Mitt Romney editorial:
"I will take every measure necessary to check the evil regime of the ayatollahs. Until Iran ceases its nuclear-bomb program, I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must. I will speak out on behalf of the cause of democracy in Iran and support Iranian dissidents who are fighting for their freedom. I will make clear that America’s commitment to Israel’s security and survival is absolute. I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.
Most important, I will buttress my diplomacy with a military option that will persuade the ayatollahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Only when they understand that at the end of that road lies not nuclear weapons but ruin will there be a real chance for a peaceful resolution."
omg omg omg deja-frickin-vu
Since 1981, US Presidents (excluding George W. Bush) have made the symbolic geasture of traveling to Canada on their first official visit.
He is thus already insulting my nation before even taking office.
I have no choice but to reciprocate by destroying each and every albulm I own of his Mormon co-horts, Donny and Marie....
although it pains me to do so
Iran has no evidence of having a bomb.
Iran has no evidence of building a bomb.
Iran has no evidence of wanting to build a bomb.
Wikileaks has shown documentation that Israel has bombed their nuke sites in the past year or so.
Anyone even CONTEMPLATING attacking Iran -- Romney, Santorum, Obama, Gingrich -- is clearly just a piece of crap.
Iran has no evidence of wanting to build a bomb?
You dont think they would want to have the bomb?
I agree...although Obama is not a piece of crap.
We all are,and it needs to STOP!
Iran has been negotiating with one of the Arab countries to buy enriched uranium. They have no way to do this themselves. Until they get it, they can't build a bomb, but make no mistake, they do want one and have stated as much.
IMO, it would be a huge mistake to destroy Iran with bombs. If he does this, he disgraces this country to no end. At least Bush had a good reason, we were attacked first.
We were attacked by Saddam Hussein?
You know what I'm talking about - Afghanistan, Bin Laden and al Queda.
As far as Iraq is concerned, it's a sad state of affairs (to say the least) but getting rid of that heinous person and his sons was a good thing gone about it the wrong way. And yes, he did have WMDs because the U.S. gave them to him that's why everyone was so sure he had them.
So MY tax dollars when to kill a man because some people didn't like him.
How many died for that?
And these same people don't want THEIR money to go to women for birth control, and abortion is murder???
LMC - I really wish you would answer a question directly now and then so I can understand your answer instead of talking in inuendo and sarcasm.
Some people didn't like him? Coming from someone (you) who is such an advocate for women's rights, you might talk to the women who were raped by his sons, had their husbands killed and their children thrown into prisons just for speaking against him.
"And these same people don't want THEIR money to go to women for birth control, and abortion is murder??? GOT IT."
Everyone knows that Iraq was a combination of personal vendetta and venture capitalist enterprise loosely justified with morality, the alleged existence of WMD's that weren't there and association with al Qaeda. The problem is going broke attempting to police the world and profit from its instability. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt... You have to draw a line somewhere. You can't fulfill your own ulterior motives under the thin guise of attempting to fix it all. Obama has done a great job responding to the ongoing Arab Spring in my opinion. There's no comparison.
"This whole Iran thing is about getting control of a country presently without a Rothschild central bank.
It is zionist Rothschild usury central bankers who are fomenting this war.
Just as they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Sudan.
Only three countries are holding out on a zionist one world economic order: Iran, N.Korea, Cuba. All the other 194 countries already have Rothschild zionists controlling their money, and thereby their government.
Zio Rothschild bankers already control 194 nations of 197.
It has nothing to do with anything but getting control of Iran's central bank and thereby the Iranian government and thereby the Iranian people.
We are all only sheep or cattle to Rothschilds fiat usury."
I'd want a bomb in the face of this too.
They are working on it.
http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis … ov2011.pdf
Except for not working with other nations that are sanctioning them for pursuing it. If they aren't trying to, why would they resist?
Oh, and there is the whole 'let's make israel vanish' threat as well.
You know, LMC, maybe I am tired of abslute security guarantees made on behalf of anybody. This is all politics. We spend more money on defense than the next 14 nations below us combined. I neither have the money nor the inclination to continue in the role of globo-cop. I would suggest that these other nations resolve their own differences in whatever way they see fit and leave me out of it! The last 10 years if anything should have revealed to us all that this is just another 'fools errand'. I gripe about this problem in great detail
http://credence2.hubpages.com/hub/Be-Wa … ed-Serpent
I wish Credence....we seem to be owned by Israel!
