I am not sure what you even just said. We hung and raped people because they are black. It was not just a few bad apples. It was virtually all Americans. If blacks believe all white Americans were evil - and refused to reason with us - and fought and killed at every opportunity .. we'd still be at war with them and they would still be slaves. We were wrong and negotiation between black and while yielded a great reduction in "evil".
People do bad things.. we have to learn. You are choosing the hate and fight option against Iraneans because they are doing exactly the same thing we did. You can call them dumb because its religion - but we are driven by religion too.
Iraneans can be dealt with - even those that have done evil things. Slaves did not only work with the good whites - they'd have been at a loss to find any. They knew we were people - we were not evil. but we are capable of straying to evil ways. Your prison example is perfect - when people find them selves in these situations - they do bad things - all people - white people, Iraneans, religious nuts, and athiests.
finding a perceived higher ground then hating those different and correcting with weapons - is evil my friend. you are pushing an evil soluting because you have found a way to make it look righeous in your eyes. Your actions are not so richeous when viewed from the other side.
We can never hope to kill or render impotent all the evil people to bring peace - because during a hateful war - everyone will behave as though they are evil.
You're missing the point. It's not about fighting people. Hell, I don't want a war, and I hope to god we don't fight Iran. It's about the "THREAT" of force. Like it or not, consequences make people behave. This is why we have laws that govern our society. Many of them are designed to DETUR bad behavior and crime. What would happen if suddenly there were no laws anymore in the US? All hell would break loose. Our society would crumble.
Well this is the exact same thing going on with Iran. They can do whatever they want to do, including obtaining nuclear weapons becuase THEY KNOW WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING! They know they will face no serious repurcussions. There is no deturent. Do you get it now???
We have police in our cities. For the most part, they won't fuck with you if you obey the law. But if you break it, you know damn well they are gonna come after you.
Well, there is nobody gonna come after Iran okay? They know this, and they realize they have a free pass to do what they wish.
You're missing the point. It's not about fighting people. Hell, I don't want a war, and I hope to god we don't fight Iran. It's about the "THREAT" of force. Like it or not, consequences make people behave. This is why we have laws that govern our society. Many of them are designed to DETUR bad behavior and crime. What would happen if suddenly there were no laws anymore in the US? All hell would break loose. Our society would crumble.
Well this is the exact same thing going on with Iran. They can do whatever they want to do, including obtaining nuclear weapons becuase THEY KNOW WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING! They know they will face no serious repurcussions. There is no deturent. Do you get it now???
We have police in our cities. For the most part, they won't fuck with you if you obey the law. But if you break it, you know damn well they are gonna come after you.
Well, there is nobody gonna come after Iran okay? They know this, and they realize they have a free pass to do what they wish.
This is a serious problem.
I don't say we should "let Iran do what they want". I said we should continue to dilligently work with them. Thats how our laws evolved - through comprimise, trial and error. There is never a good reason to not consider all points of view. There is never a good reason to consider anyone to be less than yourself.
If we are truly concerned with Iran and its nuclear or other military intensions - then we should have many high ranking US diplomats living in Iran - learning and teaching.
If teh US believes the current Iranean leadership is evil to the core and can not be talked to or trusted .. then the US is by far the greatest reason for the tension.
I don't need to hear about any atrocities committed by Iran.. We know we have committed our own. We need to work hard to move ahead - to make improvements.
If teh US believes the current Iranean leadership is evil to the core and can not be talked to or trusted .. then the US is by far the greatest reason for the tension.
If that's your logic, then the opposite holds true also.
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
It is precisely becuase of our anti-war, no blood for oil bravado that we will have to fight a much, much costlier battle in the future - rather than let our reputation (that we are willing to use force) be our deterance in the current situation. If Iran thought there was a serious posibility we may go to war over the nuclear issue, the situation would look MUCH different.
This is complete bullshit. We have no military options against Iran because our militray is completely overextended tied up in a war we had no business getting into. Blaming those oppossed to the war is a nice cop-out for those that are to foolish and proud to admit that our involvment in Iraq is a huge mistake and is leaving us vulnerable.
This administration has shown no regrad to public or world opinion. If the president had the resources he would attack Iran regardless of what the people say, he showed that with attacking Iraq. So keep fooling yourself thinking that Iraq was a noble venture and blaming the anti-war crowd for our failure to reign in Iran. The blame for both lies squarely on the shoulders of the people who led us into Iraq and got us stuck there, unable to use our military if any other situation where to arise.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I don't say we should "let Iran do what they want". I said we should continue to dilligently work with them. Thats how our laws evolved - through comprimise, trial and error. There is never a good reason to not consider all points of view. There is never a good reason to consider anyone to be less than yourself.
