[quote]Brad61 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Brad, are you serious? Iran and Syria may have given some aid. But Iran, at least, did and does pose a much greater danger to us and the rest of the world than Iraq ever did. Of course, this may not remain the case given the masive unstability this ill-conceived and poorly executed and managed invasion threatens to cause in the region.
Do you remember the Cold War? The old Soviet Union posed a far greater threat to America than Iran or Syria does… not even close. They had a huge nuclear arsenal aimed at our major cities. Comparing Iran or Syria to the threat the Soviets posed would be ridiculous.
Yet we negotiated with the Soviets. We used diplomacy to our advantage with them, and tried to cooperate when we could. We didn’t take the juvenile approach that Bush takes, that I’ll only negotiate with a nation if they make the end concessions first.[/quote]
To defeat the Soviets we opposed them at every turn. We threatened them with nuclear holocaust. Don’t tell me you believe the touchy feely BS.
Bush’s refusal to “negotiate” with our sworn enemies, countries that call us the Great Satan and have pledged our destruction is understandable.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
To defeat the Soviets we opposed them at every turn. We threatened them with nuclear holocaust. Don’t tell me you believe the touchy feely BS.
Bush’s refusal to “negotiate” with our sworn enemies, countries that call us the Great Satan and have pledged our destruction is understandable.
[/quote]
Uh, you forgot to say 'we should nuke ‘em all!’
I’m glad we still have a few grown-ups at the State Department, who don’t share your assinine juvenile forever-12-years-old histrionic opinion of international diplomacy.
Bush’s “surge” (escalation) idea for Iraq enjoys a whopping ELEVEN PERCENT public approval. That is pretty fucking dismal.
Good thing the President says he doesn’t care about polls. Because if Bush pushes this ‘surge’ idea through, his own approval ratings will drop into the twenties… Wow, that’s like Dick Cheney territory. How low can Bush sink in the polls? If Bush keeps it up, the Republicans will have to lock him out of the building during the 2008 party convention. That would be hilarious if Bush wasn’t allowed to appear.
Anyway:
“CNN Poll: Only 11% Back Call to Send More Troops to Iraq”
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Brad, are you serious? Iran and Syria may have given some aid. But Iran, at least, did and does pose a much greater danger to us and the rest of the world than Iraq ever did. Of course, this may not remain the case given the masive unstability this ill-conceived and poorly executed and managed invasion threatens to cause in the region.
Do you remember the Cold War? The old Soviet Union posed a far greater threat to America than Iran or Syria does… not even close. They had a huge nuclear arsenal aimed at our major cities. Comparing Iran or Syria to the threat the Soviets posed would be ridiculous.
Yet we negotiated with the Soviets. We used diplomacy to our advantage with them, and tried to cooperate when we could. We didn’t take the juvenile approach that Bush takes, that I’ll only negotiate with a nation if they make the end concessions first.[/quote]
I did not make the comparison to the cold war. But in fact, the current times are MUCH more dangerous. The Soviet Union was diametrically opposed to us, but governed by rational leaders who recognized that if they used the bomb on us, it would be launced right back at them. It was a beautiful thing called detente.
You think fanatic religious extremist will feel the same way? No. If lunatic, religious, extremist groups that DO exist in Iran get ahold of nuclear power they won’t hesitate to use it in the same way anymore than suicide bombers feel the need to preserve teir own lives. Most people with a background and training in defense agree with this.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Brad, are you serious? Iran and Syria may have given some aid. But Iran, at least, did and does pose a much greater danger to us and the rest of the world than Iraq ever did. Of course, this may not remain the case given the masive unstability this ill-conceived and poorly executed and managed invasion threatens to cause in the region.
Do you remember the Cold War? The old Soviet Union posed a far greater threat to America than Iran or Syria does… not even close. They had a huge nuclear arsenal aimed at our major cities. Comparing Iran or Syria to the threat the Soviets posed would be ridiculous.
