The man needed a walk! Good thing we offered to walk him!
Edison invented electricity so we could use it to terrify our fellow man!
Your tax dollars are funding this!
I can't WAIT to be nice to more foreign countries! I don't understand why the other countries don't just let us in to give them some presents!
We're SO nice!
So the increased drone killings by Barrack Obama is creating more terrorists?
There is the sphere of Islam and the sphere of Jihad. Regardless of where American troops are stationed America dwells in the sphere of Jihad until such time as it is brought into the sphere of Islam.
It is a lesson that liberals, Paulniacs and certain foolish Republicans - like George W. Bush - have yet to understand. It is a lesson that Muslim leaders keep trying to teach but Western liberalism has so weakened Western Culture that it is almost impossible to learn.
Yes, the increased murdering of civilians creates more people who hate us.
Imagine if China had a military base in the US and accidentally killed Americans on a month to month basis. Surely you'd rise up against it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gf … embedded#!
You, like Ron Paul and all the Paul Shirts, will ALWAYS miss the point. It has little or nothing to do with America other than it is the current pinnacle of Western Civilization. It is the icon of the sphere of Jihad. It is too distant to strike regularly or to focus continual efforts to kill as many Americans as possible. The proximate representative of Western Civilization and the sphere of Jihad is Israel. It is why the Muslim fundamentalist in Turkey, Erdagon, facilitates Palestinian arms smuggling. It is why the Brotherhood chats in Tarir Square to march on Jerusalem. Yet the isolationist fool Ron Paul in his absurdity and bigotry wishes to through the Jews to the millions of Muslim wolves surrounding a country smaller than the state of Indiana.
But go ahead, loopy, goofy, paranoid "values" that are clung to are certainly more noble than a rational understanding of the threat a nuclear Iran poses to global stability and peace.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/ … the_p.html
Nonsense! The last war Iran fought was against the US when it attacked our embassy in 1979. Give me a break - it's clear they hate the US a lot more than Israel. That's why we're "the great satan" and Israel is the "little Satan".
It's hilarious that you ACTUALLY believe this nuclear boogeyman even after the nonsense of Iraq. I guess it's true: humans just can't learn from history. EVEN IF that history was just 10 years ago.
Israel ALREADY HAS HUNDREDS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Iran would be f**king stupid to attack them.......
OH WAIT! THAT'S WHY THEY NEVER HAVE. IRAN HAS NEVER ONCE ATTACKED ISRAEL!!!
In fact, when I google "has Iran attacked israel" all that comes up is "Israel threatening Iran"
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/comment-pag … 19.2599024
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/the-escal … -base.html
Have fun invading country after country, UCV. We're $16 trillion in debt, and you're worried about policing the world.
All Empires collapse after they abandon the gold standard, we're long overdue.
Sorry, UCV. The only madman I see in this whole situation is you and your neo-con kin arguing that we need to attack a peaceful nation who hasn't even started building a nuclear weapon.
Peace out, that's a wrap.
PS - Like I said before, but you obviously ignored, American Thinker is a Right-wing nut-job, "hey, let's bomb everyone", war mongering piece of trash. You won't convince me by quoting it. I'm not even clicking on the links.
Oh, look, here's another bozo that thought Iran would attack Israel by the end of 2009.
Wake up UCV: OIL OIL OIL.
What's that? No response to "Iran is actually quite a peaceful government", "Israel has hundreds of nukes and no one would actually attack it", and "Iran clearly hates the US more than Israel"?
That's what I thought.
Enjoy your witch hunt against "nuclear" governments.
We have 14,000+. So start at home.
Iran would most definitly annahilate Israel if allowed to get nukes.
And yes that young lady dying in the streets with a bullet through her chesy for being in the streets voicing her dis-pleasure withe iaranian Govt... definitly speaks to the peaceful nature of the regime.
Yes... yes it does...
Actually, Iran has been peaceful for 100+ years (minus the retaliation for us overthrowing their government, which was entirely defensive).
Also, the "wiping Israel off the map" quote is a misquote... so... that sucks for your position.
Also, they aren't actually building nuclear weapons, no one has any proof to back this up.
Also, if they had ONE bomb, they'd have 1/301 of the bombs that exist between the two nations.
So... your argument is entirely flat, boring, and completely meaningless.
No getting your keyboard covered in froth as your pique drove you as mad as Ron Paul. Scratch a Paulniac and all you find is a conspiracy theory loving, Federal Reserve hating liberal.
If you think I'm a liberal, then you have problems with definitions
Iran has been a peaceful nation for 100+ years; they don't have nukes; they aren't trying to make nukes; we made this exact same obvious BS argument to invade Iraq 10 years ago; Israel already has 300+ nukes -- probably fusion, not just fission (which is what Iran would have to go for first); they aren't even self-reliant when it comes to energy, yet...
... I could go on, but you'd rather call me loony than address the fact that Iran poses no threat whatsoever to Israel nor the US.
In fact, it's much more likely that -- as in the USSR, China, NKorea, 1984, Animal Farm, Salem Massachusetts, the Cold War, and countless other examples throughout history and literature -- Israel and the US are just using the Middle East (especially Iran) as boogeymen to help stay in power.
And yet, you say there isn't a valid Republican candidate!
UCV - Mussolini's message was PRO-his business. A politician asking for big government is like a baby asking for more sugar.
Paul's message is for less government. He has been uncorrupted.
The constant mantra about undeclared wars is intentionally misleading coming from persons who already know the truth. It persists mostly among those who are either paid to promote an agenda or who passionately declare some laws enacted by the Congress are not Constitutional just because they are opposed to them.
Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution says, “Congress shall have the power to declare war” and then leaves it up to the Congress to determine how it goes about exercising that power. There have been 11 official congressional declarations of war, 12 military engagements authorized by Congress, 7 military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions that were funded by Congress. This tally is overshadowed by at least 125 other conflicts in the history of the U.S.A. in which the President has acted without any prior expressed military authorization from Congress.
