Rice warns Iran it doesn't have much time

[LogicChristian]

It's impossible for us to supress weapon advancements in every country. At best strong arm tactics will only delay the inevitable while making sure that when they do get a big boy weapon they'll have an enemy to use it on.

How can Iran build an atomic bomb without a reactor or other reprocessing facility? These are pretty easy to locate and destroy. Ditto goes for missile testing facilities.

The 2003 war in Iraq was about anything but preventing a nation from having a WMD capability. Even if Bush was entirely truthful about Iraqi capabilites (which we know he wasn't,) Iraq was far less capable than Iran or North Korea in terms of NBC weapons.

 

[imdoug]

I wish the United States would try more diplomacy in dealing with its enemies rather than attacks preemptive or invasion style. Unfortunately it seems that much diplomacy that our current administration undergoes is merely an attempt to make the American people more willing for an invasion to happen.

Talk talk talk talk talk. When would you believe it'd actually be time to take action?

 

[Kalevalatar]

Oh the irony of it all...

We give Iraq chemical weapons to use against Iran. We then invade Iraq to keep them from getting chemical weapons. Meanwhile Iran builds a nuke.

You'd think we'd have learned to stop meddling in the middle east.

Or how is this for irony: three decades ago back in the 1970s the usual suspects -- "shaking-hands-with-Saddam" Rumsfeld and "it's-all-about-energy" Cheney, then Assistant to the President (Cheney succeeded Rumsfeld as chief of staff) plus Wolfowitz, of course, at the time responsible for nonproliferation issues at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [SIC!] -- were busy trying to get Iran nuclear and sell Tehran plutonium and enriched uranium? Cheney's and Rumsfeld's argument back then? Iran needed to "prepare against the time -- about 15 years in the future -- when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

National Security Decision Memoranda 292: U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation

National Security Decision Memoranda 324: Negotiation of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran

 

[k]

Talk talk talk talk talk. When would you believe it'd actually be time to take action?

I find it rather ironic those who speak the loudest for military action are usually the same ones to not sign their name on the dotted line.

 

[Ginny]

link?

 

[k]

link?

The best example is the people who make up the Bush admin.....out those people how many served in combat? Bush's daughters sure haven't signed up for the military, neither has Cheney's daughter. How many on the Hill who voted for War actually have children/relatives in those Wars??

 

[Ginny]

I'm sorry, Neverstop, but honestly that is the biggest strawman...

 

[k]

I'm sorry, Neverstop, but honestly that is the biggest strawman...

What is speaking louder than voting FOR a WAR???

It's easy to call anything a strawman, quite another to explain why.

 

[Ginny]

Your best example of a generalized statement for people that are for war that won't sign up for it are people's daughters and other's children.

But yet you make the blanket statement that "I find it rather ironic those who speak the loudest for military action are usually the same ones to not sign their name on the dotted line."

That is a weak argument for pointing out "pro-war" individuals for a statement such as this.

 

[k]

Your best example of a generalized statement for people that are for war that won't sign up for it are people's daughters and other's children.

But yet you make the blanket statement that "I find it rather ironic those who speak the loudest for military action are usually the same ones to not sign their name on the dotted line."

That is a weak argument pointing out "pro-war" individuals for a statement such as this.

It may help to read the posts again....I began with the people themselves in the Bush admin....Cheney alone had FIVE DEFERRMENTS from military service....then I proceeded to point out those who voted for Iraq and Afghanistan happen to be the same people who will be the least effected on a personal level.

We can also see it right here on CF.....many people who are for the Wars have never seen combat.

 

[k]

David Brooks, NY Times columnist
No military service.

William F. Buckley, National Review
U.S. Army, WWII (and CIA in 1946).

Pat Buchanan, MSNBC commentator
No military service.

Ann Coulter, writer & commentator
No military service.

Lou Dobbs, CNN News anchor
No military service.

Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal editor
No military service.

Sean Hannity, Hannity & Colmes host
No military service.

Brit Hume, Fox News anchor
No military service.

Rush Limbaugh, Radio talk show host
No military service.

Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly Factor host
No military service.

Michael Savage, Radio talk show host
No military service.

William Safire, NY Times columnist
U.S. Army journalist.

George Will, Washington Post columnist
No military service.

Most, if not all of these people rally for war, and all but one has any idea what in the hell they are talking about.

Also, look at the legislature and history of politics over the last 40 or so years....Republicans cry the loudest for War while in comparison to Dems, have a shady record of Military service.

 

[k]

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

That's a good list and it's useless if anyone tries to ignore the list based on the source because the info is irrefutable and proven.

 

[Ginny]

oh... so you are talking about people in politics...but yet your post was directed at another poster.

Okay.

 

[k]

oh... so you are talking about people in politics...but yet your post was directed at another poster.

Okay.

I was talking about people in general, politicians or not.

My post was NOT directed at another poster so ease up on the false accusations, stop trying to personalize, and please stick to the isssues. I've posted quite a few relevent facts.

 

[MariaRegina]

Closed for staff review