Still not the eqivelent of one of McCain\'s senior moments, or one of your columns frankly. What is the difference between shia and sunni again? I thought they were muslims.

That's a foolish fear, as we could bomb the heck out of them at that point. You're an idiot if you think they are actually going to put thmeselves in a position where they would be basically destroyed.

Sounds like more GOP cowardice to me

"Still not the eqivelent of one of McCain\'s senior moments,"

Or yours, for that matter. Besides, this isn't a mistake in saying words, this is a complete lack of knowledge in something that anyone trying out for the office of President should know.

"That's a foolish fear, as we could bomb the heck out of them at that point."

Oh, look - TWO people who don't know squat about how asymmetric warfare works.

OK, let's clue in the clueless here: What the hell does "PWNED" stand for and mean?

Like I said, asymmetric warfare is irrelevant, because we could bomb them back to the stone age, say what you will about Iran, they aren't suicidal, they aren't going to pick a fight they will lose. Yes they could mine the strait, but then we would bomb their cities, and they would be defeated, not to mention probably face an internal uprising.

Your fears are still foolish, and baseless

axt113, as you said, your comments are foolish. The benefits of asymmetric warfare are keeping the political conditions unfavorable for unrestricted warfare. So they could "pick a fight" that they will not lose, at least not by their standards. Which reminds me, your confidence that Iran's rulers are not suicidal is based on little more than your own wishful thinking.

Since the Iranians have financed suicide bombers and sent their own children across battlefields in the Iran-Iraq War, what makes liberals think that the mullahs would fear martyrdom if they decided that war was the answer?

Interesting piece on Hotair that suggests even the Mullahs are worried about how nutty Ahmadinejad is.

By stating that Iran isn't a threat because they spend much less on defense than the US

Well, gee, if he had stated that than it would be something, wouldn't it.

"They don't pose a serious threat to us the way that the Soviet Union posed a threat to us"

Strawman avenger strikes again.

Mantis, did you click and watch the entire link?

He DID say he didn't think Iran was that big a threat because they only spend 1/100th of what we do on defense.

[Strawman Avenger blows away in own hot wind]

Gee, you can't even accurately quote the video embedded in this post.

"Iran, they spend 1/100 of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Strawman Avenger = Purple Avenger, btw.

Mantis, what is the difference between "By stating that Iran isn't a threat because they spend much less on defense than the US" different from "Iran, they spend 1/100 of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance"?

They seem to say the exact the same thing, in slightly differt ways. I'd love to hear you try to explain the difference. Or were you just going off half cocked in your fervor to defend your messiah?

And Peter F. here is a link that answers your question.

And, I don't really think this is a case of being pwned, but simply more proof that Obama and his supporters just don't get it.

It is this naive mindset that is the greatest threat to America, and the world today.

Thanks, P. Bunyan.

I'd love to hear you try to explain the difference.

Sure, Obama was saying, basically "if Iran tried to attack us, they wouldn't stand a chance." Dipshit Avenger claims it was "Iran doesn't spend as much as us on defense, therefore they can't attack us." I don't expect you to understand the difference, but it is there.

In any case, I find it amusing that the crowd who enthusiastically supported the Bush administration's giving gifts to Iran over the past several years is now quaking in its boots over the prospect that someone might have a meeting. The Iraq War was a huge gift to Iran, eliminating their longtime enemy. Pushing for elections in Lebanon and Palestine, which anyone but the pie-in-the-sky strategists in the White House could have predicted would help Hezbollah and Hamas, was a gift to Iran. Making Iran out to be the biggest threat in the world since Nazi Germany, and thus increasing their stature among the America-haters in the Middle East, is a gift to Iran.

But to meet with Iran's leaders? Oh, the naïveté! ::faints::

Strawman hypocrite: "But to meet with Iran's leaders? Oh, the naïveté"

President Bush is willing to meet with Irans leaders PROVIDED they meet certain conditions.

Obama pleded to meet with Iran's leaders without preconditions. Big difference.

As far as the first part of your comment, lame attempt to spin at best. You have been pwned.

Mantis, I have known this for some time, but man, you are an idiot. Obama does not know which way is up and could not deduce it if he had something to drop. In Portland he said Iran posed no threat. In Billings he said he believed Iran was a grave threat. Obama is so full of shit he stinks and you cannot get enough of the smell.

This stupidity of Democrats that somehow the only thing standing between us and world peace is Bush's "refusal" to meet leaders is getting extraordinarily annoying.

No one but a Democrat could think that this was a reflection of reality in any sense.

No one but a Democrat could so misrepresent current US foreign policy.

It takes an IQ below room temperature to so misunderstand current world events to such a degree.

But I repeat myself.

Not that Obama has been able to get a consistent response on Iran out, given the contradictory stupidities from him and his campaign.

I think Obama's using the scattershot method of politics. Say enough stuff fast enough, and sooner or later he'll hit the right combination of words to unlock the votes he needs.

It won't necessarily be for what Obama really BELIEVES, or will DO - but it'll sound good at the time, and that's really all that's important, isn't it?

OK, so I presume mantis did watch the entire video, but its a guess since he never directly answered that question.

And Iran continues to pose a threat to us, seriously, without having to spend more than 1/100th of what we do (although how that figure is arrived at seems a little questionable to me-does that include all their hidden actions in Iraq and elsewhere?) because it doesn't care that we could flatten them into a radioactive glass desert three times over, because they assume we won't. They see what we've been able to accomplish and what we've not in Afghanistan and Iraq with all our might that our country and the rest of the world will allow us to use, Obama doesn't address that at all.

And neither does mantis, who does succumb to more name calling and spurious comments.

Peter F: PWNED has its origins in a typo that was numerous enough to become notable. OWNED is the original intent. This emerged from the world of video-gaming. The "word" gained widespread use after repeatedly surfacing in something called LOL cats (don't ask).

Many of the commenters,(and some of the posters), here at Wizbang are like chidren playing with paper dolls. Who can spin-up teh ugliest cutout outfits for the Obamas.

They seem to be settling in on a combo of Angela Davis on the arm of Neville Chamberlain.

I've noticed that whenever an election is approaching, mantis loses objectivity.

mantis, if Iraq can fund terrorists to pull off something approaching 9/11, and do it with plausible deniability (something your fellow travellers, if not yourself, would be willing to give them just on the basis of a stated denial), they will have done more damage than the Soviet Union ever managed to do against the U.S. with the national equivalent of pocket change.

Obama was dead wrong on this matter. You haven't helped by trying to spin it, instead you make yourself look as naive as Obama. Good thing you're not running for President, but he is.

Thankfully, neither of the Obamas come near to resemble the un-American monsters portrayed by the likes of Cassy.

This will be their un-doing.

Donnie, then what are the Obamas doing associating with racists like Wright and terrorists like Ayers? Birds of a feather flock together has been common wisdom for quite a long time.

Sorry, SPQR. Enjoy your cartoon.

That's what I thought, Donnie, you have no response. At least, to your credit, you've not embarrassed yourself by repeating the more brazen lies that Obama has told us about them.

EVen Bill Richardson ends up showing how dumb Obama is ... despite having endorsed him.

Joe Liberman, who is too adult for the Democratic party, schools Obama some more.

LMAO Obsama is such a dumbass and naive I'm laughing so hard my side hurts. And yet the liberal media thinks Obsama has a chance against mccain hahahaha pathetic Obsama will lose in a landslide because he flip flops way too F**King much!!! I'm voting for McCain and so will the majoraty of the American people.

We will not "bomb Iran" in the traditional sense, that would be meaningless

Dropping the power lines going to the enrichment cascades would accomplish the job