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

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Keymaker

Geopolitcal and strategic thinking is a crime? Is there some law that says a country so great is not obligated to rid the world of tyranny, that a regime and a brutal dictator should remain in power and the U.S hasn't got the authority to defined its self?

Actually, there is such a thing called national sovereignty, which precludes other countries from violating national boarders at will. By invading Iraq, the U.S. was not defending itself. Iraq posed no threat to the U.S.

The "tyranny" and "brutal dictator" argument is just hollow nonsense. As I've said many times, Rumsfeld and Cheney were willing to overlook Saddam's brutality and tyranny when they negotiated with him during the Reagan years. Moreover, our history with Central America, South America and Iran indicates that we are also willing to overthrow democracies that we don't like and install dictators who do our bidding.

For whatever reason, Bush and the neo-cons had a hard-on for Saddam and little else mattered. The historical record indicates that they manufactured false accusations and invented evidence to justify invading Iraq. The very fact that Iran has elevated influence in the Middle East is directly attributable to dislodging Iraq, which was a counterbalance to Iran.

On Iran, while it may be true that Iran aids al Qaeda and the Taliban, it's just further proof that U.S. foreign policy is dysfunctional and disjointed. While we decry Iran we support leaders in Iraq had are cozy with Iran.

[Pexster]

How wrong many were about what was going to happen Iraq. Lots of ASS-Sumptions.

Yes, but you seem to only recognize those of people you disagree with. This administration has failed to be straight with its citizens for years now. The reasons keep changing and the goalposts keep moving. So I suggest that a little TRUTH would have gone a long way towards alleviating the problem you mention.

I agreed with a lot of what McCain was saying 2-3 years ago. Maybe I didn't realize that underneath his criticism was a desire to escalate for an indeterminate length of time. In fact, I don't recall him mentioning that little fact.

[Sarah L]

Originally Posted by Pexster

Yes, but you seem to only recognize those of people you disagree with. This administration has failed to be straight with its citizens for years now. The reasons keep changing and the goalposts keep moving. So I suggest that a little TRUTH would have gone a long way towards alleviating the problem you mention.

I agreed with a lot of what McCain was saying 2-3 years ago. Maybe I didn't realize that underneath his criticism was a desire to escalate for an indeterminate length of time. In fact, I don't recall him mentioning that little fact.

Nope I have seen up close and personal Bush's failings in Iraq and McCain knows how to end this thing. We would be 2 to 3 years further along if we wage war the way it should be executed. You destroy your enemy and end the damn thing. You save your lives, civilian lives and even lower the loss of enemy lives by relentless pursuit of the enemy.

But thats another whole argument. The complexities of Iraq will not be solved by sniping our own people at home. That emboldens the enemy, you probably disagree with that but your Army firmly believes many of you at home have indeed made our fight harder.

[Pexster]

your Army firmly believes many of you at home have indeed made our fight harder.

I don't believe you speak for the Army. Other than that, I hope you are right. I hope past results are not indicative of future prospects. Personally, I still believe that the Iraqi government is using us as an excuse to not move more quickly to do what they must. But, as you said, that is also another discussion.

One more thing -- I don't think this particular enemy needs any "emboldening." I doubt most of them give a rat's ass or read the New York Times.

[Pexster]

One more "one more thing" --- this President enjoyed some of the most widespread, almost universal, support of any President in recent history. Perhaps you might consider that the erosion of this support was due to failure of leadership and not some moral shortcomings of citizens.

[pickel]

Originally Posted by Sarah L

Nope I have seen up close and personal Bush's failings in Iraq and McCain knows how to end this thing. We would be 2 to 3 years further along if we wage war the way it should be executed. You destroy your enemy and end the damn thing. You save your lives, civilian lives and even lower the loss of enemy lives by relentless pursuit of the enemy.

But thats another whole argument. The complexities of Iraq will not be solved by sniping our own people at home. That emboldens the enemy, you probably disagree with that but your Army firmly believes many of you at home have indeed made our fight harder.

When you IGNORANT politicians running a war, what else would you expect. After losing many friends and acquaintances in the Viet Nam war, it's not hard to figure out how I feel about a trumped up war. However , since we went over there, for better or worse, we should have kicked ass and take names instead of phucking around, losing many good men and women as well as pissing away billlions of our wealth.

McBush is NOT the answer.

[zen]

Originally Posted by pickel

McBush is NOT the answer.

Neither is Obama. So now what?

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by zen

Neither is Obama. So now what?

Hillary!

[Pexster]

Obama IS the answer! Smart people like him. Uneducated white people like Hillary. Uneducated black people like Obama. Latinos like Hillary. Some women LOVE Hillary. Some hate her. All kinds of people like McCain. (Except conservatives for whom he's not conservative enough.) Oh, and not liberals.

How do I know all this? The relentless slicing and dicing by polling experts and network gasbags.

[jokostel]

Snobs like Obama, Most Blacks like Obama.
Most Women love Hillary, Some blacks like Hillary
The Majority of the Military is for McCain, So are the bible toting gun owners.


Different walks of life demand a different kind of leader.
The problem is, WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE WITH the decisions made.
Then comes the fine line of new laws, or destruction of certain laws... maybe some amendments along the way, who knows.


** In my eyes, anyone who is for the security and rights of the PEOPLE FIRST, then security of the state... is the winner in my eyes.
And as far as shear rights is concerned, you'll maintain the most with McCain.
Obama would be the least... as he is "big city mentality".. and borders on a police state vision.