but smallfil, President bush said he would take whatever steps necessry to stop any threats to america. And stop rogue nations from nukes whatever the cost to america. So I just dont understand. Smallfil you have to admit Iran is way ahead of Iraq in terms of nuclear development. In fact they already enrich unranium. Iraq was in the prepare enrichment phase. So why doesnt president bush enact some kind of draft and start preparing for an invasion. And ask for congressional authorization for war. I just find it completely hypocritical. What was the entire war in iraq for and thousands of iraqi and us deaths if it wasnt to stop wmd's?
Mahram, What do you want the answer you want to hear? You might aswell be talking to yourself. You can read my reply and it clearly states the United States dependence on oil. I couldn't really care less if Iran gets bombed----I am long oil and will benefit from any oil spike as I am sure most smart investors will. From an investing point of view----it makes sense to discuss this things. From a practical stand point, you and I are not making the decisions so, it is beating a dead horse!!! Or perhaps you take pleasure in straining your mind over matters you cannot control!!! I choose not to do so.
I just find it hypocritical. Smallfil, doesnt it make you sad that president bush has brainwashed another generation of young kids into fighting a pointless war in iraq. If it was really about stopping countries from getting wmd's then bush would be pushing for war with iran, and preparing drafts of american citizens into the military.
Bush's Thousand Days By Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Monday, April 24, 2006; A17 The Hundred Days is indelibly associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Thousand Days with John F. Kennedy. But as of this week, a thousand days remain of President Bush's last term -- days filled with ominous preparations for and dark rumors of a preventive war against Iran. The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.' " This is precisely how George W. Bush sees his presidential prerogative: Be silent; I see it, if you don't . However, both Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, veterans of the First World War, explicitly ruled out preventive war against Joseph Stalin's attempt to dominate Europe. And in the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, President Kennedy, himself a hero of the Second World War, rejected the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a preventive strike against the Soviet Union in Cuba. It was lucky that JFK was determined to get the missiles out peacefully, because only decades later did we discover that the Soviet forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons and orders to use them to repel a U.S. invasion. This would have meant a nuclear exchange. Instead, JFK used his own thousand days to give the American University speech, a powerful plea to Americans as well as to Russians to reexamine "our own attitude -- as individuals and as a nation -- for our attitude is as essential as theirs." This was followed by the limited test ban treaty. It was compatible with the George Kennan formula -- containment plus deterrence -- that worked effectively to avoid a nuclear clash. The Cuban missile crisis was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in all human history. Never before had two contending powers possessed between them the technical capacity to destroy the planet. Had there been exponents of preventive war in the White House, there probably would have been nuclear war. It is certain that nuclear weapons will be used again. Henry Adams, the most brilliant of American historians, wrote during our Civil War, "Some day science shall have the existence of mankind in its power, and the human race shall commit suicide by blowing up the world." But our Cold War presidents kept to the Kennan formula of containment plus deterrence, and we won the Cold War without escalating it into a nuclear war. Enter George W. Bush as the great exponent of preventive war. In 2003, owing to the collapse of the Democratic opposition, Bush shifted the base of American foreign policy from containment-deterrence to presidential preventive war: Be silent; I see it, if you don't. Observers describe Bush as "messianic" in his conviction that he is fulfilling the divine purpose. But, as Lincoln observed in his second inaugural address, "The Almighty has His own purposes." There stretch ahead for Bush a thousand days of his own. He might use them to start the third Bush war: the Afghan war (justified), the Iraq war (based on fantasy, deception and self-deception), the Iran war (also fantasy, deception and self-deception). There is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war. Maybe President Bush, who seems a humane man, might be moved by daily sorrows of death and destruction to forgo solo preventive war and return to cooperation with other countries in the interest of collective security. Abraham Lincoln would rejoice.
I heard several Democrats on the Sunday morning shows repeating the talking point that we shouldn't use force with iran, etc. The liberals running the shows never asked the obvious follow-up questions, namely, are you therefore comfortable with iran acquiring nukes? Is there any circumstance that would justify use of force? Why should we expect diplomacy to work after the Iranians have clearly used it to buy time? The take away from the Cuban missile crisis, it seems to me, is not that we should avoid use of of force but that we should avoid getting in situations where our enemies can threaten us with nukes. It seems bizarre to say those in the US who wanted to use force to remove the missiles were the ones posing a danger. The danger was posed by the Soviets and Cubans when they put the missiles there in the first place. We still don't know what we gave up in secret negotiations to get them removed. Trust me, it was a lot. You don't buy off bullies cheaply. The iranian situation is not going to improve with age, not unless their current government is overthrown. That seems a remote possibility, since we are propping up their alies in Iraq rather than trying to undermine them.
Typical Democrat response, point out everything wrong but offer no constructive suggestions. That is, except for "surrender." So I ask you, do you think a nuclear-armed Iran is a good thing? Would you use force to stop it? Do you think negotiations are likely to be fruitful?
Let me respond for zzz LOL typical Neocon questions. You are a Bush apologist. The Neocons would rather kill than keep children alive. If it were not for GWBushes illegal regime Al Gore would still be President because he won. Iraq and afghanistan, Cheny would push the button................ New topic please.
This is where zzz posts stalker insults. (zzz you need a new play book - we own you) send up the entertrollment now please. I have 10 minutes before I have to leave the office.