[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by cacophony

i doubt they're really weighing the ramifications of an obama presidency as they ponder the ridiculous continuation of the middle east cycle of violence.

see, this is why the israel thing pisses me off. if any other (muslim) country launched a strike we'd be all full of outrage. but if isreal slaughters a bunch of civilians we have to back them. it's an unacceptable commitment to back a country that's just as psychotic as all of the others in that region.

to answer your first question i think any middle east violence benefits mccain.

I think you're both right. But I especially agree with Deckard. There's nothing hypothetical about israeli air strikes in Iran. Not when you have history showing that they did air strikes in Iraq under Saddam and just recently in Syria. And there's nothing hypothetical about the shift in u.s. foreign policy with respect to the middle east vis a vis an obama presidency. Its going to be looked upon by the outside players as a refutation of the neocon agenda. And the likes of Perle and Wolfowitz its going to be more than a refutation as they are shown the door, along with the rest of the rats hiding in the office of the vice president. The same people who have simply made american interest == fundamentalist flavored zionist interest and the armed forces a branch of that movement. I wish this could be seen as american-centric bias, but it is sure the way things look from my perspective.