Who is better versus Obama for November - Gingrich or Romney?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 8:13 AM GMT
    Good blog post at Weekly Standard.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/case-gingrich-s-electability_615022.html

    Jeffrey H. Anderson
    December 31, 2011 9:30 AM


    It’s an article of faith among many Republicans that Mitt Romney is the most electable candidate in the GOP field. But it’s not clear that this assertion is actually true. In fact, if one were going to design a Republican opponent tailor-made to President Obama’s liking, that opponent would be uniquely vulnerable to Obama’s main rhetorical thrust (making class-warfare arguments), uniquely unsuited to take clear aim at Obama’s least popular action as president (spearheading the passage of Obamacare), and uniquely strong in states that are unlikely to matter in the general election race. In all three of these ways, Romney is made to order for Obama — while his chief rival, Newt Gingrich, is not.

    None of this is to question Romney’s potential appeal to moderate voters. Nor is it to deny that Gingrich has more baggage and would be easier for Obama to try to vilify as a “conservative extremist.” But there is more to winning over moderates than simply running the most moderate candidate, and the truth is that no one really knows whether Romney or Gingrich would pose a more powerful electoral challenge to Obama.

    Current polls do indeed show Romney faring better than Gingrich versus Obama, but these polls tell us very little about how things would actually play out in November. Gingrich has faced far fiercer attacks to date — both from the Washington establishment and from his rivals (who are all jockeying to become Romney’s leading competitor, rather than generally taking direct aim at Romney himself) — than Romney has. But that would change quickly if Romney were actually to become the nominee. Moreover, in a general election campaign, the financial advantage that has afforded Romney the luxury of pummeling Gingrich with negative ads in Iowa would disappear. Romney would then face the war chest of Obama, while Gingrich (if he were to become the nominee) would actually acquire a war chest, something he now lacks. So the polls don’t convey much at all about what would happen ten months from now.

    Besides, there is more to gauging a general election race than merely looking at nationwide polls. When contemplating the places on the map where Romney would provide the GOP with the greatest electoral advantages, the answer would seem to be in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast. But none of the states in those regions, save New Hampshire, would be up for grabs in a close race. Instead, Romney would merely succeed in helping the party lose the likes of California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, by more respectable margins.

    In fact, because of the nature of the electoral map this time around, the key to victory won’t be whether Republicans can win in Democratic territory but whether Obama can, once again, win in Republican territory. In that vein, the election will likely come down to whether the Republican nominee can hold three mildly GOP-leaning states: Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. If the Republican nominee wins these (and if other states go according to form), then Obama would have to sweep New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to win, which he isn’t likely to do.

    On the other hand, if the Republican nominee loses even one of these three key states, then the advantage would tilt to Obama. And if the state that’s lost is either Florida or Ohio (and especially if it’s Florida), the GOP nominee would essentially have to win Pennsylvania. The problem is that, in presidential elections dating back to 1960, Pennsylvania has always been less favorable to the GOP than Ohio has been, and it’s been less favorable than Florida in 12 of the 13 elections over that span (with the success of Georgia’s Jimmy Carter’s in Florida versus Michigan’s Gerald Ford being the only exception). In other words, the Republican nominee simply cannot afford to lose Florida or Ohio, and probably cannot afford to lose Virginia.

    The fact that Gingrich is from neighboring Georgia, as opposed to Massachusetts, would presumably help him in Florida, as would his demonstrated strength among senior citizens. (Gingrich is from the Silent Generation and is four years older than Romney, who is a Baby Boomer.) Gingrich’s being from Georgia, as well as currently living in Virginia, would also presumably help him in the Old Dominion. Moreover, a GOP candidate who loses in Virginia would also be in danger of losing North Carolina — which would essentially seal that nominee’s fate — so it’s an added advantage that Georgia borders the Tar Heel State.

