home

Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against Iran

By Jeralyn, Section Military Draft
Posted on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 07:46:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Bush told NBC News tonight he won't rule out military action against Iran.

President Bush said on Monday he would not rule out military action against Iran if that country was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons program.

"I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," Bush said in an interview with NBC News when asked if he would rule out the potential for military action against Iran "if it continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program."

We don't even have enough soldiers to finish the job in Iraq. Who will he find to go to Iran? Still think there won't be a draft? It's time to take the blinders off.

Update: Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article is available online.

< Casting Call: An Intriguing Proposition | Martha Stewart Weighs in On Booker Decision >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against Iran | 96 comments (96 topical)
    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#1)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 08:23:37 PM EST
    Even if military action isn’t possible it would be a horrible mistake for the president of the US to say as much.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#3)
    by Darryl Pearce on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:09:35 PM EST
    ...oh, they can't let us know the real reason all the military activity is ongoing. I wonder what the real reason could be? Oh, for the enlightenment to begin again.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:13:56 PM EST
    i don't get it - we are already over extended troop wise. who would we send to iran?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:18:43 PM EST
    There's no way there's going to be an invasion anytime soon.Institute a draft you are talking 1 -1.5 years. It doesn't matter how much smoke he blows. Air strikes will just inflame everyone that much more. Every move this idiot has made has made things worse not better. Air strikes wil mean more Iranian fighters in Iraq.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:24:50 PM EST
    Maybe we can get some help from Costa Rica, Poland, and Italy. Remember, we haven't squandered anything, we're not alone!

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:32:29 PM EST
    "Posted by pigwiggle: "Even if military action isn’t possible it would be a horrible mistake for the president of the US to say as much." Yeah, because strutting around making threats when the 'enemy' knows it's a bluff, that's better than DIPLOMACY. Especially when you have already PUBLISHED the list of countries you intend to attack, and when you have already told the Islamic world that it is a crusade, that they have no reason to expect compassion or their legal human rights from this cowboy, that innocent people can be slaughtered at will, as a 'message' to shadowy figures who themselves are LET GO because the true purpose is clearly corporate colonialism and NOT national security. A proven liar, strutting around making threats. Yeah, that will serve America real well. Just like "Bring it on" served our troops. Just like "dead or alive" brought "I really don't think about" Bin Laden to justice. Just like "Mission Accomplished" was actually a mission accomplished, and not a perennial deployment that is literally ripping families, units, services, and the nation apart. Not to mention all those poor innocents who Bush is bringing his 'demockery' through the barrel of guns. "Who we will send to Iran" is actually more like what.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:40:08 PM EST
    "Every move this idiot has made has made things worse not better." Ah, well that's the beauty part. Leaving legs and arms all over Iraq is just the start. Demockery, the $R Bush-fuhrer version of America, in which the rich get richer, and the poor get handed their asses for volunteering to serve in our armed forces. Strutting unelected fraud & his foreign 'policy' is sure to improve with Condoleeza Riceberg as the new Head Liar at State, and the Torturer General, and the Department of Death Rumsfeld on a second tour of his incompetence-for-hire. What a bunch of galoots!!

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    glanton; yes, we cannot forget poland! seriously, i just do not see us being able to attack any countries for a while. and is anyone going to go for another 'preemptive war'? i don't even think hardcore republicans would be anxious to start that up. i think gw is just puff and bluster as far as iran goes - he's got his hands full in iraq. or, as jon stewart calls it, 'mess o'potamia'.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#9)
    by glanton on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:47:12 PM EST
    kelite: You might be giving our rulers too much credit in terms of thoughtfulness. What do they themselves have to lose by starting a couple of extra wars? Nothing. Think of the possibilities! The MSM would smoothly sell it as "more fronts on the global 'war on terror'," and the people would eat it up. Come to think of it, what a shot in the arm another war would be, for the GOP, come midterm time! Why not Iran next? After all, they "hate freedom."

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#10)
    by Darryl Pearce on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 09:47:41 PM EST
    ...nukyular. That way, no U.S. troops are lost (at first, anyway). We can rest assured that President Bush wouldn't possible make a mistake.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:35:17 PM EST
    "Military action" is probably going to be limited to lobbing a few bombs, claiming success in "destroying the illegal and hidden bomb program" and then flying back home. It's a stupid, utopic plan. It will only encourage revenge from Iran, possibly against troops in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, and galvanise the Iranian public behind their leaders. It's poking a stick in a hornet's nest: all it does is rile the hornets.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    Darryl- I'm not sure what your point was in posting a link to a rite of exorcism, unless maybe so everyone at the inauguration could recite it as Bush drove by in his limousine. It'd be cool to watch him levitate and vomit pea soup.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:59:16 PM EST
    Here we go, More war, more guys in prison for fighting bush's war, hey where is bin laden? Don't Fight for bush fight for your own nation and its ideals not Bush and business. Anyway just watch and see what will happen here with mexico city and our Boys in washington, what a joke and how sad, and how many have been killed for bush and business? and how many has this war put in prison? and i don't mean Terrorists i mean our people?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#14)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:55:52 AM EST
    "Posted by pigwiggle: "Even if military action isn’t possible it would be a horrible mistake for the president of the US to say as much." Yes, yes, yes, just like it would have been a terrible mistake for Bush to admit that he has ever made a mistake upon any of the occasions that he was asked if he has. Especially the presidential debate. Do you guys have a fetish for lies? Seriously.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:52:03 AM EST
    "I hope we can solve it diplomatically
    I can picture Bush's buddies in the Carlysle Group and other defense contractors getting a big chuckle over this statement over their brandy and cigars.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#16)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:05:20 AM EST
    SSS- “Do you guys have a fetish for lies? Seriously.” Well, I’m only one guy so I can’t answer for the entire chorus in your head. First, lets be clear; this is all speculation as the report of the ‘recon’ missions in Iran are from a single source. It would be foolish for a sitting president to rule out military action against any openly hostile nation, irrespective of the source of their hostility. Diplomacy isn’t all please and thank you, there is necessarily a threat of force. As I understand it this is why the Democrats passed the use of force act for Iraq. Further, I think it is a mistake to assume that military action would mean a full-scale invasion. US policy in Iraq had been regime change for a number of years, thank you Mr. Clinton; I am unaware of an equivalent policy for Iran. Don’t mistake my analysis for support.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:10:20 AM EST
    Dubya's record on diplomacy is not that good. Of course, Iran has not had UN sanctions and they almost certainly do have weapons programs. The redstaters assume that they should not have weapons programs, but ignore the fact that we have not lived up to the terms of the non-proliferation treaty we signed, so we can't really say too much without being seen as bullies and hypocrites by much of the world. Even "old Europe" is not with us anymore. Oh, except for Poland. Don't forget Poland.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#18)
    by Darryl Pearce on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:12:59 AM EST
    I'm not sure what your point was ... As Benjamin Franklin once cautioned: "Never confuse motion with action." I see a lot of motion by the administration and a lot of death and destruction left behind, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:21:45 AM EST
    SD - Come on, even you are smart enough to know you don't say what you won't do, when you negotiate. No, I take that back. You aren't. et al - Yes, we'll take out the nuclear sites, by air, with conventional weapons. All of the world's governments, except for Israel, Australia and a few others, will run out and soundly condem us on TV. And then run back inside, shut the door and say, "Thank Goodness!"

