What a pussy

[Rigs11]

Shameful really...he can wear a flight suit and cowboy boots and then...

No 'steel-cage, grudge match' between Bush, Ahmadinejad

(CNN) -- President Bush and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may find themselves in the same place later this month, but a White House official shot down the prospect that the two men would engage one another, face-to-face.

The Iranian president may visit New York as part of the United Nations' annual gathering of world leaders. President Bush himself attended and -- like Ahmadinejad -- spoke at the U.N. last year.

Ahmadinejad himself has taken steps to engage the president, sending him a letter earlier this year and, late last month, calling for a "direct television debate" between the leaders. Iran and the United States have been at odds over the former's nuclear program -- which Tehran calls peaceful and legal, and which Washington deems illegal and a dangerous threat -- among other matters. (Full story)

But White House spokesman Tony Snow, addressing reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday, said that such a meeting would not happen during Ahmadinejad's U.S. visit.

"There's not going to be a steel-case, grudge match between the [U.S.] president and Ahmadinejad," Snow said, noting that Ahmadinejad's invite would be standard U.N. practice. "The president will deliver his speech, and at some other juncture President Ahmadinejad, if the [U.N.] General Assembly so decides, will speak."

[mosca]

Ahmadinejad himself has taken steps to engage the president, sending him a letter earlier this year and, late last month, calling for a "direct television debate" between the leaders.
I wouldn't mind a debate between the leader of our country and that of Iran on live TV... sounds like a great idea... Until you remember that our president is... oh yeah. G.W. How about we send someone else to stand in his place? Any nominations? Maybe we can wait till after the 2008 Presidential race? Maybe televise it on pay-per-view?

[errand]

I wouldn't mind a debate between the leader of our country and that of Iran on live TV... sounds like a great idea... Until you remember that our president is... oh yeah. G.W. How about we send someone else to stand in his place? Any nominations? Maybe we can wait till after the 2008 Presidential race? Maybe televise it on pay-per-view?

So tell us there mosca, what part of this Iranian clown's argument would blow Bush away?

That as a radical Muslim he should have a nuclear wapon at his disposal?

That one of the world's largest producer's of oil needs nuclear technology to provide power for it's people?

That Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth?

That despite his openly supporting well-known terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, he can be trusted to act rationally?

You libs again, cannot help yourselves. You hate Bush so much, you end up siding with our enemies......

[errand]

Shameful really...he can wear a flight suit and cowboy boots and then...



.....so arguing with a madman is what you'd consider normal behavior? BTW. whose side are you on?

[mosca]

So tell us there mosca, what part of this Iranian clown's argument would blow Bush away?

That as a radical Muslim he should have a nuclear wapon at his disposal?

That one of the world's largest producer's of oil needs nuclear technology to provide power for it's people?

That Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth?

That despite his openly supporting well-known terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, he can be trusted to act rationally?

You libs again, cannot help yourselves. You hate Bush so much, you end up siding with our enemies......
Errand, I'd be more concerned with what G.W. would say than anything Ahmadinejad would. I've heard enough of his uninspired, obviously rehearsed, talking-points centered speeches to get an idea of what he'd say if he ever faced the Iranian in open debate. Maybe he'd come out on top, maybe not. But I sure wouldn't want the rest of the world to judge this country on any of the words uttered by G.W. during said event.

Either way, rest easy... such a one-on-one debate ain't gonna happen. It's sorta like the one-on-one PPV event they tried to hype up a few years back between Shaq and Hakeem after the NBA Finals in which they played each other. Never materialized.

[Crushaholic]

I always thought this idea of a "debate" was stupid. That's usually reserved for opponents in a political contest, not two leaders who have differences on world policy. There is no debate. Iran needs to cease any nuclear weapons program they are doing.

[TailgateNut]

.....so arguing with a madman is what you'd consider normal behavior? BTW. whose side are you on?


Heck, we argue with a madman in our own country. He doesn't listen to reason, so what difference would there be arguing with the Iranian nutcase?

The "who's side are you on" is getting old! How about "ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION ERRAND BOY?"

[defenseman]

So tell us there mosca, what part of this Iranian clown's argument would blow Bush away?

That as a radical Muslim he should have a nuclear wapon at his disposal?

That one of the world's largest producer's of oil needs nuclear technology to provide power for it's people?

That Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth?

That despite his openly supporting well-known terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, he can be trusted to act rationally?

You libs again, cannot help yourselves. You hate Bush so much, you end up siding with our enemies......


It certianly is the way it appears sometimes. I can't help but think though, that is not the true facts. All in all, I think the left wants alot of the shortcomings of our government to be corrected just like the repubs. But, you can't sacrifice defense in doing so. All in all, it really is somewhat of a mess these days and makes one wonder just where we are headed. Here's hoping we get this stuff squared away over the next 5 -10 yrs or so..dman

[defenseman]

Heck, we argue with a madman in our own country. He doesn't listen to reason, so what difference would there be arguing with the Iranian nutcase?

The "who's side are you on" is getting old! How about "ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION ERRAND BOY?"

You don't give that iranian nut case the time of day until he is ready to "no-s*&t" talk turkey. And when you do talk to him, it's behind closed doors. Giving that little SOB a pulpit to preach cannot and should not be promoted. He's a disease waiting to spread...dman

*This is no different than Harvard allowing a former president of a ME country to speak. Said country literally rounded up and killed dissidents, stoned women, etc...etc...etc...and promoted terrorism. Why would anyone give that SOB the time of day, let alone a pulpit to spew his garbage..dman

[Rohirrim]

I wouldn't mind a debate between the leader of our country and that of Iran on live TV... sounds like a great idea... Until you remember that our president is... oh yeah. G.W. How about we send someone else to stand in his place? Any nominations? Maybe we can wait till after the 2008 Presidential race? Maybe televise it on pay-per-view?

How about Coulter? I could see it now, the fanatic little nutjob and the Nazi valkyrie! Talk about your entertainment! Most of these little Islamic fanatics are terrified of women anyway (it's why they try to hide them in burkhas). Imagine how a six foot tall, blond harpy like Coulter would terrorize him? She's just as nuts as he is. That would be some great theater.
Ha!

[bendog]

This could be yet another public relations disaster for us. Rove is very good at playing to the base, but the problem is the rest of the world, and even a maj here, find the cowboy act to be juvenile and dangerous. I'm thinking of the world's reaction to Castro at the UN in 1960

[alkemical]

I want vince (mcmahon) to set this up

[bendog]

Fidel bitchslaps Ike

Then began the new colonization of our country, the acquisition of the
best agricultural lands by United States firms, concessions of Cuban
natural resources and mines, concessions of public utilities for
exploitation purposes, commercial concessions of all types. These
concessions, when linked with the constitutional right -- constitutional by
force -- of intervention in our country, turned it from a Spanish colony
into an American colony.

