So Iran doesn't have a nuclear program either...

[LuvDuke]

so YOU say...reasonable people can make a very logical argument thats not the case....

No, they really couldn't. George Bush removed Saddam Hussein who was the greatest threat to Iran and Al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was no threat to the US. Al-Qaeda did NOT have a presence in Iraq before Bush's invasion. The only place they had a presence was in Northern Kurdistan.

George Bush's actions led to the creation of a pro-Iranian Shiite government which is in no hurry to make the political deals with the Kurds and Sunnis. And they're not going to regardless of how many soldiers die in Bush's surge. The point of the surge was to create a safer climate in which political change can take place. It hasn't. The surge has been a failure.

how does Israel fit into that equation?

Isreal doesn't fit into it. Israel is a separate issue and the "road to peace" doesn't go through Baghdad or Tehran. It goes through Jerusalem.

This country's security doesn't depend on Israel.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

You type a paragraph of insults, then you ask for my opinion.

Unfortunately Joe, as insulting as you may think it is (and FTR, I didn't intend to insult) it's the simple truth.

And I guess you're not interested in posting an actual postition either. Oh well...I certainly won't hold my breath.

 

[LuvDuke]

I really don't see this as being insulting, and I do send my best regards.

The Democrats are invested in defeat. How many times have they said "we lost". Rep. Murtha, Sen Reid etc etc. This is backed up by word and deed.

Regards,

And you people are invested in delusion masquarading as policy, rhetoric masquarading as analysis, and goals masquarading as strategy.

 

[salmoneous]

I mean can you honestly say that Ahmawhatever is a stable fella??

It's Ahmadinejad. I'm going to take a guess that if you don't know his name, you don't know a lot about the guy.

While we don't know enough about the guy to say for 100% sure how stable his is, there isn't any evidence he isn't stable, is there? He may be a bad guy, he may be a hate spewer - but that's the same thing as unstable.

Given the seriousness of the issue, we should act on who his is and what he does say...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

And you people are invested in delusion masquarading as policy, rhetoric masquarading as analysis, and goals masquarading as strategy.

Good lord!! Sometimes you're so good, it's scary!

 

[LuvDuke]

It's Ahmadinejad. I'm going to take a guess that if you don't know his name, you don't know a lot about the guy.

While we don't know enough about the guy to say for 100% sure how stable his is, there isn't any evidence he isn't stable, is there? He may be a bad guy, he may be a hate spewer - but that's the same thing as unstable.

Given the seriousness of the issue, we should act on who his is and what he does say...

The biggest mistake Planet Bush makes is to find one person they can demonize to push their failed policies. And then that person becomes the focus of the rhetoric, the talking points, the rightie radio-gasbags, etc. Ahmadinejad is irrelevant and what he says is what is allowed by the mullahs. He is not a dictator, but a convenient mouthpiece and useful idiot for the real power.

Ahmadinejad does not make policy, nor does he run Iran. He's a buffoon the real powers hide behind. The real power in Iran are the mullahs.

 

[salmoneous]

The Democrats are invested in defeat. How many times have they said "we lost". Rep. Murtha, Sen Reid etc etc. This is backed up by word and deed.

Horsehockey. Of the millions of Democrats, how many have said "we lost". How many want us to lose. What "deeds" are you talking about? And, more to the point, how can you tell Americans they are invested in the defeat of American and not understand that is an insult?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Good lord!! Sometimes you're so good, it's scary!

Look who's cheerleading now.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I just received this from Jewishvoicesforpeace.org:

Interesting Read...

Very interesting indeed!! Thanks for the link!

 

[Mr Man]

And you people are invested in delusion masquarading as policy, rhetoric masquarading as analysis, and goals masquarading as strategy.

The policy, goals and broad strategy have not changed in Iraq..

Tactics & analysis have changed, as they should.

Rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric. Nobody is excluded from it. You will note that my rhetoric shies away from words like "Moron" etc.....

Delusion is 40+ tries in Congress to pull the US out of Iraq.

Regards,

 

[Fitswimmer]

the will of the people? like the same people who re-elected GWB in 04?

Even your own leading contender for president isn't really talking all that much about changing the current Iraq strategy...

The Democrats are none too thrilled with the Democarts in congress right now either...

As one of those people from 2004, I've confessed my sin, done my penance and repented.

"my" candidate?? How do you know who "my" candidate is when I haven't even picked one yet? I'm still dancing back and forth between a couple of them. I'm donating to two right now. Since I'm registered as Independent, I can't vote in the NJ Primary-so I don't know what I'm going to do.

As for Congress, you're right, I'm not thrilled. I had hoped for a stronger showing, but I had also hoped that some Republicans would stop backing GW 100% and see that their constituants were unhappy with the course the nation is taking. Virtually EVERY poll has more than half the country upset with the war, with the economy and believing that things are getting worse, not better. I don't care what party you're from, you should be looking at that and acting accordingly and instead the Republicans continue to "stay the course".