If we are truly concerned with Iran and its nuclear or other military intensions - then we should have many high ranking US diplomats living in Iran - learning and teaching.
If teh US believes the current Iranean leadership is evil to the core and can not be talked to or trusted .. then the US is by far the greatest reason for the tension.
I don't need to hear about any atrocities committed by Iran.. We know we have committed our own. We need to work hard to move ahead - to make improvements.
That is the only hope we have.
You say we should not just "let Iran do what they want." But again, without the OPTION of force, that is exactly the message you are sending them. This is what people in a weakened position do to contend with stronger adversaries - they say let's talk. Wheather it's a kid and a bully on a playground or a robber with a gun to a victims head... The stronger adversary laughs, and says why? I have everything I need. I don't want your influence on me becuase clearly you are going to try and negotiate my strength away from me. Most people don't like giving up their power, and neither will the Iranians.
The problem with "learning and teaching" is that there is nothing to "learn" or "teach". If there is, please let me know what it might be. You act as if there is some sort of "missunderstanding". What is it that we don't understand about Iran's leadership? They have plainly and repeatedly layed out their positions. We have plainly and repeatedly layed out ours. I don't think anybody is confused or doesn't understand.
We're not going to go over there, start teaching and all of a sudden "voila" they will have an epiphaney and say, "ya know what? Subjigating a people to a religion is pretty messed up and I think we should quit doing that now."
This is as engrained in them as our belief in democracy is engrained in us. We have and will continue to defend these beliefs and sacrifice our lives if the circumstanes call for it to preserve the democratic model. maybe you won't, but there are over a million people in our military that will. Likewise, they will do the same.
I mean, you're basically trying to tell them not to believe in their religion anymore. That has got to be one of the hardest things imaginable to convince somebody who has faith. And not only are you trying to convince their president, you are trying to convince his entire regime. This is simply immpossible. It is no strategy for success. Sure, many people would see the light over time. But these guys aren't going to give up their beliefs now. that would be like telling a US president to dissafilliate with their party or something while their in office - it's just not going to happen.
I agree with you in theory. But your view is based on what you wish the world to be, not what it is; what you wish humans were like, not our true nature.
We have been fighting and killing each other for 3 million years. Just becuase we have all of our great technology, and Americans live the easy life - doesn't mean the rest of the world has decided life is too good and short to go fight somebody for our beliefs.
But again, without the OPTION of force, that is exactly the message you are sending them. This is what people in a weakened position do to contend with stronger adversaries - they say let's talk. Wheather it's a kid and a bully on a playground or a robber with a gun to a victims head... The stronger adversary laughs, and says why? I have everything I need. I don't want your influence on me becuase clearly you are going to try and negotiate my strength away from me. Most people don't like giving up their power, and neither will the Iranians.
So if the US should start an illegal war, if the government of the US should start an illegal war, you'd want other countries like China or Russia and the European countries combined to threat or act with force? Bombs Washington?
So if the US should start an illegal war, if the government of the US should start an illegal war, you'd want other countries like China or Russia and the European countries combined to threat or act with force? Bombs Washington?
Of course not. That line of logic only applies to us. It's the do as we say and not as we do philosophy.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
This is complete bullshit. We have no military options against Iran because our militray is completely overextended tied up in a war we had no business getting into. Blaming those oppossed to the war is a nice cop-out for those that are to foolish and proud to admit that our involvment in Iraq is a huge mistake and is leaving us vulnerable.
This administration has shown no regrad to public or world opinion. If the president had the resources he would attack Iran regardless of what the people say, he showed that with attacking Iraq. So keep fooling yourself thinking that Iraq was a noble venture and blaming the anti-war crowd for our failure to reign in Iran. The blame for both lies squarely on the shoulders of the people who led us into Iraq and got us stuck there, unable to use our military if any other situation where to arise.
You are being narrow-minded. The might of any army is only as strong as the people who fill it's ranks. If Americans truly wanted to stand up for our beliefs, we could admit our mistakes in Iraq yet still hold firm in the face of the Iranian threat. But, Amedenijad knows that it is the American people who do not want to fight. And he knows, by extension that we are the ones who are limiting our military options - not the conflict in Iraq.
