If the primaries had lasted through May, I would have voted for Rick Santorum. The reason being is that Romney has a millstone around his neck from Romney-care.
Wow. I've two questions here, really:
1. Why Santorum? To me, he seems like a backwards, slightly stupid and absurdly Christian political charicature, with no legitimacy as a President.
2. Why is Romney-care so awful? I've yet to see a good argument for why adopting a system that Europe has successfully had in place since, in the UK at least, the 1940s is a bad idea.
From a region of suicide bombers, do you think they care about their own destruction?
In this day and age, it is impossible to safely be an isolationist, and one of the primary roles for the President is Commander in Chief (which is why I could never vote for Ron Paul). If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Israel will probably be a bit of scorched earth. I don't see Ron Paul trying to stop that from happening.
I've never understood why people think that if Iran got a nuclear weapon they would launch it at Israel. Wouldn't they be ensuring their own destruction, then? the only would way that i see it happening is if mad men got a hold of one and everything (but we know the chances of that happening from historical precedent and simple analysis - next to nothing).
That is an incredibly crass and ill-informed generalisation. Remember that 'suicide bombers' are almost without exception fundamentalist Sunni groups. Iran, on the other hand, is a well organised Shia state that uses proxies such as Hezbollah - which has enough rockets (c. 15,000) not to need suicide bombers for the most part - and has in fact waged a calculated proxy war against the USA et al. In short, Iran is not going to blow it. More likely, it seeks nuclear weapons in order that it may have them as a deterrent against Israel - let us not forget that the Netanyahu wants rocket strikes against Iran, not the other way around - and so that it can continue to assert itself as a regional power.
The problem is that our perception of Iran has been badly skewed by the media, and if one looks at Iranian rhetoric with a little more cultural context than Fox News and Sky are willing to give, the Iranian problem, though certainly a problem, becomes less of a threat.
a) Ayatollah Khomeini's famous name for the USA - the 'Great Satan' - does not mean that the USA is some demonic entity. Rather, in the context in which a Muslim cleric uses it, this term is rather less scary: in Islam, the Devil has always been thought of as something that acts from within, tempting the hearts of men. This is rather distinct from the traditional Christian view, and thus we tend to interpret the term in a Christian way. In reality, the term means, in our terminology, something more akin to 'Great Tempter' etc. Yet, without explanation, Iran suddenly seems a lot more dangerous than it really is.
b) 'Israel will be wiped off the map' does not mean Israel will be obliterated by a nuclear bomb. It is a rhetorical way of saying that Israel will not be able to withstand the pressures that come with its existence. Again, less sinister than one might originally think.
My point here is that, though I am certainly no Iranian apologist, our approach to Iran is so overblown and paranoid, thanks to the subtle misinformations of the media, that, as seen in the above posts, there is a tendency to talk of Iran as more of a threat than it is.