War with Iran

[mikesilvia]

The fact that Bush scored 1206 on his SAT's really proves nothing. There are countless examples of book smart people who don't have any common sense. Good test scores don't necessarily translate into sound judgements or rational decisions. His checkered past in the business world would attest to that.

I believe Bush was called a moron. I showed that he is not.

The British sailors were captured by the para military Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which in itself operates outside the Iranian military. There is little doubt that they function with the approval of the government but as an independent entity, they fulfill a different role for the Iranian government and as such probably don't feel the need to aquiesce to British demands.

They report to the mullahs and the President. Nothing goes on in the country without their approval. Also, if the mullahs tell the guard to release them, they will release them.

As far as the Geneva Conventions, the very labeling of Iraqis and Afghanis captured as "enemy combatants" allows for the suspension of these rights by the U.S. I would hardly think the U.S. or Britain could claim the high road on that point with regard to the treatment of the British sailors considering the use of secret prisons and questionable methods of interrogation by these two countries. Semantics on either side can allow for most anything.

Did you read what I posted? I stated that making a video of the sailor and showing them on TV was against the Geneva Conventions. This is a fact regardless of what America does. Judges don't sit around and say, "Yes, Iran is breaking the law, but yeah the U.S. and everyone else has broken the law."

Our support of Israel is an issue to the Arabs. And it will continue to be one for generations to come.

Arabs suicide bomb civilians everyday and support terrorism. This is an issue with America and will be for generations to come.

Concerning nuclear weapons, rogue states such as Iran may pose a threat, but no more so than our supposed allies India and Pakistan both of whom have not signed the Non-proliferation Treaty.

How many Indians are crashing airplanes into buildings or suicide bombing Americans and Jews? How many have stated their goal is to wipe Israel off the map?

It is a joke for people to think Iran will act responsibly with nukes like Israel. I hope when the nuke goes off in America, it takes away the folks that have no problem with Iran having nukes. I have a problem with other people having no problem with terroris nations getting nukes. Because it is my family that dies. Like Clinton doing nothing before 9-11. Around 3,000 families lost love ones because President Clinton felt the need to do nothing. We may never know how little Clinton did because Sandy Berger decided to get into the National Archives and steal classified information. I am still waiting for him to take the lie detector test.

[tnopud42]

No, what you showed is that he scored well on a test. There is very little in his life that shows he knows who to use that knowledge to the betterment of people. Bush is not articulate. This inability to communicate is exactly what people interpret as moronic. Now you may present a numerical score but that does not change the perception and right or wrong, that is what Bush has to live with.

Did you not read what I said? The United States can hardly claim some moral high ground in the treatment of individuals when they simply justify their behavior by labeling an individual "enemy combatant" vs "prisoner of war." To claim a violation by Iran is no more than the pot calling the kettle black. Besides the United Staes should let the British handle the situation since it is their personnal.

The support of Israel automatically puts us on the defensive when dealing with Arabs.

India and Pakistan may not be flying airplanes into buildings but Pakistan did sell technology to N. Korea in exchange for missle technology. This from a country who is suppose to be our partner in the "war on terrorism."

Clinton did nothing? As opposed the actions Bush took before 9-11.

And as far as lie detector tests, I'm still waiting for Bush and Cheney to testify under oath.

[mikesilvia]

No, what you showed is that he scored well on a test. There is very little in his life that shows he knows who to use that knowledge to the betterment of people. Bush is not articulate. This inability to communicate is exactly what people interpret as moronic. Now you may present a numerical score but that does not change the perception and right or wrong, that is what Bush has to live with.

What an idiot he is! Becoming governor of Texas and the President of the U.S. I wish I could be so moronic.

Did you not read what I said? The United States can hardly claim some moral high ground in the treatment of individuals when they simply justify their behavior by labeling an individual "enemy combatant" vs "prisoner of war." To claim a violation by Iran is no more than the pot calling the kettle black. Besides the United Staes should let the British handle the situation since it is their personnal.

The Supreme Court would disagree:
Court denies appeal from Gitmo detainees - Yahoo! News

Clinton did nothing? As opposed the actions Bush took before 9-11.

Clinton had 8 years, Bush had s few months.

And as far as lie detector tests, I'm still waiting for Bush and Cheney to testify under oath.

Under what charges? YOu have to break the law first. Sander Berger broke the law. Bush just pissed off liberals, big difference.

[mikesilvia]

Nice Sandy Berger Article. Just type in "Sandy Berger" in Google news and you will see just how bad he was.

Sandy Berger and the story that slipped by mainstream media | TPMCafe

[tnopud42]

Again, it doesn't take brains to serve in either office. The Governorship of Texas is one of the weakest in the United States. The Lt. Gov. runs the state. Bush's election was based solely on sticking to one message. Richards, herself, said that she underestimated his ability to stay on task. That coupled with the usual Rove dirty tricks was enough to seal the deal. As for the presidency, do you want to go down all the Rove tactics there, too?

The Supreme Court decison only reenforces Bush's labeling of these individuals. Enemy combatants have no rights nor do they have the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Much easier that way than calling these individuals POW's which would grants them certain rights.

Bush had 9 month. If this terror situation was in such disarray, if the threat was perceived as being immediate and imminent why didn't Bush attack the problem from day one? Why did the event have to occur before Bush realized terrorism was a threat?

When addressing the 9-11 Commission Cheney and Bush would not testify under oath.

[doniceage]

Sounds like two people who will not look at the other side of the argument no matter what facts are placed out on the table. As with all good debates there are evidence and facts to support each side. Of course it solves nothing unless someone is wiling to make a concession. Neither you two look like you will make a concession just like countries involved. So what will get accomplished (NADA ZIP ZILCH).

p.s. Let the debate rage as I read all the posts. Look forward to more down the road.

D
O
N

[tnopud42]

Don,
I agree, people can argue until they are blue in the face about this. There are any number of sites and information which can be posted to support any point of view and there is at least a kernel of truth to most. The 9-11 Commission said there was enough blame to go around so everyone must share in the responsibility of 9-11. What irritates me is blanket statements coming from the Right that Clinton did nothing. All that aside, my biggest issue with Bush are his motives for invading Iraq and what he used as the basis for that invasion. I know what the "official" White House stance is, but the truth of the matter is the American public does not really know what led us to war. Intel reports have been debated ad naseum, but until all presidential information is released (years from now) we Americans really won't know if the invasion was justified. Memos, emails, notes, private conversations, etc. - this is the information that will actually paint a true picture of why we are in Iraq. One of the lessons of Viet Nam is the duplicity of the U.S. government (Bay of Tonkin). My fear is that the truth concerning Iraq will lead us down that same road.


Now back to the original question. The American people would not support an invasion of Iran. This administration is at low tide when it comes to being able to muster support. Members of Bush's own party are looking for political survival and rattling sabres right now would not be to their benefit. That coupled with the fact we are spread so thin militarily, in my opinion, limits our options.