Amen, Credence. You and a lot of other people feel this, not a minority. Unfortunately, government doesn't care what we want or feel.
Thanks CPC and LMC.
CPC, in reply to some of your observations about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, You know I could never figure out why we have thousands of nuclear warheads and certainly go along with India and Pakistan as nuclear powers (I consider Pakistan just as dangerous) yet we all are so concerned about Iran. Iran knows that we have the firepower to leave a crater where their country once was if they do not behave.
Someone made the point that Iran has vital security interests as well, with the threat of unilateral attacks from Israel, can you blame them?. It is all the silly fundamentalists that seem to think that we have some spiritual calling to come to Israel's aid, when the country is quite carnal, actually. They do what they want and we have rubber stamped it for years. I am not anti-semitic to disagree with the way of our foreign policy in regards to Israel.
\This stuff has been going on since the time before time. We drain our resources and Israel only pretends to be concerned about our security issues in the region. We have been the lumbering giant they have been 'playing' for decades.
If Israel is a member of the nuclear club(and everybody knows that she is) I cant see why Iran could not be a member
We have been trying to control nuclear proliferation since the former soviet union exploded its first nuclear device in the late 1940's. Short of nuclear war, this effort as part of American foreign policy is also a "fools errand".
In spite of 9/11 we have spent billions and lost thousands of people on both sides It would be like after the Pearl Harbor attack we declared war on Korea.... 9/11 was a catastrophe, but we punish ourselves, spending billions to lure a 8th century man from a rabbit hole.
Whew, I am glad that I could get that out and get a little relief!
Wonder how all of those Jewish voters and the Israelis will feel after they find out that Willard believes in baptizing dead Jews by proxy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/je … liefs.html
And the drum beat of war has begun. Israel is going to attack Iran, and all hell will break loose. Why Reagan thought increasing the stockpile of nuclear weapons in the U.S. was ever a good idea is beyond me. Temporary solutions are never the answer.
"In his speech to the AIPAC conference Monday night Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved closer than ever to the point of no return en route to war with Iran.
Netanyahu compared Iran to Nazi Germany, its nuclear facilities to death camps, and his current trip to the White House to a desperate plea to former U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt by the U.S. Jewish community to bomb Auschwitz.
The request, as Netanyahu told a sympathetic AIPAC crowd, was denied, using justifications similar to those used today by those who object to a military strike against Iran."
omg omg omg.....
"Kadima MK Shlomo Molla said Obama's speech to AIPAC Sunday was so pro-Israel it could have been written by Likud activist Moshe Feiglin. He said he was offended by right-wing criticism of the address.
“We Israelis are so ruthless that we won't be satisfied unless the president of the United States wakes up every morning and curses Arabs,” he said"
No prob...Donny and Marie mentality is all this place can muster.
"We've succeeded in persuading the international community that this is a real threat to the whole world," Netanyahu told journalists.
Just like directing a movie....In credible.
I wash my hands..Pilot LMC. This is no longer the United States of America.
WOW..just look at all these R's...taking the opportunity to be tough guys.
geeesh, synchronicity. "Like a movie"...
http://lesvisible.blogspot.com/2012/03/ … gment.html
Just remind them that they are not president and that they are crossing the line by trying to push war. That is not their function or privilege. Hopefully it will never be their function or privilege.
hey boys and girls!!! What's the song for today?
Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran....yay!!
Mommy....can I play bomb bomb?
Sure honey..it's your right as an AmerIsraelian!
Crippling sanctions.....who do you think they hurt?
LITTLE BABIES...the ones you creeps always say you care so much about.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
only in the womb. and only if not Arabic.
MEDIC. I need some anger management medication.
You will appeal Obamacare, right? cause you know that's gvt intervention.
yay yeah wooohooooo
And you will force women to give birth against their will? cause you know, that's not gvt intervention.
yay yeah wooohoooo
Yes, let's tie them down, inseminate women, and force them to give birth against their will.
If you outlaw abortion, what would you call it?