Following the US withdrawal from Viet Nam, a war-weary Congress debated the limits of presidential power to deploy troops without pre-approval from the Legislative branch. The ultimate and constitutional compromise became the War Powers Resolution in 1973. Under this law, the size, duration, and time limits of troop commitments and the requirement for status reporting were established. This is currently how Congress exercises its power to declare war.
Since 1973, except for President’s Clinton’s co-operation in the short-lived NATO operations during the Kosovo War, all Presidents have claimed constitutional authority to commit troops without Congressional approval but they always received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act. The Gulf War (Desert Storm), Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom), and the Iraq War (Operation New Dawn) are all authorized by Congressional resolutions.
Congress even declared the “War on Terror” when it passed Senate resolution 23 dated September 14, 2001. It authorizes the use of US Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. This bill gave the President authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.
Aside from all of this legislative window-dressing, the ultimate constitutional control over the President’s power to wage war is called the congressional appropriations process. (1) Probably, the best-known presidential resource to fund a war on foreign soil while avoiding the congressional appropriations process was called Lt. Col. Oliver North.
(1)http://www.senate.gov/reference/resourc … 97-684.pdf
The most recent violation of the war powers act was the commitment of American military resources in an attack on Muammar Gaddafi.
Hi UCV. Your point is not clear to me. Could expand on that statement a little? I'm not quite sure how to respond.
Barrack Obama committed American military resources - primarily Naval - to supporting the over throw of Muammar Gaddafi. As unwise as that was, since knowledge existed to show that much of the opposition was Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood backed, it ran afoul of the War Powers Act. He committed Americans to military action, attacking a sovereign state, with out any Congressional action. The duration of those actions extended well beyond the limits established in the WPA.
Thanks, UV, for the explanation. There is no denying that the administration’s arguments in support of their actions are weak and unconvincing. However, the U.S. role in supporting Libya’s “spring” involves issues of Policy vs. Process and Policy will most likely prevail.
From the viewpoint of Policy, it will be easier to promote US interest without Muammar Gaddafi in power. Clearly, it helped to have a U.N. Security Council Resolution permitting the use of force to protect civilians and to establish a no-fly zone over Libya, as well as to have a request for assistance from the Arab League. A New York Times editorial on June 16, 2011 echoed the mood in the halls of Congress. “It would be hugely costly - for this country's credibility, for the future of NATO and for the people of Libya - if Congress were to force President Obama to abandon military operations over Libya.” (1)
As for the process, Congressional wavering over enforcing the War Powers Act has become obvious. The unyielding dedication of the GOP to increase presidential war powers goes back much further than December’s ADAA permitting the President to use military force indefinitely without the consent of Congress against virtually anybody suspected of being a terrorist, anywhere in the world (including domestically). House Speaker John Boehner’s disdain for the War Powers Act is apparent by his vote to repeal the law in 1995 and by his 1999 press release in which he call the act "constitutionally suspect" and warned against tying "the hands of future presidents." (1) Despite his opposition to the WPA, he supported a house showdown resolution in May 2011 that would have directed the President, pursuant to the War Powers Act, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya. However, Speaker Boehner pulled the resolution from the floor before the vote because, according to Republican aides, “it became clear that it might succeed.” (2)(3)
The War Powers Act of 1973 stands as the process constitutionally enacted by Congress to exercise its power to declare war. Furthermore, the appropriations process stands as the method constitutionally authorized to confirm Congress' support for all military activities. Congress certainly has the means but does it have the will?
(2) http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vi … Might-Pass
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06 … -congress/
So it is your contention that the Muslim Brotherhood is more amenable to American foreign policy goals? That would be a surprise to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. It seems that American foreign policy is now to serve the expansion of the Brotherhood across North Africa and, if the voices of the Brotherhood are to be believed, into the Coptic neighborhoods of Egypt and the Jewish ones in Israel.
I have no doubts that Gaddafi was an impediment to those kinds of foreign policy goals. If the goal was merely to save lives, as offered at the beginning of the NATO war on Libya, than the Congo would have been a better place to intervene since the death toll there continues to climb well past 2 million.
Hi again. It is always a pleasure to chat with you.
I have to tell you, AV, your contention about my contention is not even close to anything I said. If I truly want to understand other points of view, I begin by listening from the perspective of the source and not from my own. Nor would I carefully rephrase another’s statements and then attack my version of their position. That’s called a strawman, is it not?
The Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda makes for strange bedfellows. The Brotherhood is a long established political movement advocating the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for…ordering the life of Muslim family, individual, community…and state.” (1) It officially opposes violence to achieve its goals. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is a private mercenary enterprise, on a par with Blackwater USA and Blackwater Worldwide. It is in the business of selling military prowess and deniability to governments like our own and it has openly criticized the Muslim Brotherhood for supporting democratic elections rather than armed jihad. (2)
I fail to see how the existence and the goals of these two organizations have any bearing on my post, despite your contention that they do. Until you and I are privy to the proceedings of the National Security Council, our opinions about the goals of the U.S. involvement in Libya are merely personal conclusions that have no value to anyone unless accompanied by the data and rationale that led to us to them.
I would welcome hearing about the facts and reasoning supporting your opposition to US foreign policy in Libya. I am certain I can learn from it.
(2)Leiken, Robert S; Brooke, Steven. Foreign Affairs v.86.2 (Mar/Apr 2007): 107-121.
A simplistic, though accurate, observation about both the Brotherhood and Al Qaeda is that one is either in the sphere of Islam or the sphere of Jihad. Both long for a global caliphate, both abhor the existence of infidels, especially those on Muslim land. The Brotherhood is not above violence, the assassination of Anwar Sadat was a consequence of opposing the Brotherhood in Egypt. Though many Islamist groups fight each other there is no common enemy greater than those who live in the sphere of Jihad - you and I.