 

[disneyfan67]

First off I deleted my previous post because after seeing the seriousness of this discussion, my juvenile humor, just wasn't warranted. My appoligies to all.

Doesn't sound very "shades of gray" does it?

But Bush and Cheney are the bad guys to many here.

And we hear, oh, the millions of shades of gray to "the realities of life," -- it's not "good and evil" nor "Black and White". The (dumb) "neocons" have not learned their lesson.

Some should ask Israel re the realities of life. Give the terrorists a break, and they kill your children on a bus or in the marketplace.

Remember when European appeasers gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt -- until it was too late. "Peace in our time."

Joe, I understand some of where you're trying to go with your post, but the reality of the situation is a little different than your WW2 analogy. I think most everyone here realises Iran isn't our friend and they pose a threat to America's best interests. What can we do about the situation at hand?

Let's be honest here, our hands are tied and the previous "going it alone" foreign policy may sound good in a Gary Cooper film, but not IRL. I think the Iraq debacle has taught a lot of Americans that we can't make things go the way we want them to, because of our military might. A lot of Americans, especially the POTUS and his staff, didn't anticipate us still being in Iraq almost 5 years later, redefining our goals and still hoping and praying that democracy takes root. Regardless of recent achievements, Iraq still has a long way to go and can take a U turn for the worse at any moment.

We can't be sure that Iran is being truthful about their nuclear program and the only way to be 100% sure is to have Intel on the ground and/ or inspectors combing that country. Neither one is going to happen and there's no way America can sub stain a war with Iran while still dealing with Iraq and the "Pandora's box" our POTUS and his staff decided to open. We don't have the manpower, the equipment, the money, nor the will of the American people, behind taking action action against Iran. The credibility of our Intelligence services and of the POTUS, were one of the many casualties of invading Iraq. Americans are tired and divided over the issue of Iraq. It just isn't Democrats or liberals, Joe, it's mainstream America that's fatigued. War or carpet bombing Iran just isn't an option at this time and we're going to have to deal with them in other manners besides using force.

As for Israel Joe, America has to start worrying about our security more and less about Israel. I don't think Americans are going to be worried about Israel when they're paying $ 8 to $10 dollar a gallon gas and our economy has hit the skids because we took military action against Iran. I support Israel and it's right to exist, but not at the complete expense of America. We have to put away the rhetoric and try to deal with the situation at hand like reasonable adults, IMO. I really don't think there's anything we can do to stop Iran from making the bomb. Look how many other unstable countries have it. Pakistan comes to mind and they're about as stable and steady as a table bought from Walmart. My two cents on the matter.

 

[Charade]

Perhaps the reason Iran doesn't have a nuclear bomb program is because Israel bombed the crap out of it 3 months ago in the bombing mission that no is talking about.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Perhaps the reason Iran doesn't have a nuclear bomb program is because Israel bombed the crap out of it 3 months ago in the bombing mission that no is talking about.

Perhaps, but not likely.

The real question is, is America in danger of giving up the moral high ground to a backwards nation like Iran by continuing to antagonize a country that appears to be complying with UN sanctions? I mean, before this report came out, we almost had China on board. Why not continue to build on that with smart diplomatic talk instead of empty hawkish threats? The drum beat of war that continues to come fro this Administration, while they knew full well what the CIA was going to print in their report, sound all too familiar. That's something that should concern every American, not just the middle and the left.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

First off I deleted my previous post because after seeing the seriousness of this discussion, my juvenile humor, just wasn't warranted. My appoligies to all.








Joe, I understand some of where you're trying to go with your post, but the reality of the situation is a little different than your WW2 analogy. I think most everyone here realises Iran isn't our friend and they pose a threat to America's best interests. What can we do about the situation at hand?

Let's be honest here, our hands are tied and the previous "going it alone" foreign policy may sound good in a Gary Cooper film, but not IRL. I think the Iraq debacle has taught a lot of Americans that we can't make things go the way we want them to, because of our military might. A lot of Americans, especially the POTUS and his staff, didn't anticipate us still being in Iraq almost 5 years later, redefining our goals and still hoping and praying that democracy takes root. Regardless of recent achievements, Iraq still has a long way to go and can take a U turn for the worse at any moment.

We can't be sure that Iran is being truthful about their nuclear program and the only way to be 100% sure is to have Intel on the ground and/ or inspectors combing that country. Neither one is going to happen and there's no way America can sub stain a war with Iran while still dealing with Iraq and the "Pandora's box" our POTUS and his staff decided to open. We don't have the manpower, the equipment, the money, nor the will of the American people, behind taking action action against Iran. The credibility of our Intelligence services and of the POTUS, were one of the many casualties of invading Iraq. Americans are tired and divided over the issue of Iraq. It just isn't Democrats or liberals, Joe, it's mainstream America that's fatigued. War or carpet bombing Iran just isn't an option at this time and we're going to have to deal with them in other manners besides using force.

