Max Fischer

Really? Is that what I was saying? No, of course not (but you knew that already, next time try to avoid the classic straw man technique, it's a bit lazy). However, you do hit the nail on the head when you say: "Military force is one option among many, and the costs will vary with the situation." If you, too, believe that is the wisest course how would you respond to attacks on Obama that such a stance is tantamount to "appeasement?"

I just curious why you don't answer simple questions. You're so adamant about your viewpoints I would think it would be easy.

Why come on a political forum if you don't want to answer simple questions? What are you afraid of?

I'm in fights every day and rarely fight the same exact way. How would you answer Obama's critics who call him an appeaser for suggesting we fight different ways?

Do these questions frighten you?

But isn't it true that Iraq was far behind where Iran and North Korea (and possibly several other "bad" nations) are right now?

Do you agree with the other poster that Pelosi and Reid have stopped Bush's plan to attack Iran and NK? If so, how did they do that?

You're saying that they are single-handedly blocking Bush's plan to attack Iran and NK? Wow, I hadn't heard that, please explain.

But why not attack Iran and NK who far exceeded the Bush Administration's Iraqi threshold?

But many credible sources have said you can't make a "dirty bomb" out of yellowcake alone. Scary, yes, but not a "dirty bomb." I mean, do you see a difference between a huge fertilizer bomb and a conventional bomb that contains yellowcake? Isn't Iran and NK infinitely "scarier?"

So, what you're saying is that isn't just one way of settling things? That sometimes it may be wise to use diplomacy; to negotiate or at least listen to the other countries before attacking? Could those talks be conducted "unconditionally?" If diplomacy is sometimes the wise strategy how should Obama respond to accusations of "appeasement?"

You don't want to or can't answer the question? Seriously, why not attack Iran and North Korea if they far exceed the Iraq threat?

QUOTE (Max Fischer @ Jul 9 2008, 12:25 PM) * What will it take to create a "dirty bomb" out of yellowcake? What about an actual bomb and the steps to put it on a long-range missle? How much further along was Iraq than North Korea and Iran? What other "bad" countries have yellowcake? From the above AP story: QUOTE While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment. If this is true, was the Iraq War worth it? If so, why not attack Iran, North Korea and other countries that met or exceeded this "threshold?"

What will it take to create a "dirty bomb" out of yellowcake? What about an actual bomb and the steps to put it on a long-range missle? How much further along was Iraq than North Korea and Iran? What other "bad" countries have yellowcake?

Which part was scummy? Talking about the kids advice for what he should wear or explaining why husband and wife show affection by holding hands. Subversive stuff.

Seriously, which part didn't you agree with?

Which part don't you agree with?

Lee was no doubt a great general and Longstreet while brilliant could be taciturn -- but Lee should have listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg. Lee was flat-out wrong and should have taken Longstreet's advice to go around, threaten Washington and find a much better strategic advantage. There's a lesson in that.

Hmmm. The Daily Mail filtered through Fox News . . .

Why should politicians "risk losing their seats" over an issue their constituents don't seem to care about? Fact is the Right controls this debate and until they open a crack in the platform nothing will change. That's not a stab at Republicans it's just the reality. Accusations of "weakness" almost always win out over "try something new." (some would argue a fight between "change" and conservative thinking )

You may simply be equating "liberal" with "big government" instead of "civil liberties." (?) "Conservatives" should be more civil libertarian (abortion and censorship come to mind) but those lines are blurred by so-called "moral issues." On the other spectrum I don't know why more liberals are not sensitive to the right to own guns -- but then again, if the Scalia court was truly "conservative" and had strict interpretation of the Constitution they would not have ruled that gun ownership a "right." Instead they simply lost all credibility that they are 'strict constructionists' - as if that had any meaning to begin with.

Does anyone believe the Republicans would EVER allow certain drugs to be legal? Republicans are FAR more antagonistic toward decriminalization. It's a bread-and-butter "crime" issue that will never change unless a very prominent Republican has a "Nixon goes to China" moment. Sure you can call Democrats pussies for not standing up for what they believe but its not like decriminalization would ever pass without Republican support.

... I thought turkeys could fly.

This place is very cool. http://www.mam.org/info/details/quadracci.php Also, this famous musician gives a good Milwaukee history lesson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ3aRGfAJ14

My mom's family grew up in South Buffalo and everyone seem to know the Russerts. Not well, but in that way you feel you know people even without much interaction. My uncle rode the Canisus bus with Tim and my aunt was a fellow CYO. Today, very few still live in Buffalo but have it in there blood. My aunt said my uncle, a stereotypical unemotional rock-solid Republican high powered corporate exec, came home from work very upset and didn't want to talk or turn on the TV. She had never seen him so heartbroken, all he wanted to do was go out and get some pizza and beer. Mom can't talk about Russert without getting teared up. I regret I never met him.