jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.
Yes I prefer
And you think he's out of his league?

You're obviously not a believer in America or Americans.

The situation in Iran could be compared to the situation in 1909. Japan
was a militaristic society. In 1905 they had just defeat Russia. Teddy
Roosevelt understanding the situation in the western Pacific sent the
Great White fleet into the areas in and around Japan in 1907 - 1909.
Because of this action, Japan did not act on her militaristic plans for
near thirty years until the pacifist gained the upper hand in the late
1930.

The pacifist policies toward Hitler's German encouraged Hitler and
within 6 years, we were in WWII.

I would rather have a President like President Bush who takes positive
actions to restrain a militaristic power that one who panders to them.
If left unrestrained Iran will reach a point where the World will have
to act, and that will be significantly more costly that it is today.

Iraq and Iran are not the first time the US has taken a positive roll in
restrain a rogue nation. I believe the first was in Tripoli in 1805,
Because of the militaristic action, that area of the world was in
relative peace for nearly 150 years.

If you are interested all of this information can be found with a google
search.