No Nukes is Good Nukes
May 29th, 2008 at 09:21am Mark Noonan
With a wave of my magic wand “poof” and you, dear reader, are now President of the United States. Pretty cool, except that I’ve landed you in a situation where two days ago a 1 kiloton nuclear weapon was detonated in Manhattan. About 100,000 Americans are dead, twice that number wounded and the American financial system is in complete meltdown. Incontrovertible evidence is now presented to you showing that the nuclear weapon originated in Iran. What do you do?
Do you order a nuclear strike on Iran? I believe our least powerful nuclear weapon is 5 kilotons, presumptively able to do much more serious damage to, say, Tehran than a one kiloton device did to Manhattan. Meanwhile, the nuclear weapons aboard our submarine force (and thus likely to be most swiftly available for use) are 475 kilotons. Packs quite a wallop. Lets say, just for argument, that if you use an American nuclear weapons that you will kill at least 250,000 Iranians…and maybe a million or more.
Do you order large scale conventional bombing attacks? Our B-2 bombers can each carry 20 tons of bombs - with 20 in stock, lets say you order ten of them to do a bombing run on Tehran…200 tons of bombs. You can use about 40 of our B-1s, each also carrying about 20 tons…800 more tons of bombs. And then there is the ready standby, the B-52; you get to use 50 of these, carrying 30 tons each…1,500 more tons of bombs. You total out at about 2,500 tons of bombs for your attack on Tehran. How many people would that kill?
Of course, you could eschew all that and just have Congress declare war formally, and then you can spend a year raising the necessary military force for a full scale invasion of Iran - which will likely cost many thousands of US soldiers their lives, but would probably cost hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers their lives, as well as an untold number of Iranian civilians caught in the crossfire.
Or, you can do nothing.
None of these choices is really appealing, is it? Much better if you never have to make such a decision - which, in turn, is why it is vital we curb nuclear proliferation, as John McCain desires:
As President, John McCain Will Establish A Long-Term Commitment To A World Free Of Nuclear Weapons. Like President Reagan, John McCain believes we can see a day when nuclear weapons are banished from the Earth. While a distant and difficult goal, we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern on our security and our allies’ security. The time has come to take further measures to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and the U.S. must be a leader.
John McCain’s Highest Priority Will Be To Reduce The Danger Nuclear Weapons Will Ever Be Used. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used. While working closely with our allies, John McCain will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy.
At The Same Time, The U.S. Must Continue To Deploy A Safe And Reliable Nuclear Deterrent, Robust Missile Defense And Superior Conventional Forces.
John McCain Supports Further Strategic Arms Reductions. John McCain will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments, moving as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force.
John McCain Will Work To Strengthen Existing International Treaties And Institutions To Combat Proliferation And Develop New Ones Where Necessary. The U.S. should move quickly to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and improve the ability to interdict the spread of nuclear weapons and material under the Proliferation Security Initiative. John McCain will increase funding for American nonproliferation efforts, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs established by the landmark Nunn-Lugar legislation.
To Prevent Countries From Using Civilian Nuclear Programs As A Cover For The Development Of Nuclear Weapons, John McCain Will Limit The Further Spread Of Enrichment And Reprocessing. John McCain supports international guarantees of nuclear fuel supply to countries that renounce enrichment and reprocessing. He also supports establishing international nuclear enrichment centers and an international repository for spent nuclear fuel.
When you have heard me state over and over again these past few years that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, this is what I’m thinking of - lots of dead Americans making a situation where we make lots more dead Iranians. Massacre, however, is not good policy on either a strategic or moral plane. My whole motivation - and I believe this is shared by President Bush now, and will be shared by a President McCain - has been to reduce the possibility of an attack on the United States even more horrible than that which we endured on September 11th. We can’t do this by diddling with the UN or waiting for our enemies to become reasonable - we have to attack the problem with diplomatic, economic and military means. In the end, if Iran - and other grave threats to world peace - refuse to give up their nuclear ambitions, then we must compell them to do so, even if this requires military action. Any such action will end up being far less costly than any enemy attack on us, and our retaliation against them.
Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons - regardless of cost to ourselves - is not really a debatable position. But Obama’s position on this (unconditional negotiations with Iran followed hard upon a US withdrawal from Iraq) is beneath contempt. Essentially, Obama’s policies would just about ensure that either Obama or his successor will be faced with the scenario I described. A six year old fed on fairy tales can hold such views, but men and women who are serious about the world know better. We must have a President who deals in reality - with the world as it is, not as a liberal hopes it will be. We have enemies. There are evil people in the world. We must prevent the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands. It will be wonderful if we can get all we want by talking, but we must be prepared to do whatever proves necessary. McCain’s plan is hopeful but also realistic, and I pray that we’ll have a chance to really end this long-standing nuclear menace.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Foreign Affairs, Republicans, War on Terror
33 Comments
1. Some Assembly Required | May 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Deleted - off topic.
2. Pain | May 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am
In any case where a sovereign nation is attacked with a nuclear first strike the response is not in kind but to eliminate any threat of a future attack from that source. This is doctrine regarding atomic across the Milky Way.
The response would be to inform China and Russia as the other two major nuclear powers first that America’s response will be in total yield of fewer than 1 megaton using limited throw weight platforms such as submarine based weapons. The goal would be to use weapons with as critically small a Strontium fallout as possible to limit the damage to allies such as India in the short term and all of Terra in the long term. The nation of Iran under this scenario would have to be destroyed and no number of casualties could be considered too great. It is likely that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks also would fall under the same scenario in retrospect and had Japan had icbm or aircraft based nuclear devices available and the US had known the ground war, Operations Olympic and Coronet would have extended WW 2 by two to five years of armed combat potentially pentupling the number of killed overall to 350 million.
No president of the United States would be allowed to not respond in this manner to a mushroom cloud on American soil. This is not a political issue it is doctrine.
3. Dennis | May 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Mark, calling Obama a “slick talking con artist” or his position “beneath contempt” is not principled opposition, but just undermines your own credibility. Instead of the verbal diarrhea let’s hear you explain exactly what McCain already has done during his Senate career to make the world a safer place regarding loose weapons and nukes. And then address what Obama already has done, which gives us some indication of the actual path he will follow as president.
On January 11, 2007 President Bush signed the Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative into law. Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department’s ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction…
The Lugar-Obama initiative is modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) authored the program in 1991. It has provided U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle its enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, related materials, and delivery systems. Among many accomplishments, the program has deactivated 7,000 nuclear warheads and reemployed 58,000 scientists in peaceful research. Lugar and Obama traveled together to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan in August 2005 to oversee a number of Nunn-Lugar projects.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/
4. Danish Artist | May 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Wow Dennis, what affect did that act have on Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, China, etc. etc.????????????????????????????? Interesting you did not mention them.
The Lugar-Obama (riding on Lugar’s coat tails, is not leadership) initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy CONVENTIOAL WEAPONS and detect and interdict WMDs…detect and interdict? What, like star wars, a program that libs have fought tooth and nail since day one?
Oh, that’s right. Obama would meet with them unconditionally and …………………………… do what?
What you wrote is irrelevant and unrelated, as usual.
5. flimflamman | May 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Oh dear Jay-sus. I’m a really ascared now!
6. Kintukieboy | May 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I agree’s with you totally Mark. We kint have them ya-hoo’s possesin them nukes.
We have GOT to LIGHT THEM UP. Thats right. You heard what I wrote…LIGHT em up!
We have got to put the FEAR OF JESUS into em.
You don’t go messin with the USA. When we tells you to do somethin, you’d best do it. NOW.
No askin twice. Payback time baby.
You’re right. It’s vaporizin time!
7. OhioOrrin | May 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
hold the phone mark…& I’m talkin the 3am phone -
since we’re dealing in hypotheticals then the Iranian govt could claim the weapon was stolen by organized crime then sold by the russian mob to the chetchnians. and who the f**k knows where it went from there.
it is important 2 recognise that the Iranian PEOPLE are NOT our enemies !!!
in fact, the majority are under 35, well educated, western oriented, & are supressed & harrassed by the mad mullah goon squads enforcing religious edicts in the FLDS compounds - whoops, make that tehran.
our govt has actively tried to encourage a youth revolution probably eminating from the universities then spreading.
one cannot “light them up” & make them “fear Jesus” w/o risking our many friends in persia.
one could, however, conduct a conventional air campaign against the mad mullahs & the IRG facilities which would provide cover for the revolution.
my hypothetical has Iran once again as our ally which is a better outcome such that the loss of our citizens would not have been pointless.
