Needs more options. Obviously they are a threat, but let's not lie, if they attack us we would kick their rear.
Well, Obama is on record as saying it's 'tiny', so Jewish voters, please take note that a Presidential candidate thinks that a nation that wants to 'wipe Israel off the face of the map' is a 'tiny' threat...
No he isn't. But you knew that already. Here's the quote... And really, what's this obsession with Jewish voters? Do you think Jewish voters are going to cost Obama NY? Do you think he won't draw a large majority of Jewish voters? I know it's a dream of the GOP hacks to think they can peel off Jewish votes and money, but surely reality has to sink in at some point.
I think it's obvious that he's talking geography in the "tiny" sentence: Soviet Union: 8,144,228 square miles Iran: 636,374 square miles Venezuela: 352,144 square miles Cuba: 44,164 square miles Though I guess you could argue he may be talking about any number of things from economy and manufacturing to population and technology. But even if you read it as if he's talking about the threat, you can't leave out the comparison to the Soviet Union. Iran: Worst case scenario is a nascent, untested nuclear program. Soviet Union: 11,000+ nuclear warheads with many attached to ICBMs and others attached to the largest armored units in history. So, if you read "tiny" as being applied to the threat, he's saying we have faced much greater threats in our history yet still managed to have diplomatic discussions. That's hardly controversial to people who can read or are older than 20. Also, he didn't mention Iran alone. He also included Venezuela, which does not have any kind of nuclear program, and Cuba... both winger fixations and targets used by the current GOP leadership to display their "toughness." Obama was clearly using these three to point out the absurdity of the Bush/McCain posturing.
those numbers are pretty inflated considering that most of it is basically occupied territory or unihabitable.
I honestly believe the threat from Iran is long-term and not immediate. Their support of Hezbelloh or activities in Iraq is no different than U.S. support for the Contras or our involvement in many other conflicts around the world today. The problem with the Bush doctrine is that relies on labeling Iran a terrorist-state when in reality it's not really on that level. Diplomacy in Iran should be tried, not necessarily in direct talks with the PM but lower level communications and perhaps starting to road to normalization. If any country we should take a tougher stance it's China, not Iran. Appeasing China has turned her into a major strategic threat. If we had stood up to China we may have been able to have the gov't collapse and seen a more progressive less-belligrent country. For all of his "Israel should be destroyed" commentary - it's just hallow rhetoric at the end of the day. At least that's what I see it as.
Apparently a bigger threat than Iran, and Al Qaeda seems to be reading and listening comprehension skills seemingly failing in what are deemed educational adults. How could somebody believe that Obama talking about IRan as being tiny compared to the Soviet Union is the same thing as him calling it a tiny threat in general? I would vote for McCain if he could address this apparently serious problem facing our nation.
and we know what a fabulous grasp of geography Obama has... so Rim, quick question: which do yu regard as the greater threat? Gorbachev with 11k nuke, or Mahmoud w/ 1?
Are you just being sarcastic or obtuse? If you're being sarcastic, it's pretty humorous, if not, well....