The 10th amendment exists, and so does the 11th line of Article 1, Section 8. A declaration of war is COMPLETELY different than military engagements.
When Ron Paul suggested "hey, let's actually declare war", the movement was shot down.
In fact -- here's a brilliant idea --let's see what the reaction to Ron Paul's suggestion to Declare War on Iraq was!!
HERE WE GO!!!
"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events,
by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer
relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are
saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare
war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this
situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore."
--Chairman Henry Hyde, 10/3/2002, in session of House of Representatives, during hearing on H.J. Res. 114, "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ", discussing Ron Paul's motion to declare war.
Translation?! Warfare is now ENTIRELY an executive function. Congress does NOT have the power to abdicate this function of the legislative branch without an amendment to the Constitution.
Here was Ron Paul's request: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
This is unconstitutional; your argument is void; we haven't declared war in some 60 years.
As to your suggestion that I'm being paid: I friggin' wish. My last "check" from Amazon.com through HubPages was $0.42, which came with a note "sorry, we're not going to bother sending out the money because it's pointless".
This is pure passion for liberty, bub.
PS - Next time you hear someone say "Ron Paul hasn't been able to pass any of his legislation", remember that DECLARING WAR was one of those failed pieces of legislation.
PPS - Here's a fun list to venture through: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul52.html
As you know, Evan, strawmen are essential when sound arguments have been proven invalid. I respect your passionate support for Senator Paul in 2012, but my position is based on factual reality. The War Powers Act, in full compliance with the Constitution, stipulates and defines the manner in which Congress will exercise its power to declare wars and to manage the President’s authority to engage in them. Furthermore, the appropriations process confirms Congress’ support for all current military activities. While it is reasonable to voice opposition to today’s military entanglements, it is folly to insist they violate the Constitution.
The US wrote down their Constitutions for a reason, and that is so that the every day Joe on the street can read them.
The words are what the words are, and their plain meaning is easily decipherable.
The first written Constitution in all of history was in the colonial United States (before the US existed).
"The words are what the words are, and their plain meaning is easily decipherable"
If that statemnt waqs true there would noy be an argument right now and you would realize Q is right
Oh, and just a reminder - The last country Iran attacked was the US embassy in 1979. And this was after we overthrew their elected leaders a few times. If they did that to us, I sure would have been pissed off!
Oh, and they don't have nukes, nor are they working on nukes.
In addition to this, they won't be doing anything with this Hormuz crap. It's all just the two leaders of the US and Iran trying to sound tough to drum up support.
Get over it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid … tid=pm_pop
Make the $16 trillion in debt- I think his goal is to actually gobble up every bit of GDP.
Prolly not, but it depends on who's running against him. I'd vote for Romney or Huntsman, maybe for Ron Paul. I won't vote for Newt, Bachmann, or Perry.
So you sincerely believe that the direction of the country set out by Barrack Obama is superior to the course that Gingrich, Perry or Bachmann would set?
Why is that? I cannot think of a single issue with which I would agree with Obama over Bachmann or Perry.
I vote more for the person. A president's personal views can go only so far because of Congress. I think Newt is a bad person, and I don't think Bachmann is very intelligent. I think Paul, Romney, and Huntsman are good men. I don't care much for Paul's foreign policy, however.
Bachmann has a post-doctoral degree in tax law from William and Mary. I suppose that brings her intelligence into question.
She thinks hurricanes and earthquakes are God's way of telling us we're spending too much money through the federal government.
She's batsh!t crazy.
I know, but I don't understand how she could make so many gaffes. I'm thinking that she has to be smart - maybe she's just confused? She also thinks women should submit to their husband's will. Yes, I know that's Biblical, but if she were elected, would she do what her husband told her to do in presidential matters?
Maybe her teleprompter is stupid. That excuse works for Barry. Perhaps you should read more about Old Testament women - I would suggest Rachel.
If you are seriously entertaining the idea of voting for Obama - please disregard anything I have written in response to your posts. It won't matter.
Would you vote for Romney or Huntsman if either got the nod? Or do you consider Romney as "Obama lite," which would cause you not to vote at all, or to vote third party?
My theory on why she makes so many gaffes is that she does not have a curious mind and doesn't really care about what is true. Her political positions and beliefs are largely derived from her religion. She will not believe or act upon anything that would counter what she has allowed to be drummed into her by organized religion. She isn't interested in the truth so much as what will support her religious doctrine and the politics that derive from it.
That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it. :-) Unless, of course, some evidence is revealed that conflicts with it, then I will reconsider.
He's done well in his term so far,he's cleaned up most of the mess we were "Bushwacked" with for 8 years.Now it's time for him to finish the job.
He didn't make the mess that he cleaned up,and congress has given his the hardest time even,but Obama is still keeping it moving. I'll give him that and my vote.
But that's because I'm a fair,true,pure hearted person,that isn't basing my decision on skin color. I'm basing my vote on what matters to me,and that is fairness,policy,agenda and compassion.
Clinton left us sitting pretty,we were "BushWacked 8 years then again when they "BushJacked the election from Dole,cause by inaccuracy in "BushStateFL.
If that's not suspect,I don't know what is and they succeeded.
he signed into law something WORSE than the PATRIOT Act, he made our children slaves to debt (other countries are starting to abandon the Dollar standard), he's assassinated US citizens, and he hasn't ended a single "War" (note, we are not in a war because Congress has not declared one since WWII).
The guy should be impeached, thrown out of office and into a jail cell.
So should Bush, Cheney, and countless others.
You lost me,we were not at war? I've lost 2 friends in Bosnia and they were not there on vacation. They were there because of ROTCin college the signed to do Reserve Duty after graduation thus the military paid for their education,and ultimately they paid with their lives.
No, those are called "Police Actions" not wars. The term "war on terror" is the same as the term "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs" it's just a term.
I'm sorry you lost friends in that action. I have 2 sons in the latest Police actions we are now in. I can understand the confusion.