I guess they could take responsibility for their actions by using protection or abstaining. If someone creates a life, IMO, they're responsible for that life. Sorry, just that's my opinion. Abortion in the case of the mother's life is a morality issue and should be allowed at the judgement of the mother. Possibly same with rape, incest. I know this is really hypocritical, but I'm really torn by the whole issue.
Well, here's an easy answwer:
You don't like abortion? Don't have one. Simple as that.
I can agree to that. So after a while, with that in place, a woman who didn't want an abortion has a child. After a year or so of crying and having nothing to do but listen to baby talk, she's tired of it and doesn't want this child anymore. What should she do with it? It would be good to have a law that says she can turn it over to the state or have it adopted out or maybe even sell it. Yeah. I like that.
That makes no sense..what are you trying to say?
What I'm trying to illustrate is that if we push the line of killing unborn babies, at some point the line will be pushed again by someone who says it's unfair that she should have to keep her 5yr. old when she doesn't want him. Your concern is for the rights of women and not the rights of babies?
I don't understand how this is even a discussion. Reproductive rights should never be in danger in a first-world country, period. No pun intended. First of all, what other people do with their bodies is none of anyone else's business unless they're a close friend, family member, significant other, etc. If a woman gets her tubes tied, is she defying the laws of nature by denying a potential baby its right to be born? Do birth control pills, patches and rings do the same thing? All of it echoes of contorted Puritanical zealotry. It's not a real issue, it's just rabble rousing. Do you know what happens when abortion is outlawed, in horrible backward places like dictatorial regimes? Lots of women bleed out on the floors of their unofficial town doctor's basement or in gas station bathrooms, render themselves infertile or die of any lovely assortment of complications later if their attempt fails. Civilised society provides safe, clean medical facilities to avoid this and safeguard the health of women and their right to choose. Besides, do you think anyone is ever super happy about getting pregnant, agonising over the decision and then having to get an abortion? Even if they're glad they chose not to have the kid because they couldn't take care of it adequately, or for whatever reason, the emotional and sometimes physical scars never heal. It's not like people are laughing and skipping down the street talking about killing babies and how great it is to live in Satan's America where it's OK.
The problem is, and still is, the definition of when it is an abortion and when it is killing a human being.
In my opinion, there are far too many abortions in the second trimester.
I do not consider a fertilized egg a baby.
And when do we stop killing babies for people we don't like? For hunger? For disease? For poverty?
Why do you only care when it is in the womb?
I think child abuse and neglect are much more serious issues than abortion, honestly. Making such a fuss over a rapidly multiplying globular mass of cells seems pretty superfluous when countless children are hungry, cold, sick and being abused emotionally, physically and sexually every day. Imagine how much good could be done if all the people flipping out over the wombs of strangers rallied against preventing these abuses instead.
I don't think good is the intent.....I think it's control over everyone's life they are after.
And when people are suffering and hungry...they can't do much about it.
I know, I'm just trying to introduce common sense to humanity and making the wild assumption that some people might agree with it. It's because I'm young and full of cautious optimism, I'm sure that idealistic fervour will die eventually.
again, amen. people say they want smaller government... but then they tell women that they can't make decisions about their own bodies.
And they don't see the problem with it!
shea - The issue is no longer about your body. It's about the body of another which you chose to create. Everyone knows the possible results of intercourse yet they continue to have it then blame someone else because they don't want the child they created. Is that your son in the picture? Hope he knows you could have just as easily told some surgeon to put a knife in his brain but you were having a good day, so you decided to let him live.
Obama neatly handled this in his SUPER TUESDAY press conference today.
Well timed, for sure.
(CBS News) At a news conference at the White House on Tuesday, President Obama lashed out at Mitt Romney and the other GOP presidential candidates for "the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war," saying their rhetoric on Iran reflects the fact that they "don't have a lot of responsibilities."
The president was asked about Romney's claim that "If Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon." He responded first by pointing to his record, saying his administration has imposed "crippling sanctions" against Iran that have isolated the nation in an "unprecedented" way and significantly damaged its government economically.
He went on to say that while "we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon," he believes that "we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically." He later said he does not believe that a decision by Israel on whether to attack must be made in the next two months, saying increasingly tough sanctions should have more time to work.
