Bush won't rule out nuclear stike on Iran...

[lw49033]

That's their POV. We don't have to share it. In 1948 we seemed rather neutral there, at a time in which millions of all kinds of people died in wars around the world. It would certainly be mistaken and immoral if our position was that since they threaten the Jewish state, they deserve whatever we can dish out. We obviously don't believe that, and there's no reason they should either.

It's not our position? This thread was started over the question of whether we are going use a first strike nuclear option--not even to defend Israel per se, but to maintain its regional nuclear monopoly. If that's not the same as saying they deserve whatever we can dish out, it's certainly getting there!

Furthermore, they don't all believe that - not all Arabs are prepared to sacrifice themselves for Palestine, not all Persians are going to want to sacrifice themselves for whatever Ahmajihadi has planned. It would be mistaken and immoral for our policies to capitulate to the ones that do.

I absolutely defend those people in those countries who do not wish to die for Palestine or Ahmedinejad, and I represent a growing number of Americans who do not wish to sacrifice our country's interests, or or lives, for the security of Israel. According to what moral principle do you defend one and denounce the other?

 

[lw49033]

Are you saying we should just abandon Israel? Withdraw our ambassador, stop all support? In effect, say to the Arab world, "Go ahead, invade and make war against the Israelies, we won't stop you or support Israel?"

There is no need to withdraw our ambassador or encourage anyone to fight Israel. But yes, we should make it known that the purpose of the U.S. military is to defend the U.S. Our complicated system of alliances and pseudo-alliances is built on Cold War assumptions; it was never meant to be permanent and needs to be junked.

The defense of Israel should be no more relevant to the U.S. agenda than the defense of Eritrea was when Ethopia gobbled it up in 1960, or the defense of East Timor was when our buddies, the Indonesian generals attacked it in 1975. I don't care who controls Palestine, any more than I care who controls Nepal. I don't want American blood shed for Israel, period.

 

[Saxsoon]

You talk about morals LW, but aren't Israelis also human. I didn't realize that only Americans were humans. So, just toss out the Israeli's out there in the middle east with very little support like they were a used diaper.

I agree with PDChris, the resulting attack from the middle east on Israel, would possibly lead to full out Nuclear War. We wouldn't have to worry about gas prices however, because we all would be dead. While this is all just a bunch of if's, they are very concievable if's.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I didn't forget about anything. You don't even understand the points, even though they're laid out (hint uranium v. plutonium), in an obviously futile attemot to head off ignirant talking points attacks like yours, a response worth of JER

Personal insults against me when I'm not even around. You go Soda!

 

[lw49033]

You talk about morals LW, but aren't Israelis also human. I didn't realize that only Americans were humans.

Yes. So are the Eritreans, the Timorese, the Tibetans, and many others I don't want to spend American lives and wealth defending. The only difference between them and the Israelis is that they don't have big lobbies and a sympathetic media pressing their case. (Yes, and the Israelis have nukes, but they got preferential treatment from the U.S. even before they had nukes.)

 

[artvandelay]

Btw, here's a pre-emptive strike: The next a Bushie claims the fact that we have not been attacked in nearly 5 years as a Bush success, remind them Bush has 3 more years to go to claim the success Bill Clinton had.

Gotta call you on this one. The first WTC attack (1993) and the bombing of the Murrah(sp) Building in Oklahoma (1995) happened on Bill Clinton's watch. I'm not defending the present administration, just stating facts.

 

[artvandelay]

LW, you would of accepted a Japanese surrender in July of 1945 with the Emperor still on the thrown? Would you have accepted a German surrender in March of 1945 if it allowed Hitler to remain as Chancellor? No offer was actually made, it's a hypothetical.

Lw, would you have accepted the German's offer of surrendering to the Western Allies, but not to the Soviets? This offer was made and rejected by the WEstern Allies, who insisted on 'German unconditional surrender.

 

[LuvDuke]

Gotta call you on this one. The first WTC attack (1993) and the bombing of the Murrah(sp) Building in Oklahoma (1995) happened on Bill Clinton's watch. I'm not defending the present administration, just stating facts.

If you throw in OKC, you're right.

I was using attacks by foreign terrorists, on US soil, as my measure. The spiel from the Bushies is "we haven't been attacked since 2001" which would make it nearly 5 years. However, previous to the 2001 attack, was the WTC attack in 1993 and unless the rules of math have changed, that would make it 8 years.

Btw, I don't think McVeigh was on anyone's radar and Bill Clinton most definitely did not receive a PDB entitled "McVeigh Determined To Strike In OKC" four weeks prior to the OKC bombing. I'm sure that would've turned up in Starr's $80,000,000 investigation to find out the president got his flute played in the Oval Office.