Colonies do not speak. Colonies are not known until they have the
opportunity to express themselves. That is why our colony and its problems
were unknown to the rest of the world. In geography books reference was
made to a flag and a coat of arms. There was an island with another color
on the maps, but it was not an independent republic. Let us not deceive
ourselves, since by doing so we only make ourselves ridiculous. Let no one
be mistaken. There was no independent republic; there was only a colony
where orders were given by the Ambassador of the United States.

We are not ashamed to have to declare this. On the contrary: we are
proud to say that today no embassy rules our country; our country is ruled
by its people!

Once against the Cuban people had to resort to fighting in order to
achieve independence, and that independence was finally attained after
seven bloody years of tyranny, who forced this tyranny upon us? Those who
in our country were nothing more than tools of the interests which
dominated our country economically.

How can an unpopular regime, inimical to the interests of the people,
stay in power unless it is by force? Will we have to explain to the
representatives of our sister republics of Latin America what military
tyrannies are? Will we have to outline to them how these tyrannies have
kept themselves in power? Will we have to explain the history of several
of those tyrannies which are already classical? Will we have to say what
forces, what national and international interests support them?

The military group which tyrannized our country was supported by the
most reactionary elements of the nation, and, above all, by the foreign
interests that dominated the economy of our country. Everybody knows, and
we understand that even the Government of the United States admits it, that
that was the type of government favored by the monopolies. Why? Because by
the use of force it was possible to check the demands of the people; by
the use of force it was possible to suppress strikes for improvement of
living standards; by the use of force it was possible to crush all
movements on the part of the peasants to own the land they worked; by the
use of force it was possible to curb the greatest and most deeply felt
aspirations of the nation.

That is why governments of force were favored by the ruling circles of
the United States. That is why governments of force stayed in power for so
long, and why there are governments of force still in power in America.
Naturally, it all depends on whether it is possible to secure the support
of the United States.

For instance, now they say they oppose one of these governments of
force; the Government of Trujillo. But they do not say they are against
other governments of force -- that of Nicaragua, or Paraguay, for example.
The Nicaraguan one is no longer government of force; it is a monarchy that
is almost as constitutional as that of the United Kingdom, where the reins
of power are handed down from father to son. The same would have occurred
in my own country. It was the type of government of force -- that of
Fulgencio Batista -- which suited the American monopolies in Cuba, but it
was not, of course, the type of government which suited the Cuban people,
and the Cuban people, at a great cost in lives and sacrifices, over threw
the government.

What did the Revolution find when it came to power in Cuba? What
marvels did the Revolution find when it came to power in Cuba? First of
all the Revolution found that 600,000 able Cubans were unemployed -- as
many, proportionately, as were unemployed in the United States at the time
of the great depression which shook this country and which almost created a
catastrophy in the United States. That was our permanent unemployment.
Three million out of a population of somewhat over 6,000,000 did not have
electric lights and did not enjoy the advantages and comforts of
electricity. Three and a half million out of a total of slightly more than
6,000,000 lived in huts, shacks and slums, without the slightest sanitary
facilities. In the cities, rents took almost one third of family incomes.
Electricity rates and rents were among the highest in the world.
Thirty-seven and one half percent of our population were illiterate; 70
per cent of the rural children had no teachers; 2 per cent of population,
that is, 100,000 persons out of a total of more than 6,000,000 suffered
from tuberculosis. Ninety-five per cent of the children in rural areas
were affected by parasites, and the infant mortality rate was therefore
very high, just the opposite of the average life span.

[Hotrod]

wtf you dont give a nutjob like the leader of Iran air time like that. Freaking stupid.....

[bendog]

wtf you dont give a nutjob like the leader of Iran air time like that. Freaking stupid.....

Especially when he sounds sane compared to the Potus.

[Hotrod]

Especially when he sounds sane compared to the Potus.

Cant argue Bush does not exactly come across well on television :) .......but thats simply not the point. Clinton would not do this debate either and he could smoke amaka-whatever his name is. The point is amasahbhalalvha would do exactly what both Repubs & Dems do on this site and every internet site/news outlet they would spin facts to meet their agenda. Thats why its insane to even consider debating a lying/murdering jack ass like ahmvarefodahrem period.

Thats not even to mention why give him the power play of getting to debate with the single most powerful person in the world. He does not deserve to even be in the same room as ANY US president period.

[mosca]

wtf you dont give a nutjob like the leader of Iran air time like that. Freaking stupid.....
Well, let's face it, he's the leader of a sovereign nation of 70 million people. He's gonna get his airtime with or without us. Can't ignore him. Just gotta figure out how to deal with him.

[defenseman]

Well, let's face it, he's the leader of a sovereign nation of 70 million people. He's gonna get his airtime with or without us. Can't ignore him. Just gotta figure out how to deal with him.

I know a way to deal with him. And he would become a non-factor on a very permanent basis. Wouldn't cost but a couple of cents...dman

[TailgateNut]

I know a way to deal with him. And he would become a non-factor on a very permanent basis. Wouldn't cost but a couple of cents...dman


Instructions:

Open washer door
Insert Brain
Push start button

[defenseman]

Instructions:

Open washer door
Insert Brain
Push start button

Whatever man, you have your way, I have mine....makes no difference to me..dman

[bendog]

Well, it's not so much "speaking" that is bushii's problem. It's his thinking. I mean what was he thinking when he compared Iran's president (a nutter no doubt) to al queda? How does he think that statement is constructive?

Meanwhile, we have the little hitler saying "the US and britain seek to impose their political will on Iraq." With the neocons, he's got a point. I mean we did try exactly that when Cheney thought Chalabi would be the next president, and we'd be greated with flowers ....

We way the little hitler wants nukes. He says we helped Israel get them first, and he hasn't attacked Lebanon, Israel did.

He's of course not all right, but he's gonna speak at the UN and most of the world will agree with him. It's been a real crappy 5.5 years for US prestige. WJC got greated like a damn rock star when he went overseas, now the potus pretty much has to either sneak in or have crowds kept blocks away.

[defenseman]

Well, it's not so much "speaking" that is bushii's problem. It's his thinking. I mean what was he thinking when he compared Iran's president (a nutter no doubt) to al queda? How does he think that statement is constructive?

