Talking...hasn't solved the Pakistani problem since 9/11, and in fact it is getting much worse. They already have nukes.

Talking...hasn't really solved the NK problem either, after enormous time and effort. They are "reassembling" their reactor, as if they ever really did disassemble it.

There is little chance that these rogue states will suddenly have a change of heart and become docile world citizens. Buying them off with promises of lots of goodies didn't work in NK or Iran, and we are already spending billions in Pakistan.

If Iran gets the nuke, when they have enough of them, not only will Israel be smoke, but the next step is for surrogates take a number of Iranian bombs to plant in the US.

Pakistan has allowed AQ to set up shop in the far North as a retreat, a training ground, and a destabilizer of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. They have the threat of cutting off our supply routes to Afghanistan over us, and their nukes are not safe enough now. AQ, in turn, is refocusing its fighters and energies on Afghanistan.

So enter the Master Strategist to tell us what he would do in these situations. MS, are you there? Ready to talk your way out of these situations?

Now, Obama would most likely call for a withdrawal from Iraq, disengagement with Iran and NK, and, probably disengagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, thus terminating US involvement altogether. So, then it is up to the MS to tell us what happens next to Israel, to Iraq and to Afghanistan? And finally, what happens to the nukes that AQ has acquired through one or the other country. Why, I am just sure that they would dump them in the sea.

If there is any one lesson that history has burned into the American psyche, it is that talking peace with the Japanese disguised their massive attack on Pearl Harbor from us. Talking with them was no substitute for war preparations.

Talking with AQ was not an option before 9/11, and it will not be before their next attack either.
Talking with Hitler did little to stop WWII.
It seems like talking has gotten us into worse trouble than building a big stick and being very willing to use it.

Wellll, so they would be "worried" if we moved on two of 65 Islamic nations?

Only 2? Iran and Pakistan? So, let me get this straight, if Wahabbist Arab Al-Qaeda were to drop a nuke on the USA, you're reaction would be to attack Pakistani's and Persians? You would destroy two governments that Al Qaeda happens to categorically hate, in order to get back at Al Qaeda?

Are you even the same manning that usually posts there? Because this extreme lack of knowledge and thought is not what I've come to expect.

lol, Michael I think you just came up with 0bama's new campain slogan, I can hear them chanting it as he apears.....

If he did, he'd be in good company.

Talk-talk is better than War-war.

lol, Michael I think you just came up with 0bama's new campain slogan, I can hear them chanting it as he apears.....

I do not see where India would come into play at all; Russia would let Iran go by if we don't invade; and China is too enamoured of making money to risk a war with the US just now over NK nukes. It is a hard calculus, that I will admit.
But, so are the other options: Iran with nukes; NK with nukes, and Pakistan not only with nukes, but also coming apart as a nation, while sitting astride our access routes to Afghanistan.

Maybe you are enamoured of Fortress America, which won't work in this day.

Talk-talk is over

Talk-talk is better than War-war.

No one said anything about "taking over the world", just reacting to a nuclear attack on us precisely against those selected Islamic nations, plus NK

Really? Look at a map, if we asserted military control over those "Islamic nations", it will run from west Africa to east Asia. It will put us on the border with Russia, China and India.

So, Dude, you think Britain, France, Russia, India and China would do something to us after we took a nuke or two in the US, wiping out New York and San Francisco, and then retaliated on our prime suspects just as we said we would? You must be kidding! Why would they, especially knowing that our nuclear arsenal is second only to Russia's? MAD still works, if nothing else does.

I'm sure that at least Russia, China and India will be worried about a hyper-aggressive USA encircling them. Why would they believe that an out-of-control US President would stop at their borders?

MAD only works if they threaten us with destructions, unless you are willing to nuke New Delhi or Beijing if they shot down US bombers over Pakistan or NK.

We should play hard ball with Iran, Pakistan, and N. Korea because they have nukes or soon will. Talk-talk is over. No one said anything about "taking over the world", just reacting to a nuclear attack on us precisely against those selected Islamic nations, plus NK, that have their hands dirty now, and who can bring great influence on their compatriots and surrogates to back the hell off--fast! This may help deter those nations from giving access to nukes to terrorist groups. The other side of the coin is if this does not deter some rogue Islamic element from nuking us, then Islam loses lots anyway--by definition--and might well work very hard to help prevent such an outcome.

So, Dude, you think Britain, France, Russia, India and China would do something to us after we took a nuke or two in the US, wiping out New York and San Francisco, and then retaliated on our prime suspects just as we said we would? You must be kidding! Why would they, especially knowing that our nuclear arsenal is second only to Russia's? MAD still works, if nothing else does.

Or, you think they would react with nukes on us to those rogue nuke powers being defanged? Why? What would cause them to attack us? They are also signees to the non-proliferation pact, and support "nuclear defanging" of rogue states, which is not the same as taking over the world.

In my opinion, Iran will be defanged some time after the coming election, especially if Obama is elected. You can be sure that NK and Pakistan would then be under great pressure to divest themselves of nukes, or suffer the same fate sooner or later.

Thus, I believe in effective preemption. Islamic leaders should be put on notice that any nuclear or WMD attack on the US will result in the immediate loss of all of their military, industrial, government and urban facilities, together with the unfortunate Muslims that happen to be in those facilities. After sitting on our hands for five years with no progress, we should denuclearize Iran, Pakistan, and N. Korea by force, whether one at a time or all together. I believe that Obama is a wimp.

Jesus Christ, dude, think this through. What will we do if Britain, France, India, China and Russia don't like the prospect of us taking over most of the world? Are you prepared to de-nuke them as well? And all Muslim countries? Does that include Indonesia, Turkey, Kuwait, or any of the number that are pro-western and pro-USA? I hope to God that neither Obama nor McCain would do something to blatantly stupid and horribly devastating to my country.

I seem to have seen Bithead commenting on OTB for a much longer time than you. Doesn't this make you the troll?

Technically that just makes Bernard a "newb". Trolls are not time-sensitive.

I am not sure you know what a "troll" means in internet parlance.

A "troll" is someone who says things that he/she may not believe simply to provoke a fight, aka a "flame war."

It has nothing to do with how long someone has been on a board. For all you know, maybe I've been around longer than Bithead, perhaps as "lurker."

Thus, I believe in effective preemption. Islamic leaders should be put on notice that any nuclear or WMD attack on the US will result in the immediate loss of all of their military, industrial, government and urban facilities, together with the unfortunate Muslims that happen to be in those facilities. After sitting on our hands for five years with no progress, we should denuclearize Iran, Pakistan, and N. Korea by force, whether one at a time or all together. I believe that Obama is a wimp.

Backing this stance up with sufficient armed forces is a given as well. This is no time to create a "peace dividend" a la Clinton by emasculating our military, as Obama is wont to do.

We should stop abortions, except in a few cases of dire medical need to save the mother. Obama would continue the killing, which is about as NON-CHRISTIAN AS YOU CAN GET.

We have permissive attitudes toward sex being supported in our schools, progressive groups, churches, and media, which shames us all for allowing this genie out. I believe Obama does not have the moral compass to address this problem--he probably supports it, including same-sex marriage.

You commented that Bithead was a troll.

I seem to have seen Bithead commenting on OTB for a much longer time than you. Doesn't this make you the troll?