The US has not declared war since WWII. WWII was also the last "conflict" we've won.
There's a direct relation between invading countries without declarations of war, and quagmires.
I'm sorry for your losses, but these conflicts have largely been completely pointless. Don't get mad at the messenger, get mad at the crook who sent your friends to their deaths.
Demand REAL change we can ACTUALLY believe in. Obama said they'd be home in the first year. He lied. There are still 17,000 "contractors" in Iraq. The conflict isn't over.
Ron Paul wants them home "as soon as the boats can get there". Ron Paul also was a veteran of the Vietnam "war". He also asked Congress to actually declare war on Iraq; his proposal was ignored.
Obama wasn't even in office in 1998/2000 when I lost my friends. Can't blame that on Obama.
Obama didn't make America's problems,but some Americans want to make him the problem.
Call it police actions,war on weapons of mass destruction or whatever you like it was wrong,Bush's reaction to Katrina was wrong.
You can say what you like America was on the decline before Obama came into office,and by not working with him but against him Congress hasn't made it any better.
Sure, you can't blame your specific friends' deaths on Obama, but what about the hundreds (thousands?) that died because he didn't follow up on his promise.
Obama has made an insane number of America's problems. Newsflash: we're $16 trillion in debt, being poor has been outlawed (ObamaCare), AND he just declared the entire earth a battle zone.
$16 TRILLION IN DEBT!! That's TWO FULL YEARS of US citizens doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to repay it! (The non-government part of the GDP is about $8 trillion). We'll be $20 trillion in debt before he leaves office!!
... what? Katrina? Ummm... OK... yeah, Bush, FEMA, and the Army Corp of Engineers should all be fired. ... no qualms there. I'm surprised that Obama hasn't cut their funding for being so inept.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush - the man should be in a gulag. In fact, I went around my neighborhood trying to convince people to vote for John Kerry because "anyone would be better than Bush". But I woke up and found that such a statement is a lie.
Obama isn't any better. In fact, I'm starting to think he is worse.
So you really think Obama putting us more than another 6 trillion dollars in debt, in 3 years, is a good thing?
When Bush ran the deficit up 4 trillion in 8 years, Obama stood on stages screaming it was unpatriotic, unAmerican, and only a moron or idiot would spend such amounts and rob our children and grand-children.
But he has ran it up 2 times as much in less than half the time... and he is a great hero.
What a joke.
And I hate to break it to you, but the bush lied line... WAS A LIE propagated by the Leftists. You are aware we moved 5 metric tons of yellow cake unranium out of Iraq in 05/06? You do know that right?
As to Katrina... there are many a democrat whoi holds more blame that Bush for the way that went. but you all do not care to see that the left keeps sticking you in the back and then blaming the right... and the media jumps in and presses lies as truth... and you all cannot bother to lok at the whole story for yourself.
What a laugh.
And do not mistake me for a republican, I am an independent Conservative, not a bush fan or any other progressives for that matter, or Leftists.
And you are right, Obama did not create this problem, he has made it worse though. The true cause are the Socialist Liberal Deomocrats and the progressives within the Republican party.
And we will throw more than a few of them out this election, as we did the last one.
This is going to be my last comment.
I excercise my right to vote,I stand by my decision,the question asked "will you cast your vote for Obama in the next election and why.
I honestly answered the question about my vote,and you have a problem with it. Well,that's your problem not mine.
My faith lies in God,my spirituality keeps me living a happy life because I know who is truly in power.
Everyone excercise your right,be counted and if you're really behind your choice voice it,campaign for it,shout it from the mountain tops or online.
Blessings to all!
It is not that I do not like it.
It is that I find it funny people blame everyone but Obama, and the man has spent more money than all of them in 3 years. He has almost doubled the debt. yet you think that is fine?
You will vote for him to continue on spending TRILIONS. At this rate by the time he leaves, if he is re-elected, he will have spent 10 to 12 TRILION dollrs.
You think that is going to help us?
That is what is funny about all the people who will vote for him again.
And I am sorry. i did not mean to seem as though all that was directed at you personally, but all of you in general.
And I laugh at the republicans who are going to vote for a Progressive like Romney.
Yes it is too funny to me.
When God decides it's done,it's done.
In the big picture if God ended the world today,no one would care about the election or who you voted before. We'll all just pray that the ones we love know that,and a full feeling of knowing we were loved back.
No need for apologies,that's your belief. I for one will never,ever shut down one's beliefs. I'm just happy they believe in something.
The US orchestrated the sale and shipment of 550 tons of yellowcake (refined uranium) by the Iraqi government to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp, in 2008. However, this material had long been documented and under safeguards imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the first Gulf War in 1991. (1) Therefore, the existence and removal of this material is totally unrelated to President Bush’s State of the Union Speech in 2003 in which be said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
This shipment is also unrelated to the often-touted Bush pretense to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Both President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.” According to a radio address by President George W. Bush, “Our nation entered this conflict reluctantly, yet with a clear and firm purpose. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” (2) In 2005, a CIA report stated no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (3)
(2) http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. … 30322.html
anyone still defending Bush OR the US over the Iraqi "WMD" debacle probably shouldn't be taken seriously,
But it's interesting to see how governments lie to their populace.
Anyone who denies there were WMDs lives in a fantasy world. And was the it a debacle? I am still awaiting an awswer from someone about the 3 scud missles that were launched into Israel earlier this year that the serial numbers matched those from the WMD list being hunted down after we invaded Iraq.
Iraq wasn't making nukes.
a SCUD isn't a weapon of mass destruction.
Scud missiles are not WMDs, correct, however they were a banned weapon according to the UN agreements that followed the Gulf War. Saddam was in pocession of several banned weapons, components for banned systems, tons of uranium, gas filled artillery shells, etc.... Though no concentrated stock pile was discovered. what military commander would hold his weapons stores in one single stock pile on the eve of a war.
