And if you don't care whether your Veep can speak English, vote for Palin!

As has been widely suspected the United Nations Security Council will impose no further sanctions on Iran for its failure to suspend its nuclear enrichment program as demanded by previous UNSC resolutions:

This is exactly why we need Palin to become President. Kissinger's advice notwithstanding, Sarah will get tough on these bastards ASAP. Bombing Iran is part of the mission and Palin is the only candidate who is fully behind the mission. If Hussein wins, Iran will win.

If you don't want to wind up speaking Iranian, You ought to vote for Palin.

We're not perfect, but we're a democracy, we obey the rule of law, we have free speech and free trade.

I don't see any reasonable basis on which we say, "eh, we're not any better than North Korea, we don't have the right to tell the crazy little ratf--kers whether they can have nukes." (RatEATERS, more likely, given their economy.)

I mean, why stop with states? We and al-Qaeda have had our differences, to be sure, but one man's faith is another man's heresy, and if they can buy nukes on the free market, well, then who are we to lord it over them?

The prerequisites that I have in mind are a minimum GDP of $2T, minimum per capita GDP around $8,000, minimum expenditures on military 2% of GDP (2008$). That would effectively limit the membership to US, UK, and Russia. Note that if you raised the requirement to $15,000 per capita GDP and 3% GDP military expenditures the US would be the only qualified member.

Actually, we could do a compromise: yes, we'll put more permanent members on the UNSC. However, more members means that all we need is a 2/3 vote to move forward on a matter.

Adding more members to the UNSC would cripple the already hobbled org even further.

I see that I was mistaken.