 

[Teejay32]

It's not our position? This thread was started over the question of whether we are going use a first strike nuclear option--not even to defend Israel per se, but to maintain its regional nuclear monopoly. If that's not the same as saying they deserve whatever we can dish out, it's certainly getting there!

I absolutely defend those people in those countries who do not wish to die for Palestine or Ahmedinejad, and I represent a growing number of Americans who do not wish to sacrifice our country's interests, or or lives, for the security of Israel. According to what moral principle do you defend one and denounce the other?

The question was whether Bush was going to rule out a nuclear option. I'd only be denouncing people's insistance on us ruling out any options, including nuclear ones because it's not our prognostications, but Iran's that brought us here. I'm not pro-war-with-Iran. Right now.

The regional nuclear monopoly thing sounds like the cover story they're using to pacify the arabs. I suspect Iran's plans have less to do with self-defense and more to do with righting a perceived past injustice and/or pan-Islamic goals. So that's one moral issue for me - for all intents and purposes this is a crusade, a religious-political movement, and it's not a given that our efforts would be on behalf of one country. That mistake has been made before.

 

[DawnCt1]

Oh my God ............. sit down, you've been warned.

I agree with Dawn with one exception. It didn't take one bomb to bring Japan to surrender. It took the second bomb and the the threat of a 3rd, which Truman didn't have, to convince the Japanese to unconditionally surrender.

Harry Truman did what any good CIC does which is put the lives of his troops first. The casaulty count for the invasion of Japan would've gone into the millions. Just like Americans defending the US, the Japanese would've defended Japan until the last person was standing. God only knows how many lives Harry Truman saved by his decision and my DH is one of them. He was a Navy pilot and his group was headed to Japan. Thank God for people like Harry Truman.

Carry on.

You are correct of course. I am not sure that we had a third bomb to deliver and that might have been a concern at that time. Oops, I just re read your post and see that you said we did not have a third bomb.

 

[artvandelay]

If you throw in OKC, you're right.

I was using attacks by foreign terrorists, on US soil, as my measure. The spiel from the Bushies is "we haven't been attacked since 2001" which would make it nearly 5 years. However, previous to the 2001 attack, was the WTC attack in 1993 and unless the rules of math have changed, that would make it 8 years.

Btw, I don't think McVeigh was on anyone's radar and Bill Clinton most definitely did not receive a PDB entitled "McVeigh Determined To Strike In OKC" four weeks prior to the OKC bombing. I'm sure that would've turned up in Starr's $80,000,000 investigation to find out the president got his flute played in the Oval Office.

Clinton's (and Reno's) handling of Waco led directly to OKC. It was no accident that McVeigh chose April 19th for his attack. Also, large purchases of fertilizer should of been monitored after the '93 bombing of the WTC.

 

[jaycns]

Keeping my opinions to myself...just wanted to subscribe to read more of the thought provoking ideas/beliefs stated here on both sides of the coin.

 

[Viking]

I just heard that a strike against Iran is no longer an option:
The oil price is so high now, that Bush can't afford to fill up the military vehicles anymore

 

[LuvDuke]

Clinton's (and Reno's) handling of Waco led directly to OKC. It was no accident that McVeigh chose April 19th for his attack. Also, large purchases of fertilizer should of been monitored after the '93 bombing of the WTC.

So let's use your criteria from OKC (1995) to WTC (2001). That's 6 years and Bush still has another 1+ years to go before he equals 6 years.

But, and there's always a but, The WTC bombers (1993) were arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, and have been in prison since 1995. Timothy McVeigh was executed and is, hopefully, keeping a seat warm in Hell for Bin Laden. No pun intended.

Unfortunately, Bin Laden is still alive, still seen as the spiritual godfather of the jihad movement, still making videos, and still in the terror financing business. And, as Bush said (paraphrased): He doesn't think all that much of Bin Laden anymore. FWIW, that's where we are now.

I believe this horse can now be declared dead and has been beaten into unrecognizable pulp.

 

[LuvDuke]

Personal insults against me when I'm not even around. You go Soda!

Hey, buddy, you've made it !

Consider yourself "in the club".

 

[LuvDuke]

I just heard that a strike against Iran is no longer an option:
The oil price is so high now, that Bush can't afford to fill up the military vehicles anymore

No joke! Fuel problems is what did the German army (WWII) in at several key battles including the Battle of the Bulge.

