Bush's big sin in Iraq: Acting uniliaterally?

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by KCConservative
Then maybe they got it from you.

Don't quit your day job. You're not that funny.

 

[KCConservative]

Don't quit your day job. You're not that funny.

You think if I had a day job I'd be here trading barbs with you? :lol:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by KCConservative
You think if I had a day job I'd be here trading barbs with you?

I'm afraid were going to have to stop meeting like this because I just got a day job.

 

[Stinger]

Really? It looks to me like she was complaining that we haven't been involved in the process enough.

What's that matter with Europe taking care of it, remember the left says we should have deferred to them on Iraq, that we shouldn't have done what we did becaue they didn't agree. We have worked with them and not told the world what to do, I thought that's one of the complaints about the US we push our way on everyone else.

Now what are we suppose to do if Europe doesn't want to act in Iran just as they didn't in Iraq? Do what we did then? Hillary can't have it both ways and it shows a distinct lack of leadership and the ability to formulate a policy and stick with it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
What's that matter with Europe taking care of it, remember the left says we should have deferred to them on Iraq, that we shouldn't have done what we did becaue they didn't agree. We have worked with them and not told the world what to do, I thought that's one of the complaints about the US we push our way on everyone else.

Now what are we suppose to do if Europe doesn't want to act in Iran just as they didn't in Iraq? Do what we did then? Hillary can't have it both ways and it shows a distinct lack of leadership and the ability to formulate a policy and stick with it.

What the hell's the matter with you? We do not have any right telling other country's what to do! I'm going to vote out every SOB that thinks we can!

 

[The Real McCoy]

What the hell's the matter with you? We do not have any right telling other country's what to do! I'm going to vote out every SOB that thinks we can!

So you won't be voting for Hillary?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Real McCoy
So you won't be voting for Hillary?

OK, so I won't be voting everyone out. You got me there.

 

[The Real McCoy]

OK, so I won't be voting everyone out. You got me there.

That's okay, Hillary will be voted out anyway.

 

[Kandahar]

What's that matter with Europe taking care of it, remember the left says we should have deferred to them on Iraq, that we shouldn't have done what we did becaue they didn't agree.

No, "The Left" (at least most of them) believes that America should work with - not defer - to our allies.

We have worked with them and not told the world what to do, I thought that's one of the complaints about the US we push our way on everyone else.

Now what are we suppose to do if Europe doesn't want to act in Iran just as they didn't in Iraq? Do what we did then? Hillary can't have it both ways and it shows a distinct lack of leadership and the ability to formulate a policy and stick with it.

There would be no contradiction there even if Hillary believed the views you assign to "The Left," because Iran and Iraq are very different situations. But she doesn't even believe that; she supported (and still supports) your adventure in Iraq, so this argument has no merit.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Real McCoy
That's okay, Hillary will be voted out anyway.

After her first term?

 

[Stinger]

No, "The Left" (at least most of them) believes that America should work with - not defer - to our allies.

Well we have been working with them and letting them take the lead on this, you know like the left wanted us to do in Iraq. And if the left truely believes that then why aren't they on the American side in Iraq, Europe was given the chance to join in and we went to the UN twice, it was either defer to them and not do anything or go in with the coalition we had, it was not in fact unilateral.

And since Iran has not attacked us, what will the left's position be? If we can knock out their nuclear program but it involves a few "innocent" Iranians being killed.........should we?

There would be no contradiction there even if Hillary believed the views you assign to "The Left," because Iran and Iraq are very different situations. But she doesn't even believe that; she supported (and still supports) your adventure in Iraq, so this argument has no merit.

OK then why should we have deferred to Europe in Iraq but not in Iraq? If Europe decides not to do anything about Iran, as they did in Iraq, what is the justification for unilateral action that did not exist in Iraq?

She supported the action when she had to put her money where her mouth is, in the vote. But then so did a lot of Democrats who now critize Bush for going through with it. And now like many tries to weasle out of it with the 'we should have had France and Germany and Russia there too' or that she was "misled".

 

[Hoot]

And since Iran has not attacked us, what will the left's position be? If we can knock out their nuclear program but it involves a few "innocent" Iranians being killed.........should we?

NO! Russia has made an offer that we should consider first...allow Iran to conduct its nuclear energy research at Russian facilities, with Russian monitoring.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
Well we have been working with them and letting them take the lead on this, you know like the left wanted us to do in Iraq. And if the left truely believes that then why aren't they on the American side in Iraq, Europe was given the chance to join in and we went to the UN twice, it was either defer to them and not do anything or go in with the coalition we had, it was not in fact unilateral.

Do you know how disgusting it is to read posts like, "We let them do this..." "We let them do that..."? Were not God's. Were not Kings. Iraq was not a threat. We are just one country in a world of sovereign nations. At the moment, our country is full of cowards doing disgusting things to other nations.

Originally posted by Stinger:
And since Iran has not attacked us, what will the left's position be? If we can knock out their nuclear program but it involves a few "innocent" Iranians being killed.........should we?

Israel will knock them out before we decide to do something.

Originally posted by Stinger:
OK then why should we have deferred to Europe in Iraq but not in Iraq? If Europe decides not to do anything about Iran, as they did in Iraq, what is the justification for unilateral action that did not exist in Iraq?

Maybe Asia has an opinion on this.

Originally posted by Stinger:
She supported the action when she had to put her money where her mouth is, in the vote. But then so did a lot of Democrats who now critize Bush for going through with it. And now like many tries to weasle out of it with the 'we should have had France and Germany and Russia there too' or that she was "misled".