Meanwhile, we have the little hitler saying "the US and britain seek to impose their political will on Iraq." With the neocons, he's got a point. I mean we did try exactly that when Cheney thought Chalabi would be the next president, and we'd be greated with flowers ....

We way the little hitler wants nukes. He says we helped Israel get them first, and he hasn't attacked Lebanon, Israel did.

He's of course not all right, but he's gonna speak at the UN and most of the world will agree with him. It's been a real crappy 5.5 years for US prestige. WJC got greated like a damn rock star when he went overseas, now the potus pretty much has to either sneak in or have crowds kept blocks away.

Yep, thats why the world is in need of a giant enema. They are pretty much spineless and in dire need of a direction. Islamo facism is not the direction we want them to go. ...dman

[TailgateNut]

Yep, thats why the world is in need of a giant enema. They are pretty much spineless and in dire need of a direction. Islamo facism is not the direction we want them to go. ...dman


We should lead by example. Clean up our **** before we expect others to follow suit.

[Hotrod]

Ya America is the evil empire what horse **** this forum is a joke. Simply full of leftist chest thumping fools.

[defenseman]

We should lead by example. Clean up our **** before we expect others to follow suit.

I have no problem with cleaning up our own act. However, you must protect your backside when you are doing so. And realize that, we will NEVER truly have our own **** together. We are 100% fallible. It is absolutely impossible, we are human beings, we will continue to make mistakes. However, hopefully not repeating them. That's the part that really pisses me off. History can offer many solutions if we just look..dman

[defenseman]

Ya America is the evil empire what horse **** this forum is a joke. Simply full of leftist chest thumping fools.

You know we aren't the evil empire, so do they, they just don't like GW, thats what is stuck in their craw. Ergo, threads like this are absolutely predictable......dman

[bendog]

Yep, thats why the world is in need of a giant enema. They are pretty much spineless and in dire need of a direction. Islamo facism is not the direction we want them to go. ...dman

When JFK went to berlin and when Reagan said tear down this wall, EVERY thinking human on the planet knew they were right. When bushii talks about respect for human rights, 50% of Americans think he's talking about HAL stock prices. And the rest of the world knows he's full of **** too.

[Rohirrim]

Well, it's not so much "speaking" that is bushii's problem. It's his thinking. I mean what was he thinking when he compared Iran's president (a nutter no doubt) to al queda? How does he think that statement is constructive?

Meanwhile, we have the little hitler saying "the US and britain seek to impose their political will on Iraq." With the neocons, he's got a point. I mean we did try exactly that when Cheney thought Chalabi would be the next president, and we'd be greated with flowers ....

We way the little hitler wants nukes. He says we helped Israel get them first, and he hasn't attacked Lebanon, Israel did.

He's of course not all right, but he's gonna speak at the UN and most of the world will agree with him. It's been a real crappy 5.5 years for US prestige. WJC got greated like a damn rock star when he went overseas, now the potus pretty much has to either sneak in or have crowds kept blocks away.

There's no way we can deny that in 1953 we overthrew a popularly elected leader in Iran and replaced him with a right wing monarch who subsequently allowed us to control Iran's oil resources (which that previously democratically elected leader, Mossadeq, would not do). That monarch (Shah Pahlavi) created a completely totalitarian regime and installed a secret police, trained by the CIA and East German Stazi, who brutalized the people of Iran for 25 years and murdered dissenters, which directly led to the revolution of the Ayatollah Khomenei. Madeline Albright recently pointed out, " "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In other words, we can gnash our teeth all we want about Iran, but we should honestly confess that it's our own damn fault.

We did that for oil. We need to stop trying to cover up our own sins. We have propped up tyrants around the world in order to ensure that our companies reap massive profits while supplying us with resources which we waste at an alarming rate. That is the prime, number one reason we are the target of terrorism and hatred around the world. We don't live by the values we preach.

Millions of people around the world look to us to be the beacon of freedom on this planet. Once we take on that role, for real, and stop letting greed dominate our foreign policy, we will find ourselves living in a much better world.

[defenseman]

When JFK went to berlin and when Reagan said tear down this wall, EVERY thinking human on the planet knew they were right. When bushii talks about respect for human rights, 50% of Americans think he's talking about HAL stock prices. And the rest of the world knows he's full of **** too.

We are still better than anything on the planet, and you may not want to admit that , but we are. If I believed otherwise, I'd be retired and living abroad by now. I'd gaurantee you that...dman

*Granted, we have lost some "credibility" and yes part of it is due to GW. We have some ground to make up for sure.

[mosca]

We are still better than anything on the planet, and you may not want to admit that , but we are. If I believed otherwise, I'd be retired and living abroad by now. I'd gaurantee you that...dman

*Granted, we have lost some "credibility" and yes part of it is due to GW. We have some ground to make up for sure.

If you think we are "better" than any other country on the planet, good for you. Hope that helps you sleep better at night. The thing is - in what area are we the best? Overall simply "the best"? Let's face it - America is good at some things and not so good at others. Lots of variables to measure.

The credibility problem you mention is due in large part to GW's swaggering, cowboy front that he puts on. Sure, it looks good to red-state voters in the U.S., but it puts off the rest of the world, and that's the problem. A large part of the rest of the world's opinion of us is formed when they see this man speak. I do realize that public opinion of the rest of the world isn't the most important thing, but this act really gets tiresome after a while. I thought that maybe after 6 years things would get better in this arena, but Bush simply hasn't. Be glad that he won't be facing off in debate against Ahmadinejad, it would simply make us look worse, and that's something we do not need right now.

[defenseman]

If you think we are "better" than any other country on the planet, good for you. Hope that helps you sleep better at night. The thing is - in what area are we the best? Overall simply "the best"? Let's face it - America is good at some things and not so good at others. Lots of variables to measure.

The credibility problem you mention is due in large part to GW's swaggering, cowboy front that he puts on. Sure, it looks good to red-state voters in the U.S., but it puts off the rest of the world, and that's the problem. A large part of the rest of the world's opinion of us is formed when they see this man speak. I do realize that public opinion of the rest of the world isn't the most important thing, but this act really gets tiresome after a while. I thought that maybe after 6 years things would get better in this arena, but Bush simply hasn't. Be glad that he won't be facing off in debate against Ahmadinejad, it would simply make us look worse, and that's something we do not need right now.


1) I sleep great presently, not a whole lot will affect that

2) Overall , the best. Why do they continue to flock here?

3) We are not perfect, never will be. Neither will they.

4) Debate? who cares. the fact that the world would give Ahmadinejad any room to wiggle, KNOWING he is a hitler in the making, if not already there? This is a problem. They are flat out blind. This is a huge problem giving this napoleanic facists ANY credibility at all. Who cares what he thinks, I know I don't. Doesn't matter if he speaks eloquently or not, he's still a pimple on the world's ***, and quite simply, needs to disappear.

