We had to "deal" with Imperial Japan, too. Our emissaries were Fat Man and Little Boy.

The leftie Hail Mary talking point going around the web today, that McCain's realist stance is anything like Obama's willingness to meet with Iran without any preconditions, is ludicrous.

Of six recommendations prominent party leaders urge on the endangered GOP to stanch the bleeding, here are three: “Get a clue,” “cut the crap,” and “fan the fear.”

They’re working overtime, but only on that third one. Let’s see how it works out for ‘em.

Well, I appreciate that clarification, Redbeard.

So is it unfair to say you hope for a McCain Administration whose posture would be that the preferred method of dealing with the democratically elected Palestinian Authority should be through nuclear armaments?

I mean, if that’s an unfair characterization, please say so.

You really should read Obama's March 2007 speech to AIPAC. A few excerpts:

Our job is to renew the United States efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region.

That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point.

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic history.[...] The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs.

Dang, that IS radical stuff...direct diplomacy..sanctions...building a coalition...to avoid military action, which is never off the table...all of this predicated by support for Israel...what a hazardous way to approach Middle East policy...(snort)

"I mean, if that’s an unfair characterization, please say so." --Winston

Winston, are you here on this blog to continue behaving as you did at ABP, or are you here for a new sort of beginning?

I had thought the idea here, as put forth by Zoy, was to engage in legitimate debate. As such, I have been doing my utmost to avoid personal clashes with you. Apparently that plan isn't working very well.

I will stop short of what I really want to post, because I have the greatest respect for what Zoy is trying to accomplish here. Suffice it to say that it is pointless for me to try to engage in any sort of legitimate debate with you, as long as you maintain your current attitude and style.

This being the case, I'll simply not respond to you further. On any subject.

So, did you like Will Smith in Six Degrees of Separation?

Liberal mindset again:
"Deal with them"... hmmmm.... that MUST mean sit down and have brunch... maybe go kayaking together... or camping... perhaps bring the wife and kids over for Ramadan... good times! GOOOOOD times!!
HAH HAH AH Hahahahah

The Dems have all but ran around in the streets like idiots chanting "death to America".... why stop now? (they're halfway there... "stop the war... support the troops"... here's your sign)

Winston, maybe he meant 'deal with them' by dropping many many megatons anywhere in their vacinity... then, he wouldn't exactly be a hypocrite now would he? I'm sure the moveon.org quippers would then be off on the next tangent like nazi, or warmonger, or whatever else is next in line.... "Hypocrite" will be like acid washed jeans... gone before you know it.

your stretching... REALLLLY stretching.
like... the elastic's all stretched out stretching.

"Winston, maybe [McCain] meant 'deal with them' by dropping many many megatons anywhere in their vacinity"

Well, that's quite possible, skinny. But when I suggested exactly that to Redbeard and asked if that's what McCain meant, he got all huffy and acted like I'd insulted him, McCain, you, and the rest of the crew. So, I dunno.

So far as I can figure out a candidate is supposed to imply and suggest as strongly as possible they're going to kick their ass but then if they have to come right out and say it they lose? Or something? It's all quite mysterious.

Quite frankly, it's as ludicrous to take direct diplomacy off the table as it is to take military action off the table. I think we've seen that the silent treatment doesn't really gain all that much.

silence...
or denial...
whichever be the case...
... what is up with that?

like this crazy ex-girlfriend of mine...
when there was something that upset her...
or something she didn't want to deal with...
she'd practically hide her head in the sand...
like if she couldn't see it and it couldn't see her...
then nothing was happening and it was all just a bad dream!

our policies are crazy...
but our politicians are even crazier!!