Got this off of Michelle Malkin's site:

WТF? Which is it? Do you people want us to be more aggressive or less? heh heh

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

That seems to indicate all he wants is for the U.S. to deal directly with Iran diplomatically instead of going through third parties. I don't think it matters. Iran won't listen to us anyway. I wouldn't.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

"Instead of going through 3rd parties"? Is that some kind of euphemism for "unilaterally"?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I don't know much about Harry Reid except that conservatives on the site don't like him, but I am a hawk about Iran and I will fully support George W. Bush or anyone else who destroys its nuclear threat.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I don't know, but I don't think so. Here's his quote:

That implies he wants the U.S. to be involved with those other parties. But I think he's wrong. They hate us. They are working on a nuke just to rile us. We will get nowhere by talking with them. If I were them I would do nothing more than send the U.S. representative a giant middle finger.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I dont believe they will respond to diplomacy either. I was simply pointing out an example of liberal hypocrisy.

Do they want us to work within the confines of the international community or not?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

S-S, you undoubtedly know much more about military technology than I do. Would it be possible to destroy Iran's nuclear program with conventional bunker busters or would nuclear ones be necessary?

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

First of all, the article is pure propaganda. They are taking quotes with no context, and then editing out half the quote anyway.


Harry Reid simply said that we should be doing more to address the situation diplomaticly. He said nothing about relying less on other countries. He simpy said we should join those countries in persuing a diplomatic end to the problem.

I don't know if he was being hypocritical. He wants us involved, but he implied that he wants us involved with the others. We have no diplomatic ties with Iran and I guess he wants to get some. Why I'm not sure. And I'm sure some of it is merely playing politics by bashing Bush.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Conventional would work... nukular would work... but personally... my favorite solution is THIS!

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technol...cbccdrcrd.html

"This technology is very far out—in miles and years. A pair of satellites orbiting several hundred miles above the Earth would serve as a weapons system. One functions as the targeting and communications platform while the other carries numerous tungsten rods—up to 20 feet in length and a foot in diameter—that it can drop on targets with less than 15 minutes’ notice. When instructed from the ground, the targeting satellite commands its partner to drop one of its darts. The guided rods enter the atmosphere, protected by a thermal coating, traveling at 36,000 feet per second—comparable to the speed of a meteor. The result: complete devastation of the target, even if it’s buried deep underground."

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds