So why not just get it over with

[Lesley]

and simply declare the USA is at war with every non Christan nation. You know, it is the answer to all international problems

Source: The Raw Story

Two senior Republican senators say the United States, and not Israel, should attack Iran if military action becomes "necessary."

They also say a simple strike at the country's nuclear capability wouldn't be enough -- the US would have to launch an "all-or-nothing" war against Iran with the aim of crippling the country's military capabilities.

"I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and they're not aligned now. It's too much pressure to put on Israel," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

He continued: "Military action should be the last resort anyone looks at, and I would rather our allies and us take military action if it's necessary."

But Graham doesn't think an attack should be limited to airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. "If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float," said Graham.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, agrees.

"The problem with military action also is that you're probably not going to be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple airstrike," Chambliss said on Fox News Sunday. "Lindsey's right. It's an all or nothing deal. And is it worth that at this point in time, when we know they have the capability? We can slow them down, but a full-out military strike is what it would take," said Chambliss.

GOP senators: US, not Israel, should attack Iran ‘if necessary’ | Raw Story

I guess they are under the impression the military has unlimited personnel resources and they can so flippantly put more young men and women on the line. wow To wish the US to enter into another Iraq or Afghanistan. Reminds me of the definition of insanity.....

[intheknow]

What does this have to do with religion, i.e Christianity? Lesley, I think you are wayyyyyy off on a silly tangent here.

[rae]

Lesley, did you watch this interview yourself? Have you seen it with your own eyes? Did you read the entire transcripts?

The reason I ask that is because there were 4, yes 4, Senators in the conversation. Two are Republicans and two are Democrats. And all of them were in agreement with what should be done with regards to Iran and their nuclear capabilities. If you read the transcript you would see plenty of 'as my colleagues have said' and 'as my colleague has indicated' and 'I agree'. They appear to be pretty much in agreement. They all want to move forward with the threat of sanctions while continuing to talk, and work with inspections. In fact, I believe it is the Democrats who are moving a bill forward for sanctions. The transcripts have plenty of evidence that they are all willing to go down the sanctions road and that military action is a last resort. None of them, not one, is jumping on any bandwagon to go to war. They are working in a bipartisan fashion to give President Obama any tools necessary to use to ensure that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.

CQ Transcript: Iran Policy on 'Fox News Sunday' - Yahoo! News

[rae]

Dem, GOP senators call for tougher sanctions on Iran - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com

Dem, GOP senators call for tougher sanctions on Iran

There was a bipartisan drumbeat on “Fox News Sunday,” as four senators call for tougher sanctions against Iran -- and seemed open to military steps if sanctions fail -- as the program gives big play to the not yet officially released IAEA assessment concluding that Iran has the know-how to build a nuclear bomb.

Bob Casey (D-Pa.): “We are on a path toward a nuclear Iran which is an unacceptable course… we have to be very focused on giving the president and giving other parts of our government including pension funds the ability to impose sanctions… We should have all the tools on the table to impose sanctions even unilaterally if necessary.”

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “I couldn’t agree more with my Democratic colleagues. [We need] “a series of measures that would empower the president and out country… Let’s have Iran weakened.”

Evan Bayh (D-Ind.): “They have a pattern of deception. They have a pattern of breaking agreements… They respect strength and strength alone… That’s why we need to tee up all these sanctions to raise the course of misbehavior. I think we need to give them a matter of weeks to come clean on the inspections. To actually send the uranium out of the country.”

Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.): “What I was hoping President Obama would do in these recent talks with our allies is go ahead with putting in sanctions right now. We’ve been lied to enough by Iran. I would hope that what the president would do is take a bolder step, go ahead and impose sanctions. And if you want us to ease these sanctions off then you need to stop going ahead with the weapons program.”

While the senators supported tough sanctions as a first step, they also seemed open to military action if those fail to end Iran’s nuclear program.