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that Saddam was poised to resurrect his nuke programs once the sanctions were lifted - as the passive, useless and silly UN was ready to do.
To make an error is human,to mock an error is ignorence.
Think I said it all : - )
I was not mocking the error - of substituting Dole for Gore. You and I see the whole world, our place in it, the nature of things, humans, government, economics ... reality in diametrically opposed ways. So when I say you said it all I mean it.
I spelled it the way the commentor spelled it,not not pointing out his error. It's not that serious.
Note that no one commented on Captain Redbeard's error,but quick to point mine out simply because we don't agree on this issue.
Well you're not going to agree all the time with everyone,but my vote is just that my vote.
I'm just one that has no problem stating who I'll vote for and why,nothing will be posted on this forum is going to change that.
So on election day vote as you like,be counted I will.
There was a reason I left these forums before,I remember now.
It is amazing to me, how quickly people forget how much they hated Bush when he was in office. When he was in office, everything that ever happend was his fault. Now that Obama is in office, everything is his fault. I wonder why that happens? Anyway, I admire you for being brave. On the internet people can say anything they could say. If they had to speak to you face to face, they would never say anything like that at all.
By the way, I talk about politics, but for some reason I talk about them all but never tell anyone who I am going to vote for. It is a right we need to keep.
I can understand you keeping your choice to yourself,that's why there booths for privacy.
But I'm proud of my choice,and I will show it and state it from my car,my home and my person.
I'm in for Obama 2012,that was the question asked,I just answered truthfully and honestly.
I understand that also, but as I said before, you are one of the people who are honest. There have to be many people who voted for him ( look at the number of votes he got) then said they did not! The way I talk, people probably know who I vote for, I just don't tell them.
You never know who people vote for unless they tell you and sometimes they lie then.
On a funny note my ex told me he voted for Bush,that's when he became my ex.
He later told me,he wish he could take it back. We're still friends just not romantic.
I'll never look at him the same.
No matter what you say about this President, he has done two things that completely nullify everything he has done.
1. Imposed a law that WILL make you purchase a commercial product. If you don't the crime is punishable by fines and or imprisonment.
2. Voted FOR the indefinite detention act. If our government suddenly feels that you are a terrorist under guidelines they have drawn up, you can be arrested. No trial. That is against your constitutional rights as an American.
Vote him in for another term and you may sign your own death warrant if you are missing fingers, have scars or burns, 7 days worth of food in your home.
http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2011/12/0 … terrorist/
I don't care who you vote for. I might be voting for BO, too. We all make spelling/grammatical errors. I made one in the forums the other day, and I was corrected by another hubber. I thanked him for pointing it out.
I think he also meant cast not cost, but we all got the point.
I wouldn't vote for Obama for dog catcher as the streets would be over run with strays much like himself.
Obama is the worst president this country has ever had and hopefully ever will have. He must be defeated in 2012 so we can turn this country around, away from Socialism.
Perhaps Sunday, January 20, 2013 will be a prayerful day of celebration when the Obama's board a helicopter and fly out of Washington, ending one of the worst chapters of American history. For this, I pray.
Not if he were the last politician on earth. His treasonous a$$ should be hung from the closest tree tall enough to do it!!!!!
Because I do not support, and cannot stand, Leftist Marxist Socialist/Fascist scum.
Not to mention the man hates this country.
Oh , of course he "hates" this country..
I WILL be voting for him unless the GOP changes radically over night. And I sure as heck will not be alone.
Between his anti-colonialist and Islamic up-bringing, he simply can do nothing else but hate this country.
Any type of love for this nation would be a foriegn thought to such a man.
Muslims don't hate this country. Quit saying things like that.
I know numerous Muslims who are very happy to be living in a country where their right to practice is enshrined in the Supreme Law of the Land.
"Will you cost your vote" Yup - any vote for any federal politician will cost me dearly, which is why I will never vote for one ever again.
I'd recommend voting for Ron Paul - he's an Anti-Federalist.
All of us blame everything on Obama, but what we have forgotten about is the Senate and Congress. No matter who ends up as President there will always be complaints.
There is no question Congress has its share of the blame in this mess, but we have a President who is making moves without the approval of Congress that are hurting the country.
Presidents hold the power to veto, pocket veto, refuse to enforce federal laws, and pull back the military.
ALSO- Obama had a Democratic Congress for the first two years of his presidency. This "do nothing Congress" claim is hollow.
It's safe to say that we can blame quite a bit on him.
It is interesting how many candidates swear when they get in office they will absolutely do this or that. Then they get elected and find out if it could be done, it would have been done already. I'm more concerned about what damage they actually do than what they find out they can't do after all.
The senate and congress is infested with war criminals and international terrorists.
If you don't vote, don't whine about it after it doesn't go your way.
That is the way things work in D.C. When one party is in the White House the other is usually in control of congress that way everyone loses.
:Yes, because he's done a pretty good job despite Republican obstructionism. Also, I'll vote for him because I'm a lifelong Democrat. Of course, the lack of an attractive Republican candidate makes it easy.
US is going through a tough period and Obama done a OK job here... So I would vote for him , though most of the peoples are interested only to find -ve aspect of him.
If you think this is OK, I hate to see what would qualify as bad to you
I will. The republican alternative is too much of a threat to the middle and lower classes. The republican solution is tax cuts for rich people and an undying faith in trickle-down economics. We need a president that can compromise and reason, though some will call him weak for it
I'm voting for jobs and an improved economy. So, if Romney gets the nomination...
In fact, I'm just about to send him a donation.
I don't think Romney is a horrible choice, but do you fully understand that he is a political opportunist who has changed his supposed opinions radically?
Neither of us have any idea what his true positions are, which makes me think that it's really just all about Romney for him.
If you MUST vote Republican, he's at least not scary, but that's the most I can give him.
I had much rather vote for Huntsman. I saw him on TV the other night, talking about China and North Korea. I was really impressed!
