It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which some people will go to demonize their own elected representatives while attributing the most pure intentions to real tyrants. Israel is not the only country in the Middle East that believes Iran is a serious threat and President Bush is not looking to start a war with Iran.

 

Those of you who are so quick to believe the worst in George W. Bush, answer this question please. What should our navy do if Iran sends speeding gunboats toward one of our ships in the international waters of the Straits of Hormuz? Should our navy wait until after another USS Cole type attack before responding?

 

 

The Navy should use the force necessary to protect U.S. ships and crew. I'm a little surprised they didn't do that against these Iranian clowns. You have to understand however, that for most Americans, George W. Bush's credibility on the subject of terrorist aggressor nations in the middle east is in tatters. Far too many revelations have come to light regarding the decision to invade Iraq and the degree to which the war has been mismanaged for people to give this man the benefit of the doubt with respect to Iran.

In the real world, diplomacy does not work without the threat of force, whether that threat of force is military or economic in nature. Democrats who believe that we can unilaterally throw down our stick, speak softly to regimes like those that control countries like North Korea and Iran and magically win concessions simply do not understand the art of negotiation.

 

Feeding your enemies a steady diet of free carrots just makes them hungry for the main course. Carrots must be earned to be appreciated.

 

It would be in Iran's interest to provoke our navy into attacking its smaller boats. The attack would constitute an international incident and would not likely lead to full scale war. George Soros and his nutty followers would immediately accuse the Bush administration of trying to start another war and the Arab world would publicly rally to Iran's defense.

 

Taking the threat of force off the table makes war with Iran more likely, not less.

 

 

:thumb::thumb:

In the real world, diplomacy does not work without the threat of force, whether that threat of force is military or economic in nature. Democrats who believe that we can unilaterally throw down our stick, speak softly to regimes like those that control countries like North Korea and Iran and magically win concessions simply do not understand the art of negotiation.

 

Feeding your enemies a steady diet of free carrots just makes them hungry for the main course. Carrots must be earned to be appreciated.

 

It would be in Iran's interest to provoke our navy into attacking its smaller boats. The attack would constitute an international incident and would not likely lead to full scale war. George Soros and his nutty followers would immediately accuse the Bush administration of trying to start another war and the Arab world would publicly rally to Iran's defense.

 

Taking the threat of force off the table makes war with Iran more likely, not less.

 

I think you need to direct your lecture about the diplomatic use of the threat of force to President Bush. He had a credible threat of force and failed to use it effectively against Saddam Hussein. Instead of using the bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of force and our massing of men and material on Iraq's doorstep as leverage to obtain freedom of movement and access for weapons inspections, he stupidly launched a full scale war and occupation with inadequate force levels and incompetent post-invasion planning. As a result, the ability to achieve our diplomatic objectives in the middle east has been crippled.

I think you need to direct your lecture about the diplomatic use of the threat of force to President Bush. He had a credible threat of force and failed to use it effectively against Saddam Hussein. Instead of using the bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of force and our massing of men and material on Iraq's doorstep as leverage to obtain freedom of movement and access for weapons inspections, he stupidly launched a full scale war and occupation with inadequate force levels and incompetent post-invasion planning. As a result, the ability to achieve our diplomatic objectives in the middle east has been crippled.

A threat of force that is not credible is worse than no threat of force at all. Saddam had ample opportunity to comply with a long string of UN resolutions and declined to do so. The threat of force against Iran, which has succumbed to such pressure in the past, has been rendered less credible by the constant efforts to undermine the war on terror by liberal Democrats in Congress doing George Soros' bidding. (John McCain did his part by pushing through the bill that allowed organizations like MoveOn.org and Media Matters to succeed beyond Soros' wildest dreams.)

A threat of force that is not credible is worse than no threat of force at all. Saddam had ample opportunity to comply with a long string of UN resolutions and declined to do so. The threat of force against Iran, which has succumbed to such pressure in the past, has been rendered less credible by the constant efforts to undermine the war on terror by liberal Democrats in Congress doing George Soros' bidding. (John McCain did his part by pushing through the bill that allowed organizations like MoveOn.org and Media Matters to succeed beyond Soros' wildest dreams.)