As for Israel Joe, America has to start worrying about our security more and less about Israel. I don't think Americans are going to be worried about Israel when they're paying $ 8 to $10 dollar a gallon gas and our economy has hit the skids because we took military action against Iran. I support Israel and it's right to exist, but not at the complete expense of America. We have to put away the rhetoric and try to deal with the situation at hand like reasonable adults, IMO. I really don't think there's anything we can do to stop Iran from making the bomb. Look how many other unstable countries have it. Pakistan comes to mind and they're about as stable and steady as a table bought from Walmart. My two cents on the matter.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I believe we need to keep all our options open as best we can..

I don't see us invading in the near future. IMO our military options are limited to a precision strike on nuclear targets (if we can get that kind of intel).

I was using Israel's own experience with terrorism as an example. Not saying we should counter invade Iran if Israel is attacked. We may help with intel and military equipment.

I think the WWII analogy (re appeasement) still applies. More complicated an issue due to nukes, but still applies. If Iran sees a united (world) front against them instead of waffling and/or appeasement, they are less likely to follow thru on any of their threats.

 

[LakeAriel]

Very interesting indeed!! Thanks for the link!

You're very welcome..

correction: It is jewishvoiceforpeace.org not voices...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I believe we need to keep all our options open as best we can..

I don't see us invading in the near future. IMO our military options are limited to a precision strike on nuclear targets (if we can get that kind of intel).

I was using Israel's own experience with terrorism as an example. Not saying we should counter invade Iran if Israel is attacked. We may help with intel and military equipment.

I think the WWII analogy (re appeasement) still applies. More complicated an issue due to nukes, but still applies. If Iran sees a united (world) front against them instead of waffling and/or appeasement, they are less likely to follow thru on any of their threats.

Well knock me down with a feather...we're pretty much in agreement! Now the question is, how best do we keep a united world front?

 

[LuvDuke]

The policy, goals and broad strategy have not changed in Iraq..

You're right: It was BS then and it's BS now.

Tactics & analysis have changed, as they should.

They sure have. Anytime one piece of analysis is exposed as BS, this administration and their water carriers come up with another.

Rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric. Nobody is excluded from it. You will note that my rhetoric shies away from words like "Moron" etc.....

If Planet Bush objects to Bush being called a moron, they ought to drop him a note and tell him to stop acting like one.

Delusion is 40+ tries in Congress to pull the US out of Iraq.

Delusion is Congress believing they can work with Bush. It's his way or the highway. He should've been show the highway last January.

Regards,

Ta ta.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I believe we need to keep all our options open as best we can..

I don't see us invading in the near future. IMO our military options are limited to a precision strike on nuclear targets (if we can get that kind of intel).

I was using Israel's own experience with terrorism as an example. Not saying we should counter invade Iran if Israel is attacked. We may help with intel and military equipment.

I think the WWII analogy (re appeasement) still applies. More complicated an issue due to nukes, but still applies. If Iran sees a united (world) front against them instead of waffling and/or appeasement, they are less likely to follow thru on any of their threats.

I agree that invading is a something that we just can't do with our limited military options, and that's why I'm so concerned. Because I don't feel that adequate preparation was made prior to Iraq, I'm concerned that the administration hasn't learned it's lesson and will go ahead and attack without thinking through all the possible problems that could result.

The appeasement argument doesn't work with the idea that the Iranian president is some kind of madman. If he's as crazy as everyone says he is, then why would he care if everyone was against him? To me, the hardest part of fighting a war on terrorists is that you can't apply the usual rules. They don't care if they die, they don't care if innocent people die, they don't care what anyone else thinks of them. In the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction kept us all alive. We didn't want Russia to push their button, so we didn't push ours. Essentially we had the same values, Russians didn't want their kids killed anymore than we wanted ours killed.
Terrorists don't care about that, my friend's daughter said that when she was on patrol in Baghdad last year they were warned about terrorists putting kids and pregnant women in car bombs so they could get through the checkpoints! A united front won't stop that mentality from doing anything.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I agree that invading is a something that we just can't do with our limited military options, and that's why I'm so concerned. Because I don't feel that adequate preparation was made prior to Iraq, I'm concerned that the administration hasn't learned it's lesson and will go ahead and attack without thinking through all the possible problems that could result.

The appeasement argument doesn't work with the idea that the Iranian president is some kind of madman. If he's as crazy as everyone says he is, then why would he care if everyone was against him? To me, the hardest part of fighting a war on terrorists is that you can't apply the usual rules. They don't care if they die, they don't care if innocent people die, they don't care what anyone else thinks of them. In the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction kept us all alive. We didn't want Russia to push their button, so we didn't push ours. Essentially we had the same values, Russians didn't want their kids killed anymore than we wanted ours killed.
Terrorists don't care about that, my friend's daughter said that when she was on patrol in Baghdad last year they were warned about terrorists putting kids and pregnant women in car bombs so they could get through the checkpoints! A united front won't stop that mentality from doing anything.

A united front with true economic sanctions may convince the Iranian people and the Mullahs that this madman should not be in power.