8. NeoClown | May 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
What would President Bush do If we were attacked by Iran? Hummm….Okay, I got it!
Yep. I bet he would attack Turkey. Yep, it’s about time to kick some Turkish ass. All those smarmy Turks strutting around like they own the world.
9. heyNow | May 29th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“…explain exactly what McCain already has done during his Senate career to make the world a safer place regarding loose weapons and nukes.”
10. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Easy
One nuke on tehran,
One nuke on mecca
11. Jay Gaultieri | May 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
FMR Marine,
Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, which is a country President Bush calls “an ally in our war on terror”, which demanded Bush 41 bring US troops over after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait; troops that stayed in Saudi Arabia afterward which pissed off Osama Bin Laden because they were in Saudi Arabia because Meccca is in Saudi Arabia which caused him to form Al Qaeda; then Al Qaeda caused 9/11 which the Bush Administration used as justification to attack Iraq; because of which US troops were pulled out of Saudi Arabia giving Osama Bin Laden what he wanted all along.
It’s lot more complicated than “They hate our freedom.” And no we won’t bomb Mecca.
12. Pain | May 29th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
10. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
If you nuke Mecca you sign the death warrant for 303 million Americans. Period. If you do not believe that ask the question to any Saudi/Egyptian/Pakistani/Iranian/UAE/Kuwaiti businessman of any gravitas. There would be a meeting in Beijing and the OLDEST coupon on the debt owed to China by the US would be called in and the oil you so desperately need would be priced in Swiss francs from that date forward.
The truth of the war on terror or whatever it is called is that it is being fought to appease, yes that is the right word, white men like you Fmr Marine who might do something foolish if the appearance of gearing up for security reasons is not maintained.
Take the blue pill son and go back to your false world view where you are the king of all you survey.
13. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
pain -from hells leading newspaper;
>>>>The truth of the war on terror or whatever it is called is that it is being fought to appease, yes that is the right word, white men like you Fmr Marine<<<<
BINGO !!!!!!
HOOP - DERE IT IS !
You have just revealed your sick website, and racist views……..
go crawl back into your filthy cage in “hell” and post on some marxist-racist site where you belong.
14. CanadianObserver | May 29th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
It appears FmrMarine has more than a few marbles missing.
15. Pain | May 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
13. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
How is that quote racist?
It is a fact.
Can anyone here tell Us what the outcome would be had there not been a Department of Homeland Security created after 9/11? And yet no American within 50 miles of a seaport is any safer today than then. Chemical plants are no more secure now than they were on 9/10/01 some even with holes in gates meters from acid tanks.
And how are We “marxist” oh because We do not believe everything a person of a certain color feeds Us as truth? Reason comes from examination and that examnination allows Us to determine the truth no matter its source. I wonder how many of the classics you have read Fmr Marine how much Descartes or the writings of the Milesian School?
Then again Anaximander and Pabst Blue Ribbon are not a real combination are they?
16. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
pain from hells kitchen;
So you have a crystal ball?
A tailer park? pabst blue ribbon?
LOL
What is yours?
a project?
malt liquor?
a do rag?
we cal all play that little kids game.
17. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
co
It appears FmrMarine has more than a few marbles missing.
But I still have all my FROGS!
rebbit.
18. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
pain = Editorials from Hell’s leading daily newspaper
>>>
You know you come here every day and you can expect to see some naked chick or a huge penis and read some of the best political analysis and coverage of finance the Afterlife has to offer as well as concise coverage of the Culture Wars from the side with all the fun as opposed to the side with the Ponzi scheme and the lie of “you sacrifice while I get rich and have a lot of orgasms”
brought to you by people like Paula White. Why does a televangelist need fake tits? Can that be the question of the day sometime soon? Breast augmentation for a woman who thinks she’s cool because she mixes some Ebonics in her sermons
so she can be something other than a short white chick
that’s been to some public speaking seminars twenty years ago. <<<<<
Need I say more?