"Because sanctions are starting to have significant effect inside of Iran -- and that's not just my assessment, that's, I think, a uniform assessment -- because the sanctions are going to be even tougher in the coming months, because they're now starting to affect their oil industry, their central bank, and because we're now seeing noises about them returning to the negotiating table, that it is deeply in everybody's interests, the United States, Israel and the world's, to see if this can be resolved in a peaceful fashion," he said.
Romney is a liar. We will have months of well-paid for lies.
The psychopathic kind. The "your mother has sex with fat pigs" kind.
You think Palin was bad? Strap in.
bgamall: "The list of those bozos includes Palin, Gingrich, W, Perry, Bachmann, etc., etc. Add neoconservatism to this religious bent and you have a loose cannon running the US."
I know the sanctions are working. I am paying $4.30 for a gallon of gas. And he is promising more sanctions and more money at the pump. I am the one being sanctioned.
"For the moment this 'bluster' keeps the gas prices going higher and fills the coffers of the mega-oil companies, big banks and speculators who are poised to cash in while the economy tanks. This sounds about right even if from a questionable source ... "For every 10-cent increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline, it costs the economy about $11 billion." This is a major strategy in the economic war against the people and possibly this slow bleed is all they are after, at least for the near future."
So what do you think is the right way to go, LMC? No war, no sanctions. Then what? We could just let them get their bomb and take our chances. They only want it because they feel threatened and that would even the playing field. They were attacked by Iraq in the past when Hussein was backed by the U.S. I can see their POV.
They don't have a bomb but are trying to negotiate buying enriched uranium to make one. That's the whole point of all the fuss. Keeping them from making one.
I'm sorry but who the hell is BIbi?
Here's an interesting opinion, kind of in the lines of Veteran Today editor...hoping that Obama's butt-kissing is for show only:
(Obama gave Bibi Book of Esther).
"There is a very good argument that Obama's gift had a deeper meaning. It seems that in early December, 2011, a Isle of Man flagged freighter was inspected by Finnish police and discovered to have 69 Raytheon-built Super Patriot missiles that had only just been given to Israel. Since it was headed for Shanghai, it was yet another sellout of US taxpayers for the Zionist state. Well, they pissed off the military complex with that move, and then Nut'n yahoo gets stiffed with the Iran talks announcement while he's here to dictate to Barry. Justice from an unexpected source to be sure."
I have read that Goldman Sachs has already abandoned USA for China...
Money knows no allegiance save Mo' Money.
The war is on for the soul of America!
Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media. ~Noam Chomsky
I fight for my daughters.....who are called sl*ts, filthy freaks and losers.
Then they want ME to take ANYTHING they say in consideration after that?
They must be crazy.
I'm not sure I understand this jihad on women... is it a strategy? ... the way Orwell's 1984 'created' an enemy to unify the rabble. (Of course the strategy assumes that only men matter... a poor assumption as long as women still have the vote... we can still vote, can't we?)
I don't either....I'm trying to remember when was the last time it hit? It's like these zombies have been sleeping and all of a sudden they're all back!
Amen, it's surreal and Orwellian for sure. The GOP is so good at creating enemies: where I live it's Mexicans. Blame the Mexicans for everything. Gingrich managed to do it in the debate in Mesa; he swiftly sidestepped a question about how lowering taxes for corporations and the super rich could possibly make the economy money by saying that he'd reinforce the border, etc. so that Mexicans and other illegals couldn't come in here and suck our economy dry. By what, washing dishes for $4 an hour under the table? Give me a break. But a lot of people are racist, sexist bigoted pigs, so it always works. Plus, in this case, they'll talk about how much they hate filthy brown people all day long but still enjoy their food for dinner and absolutely refuse to give up the cheap exploitative labour. Dicks.
"Long ago when men cursed and blamed all of life's ills on women, they called it witchcraft; today it’s called the Republican Primary."
"they want a smaller government where the headquarters are inside every womans v*g*na."
"Today being International Women's Day means I'm only gonna get paid two-thirds of what I usually make."
That's an awfully presumptuous assumption about someone whose circumstances you don't know.
Mossad, CIA, Blackwater operating in Syria......now who is it calling for military action?? Oh yah....Bomb Bomb McCain.
"same neo-con group who gave us Iraq."
Delaware: By an 8 to 4 vote, the Wilmington, Delaware, city council recognized the personhood of semen because "each 'egg person' and each 'sperm person' should be deemed equal in the eyes of the government."