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:28:04 AM EST
    Ah, you can always count on PPJ to pee on the United States' honor. He hates America so much that he doesn't care if we break all of our promises and become known throughout the globe as lying scumbags.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:54:17 AM EST
    Again, TL? Didn't you just shut down the last thread on this? And right when it was getting good with FD. Thanks, Paul, for providing your synopsis service. When I read your posts, I can always count on you pointing the way to the truth...by spewing prattle diametrically opposed to it. : )

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:25:32 AM EST
    "Posted by pigwiggle: "Even if military action isn’t possible it would be a horrible mistake for the president of the US to say as much."
    He could have answered differently - a non-answer. And Duh... you think they might know already that we're vastly incapable of accomplishing this objective?? All I can hear the ruling (Ayatollahs/Mullahs (sp?) saying now is "Bring 'em on".

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:30:29 AM EST
    I'm not sure what your point was in posting a link to a rite of exorcism, unless maybe so everyone at the inauguration could recite it as Bush drove by in his limousine
    Animists for Change!!!! Does anyone know where I can get a Bush Voodoo Doll?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:34:37 AM EST
    Yes, we'll take out the nuclear sites, by air, with conventional weapons. All of the world's governments, except for Israel, Australia and a few others, will run out and soundly condem us on TV. And then run back inside, shut the door and say, "Thank Goodness!" And then our 18 and 19 year old boys can come in and rebuild another country Jim because that is working so well for us now. Ignorance is bliss.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:26:08 AM EST
    GregZ - No, I didn't say that. After we eliminate the nuke sites, we just let'em stew for awhile. But really, if we need to, we can shut down the old fashioned way. CA & Jason - When you are discussing national security, you are right. The rest of the world should be ignored.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:35:12 AM EST
    All I can hear the ruling (Ayatollahs/Mullahs (sp?) saying now is "Bring 'em on".
    I agree mfox. The crazy fundamentalists want a "clash of civilizations". No where is it written that we have to give it to them on a silver platter.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#27)
    by Andreas on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:43:30 AM EST
    Some people here who love bombing foreign countries might have misinterpreted this movie: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#28)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:51:30 AM EST
    "et al - Yes, we'll take out the nuclear sites, by air, with conventional weapons." And what will be our rationale this time? That the "mad moolahs" might give nukes to a shadowy terrist group? If so, then "taking out the nucular sites" is a lousy option. Remember "We know exactly where they are. They're in and around Tikrit"? So if we make a move to "take out" the nuclear sites, but our information is of the same quality it was last time, wouldn't that increase the probability of a nuclear strike against the U.S.?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jim Strain on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:09:02 AM EST
    Stop worrying, everybody. I'm sure there are no war plans on Bush's desk.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:19:46 AM EST
    Hey "sick": Spellcheck is your friend, use it. At least make the effort (unless you're just incredibly lazy) to express yourself coherently. No one here reads gobbledygook. Back to the topic: I agree with soccerdad in the respect that if the US goes into Iran that it will be awhile. I'm getting the feeling (it's just MY feeling, mind you) that Bush will start withdrawing troops out of Iraq after the "elections", declare victory, then start planning an Iran "liberation." The way the press works, they'll spin Bush pulling out of Iraq as a "win" for Bush, and everyone will move on to Iran as the next stop in the "War On Terror."