They were misled.

 

[Stinger]

NO! Russia has made an offer that we should consider first...allow Iran to conduct its nuclear energy research at Russian facilities, with Russian monitoring.

Oh that's conforting. About like France saying "We'll watch Saddam". Iran doesn't need nuclear energy research, they are way enough oil to satisfy their needs.

 

[cnredd]

NO! Russia has made an offer that we should consider first...allow Iran to conduct its nuclear energy research at Russian facilities, with Russian monitoring.

This is wrong...

Russia has made an offer that IRAN should consider first....

According to this, they've already considered it...and said "No"...

Tehran on Monday rejected an offer by Russia to allow Iran to enrich uranium for its nuclear reactors in Russia. Ha'aretz reports that the proposal had been put forward by Russia, which is helping Iran develop and build the reactors, as a way to allay concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its potential to be turned into a weapons program. Iran continues to insist its program is being developed solely for peaceful purposes.

The European Union had been pushing for Iran to accept Russia's offer, as it would be a way to ensure that only low-grade uranium, suitable for power stations, would be processed. But Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told Iranian TV that Iran will continue to insist on its right to enrich the material in Iran itself. He did add, however, that Iran would be willing to consider conducting certain phases of the process outside Iran.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/dailyUpdate.html

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
Oh that's conforting. About like France saying "We'll watch Saddam". Iran doesn't need nuclear energy research, they are way enough oil to satisfy their needs.

Why don't you let them decide that, instead of acting like some kind of despot?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What the hell's the matter with you? We do not have any right telling other country's what to do! I'm going to vote out every SOB that thinks we can!

Non-nuclear proliferation act to which Iran is a signatory, ring any bells?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Non-nuclear proliferation act to which Iran is a signatory, ring any bells?

That's a valid point. I don't think it is a reason to attack, but it is a valid point.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why don't you let them decide that, instead of acting like some kind of despot?

Umm first off anyone who thinks that one of the worlds largest natural gas producer needs nuclear technology for peaceful ends is diluting themselves.

Second off, the Iranian President has in planned speeches, not off the cuff remarks, on numerous occasions stated that his agenda is the eradication of the nation of Israel. From the statement that Israel should be wiped off the map to the holocaust never happened and if it did then it's Europes fault so the Israeli people should be forcefully moved to Europe, the Iranian agenda is clear.

Thirdly, Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and are obliged by international law to follow their own treaties.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Umm first off anyone who thinks that one of the worlds largest natural gas producer needs nuclear technology for peaceful ends is diluting themselves.

Second off, the Iranian President has in planned speeches, not off the cuff remarks, on numerous occasions stated that his agenda is the eradication of the nation of Israel. From the statement that Israel should be wiped off the map to the holocaust never happened and if it did then it's Europes fault so the Israeli people should be forcefully moved to Europe, the Iranian agenda is clear.

Thirdly, Iran signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and are obliged by international law to follow their own treaties.

Turning up the heat on Iran is preventing Iraq from normallizing relations with them which is keeping our ground troops in that country longer than they have to be. Besides, Israel has demonstrated on several occasions they are more than capable of fighting their own battles. If they need help, they can get it from the UNSC.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Turning up the heat on Iran is preventing Iraq from normallizing relations with them which is keeping our ground troops in that country longer than they have to be. Besides, Israel has demonstrated on several occasions they are more than capable of fighting their own battles. If they need help, they can get it from the UNSC.

Yadayadayada, if there is going to be war between Israel and Iran it is not going to be a conventional one, that's the whole point.... catch a clue.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Yadayadayada, if there is going to be war between Israel and Iran it is not going to be a conventional one, that's the whole point.... catch a clue.

So what. Iran has to know that if they use a nuke, their country will glow in the dark!

 

[Kandahar]

A few things on this thread that need to be corrected:

1. Iran has already rejected Russia's offer to provide nuclear power on Russian soil.

2. Israel is not in a much better position to strike militarily than the United States is, and relying entirely on a deus-ex-machina Israeli air strike is not one of the best strategies.

3. Of all the possible outcomes of this crisis, none of them are good, but the absolute worst outcome is a nuclear Iran. We should not forget that.

4. If it comes to that point, we will have the support of both our European allies and the American people for a military strike if they understand the danger.

5. The ayatollahs don't particularly care if Iran "glows in the dark" if it means they can kill some Jews.

 

[cnredd]

A few things on this thread that need to be corrected:

1. Iran has already rejected Russia's offer to provide nuclear power on Russian soil.

2. Israel is not in a much better position to strike militarily than the United States is, and relying entirely on a deus-ex-machina Israeli air strike is not one of the best strategies.

3. Of all the possible outcomes of this crisis, none of them are good, but the absolute worst outcome is a nuclear Iran. We should not forget that.

4. If it comes to that point, we will have the support of both our European allies and the American people for a military strike if they understand the danger.

5. The ayatollahs don't particularly care if Iran "glows in the dark" if it means they can kill some Jews.

Overall correct...

#4 is a little "iffy"...The "if they understand the danger" comment makes the sentence correct, but you know as well as I that there will always be a contigency of people who will never understand this and bellow the standard lines...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So what. Iran has to know that if they use a nuke, their country will glow in the dark!

To you think crazy people think about the consequences, the Iranian clerics believe in the literal interpretation of the Koran, they're looking forward to the end of the world.