 

 

As I said in my post above, Bush HAD a credible threat of force in 2003, when 1) a bipartisan authorization was in place, 2) a UN resolution was in place, and 3) a substantial U.S. force was assembled just outside of Iraq's borders. He could have used that unprecedented leverage to gain the access needed for weapons inspections to confirm the lack of WMD's. That would have been far less costly in blood and treasure than the course he chose. Instead, he launched an unnecessary war for which he had no exit plan. He blew it. To say that the Democrats have undermined the war on terror, when in fact the majority supported the President by voting to give him the authority he needed to have that credible threat of force, is absurd.

 

It is the President himself who has undermined the war on terror through his Iraq misadventure, which has deflected U.S. resources and distracted attention from the legitimate purpose of rooting out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

 

George W. Bush (not the Democrats, not John McCain, not George Soros), has made the mess that the next President will have to clean up. No wonder a significant majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

We have a number of carrier battle groups stationed within striking distance of Iran, there is a threat of force and the Iranians know that. No Democrat has taken force off the table, they've just said that our current stance on dealing with Iran is flawed.

The Iranian President (I won't even try to spell his name) has no power anyway so I never have seen why people take him so seriously. And once again I think the idea that Iran would get international support from provoking a US warship into firing on one of their boats is flawed. All of our allies in the Middle East hate Iran, most of Europe doesn't want to see Iran as a Nuclear state, and Iran doesn't want US retaliation.

It's also partially Bush's fault that Iran is acting the way they are. After 9-11 Iran offered to help the US in Afghanistan but we said no and the Bush went and put them in his "axis of evil". That kind of rhetoric hasn't helped anything. Instead of grabbing the small olive branch that existed after 9-11, Bush set it on fire.

I was wondering when the good ol' "Dems hate America and are working with our enemies" argument was going to be brought out. No Democrats are undermining the efforts to pressure Iran when it comes to preventing them from obtaining a nuke. The difference is in how to pressure. Use bombs (as Bush and Co. want to do) or use diplomacy (as the rest of the world wants).

It's not in the Iranians interest to provoke US military action. We could cripple their military, with some losses on our side. The war in Iraq has made any situation in the Middle East 100 times worse.

 

The argument you referenced was superceded by the silly "George Bush is trying to make up things to justify invading Iran" argument, so one should ask himself who started the silliness. Walk softly but carry a big stick only works if people think you are willing to use the big stick. Hussein was given ample opportunities to comply with the UN resolutions; that is a fact. He was told to comply or else but failed to comply; that is a fact. Perhaps amassing thousands of troops on his border would have worked and forced him to capitulate. Then again, it could have just given him more time to prepare his defenses, which could have resulted in more American invasion related deaths if he had not capitulated. For anyone to say that Hussein would have capitulated if we had only amassed the forces and then given him more time, they need to acknowledge that they are only guessing that such would have worked. People tend forget the guy was a lunatic and did not think rationally.

I'm glad the world is rid of the wacko but he was a lunatic who was contained and no threat to the USA. And my comment that Bush & Co. is looking to start another war has some backing to it. For 8 years we've had wars (some justified others not) and constant threats of war. I complaint that Dems are weak and working to hurt America is just stupid IMO.

I'm glad the world is rid of the wacko but he was a lunatic who was contained and no threat to the USA. And my comment that Bush & Co. is looking to start another war has some backing to it. For 8 years we've had wars (some justified others not) and constant threats of war. I complaint that Dems are weak and working to hurt America is just stupid IMO.

 

You must have missed the information that when he was interrogated, it came out from Saddam himself that he was putting information out there that he did have WMD. He wanted and tried to purposely do things that gave the impression that he had WMD. He was involved in a plan to make it appear that he did have WMD.

 

If I remember correctly, he believed that if he did that it would keep Iran from invading and keep Israel nervous. He never considered us getting involved and taking care of the image that he was WANTING to portray.

 

While it is fair to say Iraq did not have WMD and our intelligence was wrong, it was right on with what Saddam wanted people to believe.