    As to whether Gingrich or Romney seems more like — and might seem more appealing to — the typical working-class independent voter who will probably swing the election in Ohio, readers will have to decide for themselves. To me, Ohio seems more like Gingrich country, and it would seem that way even if Ohio voters hadn’t recently rejected an individual mandate to buy health insurance like the one that Romney still stands by in Massachusetts — and even if that rejection hadn’t been unanimous across all 88 of Ohio’s counties. Obama’s class-warfare strategy seems designed to play well in Ohio, and — partly because of this — it would seem to be a place where it’s particularly important to talk early and often about Obamacare. Thus, in addition to his regional advantages in Florida and Virginia, Gingrich might well pose a more formidable challenge to Obama than Romney would in the Buckeye State — which Republicans have won every time they have ever won the presidency.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 8:39 AM GMT
    Romney certainly appears to be a less polarizing figure, but is he sufficient to ignite the social conservative base. Then again, seems Obama has already ignited the social conservative base sufficiently all by himself. I just don't see moderates going for Gingrich (did not read the full article so you posted so not sure if they addressed that).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 9:00 AM GMT
    TriAthInCA saidRomney certainly appears to be a less polarizing figure, but is he sufficient to ignite the social conservative base. Then again, seems Obama has already ignited the social conservative base sufficiently all by himself. I just don't see moderates going for Gingrich (did not read the full article so you posted so not sure if they addressed that).


    It's a little long, but I posted the entire article in the OP.

    I'll gladly vote for either one of them, but I'm still uncertain who would have the best chance in November. I'm not even certain who I'll vote for in our primary.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 4:09 PM GMT
    What has really annoyed me so far this election cycle is how the media and pollsters have really driven the whole campaign. They all seemingly coalesce around the apparent "Flavor of the Day" --- first Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, now Santorum --- and the honeymoon has been shorter with each successive candidate. The one constant through the entire thing has been Mitt Romney. The media would have you believe that all these other candidates are "The Anti-Romney", or that Americans will have to "settle for Romney" in the end. I simply do not buy into any of that. These primaries are serving the same purpose as they always have -- vetting out the various candidates until one remains for the nomination. I think that if Romney does get the nomination, that the GOP will have offered up an outstanding and very formidable candidate --- one that Republicans and Independents will rally around not only in large numbers, but quite enthusiastically --- and Obama will be afraid -- VERY afraid -- that his days as POTUS could be limited to one term.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 4:12 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidWhat has really annoyed me so far this election cycle is how the media and pollsters have really driven the whole campaign. They all seemingly coalesce around the apparent "Flavor of the Day" --- first Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, now Santorum --- and the honeymoon has been shorter with each successive candidate. The one constant through the entire thing has been Mitt Romney. The media would have you believe that all these other candidates are "The Anti-Romney", or that Americans will have to "settle for Romney" in the end. I simply do not buy into any of that. These primaries are serving the same purpose as they always have -- vetting out the various candidates until one remains for the nomination. I think that if Romney does get the nomination, that the GOP will have offered up an outstanding and very formidable candidate --- one that Republicans and Independents will rally around not only in large numbers, but quite enthusiastically --- and Obama will be afraid -- VERY afraid -- that his days as POTUS could be limited to one term.


    You don't mind if I make a minor edit and replace could with should?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 4:15 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said

    You don't mind if I make a minor edit and replace could with should?



    or you could change "could" with "will" icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 4:19 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidWhat has really annoyed me so far this election cycle is how the media and pollsters have really driven the whole campaign. They all seemingly coalesce around the apparent "Flavor of the Day" --- first Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, now Santorum --- and the honeymoon has been shorter with each successive candidate. The one constant through the entire thing has been Mitt Romney. The media would have you believe that all these other candidates are "The Anti-Romney", or that Americans will have to "settle for Romney" in the end. I simply do not buy into any of that. These primaries are serving the same purpose as they always have -- vetting out the various candidates until one remains for the nomination. I think that if Romney does get the nomination, that the GOP will have offered up an outstanding and very formidable candidate --- one that Republicans and Independents will rally around not only in large numbers, but quite enthusiastically --- and Obama will be afraid -- VERY afraid -- that his days as POTUS could be limited to one term.


    A vote for Romney is a vote for a flip flopping hypocrite. Romney will be the GOP nominee. Many republicans wiil have to hold their nose to avoid the stench when voting for him. Evangelicals wont support the anti christ.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 4:24 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    A vote for Romney is a vote for a flip flopping hypocrite. Romney will be the GOP nominee. Many republicans wiil have to hold their nose to avoid the stench when voting for him. Evangelicals wont support the anti christ.


    All politicians have the "flip-flopping hypocrite" gene -- that's how they actually get the nomination and later elected. As for Evangelicals not supporting Romney -- you're dead wrong on this one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 4:24 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree said

    You don't mind if I make a minor edit and replace could with should?



    or you could change "could" with "will" icon_wink.gif


    No NO, I never do that. The election is still a very long ways away and just about anything can happen.