I'm not wild about Romney, but I'm hoping he knows enough about economic and business models to help create an environment for job growth.
And as I've stated before, if the GOP choice is Newt, Perry, or Bachmann, I'll vote for Obama. After all, I voted for Clinton, and I often vote D in local and state elections.
He knows about stripping businesses and firing people, that's for sure. Some of them recovered, some did not. He doesn't know anything about actually creating businesses. He was the master of the corporate takeover, not an entrepreneur himself.
I have read Huntsman's web pages. He is way too conservative for me. Scary, from my pov.
Huntsman is by far the most qualified candidate, but he is not getting looked at. GOP will not support him because he worked in the Obama Administration. I think that is the most stupid reason not to back a candidate. I do not care who you are, what you believe, if the President called you tomorrow to serve your country, you will not say no. The funny part to it is he quit his post in China because the President would not listen to his advise on China. Then again, when has Obama listened to anyone?
You mean he hasn't listened to right wing extremists who would turn us into a third world country?
Actually, he's given too much of an ear to those people. He needs to recover his principles.
Republicans are not the ones turning this country into a third world country. Huntsman has more priciples than the president, vice president and all of congress combined. Huntsman is the last person that could ever be accused of not having priciples or convictions, he is the only candidate that has both a domestic and forign policy plans.Ask yourself this, what plan will Obama offer should he get four mor years? answer, NONE other than the same old failed ones. If his answer was yes, my question would be why did he not put it in place? Why wait?
I've looked at Huntsman's website. He's a radical. The problem with the GOP is that they have become so insane that someone like him starts to look rational. He isn't.
If you think Huntsman is radical, you must think Mickey mouse, The little rascals, The Coyote, Tom and Jeryy are all radical too.
nope. I think they are cartoons. Just like all the GOP candidates - except Mr. Flip-Flop, he's just a work in progress where the plot keeps changing..
I notice as you continue your non supported comments, you continue to avoid questions asked of you. So once more, Ask yourself this, what plan will Obama offer should he get four mor years?
I know it is politically correct to say"flip flop", so much so that politicians are afaid to change their mids. Therefore the conintue policies that are killing us. I want the next President to sit there and say " I have changed my mind" on a subject. We are human and we can change our mind. And Washington needs to change their minds, for what they are doing is not working.
American view,more important than what policies or plans he will pursue is what he will not do in his second term, and that is squander a mandate given by the majority of the american people trying to compromise and work together with a right wing nut dominated Republican party whose sole objective is to obstruct and derail any economic or social progress in the country to advance a petty agenda that will only benefit the ultra rich and empower their loon sickle fence " toties and lackie" teapartiers,to paraphrase Curtis Sliwa.
That was indeed his biggest failing. He should have stood up and grown a pair on day one. It seems like he may be finally getting closer - I hope so.
Really, Repubs obstruct? Did you know there are currently over 2800 bills alone sitting in the Senate, not counitng resolutions and more. Are you aware over 1900 of them were tabled by Reid and the Dems? Bills that will bever be looked at or considered,"dead on arrival" as Reid says and he is very proud of it. Oh one more interesting fact, over 1700 of them were sponsored by a Republican. Who obstructs?
yes, I will, because I look at what the Republican Congress has done and do not like any of the Republican candidates.
The state of the economy is not the fault of Obama.
I haven't been happy with some of his decisions, but I don't think a GOP president is what the US needs at this time. It's actually a rather scary thought after listening to the candidates.
I think a lot of us feel that way. Obama has been a disappointment, but the alternatives are too scary to contemplate.
Except maybe Romney, because his "positions" are just what he thinks he should say. What he'd actually do might not be much different than Obama. He's a creep, but probably not dangerous.
I do not trust any of the candidates for Presidential election. I'm in quite the dilemmma.
In presidential election, will you cost your vote to Obama, if Yes then why..what is the reason and do you agree what he done in his presidential tenure..
Wow. I assumed that "cost your vote" was a typo.
I fully support new standards for literacy. Anyone who thinks they are "costing" their vote should be given a voucher that they can use to buy a dictionary of their choice. I demand Federal legislation to make these vouchers a reality!
I know it's a typo, and I thought he would correct himself, but I want to point out one thing:
Voting DOES have a cost, this is why many don't bother partaking in it.
It's usually a very minimal cost, such as "not getting off your butt and then driving 500 yards to the polling booth to stand in line for 15 minutes". But it is a cost nonetheless.
No malice here, just wanted to point it out.
If it is Romney v Obama I will vote 4 Romney. I might could vote 4 Newt, Paul, or Huntsman over Obama as well. If Santorum is the nom though, I will vote 4 Obama.
Obama will get my vote. I don't care for the current GOP lineup. Peryy is another Bush, Ron Paul is a whackjob, and Romney can't keep his BS stories straight.
I'll be voting for President Obama, economy is coming around and unemployment is going down. None of the GOP impress me. And no, I'm an independent.
I am sure you realize the unempoyment numbers are false, just a campain trick. I wrote an article 8 months ago to not be surprised if the rate goes down because Obama needs it to. Also do not discount the fact that unemployment always goes down in November and December due to the temporary hires for the holiday season. You will find that the new hores report will be adjusted down, you will see the unemployment numbers go up in the January and Febuary reports. But despite that you will find that the unemplotment number will not go up as quickly as it has come down. And without looking up the month, there were 2 months where there were NO new hires, therefore the 22 months statement from the Whitehouse is false.
I too am an independent. I also am not pleased with the Repub candidates. The only one I would vote for is Huntsman and he is getting no traction.
Oh, sure. Why don't they just make them 6% then? Or better yet, 3%?
Sometimes y'all really blow my mind..