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    but iraq is such a mess! it's getting so bad that i fear it may spontaneously explode altogether on election day... we can't just leave it like that! and another preemptive war... i mean, we just don't have the support at home for that! and that doesn't even count the money we'd spend... and the lives that would be lost... and the political capital that would be wasted... and... but... *sigh* i would like to give this administration the benefit of the doubt and the assumption that they have common sense and a conscience. but if they are seriously considering a preemptive war in iran... and soon... i just have to wonder wtf they are thinking. and pray to god that it is not what ally thinks thy are thinking.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:53:55 AM EST
    Stop worrying, everybody. I'm sure there are no war plans on Bush's desk
    LOL - Including plans for the current "war"

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    but iraq is such a mess! it's getting so bad that i fear it may spontaneously explode altogether on election day... we can't just leave it like that
    Spontaneous combustion ON election day = problem for Bush. Spontaneous combustion THE DAY AFTER = no problem for Bush. Love and support to all the parents out there sacrificing their children for this (even if you did vote for Bush twice). My son is just 5. Thank God.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#34)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:57:41 AM EST
    “Including plans for the current "war"” Who needs a plan, the war ended a year ago.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:11:14 AM EST
    LOL, Thanks, PW, I forgot. Must be the left wing propaganda machine pumping out pictures of warehouses full of flag-draped coffins.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#36)
    by BigTex on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    Don't worry Kelite, it's not likely th' Sherrif wants t' invade Iran, and th' Euros are bothered by a nuclear Iran. After all, they can't hit us on our own soil, but with a bit more technological adancement thry could hit Europe proper. Th' Sherrif is a shrewd pol, he won't march into Iran. If he was goin' t' start another war he'd go after Syria. Take out Syria's rattlers(there's no other way t' describe hezbolla if no one else in Syria) and th' Iranians have no one readily available t' pump rattler aid t'. Plus Israel won't have t' worry about her north flank then. Fer better or worse th' SHerrif's plan t' win th' war in Iraq was good, th' problem came when winnin' th' peace. He'll go with th' plan that'll gain th' most with th' least cost at least in terms o' wagin' war.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    BigTex, type after me.... The, the, the, the, the. To, to, to, to, to. I find your postings interesting but reading the damn thangs is driving me crazy!!!!! thx

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    Jim, "SD - Come on, even you are smart enough to know you don't say what you won't do, when you negotiate." Since when has negotiation ever been in the neocon agenda? Iran is not isolated. China has big energy interests there and they currently hold the morgage on the US dollar.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    This is the perfect moment for Iran to come out with its own bluster and state that it refuses to rule out pre-emptive and preventative strikes on U.S. military personnel THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, should it deem itself the impending target of a U.S. attack. After all, North Korea made this threat. Iran should, too. America, in general, and Bush, in particular, has to accept the fact that if the U.S. has nukes, then EVERYONE else is entitled to nukes. And if the U.S. is afraid of others using them, the U.S. certainly has good reason - the U.S. has already done it in anger twice. And if the U.S. is truly sincere about ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons, it can begin by starting with its evil allies, Israel and Pakistan, and their nuclear hoards. And who cares about a lack of Iranian ICBM capacity when you've got all sorts of boats sitting in the shallow "lake" right next door and a series of short-range missiles that can "get the job done". What an incredible shooting gallery for Iran! One of these days, soon I hope, the Monkey Boy is going to go too far, pick on the wrong country, and get his ass kicked. Imagine a world where most of the best oil is useless - because it is radioactive! Pleasant dreams, Monkey Boy!

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    Also, before too much longer, is it too damned much to ask the Monkey Boy to sit down and give the Declaration of Independence a good read? You just know he's NEVER done it before. Now would be a really good time to start. He might just find certain parts oddly applicable to him and his administration right about now.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#41)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    PPJ as usual your response is an attack that is inaccurate. I did not talk about what should be said, but what is likely to be done. But accuracy and honesty are not your strong suit, baseless attacks are. Keep up the good work you are exposing your lack of character for everyone to see. Carry On!

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#42)
    by Al on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    Having read Seymour Hersh's article, I am convinced of two things: 1) Bushco will attack Iran. 2) If you think the Iraqi insurgency is tough, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Favorite quote from Hersh's article: "Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, U.S. military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. Shouldn't be too hard for them to pose as corrupt foreigners. By the way, wasn't that Valerie Plame's job?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    He'll go with th' plan that'll gain th' most with th' least cost at least in terms o' wagin' war. are you basing this opinion on what mr. bush says, or on what he has actually done? based on what i have seen and observed, this is not bush's strategy concerning war.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    Bravo, Lavocat! Funny what happens when you apply our rulers' blustering self-righteous rationale to other nations and to the disenfranchised, aint it? But reason will get you nowhere with this Admin, the media, or certain apologists on this site. We deserve nukes, and we have the right to preemprively strike, because we're.....us. They're the Other, and therefore can only do what we say they can. Anything else is an unacceptable and unprovoked act of aggression.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    We're on the road to nowhere, Come on inside.... People only live in the USA! The others are Others. Right on! glanton. Don't let the untermench get ideas above their station. Pride (a deadly sin) comes before a fall. Can anyone tell me anything GWB or his criminal gang have done which was a success?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    FD - Why ask me? I'm not a neo-con. Al - Wasn't Hersch one of the guys who forecasted 30,000 US casualties and months and months to take Iraq? Andreas - Dr. Strangelove's premise was that Mutally Assured Destruction -Mad - would fail and we would blow each other up. Guess what. It didn't happen. In fact, I see people on this blog trying to say that we should have MAD again. Of course this time the radical Moslems really are just as crazy as Doctor Strangelove himself. Lavacat writes - "This is the perfect moment for Iran to come out with its own bluster and state that it refuses to rule out pre-emptive and preventative strikes on U.S. military personnel THROUGHOUT THE WORLD..." That would be about as dumb a thing as they could possibly do, seeing how it would immediately unite the US and provide instant creditability to Bush's plans - which I doubt exist - to invade/bomb/whatever their country/captial/infrastructure/nuke manufaturing/resarch sites. Glanton - See the above and get a grip. Do you really think cheering on a foreign country to make threats against the US is smart, or rational?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:44:08 PM EST
    And here, Jim is where I believe we touch the root of the entire problem:
    "When you are discussing national security... the rest of the world should be ignored."
    How does ignoring the 90% of the world that isn't American make America safer? Surely it's ignoring the right of the rest of the world to share the same air, water, living standards that got us into this mess.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    Jim, "Why ask me? I'm not a neo-con." Yes I know and I accept your statement that you are a social libertarian. Your original statement was in the context of the US government which most certainly is neocon, and which you unfailingly seem to support. Let's just call it a rhetorical question. Also Jim, “Do you really think cheering on a foreign country to make threats against the US is smart, or rational?”. When the US is run by a bunch of liars who have been peddling myths of good and evil since 1976 (Team B), and who’s sanity can definitely be questioned I’d say Glanton has a remarkably rational take on things.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#49)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    If Bush attacks Iran, we will be done in the ME within 2-3 months. It would likely really piss off the Shiites in Iraq. It wouldn't be surprising that Iranians and supplies would start poring over the border into Iraq. Negroponte will be hanging from the last chopper out of the green zone, which would be a fitting end to this ill advised poorly planned exercise in empire building.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    Ian - Difference between you and me is that I put my country first. Now, I'm not saying we should do anything untoward, or without reason. But, if we have to stand alone, so be it. England did that a few years back. And if they had not, you probably would be speaking German.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:42:09 PM EST
    Good and evil are no myth, FD. You Brits could have been speaking German today. Glanton and Lav would have much more credibility if they weren't posting from the safety of America.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#52)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:44:35 PM EST
    Anybody who puts their country first and values the lives of our military do not want Bush to attack Iraq. The consequences are going to be unbelievably bad from many viewpoints, militarily, diplomatically, and economically.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#53)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:45:42 PM EST
    that should have been attack Irab

