Many of our countrymen just don't understand the ramifications of what happens when you elect someone who is obviously weak, inexperienced, and naive. Despots see this weakness and do things like seize our embassy and take everyone there hostage - an overt act of war - knowing the weak president will do nothing. They do things like driving trucks full of explosives under the World Trade Center. To elect Obama will put us directly on the road to calamity.

We SHOULD NOT choose our president based on what a foreign country might or might not do. It is a popular notion that the Iran hostages were returned because Reagan (and not Jimmy Carter) got elected (I personally agree), but to make that a primary factor in who you will vote for is absurd. I personally don't lean either way, but let's use a little common sense (and dignity as a sovereign nation).

Our adversaries will undoubtedly test our resolve if Obama should somehow be elected, and I have no confidence in his judgment!

All the speculation in the comments above could be true or not. From past observations, these so called "facts" coming from the same direction have proven to be just plain wrong demonstrating a poor track record over and over. So why would I choose to believe any of that decision making motivated by fear alone. So I have a real problem buying into the whole fear, knee-jerk, reaction to a proposed threat thingee. Speaking of ramifications of what happens; I have seen their resulting quagmires in the past and what this fear spreading approach has brought us through out this world's short human history. You must be joking...

jmjoness writes:

It is a popular notion that the Iran hostages were returned because Reagan (and not Jimmy Carter) got elected (I personally agree), but to make that a primary factor in who you will vote for is absurd.

The reasoning behind this occurrence is chilling. And is another reason to be wary of being manipulated as the string bring a puppet to life.