19. Cigarette | May 29th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Deleted - off topic.
20. Willem van Oranje | May 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Mark
You’ve named your magic wand “poof”?
21. Gaijin | May 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I started reading the comments and ran across several funny ones I was going to comment on. However, as I continued, there were just too many comments to comment on. Everyone seems to be firing on all cylinders today.
Mark, I’ve already seen that episode of Twenty Four. Actually that is almost the only episode of 24. Anyway, I don’t think Iran would ever be so stupid to ensure their own destruction by attacking the US with a nuke or giving one to terrorists. It doesn’t make any sense.
That being said, I will play your game. The day of, the president orders heavy air power to move from bases in Europe and Japan to the ME and order planes already in the ME armed on on the ready. The day after the attack, he calls for a special session of Congress, just as Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor.
Congress declares war. The US conducts a massive conventional strike against the Iranian military sites and the government, trying to spare as many civilian lives as possible.
We encourage a revolution and seek the support of our allies such as NATO as well as the UN. I think support for the US would be very high. However, no aid or approval from the anyone would be needed.
We do not use Nukes. They would poisen the region. In addition there is the very real possibility other countries would seek nukes as deterents i.e. Iraq no nukes gets invaded, North Korea with nukes is getting aid packages. The US should always reframe from using nuclear weapons if at all possible. There would be no reason to use them when we can accomplish the same objective through conventional means. It would only be tit for tat and no good could come for that.
So that’s what I believe we should do. Either that, or we send in Jack Bauer. “There’s no time!”
Peace, Gaijin
22. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
gajin
>>>I started reading the comments and ran across several funny ones I was going to comment on. However, as I continued, there were just too many comments to comment on. Everyone seems to be firing on all cylinders today.<<<
That is what makes it FUN, and interesting.
Little crumbs on the floor brings the mice out to play.
The hair on fire rebuttals sometimes prove to be very enlightening, and funny.
However, im very much more concerned about Iran lobbing a nuke into Tel Aviv, than a supposed suitcase bomb into New York which i doubt will happen.
Isreal would obliterate Iran, and light off WW3 leading to Armageddon.
23. Dennis | May 29th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Still no word on what McCain has done during his Senate career to make the world a safer place regarding loose weapons and nukes.
Danish Artist - Obama has not been in the Senate long enough yet to have much influence over “Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, China, etc.” But we can readily see the effect of Bush’s foreign policy on the aforementioned states. His time in office will be a hard act for either McCain or Obama to follow, for all the wrong reasons.
As for Star Wars, that remains a boondoggle designed strictly to rake in profits for war industries and give false comfort to the credulous. For a taste of reality see http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/missiledefense/articles/star_wars_turns_25/
24. Mark Noonan | May 29th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
None of you liberals get it - I don’t want to fight Iran; I don’t wany any Iranians killed, don’t want any Americans killed…don’t want anyone killed…but to risk having nukes in the hands of the lunatics who rule Iran is to ensure that at some point in the future a lot of Americans are dead, and that will result in even more dead Iranians.
I want to prevent it from happening. McCain wants to prevent it from happening. Obama also wants to prevent it from happening - but his actual policies will ensure that it does happen.
25. Mark Noonan | May 29th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
WvO,
ROFL - no, that is my other magic wand.
26. Jeremiah | May 29th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
explain exactly what McCain already has done during his Senate career to make the world a safer place regarding loose weapons and nukes. And then address what Obama already has done, which gives us some indication of the actual path he will follow as president.
And that’s really all that needs to be said.
The only reason, Dennis, that you Liberals are opposed to U.S. Safety/Security measures is that it just
makes it more politically expedient for you to do so. It’s your belief that we “cannot win” or that we
“do not need to fight” that plays out against you in the end. Why? Think about it and you’ll see. It
is like this. A natural disaster is something that, if we are in its path, and we know it’s coming toward
us, we do everything we can to avoid it, unless of course, you’re no blind or otherwise just otherwise plain stupid…because a natural disaster is something that is totally out of
our control.