Yet we negotiated with the Soviets. We used diplomacy to our advantage with them, and tried to cooperate when we could. We didn’t take the juvenile approach that Bush takes, that I’ll only negotiate with a nation if they make the end concessions first.
To defeat the Soviets we opposed them at every turn. We threatened them with nuclear holocaust. Don’t tell me you believe the touchy feely BS.
Bush’s refusal to “negotiate” with our sworn enemies, countries that call us the Great Satan and have pledged our destruction is understandable.
[/quote]
Yes, it is. The inital invasion into Iraq on preliminary information that was not thoroughly investigated is not. Nor is it really forgiveable. Iran is and always was the much bigger threat. And yes, the surge idea to ‘win’ the war is crap.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
You think fanatic religious extremist will feel the same way? No. If lunatic, religious, extremist groups that DO exist in Iran get ahold of nuclear power they won’t hesitate to use it in the same way anymore than suicide bombers feel the need to preserve teir own lives. Most people with a background and training in defense agree with this.[/quote]
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. They are 10 years away from being able to produce one.
Iran (and any freelancers, for that matter) do not have the ability to deliver or detonate a nuclear weapon. Posession of nuclear material and know-how doesn’t mean that you can actually detonate a weapon. My understanding is that it’s incredibly complicated.
Anyway no argument that these are dangerous times. I would feel a lot more secure if I thought America actually had some competent leadership in place.
According to this article by Robert Novak, only 12 of the 49 Republicans in the Senate will support Bush’s plan to escalate the war (surge).
A ‘Surge’ Faces Trouble In the Senate
Even in GOP, Few Back the President
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, January 1, 2007
The question is, will Bush stubbornly press for more troops even though there is very little public support and very little political support? And if so, how much damage will it do to the Republican party’s chances at winning elections in 2008, and beyond?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
To defeat the Soviets we opposed them at every turn. We threatened them with nuclear holocaust. Don’t tell me you believe the touchy feely BS.
Bush’s refusal to “negotiate” with our sworn enemies, countries that call us the Great Satan and have pledged our destruction is understandable.
Uh, you forgot to say 'we should nuke ‘em all!’
[/quote]
I have never said such garbage.
[quote]
I’m glad we still have a few grown-ups at the State Department, who don’t share your assinine juvenile forever-12-years-old histrionic opinion of international diplomacy.[/quote]
You are the one trying to foist a phony “nuke the all” position on me and then you accuse me of 12 year old histrionics?
You are over the edge pal and your idiocy reminds me why I have been spending so little time in the politics forum these last few months.
Well you certainly said something pretty dumb IMO.
Like I said, Iran and Syria have already proved they can be willing to cooperate with us when it doesn’t involve submitting to what they view as US aggression on their doorstep, or giving up what they believe is something they are entitled to (nuclear energy). I’d bet my left nut that a LOT of negotiation goes on behind the scenes between DC and Tehran that the public is not privvy to. You’ve swallowed the line that Bush is a John Wayne tough-guy who doesn’t take any guff… that is utter bullshit. I don’t have to sit by quietly while you barf that juvenile crap back up, here on the forum.
Saner, more experiencd factions in the GOP want Bush to keep negotiations open with Syria and Iran, in order to solve Iraq. Your hardline opinion means that you’re just not a part of the saner GOP faction… period. If you don’t think diplomacy will play a big part in solving the mess in Iraq, you’re a fool.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush’s refusal to “negotiate” with our sworn enemies, countries that call us the Great Satan and have pledged our destruction is understandable.[/quote]
Yes, as token of the fact that Bush has no grasp of either History or statecraft, regrettably it is indeed understandable; also foolish, costly, and dangerous.
Maybe it’s for the best. From all evidence, Bush is a lousy negotiator. He either won’t budge an inch or he gives away the store. This is why we don’t have Osama bin Laden in our hands right now.
Like I said, Iran and Syria have already proved they can be willing to cooperate with us when it doesn’t involve submitting to what they view as US aggression on their doorstep, …[/quote]
Iran has sworn our destruction. This is not new. You are either extremely naive or are so twisted up because of your political preferences you cannot see this obvious fact.
