almost funny

[Disagreeable]

When the UN refused to back Bush's invasion of Iraq, he said they were not needed. Since then he's been begging them to help in Iraq. Now he's asking the UN Security Council to do something about Iran. What will he do if the Security Council refuses? Link below; my emphasis.

"President Bush said Friday that the issue of Iran's nuclear program should go before the U.N. Security Council, challenging Iran just hours after it threatened to block inspections of its nuclear sites if confronted by the council.

It is "logical that a country which has rejected diplomatic entreaties be sent to the United Nations Security Council," the president said at a White House press conference with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10836280/

 

[BBJ]

Typical, When he said the UN was not needed in Iraq you libs cried and moaned that he wasn't using diplomacy, Now that he is doing what he thinks ya'll want, hear we go with the spin.

And by the way the UN didn't refuse, President Bush said something to the effect that the U.S. would not rely on something like the UN for its security.

Show me a quote of our President begging! this ought to be good.

 

[Steve]

Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.

"[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.

With the above comment in mind......Now that we have not Nuked the Iranians yet.....This is a great chance to see your solution.....

should we wait until they drop a nuke on Isreal? (then nuke Iran?)

or should we Pre-empt that, with military action,... saving possibly millions of lives?


or just ignore the threat with our heads in the sand?

 

[BBJ]

Good luck getting an answer on that one. The obvious seems to escape our little friend called disagreeable.


Speaking of that name, that's a pretty interresting name and it makes you wonder what the intentions were when signing up for this board?

 

[Disagreeable]

Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.

"[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.

With the above comment in mind......Now that we have not Nuked the Iranians yet.....This is a great chance to see your solution.....

should we wait until they drop a nuke on Isreal? (then nuke Iran?)

or should we Pre-empt that, with military action,... saving possibly millions of lives?


or just ignore the threat with our heads in the sand?

I'm not President of the US. I don't make those decisions. Our options on Iran are limited, in part, because Bush chose to invade Iraq for no reason. Our Army is struggling to maintain its viability, most of their nuclear research sites are underground so they're not subject to bombing, Iran can seriously claim to be threatened by our invasion of their neighbor, I don't believe the American people will support the invasion of another country, nor will Congress, the bombing and killing of civilians in Pakistan yesterday doesn't help our credibility in the region.... The truth is Bush has put us in a very bad situation here.

 

[Disagreeable]

Good luck getting an answer on that one. The obvious seems to escape our little friend called disagreeable.


Speaking of that name, that's a pretty interresting name and it makes you wonder what the intentions were when signing up for this board?

Since you're a latecomer, I'll take time to answer that. When I started posting here virtually every poster on the board (and there were many more than now) believed George W's poop didn't stink. I disagreed strongly and chose the name.

My intentions then were the same as now, bash Bush on the Iraqi war. It's the wrong war at the wrong time. It's costing us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our world wide reputation for decency.

 

[Anonymous]

Our options on Iran are limited, in part, because Bush chose to invade Iraq for no reason. Our Army is struggling to maintain its viability, most of their nuclear research sites are underground so they're not subject to bombing, Iran can seriously claim to be threatened by our invasion of their neighbor, I don't believe the American people will support the invasion of another country, nor will Congress.....

Guess your liberal heroes haven't consulted with you yet, dis. I think we're going in.

Schumer says we should play "hardball."

Even the prissy little Senator Bayh sounds somewhat hawkish:

"Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said President Bush should have dealt with threats from Iran years ago. He said Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world and a 'force for instability and death.'"

"The senators agreed that the United States should pursue penalties and diplomatic options before taking military action against Iran. They also agreed that Iran poses one of the most serious threats to the world since the Cold War."

Ooops, almost forgot.....link below; my emphasis above. LMAO

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/15/politics/main1209965.shtml

 

[Disagreeable]

Our options on Iran are limited, in part, because Bush chose to invade Iraq for no reason. Our Army is struggling to maintain its viability, most of their nuclear research sites are underground so they're not subject to bombing, Iran can seriously claim to be threatened by our invasion of their neighbor, I don't believe the American people will support the invasion of another country, nor will Congress.....

Guess your liberal heroes haven't consulted with you yet, dis. I think we're going in.

Schumer says we should play "hardball."

Even the prissy little Senator Bayh sounds somewhat hawkish:

"Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said President Bush should have dealt with threats from Iran years ago. He said Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world and a 'force for instability and death.'"

"The senators agreed that the United States should pursue penalties and diplomatic options before taking military action against Iran. They also agreed that Iran poses one of the most serious threats to the world since the Cold War."

Ooops, almost forgot.....link below; my emphasis above. LMAO

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/15/politics/main1209965.shtml

A link! See, I knew you were trainable. Why not highlight the entire comment: " United States should pursue penalties and diplomatic options before taking military action against Iran

Talk's cheap. There may be military action against Iran, but I think, unlike Iraq, it will be with UN sanction.

 

[Anonymous]

A link! See, I knew you were trainable.

Stop it, please. You're embarrassing me again.