5) correct, due to his "cowboy" approach to business, he has hurt us. there should be no denying that by anyone..dman

[TailgateNut]

We are still better than anything on the planet, and you may not want to admit that , but we are. If I believed otherwise, I'd be retired and living abroad by now. I'd gaurantee you that...dman

*Granted, we have lost some "credibility" and yes part of it is due to GW. We have some ground to make up for sure.


You may call the following HATRED, I call it as I see it. GW's **** for brains high noon shoot out attitude has eroded most of the relations we have nutured for decades. He thinks he and the rest of our nation is above all judgment, regardless if being judged by the people he is supposed to represent nor the rest of the globe. He is an arrogant POS, and in turn is painting our country as being of the same mindset.
The rest of the world must be laughing as hard as I do when I am subjected to one of his speaches. A circus clown who has an unbelievable fanbase!

[bendog]

We are still better than anything on the planet, and you may not want to admit that , but we are. If I believed otherwise, I'd be retired and living abroad by now. I'd gaurantee you that...dman

*Granted, we have lost some "credibility" and yes part of it is due to GW. We have some ground to make up for sure.

Winning the WOT won't be a military victory just as winning the cold war was not. You tend to think in terms of dealing with IRan by turning it, or the little hitler, to glass. And that is counterproductive, just as bushii is.

I'm certainly not going to say any nation being run by neocons has any claim to the most moral on the planet. Other nations are at least as democratic, but only the US has the econ juice. The US presents the most opportunities for my daughter, and I expect to live near her for the rest of my life, so I've never really thought about where I'd actually want to live permantently outside the US.

[TheDave]

Sorry folks i dislike Bush as much as anyone here... But you don't give the nutcase in Iran a public showdown. You do not set a precedance of holding public debates with crazy people... What the hell is there to gain from that, and who is next... Kim Jong Vs. Bush, How about the sociopath running things in the Sudan should we let him and Chenney go a few rounds... Of course not.

[defenseman]

You may call the following HATRED, I call it as I see it. GW's **** for brains high noon shoot out attitude has eroded most of the relations we have nutured for decades. He thinks he and the rest of our nation is above all judgment, regardless if being judged by the people he is supposed to represent nor the rest of the globe. He is an arrogant POS, and in turn is painting our country as being of the same mindset.
The rest of the world must be laughing as hard as I do when I am subjected to one of his speaches. A circus clown who has an unbelievable fanbase!

As do I..."nutured relations for decades" got us what? 9/11. So much for nutured relations. The rest of world has been scared of us for years. So much for nurturing relations. As far as his cowboy approach, I agreed with ya, doesn't help at all. Need to go another direction......dman

[defenseman]

Winning the WOT won't be a military victory just as winning the cold war was not. You tend to think in terms of dealing with IRan by turning it, or the little hitler, to glass. And that is counterproductive, just as bushii is.

I'm certainly not going to say any nation being run by neocons has any claim to the most moral on the planet. Other nations are at least as democratic, but only the US has the econ juice. The US presents the most opportunities for my daughter, and I expect to live near her for the rest of my life, so I've never really thought about where I'd actually want to live permantently outside the US.

*In some areas we are, in others we are not moral. Then again, the statement was the best nation going, not most moral. However, if morality is what makes your clock tick, so be it.

*In some respects it will be a military victory, americans are actively engaged throughout the world let alone the ME with terrorists. However, it will be classified in the W column quietly for sure. By the way, the cold war is not over, N. Korea is still a pain in the ***.

*Ah, the land of opportunity. And there we have the key...dman

[mhgaffney]

I think the left wants alot of the shortcomings of our government to be corrected just like the repubs. But, you can't sacrifice defense in doing so.


In the years since 911 the US defense budget (counting homeland defense) swelled to over $500 billion/yr. Give or take.

Yet by most accounts we are less secure than ever.

Also, the GAO reported that the pentagon budget is in such a mess it wouldn't even fail an audit -- trillions cannot be accounted for.

Methinks we are on the wrong path -- that we need to rethink what we mean by security. I believe its about leading by example, which means honoring the US Constutution and holding people accountable when they violate it.

If that makes me old fashioned I say fine by me.
MG

[bendog]

*In some areas we are, in others we are not moral. Then again, the statement was the best nation going, not most moral. However, if morality is what makes your clock tick, so be it.

*In some respects it will be a military victory, americans are actively engaged throughout the world let alone the ME with terrorists. However, it will be classified in the W column quietly for sure. By the way, the cold war is not over, N. Korea is still a pain in the ***.

*Ah, the land of opportunity. And there we have the key...dman

Well, by moral I was thinking more to Thatcher and Reagan. Both were flawed, and we certainly killed a lot of innocents during their tenure, but both had the moral core of believing in the individual - that the state served to promote the individual and not the other way around.

And, the little hitler is phrasing his debates with bushii (and they are debating via the press because the idiot warrior king just had to respond publically) as morality. The US, Britian and Israel imposing their govt and their religion upon others. So long as a reasonable person can say there's more than a grain of truth to that, we're not winning any WOT.

Military operations can support the political. In afghan I have no doubt most people prefer women and girls receive medical treatment to the Taliban.

What we should be doing is supporting the initiative (for the internet(-;) to put a $100 lap top in every kids' hands. We should be putting on internet broadcasts of basic math and science classes with teachers with no neocon bent. We should be exporting renewable energy sources for the laptops. We should have basic healthcare info beign broadcast by sources not tied to the religious right.

The cold war is over. The notion that communism can provide a better life for workers than capitalism (when it's regulated by democratic govts) is dead. NK is simply a dictatorship dedicated to keeping a leader installed. It has no interest in a war of ideology.

The little hitler certainly is interested in ideology.

[Rigs11]

So tell us there mosca, what part of this Iranian clown's argument would blow Bush away?

That as a radical Muslim he should have a nuclear wapon at his disposal?

That one of the world's largest producer's of oil needs nuclear technology to provide power for it's people?

That Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth?

That despite his openly supporting well-known terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, he can be trusted to act rationally?

You libs again, cannot help yourselves. You hate Bush so much, you end up siding with our enemies......

The English Language.

Coherent Sentences.

[Rigs11]

.....so arguing with a madman is what you'd consider normal behavior? BTW. whose side are you on?

Debate is always good. I think you're scared becuse you know your hero Dumbya would get trounced in a debate.I'm on America's side, unlike you who is on Dumbya's side. Too bad you can't see the difference.