To the contrary, when you get down to the man to man level, and you see that your fellow man has become
your enemy…at that point, you realize, and say to yourself–”Man, what’s up with these people?” Then
you come to the realization that there’s no turning these people off their course for destruction, and
blood letting. Then it REALLY dawns on you….Geez, I’m directly in their sights! YiKES!
Well? What do you do? Just stand there with your neck all stretched out like a scared bewildered chicken?
Or…do you stand up and say, “Nope, there’s no talking with these people…We’ll let the guns do all the talking, for we mean business.
It’s as I’ve always said…You can be scared, but unless you do something about that fear, you’re more than apt to lose your life at the end of the day…but in most cases, it’s those who don’t have ANY fear that die first. Why? Because they chose to ignore the red light and the oncoming train. They say, “Ah! No worries, man, that train’ll never catch me!” And all you can do from there on out is to bow your head and put your hand over your eyes in disbelief that someone could do such as thing.
You see what I’m getting at? Yes, we’ve seen what Obama’s plans are, and where those plans will lead…and it’s exactly the scenario I described for you in the last paragraph.
As to what John McCain’s plans to deal with Iran are…What does it really matter? What matters is that he..unlike Obama, is willing to confront the threat and spare America a tragic event….He doesn’t have to spell it out for us in these debates, although I’m sure he’ll iterate upon some of it, but to do that would be very dangerous, you see, because you liberals will give away his plans to the enemy, and thus, giving the enemy time to prepare a defense strategy that would impede our efforts against them.
As I said, at this point, all that is critical is that he is for protecting the United States interests, which is the American people! And when the time comes, Mr. McCain and his Generals will be prepared to take the fight to the enemy whenever and wherever they may be.
It’s like this, ‘We either hang together…or we’ll hang separately’ … You know who said that don’t you?
It’s just a matter of logic…that’s all their is to it.
So hang tough!
27. Dennis | May 30th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Jeremiah, you trust on horse and chariot for safety, which your Scripture condemns, and are unwilling to love your enemy as Christ demands.
You are afraid of man and have no trust in the teachings of Jesus Christ whom you invoke so often. You look to weapons, war and aggressive behavior as your saviour: “We’ll let the guns do all the talking, for we mean business.” I find it hard to reconcile this wild west bs with all your religious rhetoric.
I don’t share your fears. I actually believe Christ’s teachings are valid and worthy of implementing. You and Noonan are like the scribes and Pharisees, constantly referring back to Old Testament bellicosity and legalism, easily turning aside the Gospel when it doesn’t suit your right-wing ideology, denying its very validity.
“You liberals”? How many liberals here will take you on the very ground (Christianity) you claim as yours? I say that ground isn’t yours at all. It belongs to those who actually live and breathe the teachings of Christ, not to those who spread fear, who loath and slander their enemies and exude a warmongering spirit.
Get one thing straight: I’m not afraid of Muslims. I’ve lived and traveled among them and enjoyed excellent hospitality under their roofs. I never made them my enemies. That is your problem, and it is a problem of bad politics and bad policies coming home to roost.
Now you see another man who also isn’t afraid of them, and that strikes even more fear into you. Barack Obama - a man who would talk to his fellow man as another human being fashioned by the hand of God. Not as some lower life form, dehumanized and caricatured for easy killing.
Better to neutralize your enemy’s hate than to kill anyone, I’ve always believed. You’d have much less to fear if you released your hatred and learned to love.
Still no peep about anything McCain has done during his Senate career to make the world a safer place regarding loose weapons and nukes.
28. Jeremiah | May 30th, 2008 at 1:19 am
you trust on horse and chariot for safety, which your Scripture condemns, and are unwilling to love your enemy as Christ demands.–Dennis.
Did Christ condemn the gladiatorial sports?
Did Christ condemn His own sentence?
Did Christ condemn the Jews who executed Him?
Did Christ condemn the Great Flood which He, Himself committed?
Did Christ condemn the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which He, Himself committed?
Did Christ condemn the overtaking and slaughter of every person within the walls of Jericho and all the many Nations of people that God ordered destroyed?
Did Christ condemn little David for slaying the Giant?