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:46:05 PM EST
    I give up - Iran

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:47:50 PM EST
    By "put America first" Jim means "make sure everyone knows we are lying scumbags who torture, maim and kill innocent people". That's his idea of national honor.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#56)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:53:26 PM EST
    Doctor Ace: vacuous and circular as ever. people in the US cannot credibly empathize with its victims because they're in America: people outside of America cannot credibly empathize with its victims because it's none of their damned business and we don't need them anyway. I do live here, and I love this nation, and I dissent vigorously against those who have been dragging our good name through the mud and destroying tens of thousands of lives in the process. I realize that Dubya and his followers (such as yourself) allow no credibility for dissenters, and that's okay, one doesn't expect any more than that anyway. Dissenters and agitators for reform have visited more blessings on this nation than the status quo buttkissers will ever do. And by the way, for YOU to reference Orwell as often as you do is the most Orwellian pjenomenon of all. Seeing you post that great thinker's name is like watching a dewdrop form on a cesspool.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    FD - Can you say North Korea? As for Lavocat's and glanton's comment... read, They're on to us!, in this link. If you have read it, I am sure you now understand.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    Speak for yourself, Jason. Glanton, you call yourself a dissenter, but I have yet to see a credible alternative proposal from you. Cesspool metaphors just don't cut it. My ref to Orwell is accurate. The minorrity presuming to have a stronger mandate than the majority is orwellian. You say you love America but hoping that other countries get the jump on America is seditious. If you don't want to be called orwellian, start calling things by their right names.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:14:34 PM EST
    Great link, Jim!