Virginia: As the state Senate debated requiring transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions, Sen. Janet Howell proposed mandating rectal exams and cardiac stress tests for men seeking erectile dysfunction meds. Her amendment failed by just two votes.
Georgia: Responding to a Georgia house bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, Rep. Yasmin Neal wrote a bill outlawing most vasectomies because they leave "thousands of children…deprived of birth."
Ohio: A bill introduced by state Sen. Nina Turner would compel men to get psychological screenings before getting prescriptions for impotence meds. "We must advocate for the traditional family," Turner said, "and ensure that all men using PDE-5 inhibitors are healthy, stable, and educated about their options—including celibacy as a viable life choice."
Illinois: State Rep. Kelly Cassidy proposed requiring men seeking Viagra to watch a video showing the treatment for persistent erections, an occasional side effect of the little blue pill. As she explained, "It's not a pretty procedure to watch."
Missouri: Protesting the legislature's vote to reject Obama's contraception coverage mandate, nine female lawmakers cosponsored a bill restricting access to vasectomies except for men risking death or serious bodily harm. "In determining whether a vasectomy is necessary," the bill reads, "no regard shall be made to the desire of a man to father children, his economic situation, his age, the number of children he is currently responsible for, or any danger to his wife or partner in the event a child is conceived."
Oklahoma: When a zygote-personhood bill came before the state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson penned an amendment declaring that ejaculating anywhere outside a woman's vagina constitutes "an action against an unborn child." Bonus: Johnson also suggested that any man who impregnates a woman without her permission should pay a $25,000 fine, support the child until age 21, and get a vasectomy, "in the spirit of shared responsibility." In response to the same bill, state Sen. Jim Wilson proposed an amendment requiring the father of an unborn child to be financially responsible for its mother's health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment during pregnancy.
Texas: Contesting a bill mandating sonograms before abortions, Rep. Harold Dutton unsuccessfully offered three amendments in a row. The first would have required the state to pay the college tuition of children born to women who decide against an abortion after seeing a required ultrasound image. The second would have subsidized the children's health care costs until age 18. When that failed, he lowered the age to 6. That didn't fly, either.
Delaware: By an 8 to 4 vote, the Wilmington, Delaware, city council recognized the personhood of semen because "each 'egg person' and each 'sperm person' should be deemed equal in the eyes of the government."
Ejaculation shall be equal to murder.
Lysol as birth control
http://motherjones.com/slideshows/2012/ … che-cobweb
Military.com News – March 5, 2012
"Several former high-ranking military, intelligence and State Department officials took out an ad in the Washington Post today urging President Obama to stand fast against political and lobbying pressure to attack Iran over claims it is trying to develop nuclear weapons."
"Obama has been under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, and members of Congress to draw a harder line against Iran. Republican members of both the house and Senate have let Obama know that if he chose to attack Iran he would have their support."
Know who they are.
by Stacie L 7 years ago
National JournalMarina Koren The Israeli prime minister was speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference ahead of an even more hyped speech on Tuesday, in which Netanyahu is expected to make an aggressive case against the United States' handling of nuclear...
by Demas W Jasper 7 years ago
What is your opinion of "The Iran Deal"?To my view "The Iran Deal" is nothing short of "Kicking the can down the road, with an uphill road facing Israel and the USA" when the "deal" expires. Meantime, Iran builds the military technology and armaments,...
by mhope324 10 years ago
Many news outlets, like CNN, have posted that Leon Panetta is now suggesting Isreal will attack Iran in the spring. Is this a good idea? Should America get involved?
by Margaret Perrottet 10 years ago
Are we on the brink of war with Iran?Romney takes a very hard line concerning Iran. Obama has been trying to make sanctions work, and has urged Israel to wait it out. However, looking at newspapers from Israel, they seem to think that Iran will be capable of producing enough uranium to...
by Sharlee 4 years ago
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995. After 23 years we now have a president that will keep America's promise to Israel.
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
Since every authority, save a very biased Netanyahu, says Iran was complying with the terms of the Nuclear Pact, Trump's reinstating sanctions is a clear violation. Do you think:1. Iran will go it alone and start up their nuclear weaponization program again?2. Iran will continue working with...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|