    Who knows, looking at 41’s and 43’s poll numbers during Iraq 1 and 2, he may decide that maybe September or October 2012 is just the perfect time to take Iran out, although I feel that we shouldn’t wait that long. (RLD, I’ve heard it thousands of times from you – yeah yeah – jews everywhere – got it - so do yourself a big favor and save the bandwidth as I have you blocked dude.)

    Anything and everything can happen and I don’t want to jinx it by saying 'will'.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 4:30 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Anything and everything can happen and I don’t want to jinx it by saying 'will'.



    I definitely agree with you on this. So much could happen in the months leading up to this election -- both on the national front as well as the international front -- that could change everything.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 4:44 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    catfish5 said
    A vote for Romney is a vote for a flip flopping hypocrite. Romney will be the GOP nominee. Many republicans wiil have to hold their nose to avoid the stench when voting for him. Evangelicals wont support the anti christ.


    All politicians have the "flip-flopping hypocrite" gene -- that's how they actually get the nomination and later elected. As for Evangelicals not supporting Romney -- you're dead wrong on this one.


    Wow. You defend Romneys record as a flip flopping hypocrite by saying everyone does it? I feel much better now knowing his position on key issues will flip flop at the drop of a hat. And evangelicals will not vote for the anti christ. They will sabatoge him. God will tell them just say no to satan
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 4:50 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree said
    Anything and everything can happen and I don’t want to jinx it by saying 'will'.



    I definitely agree with you on this. So much could happen in the months leading up to this election -- both on the national front as well as the international front -- that could change everything.


    And I’d hate to be that cynical to think that Obama would save the skirmish with Iran for that reason. Or another possibility is that Iran would hold off on really provoking the U.S. for exactly that reason. I’m sure the Iranians would much prefer a president they could push around so it behooves them to see Obama reelected. In any event, anything can happen, but if anything real serious needs to be done to Iran, let’s get moving and do it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 5:01 PM GMT
    And frankly, if we’re in the middle of a war, I’d be reluctant to change presidents unless the current president was really screwing things up. I just think Iran needs to be dealt with and soon and in the strongest possible way. They've been fuckin with us for almost 32 years now.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 5:08 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidIn any event, anything can happen, but if anything real serious needs to be done to Iran, let’s get moving and do it.


    This is where we disagree. Have we learned nothing from the cost of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan that we really don't have all that much to show for? We need to be prepared to respond should Iran make the wrong move, but I do not think we should be attacking anyone preemptively --- not unless the entire world is behind us and it would be done swiftly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 5:14 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree saidIn any event, anything can happen, but if anything real serious needs to be done to Iran, let’s get moving and do it.


    This is where we disagree. Have we learned nothing from the cost of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan that we really don't have all that much to show for? We need to be prepared to respond should Iran make the wrong move, but I do not think we should be attacking anyone preemptively --- not unless the entire world is behind us and it would be done swiftly.


    It's a very tough call. Once Iran has the bomb, we have big troubles and Israel is a gonner. They've made this threat many times. Given the size of Israel there will be no second chance.

    There is no deterrent for those freaks. They celebrate death more than we celebrate life so M.A.D. as we had for five decades with the USSR / Russia won’t work. The big oceans are much smaller today and preemption will always be calculated guess. We need to strong arm Iran in the most certain sort of way and if need be, take military action.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 5:48 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree saidIn any event, anything can happen, but if anything real serious needs to be done to Iran, let’s get moving and do it.


    This is where we disagree. Have we learned nothing from the cost of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan that we really don't have all that much to show for? We need to be prepared to respond should Iran make the wrong move, but I do not think we should be attacking anyone preemptively --- not unless the entire world is behind us and it would be done swiftly.


    It's a very tough call. Once Iran has the bomb, we have big troubles and Israel is a gonner. They've made this threat many times. Given the size of Israel there will be no second chance.

    There is no deterrent for those freaks. They celebrate death more than we celebrate life so M.A.D. as we had for five decades with the USSR / Russia won’t work. The big oceans are much smaller today and preemption will always be calculated guess. We need to strong arm Iran in the most certain sort of way and if need be, take military action.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Well I see that I've finally gotten through about the failure of the NEO CON Israeli Lobby Iraq war experiment.

    But Fdmisntfree (Geezer) is sold on the Christian Fundi bible belief that "that nation which blesses Israel will be blessed". He's also swallowing the NEO CON Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and Israeli Lobby AIPAC wish list of war with Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran.

