The build up to our next war has begun:
73 RepliesJump to last post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran;_ylt=Ah3QILWFkIvmKWt0wOI2iLyyFz4D
I find it amusing that Ms. Rice uses the words obfuscate & lie. Is she talking about her boss?
No, I think if you read the article a little more closely you’ll find that she’s referring to the government of Iran.
[quote=Ashland]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran;_ylt=Ah3QILWFkIvmKWt0wOI2iLyyFz4D
I find it amusing that Ms. Rice uses the words obfuscate & lie. Is she talking about her boss?[/quote]
Are you that naive that you can’t consider the possibility that Condi Rice is right about the Iranian government?
You know…there really is evil in the world, junior.
You guys have been beating the "next war" drum for, what, three years now? So you've decided it will be <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iran? The toss up between Syria and Iran is over? Oh, yeah, I forgot, “Bush Lied!!!” … even though Democrats were saying the very same thing about Saddam and WMDs as far back as 1998….<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Notice how the "the next war" types never address Iran's nuclear program or mention how most of the rest of the world agree with us about what a danger to world stability a nuke-armed Iran would be? Nah, it’s not about Iran and Imaneedidinnerjacket the loon holocaust denier with nuclear bombs, it’s all about Bush.
Kind’a makes you wonder just what they’ll turn their bile and free time to when he leaves office.
In the meantime, the front runner among the Democrats for the Whitehouse said the current administration has “…chosen to “downplay” the crisis over the past several years” and says military force can’t be ruled out…
"Let's be clear about the threat we face," Ms. Clinton said. "A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."
"We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,"...
Given the logic of the "next war" types, we should be calling Hillary a warmonger. Don't point out the contradiction to them, their heads would probably explode.... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/international/middleeast/19cnd-iran.html?_r=1&oref=sloginIran or Syria, which country will be next?
Hmm? Rice's successful policy of turning Iraq into a democratic oasis to be used as a model for the rest of the torn middle east has led, as she predicted, to other countries clamoring to be the next Iraq. Iran, Syria? They both want in. You can easily translate their defiant sounding retoric to "Please pick Me!"[quote=BondGuy]
Hmm? Rice's successful policy of turning Iraq into a democratic oasis ..............
[/quote] Right, let's claim defeat now, long before the struggle is over and call Iraq a disaster. Reminds me of a Senator who will go nameless (cough, Reid, cough) saying the surge is a failure before it had even begun. Now Al Qeada in Iraq is on the run, but since there are political points to be scored, let's by all means, surrender now. Damn the interests of the nation, let's figure out how we can win the next election. While we're at it, let's look the other way about Iran and the prospect of a holocaust denier who's talked about removing Israel from the map having nukes, let's ignore that most of the world is with us on this one, instead let's suggest that Condi has evil intents.... And they wonder why no one takes them seriously.....No problem! You seemed a bit confused there, and I'm glad that I could help.Philo - thanks for clearing that up!
I’m just watching the bile & vitriol speed by. I wonder if what would happen if I stick my shoe in it. I think it might melt.
That's funny, that's just what I thought when I read your first post (and another that chimed in with a supporting message) ignoring the subject of the danger of an Iran with nukes and going off on a "Bush lied"/Condi rant.I’m just watching the bile & vitriol speed by. .
Not outside the Whitehouse there isn't. At least in the minds of a few, that is....[quote=Ashland]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran;_ylt=Ah3QILWFkIvmKWt0wOI2iLyyFz4D
I find it amusing that Ms. Rice uses the words obfuscate & lie. Is she talking about her boss?[/quote]
Are you that naive that you can’t consider the possibility that Condi Rice is right about the Iranian government?
You know…there really is evil in the world, junior.
[quote=joedabrkr]
QUOTE]Are you that naive that you can’t consider the possibility that Condi Rice is right about the Iranian government?You know…there really is evil in the world, junior.[/quote]
I am not that naive to think that is the case. Europe was VERY wrong about Hitler, and there may be people that are very wrong about Iran. All I’m saying is that this sounds very similar to the build up to our last incursion. No other President before George W Bush has had the POLICY of preemptive action.
However, if we’re into tearing down stuff today, let me do some of my own.
A quote from John Boehner:
The week of 4/29/07
"We can look it up and we can walk out. We can walk out on Iraq just like we did in Lebanon, just like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Somalia and we will leave chaos in our wake."
John clearly didn’t feel this way why he voted on three separate occasions (House Roll Call Vote #179, 5/22/93 and House Roll Call Vote #555, 11/9/93) and against funding the war effort there. (House Roll Call Vote #188, 5/26/93) to end the mission in Somalia. Sounds like he asking for timetables for withdrawal with those three votes.
Hypocrisy is everywhere. Honest debate, no where.
We’re ALL Americans. My skin may be a bit darker than most of you, and my politics a little more liberal(although with the kind of spending done by the Republican Congress the between 2000 - 2006 I don’t think so).
I want what you want - what all Amerians want. Stability in the world & especially in the Middle East. A reduction of our dependence on oil from places in the world that don’t like us(if we had less of a dog in the fight would we go there and fight?) Prosperity, home ownership, and a growing middle class for Americans.
Oh, and let me mention again Hillary’s comment;
"We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,"...I'm still waiting for a member of the enlightened to step forward to call her a liar or warmonger.....good thing Bush or Condi didn’t say that, eh? <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You mean "let me change the subject", right?
However, if we’re into tearing down stuff today, let me do some of my own. .
The biggest threat to our country isn’t terrorism, it’s liberalism.
One of the symptoms of liberalism is inability to comprehend reason, as evidenced by mental midgets like Ashland. I'm surprised liberal democrats chose this profession as it flies in the face of their anti capitalist philosophy. Not good for their clients, not good for our industry or country. The shoe fits, so this shouldn't be considered a personal attack. StokI take it then that you're a supporter of the efforts to limit the increases of spending beyond even the drunken-sailor levels of the 2000-2006 GOP Congress being attempted by the current Democrat Congress? What do you know, we agree on something.....(although with the kind of spending done by the Republican Congress the between 2000 - 2006 I don’t think so).
.
LOL. That's what we get for electing (twice) a president born with a golden spoon in his mouth, who couldn't have possibly ever learned the value of a dollar, as evidenced by his failed businesses. He grew up surely knowing no limits to spending, the past generations of his family belonging to elite society and political power. This led him to spend our tax monies in a fashion that is sickening. And it seems to be a trend that's pervaded GOP culture in the last half-decade, from the Bridge to Nowhere to the War On Terror, we're getting fleeced.Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.
Oh, so you really didn't mean the part about being against the spending spree under the GOP Congress, as the Democrats want to spend much more, and that's dandy with you, so long as they kill the economy in the process by hiking taxes. And taxing more and spending more means you're less "liberal" than the GOP Congress was? You sound confused.Yes - I like the the paygo. You know, like it was under Bill Clinton.