Bush: Iran 'Single Biggest Threat' to Middle East Peace

[MTAtech]

But they feel more appreciated when there aren't a bunch of liberals sniping them in the news all over the world.

You keep writing as if the anti-war movement is some fringe element of a left-wing conspiracy headed by Michael Moore and funded by George Soros. The reality is that those critical of the Iraq War are mainstream Americans, measuring 70% in polls.

You, and those that think like you, those that think that criticizing the policy of being there in the first place is somehow disrespectful to soldiers that had no say in being sent there are just wrong.

[surreal]

I think Prince Rupert is the biggest single threat.

[Pexster]

Farewell the temple master's bell
His kiosk and his black worm seed

I love Prince Rupert Awakes.

Also spent the night on a park bench once in Prince Rupert.

But somehow I think I missed the point somewhere along the line.

Sorry for the distraction! Over and out.

[surreal]

Nope you didn't

[MTAtech]

On the topic:

Petraeus terms military action in Iran "last resort"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should increase diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran to counter its rising influence, while retaining possible military action as a "last resort," a top U.S. military officer said on Thursday. link

Appeaser!!!

[Pexster]

You gotta wonder about the basic intelligence of those who trotted out those speeches and attacks. Maybe they figured that they had been so successful for so long with the Big Lies that they would be successful again. The mind boggles!

[cyphen]

I'm fine with military action in Iran being a last resort. But the thing about last resorts is that they get employed when prior resorts have failed to produce the desired results in the given time frame. That makes him anything BUT an appeaser. The left appeases, because they say military options are NEVER an option. They get upset when anyone says the military option is still on the table.

Now, to your prior comment, your presumed 70% supermajority can easily be broken down into several groups, which would easily dissolve what you presume to be support for your position. One such group would be those who never wanted to go in. Another would be those who wanted to go in but think it may have been a mistake and want to get out. Another would be the same, but want to stay in. Another would be a group that wanted to go in, but think major mistakes have been made, but still want to stay in and see it through. Yet another would be one that sees minor mistakes have been made, but want to stay in.

You can't just say 70% are critical, and assume they all want to pull out. I know you WANT to think that, but it's far from the truth.

And you still represent absolutely no solutions to the consequences of surrender. Therefore, lacking a solution that is better than current strategies, your position of opposition is neither viable, nor responsible.

And Pex, there were no big lies in supporting action in Iraq... the biggest lies that have been told have been by those that oppose the war.