He says it like it's a fact, while it is in fact ridiculous, and does not mention even a single shred of evidence to back up such a ludicrous claim.

I suppose I can understand some of your concerns.  But in regard to providing evidence to back my claims, sometimes I provide simple reasons and statements for my positions, in sometimes I go into greater detail providing specific evidence.  The reason why I often stick to basic statements is to keep these types of rebuttals concise, these topics can get very long very fast.  If particular issue is then taken with a given statement, it can always be further elaborated with evidence in a later post.  I am merely trying to strike a balance between being concise I providing sufficient evidence.

<TWO GIGANTIC POSTS, NO EVIDENCE OF CLAIMS>

But please don't go criticizing me for not providing detailed evidence for every claim I made when you are not living up to the same standards you wish to impose on me.

<previously and currently posted multiple outside sources to back-up claims>

don't even bother typing if you aren't going to post links with reputable sources. saying "well times have changed this is why it will work" doesn't cut it. post real, solid evidence of your claims.

As long as I can remember, I have just been providing arguments.

Not kidding anyone.

By the way, you should be out dancing to 90s music and drinking Malibu.Kofi Annan is no longer the Secretary-General, by the way, but I'm sure you knew that.

"U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."

"But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.

"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point

Well he doesn't want to start a war.  He basically said all options are on the table regarding Iran (including military action). 

How is missile striking a viable option?  Does he think we will drop a few missiles and it will be done?  I'm pretty sure Iran or Pakistan would retaliate (lol war).

The Chicago Tribune

CAMPAIGN 2004: US SENATE RACE

Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran

By David Mendell
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 25, 2004

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday
that the United States one day might have to launch
surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to
keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park
neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday
with the Tribune editorial board. Obama's Republican
opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same
session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting
tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making
fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The
International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran
to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's
attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before
the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the
international community to apply more pressure on Iran
to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come
in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States
should not rule out military strikes to destroy
nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant
to these pressures, including economic sanctions,
which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate,
at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to
take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is
not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes
might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that
such strikes might further strain relations between
the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all
the problems in terms of perceptions about America
that have been created, us launching some missile
strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us
to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy
in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess
my instinct would be to err on not having those
weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of
Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But
realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved,
I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez
Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United
States similarly might have to consider military
action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it
already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling
hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani
tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a
vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet
Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated
differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that
they were operating on a model that we could
comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown
up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game
theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I
think there are certain elements within the Islamic
world right now that don't make those same
calculations.

"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right
now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I
think we would have to consider going in and taking
those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the
same assumptions about how they calculate risks."

A last resort

Obama's willingness to consider additional military
action in the Middle East comes despite his early and
vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also
has stressed that he is not averse to using military
action as a last resort, although he believes that
President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq
invasion.

[Extra text deleted]