And speaking of magic, somehow we haven’t been the victim of an ICBM attack yet, and neither has anyone else. But is it magic? Not really. It’s called engagement, mutual self interest, and threat of massive retaliation. It’s worked fine so far.
But Obama is a typical liberal who would never launch an offensive military action.
Have any evidence to back that up? I know, that’s a gimmie question, because no such evidence exists. But I guess I have to at least ask you to be rational.

“escapevelocity” is right about one thing: The best defense against a repetition of 9-11 is passengers who will refuse to go to their deaths passively. We already saw two examples of that: The 4th hijacked plane on 9-11 didn’t reach its target because the passengers fought back. And the “shoe bomber” was stopped by aware passengers who, frankly, were prepared to beat him to a pulp if necessary.

The problem is that it’s real hard to tell if an armed passenger is a terrorist, or a prudent passenger who wants to stop potential terrorists. Hence passenger screening prior to boarding would be impossible.

If Obama succeeds in canceling the long-range ballistic missile defense, what would YOU suggest we do in 2015 or 2016 when Iran deploys ICBMs? We can’t just wave a magic wand and make a long-range defense system appear instantaneously.

Short-range missile defense is not a substitute for long-range missile defense.

It’s also the case that our military systems can force a change in behavior of the enemy. If the enemy believes that our short-range interceptors (the ones favored by Obama) are effective, they are likely to ABANDON their short-range offensive missiles and put all their effort into developing long-range missiles, against which Obama has decided we don’t need any defense.

(That was the history of the Cold War. Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. looked at each other’s defensive capabilities and were constantly looking for ways to do an end-run around those capabilities.)

That’s the problem with Obama’s calculations and your defense of them. They ignore the fact that the enemy gets a vote–and they have the initiative of the attacker. They can plan an attack with a method of their own choosing–and we always have to plan for whatever they can come up with.

Frankly, I’m not much of a believer in ANY defensive systems. I’ve always believed that the best defends is a good offense. But Obama is a typical liberal who would never launch an offensive military action. In the time he’s been President, he’s avoided or deflected possible confrontations on just about everything. Not once has he gone to the mat for something he believed in.

The best defense against Iranian aggression is an American president who wouldn’t be afraid to drop the hammer. Obama isn’t qualified.

In his 1998 fatwa, Osama bin Laden declared war on America.
He calls it a war.
His followers call it a war.

Why the heck can’t you?

This whole missile defense thing is a great example. The alternative the SecDef and Joint Chiefs proposed to the bloated, inoperative, ill targeted missile defense system is one that costs half the price, actually works, and is targeted at the missile capabilities Iran actually has. But for some reason the right wing doesn’t want a solution that works. They want a situation that makes us more vulnerable and gives them more political advantage. And it’s the same way with guns. They don’t want solutions. They want advantage.