US attacks Iranian consulate-to-be in Iraq

[Woody]

Hey ... Ed

I tried to send you a PM but it said you were over the limit. Are you blocking PMs? OR can you clear up some for communication?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I cannot imagine an invation of Iran. I seriously doubt that will happen.

I think Bush needs to attack Iran to give his presidency a chance of being considered anything but an abject failure. The axis of evil speech will come back to haut Bush unless he does something dramatic and sucessful with Iran. Iraq and North K have become more of a threat as a result of Bush policy.

I would be very surprised if Bush does NOT do something or allow something (an Israeli attack). Hubris is a defining feature of this presidency and it will not let Bush depart without an attack on Iran.

The truth is that if we don't do something to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, our Israeli friends will. I believe the US may do it in the next year or sooner in order to keep Israel from doing it because the US does not want to get Israel in a situation where they may be required to go to war with their Muslim neighbors. It is better if the US does it. There is no way the US can allow Iran to have the nuclear bomb.

[Woody]

Well said John 317 .

And a foothold in Iraq can only help our chances of stopping Iran. Like you say ... it is critical for world peace that we do it and do it quickly.

[Bravus]

Umm - on the assumption that Iran is even working on a nuclear weapons program. They have said loudly and repeatedly that they are not, and the UN's inspections bear that out. Remind you of anyone else who the US said had WMDs, despite their own protestations and the UN inspectors' reports? (And Shane, we know about the ancient shells, but they're not the WMDs the war was started for.)

Starting yet another war (and no-one has yet given any sort of answer to my 'you and what army' question) on the basis of this same kind of approach seems like a catastrophically bad idea.

[Woody]

The UN is currently placing sanctions against IRAN for the nuclear weapons program. Where do you get the idea Bravus that some inspector has declared them to be without a nuclear weapons program?

[Bravus]

Nope, they're placing sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program. Iran currently doesn't even have the capacity to enrich uranium to the level required for nuclear power plants (3% or so), and is far, far away from having the capacity to enrich it to weapon level (>80%). They have repeatedly said their nuclear program is for peaceful nuclear power generation purposes, but the international community is not happy with that and wants them to stop their program entirely, hence the sanctions. People are suspicious of Iran, and perhaps not surprisingly given President Ahmadinejad's tendency to say inflammatory things, but there's zero evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

[Neil D]

The Demos are already pushing for a draft. One Black Demo has been pushing a bill in the Senate to restore the draft. But PTL ... Bush and the Republicans are strongly opposed to it.

As Shane would say, "here is spin"...Now, Let's see what main stream news is saying....

Pelosi says no to draft legislation

factcheck.org

--The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.

One bill is HR 163 , whose principal sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.

In fact, Rangel told FactCheck.org through his spokesman Emile Milne that even he isn't pushing for passage, let alone Bush (emphasis added):

Rep. Rangel: I'm not pushing this bill . It's up to the President to come to me when he needs it.

The identical Senate bill, S. 89 , introduced by Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings, and also was DOA. Not one other senator has co-sponsored it. It also sits in committee with no action scheduled or expected.

Both bills in question were drawn up before the Iraq war started, mostly to make a political point. Rangel said he acted to highlight Democratic objections to use of military force against Saddam Hussein. He wrote , "I truly believe that decision-makers who support war would more readily feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the front lines if their children were there, too."

Let's not yell "fire!" where there is no smoke.....

[bevin]

The Bush administration is trying to find scape-goats for their failed policies.

The scape-goats are

• Democrats
• Any American who disagrees with Bush
• El Qeida
• Insurgents
• Iran
• Syria

The only 'buck' that stops with this president is the one that goes into his cronies pockets.

He is trying to provoke a war with Iran. Probably, like his dad, he will do it when he is a lame duck (remember the stupidity in Somalia?) so that the next president is left to clean up ...