I'm glad the world is rid of the wacko but he was a lunatic who was contained and no threat to the USA. And my comment that Bush & Co. is looking to start another war has some backing to it. For 8 years we've had wars (some justified others not) and constant threats of war. I complaint that Dems are weak and working to hurt America is just stupid IMO.

 

I'm glad you think so, I disagree totally. And we are allowed to disagree with one another's opinion. That's good and what makes this country great.

 

But in my opinion, comments that Bush is trying to artificially start wars (and what the benefit to Bushthat has, I have no idea) is just as stupid as comments that the Dems are weak and trying to hurt America. Those comments display nothing more than extreme partisanship.

I'm glad you think so, I disagree totally. And we are allowed to disagree with one another's opinion. That's good and what makes this country great.

 

But in my opinion, comments that Bush is trying to artificially start wars (and what the benefit to Bushthat has, I have no idea) is just as stupid as comments that the Dems are weak and trying to hurt America. Those comments display nothing more than extreme partisanship.

 

 

One of the best things I have read in here in a while.

I'm glad you think so, I disagree totally. And we are allowed to disagree with one another's opinion. That's good and what makes this country great.

 

But in my opinion, comments that Bush is trying to artificially start wars (and what the benefit to Bushthat has, I have no idea) is just as stupid as comments that the Dems are weak and trying to hurt America. Those comments display nothing more than extreme partisanship.

 

Perhaps your right and I apologize for the partisanship. But I worry about another needless war when we are fighting one already and haven't finished the justified war that we've forgotten about.

I'm glad you think so, I disagree totally. And we are allowed to disagree with one another's opinion. That's good and what makes this country great.

 

But in my opinion, comments that Bush is trying to artificially start wars (and what the benefit to Bushthat has, I have no idea) is just as stupid as comments that the Dems are weak and trying to hurt America. Those comments display nothing more than extreme partisanship.

 

And I think that this idea scared people and politicians into "...voting for the $87 Billion before I voted agianst it." Not being a John Kerry apologist or anything, but I belive that dissent was severly frowned upon soon after 9/11, no matter how right or wrong you were. I think that in a war either side that claims the extreme truth, and if you disagree you aid our enemy, or you cause us to have no friends, ect., doesn't serve the will of the people either way.

 

I do agree that Iran is a great threat, but I probably disagree with how the current administration would deal with things, just the way I disagreed with how Iraq was handled.

The argument you referenced was superceded by the silly "George Bush is trying to make up things to justify invading Iran" argument, so one should ask himself who started the silliness. Walk softly but carry a big stick only works if people think you are willing to use the big stick. Hussein was given ample opportunities to comply with the UN resolutions; that is a fact. He was told to comply or else but failed to comply; that is a fact. Perhaps amassing thousands of troops on his border would have worked and forced him to capitulate. Then again, it could have just given him more time to prepare his defenses, which could have resulted in more American invasion related deaths if he had not capitulated. For anyone to say that Hussein would have capitulated if we had only amassed the forces and then given him more time, they need to acknowledge that they are only guessing that such would have worked. People tend forget the guy was a lunatic and did not think rationally.

 

 

What does 'capitulate' mean in this context? Less than one month after passage of UN 1441, Iraq let the UNMOVIC inspectors back in. They found no evidence of weapons programs, and no viable WMD's, although they did find some relatively minor infractions to the UN weapons sanctions (which could have easily been due to poor records keeping or incompetent management on the part of the Iraqis). The inspectors were simply not given enough time to conclusively rule out the presence of WMD's.

 

By letting the UN weapons inspectors back in, Iraq had effectively capitulated. What else could Iraq have done to satisfy the UN mandates? Come clean on WMD's that they didn't possess? It is clear by the timing of events that the threat of force (backed by the buildup of U.S. military assets in the region, the bipartisan U.S. resolution, and UN 1441) was instrumental in making this happen. It does not require an implausible leap of logic to believe that if the inspectors would have been given more time (in the shadow of a large U.S. force parked on Iraq's doorstep), they would have come to the correct conclusion that Iraq did not possess WMD's or active weapons programs.

 

Unfortunately Bush badly misplayed the cards he was dealt with Iraq, and the American public is justifiably reluctant to support his use of a similar approach with Iran.