[Rigs11]

Sorry folks i dislike Bush as much as anyone here... But you don't give the nutcase in Iran a public showdown. You do not set a precedance of holding public debates with crazy people... What the hell is there to gain from that, and who is next... Kim Jong Vs. Bush, How about the sociopath running things in the Sudan should we let him and Chenney go a few rounds... Of course not.

Are you a psychologist or did you read that he was crazy somewhere?Outspoken maybe, but crazy?

[mosca]

Who cares what he thinks, I know I don't. Doesn't matter if he speaks eloquently or not, he's still a pimple on the world's ***, and quite simply, needs to disappear.
How do you propose making him disappear? Magic? Assassination? All-out war on Iran? None of the above are feasible options right now as I see it. It'd be nice if everyone we didn't like would just "disappear" or go away, but life's just not that easy.

[bendog]

Debate is always good. I think you're scared becuse you know your hero Dumbya would get trounced in a debate.I'm on America's side, unlike you who is on Dumbya's side. Too bad you can't see the difference.

It's early on in this ... war. Bad word. The little hitler's real issue in this "debate" thing is that the neocons have excluded Iran and Syria from political solutions in Iraq and Israel. That's simply unrealistic, as Iran will of course be influentinal in Iraq, as will Syria with the sunnis.

If bush is actually forced to address the situations from a neocon pt of view, he'll come of as being just as dangerous, and perhaps mroe so, than "islaomofacsists." What's he gonna say? "We won't let Islamofacists in Iran influence Iraq?" Every non-Jewish person in the ME will fall out of their chair laughing.

[defenseman]

In the years since 911 the US defense budget (counting homeland defense) swelled to over $500 billion/yr. Give or take.

Yet by most accounts we are less secure than ever.

Also, the GAO reported that the pentagon budget is in such a mess it wouldn't even fail an audit -- trillions cannot be accounted for.

Methinks we are on the wrong path -- that we need to rethink what we mean by security. I believe its about leading by example, which means honoring the US Constutution and holding people accountable when they violate it.

If that makes me old fashioned I say fine by me.
MG

Put the wrong people in office, soft on defense and especially on terrorism, allow them to "breed" for lack of a better term, and we are screwed. When another MAJOR attack occurs, and IT WILL if present tactics are not employed correctly and improved upon, the wuss in office will be responsible, spin that after the fact (And if it's a liberal or Conserv, IT WON'T MATTER. The terrorists PROVED they will attack us, let it happen again, THE PRES wears the albatross). Ergo, it CANNOT happen again. You cannot give the terrorists the "opportunity", they in turn will take it.......dman

Don't put up a smoke screen. The only ones you want held accountable are GW and the neocons. You want to give the New York times and the rest of the terrorist enablers a pass. Can it with your crap....as long as it's not your liberal buddies, you want them all under lock and key. Hypocrite personafied.

Agreed, the budget needs to be corrected and so does the DAMN MEXICAN BLEEDING border. However, SECURITY cannot be traded in the name of the BUDGET. Clinton screwed me personally in the 90's with that tactic and my life at points was a living hell. I'll agree the budget must be corrected but the RIGHT WAY. Not the LIBERAL way , unless it happens to be correct.

Leading by example. Is that like "nurturing relations" with the world? Ok, it got us, oh, 9/11? How f**king nice , nurturing relations are good, to a point, then you better step on some necks when they call for it, or slap them damn silly , either will work for me.

Bottom line: I have no sympathy for anyone that wishes us ill or plans to kill americans. They can catch a bullet as far as I'm concerned, AND fool me once your fault, fool me twice MY FAULT. The next president who suffers a terrorists attack should be drawn and quartered...

[defenseman]

Debate is always good. I think you're scared becuse you know your hero Dumbya would get trounced in a debate.I'm on America's side, unlike you who is on Dumbya's side. Too bad you can't see the difference.

I could give two s**ts about GW. He has screwed up the border and the war. I'm worried about the people getting informed on the next pres and making an informed decision. And ensuring we don't elect a gutless , wuss "reed in the wind" pres. We would never survive that.
You really need to learn to read between the lines, just because overall I swing conservative on some issues and liberal on others DOESN"T mean I agree with GW. I don't agree with blaming EVERYTHING on him though. But you do , so you can stuff that whereever you want and stand the f**k down. Then again, since you are so far LEFT you fall off the MAP, don't hurt yourself on the way down.........dman

I know IT'S ALL GW's fault, and you elected him, and la ti da ti da.....on and on and on.......you wouldn't know a republican if he ripped your arm off and beat you over the head with it...don't just 'read' the words, understand the words,......dman

*Who's your hero , HILLARY? Niiiiiccceee. Let me guess, JESSE J. ,,,,,AL GORE? Ralph Nader? C'mon libber, who's yours? Enjoy that?, good. Don't attempt to label my *** anymore. You suck at it. And, above all, you are DEAD WRONG.

[defenseman]

How do you propose making him disappear? Magic? Assassination? All-out war on Iran? None of the above are feasible options right now as I see it. It'd be nice if everyone we didn't like would just "disappear" or go away, but life's just not that easy.

He would just "go away". Happens more than you or I will ever know. And it is just that easy. As you see it? Fair enough. Agreed, no need for war. Perfect end to a perfect "little hitler". I could care if you like my take or not, I have mine and you have yours. Enjoy yourself flapping rhetoric. I'm for fixing the damn problem , but permanently...dman

[defenseman]

Are you a psychologist or did you read that he was crazy somewhere?Outspoken maybe, but crazy?

He's a NUT JOB. But, has some tactical intelligence I would venture in the world arena. He's handling status quo pretty damn good right now, thats for sure. Which makes him all the more dangerous...dman

[bendog]

I know IT'S ALL GW's fault, and you elected him, and la ti da ti da.....on and on and on.......you wouldn't know a republican if he ripped your arm off and beat you over the head with it...don't just 'read' the words, understand the words,......dman

roflmao. And I've got a bad sinus headache. That hurt. LOL

[TailgateNut]

Put the wrong people in office, soft on defense and especially on terrorism, allow them to "breed" for lack of a better term, and we are screwed. When another MAJOR attack occurs, and IT WILL if present tactics are not employed correctly and improved upon, the wuss in office will be responsible, spin that after the fact (And if it's a liberal or Conserv, IT WON'T MATTER. The terrorists PROVED they will attack us, let it happen again, THE PRES wears the albatross). Ergo, it CANNOT happen again. You cannot give the terrorists the "opportunity", they in turn will take it.......dman

Don't put up a smoke screen. The only ones you want held accountable are GW and the neocons. You want to give the New York times and the rest of the terrorist enablers a pass. Can it with your crap....as long as it's not your liberal buddies, you want them all under lock and key. Hypocrite personafied.