Like I said, Iran and Syria have already proved they can be willing to cooperate with us when it doesn’t involve submitting to what they view as US aggression on their doorstep, …
Iran has sworn our destruction. This is not new. You are either extremely naive or are so twisted up because of your political preferences you cannot see this obvious fact.
[/quote]
So fucking what? What else is new? Everybody from Great Britain to Soviet Russia has sworn our destruction. It’s name calling games. You know, like “Axis of Evil.”
Personally I hope the Iranians get the bomb soon. That will make one less place we talk about going in and fixing up with our Army.
Like I said, Iran and Syria have already proved they can be willing to cooperate with us when it doesn’t involve submitting to what they view as US aggression on their doorstep, …
Iran has sworn our destruction. This is not new. You are either extremely naive or are so twisted up because of your political preferences you cannot see this obvious fact.
So fucking what? What else is new? Everybody from Great Britain to Soviet Russia has sworn our destruction. It’s name calling games. You know, like “Axis of Evil.”
Personally I hope the Iranians get the bomb soon. That will make one less place we talk about going in and fixing up with our Army.[/quote]
They sponsor terrorism and actually try to carry out their promises.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They sponsor terrorism and actually try to carry out their promises.
[/quote]
Yes, and so do we. Your point is? My point is, the stronger they become, the less likely there is to be armed conflict. That is the great danger at this point: another stupid, useless war.
If Bush weren’t so crazy, and our imperial politics so demented, I wouldn’t wish for proliferation to keep it all in check.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They sponsor terrorism and actually try to carry out their promises.
[/quote]
So does Saudi Arabia. So does Pakistan. So does the United Arab Emirate. They are our allies.
Let me say it again. If you don’t understand that diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbors is going to play a part in solving the Iraq crisis, then you have a juvenile view of politics, and nobody should take you seriously.
If you think that getting all John Wayne on Iran is the solution, you should STFU… you’re part of the problem, and among the reasons we are bogged down in Iraq. Idiots like you thought we should just go into Iraq swinging, because diplomacy was for pussies. Just containing Iraq wasn’t macho enough.
Like I said, thankfully we still have some grownups at the State Department.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They sponsor terrorism and actually try to carry out their promises.
So does Saudi Arabia. So does Pakistan. So does the United Arab Emirate. They are our allies.
Let me say it again. If you don’t understand that diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbors is going to play a part in solving the Iraq crisis, then you have a juvenile view of politics, and nobody should take you seriously.
If you think that getting all John Wayne on Iran is the solution, you should STFU… you’re part of the problem, and among the reasons we are bogged down in Iraq. Idiots like you thought we should just go into Iraq swinging, because diplomacy was for pussies. Just containing Iraq wasn’t macho enough.
[/quote]
I’m for talking to Iran, especially given the situation, but I have yet to see that they have anything to gain by stabilizing Iraq, certainly not in the short term. Any evidence to offer to the contrary?
[quote]
Like I said, thankfully we still have some grownups at the State Department.[/quote]
Do we? Condi Rice has done an awful job, even worse than as NSA. Read her latest views on Iran, about a quarter of the way down, if you have the time: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/77856.htm
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I’m for talking to Iran, especially given the situation, but I have yet to see that they have anything to gain by stabilizing Iraq, certainly not in the short term. Any evidence to offer to the contrary?[/quote]
It’s in Iran’s best interests to keep the unrest in Iraq from crossing borders. There is a risk that the Iraq fiasco goes regional. That’s bad for Iran. Stability is in everyone’s interests.
Agreed, Condi Rice is an impotent idiot and totally useless. Seems that the administration (Cheney) has hobbled her and doesn’t take her seriously. She’s a figurehead in the administration, if anything. I’m not referring to her. I’m referring to senior people in the State Department and Pentagon who will hopefully keep Bush from jumping into any more half-baked military escapades.