    Points to consider:

    1. The statement the NEO CONS and AIPAC keeps repeating that Abinajad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" is a lie being retold for Propaganda purposes to forward the need to strike Iran. The actual statement translation was more like "the Israeli leadership should be done away with" There's a lot of difference there. I paraphrased but you can google my accuracy in the fact that his statement was totally different from what Israels Lobby AIPAC wants Americans to believe.

    2. Obama and Clinton have the good sense to know that we don't need another war and you have to give credit to even Bush for knowing better than to ratchet this up to a war. Obama and Clinton are being cautious and now that Iran has re opened the door to dialog there will be talks. Israeli AIPAC Congress woman Litenin introduced and AIPAC lobbied to pass legislation to ACTUALLY BLOCK FACE TO FACE DIALOG WITH IRAN. How G-Damn stupid is that ??

    3. The last thing we need is a president Gingrich or Romney who are nothing but lapdogs for Israel's NEO CON Lobby to push another pointless war on the US and its Citizens.

    4. No foreign entity, agent, or their AIPAC Lobby should be involved by their money and influence in promoting or influencing nor selecting our foreign policy much less this rediculous influence toward war. This group should be listed as a foreign agent and kept out of the halls of congress and banned from influencing our political foreign policy. Look how much these groups have cost us already. When 41 Israeli Dual Citizens/NEO CON/Israeli Lobby AIPAC adherents out of 54 in the Bush War administration pushed for and got their wars, there is something very very wrong in our government.

    Would you people accept that many Russian, Chinese, French or etc. nationals in our government ??? Wake up to what is going on and to what is behind these wars.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 5:59 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree saidIn any event, anything can happen, but if anything real serious needs to be done to Iran, let’s get moving and do it.


    This is where we disagree. Have we learned nothing from the cost of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan that we really don't have all that much to show for? We need to be prepared to respond should Iran make the wrong move, but I do not think we should be attacking anyone preemptively --- not unless the entire world is behind us and it would be done swiftly.


    It's a very tough call. Once Iran has the bomb, we have big troubles and Israel is a gonner. They've made this threat many times. Given the size of Israel there will be no second chance.

    There is no deterrent for those freaks. They celebrate death more than we celebrate life so M.A.D. as we had for five decades with the USSR / Russia won’t work. The big oceans are much smaller today and preemption will always be calculated guess. We need to strong arm Iran in the most certain sort of way and if need be, take military action.


    I just don't see why it is our right to tell ANY country that they can't have something that we have an abundance of -- in this case nuclear weapons. What if a country did that to us? The last thing I want to see is Iran, or anyone, drop a nuke on Israel or anyone else. However, we can't necessarily run the world either. If, God forbid, Iran does something so stupid as nuke Israel or anyone else, it will be the last thing they ever do, because the world's retaliation will be quick, brutal, and decisive. Iran has WAY more to lose than they have to gain by using a nuke on anyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 6:08 PM GMT
    The article says the Republican *must* win Florida. But the Republican controlled congress is eager to cut (or eliminate) Medicare, and Florida is home to a lot of retirees.

    Below is a DNC video showing Newt "Medicare wither on the vine" Gingrich, as the face of cutting Medicare. And this was before he got in the race. If Gingrich is the nominee, I can't see seniors voting for the man who has a long history of opposing Medicare.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 6:14 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said...If, God forbid, Iran does something so stupid as nuke Israel or anyone else, it will be the last thing they ever do, because the world's retaliation will be quick, brutal, and decisive. Iran has WAY more to lose than they have to gain by using a nuke on anyone.
    I suspect the scenario would be different.

    1. Iran nukes Israel. Millions killed, hundreds of thousands injured.

    2. Everyone protests.

    3. UN Emergency Session. Agreement on strong language of condemnation not achieved. Resulting language expresses mild concern.

    4. Some in Congress want a military response. Administration states only can be done under UN auspices.

    5. UN says no response. Agreement not possible. Position is retaliation would only inflict suffering on innocent civilians. Tentative discussion on stricter sanctions, but no position achieved.

    6. Some in Congress want humanitarian aid for the injured. Ron Paul argues no, that it is not in the Constitution, it's none of our business, that Government aid would be taking from tax payers. He recommends individuals should send what they have, if they choose to do so.