Agreed, the budget needs to be corrected and so does the DAMN MEXICAN BLEEDING border. However, SECURITY cannot be traded in the name of the BUDGET. Clinton screwed me personally in the 90's with that tactic and my life at points was a living hell. I'll agree the budget must be corrected but the RIGHT WAY. Not the LIBERAL way , unless it happens to be correct.

Leading by example. Is that like "nurturing relations" with the world? Ok, it got us, oh, 9/11? How ****ing nice , nurturing relations are good, to a point, then you better step on some necks when they call for it, or slap them damn silly , either will work for me.

Bottom line: I have no sympathy for anyone that wishes us ill or plans to kill americans. They can catch a bullet as far as I'm concerned, AND fool me once your fault, fool me twice MY FAULT. The next president who suffers a terrorists attack should be drawn and quartered...



Who are the "rest of the terrorist enablers" in your and GW's opinion?

So, Clinton personally screwed YOU?
How was that?
Is that why you hate liberals?

You are beginning to sound like an old HS buddy of mine who decided to stay in the military for TOO DAMN LONG, and it affected him the same way.
Don't attack people who have different views than yours, you are being paid to protect those rights!

[mhgaffney]

Put the wrong people in office, soft on defense and especially on terrorism, allow them to "breed" for lack of a better term, and we are screwed. When another MAJOR attack occurs, and IT WILL if present tactics are not employed correctly and improved upon, the wuss in office will be responsible, spin that after the fact (And if it's a liberal or Conserv, IT WON'T MATTER. The terrorists PROVED they will attack us, let it happen again, THE PRES wears the albatross). Ergo, it CANNOT happen again. You cannot give the terrorists the "opportunity", they in turn will take it.......dman

Don't put up a smoke screen. The only ones you want held accountable are GW and the neocons. You want to give the New York times and the rest of the terrorist enablers a pass. Can it with your crap....as long as it's not your liberal buddies, you want them all under lock and key. Hypocrite personafied.

Agreed, the budget needs to be corrected and so does the DAMN MEXICAN BLEEDING border. However, SECURITY cannot be traded in the name of the BUDGET. Clinton screwed me personally in the 90's with that tactic and my life at points was a living hell. I'll agree the budget must be corrected but the RIGHT WAY. Not the LIBERAL way , unless it happens to be correct.

Leading by example. Is that like "nurturing relations" with the world? Ok, it got us, oh, 9/11? How ****ing nice , nurturing relations are good, to a point, then you better step on some necks when they call for it, or slap them damn silly , either will work for me.

Bottom line: I have no sympathy for anyone that wishes us ill or plans to kill americans. They can catch a bullet as far as I'm concerned, AND fool me once your fault, fool me twice MY FAULT. The next president who suffers a terrorists attack should be drawn and quartered...

I did not vote for Clinton. I am an independent radical.

You talk about giving a pass. Care to explain why no heads rolled here after 911? If it was due to incompetence as we are so frequently told then people should have been held accountable for screwing up. Instead, people got promoted.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration blocked FBI attempts to track down bin Laden and other terrorists. Why? The CIA and NSA had given bin Laden protection as an intelligence asset.

All of this tells us that the Bush administration was complicit in the 911 attack. The key decisions to let it happen and - after the fact - to hold no one responsible -- must have been made at the very top of our government.

Yet you and most of the American people are asleep. You think there is a clear boundary between "us" and "them." Not true.

The US government has done many terrorist acts, one recently, the bombing of a Cuban commercial jet liner -- an incident that killed more than a hundred innocent people -- and the US continues to harbor and will not extradite the terrorist Padilla who did it.

And there are countless other examples. The only conclusion you can reach is that the US is a terrorist state. This is not the way to lead the free world.

MG

[Rigs11]

I could give two s**ts about GW. He has screwed up the border and the war. I'm worried about the people getting informed on the next pres and making an informed decision. And ensuring we don't elect a gutless , wuss "reed in the wind" pres. We would never survive that.
You really need to learn to read between the lines, just because overall I swing conservative on some issues and liberal on others DOESN"T mean I agree with GW. I don't agree with blaming EVERYTHING on him though. But you do , so you can stuff that whereever you want and stand the **** down. Then again, since you are so far LEFT you fall off the MAP, don't hurt yourself on the way down.........dman

I know IT'S ALL GW's fault, and you elected him, and la ti da ti da.....on and on and on.......you wouldn't know a republican if he ripped your arm off and beat you over the head with it...don't just 'read' the words, understand the words,......dman

*Who's your hero , HILLARY? Niiiiiccceee. Let me guess, JESSE J. ,,,,,AL GORE? Ralph Nader? C'mon libber, who's yours? Enjoy that?, good. Don't attempt to label my *** anymore. You suck at it. And, above all, you are DEAD WRONG.
Hey genius I'm pretty sure that I was responding to Errant's post. Lay off the viagra.

[defenseman]

Who are the "rest of the terrorist enablers" in your and GW's opinion?

So, Clinton personally screwed YOU?
How was that?
Is that why you hate liberals?

You are beginning to sound like an old HS buddy of mine who decided to stay in the military for TOO DAMN LONG, and it affected him the same way.
Don't attack people who have different views than yours, you are being paid to protect those rights!

Hilarious! You are cracking me up. Keep it up, I need a good laugh...Hilarious! ..dman

I get paid to the job I do. And I do it very, very well. What you and anyone else thinks has absolutely NO BEARING on how I do my job. Rest assured of that. And, I don't have the right to an "opinion" , just as you or anyone else? Is that what you are saying? Implying that I work for you? Yeah right, like I work for you. In your dreams. The standard I keep and demand is exceedingly higher and extremely demanding. You'd be hard pressed to find it's equal in the civilian sector. Extremely demanding, extremely unforgiving. Don't even attempt a "lecture" series on how I work for you or anyone else not associated with the government persay. I do a job, and exceedingly well if I do say so myself...dman

Ok, I won't attack, IF they don't attack me, How's that kimosabi?..feel better.

*TOO LONG? What's too long? Don't waste time on a subject you are ill informed on. I am more than equipped to readily and quite easily I might add make the transition, with little to no difficulty into the civilian sector. Then again, I've been warned that my work ethic is extremely strong, a little too strong for about 99.9 % of the civilian jobs out there. Not to worried about that though. That ethic will play out in spades in the civilian sector. I don't hate "liberals". thats the wrong word. For the most part to be honest, I feel really sorry for them. Walking around without a "spine" to support their back must be tough..