During WWII in a MUCH smaller and economically weaker time, we fielded over 4 million solidiers in the field and sacrificed what was needed to defeat our enemies. My point in bringing this up is that if there is a will, there is a way - and everybody knows we have no will...
I don't blame those opposed to the war in Iraq. I blame those who use the botched mission in Iraq as a referendum to declare the use of any force as being an unsound method to make the world safer. If you look at the polls or listen to most media outlets, you get the overwhelming feeling that fighting is not the way the West wants to deal with threats.
Amedinijad would disagree with you. He is getting his hands on a bomb to ensure the survival of his political/religious beliefs. Americans and Europeans are now claiming that we want to rely on moral posturing to detur threats to our beliefs.
Which one do you think is more powerful? Can you not see in the behavior of North Korea, that anybody with a bomb can do whatever they please? They can jerk us around and blackmail us all day long. I respect the hell out of Bill Clinton's initiative to get Kim Jong Il to scrap his nuke program. But it is just a part of history now that the North Koreans pissed in his face and did it anyways. Now they have a bomb, and they don't have to sit down at any negotiating table if they do not want to.
You say we should not just "let Iran do what they want." But again, without the OPTION of force, that is exactly the message you are sending them. This is what people in a weakened position do to contend with stronger adversaries - they say let's talk. Wheather it's a kid and a bully on a playground or a robber with a gun to a victims head... The stronger adversary laughs, and says why? I have everything I need. I don't want your influence on me becuase clearly you are going to try and negotiate my strength away from me. Most people don't like giving up their power, and neither will the Iranians.
The problem with "learning and teaching" is that there is nothing to "learn" or "teach". If there is, please let me know what it might be. You act as if there is some sort of "missunderstanding". What is it that we don't understand about Iran's leadership? They have plainly and repeatedly layed out their positions. We have plainly and repeatedly layed out ours. I don't think anybody is confused or doesn't understand.
We're not going to go over there, start teaching and all of a sudden "voila" they will have an epiphaney and say, "ya know what? Subjigating a people to a religion is pretty messed up and I think we should quit doing that now."
This is as engrained in them as our belief in democracy is engrained in us. We have and will continue to defend these beliefs and sacrifice our lives if the circumstanes call for it to preserve the democratic model. maybe you won't, but there are over a million people in our military that will. Likewise, they will do the same.
I mean, you're basically trying to tell them not to believe in their religion anymore. That has got to be one of the hardest things imaginable to convince somebody who has faith. And not only are you trying to convince their president, you are trying to convince his entire regime. This is simply immpossible. It is no strategy for success. Sure, many people would see the light over time. But these guys aren't going to give up their beliefs now. that would be like telling a US president to dissafilliate with their party or something while their in office - it's just not going to happen.
I agree with you in theory. But your view is based on what you wish the world to be, not what it is; what you wish humans were like, not our true nature.
We have been fighting and killing each other for 3 million years. Just becuase we have all of our great technology, and Americans live the easy life - doesn't mean the rest of the world has decided life is too good and short to go fight somebody for our beliefs.
You started this whole response with an error. I never suggested we remove the option of force. That is always an option. The consequences of force are devistating... there is the direct loss of life and the destruction of relationships.. Unless we can defeat them and make them a state.. we have to have a relationship - and they don't consider us their parents who can punish them whenever we feel they are acting up.
Iran has done nothing to justify the use of force. So we should be talking to arrange a relationship that reduces that likelihood.. not ignore then and say we will kill them if they continue doing what they are doing.
if we want to change many of their behaviors and they want the same from us - Lets talk!
You are being narrow-minded. The might of any army is only as strong as the people who fill it's ranks. If Americans truly wanted to stand up for our beliefs, we could admit our mistakes in Iraq yet still hold firm in the face of the Iranian threat. But, Amedenijad knows that it is the American people who do not want to fight. And he knows, by extension that we are the ones who are limiting our military options - not the conflict in Iraq.
During WWII in a MUCH smaller and economically weaker time, we fielded over 4 million solidiers in the field and sacrificed what was needed to defeat our enemies. My point in bringing this up is that if there is a will, there is a way - and everybody knows we have no will...
I don't blame those opposed to the war in Iraq. I blame those who use the botched mission in Iraq as a referendum to declare the use of any force as being an unsound method to make the world safer. If you look at the polls or listen to most media outlets, you get the overwhelming feeling that fighting is not the way the West wants to deal with threats.
Amedinijad would disagree with you. He is getting his hands on a bomb to ensure the survival of his political/religious beliefs. Americans and Europeans are now claiming that we want to rely on moral posturing to detur threats to our beliefs.