• the mess GWB will make in Iran
• the mess GWB has made in Israel/Palestine
• the mess GWB has made in Iraq
• the mess GWB has made of the USA budget
• the mess GWB has made of environmental policy
• the mess GWB has made of health policy
• the mess GWB has made of FEMA
• the mess GWB has made of NASA (what is this fascination with the manned space program anyway?)

Yeah, I know he is a born-again christian paying 10% on his gross income.

Unfortunately it is possible to be born-again and grossly-incompetent at the same time

/Bevin

[lazarus]

Unfortunately it is possible to be born-again and grossly-incompetent at the same time

/Bevin

Just wanted to post the above again for emphasis!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

(And Shane, we know about the ancient shells, but they're not the WMDs the war was started for.)

Just for the record, I have never claimed that the pre-1991 WMDs that were found were the WMDs everyone thought were there. However Saddam had claimed they were destroyed and I don't buy the SPIN (which I have only heard on this board) that somehow Saddam lost track of them.

Weapons inspectors never gave Iraq the "all clear" on WMDs. Just before the invation Hans Blix said it may be easier for the coalition forces to find the WMDs since they would have open access to the country.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The Bush administration is trying to find scape-goats for their failed policies.

Somehow the words, "where mistakes were made, the responsibility rests with me." doesn't sound like he is looking for scape-goats to me. The interview on 60 Minutes tonight should be a good one.

[bevin]

Actually what GWB said was

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/world/middleeast/10cnd-ptext.html?bl&ex=1168837200&en=b38bee174961a2a5&ei=5087%0A

Quote:

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people ­ and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

He restricted the discussion to the current situation in Iraq.

He did not list a single mistake, or even admit that ANY had been made.

He did not take responsibility for the bad decision to ignore the excellent advice he got about what would happen if he was stupid enough to invade, nor for messing up the pre-invasion planning, for...

Nor did he take responsibility for all the messes other than Iraq

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

A sitting President is not going to admit specific mistakes made during a war that is still going on so the nation's enemies could use it against the effort in their propaganda machine. He is not an idiot.

The radical left refuses to recognize the solid charachter of this man dispite mistakes he has made. Luckly Jesus won't judge him by the same criteria.

[Woody]

Regarding "Both bills in question were drawn up before the Iraq war started, mostly to make a political point. Rangel said he acted to highlight Democratic objections to use of military force against Saddam Hussein."

..............................................................

I would like to point out that I personally heard Rangel on the news promoting his bill to start the draft ...... a week before Christmas. Just a few weeks ago. No mention that he didn't believe in what he was promoting. A lot of posts are indicating that the Democrats don't believe in what the are promoting. I see no evidence of that. And if it were true ... it would point out how silly the Democrats are.

[lazarus]

The radical left refuses to recognize the solid charachter of this man dispite mistakes he has made. Luckly Jesus won't judge him by the same criteria.

What's with the radical left fetish?

I don't think the issues are so much with his character but his ability to lead a country and prosecute a war. I don't think it just the radical left, whoever they are, that have a problem with the president.

[Dr. Shane]

Some people can distinguish between the man and his policies. Many people have a problem with the President's policies but not the president himself. However others attack him personally. For example when someone points out the President is a loyal tithe payer, others compare him to the Pharisees. They don't seem to be able to distinguish between the man and his policies.

I don't have too much of a problem in that area. For example, during the Clinton presidency, I thought he was handling the country quite well and gave him high marks for his policy. Especially his ability to work with Republicans in Congress. However as a man, I felt I could trust my dog more than the President. So while I thought he was doing a good job as President, I thought of him as a low-down scoundral as a man.

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: lazarus

Unfortunately it is possible to be born-again and grossly-incompetent at the same time

/Bevin

Just wanted to post the above again for emphasis!

Let's leave Jimmy Carter out of this.