In any case. Have a wonderful day there sunshine, really enjoyed the laughHilarious! ...dman

[TailgateNut]

Hey genius I'm pretty sure that I was responding to Errant's post. Lay off the viagra.


LOL I don't think we add viagra to military grub, I think it's salt-peter to keep the from mating while underwater for months on end.

[defenseman]

Hey genius I'm pretty sure that I was responding to Errant's post. Lay off the viagra.

Yep, you were. Touche'..dman

[TailgateNut]

Hilarious! You are cracking me up. Keep it up, I need a good laugh...Hilarious! ..dman

I get paid to the job I do. And I do it very, very well. What you and anyone else thinks has absolutely NO BEARING on how I do my job. Rest assured of that. And, I don't have the right to an "opinion" , just as you or anyone else? Is that what you are saying? Implying that I work for you? Yeah right, like I work for you. In your dreams. The standard I keep and demand is exceedingly higher and extremely demanding. You'd be hard pressed to find it's equal in the civilian sector. Extremely demanding, extremely unforgiving. Don't even attempt a "lecture" series on how I work for you or anyone else not associated with the government persay. I do a job, and exceedingly well if I do say so myself...dman

Ok, I won't attack, IF they don't attack me, How's that kimosabi?..feel better.

*TOO LONG? What's too long? Don't waste time on a subject you are ill informed on. I am more than equipped to readily and quite easily I might add make the transition, with little to no difficulty into the civilian sector. Then again, I've been warned that my work ethic is extremely strong, a little too strong for about 99.9 % of the civilian jobs out there. Not to worried about that though. That ethic will play out in spades in the civilian sector. I don't hate "liberals". thats the wrong word. For the most part to be honest, I feel really sorry for them. Walking around without a "spine" to support their back must be tough..

In any case. Have a wonderful day there sunshine, really enjoyed the laughHilarious! ...dman


;D ...with that post you have confirmed what I thought! Thank you, sweetheart!

[defenseman]

LOL I don't think we add viagra to military grub, I think it's salt-peter to keep the from mating while underwater for months on end.

In the old days I heard stories about the salt peter. I'm talking way back. Not now. But, that Bolded section never existed on any of my boats.......dman

[defenseman]

;D ...with that post you have confirmed what I thought! Thank you, sweetheart!

Don't think too hard , you wouldn't want to hurt yourself...dman

[TailgateNut]

[/B]

In the old days I heard stories about the salt peter. I'm talking way back. Not now. But, that Bolded section never existed on any of my boats.......dman


I thought that's why they call them semen???ROFL!

[The Lone Bolt]

Bush should debate someone who is more on his intellectual level.





I think Bubbles the Chimp is available . . . ;D

[defenseman]

I thought that's why they call them semen???ROFL!

:notworthy ROFL! Okay...that was a pretty good chuckle..dman

[defenseman]

Bush should debate someone who is more on his intellectual level.





I think Bubbles the Chimp is available . . . ;D

If so, who should Hillary debate? Heidi Fleiss?.........dman

[bendog]

I don't fancy seeing hillary debate, but the notion of her having sex publically is very gross. Mind you I'm all for girl on girl porn, but those two would be seriously creepy.

[TailgateNut]

:notworthy ROFL! Okay...that was a pretty good chuckle..dman


I knew that would bring the conversation back to earth. BTW, I was the opposite, an AIR-MAN. AKA crash dummy!

[TheDave]

Are you a psychologist or did you read that he was crazy somewhere?Outspoken maybe, but crazy?


Just my opinion... then again i consider all religious nuts crazy. :approve:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There's no way we can deny that in 1953 we overthrew a popularly elected leader in Iran and replaced him with a right wing monarch who subsequently allowed us to control Iran's oil resources (which that previously democratically elected leader, Mossadeq, would not do). That monarch (Shah Pahlavi) created a completely totalitarian regime and installed a secret police, trained by the CIA and East German Stazi, who brutalized the people of Iran for 25 years and murdered dissenters, which directly led to the revolution of the Ayatollah Khomenei. Madeline Albright recently pointed out, " "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In other words, we can gnash our teeth all we want about Iran, but we should honestly confess that it's our own damn fault.

We did that for oil. We need to stop trying to cover up our own sins. We have propped up tyrants around the world in order to ensure that our companies reap massive profits while supplying us with resources which we waste at an alarming rate. That is the prime, number one reason we are the target of terrorism and hatred around the world. We don't live by the values we preach.

Millions of people around the world look to us to be the beacon of freedom on this planet. Once we take on that role, for real, and stop letting greed dominate our foreign policy, we will find ourselves living in a much better world.


Bingo.

A good history lesson for dman and other "might makes right" types.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush should debate someone who is more on his intellectual level.





I think Bubbles the Chimp is available . . . ;D

:laugh:

At last, a post I can support. :D

[SteveTensi13]

The libs in this forum are siding with a muslim freak dictator and not with their own country? Why am I not surprised?

[TheDave]

The libs in this forum are siding with a muslim freak dictator and not with their own country? Why am I not surprised?

Actually, this "Muslim freak" was elected

[SteveTensi13]

Actually, this "Muslim freak" was elected

Oh, you mean like Saddam Hussein was repeatedly "elected" by 99.9% of the country! Please tell me you are joking and not serious about this freak being duly elected.

[TheDave]

Oh, you mean like Saddam Hussein was repeatedly "elected" by 99.9% of the country! Please tell me you are joking and not serious about this freak being duly elected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4110792.stm

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

[SteveTensi13]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4110792.stm

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Well, hells bells! The Iranian revolutionary counsel legitimized the election, shucks, Had I known that I wouldn't made myself look like such a fool! (it's called sarcasim just in case you didn't know)

[clarker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4110792.stm

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?Well no kidding they found no wrong doing. Hey you don't suppose just like Saddaam that his freak in Iran might do harm to anyone who speaks out against him do you. No way. That never happens in the Middle East.

[SteveTensi13]

Tell you what dave, since you're so enamored by the Iranian electoral process, why don't you move your un-American ass over there and pray to Allah!

[TheDave]

Well, hells bells! The Iranian revolutionary counsel legitimized the election, shucks, Had I known that I wouldn't made myself look like such a fool! (it's called sarcasim just in case you didn't know)


Well no kidding they found no wrong doing. Hey you don't suppose just like Saddaam that his freak in Iran might do harm to anyone who speaks out against him do you. No way. That never happens in the Middle East.

