Favorite President?

[system]

<p>How do you think Bio-terror works? They stuff a missle full of a deadly virus or disease, and send via a ICBM to the target. What if Iran decides to send a nuclear weapon to the US? If we had SDI, we would be safe.</p>

<pre><code> How would a terrorist send anthrax or nerve gas?
</code></pre>

[Zelda_Fitzgerald]

<p>Two words and a letter: Warren G. Harding</p>

<p>worst president ever…which makes him the best :)</p>

<p>Oh yeah, and Taft. Getting stuck in a bathtub will forever plaugue my image of him.</p>

[w1cked]

<p>Taft was officially the fattest president. If Zelda runs for prez, she might break that record :D</p>

[neverborn]

<p>Justinian: We don’t know if SDI would have ever worked. However, it threw mutually assured destruction out the window - we could launch a first strike and the USSR may have no way to retaliate. With our current enemies, especially Iran, they are crazy enough to not believe in MAD. Ahmadinejad and his Islamist cronies think Allah would protect them from a nuke. SDI would not be effective here.</p>

<p>Have you seen the movie “In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s war in word and deed?”</p>

[system]

<p>SDI was quite simple in plan; institute seperate satellites in space equipped with laser technology. Trust me, with todays tech, I don’t believe SDI would be that difficult to do. It would be a good investment, IMO.</p>

[w1cked]

<p>Pre emptive strikes are even better, and cheaper defenses.</p>

[system]

<p>W1cked, are you for the SDI initiative? How much would it cost to build? 30 billion, 50 billion? Heck, we spend a billion dollars a day in Iraq. What is the problem?</p>

[w1cked]

<p>I am for good ol fashioned bombing the **** out of hostile states.</p>

[Nora_88]

<p>Do you really think that is the right approach? Violence creates only more violence, and this kind of politics makes the US way unpopular in countries in, say, Europe.</p>

[bobbobbob]

<p>What ever happened to good ol’ napalm huh? Are we too good for it anymore? So what it burns the flesh of those caught in the way, the carpet bombings looked wicked awsome!</p>

[w1cked]

<p>

Do you really think that is the right approach? Violence creates only more violence, and this kind of politics makes the US way unpopular in countries in, say, Europe.

Yea, we should have held hands with Hitler around a fire and sang kumbaya. Who cares what Europeans think? Those backwards thinking baboons cannot even save their own asses. They don’t want American violence? Maybe next time we will let another Hitler flatten the Eiffel tower.</p>

[Nora_88]

<p>Or maybe, we should just try some mulitlateralism…</p>

[w1cked]

<p>Multilateralism is foolishness. You don’t need concensus to protect your own ass. If someone comes to rob your house, you don’t go around the neighbourhood asking if you can kill him.</p>

[Nora_88]

<p>That is one example and a very specific situation. You can’t use it as an argument for current political issues. However, there probably would have been a time for countries like France, GB or the US to intervene in Germany earlier… the build-up to WWII is 200 years of complex history; you can not simplify it like that.</p>

[bobbobbob]

<p>Pre-emptive strikes are awsome if you have the right intelligence info…</p>

<p>coughcoughIraqcoughcough</p>

[Nora_88]

<p>I think there is a reason for which institutions such as the UN were created, and I think the world leaders who set it up knew quite a bit more about politics than we do.</p>

[system]

<p>I am for good ol’ fashion national security. It is only a matter of time until we are hit by a nuclear weapon. When such occurs, we will have SDI, and America will safe. Vote for me!</p>

[w1cked]

<p>Choke on this</p>

<p>

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. </p>

<p>

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998</p>

<p>

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 </p>

<p>

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. </p>

<p>

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. </p>

<p>

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. </p>

<p>

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. </p>

<p>

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. </p>

<p>This was a war for oil right? Bush lied right?</p>

[system]

<p>I think there is a reason for which institutions such as the UN were created, and I think the world leaders who set it up knew quite a bit more about politics than we do.</p>

<p>Hah, I am beginning to suffocate from laughter, Nora the Explorer. Tell me the last time the UN did something productive other than to barricade the US in international affairs.(sounds of crickets chirping) </p>

<p>That is another thing, If I were president, I would eliminate the UN.</p>

[w1cked]

<p>The UN is good for raping little boys, but not much else</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp[/url]”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;

<p><a href=“http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001561.htm[/url]”>Michelle Malkin Archive - The Unz Review;

<p>Sad to say, I agree with this theist on security issues.</p>