Which one do you think is more powerful? Can you not see in the behavior of North Korea, that anybody with a bomb can do whatever they please? They can jerk us around and blackmail us all day long. I respect the hell out of Bill Clinton's initiative to get Kim Jong Il to scrap his nuke program. But it is just a part of history now that the North Koreans pissed in his face and did it anyways. Now they have a bomb, and they don't have to sit down at any negotiating table if they do not want to.
The same will happen with Iran.
During WWII we where able to field a larger fighting force because people believed in the cause we where fighting for. We where attacked by Japan and then had Germany declare war on us, in responce to our declaration on Japan. Our little experiment in Iraq has shaken the people's faith in our government. When your leaders lead you to war under false pretenses this is what happens, the people no longer support the president. Even with this we still could have dealt with Iran had our military not been tied up in Iraq. Iraq is the catalyst in this problem. Our troops are there so they can't be used in any military operation against Iran. The people don't support military force against Iran because they no longer trust their government. We where misled once and are not about to take that chance again. So who is to blame, surely not the military nor the people but the leaders who have entrenched us in this situation with our hands tied behind our backs.
Unlike what you believe, I believe diplomacy should be completely exausted including direct talks. Even if Iran spits in our face so what. At least we would have demonstrated to the world that we have exausted every possible non-violent method to bring this conflict to an end. Then there is no room for people to say that we should have exausted diplomatic means before turning to force, but no this administration would rather flex muscle it doesn't have and continue to have this asshole laugh at us knowing fully well he can do what ever the hell he wants.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
This is complete bullshit. We have no military options against Iran because our militray is completely overextended tied up in a war we had no business getting into. Blaming those oppossed to the war is a nice cop-out for those that are to foolish and proud to admit that our involvment in Iraq is a huge mistake and is leaving us vulnerable.
This administration has shown no regrad to public or world opinion. If the president had the resources he would attack Iran regardless of what the people say, he showed that with attacking Iraq. So keep fooling yourself thinking that Iraq was a noble venture and blaming the anti-war crowd for our failure to reign in Iran. The blame for both lies squarely on the shoulders of the people who led us into Iraq and got us stuck there, unable to use our military if any other situation where to arise.
Talk about complete bullshit... where do you get off claiming that the president would attack Iran if only he had the resources to do so? That is
a fine opinion, but it doesn't hold up to reality.
Bush DOES have the resources to attack Iran, and I'm sure if he were still in office a few years from now he would attack their nuclear capabilities. But there is no need for that now, and Bush has relied on diplomatic measures to settle this dispute.
In fact, the EU three was VERY close to negotiating a settlement in which Iran was allowed to have a nuclear reactor, but they had to give their spent fuel rods to the Russians for disposal. According to you, if that settlement had of worked, ole Georgie would have been pissed off and mad that he couldn't go bomb some innocent civilians. Give me a break...
C'mon America let's keep dropping them Bush bombs round the world.
Yeeehaww....
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Talk about complete bullshit... where do you get off claiming that the president would attack Iran if only he had the resources to do so? That is
a fine opinion, but it doesn't hold up to reality.
Bush DOES have the resources to attack Iran, and I'm sure if he were still in office a few years from now he would attack their nuclear capabilities. But there is no need for that now, and Bush has relied on diplomatic measures to settle this dispute.
In fact, the EU three was VERY close to negotiating a settlement in which Iran was allowed to have a nuclear reactor, but they had to give their spent fuel rods to the Russians for disposal. According to you, if that settlement had of worked, ole Georgie would have been pissed off and mad that he couldn't go bomb some innocent civilians. Give me a break...
Complete bullshit nothing. He invaded Iraq without support from many of our allies and with a large portion of the people of this country oppossed to the war. He would most definetgly do it again if he had the resources, but he doesn't. Hitting Iran's nuclear sites will only delay them in weaponizing their nuclear program, not put an end to it. To put an end to it you need regime change and for that you need ground forces, something we are short on these days.
As for your last comment, no I wouldn't think that Bush would be pissed that he couldn't bomb Iran, but I believe that we are not sdoing everything we can diplomatically because, like you said, we know that he will not give in and it will make us look weak. My point is so what if we look weak. We would have exausted all diplomatic measures and we would then have some leverage to put together a true coilition, not some Coilition of the Willing and easily bought off, and would then be able to apply some serious pressure on Iran instead of just barking without having any bite to back it up with.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
You're missing the point. It's not about fighting people. Hell, I don't want a war, and I hope to god we don't fight Iran. It's about the "THREAT" of force. Like it or not, consequences make people behave. This is why we have laws that govern our society. Many of them are designed to DETUR bad behavior and crime. What would happen if suddenly there were no laws anymore in the US? All hell would break loose. Our society would crumble.