You can sit there and have blinders on, or you can go read the real report and break it down for your self. Have you not questioned why if 10,000 new jobs are addedc the rate goes down, but in other months when the net is a loss of 10,000 or more the rate does not go up? Now that is just common sence without even breaking down the numbers. Everyone knows that on average in December companies do not hire full time employees. So it would not be a suprise for someone on unemployment to take the month off from looking for a job. Does not mean they gave up their check or status, but the do not get counted as unemployed. Last month that was 2.6 million people simply because they did not look for a job yet are still unemployed and getting a check. Would you not agree adding those 2.6 million people would make a serious change on the unemployment number? Of course not because we are blowing your mind. The LONG TERM unemployment number, which means people unemployed for 27 weeks or more, is unchanged. Really, well if people are going back to work I wonder why the LONG TERM unemployment is not going down.
From the report
Employment in transportation and warehousing rose sharply in December (+50,000). Almost all of the gain occurred in the couriers and messengers industry (+42,000); seasonal hiring was particularly strong in December"
Seasonal, I think that backs what I said about unemployment going down in December traditionaly, but the question is when these 50,000 get layed off this month will the unemployment number go up? I will bet you know despite the fact it should, it will not. Oh by the way, mark my words, this current report will get revised down, just like the report for November was revised from +120,000 to +100,00. When they do do you think the unemployment rate will adjust back? I doubt it. The important numbers that would project the future is construction, professional and business services, all remain unchanged.
In spite of all these factors you will again cost your vote to President Obama.
You didn't think Osama and others death his biggest achievement.
Ending the war in Iraq can't be overlooked.
I see how well leaving Iraq is going. It will onlt be a few months before Iraq will be under terrorist control.
It is not and should not ever be our responsibility to run another country. Especially when that other country asks us to leave. Iraq is doing what they did for decades before Saddam took control. The two major factions within Iraq are trying to take over and push the other one aside. The fighting going on there has nothing to do with Iran. In fact, if Iran did try to takeover Iraq, I would bet both factions in Iraq would join forces to fight them. The Iraqis have never been fond of the Persians (Iranians) and will not let them takeover their country.
I agree we do not need to be running other countries, but do not be niave as to who is backing those looking to overthow the government.
Read the headlines of the recent attacks: "Iraq bombings targeting Shiites kill 71"
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/05 … s-20120106
This is a struggle between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. Saddam and everyone that has controlled Iraq in the past several decades were Sunnis. They are fighting to regain their control.
If this was Iran's doing, the headline would read the opposite, "Iraq bombings targeting Sunnis kill 71" because Iran is predominately Shia. It doesn't read this way because the Iranians are not involved. This is an internal struggle, not an external one.
War Drums are what I see there. Nothing substantial. I am going off of hundreds of years of history. Sunnis and Shiites hate each other. Iraq is primarily a Sunni nation whereas Iran is mostly Shiite. Iraq will fight to the death to stop Iran from taking them over.
The article from London Evening Standard says right in it that there is no proof, only conjecture. War drums. The article from irantracker.org is part of the AEI which has been beating the war drums against Iran for years. The WSJ article makes a claim without proof. This is all war drums.
Let me ask you a question. Did you believe the story that the elite Revolutionary Guard of Iran had a used car salesman plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil? Think about that? The RG is similar to our CIA, or Israel's Mossad. Yet, they got a used car saleman to do the work? It's a false flag. It didn't happen. The whole thing is designed to have the people ready to go to war with Iran at the drop of a hat.
When they decide the time is right, something will happen. It maybe innocuous or it maybe something major. Either way, we will go to war with Iran. The cards have already been dealt. That is my prediction.
Let me ask you, do you believe he was a used car salesman? Please. Are you OK they are going to execute a former Marine?
You can blow it off as most on the left will do. That is why the world thinks we are weak and will do whatever they want. Let me know how you feel after we miss just one of the plots and they succeed. Oh then you will yell we ignored the signs.
Iran will not directly attack us. It would make absolutely no sense for them to do so.
I was a firm supporter of President Bush and the war in Iraq. I think we won that war and exiting was a good thing. I think the same needs to happen in Afgahnistan, though claiming 'victory' there will probably never happen.
After a decade of war in the middle east I am done with it. If we are attacked directly, I can and likely would change my mind. We do not need to go to war with Iran. They are not capable of threatening us directly. Furthermore, the rest of the middle east will not tolerate a dominate Iran taking over the region. Why? It all goes back to the Shia's vs the Sunnis. Iran is the only country in the middle east that is predominantly Shia. The rest are Sunnis and will not tolerate their dominance.
We don't need to send our troops in harms way because of what Iran might do. Yet that is exactly what many people want to do. The war drums are beating louder than ever.
I too supported Bush going into Iraq. I also agree we were there a long time. Problem is leaving as we did will undermine what was done there. Iraq did not ask us to leave, they had demands that we did not want to meet, demands I would have negotiated for Iraq to drop. But Obama wanted to keep his campaign promise about leaving and did so because he was already hearing Repubs saying he did not keep his promises. I find that funny because most of Obamas decisions are about politics and eletion instead of what is good for the American People. When will Presidents, no matter which party, realize just do a good job and people will vote for you.
But as for Iran, I know you have heard the saying "an ounce of prevention... Well we are in a different world now, we need prevention. I am curious, if you think we are beating the war drums, what would you call what Iran is doing? And what are your thoughts on the person arrested in Florida the other day that said during his confession "we all need to die the islamic way". Do you really think Iran does not have a nuclear bomb yet? They have it. Do you think Russia, China, and North Korea have been supplying Iran all the past, pieces and Uranium to build such a weapon but did not give them the blueprints to build it. Count on it they did. Iran may not have many, but they have them.
Iran is very influential in the area right now. Unless something drastically changes in Saudia Arabia, Iran will not be able to dominate, but they will not be powerless either. They may be Shi's vs Sunni's right now, but an attack from Israel will change all that.
The Iranian government is doing exactly what I and a lot of people in charge would do. In a region where 3 neighbors have a nuclear weapon, obtaining one for self defense is rational. Additionally, what happened to our relations with North Korea once they obtained a nuke? Before they had one there was a lot of talk about stopping them as well, but since we were already in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was no way we could front a 3rd war. Now that North Korea has nukes, the talk about how to deal with them has changed drastically.