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:17:53 PM EST
    Jim, "Good and evil are no myth, FD. You Brits could have been speaking German today." I kind of doubt it. Ever heard of The Battle of Britan? Probably not. The US was not in the war at that time, probably trying to work out which side to back. The fact is that Nazi Germany had no hope of invading Britain without air superiority, due to the rather powerful Royal Navy fleet which would have crushed any invasion fleet. Operation Sealion was never a going prospect and for that I don't thank th US. I thank THE FEW. Good and evil exists in everyone of us. The US is not the force for good in the world it thinks it is. This is just part of the neocon myth and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker Jim and regurgitate it like trained animal. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:21:26 PM EST
    PPJ: What can I say, it has certainly worked for North Korea. Perhaps if the world got used to returning the bluster of American jingoism, we'd all be just a bit safer. Doctor Ace: Taking your logic to its conclusion, I will become MORE credible posting from WITHIN the U.S. if we become LESS safe? You simply cannot be serious. Sadly, your logic is prescient as we are getting there each and every day.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    Here's another link about the SWASTIKA. It's just a symbol Jim, it means whatever you want it to mean. NORTH KOREA! There, I said it! Another little third world country the US (and UN allies) completely failed to defeat. They are no danger to the US, only to US troops sitting on their boarder. Why don't you pick on someone your own size like China. Oh yes, you wouldn't have any manufactured goods and a completely insolvent currency. I hear the South Koreans are getting a bit pissed of with Imperial troops in their country especially when they are cranking up for another war in their territory.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#63)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    “I hear the South Koreans are getting a bit pissed of with Imperial troops in their country” This is true; there is a generation gap between pro US Koreans and those opposed. Older Koreans remember the war and take the threats to turn Soul into ‘a lake of fire’ seriously. The younger generation, raised on the ideology of one Korea one people, see the US as more of a threat than Kim. I say we should get the h*ll out and them sort it out, lake of fire or not. For all the pr problems suffered by the S. Korean government in hosting the US, they are loath to have us leave. Why pay for an army when you can have pone for free?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:45:28 PM EST
    FD, don't blame Jim for something I said. Do you know what goes on inside N. Korea? Have you seen what Kim Jong Il has done vs. what he has said? It is the EU about to lift economic sanctions against China from since Tiannanmen, not the US. Glanton, stop talking nonsense. It's what you do the matters. You stay here because you're safe here. That logic speaks louder than any of your yammering.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    Sorry Jim, misattributed DrA's comment about "speaking German" to you. Saw your comment about Britain standing up. Who knows that the US had a vote on which language, English or German, was going to be the official language of the USA? I think it was in the 19th century. Sorry no link but I'd like one. Told to me by my parents and a Jewish/American co-worker from New Jersey. Stems from the fact that the majority of European emigrants to the USA were German speakers.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:52:38 PM EST
    DrA, "It is the EU about to lift economic sanctions against China from since Tiannanmen, not the US." The US does a hell of a lot of business with China, how else would they be holding your foreign debt? Don't believe me? Check the "Made in" lables on articles around your house. The US has no compunction against doing business with anyone, if there's a profit in it. (Nazi Germany, various brutal dicators up tp the present day). Greedy greedy hypocracy.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:59:34 PM EST
    DrA - "Do you know what goes on inside N. Korea?" . Yes, it's a right nasty little reigime from what I hear. The USA has no problem with a but of torture or starvation in it's vassal states. It's just if you are a US backed nasty reigime you are on the side of good and if you oppose the will of the US you are evil. What a marvelously simple world view for simple minds. The USA does not have the moral authority to criticise anyone, unless you believe the neocon crap about good and evil.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#68)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    So much rightist propaganda, so little time. 1)Doctor Ace: I'm surprised that my simile likening you to a cesspool didn't meet with your critical approval. 2) It's not sedition to understand why other countries would seek to defend themselves against our current uber-aggressive rulers. It's not even empathy (something you would know nothing about). Actually, it's just plain common sense. 3)The government Orwell describes and fears in _1984_ has much in common with the one we have now. Winston Smith, not O'Brien or Big Brother, is the sympathetic figure in that work, largely because he didn't swallow the party line. Maybe you ought to read it again. 4)Jim: You have no bleeping idea why I stay in this country. Really, your claim might lead one to believe that you and I have known each other for years. Our knowledge of one another is mostly limited to political philosophy only, and that only in blogged soundbites. 5) But even if my political views were the sum total of my being (terrifying thought!), and even if you understood them perfectly (one can only dream!), you would still be dead wrong. Unlike Scott Ritter. Throughout history people have remained in cultures they knew to be flawed, and sought to effect change. It's how progress happens. You and your ilk cry, every time an American criticizes his or her nation's rulers and/or policies, "if you don't like it, leave!" What a pathetic rejoinder. You can do better.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#69)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    Oops. Sorry Jim. All of the above is directed at the good Doctor.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#70)
    by BigTex on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:23:16 PM EST
    Kelite - strange as it'll sound, I'm basin' it off o' th' Sherrif's actions. He let th' local herd do most o' th' fightin' in Afghanistan. Iraw is another example o' takin' th' softest road t' war, at least from a conceptual stand. While it didn't turn out t' be th' easiest way in reality, on paper they were th' softest target (though perhaps Syria is softer), and on paper and in reality th' war portion was easy. Don't confuse th' war with th' problems in th' peace. T' stop terror and th' spread o' WMDs he could o' gone after Syria, but t' get t' Syria he would o' had t' go through Lebanon, while not difficult from a millitary standpoint, it makes th' situation more complicated leavin' Iraq appearin' as th' easiest choice fer attack t' meet his objectives. Oh, and since you seemed particullaraly perturbed by th' situation in Sudan, you may find this interestin'. A few student groups at school are tryin' t' get one o' th' freed slaves t' come give an address. Th' tentative plan is t' pass out petition forms at th' address (which will tentativley occur right before spring break) so they they are dispursed with th' crowd as they disperse fer sping break and ahve th' petitions mailed back t' us. With any luck we'll get a large enough number o' petitions t' make at least a local media blip. If you have any ideas on what else would go well t' compliment th' plan please let me know.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:17:50 PM EST
    . If you have any ideas on what else would go well t' compliment th' plan please let me know. Yeah, how about supporting a few of the slaves trying to get out of the U.S. military to avoid getting sent back to the Iraq disaster these days?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:53:07 PM EST