Well this is the exact same thing going on with Iran. They can do whatever they want to do, including obtaining nuclear weapons becuase THEY KNOW WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING! They know they will face no serious repurcussions. There is no deturent. Do you get it now???
We have police in our cities. For the most part, they won't fuck with you if you obey the law. But if you break it, you know damn well they are gonna come after you.
Well, there is nobody gonna come after Iran okay? They know this, and they realize they have a free pass to do what they wish.
This is a serious problem.
I don't say we should "let Iran do what they want". I said we should continue to dilligently work with them. Thats how our laws evolved - through comprimise, trial and error. There is never a good reason to not consider all points of view. There is never a good reason to consider anyone to be less than yourself.
If we are truly concerned with Iran and its nuclear or other military intensions - then we should have many high ranking US diplomats living in Iran - learning and teaching.
If teh US believes the current Iranean leadership is evil to the core and can not be talked to or trusted .. then the US is by far the greatest reason for the tension.
I don't need to hear about any atrocities committed by Iran.. We know we have committed our own. We need to work hard to move ahead - to make improvements.
That is the only hope we have.
If that's your logic, then the opposite holds true also.
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
This is complete bullshit. We have no military options against Iran because our militray is completely overextended tied up in a war we had no business getting into. Blaming those oppossed to the war is a nice cop-out for those that are to foolish and proud to admit that our involvment in Iraq is a huge mistake and is leaving us vulnerable.
This administration has shown no regrad to public or world opinion. If the president had the resources he would attack Iran regardless of what the people say, he showed that with attacking Iraq. So keep fooling yourself thinking that Iraq was a noble venture and blaming the anti-war crowd for our failure to reign in Iran. The blame for both lies squarely on the shoulders of the people who led us into Iraq and got us stuck there, unable to use our military if any other situation where to arise.
You say we should not just "let Iran do what they want." But again, without the OPTION of force, that is exactly the message you are sending them. This is what people in a weakened position do to contend with stronger adversaries - they say let's talk. Wheather it's a kid and a bully on a playground or a robber with a gun to a victims head... The stronger adversary laughs, and says why? I have everything I need. I don't want your influence on me becuase clearly you are going to try and negotiate my strength away from me. Most people don't like giving up their power, and neither will the Iranians.
The problem with "learning and teaching" is that there is nothing to "learn" or "teach". If there is, please let me know what it might be. You act as if there is some sort of "missunderstanding". What is it that we don't understand about Iran's leadership? They have plainly and repeatedly layed out their positions. We have plainly and repeatedly layed out ours. I don't think anybody is confused or doesn't understand.
We're not going to go over there, start teaching and all of a sudden "voila" they will have an epiphaney and say, "ya know what? Subjigating a people to a religion is pretty messed up and I think we should quit doing that now."
This is as engrained in them as our belief in democracy is engrained in us. We have and will continue to defend these beliefs and sacrifice our lives if the circumstanes call for it to preserve the democratic model. maybe you won't, but there are over a million people in our military that will. Likewise, they will do the same.
I mean, you're basically trying to tell them not to believe in their religion anymore. That has got to be one of the hardest things imaginable to convince somebody who has faith. And not only are you trying to convince their president, you are trying to convince his entire regime. This is simply immpossible. It is no strategy for success. Sure, many people would see the light over time. But these guys aren't going to give up their beliefs now. that would be like telling a US president to dissafilliate with their party or something while their in office - it's just not going to happen.
I agree with you in theory. But your view is based on what you wish the world to be, not what it is; what you wish humans were like, not our true nature.
We have been fighting and killing each other for 3 million years. Just becuase we have all of our great technology, and Americans live the easy life - doesn't mean the rest of the world has decided life is too good and short to go fight somebody for our beliefs.
So if the US should start an illegal war, if the government of the US should start an illegal war, you'd want other countries like China or Russia and the European countries combined to threat or act with force? Bombs Washington?
naděje umírá poslední
Of course not. That line of logic only applies to us. It's the do as we say and not as we do philosophy.
