I'm no John McCain fan, but Barack Obama would be downright dangerous at the helm of the United States. Don't believe me?
From WorldNetDaily:
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose any serious threat to us," he told a crowd at a campaign stop over the weekend
Ahem.
911 was perpetrated by 19 hijackers.
And though I don't have the latest population figures at my fingertips, the last I checked, Iran's population was north of 70 million. I know with relativism being the order of the day a lot of things are in play, but I'm reasonably sure 70 million is still a little bit more than 19.
Nearly 3,000 Americans (most of them civilians) were killed by these 19 hijackers on 911, more than the military losses at Pearl Harbor. I'm sure the families of those 2,974 people killed would consider even 19 terrorists a "serious threat."
Iran is already the worlds biggest backer of terrorism, and are already supplying men and weapons being used to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
And they may have nuclear weapons by the time Obama has a chance to sit in the White House, if the American people are reckless enough to elect him.
Don't pose a serious threat to us? "Serious threat" in Obama's book is a LOT different than what it means in mine...
3 comments:
Hmmm....19 hijackers (and what country did they come from?) Right, they didn't come from any specific country (so they were not sponsored by any state). Now most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia (but we didn't attach Saudi Arabia (weird don't you think). So you know what, Obama's right here. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela do not pose the threat of "a mushroom cloud" that Bush used to get us into a war in Iraq.
Please justify your logic more clearly.
Irishspacemonk, I'm truly stunned that you don't seem to get it.
If 19 terrorists (without the full military backing of a specific country) can kill 3,000 Americans, how much damage do you think a country with plenty of oil revenue, nukes (which they may have in a year) and 70 million people can do?
Think real hard about that...
A major difference between Iran and some of our old adversaries is that, with Iran, we cannot depend upon the principle of "mutually assured destruction" to dissuade them from their repeatedly stated goal of annihilating Israel. Ahmadinejad has stated that the destruction of Israel would be worth the cost of the deaths of half the population of Iran. Iran may not be as large as the old USSR, but it is much more dangerous to the peace of the world, especially when armed with nukes and missles.
Obama doesn't have any understanding of what threats exist in the world of the 21st century (or, doesn't care, but I don't want to contemplate that). This is not a time for wimps and imposters.
Post a Comment