    Lavocat writes - "PPJ: What can I say, it has certainly worked for North Korea. Perhaps if the world got used to returning the bluster of American jingoism, we'd all be just a bit safer." No, what has saved North Korea's bacon is that South Korea really doesn't want North Korea destroyed, and the fact the North Korea is a client state of Red China. Note how carefully we are being to push/pull Red China into the talks, rather than deal unilateraly. Lavocat, think outside the box. If you can't accept the fact that the Bush team has an idea where it is going, you can never see anything but what your bias shows you. Ernesto writes - "Yeah, how about supporting a few of the slaves trying to get out of the U.S. military to avoid getting sent back to the Iraq disaster these days?" Uh, Ernie. Slaves don't get to volunteer and sign contracts. Just wanted you to know. FD writes - "I kind of doubt it. Ever heard of The Battle of Britan?" Yes, I have heard of it. Evidently more so than you. At that point, if Hitler had invaded, England could not have stood. It was exhausted, out numbered and with a lower level of equipment ability and smaller numbers. Instead, and thank goodness, he was presauded to win by bombing. He ran into three things. The first radar network which allowed the English to direct their out numbered air defense to where they could do the most damage. A much improved Spitfire. And a superbly trained and talented group of pilots. BTW - Have you heard of Lend Lease? Seems like while we were making up our minds, we were sending materials to England. (And the Soviets.)You may now apologize. Not for stupidity. But to the ghosts of all of those American Merchant Marines who died in the North Atlantic trying to get the material to England.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:48:14 PM EST
    I'll appologise when George W Bush appolgises for his grandfather's profiteering with Nazi money. I appologised to you for mistakenly attributing DrA's dumb comment to you. No point appolgising to the dead Jim. They're dead! How about you appologising for the Vietnamese killed by the US, for nothing!; or the Iraqies killed for a pack of lies and millionaires profit? No? Didn't think so and to be honest I wouldn't expect you to. It wouldn't mean a thing. Or maybe this would be more your style, seeing as you have a mystic belief of death in combat. How about appologising to the dead US service men who have died in Iraq recently or even better to the 10,000+ who have been injured because people like you worship power and suck up lies. This is the second day in a row you have waved the spirits of the dead in my face and I hope you get the message that I'm not impressed with that argument. US troops/merchant marine were/are not the only casualties in any of these conflicts. But they're the only deaths people like you consider worth noting. WWII was a war of last resort. Iraq was a war of choice. I am getting sick of you trying to claim the moral high ground when you wouldn't know it if you saw it. The pilots in the RAF, The Few, were lucky if they got a few hours experience before they had to dog fight over Kent. Not well trained at all. And as to that material the US was sending us. We had to pay for it and I think we still are. No charity involved there. Just cash flow.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:55:22 PM EST
    Don't confuse th' war with th' problems in th' peace. i don't think there is a difference in iraq. we may say the war is over ('mission accomplished', and all that) but we are still losing troops... we are still in combat daily... we are still spending boatloads of money... i mean, the opposite of peacetime is wartime, isn't it? we removed saddam hussein from power, and yet we are still fighting for control of the country every day. i do not see the war in iraq as over. and i do not see how we have the money, the manpower, or the support we would need to move forward with a war against iran. we should let ms. condi 'the time for diplomacy is now' rice have a crack at the iranians. perhaps we can solve this with diplomacy, rather than with the 'cowboy up' mentality that has gotten us into the mess we are in now in iraq. i hope so.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:26:04 PM EST
    Oh yes, another factual inaccuracy Jim. The aircraft that won the battle of Britain was not the Supermarine Spitfire but the Hawker Hurricane. A usual mistake for someone who doesn't relly know what they are talking about. The Spitfire suffered early production difficulties so: The Battle of Britain was fought between 10 July and 31 October 1940. At the beginning, Fighter Command had 27 squadrons of Hurricanes and 19 of Spitfires and it was the Hurricanes that bore the brunt of the fighting. Between the beginning of July and the end of October, 565 Hurricanes and 352 Spitfires were lost. I also had the honour of meeting Sir Douglas Bader shortly before he died and have read his book Reach for the Sky, as well as Adolf Galand's From First to Last so don't assume what i know and don't know from your position of ignorance.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#76)
    by BigTex on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:37:43 PM EST
    Yeah, how about supporting a few of the slaves trying to get out of the U.S. military to avoid getting sent back to the Iraq disaster these days? I'd reply, but th' proper reply requires excessive amounts o' profanity for such a imbecilic statement, then again that's par for th' course fer you. Yours definatley goes down as th' most classless post ever here, perhaps as th' most classless post ever.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:16:16 PM EST
    PPJ: Never figured you for a Bush toady. The Bush League has no plan other than expanding the empire. That's the plan. As for anything else, they pretty much just wing it on a daily basis. And, no, North Korea isn't "saved" from a U.S. attack because of South Korea (please!) and China (better argument but, still, please!). North Korea is insulated from an American attack by virtue of 1) having nuclear weapons, 2) having nuclear weapons hidden in many different locations throughout the country, 3) having a viable and VERY effective delivery system for them, 4) having demonstrated said delivery system, 5) having threatened (do they have big balls or what!?) the U.S. point blank about using said weapons should the U.S. think of invading, 6) having the world's LARGEST standing army, in proportion to population, and 7) having a probably borderline mentally-ill leader who will most definitely use said weapons if he feels threatened by the U.S. If Iran is lucky (and intelligent, as they are), they already have 1) and 2) and the merest hint of 3). Once they have 4), it's all over for the U.S.'s bullying. They know better than to initiate 4) at the current time. But how much do you want to bet that they reach 4) once the U.S. pulls out of Iraq. Consider it the Persian version of "Never again". Also, you just gotta wonder: Have North Korea and Pakistan been giving away any chem, bio or nuclear "packages" of late? Since the U.S. likes to test its state-of-the-art weapons systems on the latest unfortnate citizens of the latest American enemy-du-jour, wouldn't it be great if the tables were turned? What a great excuse for decentralized resistance movements to test out their own latest low-tech, asymmetric weapons systems: chem, bio, and nuclear. Frankly, I'm amazed that our troops have not yet been exposed to bio or chem agents or that a dirty bomb has not yet gone off. Ah, just a little more time. Sweet dreams.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:18:22 PM EST
    Slaves don't get to volunteer and sign contracts. Just wanted you to know. Uncle Sam can break it anytime he wants...so that's not much of a "contract". Yours definatley goes down as th' most classless post ever here, perhaps as th' most classless post ever. Hey and I wasn't even trying. Seriously now, it seems to me you are more concerned about foreigner's rights than the rights of our own citizens. And a million other hypocrasies to boot. But what could one expect from those that support wars of agression? And you have the nerve to call people "rattlers".