[Dr. Shane]

Well in the 60 Minutes interview this evening Bush said he is not concerned about his legacy and if the American people want a scape-goat he is their scape-goat. He was sounding a bit like Trueman there. He also added that he got no sastisfaction from Saddam's execution; he isn't a man motivated by revenge.

[bevin]

We don't want a scape-goat.

We want a competent leader who can be trusted not to screw up our domestic and foreign policy just because a handful of neo-con cronies want to make money and go off on some ill-conceived and ill-executed tangents.

Have you noticed that Britain is WITHDRAWING 3000 of its 7000 troops from Iraq? And that no other country has even 1000 troops there???

Have you noticed that Bush and Cheney are NOT LISTENING to anybody any more. Bush is publically stating that he has the authority to push in more troops regardless of what congress says.

It is time to cut up his credit-card.

/Bevin

[annie]

Funny, I saw Hillary Clinton on the news tonight seated across from the leader of Afghanistan and wondered what in the world she is doing! Who gave her the go ahead to go over and stick her nose in? By the way, does anyone notice the extreme take over of leadership roles by women, lately? new topic, perhaps?

annie

[Woody]

I personally feel that a women is no different than a man with regards to potential leadership abilities. So ... I think it is long over due. I would not call it extreme. I don't think women are in leadership any more than men.

[bevin]

Hillary is a senator. She has as much right to talk to foreign leaders as any other senator.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

I would like to point out that I personally heard Rangel on the news promoting his bill to start the draft ...... a week before Christmas. Just a few weeks ago. No mention that he didn't believe in what he was promoting. A lot of posts are indicating that the Democrats don't believe in what the are promoting. I see no evidence of that. And if it were true ... it would point out how silly the Democrats are.

If Rangel is the same guy, I remember a legislated person talking about introduced legislation on the draft that he sponsered/authored. He said the reason he did it was because the war needed to be talked about. It sounded like so much political positioning and hype. I also thought it dangerous for our boys...

The fact is, the public is divided against the war. They want something sucessful. They are not sure about whether we need to get out or take over the danged country. They just don't want our boys killed for a civil war, which it is turning into. It's been nearly 6 years, and this short incursion should have been completed and set in place....It hasn't...We don't like the quagmire we are getting our selves into and we are hating our war economy....

As I see it, if the excutive branch of goverment really is serious about this war, they need more troups...and the 20k increase [that has been moved up to 21.5k ] is just a drop in the bucket that they are going to need. They will need a draft to enlist the numbers that they truely need.

If we pull out, that area will become embroled in a civil war, as if it hasn't already. I suspect that the 3 main factions In Iraq will cause Turkey to become involved. Either it will keep the Kurds in thier country and enlarge it's domain by the Kurds in Iraq or the Kurds in both countrys will attempt to create thier own country, thus creating another civil war. Syria and Iran will continue to play thier games and seek to expand thier countries as well by playing off the other groups in Iraq.

At any rate, thanks be to Bush and his stupid adminstration for breaking the country. We can't maintain the country, but we can set the stage for a bigger war in the area...

[lazarus]

Well in the 60 Minutes interview this evening Bush said he is not concerned about his legacy and if the American people want a scape-goat he is their scape-goat. He was sounding a bit like Trueman there. He also added that he got no sastisfaction from Saddam's execution; he isn't a man motivated by revenge.

I think only small minority find credibility in what president Bush says. I think most people are at the point where whatever Bush says it probably the best course to believe the opposite.

Are we supposed to believe that just 21,000 is the difference between victory and defeat in Iraq when a 10,000 surge last year made things worse!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Hillary is a senator. She has as much right to talk to foreign leaders as any other senator.

Close, but not quite accurate. The Senate has oversight committees and the senators on those committees have certain rights and responsiblities. There are such committess such as the Forgien Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees that would certainly give a senator the rights and responsibilties to be traveling abroad and meeting with forgien leaders. Since Senator Clinton is on the Armed Services Committee, she is in such a position to have those rights and responsibilities.