[Carry_Okie]

The problem is simple denial that Iran is any more of a threat than was the old Soviet Union. Russia would have delivered nukes by conventional and trackable means: missiles with radar signatures, planes with stars on the side, etc. Had Russia attacked, it would have been an obvious causus bellum with a clear enemy. It was unmistakable who to target by all accounts.

By contrast, by its actions Iran has proven it will stoop to nuclear terrorism at the first opportunity, whence the terrorists could deny the origin of the weapon. How do you declare nuclear war against a country when you can't prove the origin of the attack? Heck, the terrorists could claim they got the weapon from Pakistan or off the Russian black market. What could we do about that under a Ron Paul administration?

Nothing. Ron Paul's mentality is driven by the assumptions on the nature of national warfare common to the 18th Century. Unless his detractors makes that distinction clear in their answers, Paul will continue to get away with it.

All of that could be said in a 60 second response. There is no excuse for Presidential candidates to stand there dumbfounded and let Paul take that moral high ground. The one who does shut him down will have won an important moral and political victory.

[pissant]

Hunter is the ONLY one to utter the term “victory”. And his answer that those who think we are going to be there a long time “do not know the determination of our Army and Marines” was perfect. Petraeus has turned them loose to take out the insurgency and they are succeeding. Hunter tried to jump in when Paul was uttering his nonsense, hence the ‘Halleluja’ when they finally let him speak. Huckabee tried to argue with Paul, but was kinda weak.

[phs3]

"The one who does shut him down will have won an important moral and political victory."

Dont wory Fred will do it in the next debate...