Iran wants the same thing and it makes perfect sense. The facts are that you are treated differently as a country when you have a nuke at your disposal. If I were in charge, I'd want one too.
We accomplished everything we set out to do in Iraq. We wanted Saddam out, a democratic government in, and a free Iraq. They have that. Now it is up to them to use their freedom the way they see fit. If that means civil war between factions, that is up to them. We do not and should not be their baby sitter.
While the exact date is not known, it is believed that N. Korea could have had their first one in late 1990s. Before the Iraq war. and in direct violation of a treaty signed in 1994.
Pakistan didn't have their weapon until 1998. Yes they probably helped North Korea in their own development, but starting a nuclear weapons program isn't the same as having a weapon.
North Korea did not test their first nuke until 2006. That test was widely viewed as a failure since it did not seem to be as powerful as they had hoped, leading to suggestions that their design was flawed. They had their second test in 2009, which seemed to resolve the design issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North … clear_test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_North … clear_test
Conjecture as to when they might have had a weapon is a far cry from knowing they have one. The tests they conducted proved that they had them. Ever since then, we've been playing much nicer with North Korea than we had before 2006.
Seeing this play out, it is no wonder Iran wants their own.
BTW, if this happened in the United States by a foreign government:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns … w3IjPmjJ8E
We would and SHOULD blow the crap outta that country. We are already at war with Iran, just covertly. We are lucky they are not retaliating against us like we would if it happened to us.
Show me the proof and evidence the United States did this. Otherwise you are just guessing.
The great thing about ops by the CIA, MI6, Mossad, etc... is that there is rarely any evidence directly linking them to the op. I would point to our Secretary of State categorically denying our involvement as proof that we were somewhat involved or at least informed about the op.
My point has nothing to do if we did or didn't play a part in the assassination. My point is that if it happened here, on US soil there would be outrage and calls to attack the nation responsible (at least who we think is responsible) from coast to coast. Do you deny that?
Yet Iran has been very restrained in their response...
Voting for the Republican candidate would be a huge mittstake
Of course. I don't care much what he's done or not done. I'll never vote for any of the Republican weasels with their corporate masters and evangelical friends. They are pretty much my definition of evil.
STRAIGHT UP WAR CRIMINALS!! CONGRESS IS A JOKE. THEY ALL NEED TO BE FIRED! I VOTE FOR WHO EVER FIRES CONGRESS!!. unlikely but hey I can HOPE can't I? Sadly I fear any GOP taking office. Being president of the US is a very difficult job I am sure. I can't imagine the tugging and pulling that this man goes through. He has been criticized even before he won, so I am praying that he "SHAKES THE HATERS OFF" and keep doing what he can the best way he knows how.. Congress has been his obstacle,more than any issue he has faced, intentionally causing chaos and doing everything in their power to make Obama look bad.If they would just support him and stop trying to pick out everything "wrong" maybe this country can begin to turn around. How do we get stronger in a divided house. We can't no matter who is in office. Be careful what you buy into with any of these politicians, including Obama, he is not excluded no matter his color he is still a politician. and well we know politicians sell their souls just to get that vote. Just research, question everything and VOTE. But I got Obama's Back because he needs us more than ever now. 1
Obama didn't stop the wars when he had the chance.
and due to war Americans are are facing economic problems.Is it right ?
Why didn't George W stop the wars from starting,when he had a chance?
Obama is doing big things despite the opposition of Congress, he's cleaning up Bush's mess. His agenda is clear to me and many others,he wants America at it's best. He wants people to pay their fair share to be accountable and respect the freedoms that we have. He wants to leave America in better shape than when he came into office. And with the way Bush left it,he's doing GREAT!
Then vote for the Independent or ANY of the candidates! JUST VOTE!!!
Obama has the best campaign graphics art, hands down. His voice has the smoker's rasp and tenor which makes it memorable. The guy's a gifted campaigner. But he's an inexplicably poor leader. Truly bad at it. The New York Times reporter's book out today highlight's the First Lady's pivotal role in pushing the ObamaCare agenda through. She seems to be the real maven and the one with the thrust. Too bad I disagree with almost every single policy position the Obamas have taken. What is it-- 10 and 1/2 months to go? Can't wait to pull the lever for the last one standing against Obama.
Of the GOP candidates, I can't decide which one is the lesser evil. They're all a bunch of clowns. Will be voting for Obama again.
But Obama definitely use Osama's death as his achievement in his tenure.
In default of a better. Where are the kuciniches, the Naders...?
If I suppose it is right that you said then how you compare the advancement in economy in Bush and Obama 's tenure..Despite the down fall of over all economy.
by Cristale Adams 6 years ago
If you had to vote tomorrow, who would you vote for?
by RVDaniels 6 years ago
Do you like Congressman Ron Paul and would you vote for him?Do you believe Ron Paul can be a good President?
by Jason Menayan 6 years ago
It strikes me that there are 2 distinct types of people voting in the Republican primaries and caucuses: partisans and libertarians.The partisans are about 80%; they might have their favorite candidate, but in the end, they'll vote for whoever is up against Barack Hussein Ali Baba Mohammad...
by kirstenblog 6 years ago
I just stumbled on this story and am really impressed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 … 09102.htmlThe story is about Ron Paul's stance that the fed should take a hands off approach to medical marijuana, that it should be down to the states. My only worry is that Obama campaigned...
by David Stillwell 5 years ago
As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national and foreign debt, national banking and international banking issues, has raged......
by Dave Mathews 6 years ago
I hate politics. I hate all politicians. I see all politicians as "Legalized Mafia" or Legalized crooks, someone who through "laws" legal or otherwise find a way to dip into your pocket or purse to extract through taxes your hard hearned wages. Yes they may maybe do a little...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|