 

[LuvDuke]

The question was whether Bush was going to rule out a nuclear option. I'd only be denouncing people's insistance on us ruling out any options, including nuclear ones because it's not our prognostications, but Iran's that brought us here. I'm not pro-war-with-Iran. Right now.

The regional nuclear monopoly thing sounds like the cover story they're using to pacify the arabs. I suspect Iran's plans have less to do with self-defense and more to do with righting a perceived past injustice and/or pan-Islamic goals. So that's one moral issue for me - for all intents and purposes this is a crusade, a religious-political movement, and it's not a given that our efforts would be on behalf of one country. That mistake has been made before.

Lest there by any misunderstanding, I do not favor negotiating with Iranian government. Whatever they say, and, as the old saying goes in NY, a quarter will get you a ride on the subway.

However, I don't believe it's good policy, simply on ideological grounds, to throw away an opportunity to size the other party up, face to face, and give them the opportunity to size you up. No negotiation, just simply sitting across the table and looking someone in the eye. I believe that is what Larry Wilkerson was talking about.

I also believe the rhetoric from this administration sounds suspiciously like what you would hear on a playground: "My momma can beat your momma".

I believe what should be done is the Teddy Roosevelt philosopy: "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

Instead, we have the Uniter/fighter/divider/leaker/decider-in-chief's policy: Wave that stick around and see how many times you can poke yourself in the eye and the American people up the gazoorch.

 

[LuvDuke]

The ideology "we don't talk to a country who has the potential to go nuclear even though it may avert a crises while we're holding the bargaining chips" looks sane to you?

Ahhhh, life on planet Bush.

The "few, the proud, the 36%", now "35%" according to that bastion of wildeyed liberalism The Wall Street Journal.

Correction: "The few, the proud, the 33%."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aXWdd8W4cU8I&refer=top_world_news

 

[wvrevy]

Would everyone that believed, back in late September of '01, that we'd still be stuck in a war with Iraq, botched the job in Afghanistan, and bin Ladin - who is still on the loose - would receive fewer mentions in the state of the union than "human animal hybrids"...please raise your hand?

It's pretty clear at this point that the lunatics are running the asylum. The scary part is that there are still people out here buying what they're selling. Really makes you wonder if there is anything this administration could do that these people would approve of. Run up billions in defecits? Check. Botch a war in the country harboring those that attacked us in a rush to attack a country that didn't? Check. Threaten nuclear strikes against another nation? Check.

Seriously...is there anything the Bushies could do to drive people like some of those on this thread to turn against them? I swear, I think they could actually nuke an American city and some people would just shrug and say "Oh, well...accidents happen".

 

[LuvDuke]

Would everyone that believed, back in late September of '01, that we'd still be stuck in a war with Iraq, botched the job in Afghanistan, and bin Ladin - who is still on the loose - would receive fewer mentions in the state of the union than "human animal hybrids"...please raise your hand?

It's pretty clear at this point that the lunatics are running the asylum.

Can I just raise one finger?

Having watched Bush in action in Texas, I knew he was going to be a crappy president, but he has succeeded beyond even my wildest expectations.

Even in the asylum known as the Texas state government, the inmate (Bush) was not running the asylum. The Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock was and he managed to maintain some semblance of good governance. There's no Bob Bullock around Bush now. Now, he's got Karl Rove who was fired by Daddy Bush for dirty politics even too dirty for Daddy, Dick Cheney who can't tell the difference between a lifelong friend and a quail, Donald Rumsfeld who couldn't find his rear end with both hands and a mirror, Condoleeza Rice who thought a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US" wasn't all that important because it didn't say how, what, when, or where, and the sorry list goes on and on.

The scary part is that there are still people out here buying what they're selling. Really makes you wonder if there is anything this administration could do that these people would approve of. Run up billions in defecits? Check. Botch a war in the country harboring those that attacked us in a rush to attack a country that didn't? Check. Threaten nuclear strikes against another nation? Check.

Seriously...is there anything the Bushies could do to drive people like some of those on this thread to turn against them? I swear, I think they could actually nuke an American city and some people would just shrug and say "Oh, well...accidents happen".

Well something's happening with Bush's core support.

"Bush's support among core supporters is eroding, with his approval rating among Republicans dropping to less than 70 percent for the first time since his election in 2000. Fox said 66 percent of Republicans approve the way he's handling the presidency, down almost 20 percentage points from a year ago."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aXWdd8W4cU8I&refer=top_world_news

However, for some people, Bush could assault a nun and they'd find a way to blame the good sister for showing too much leg.

Here's to the "33%" and whatever bad hootch that's still guiding them ................