You guys are hilarious, this is what happens with a democracy... sometimes they elect people you don't like. Like it or not guys this is as legit an election as you are going to find in that part of the world. Maybe the whole thing would seem more legitimate had Diebold certified the results.. So again Stevie sorry but he is not a dictator

[TheDave]

Tell you what dave, since you're so enamored by the Iranian electoral process, why don't you move your un-American ass over there and pray to Allah!

that was unoriginal even for you... try again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-laptop-sm.jpg

The libs in this forum are siding with a muslim freak dictator and not with their own country? Why am I not surprised?

The real point of this thread sailed right over SteveCoulter13's head.

Why am I not surprised?

[W*GS]

I did not vote for Clinton. I am an independent radical.

I don't doubt you're independent, as not many folks would willingly associate with you, except fellow nut-cases like LABF...

The only conclusion you can reach is that the US is a terrorist state.

That's the only conclusion you can reach - but the correspondence between your thought processes and reality is tenuous at best.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7453/lapdog1cj.jpg

[W*GS]

http://discardedlies.com/images/RIP%20evo,%20friend%20of%20castro%20and%20chavez-thumb.jpg

[mosca]

He would just "go away". Happens more than you or I will ever know. And it is just that easy. As you see it? Fair enough. Agreed, no need for war. Perfect end to a perfect "little hitler". I could care if you like my take or not, I have mine and you have yours. Enjoy yourself flapping rhetoric. I'm for fixing the damn problem , but permanently...dman
You're being pretty vague... he'll just "go away"? I'm not sure what you're alluding to here... that we off the guy? That in itself would instantly lead to war.

I agree that the problem should be fixed, but I'll be honest, I don't have a solution for it here and now. I'm all for sanctions but let's face it, those haven't really accomplished much in other situations. Not sure what flapping rhetoric you're seeing from me, I personally am one to seek a solution in any situation. Just wondered if you had a proposal to put forth here.

[Rohirrim]

Sanctions will work on Iran much better than they worked in Iraq. Iraq was a totalitatian regime totally under the thumb of one individual who controlled every aspect of life in the country, including the economics. Iran is far more integrated in world economics and the ruling mullahs do not have totalitarian control by any means, although they would like to - and if Bush keeps up his "Axis of Evil" BS, he may help them achieve that goal. Every time he rattles the saber at Iran, it gives the mullahs a little more political power in Iran.

Of course, we must take into account what Bush's goals are for Iran. The neocon goal in Iran is not to encourage moderates who will vote into power a democratic leader who will join the western nations in a march toward freedom, while controlling his country's resources for the good of its people. The goal is to overthrow the government, whatever that government is, and replace it with a puppet regime (Rightist preferred) which will accept bribes and give us control of its oil. Seventy years of history can't be wrong.

[Rigs11]

Tell you what dave, since you're so enamored by the Iranian electoral process, why don't you move your un-American ass over there and pray to Allah!

What an idiot.The un-american card is all you have left isn't it?When are you going to realize that being a patriotic american means questioning your goverment and not simply following like a sheep?

[gunns]

Bottom line: I have no sympathy for anyone that wishes us ill or plans to kill americans. They can catch a bullet as far as I'm concerned, AND fool me once your fault, fool me twice MY FAULT. The next president who suffers a terrorists attack should be drawn and quartered...

Seems to me this paragraph is all about Bush. He may not wish it but he's done it.



Bush again. Maybe not the stoned women but I'm sure in his earlier days he was around stoned women. Yeah it was meant to be funny as funny as your statements that we have ground to make up after Bush. That's putting it very very lightly. And yes, the next President will probably pay for Bush's folly. I'm wondering if Bush supporters will even see it. I think the whole purpose of this thread is to point out that Bush is as nuts as some other nut jobs.

[QUOTE]He would just "go away". Happens more than you or I will ever know. And it is just that easy. As you see it? Fair enough. Agreed, no need for war. Perfect end to a perfect "little hitler". I could care if you like my take or not, I have mine and you have yours. Enjoy yourself flapping rhetoric. I'm for fixing the damn problem , but permanently...dman

Right. How would this fix it permanently? They'd just put someone more radical in office to deal with us. What do you think he's the only one? That's like Bush thinking that getting Saddam out of office would be the end all and glorify him.

[mhgaffney]

Sanctions will work on Iran much better than they worked in Iraq. Iraq was a totalitatian regime totally under the thumb of one individual who controlled every aspect of life in the country, including the economics. Iran is far more integrated in world economics and the ruling mullahs do not have totalitarian control by any means, although they would like to - and if Bush keeps up his "Axis of Evil" BS, he may help them achieve that goal. Every time he rattles the saber at Iran, it gives the mullahs a little more political power in Iran.

Of course, we must take into account what Bush's goals are for Iran. The neocon goal in Iran is not to encourage moderates who will vote into power a democratic leader who will join the western nations in a march toward freedom, while controlling his country's resources for the good of its people. The goal is to overthrow the government, whatever that government is, and replace it with a puppet regime (Rightist preferred) which will accept bribes and give us control of its oil. Seventy years of history can't be wrong.

I agree that the goal of the neo cons is regime change. But in my opinion there will be no sanctions -- because Russia and China oppose them. I don't see them coming around on this.

Russia and China both want to limit US influence in central Asia - so why would they support sanctions on their trading partmer Iran? It makes no sense -- especially since there's no hard evidence of a bomb program. The American people may be gullible and prone to mind control but the rest of the world won't fall for Bush's lies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The American people may be gullible and prone to mind control but the rest of the world won't fall for Bush's lies.

Seems the BushCo mind control is losing its power over Americans as well (except for that fringe minority of drooling half-wits and right-wing extremists like SteveCoulter13 and errant, that is.)

[bendog]

I'm not so sure sanctions will work with Iran. To retain power, the little hitler has to put Iranians in a postion as viewing the West as pushing Iran around.

[Rohirrim]

I agree that the goal of the neo cons is regime change. But in my opinion there will be no sanctions -- because Russia and China oppose them. I don't see them coming around on this.

Russia and China both want to limit US influence in central Asia - so why would they support sanctions on their trading partmer Iran? It makes no sense -- especially since there's no hard evidence of a bomb program. The American people may be gullible and prone to mind control but the rest of the world won't fall for Bush's lies.

It's very simple. The Russians and the Chinese know that if they don't agree to a sanctions regimen, the hostility will escalate. They stand to lose FAR more if Bush bombs Iran than they stand to lose if they join the rest of the security council in sanctions.

Every time I think of this it reminds of the Beach Boys: Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb, Iran... ;D