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:57:06 PM EST
    Woopie, another factual inaccuracy JIM! From your own link on the Lease Lend act. Lend Lease Act, 11 March 1941 Note the date. Not passed until more than 4 months after the END of the Battle of Britain. The good old USA didn't decided to help until after the prospect of an invasion was long over. Careful what you link old man, some people might bother to read it.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#80)
    by john horse on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:20:52 AM EST
    Regarding Bush not ruling out military action against Iran, I think John Fogerty said it best: Some folks inherit star spangled eyes, Ooh, they send you down to war. And when you ask them, "How much should we give?" They only answer "More! More! More!"

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:54:24 AM EST
    Tony Blankley has an interesting piece on Seymour Hersh's reporting on this available at: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20050119.shtml in which he wonders whether Hersh has broken a couple of federal laws in the process. I'm not convinced that he has, but I am wondering where all the people who were screaming for Robert Novak's blood in the Valerie Plame affair are now.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:36:52 AM EST
    Fogarty sang about your crowd too, Horse: Five-year plans and New Deals Wrapped in golden chains. Still, I wonder... Who'll stop the rain?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:42:14 AM EST
    FD, I stand corrected. Re: China, the US and the EU, It is military sanctions, not economic ones. Glanton, I taught 1984 to high school classes. May you ought to reread the def. of "yammering".

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#84)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 07:19:38 AM EST
    Doctor Ace: Just because you taught it by itself means nothing. That would be like saying Dubya understands diplomacy. Sure, he's practiced it, in his own Special Olympics kind of way, but..... Out of curiosity, though, I wonder: when you taught 1984 did you tell your students that all those endless wars being fought in the background of the narrative were actually noble endeavors? Because that's what "War on Terror" is, like it or not. It will never end and not only that, it stands as a great hammer to drive domestic policy for the next generation: "Can't argue with it, it's part of the..... "War.....On.......Terror!" So we name a clampdown on Civil Liberties "The Patriot Act" and we give the incompetent and despicable "Slam Dunk" Tenet a "Medal of Freedom" and we pour billions into the war effort and cut taxes and then say, sorry guys, we can't afford to help you out with health care or education: we'd love to, but there's this darned "War On Terror." It works out nicely, in an Orwellian sort of way, doesn't it? But you cannot see past the end of your own nose, Doctor. Your posts have less substance, pound for pound, than anyone who regularly visits this site. And that's sayin' an awful lot.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 07:39:17 AM EST
    Fogerty must have had a crystal ball when he wrote "Fortunate Son" "Some folks are born Silver spoon in hand Lord don't they help themselves And when the tax man comes to the door Man the house looks like a rummage sale" Sounds like the pres. and his tax policies, while the verse John quoted sounds like his war policy. How timeless. Point taken as well Ace, the best see the hypocrisy of both sides. Couldn't resist y'all...Creedence rules!!

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#86)
    by BigTex on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    Ernesto - I'm colorblind by birth, but you're colorblind by choice. One day you will wake up and see that the color spectrum covers more tha black and white. Sad thing is, while I see my limitation as just that a - limitation that doesn't allow me to see colors in the red and green family; you tout yours as a badge of hononr. Millitary service beyond the agreed to duration and the slavery and genocide in Sudan both involve some depravation of freedom, but that's where th' similarities stop. In th' millitary women aren't raped as a matter of course. In Sudan they are. In th' millitary the government tries to keep you alive. In Sudan th' government is supplying th' jangaweed who is attempting t' exterminate th' balck Christians. In th' millitary you can practice th' religion o' your choice. In Sudan practicn' Christianity allows you t' become a slave. Th' situation in Sudan reminds me o' someone named Hitler. He though only certain people were people, and tried t' eliminate a religion. Back then we had a draft, and lost hundreds o' thousands of troops t' end th' problem, now we have soldiers who volunterred required t' stay put. While both th' slavery/genocide and th' extension o' times o' service are unfortinuate, there's clearly a greater and lesser evil here, with th' lesser bein' necessary t' cure th' greater. When th' greater evil is dissipated th' lesser will dissipate as a natural consiquence.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#87)
    by Al on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    PPJ: Wasn't Hersch one of the guys who forecasted 30,000 US casualties and months and months to take Iraq? I don't know. Provide a link, please. Do you think Iraq has been "taken"?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#88)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    Doctor have you ever answered a straight question with a remotely straight answer? I don't believe I have ever seen you seriously respond to a post on this site, now that I think about it.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#89)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    If it were not for PPJ and Doctor Ace and possible Tex, we (the neocons) could shell this damn site and not loose a single worthwhile American. Wouldn't that be fun?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#90)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    Actually, translation: you do not control the conversation in here, just because your neocons control the one in Washington. I asked you a real question about 1984 (two of them actually) and if you don't want to asnwer, fine, but why you expect to come back with a different question entirely and get it answered bespeaks an arrogance/ignorance only wprthy of the upcoming inaugural ball.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#91)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:36:23 PM EST
    O'Brien's the worst of all because he went along with it. Sort of like you and your kind, now. But it doesn't matter. You'll keep pimping the erection of the concrete jungle and the neverending war and the media hegemony, and in all likelihood you'll get exactly what you desire. After they get rid of the DOE you can start hacking away at the child labor laws, if you wish. It won't affect you, so who cares, right?

