2
   

WRONG TIME, WRONG PLACE, WRONG WAR

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 05:02 pm
Don't know who to believe when so many policy issues are being at poles end betweem Bush and the others that speak with 'authority' on "when to pull out" and "option of force." Can anyone clarify who's right and who's wrong?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 05:17 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 05:20 pm
Informative link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm

(I found the info under "Air Strikes" particularly interesting).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 05:44 pm
JW, Looks like another potential screw up to me! Our intelligence on WMDs and nuke sites aren't all that reliable. Bush may make the case for it, and sell the idea, but it will probably end up biting us in the ass like Iraq. There isn't going to be any "coalition of the willing" on Iran. Tony Blair can't afford another Iraq, and the Brits will not allow it.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 05:45 pm
And, this little tidbit from the "Countdown Timeline" (same link):

Quote:
06 May 2004
The House passed H.CON.RES.398, which was introduced by HIRC Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) on March 25. It expresses "the concern of Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce nuclear weapons," and was passed under "suspension of the rules" on 06 May 2004. The final tally was 376 for the resolution, three against, 14 answering "present," and 40 not voting. Opponents of this concurrent resolution charged that it led the country down the road to war against Iran. This resolution demands that Iran immediately cease all efforts to acquire nuclear enrichment activities and calls for the country to honor its stated commitments to grant IAEA inspectors unrestricted access to nuclear sites. But the resolution also calls upon all state parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--including the United States--to use ``all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.'' It also "calls on the President to use all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons..." Even if this bill doesn't authorize the use of force against Iran, it creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing ``regime change'' in Iraq back in 1998. This legislation called for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran , including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. Critics charged that sanctions were unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country.


So, it seems the president has the warrant signed and sealed in his back pocket. Lucky me. I happen to trust Bush to do the right thing and I also have 100% confidence that he knows a lot more than anyone posting on a public message board, including me. He'll do what's right for this country and he'll do it when the time is right.

Speculation can be interesting, but we'll just have to wait and see.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 05:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
JW, Looks like another potential screw up to me!


c.i. - please be so kind as to point out to me when you've ever seen anything done by this administration as anything other than a "screw up".

Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 06:21 pm
Isn't that what I said? "Looks like another potential screw ujp to me!"
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 06:26 pm
JustWonders wrote:


So, it seems the president has the warrant signed and sealed in his back pocket.


Big fan of the whole Cowboy persona huh?

JustWonders wrote:

I happen to trust Bush to do the right thing and I also have 100% confidence that he knows a lot more than anyone posting on a public message board, including me. He'll do what's right for this country and he'll do it when the time is right.


So, you're one of the 42%.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 06:46 pm
A resolution of either, or both Houses of Congress is worth generally as much as the paper its printed on. It does not give the Shrub any authority to make war--he certainly has no "warrant." Politicians just love to see the likes of you coming, it confirms their faith in the gullibility of the electorate.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 07:18 pm
I was a bit surprised at how quickly Mr Bush's comments about Iran kind of disappeared. I reckon his handlers realized that his tough talk may have sounded good to folks in Isreal but it didn't come across well elsewhere.
The Germans were fast out of the blocks. Iran is (I believe) the world's third largest oil producer and the Europeans are heavily involved there.
Blair the Poodle couldn't say anything about Bush's saber-rattling. Nor could Chirac in France who has a bunch of problems. And so it fell to Germany to gently chastise Mr Bush for his bellicose rhetoric.
The solution? I think that the US should back off and let the Europeans and the Iranians talk this through (rjb resists the temptation to add that Cheney and Haliburton will be pissed at this notion)
Setenta: I for one enjoy your long posts full of history, geography etc. Keep them coming.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 07:30 pm
i keep wondering, since israel is in violation of u.n. resolutions regarding their posession of nuclear weapons, when we will be invading tel aviv.


"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." - president george w. bush

i've always been pro-israel, but hey, fair is fair.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 08:31 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
i keep wondering, since israel is in violation of u.n. resolutions regarding their posession of nuclear weapons, when we will be invading tel aviv.


"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." - president george w. bush

i've always been pro-israel, but hey, fair is fair.


Replace the word "free" with "responsible" and you'll just about have it Smile
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:03 pm
I see this as impetus for them to do defensive nukes.
Good grief.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:33 pm
Seeing how irresponsibly Bush acted in the last resolution to "Grant him the power to use force " (supposedly in our names), I will bet a major sum that even his own Congressional lackies wont vote for a similar resolution with Iran.

1 many of them wish to preserve careers in Congress

2 His own constituency is rapidly turning on him (finally wising up)

3 His apparent aphasia attacks are becoming more frequent and pronounced. I listened to his last speech in "Buttfloss" Texas and was amazed at how he sounded a bit more addled than usual.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:34 pm
Quote:
I see this as impetus for them to do defensive nukes.

I honestly think Bush would get some serious wood by pushing that button. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:35 pm
You are very kind, John Boy, and i thank you for your remarks.

Good night John Boy.

Good night Grandma.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:35 pm
ossobuco wrote:
I see this as impetus for them to do defensive nukes.
Good grief.


Won't happen osso, even Dick isn't that stupid.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:47 pm
farmerman wrote:
1 many of them wish to preserve careers in Congress


The Ginril has hit the nail on the head with this one. Mid-terms are coming up, just a little more than a year away. Members of the House barely wind down from one election before they start planning for the next one. There's no way in hell those boys and girls are gonna stick their necks out for the Shrub on this one. By the time the mid-term elections are over, if things continue as they have been, the Shrub's approval ratings on Iraq are gonna be lower than bees knees, and nobody is gonna give him war powers for Iran.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:56 pm
can Bush say "quack quack"?

PA is a measuring stick. With Ricky Santorum's political life on the line, I think that the Gettysburg of the "wingnut coalition" may be seen in the mid terms.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 10:27 pm
No, I meant for Iran to do defensive nukes. I see it to start with. Good gravy, can no one in the US even picture being anyone other than us?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 11:28:57