What about my post is untrue and filled with hate? I think the truth hurts and thats why you attack me.

You tell me, man. What was it the neo-cons accused the former president of when he did attack Al'Qeada?

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

N.Korea leadership is probably more mentally unstable, but the populace is malnourished and in no position to do much of anything.

Iran has wealth, brains and the dangerous Islamic fundamentalist ideology. They are far more dangerous to our interests.

How come the nation with second largest oil reserves in the world needs nuclear power? It doesn't compute.

The question was posed and I answered it honestly and you now want me to limit it to one thread? Let's try and think outside this Forum Community. Let's look at some of the pundits out there. For example, every day I watch Crossfire on CNN. The other day as I sat looking at the ever insufferable James Carvell, he turned and looked into the camera and said that Bush's lies about Iraq took us away from the real threats of Korea and Iran. I had to sit there and laugh. I could just imagine all the rhetoric that would have surrounded the Bush Administration if he had attacked Iran instead. I have watched and listened as white pundits and radio talk show hosts have called Condoleeza Rice an Aunt Jemima and a black trophy for the administration. You don't think that is a threat to our country? Conoleeza Rice and Colin Powell are members of the administration. Why are the self touting color blind liberal pundits making these types of references to their race? They want to get the hate going again. The sad fact is that instead of trying to be a part of the solution once again those liberal pundits are part of the groups of people who want to point out color and use it to get the hate going. Now please don't bring up Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to me. I don't listen to either program on a regular basis. I work at the times that both of these nut cases are on. I feel that the people who love this country have a lot more in common and would rather build on that then build on the differences and maybe then we could all meet in the middle. But as long as you have idiots out there like Andy Rooney, who would say that Christians suffer from a lack of education, none of us will get anywhere.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

...So you were referring to BUSH HATERS as a whole.

Although I think anyone who calls Condi an "Aunt Jemima" is an idiot, I don't see how that threatens our national security.

But you seem to think that dissent is a bad thing and that we should all support our President and follow him no matter what he says. That isn't DEMOCRACY!! We cannot simply agree with all his policies and go along with him. He is my President and I wish him well. But when I feel he is gone wrong on a decision, I feel is my duty as a tax paying member of this society to point it out. Am I not entitled to that?

Pundits on both sides of the aisle can be inane and absurd at times, no question. We have all watched them over the last 18 months say some pretty silly things.

Rush and Hannity? You have nothing to say about them?

I believe I said the Rush and Hannity were both nut cases and I don't listen to them but occasionally because they are on when I am at work.
I don't care if you disagree with the Administration, that is fine. Frankly I disagree with the administration on several items, my point is that people out there like Michael Moore, The Dixie Chicks and so forth who would go across the ocean and talk trash about our country and our leaders, are a threat to this country. Living in a democracy has responsibilities too. One of those is to respect the choice of the country as a whole and instead of the constant insulting of our leaders. Maybe CONSTRUCTIVE criticism instead of the blatant hate would be more helpful.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

N. Korea by far.

If Iran wanted to attack somewhere it's far more capable of doing so, but it doesn't want to. N. Korea on the other hand you can really see invading S. Korea.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Since when did this administration start caring about attacking the greater threat? We are in Iraq for Pete sakes…

Iran (more importantly the Middle East as a whole) is a vastly more substantial threat as far as WMD go. What makes the Middle East so dangerous is the lack of Command and Control over WMD which opens the door for terrorists. So, it's not the "State" that is a threat but the lack of one.

North Korea is really not a significant threat. It is like the runty little kid with a big mouth that hangs out near the playground bully. The US and North Korea have kind-of-sort-of state of war for over 50 years now (no peace treaty was ever signed) and I don't see North Koreans itching for a knock down drag out anytime soon.

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

N. Korea is more volatile, but in the bigger scheme of things, Iran is infinitely the larger threat. But is a military invasion needed to tackle with either one? IMO, it can probably be avoided, and should be.

You thought Iraq was bad, wait till you invade Iran, then the fun starts.