Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MACDRIVE, Oct 26, 2007.
Is this the beginning of the end?
Or, indeed, the end of the beginning. It's showtime, and it's too late to do anything about it now, short of getting that President out before he has a chance to go 'double or quits'.
We don't have the resources and he doesn't have the political capital to deal with Iran if we wanted to. And we don't. We have war fatigue from the last couple of failures, still in progress.
All the resources he needs is just the NAVY and the USAF; and those two branches have hardly broken a sweat during this war. As far as political capital, he doesn't need any to launch a strike; he just needs to remain President.
The article doesn't state what the sanctions are. We stop importing pistashios or something draconion like that?
I heard Sec. Rice say that any US company is forbidden to do business with Iran. I guess they'll have to get their iPods second hand.
I think listening to music and dancing are illegal there anyway.
Doesn't need political capital. Doesn't even need monetary capital. All he needs are generals and admirals who follow orders.
I'm currently reading "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks, and the first section of the book is the devoted to the misgivings the Army had going into Iraq half-assed the way we did. Low morale and no faith in the battle plan (in which orders were distributed by PowerPoint slide, and non-specific as to action or goal).
I'm not fond of coups, but a simple "no" from the military would suffice, I think. Lame-ducking George in such a definitive way would induce massive change in our political system. Whether good (not following bad leadership) or bad (ripping the military from civilian control) would have to play out.
Something has to be done. He has got to be stopped. This is obviously a ploy for Bush to find a way to stay in power. I don't think there can be any denying it at this point. He'll try to declare some state of emergency crap, trust me.
Do you really think that Bush wants to remain President past his term? Nonsense.
It wouldn't surprise me that a joint attack against nuclear targets in Iran could take place before the next president is sworn in though. Could put a twist on the election in the sense that people will have to decide which side could hit the ground running so to speak.
Considering the way he's behaving, yes I do. Actually, I think it's Cheney who wants to stay.
What makes you think that about Cheney? He never ran for the office in the first place and could have run in 2008 and eliminated the current field a long time ago. With his health problems and personal wealth, I just can't see it.
According to some, people like him run the country anyway from behind the scenes without holding the office. Why take the heat by remaining in office?
Why spend all that money running for office, when you can manufacture a crisis to keep you there? Much cheaper, and there's no need to bother with that silly, democratic process stuff. That way, you can keep enriching your friends on the backs of military families and the middle class.
It don't think this is "obviously" a ploy for Bush to stay in power at all, nor do I think the American public would be ok with that. I think it is what it is...harsher sanctions that the next president will have to deal with.
I hope you're right. But so far, everything I've said before about Bush has been right on the money.
It's a last-ditch effort by the neocons to prove their "bomb them until they love us" strategy in the Middle East. They've got the idea in their heads that if they can displace the Iranian leadership the the people will rise up and democratize, just like in Iraq...
I do not think that a straight bombing campaign is what their agenda is. If it were, I think they would have launched it by now. Israel has sought a pro-Israel State in the mid-East for decades. Ailes, Lieberman, Krystol, Rove and the rest of the U.S. pro-Israel lobby tried to persuade Cheney to invade Iran, instead of Iraq. When I first read this, it made me wonder whether there was anything more to the invasion than a land-grab and regime change? As more time passes, it does not look like anything else.
It absolutely makes me nauseous to think, we have a religious lobby, sending our young people to a foreign land, to die for their cause. We do not have any voice in their policies, so why should we be asked to support them?
Unilateral sanctions are a joke.
And of course laws didn't stop corporations from dealing with Iran previously. And donating lavishly to the GOP at the same time IIRC.
Any action the US takes (I think the UK is stepping out on this one finally) is going to be awful for the lives of the Iranians.
How does the Bush administration decide on who to attack next? From the sounds of it they just roll a dice. I think they have to be invading or enacting a military coup d'état of some sort just to feel like their doing something.
How about concentrating on some of the issues on your own soil first?
I'm getting that 2002 feeling all over again. This can't be real, can it?
The pistachios are but the first victims in our harsh new sanctions.
We have constructed a machine.
A giant space vacuum, if you will and I advise that you do whose seemingly benign purpose would be seemingly benign, were it not monstrously sinister. We will begin by sucking away their leisure minutes, each moment rubbed away with the tactile sensation of sandpaper, eroding the infrastructure of their volleyball leagues and intramural activities. Soon the wading pools and urban parks will be empty, collapsing under the stark terror of their sheer loneliness and abandon. Like a vortex from which no lights escapes, the skies will cloud over with manifest despair, the kind of utter sadness that wilts flowers and crushes the backs of rainbows, their majestic spines sundered by the weight of a million heavy hearts. The dark conclusion of leisure fallout will drive the people from their homes, faces wrought and thick with the weight of unbalanced labour economics, into the streets in a massive uprising against relatively itself, in a terrifying act of rebellion so powerful it will reassemble split atoms and reduce any nuclear technology to mere coal power. Also, steam power.
I only pray that it will be enough.
These unilateral sanctions are obviously a bad idea if only because they will be ineffective. I don't take them as a prelude to war. I take them as the flailing about of an administration that has run out of options.
This article does a disservice to readers by referring to the Revolutionary Guard as "the armed forces of an independent government." The Guard is not a conventional military force by any accepted definition of the term. They are responsible to no civilian authority within Iran and also own a private military-industrial complex. They also are responsible for instigating violence in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories and are driving the Iranian nuclear program. Just because the Bush administration is larded up with pig-headed fools does not make any of the forgoing untrue or a non-issue.
Nonsense. Cheney is unelectable, even in a rigged system. He's remarkably unpopular and you know it. There is no way that he could win the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency.
Your second point, however, is spot on.
So does it really matter who we elect then, if they are just puppets.
There you go. Liberals are going to be unhappy for the most part no matter who's president, so if a conservative is president at least half the country has a chance at being happy. Meanwhile the people that really run the country will continue to do so behind the scenes. Brilliant!