    7. Iranian leaders laugh their heads off at the impotence of the West.


    BTW - not topic of thread, but if you think I'm exaggerating about Paul take a look http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/22/ron-paul-worthless-to-send-foreign-aid-to-fight-aids-in-africa/
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 6:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    BTW - not topic of thread, but if you think I'm exaggerating about Paul take a look http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/22/ron-paul-worthless-to-send-foreign-aid-to-fight-aids-in-africa/



    I agree that much of what Ron Paul says is extreme and often-times even seems a little crazy. Then again, I can also not help but feel that there is a grain of truth in many things that he says. In the case of the article linked above...it's true...we can't afford to keep sending billions overseas when we have very real deficits and problems that need attending to here at home. It's true, we can't afford to keep policing the world when it's getting us nowhere but B-R-O-K-E. The fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to speak these truths doesn't necessarily make him wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 6:50 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    socalfitness said
    BTW - not topic of thread, but if you think I'm exaggerating about Paul take a look http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/22/ron-paul-worthless-to-send-foreign-aid-to-fight-aids-in-africa/

    I agree that much of what Ron Paul says is extreme and often-times even seems a little crazy. Then again, I can also not help but feel that there is a grain of truth in many things that he says. In the case of the article linked above...it's true...we can't afford to keep sending billions overseas when we have very real deficits and problems that need attending to here at home. It's true, we can't afford to keep policing the world when it's getting us nowhere but B-R-O-K-E. The fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to speak these truths doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

    Not intending to hijack the thread, but while I am concerned about our spending ways, there is also more fundamental questions. It was reported by an ex-Paul aid that Paul had stated several times that saving Jews from being gassed was none of our business. Paul aides responded that the ex-aid was fired for performance reasons. When pressed about WWII involvement, according to what I read, his campaign stated our involvement in WWII was justified because Hitler declared war on us. When asked if that had not been the case would he have supported saving the Jews, his campaign wouldn't respond.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 7:03 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Not intending to hijack the thread, but while I am concerned about our spending ways, there is also more fundamental questions. It was reported by an ex-Paul aid that Paul had stated several times that saving Jews from being gassed was none of our business. Paul aides responded that the ex-aid was fired for performance reasons.


    Who knows if that is true or not. Wouldn't be the first time a disgruntled ex-employee tried to screw over their former employee
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 7:14 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    socalfitness said
    Not intending to hijack the thread, but while I am concerned about our spending ways, there is also more fundamental questions. It was reported by an ex-Paul aid that Paul had stated several times that saving Jews from being gassed was none of our business. Paul aides responded that the ex-aid was fired for performance reasons.


    Who knows if that is true or not. Wouldn't be the first time a disgruntled ex-employee tried to screw over their former employee

    But the Paul campaign still refused to answer the last question directly, if the report I saw was true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2012 7:58 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    freedomisntfree saidIn any event, anything can happen, but if anything real serious needs to be done to Iran, let’s get moving and do it.


    This is where we disagree. Have we learned nothing from the cost of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan that we really don't have all that much to show for? We need to be prepared to respond should Iran make the wrong move, but I do not think we should be attacking anyone preemptively --- not unless the entire world is behind us and it would be done swiftly.


    It's a very tough call. Once Iran has the bomb, we have big troubles and Israel is a gonner. They've made this threat many times. Given the size of Israel there will be no second chance.

    There is no deterrent for those freaks. They celebrate death more than we celebrate life so M.A.D. as we had for five decades with the USSR / Russia won’t work. The big oceans are much smaller today and preemption will always be calculated guess. We need to strong arm Iran in the most certain sort of way and if need be, take military action.


    I just don't see why it is our right to tell ANY country that they can't have something that we have an abundance of -- in this case nuclear weapons. What if a country did that to us? The last thing I want to see is Iran, or anyone, drop a nuke on Israel or anyone else. However, we can't necessarily run the world either. If, God forbid, Iran does something so stupid as nuke Israel or anyone else, it will be the last thing they ever do, because the world's retaliation will be quick, brutal, and decisive. Iran has WAY more to lose than they have to gain by using a nuke on anyone.


    Problem is with a country the size of Israel, the first time would be the last.

    It's a VERY difficult problem in this day and age when you can project power just about anywhere on earth by overt or covert means with no warning. I’m not sure what the answer is, and true the Bush doctrine isn’t without risk, but what is the risk of not acting versus the risk of acting. There’s simply no way of knowing for sure.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 02, 2012 8:03 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Problem is with a country the size of Israel, the first time would be the last.

    It's a VERY difficult problem in this day and age when you can project power just about anywhere on earth by overt or covert means with no warning. I’m not sure what the answer is, and true the Bush doctrine isn’t without risk, but what is the risk of not acting versus the risk of acting. There’s simply no way of knowing for sure.



    Israel has more than enough weapons to defend themselves. If they want a pre-emptive strike made on Iran, let THEM make it.