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 04:05:38 PM EST
    FD - You are a miserable wretch. The US provided millons of dollars in aid, and you quibble over dates. Over three, four months.. And you ignore the aid that was provided before Lend Lease. And that wasn't even the point. The point was that England fought bravely and gallantly, but the Battle of Britian was an air battle. Hitler could have invaded and won, but he didn't, probably because he knew the cost would be very high. You didn't even know about Lend Lease until I brought it up, or you wouldn't have said: "The US was not in the war at that time, probably trying to work out which side to back." Are you sure your aren't French? You must think this is a debating society, that what you postulate has no meaning beyond what you want it to. I ask you again. Apologize to the merchant marines that died in the North Atlantic bring material to England.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:45:44 PM EST
    Ernesto - I'm colorblind by birth, but you're colorblind by choice. You Tex, are a classic example of someone who has religious blinders on. You are a zealot, a cultist, and whatever other phrase can be used to define someone who espouses violence in the name of their religion/nation. I have no doubt that if you were born on the other side of the world you would be shouting "death to the infidels!". And to act like you are morally superior to anyone else like you do, is the most recognizable symptom of your disease. It is your mentality that allows people to kill, whether they do it by blowing themselves up, or by pressing a button to send a missile on its way. In th' millitary women aren't raped as a matter of course. In Sudan they are. Just for the record...I support the end of slavery. I also support the end of the sweatshops that make our clothes (and where women are also raped as a matter of course). I do what I can to avoid buying the products that come from those sweatshops. But my number one priority is to get our government out of the killing business. That's what I want stopped most of all. I live here and my money is going to pay for these crimes comitted in the name of my country. That may not mean a thing to you since you don't see it as a crime. Now tell me again what you were saying about being colorblind? Th' situation in Sudan reminds me o' someone named Hitler. He though only certain people were people, and tried t' eliminate a religion. That's what I see Israel and the United States doing...and people like you supporting them. You came on here and spewed some Neocon claptrap about invading Syria through Lebanon. Please avoid the usual pitfalls of the Neocons, i.e., not having a clue of history. Please remember/learn that the mighty Israeli Army was unable to defeat Hezbollah in 20 years of trying and finally gave up and went home. Please remember/learn that Ronnie Reagan tried to help out Israel and got nothing to show for it but a gaggle of dead diplomats and marines. You really want to repeat that mess? Remember/learn that Hezbollah are religious zealots just like you and (probably unlike you) they are willing to die for their cause instead of just sending kids trying to get money for college to die for you and your religion/nation.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#94)
    by BigTex on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:17:42 PM EST
    You made a tangental point Ernesto, but it is an incomplete tangental point. When it comes t' abortion, yes, I make m' decisions based on faith, not reason. However that's where your set o' accusations loses accuracy, and even then it's only t' a point (see below.) You are a zealot, a cultist, and whatever other phrase can be used to define someone who espouses violence in the name of their religion/nation. Show me one post where I've espoused violence in th' name o' Catholicism, or Christianity in general? Search all you want, it's not t' be found. Will some o' my beliefs that say th' use o' force will have a side effect o' benefitin' Chrisitans, that never enters into th' decision makin' process. I've made posts supportin' th' use o' force t' stop terrorism, but have been clear t' say that it's not a war against Islam. Tamil Tigers, ETA (a Christian Group), IRA (if yhey take up arm again) are all fair game t' be subdued by any means necessary, includin' th' use o' force. Not because o' religious beliefs, but because they use th' killin' o' innocents as a tactic t' further their cause. I have no doubt that if you were born on the other side of the world you would be shouting "death to the infidels!". Nope. Th' equivilent here is that all nonChristians are goin' t' Hell. I don't hold that belief, it's between them and God, not m' place t' judge. And to act like you are morally superior to anyone else like you do, is the most recognizable symptom of your disease. M' faith may show through in m' posts, but they aren't posted t' tout m' faith. I consider myself t' be better than no one. It is your mentality that allows people to kill, whether they do it by blowing themselves up, or by pressing a button to send a missile on its way. I condemn th' rattlers who assissinate abortion providers, bomb abortion clinics, etc. Some hold that philosophy, but I don't subscrube t' it. In fact, I speak out against it. Let me let you in on a lil secret. I supported Clinton usin' force in Kosovo. In fact, I was critical because he only used air power (which I wrongly believed at th' time was insufficient fer th' task.) If it were th' Christians takin' th' Muslims as slaves in Sudan m' position would be unchanged. Thanks fer th' kind words Doc, Dogma, and Wile (referrin' t' th' Dean-Blogger thread.)

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 02:49:35 AM EST
    Jim. It's a shame when facts get in the way of your arguments. "You must think this is a debating society" You're just upset when someone calls you on your ignorance and then has the gaul to prove it. You made three statements about the Battle of Britain and accused me of not knowing what I was talking about. 1) The RAF pilots were superbly trained. No, they were barely school boys and the attrition was appalling. 2) The Battle of Britain victory was down to an improved Spitfire. No, the Spitfire was only just coming into service and had early production difficulties due to the factory in Southampton being bombed. 3) The USA was in support at the time of the Battle of Britain. Your own document refutes that. Read the Lend Lease, it wasn't charity or aid and it required repayment. Britain indeed stood alone. I refuted all three and have provided documentary evidence in support. As to your latest: "Hitler could have invaded and won, but he didn't, probably because he knew the cost would be very high." No, it is because he did not have a chance without air superiority. The landing barges would have been sunk miles from the coast by the RAF and Royal Navy. The main German target in the Battle of Britain was the RAF. I'm not saying Hitler made a rational decision here. He decided instead to attack his ally the Soviet Union, which was probably his fatal mistake. Word of advice Jim. When you're in a hole. Stop digging! "Are you sure your aren't French?" : Showing your true stripes Jim.

    Re: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against I (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 03:57:17 AM EST
    Tex...sorry if I jumped to conclusions, but you sound an awful lot like many so-called Christians I know who are willing to justify any of the crimes that Israel and the U.S. commits as you spout off about "terrorists". Here's some of what you said that I took issue with: Take out Syria's rattlers(there's no other way t' describe hezbolla if no one else in Syria) and th' Iranians have no one readily available t' pump rattler aid t'. Plus Israel won't have t' worry about her north flank then. Hezbollah was formed in 1982 to kick Israel out of Lebanon. This was the same Israel that in 1982 allowed "Christians" to slaughter hundreds of people in refugee camps. The same Israel we support no matter what kind of apartheid policies and state terror atrocities it pushes. If Hezbollah are rattlers, then what does that make those that necessitated its formation?

    Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against Iran | 96 comments (96 topical)