You are being narrow-minded. The might of any army is only as strong as the people who fill it's ranks. If Americans truly wanted to stand up for our beliefs, we could admit our mistakes in Iraq yet still hold firm in the face of the Iranian threat. But, Amedenijad knows that it is the American people who do not want to fight. And he knows, by extension that we are the ones who are limiting our military options - not the conflict in Iraq.
During WWII in a MUCH smaller and economically weaker time, we fielded over 4 million solidiers in the field and sacrificed what was needed to defeat our enemies. My point in bringing this up is that if there is a will, there is a way - and everybody knows we have no will...
I don't blame those opposed to the war in Iraq. I blame those who use the botched mission in Iraq as a referendum to declare the use of any force as being an unsound method to make the world safer. If you look at the polls or listen to most media outlets, you get the overwhelming feeling that fighting is not the way the West wants to deal with threats.
Amedinijad would disagree with you. He is getting his hands on a bomb to ensure the survival of his political/religious beliefs. Americans and Europeans are now claiming that we want to rely on moral posturing to detur threats to our beliefs.
Which one do you think is more powerful? Can you not see in the behavior of North Korea, that anybody with a bomb can do whatever they please? They can jerk us around and blackmail us all day long. I respect the hell out of Bill Clinton's initiative to get Kim Jong Il to scrap his nuke program. But it is just a part of history now that the North Koreans pissed in his face and did it anyways. Now they have a bomb, and they don't have to sit down at any negotiating table if they do not want to.
The same will happen with Iran.
You started this whole response with an error. I never suggested we remove the option of force. That is always an option. The consequences of force are devistating... there is the direct loss of life and the destruction of relationships.. Unless we can defeat them and make them a state.. we have to have a relationship - and they don't consider us their parents who can punish them whenever we feel they are acting up.
Iran has done nothing to justify the use of force. So we should be talking to arrange a relationship that reduces that likelihood.. not ignore then and say we will kill them if they continue doing what they are doing.
if we want to change many of their behaviors and they want the same from us - Lets talk!
During WWII we where able to field a larger fighting force because people believed in the cause we where fighting for. We where attacked by Japan and then had Germany declare war on us, in responce to our declaration on Japan. Our little experiment in Iraq has shaken the people's faith in our government. When your leaders lead you to war under false pretenses this is what happens, the people no longer support the president. Even with this we still could have dealt with Iran had our military not been tied up in Iraq. Iraq is the catalyst in this problem. Our troops are there so they can't be used in any military operation against Iran. The people don't support military force against Iran because they no longer trust their government. We where misled once and are not about to take that chance again. So who is to blame, surely not the military nor the people but the leaders who have entrenched us in this situation with our hands tied behind our backs.
Unlike what you believe, I believe diplomacy should be completely exausted including direct talks. Even if Iran spits in our face so what. At least we would have demonstrated to the world that we have exausted every possible non-violent method to bring this conflict to an end. Then there is no room for people to say that we should have exausted diplomatic means before turning to force, but no this administration would rather flex muscle it doesn't have and continue to have this asshole laugh at us knowing fully well he can do what ever the hell he wants.
Talk about complete bullshit... where do you get off claiming that the president would attack Iran if only he had the resources to do so? That is
a fine opinion, but it doesn't hold up to reality.
Bush DOES have the resources to attack Iran, and I'm sure if he were still in office a few years from now he would attack their nuclear capabilities. But there is no need for that now, and Bush has relied on diplomatic measures to settle this dispute.
In fact, the EU three was VERY close to negotiating a settlement in which Iran was allowed to have a nuclear reactor, but they had to give their spent fuel rods to the Russians for disposal. According to you, if that settlement had of worked, ole Georgie would have been pissed off and mad that he couldn't go bomb some innocent civilians. Give me a break...
Yeeehaww....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Complete bullshit nothing. He invaded Iraq without support from many of our allies and with a large portion of the people of this country oppossed to the war. He would most definetgly do it again if he had the resources, but he doesn't. Hitting Iran's nuclear sites will only delay them in weaponizing their nuclear program, not put an end to it. To put an end to it you need regime change and for that you need ground forces, something we are short on these days.
As for your last comment, no I wouldn't think that Bush would be pissed that he couldn't bomb Iran, but I believe that we are not sdoing everything we can diplomatically because, like you said, we know that he will not give in and it will make us look weak. My point is so what if we look weak. We would have exausted all diplomatic measures and we would then have some leverage to put together a true coilition, not some Coilition of the Willing and easily bought off, and would then be able to apply some serious pressure on Iran instead of just barking without having any bite to back it up with.