There’s something you have to understand, friend, sometimes…it’s God Will that Nations be overtaken and destroyed for their disobedience, and back in the days before Jesus came to earth, were the days that dealt mostly with those people within or surrounding Israel (the heart of the Middle East) … and if you’ve every studied the history behind the Muslim genealogy you’ll find that they are the offshoot that fell outside of God’s covenant with Abraham - Abraham had two sons to two different women - One was Isaac and the other was Ishmael, and it was Isaac that bore the covenant between him and God. Ishmael is the son that bore the line up to Muhammad - and the Bible says that him and his brothers lived in conflict with each other all the days of their lives, and they imparted this conflict to their offspring, which is where we get the Muslim lineage today, and you know what? They STILL live in conflict with each other to this day.
You know what else, what’s even more ironic is that of the two lines, they both became the two most major religions in the world today - Christians (Isaac) and Ismael (Muslims) which confirms the truth of the Bible.
Before I finish, I’d like to explain something else, if I may…whenever we try to understand the covenant with Abraham…was his righteousness accredited to him before or after the covenant? Before! Why? Because Abraham had faith from the beginning.
Do you understand? Abraham didn’t have to committ an act to prove to God that he believed, but because He already believed is how God made the promise to him. Ok, does that mean we are saved through law or works today? Of course not…because our faith before- hand will show through in our works. You see, faith comes first.
Now, when little David slew the Giant….Could little David have slew the Giant all on his own through works without Faith? No! You see, David had FAITH and then God gave him the victory over His enemies.
And it applies today, the same as it did 3,000 years ago … We show God that we love Him by showing our kindness and generosity for in this, we show that we fear Him and Him most….but then, does that mean that we have to sit and let our enemies destroy us? Why would God not want us to defend ourselves?
I don’t know all the answers, Dennis, but I do know this….I don’t think that it is God’s will that America be destroyed by the Iranians, but then again, it may very well be the case, who knows…at any rate, if the American people choose Obama as their 44th President….that’s exactly what they’ll get……….Not saying that as “defeatism” but because America has a choice in this matter, and that choice is to either uphold God’s commands and strive to serve His Will, which is to vote for people who uphold His Moral Code of Standards……What are they? Upholding the institution of Marriage as He as ordained…Fighting in defense of the Unborn. For Godly School standards….For Laws that subject and hold those who do immoral acts to the Law. For the sake of the children….The Future of America!
McCain isn’t the best….but he’s the best we’ve got!
That much….I do know!
God first….Country second….Family third!
29. Jonathan | May 30th, 2008 at 1:49 am
America has a choice in this matter, and that choice is to either uphold God’s commands and strive to serve His Will, which is to vote for people who uphold His Moral Code of Standards……What are they? Upholding the institution of Marriage as He as ordained…Fighting in defense of the Unborn. For Godly School standards….For Laws that subject and hold those who do immoral acts to the Law. For the sake of the children….The Future of America!
McCain isn’t the best….but he’s the best we’ve got!
That much….I do know!
God first….Country second….Family third!
Jeremiah, this describes you to a ‘T’.
30. Jeremiah | May 30th, 2008 at 1:58 am
…And this is you, John-John!
So, get a clue, dude!
31. Pain | May 30th, 2008 at 5:40 am
18. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
And it is nice to see that you quoted Fred Schwartz so well. The writer said what he felt the editor-in-chief passed it to the copy editor graphics were added and it was published. And your probelm with that paragraph is?
Your cavalier attitude about lobbing nuclear explosives at the holiest of sites in Islam exposes your true nature. There is nuclear doctrine in such matters but for you that would not be enough you would go so far with your xenophobia that you would destroy yourself by wanting to destroy what others love. This makes you the worst sort of thing. The very worst sort of thing.
32. Jom Abula | June 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
“We haven’t seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and I’ve been saying that consistently for the last five years,” Mohammad ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated last week at the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
Your scenario is as stupid as on where we are attacked by a nuke from Canada. Iran has no nukes and cannot create one.
33. Anon | June 1st, 2008 at 9:11 am
“Did Christ condemn the Jews who executed Him?”
The Jews did not execute Christ.
1. Romans crucified not Jews.
2. Jews stoned people to death during that period of time.
3. The fact Jesus was crucified and not stoned proves the Romans executed Jesus.
4. Jesus was neither stoned nor crucified because he never existed. He is just a metaphor.