[VIDEO] Daily Show clip going viral... Jon Stewart comes out swinging hard for...

Yeah that is a good clip, really shows the bias of the MSM

 

More dishonesty. Ron Paul said we did not deny Russia or China when they got their nukes (as if we
didn't try), so how can we deny Iran. If you people did not lie to defend Paul, you'd have much more credibility.

 

Are you clamering about N Korea having nukes? Why do you want to send more US soldiers to die to protect someone that can already protect themselves against a country that has never attacked anyone outside their borders? Have you ever thought that in the twisted mind of Iran, saying they are looking for a nuke "to wipe out Isreal" is the way they are posturing instead of looking weak by saying they are doing it for protection?

 

If people want to go to war with another country to prevent them from getting nukes (war being the only real way to prevent such a thing) then they should clean their rifles, join a private mercenary group and do just that...just don't ask me to send my children to fight your wars, especially to supposedly protect a foreign nation. It's time that the rest of the world started supplying their own national defense, our hands are full as is.

 

No. I think everyone agrees it is insane to capitulate and let a mental case like Kim Jong Il have nukes (if we can stop him). Why Ron Paul believes that the case for Iran is somehow different is beyond me. That's why a lot of people think Paul would be dangerous in the highly unlikely case he became president.

When did I advocate sending soldiers anywhere? I missed that.
And if you are referring to Iran as never attacking anyone outside their own borders you'd better either read more or post less. Iran, through it's terrorist proxies, attacks people all the time. And there was the Iraq/Iran war not that long ago (longest conventional war of the 20th century). Did you forget that?

No. I've never considered that. I don't think we can afford to NOT take Iran at it's word considering who we're dealing with.

 

Pssst, Kim Jong Il HAS nukes, and none of the posturing and empty rhetoric from your guys stopped him from getting them. The embarrassing reality is that efforts to stop him actually hastened N. Korea's attainment of nuclear arms. Woops!

That same posturing and empty rhetoric isn't going to stop Iran either.

 

BUMP ............................

 

Cause you can't stop a sovereign nation from getting what they are looking for. Especially one that is half way around the world.

How then do you propose we stop Iran from getting a nuke? Sanctions never work.

 

Bullcrap. Ron Paul wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. He said so himself at the Republican debates. That alone will kill his chances at the presidency. And for the record, Ron Paul has been bought and paid for for the past 30 years that he spent in Congress. He gets the same perks that the rest of those yahoos get. He's an establishment politician just like the rest of them. He just knows how to make himself sound good without enacting any real significant legislation. He talks the talk, but rarely walks the walk.

And Jon Stewart is a liberal moron who is only Jewish when it is convenient for him. Hence the name change from Jon Leibowitz to the more "white" sounding Jon Stewart.

 

Air strikes do.

 

LOL...Good Jew...LOL
How pathetic...

 

Glad you are willing to risk American lives to intervene in another countries sovereignty. Hope you are willing to also pay for those jets, tomohawks, and eventual ground troops.

 

Here is a list of quotes of people that argued the atomic bombings were unnecessary because Japan would have capitulated had not the US insisted on unconditional surrender (with the possibility that their emperor would be hanged for war crimes). They include Dwight Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, Douglas MacArthur, William Leahy (FDR & Truman's Chief of Staff), and numerous high-ranking military officials at the time. Who should I believe, them or you?

For further sourced articles on this, see here and here.

As for the article you posted, it's mostly about how Japanese soldiers were indoctrinated into dying for their country (much like all soldiers), which does not show that the Japanese government would have allowed the country to be destroyed rather than conditionally surrender or at least broker a ceasefire. The article also talks about how they revered their emperor, which only supports my point that that was the bone of contention preventing them from capitulating.

It also described American attitudes towards the Japanese in unflattering terms: "He argues that the attack on Pearl Harbor provoked a rage bordering on the genocidal among Americans. Not only did Admiral William Halsey, Commander of the South Pacific Force, adopt the slogan 'Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs', public opinion polls in the United States consistently showed 10 to 13 per cent of all Americans supported the 'annihilation' or 'extermination' of the Japanese as a people."

Could people holding such an attitude nuke Japanese cities unnecessarily? Of course they could.

Once again, your language proves you to conceive of the US government as ruler of the world. The US government has no authority to "deny" other countries anything. It has no veto power over them. It can only react to what they do.

Ron Paul's logical and sensible point was that the US government did not react to the USSR and China by attacking them. It managed to deal with them diplomatically. So there's no reason it can't do so with far less powerful country like Iran.