Said Graham: “If we use military action against Iran, we should not only destroy their nuclear facilities, we should destroy their ability to wage conventional war.”

[Lesley]

Originally Posted by intheknow

What does this have to do with religion, i.e Christianity? Lesley, I think you are wayyyyyy off on a silly tangent here.

Not religion per se. Actually I was contemplating writing every ARAB nation, but changed my mind....because we have NK to contend with Pakistan, China etc. Seems like GB, Scotland, France, Austria et al are not on the radar. Don't you find the line in sand to be drawn very crudely along christian/non christian lines?

[intheknow]

Originally Posted by Lesley

Not religion per se. Actually I was contemplating writing every ARAB nation, but changed my mind....because we have NK to contend with Pakistan, China etc. Seems like GB, Scotland, France, Austria et al are not on the radar. Don't you find the line in sand to be drawn very crudely along christian/non christian lines?

No. I don't. I find your thread here to be not only completely without merit, but insulting too. I suggest a deletion.

[Maddy00]

So Lesley...what about the two Democratic senators who were in agreement with the two Republican senators you chose to post about. Funny how you haven't dealt with that issue yet...

[Lesley]

While the topic may not be pleasant, it certainly wasn't intended to insult you or anyone else. My thoughts laid out, to be shut down because you personally don't like that I speak of an idea that isn't pleasant to you? That you try to take this discussion in such a direction just shuts down any further communication and exchange of ideas.

That you should feel so threatened and angered by my one lowly opinion is strange. Why not simply point out the falacy of my reasoning? If I'm wrong, or if there is more to the picture...point it out. Why shut down dialogue because you don't like the subject?

Interesting I just read this just today from the book End of Faith, by Sam Harris

"....critisizing a person's idea of God and the afterlife is thought impolitic in a way that critisizing his ideas about physics or history is not." why is it that I cannot raise a topic in a manner, as if it were history or chemistry and simply state my thoughts? Did I state anything that was personally insulting, did I call you names? Did I say that you were wrong and I was right? Did I say that "they" are right and the US is wrong? Or did I simply state a POV...which you immediately jumped on and asked me to shut down and shut up?

ETA:
From a Veterans Web site: http://americanveterans.homestead.com/links.html Wars and conflicts since the World Wars (not sure how recently the deaths were updated):

Afghanistan War (October 7, 2001 to present)
U.S. Casualties: 677 deaths, 2379 wounded in action

Iraq War (March 18, 2003 to present)
U.S. Casualties: 4311 deaths; 46,132 wounded in action

Vietnam War (1959 to April 30, 1975)
U.S. Casualties: 58,193 deaths, 153,303 wounded in action, 1948 missing in action

Gulf War (August 2, 1990 to February 28, 1991)
U.S. Casualties: 378 deaths, less than 1000 wounded in action

Korean War (June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953)
U.S. Casualties: 54,246 deaths, 8142 missing in action

And of course talk of NK and Iran. Now there are reasons here that haven't even been discussed that doesn't put the cause and effect as being religious based. But there is a pattern.

[Lesley]

Originally Posted by Maddy00

So Lesley...what about the two Democratic senators who were in agreement with the two Republican senators you chose to post about. Funny how you haven't dealt with that issue yet...

My original comments were not drawn along party lines. It is a rant about war.

It wasn't intended to be along party lines. If that is the impression I gave, let me know what I should correct, and I will do that.

[BC-tinatinva]

Lesley, You OP suggests by the article and snippet that you have Cp'd and linked to that this is partisan. I think that is where this is coming from.

As for your assessment that we may as well declare war on every non-christian nation, well, I find it preposterous. We are not at war or in disagreement in Indonesia - a stronghold of the Muslim faith, nor India with a strong Hindu faith, not Isreal, stongly Jewish. So your assertion is considerably flawed.

At odds with every nation with a whackjob leader he!! bent on distroying democracy perhaps?