I am personally not too happy with the idea of us weakening ourselves by eliminating nuclear weapons first, especially during a time when Iran refuses to back down and is giving all the hints that they plan to get nukes even if they deny it and Russia is buddy buddies with them while still being friends with us only thru treaties and stuff. But I also tend to believe that with all the technology we have and the ones we don't know of that we have I have to believe we should be able to handle a war with any country or fanatical, radical sects of any kind without resorting to nuclear weapons regardless of the weapons they use except if it's a nuclear weapon.

To charge this Administration with treason? That would be one hell of a stretch as even the people of this country would not want to do that to our own President even if they didn't like him; that would make us look really, really bad. Not unless the proof is irrefutable and this Administrations real intentions was to harm this Nation.

As CIC, Obama has the option of choosing what, if any response is to be made.  That is in the Constitution.  So it is not treason (stupid is arguable).  However, Obama can pledge to abide by any treaty he wants.  But unless the senate, with a 2/3 majority goes along, it is meaningless.  Obama has a bad habit of promising other countries a lot more than he can deliver, as the 2/3 limit is not debatable in the senate, but is a constitutional mandate.  So it does not matter if reid or Pelosi like it or not.  They cannot do a damn thing about it.

That is unfortunately true.

What will the US do when skyscrapers in Tel Aviv start falling under missile fire?

Will the US react and help Israel? Or will the US join the condemnations of the Israeli reaction?

It's no longer clear and that is why such a war is now likely to happen.

If Obama is still in charge, he will condemn.  if he has been replaced, his successor will undoubtedly stand with Israel.

While the president is not "America", he does control the armed forces.  So to say that "America" will do something or nothing is a misnomer.  It is the president.  America's attitude towards Israel has not changed, just the president has.

No, that is war circa 21st century.  War, real war, not badminton, has but one goal.  The total destruction of the capability of your enemy to wage war and inflict damage to you.  Period.

If Ebola was loosed and it was traced back to Iran, Obama would not do anything, but again his successor would.  Afghanistan made clear that the US is not Israel, and we will not long tolerate sniping as they have.

No, war in the 21st century is:

1. Limit the number of Arab or Muslim deaths.

2. Apologise for firing back when attacked.

Yeah right, because that has worked so well in the past.

Turns out the world unites against you if you try that. We just tried eight years of that policy.

I was totally for it, mind you. But there are just too many people world-wide, including in the west, who will do absolutely anything in their power to protect such tyrants.

Can you name an example of the world turning against a country because of its brutality?

History has shown that useless and exaggerated violence is the way to go if you want international support. But try doing only what's necessary and the world unites against you.

If a major attack happens in America and America kills tens of thousands because of it, the war will be OVER and nobody else will have to die. Nobody will speak up against a country that reacts like that.

I don't like it any more than you do, but the rational remove-the-dictator-from-power just isn't as accepted by the "international community" as the trick with the genocidal violence.

Note that for example Al-Bashir, the genocidal tyrant of Sudan is a respected leader in the Muslim world. And very few "peace activists" in the west bother to organise huge demonstrations against the genocide in Darfur. But they do organise huge demonstrations against your "regime change" proposal.

What you are talking about is indeed the best way to settle these issues. But "peace activists" and progressives have made it utterly impossible and the "international community" always condemns those who try to respect the rights of people and rewards and respects those who don't.

Just becuase they want blood doesn't mean that they should have it.  Targetting and killing people who had nothing to do with the attack is nothing but spitefull.

The people who would die from the nuke would have had as much to be blamed for as the people who died in first attack.

Again, saving lives is noble and good.  But you start saving lives once your own citizens are no longer in danger.  That is what people failed to realize about Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  They saved millions of lives, not only American, but Japanese as well.  But those lives could not have been saved until Japan ceased hostilities which the Bombs accomplished.

War is about killing.  And if only the ones that started wars were in the line of fire, you would have a hell of a boxing match.  But they put their citizens in the line of fire hoping to be protected by their mass of bodies so they can strike again.  Those mass of bodies are there because of the war mongers, not because of a bomb dropped on them by a defending nation.

That will never happen.

A street junction, four streets. In each street stands an individual. North stands the Easter Bunny, west stands Santa Claus, south stands a corrupt politician, and east stands a liberal peace activist who just came from a protect against Hizbullah. There is a one-hundred dollar bill in the middle of the junction. Who will get it?