Why not highlight the entire comment: " United States should pursue penalties and diplomatic options before taking military action against Iran

I only selectively highlight stuff. That's how I was trained to do it. :lol:

Talk's cheap. There may be military action against Iran, but I think, unlike Iraq, it will be with UN sanction.

You're correct that talk is cheap. We learn that lesson again every time that we try to deal with the UN.

Do I sense that you could find it in your pacifist, dovish heart to support action against Iran? After the guys get some rest, of course? If we stage out of Iraq, we'll probably need to keep a lot of troops there, huh? :lol:

 

[Disagreeable]

Do I sense that you could find it in your pacifist, dovish heart to support action against Iran? After the guys get some rest, of course? If we stage out of Iraq, we'll probably need to keep a lot of troops there, huh? :lol:

Don't know. Depends on what action we're talking about. What do you suggest? Their testing sites are underground, so bombing is out. The have a strong military, not weakend by 15 years of UN sanctions as Iraq's military was. If the UN puts sanctions on them and cuts off their oil shipments, the price of oil will skyrocket. If we nuke them, we've contaminated their oil. If we do go in and knock over their government (a democracy, by the way, with a freely elected President), then what? They'd for sure try to destroy all their oil production facilities before we got to them. So now what?

With apologies to Canadians and Chinese who might be reading this, let's say China invaded and occupied Canada. The first thing our government would probably do is start ramping up our weapons production and increasing research on any new weapons that might protect us against a Chinese attack. If the UN or Great Britain came along and said, hey, you can't do that, I'm sure we'd tell them to put it where the sun don't shine, that we have every right to protect our country. China (in my story) invaded a peaceful counry for no reason. We have a reasonable fear that they'll soon attack us.

And that's a problem with Iran. Bush has labeled them as a Axis of Evil, made threats against them, invaded their neighbor without cause. How can they be faulted for working on something that might save them from being invaded by the US? We did it to Iraq; why not Iran? Where are Iran's neighbors in this thing? How will they respond to UN sanctions on Iran or a military attack? Are they willing to pressure Iran to give up their research?

In the meantime, Bush has weakend our Army with a three year quagmire in Iraq, recruting is in trouble, put us billions in debt (much of it to China). Just how seriously do you think anyone is taking the hot air being spread about in DC about "everything being on the table?" Sure, we need to say it and maybe we'll be forced to try and back it up, but anyone who looks closely at our military right now knows we're in trouble.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't know. Depends on what action we're talking about. What do you suggest? Their testing sites are underground, so bombing is out. The have a strong military, not weakend by 15 years of UN sanctions as Iraq's military was. If the UN puts sanctions on them and cuts off their oil shipments, the price of oil will skyrocket. If we nuke them, we've contaminated their oil. If we do go in and knock over their government (a democracy, by the way, with a freely elected President), then what? They'd for sure try to destroy all their oil production facilities before we got to them. So now what?

What do I suggest? I honestly don't know the best approach. That's why we elect leaders, who hopefully choose the best available people to help with those decisions. I know we disagree on this, but I am completely confident in people like Secretary Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld helping make those decisions.

By the way, why all of your emphasis on their oil? Sounds almost hypocritical for you to emphasize that when you repeatedly denigrate the President and accuse him of taking military actions based on energy concerns. I won't provide a link to those accusations, because I know you won't deny doing that. Energy is a legitimate concern, by the way. I just didn't know that you shared that concern with the rest of us.

And that's a problem with Iran. Bush has labeled them as a Axis of Evil, made threats against them, invaded their neighbor without cause. How can they be faulted for working on something that might save them from being invaded by the US? We did it to Iraq; why not Iran? Where are Iran's neighbors in this thing? How will they respond to UN sanctions on Iran or a military attack? Are they willing to pressure Iran to give up their research?

Good questions, but I'm sure that our allies in the region could care less what Iran's neighbors think. Based upon the less-than-lucid comments made by Iran's less-than-lucid president, it seems to me that Israel is the one really 'under the gun' on this issue right away. If Iran is seriously interested in defense only, their president should quit talking about offense. Such as his desires to rid the world of Jews and Americans. Do you really think the Israelis should poll Iran's neighbors before deciding upon action?

In the meantime, Bush has weakend our Army with a three year quagmire in Iraq, recruting is in trouble, put us billions in debt (much of it to China). Just how seriously do you think anyone is taking the hot air being spread about in DC about "everything being on the table?" Sure, we need to say it and maybe we'll be forced to try and back it up, but anyone who looks closely at our military right now knows we're in trouble.

I don't know how seriously they take it, but you can bet that they take it a lot more seriously now than they would have if we were still talking big and making threats to back up the UN against Saddam. It's true that our enemies might question our capabilities. It's true that they might question the resolve of our wishy-washy media. It's true that they might question the resolve of an admittedly growing number of American citizens. But they damn sure can't question the resolve of this President to do what he says he'll do. Now, can they?

By the way, I'm sorry that you had to wait. Since this is a personal crusade (vendetta?) for you, I'm not sure you can understand this, but I simply can't make time for this discussion every day. I guess I must have a much more demanding employer than you. Lighten up on the number of questions you fire at me in one post, and I'll try to stay on top of it when I can. Thanks for your patience.