Iran may be next, but that doesn't mean war against Iran. And it doesn't mean the US acting alone. The world has an interest in what happens there, but the world may feel it should be again ignored. It could mean encouraging the democratic reforms happening now or other diplomatic solutions. So long as they are encouraged not to develop nuclear weapons, it is in the best interests of the western world. Whether the UN or the US acts to achieve this, it would still result in western influence being extended.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scary, ain't it? I think Iran is a great example of how Bush's pig-headed arrogance and complete lack of ability to negotiate international relations is going to cause many more long term problems than his crusade against Iraq is going to fix.
<strong>bush has made the war against irak a "holy" war. what he didn't think of: religious wars never end (israel/palastine, northern ireland etc.).</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did he make this a "holy" war? Oh wait that's right he didn't. Go spread lies about your own country you anti-american twit. BTW your media is lying to you.
[quote]Originally posted by zero:
<strong>i'm sorry for u.s. citizens... you're government is going insane. i hope your next president will be more open minded and at least a bit intelligent.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the best solution is to just let Europe pick the next president.
Scary, ain't it? I think Iran is a great example of how Bush's pig-headed arrogance and complete lack of ability to negotiate international relations is going to cause many more long term problems than his crusade against Iraq is going to fix.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Iran is an interesting situation. I actually believe that the hardliners ARE in firm control of the country and will remain so for a long while, barring outside military intervention. (At least as long as OIL is relevant to the world economy). My thoughts on this whole internal liberalism that is supposedly taking place there, is that it is a clever scheme by the Iranians to buy time for their nuclear program. It has effectively blocked outside military intervention against the Iranian regime, as people hope against hope that an internal revolution will take place. To understand the folly of this, one only has to read Hassan?s posts, or study who were the 9/11 conspirators.
Scary, ain't it? I think Iran is a great example of how Bush's pig-headed arrogance and complete lack of ability to negotiate international relations is going to cause many more long term problems than his crusade against Iraq is going to fix.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, too bad we don't still have Clinton as president. He could solve tha Iranian nuclear problem the way he solved the North Korean nuclear problem. Oh wait... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Yeah, too bad we don't still have Clinton as president. He could solve tha Iranian nuclear problem the way he solved the North Korean nuclear problem. Oh wait... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
How did Clinton fail in North Korea? Without his efforts we could do what to stop them?
oh, well. i may be a twit but i'm not anti-american.. ;-) anyway, i think bush should have never mentioned the word "god" in any speech but he does all the time. damn, call me atheist.
and of course cnn is truly unbiased <ROTFL>.
i watch cnn, bbc, italian, german, swiss, french television and it's very intersting to compare the news and reactions. i would watch an arabic tv channel too, but i don't understand that language.
...and please don't get anti-european. we have different cultures and different points of view but still we all want a peaceful world to live in (and a fast powermac by the way).
scott, don't take it personally if somebody blames your government. it's not your fault.
oh BTW for the anti-thought left out there BUSH NEVER SAID HE AS ACTING THE THE NAME OF GOD. Little fact that that was not made clear at the top of this thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bush stated that he does everything based on his belief in his god. Of course that means that his actions are in god's name.
Anyway. You're lying about what Bush said. I know you're bigoted view about religion makes you recoil whenever someone mentions it, especially a world leader. Here in this country we're more open minded. I'd rather have a religious person like Bush in charge than an atheist like Stalin.
You're government controlled (oops I mean government funded) media lies and distorts when it comes to Bush. Try reading a North American news paper. I hear the Wall Street Journal is good.
Anyway. You're lying about what Bush said. I know you're bigoted view about religion makes you recoil whenever someone mentions it, especially a world leader. Here in this country we're more open minded. I'd rather have a religious person like Bush in charge than an atheist like Stalin.
You're government controlled (oops I mean government funded) media lies and distorts when it comes to Bush. Try reading a North American news paper. I hear the Wall Street Journal is good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't mind having a deeply religious world leader. I do mind having a deeply religious world leader that lacks common sense and tact. Invoking god and using words such as crusade when our enemies would only be further fueled by such word use is FVCKING DUMB.
How did Clinton fail in North Korea? Without his efforts we could do what to stop them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, pray tell, did Clinton's efforts yield? He negotiated a treaty with North Korea in 1994 that was supposed to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Even you have to admit that this initiative was a complete failure.
Bush is smarter than people give him credit for. If he was still leading the Texas Rangers they would be poised to finsih third instead of fourth in their division this year.
Scary, ain't it? I think Iran is a great example of how Bush's pig-headed arrogance and complete lack of ability to negotiate international relations is going to cause many more long term problems than his crusade against Iraq is going to fix.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scary? Scary is leaving places like that completely unchallenged. Much as the UN seems to have abdicated it responsibility concerning Iraq (and it has-it's all just window dressing and pillow talk at this point), ignoring Iran could be a potential disaster. Which is worse, the US making a call at a later date for the UN to get itself involved in places like Iran, or places like Iran developing nuclear capabilities, and provinding them to a few of the groups that love non-islamic nations so much? Scary? Scary is a nuclear bomb hand-delivered by Hezbollah to Washington, Chicago, LA, Tel Aviv or London, stamped "made in Iran"
No, he lacks tact and common sense when choosing which words to use when speaking off the cuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you say, and so it may be. I would agree he isn't the best public speaker...Clinton was a naturally gifted public speaker who could charm the pants off of the world. That doesn't mean he was brilliant. It means he was a gifted speaker.
However, the single most used arguement against American policy is "Bush is a moron, Bush is dumb, Bush is an Idiot...." If he can't speak well, he must be an idiot. Lazy arguement, yes, but it sure seems to get tossed around by the left alot.
What, pray tell, did Clinton's efforts yield? He negotiated a treaty with North Korea in 1994 that was supposed to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Even you have to admit that this initiative was a complete failure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was a treaty that limited North Korea from obtaining plutonium. They've received enriched uranium from Pakistan.
Either way, without a US treaty, without North Korea having signed the non-proliferation treaty, there'd be nothing we or the world could do about the situation. A country that hasn't signed said treaties is free to make as many weapons as they want and we can't do or say squat.
Was Clinton supposed to just attack like Bush is on Iraq? Should he have just thought that "well, at some point in the future, North Korea will probably be a threat. We should just kill them now before there's a real problem...."
No. He set the groundwork for a legal diplomatic or potential military solution. You should give thanks we're not in the same situation with North Korea that we are with Iran. Without the treaties we'd be in a worse situation with NK because at least Iran has promised not to make weapons. That gives us an 'in' in case of trouble. With NK & no Clinton treaties, we'd have nothing.
So you say, and so it may be. I would agree he isn't the best public speaker...Clinton was a naturally gifted public speaker who could charm the pants off of the world. That doesn't mean he was brilliant. It means he was a gifted speaker.
However, the single most used arguement against American policy is "Bush is a moron, Bush is dumb, Bush is an Idiot...." If he can't speak well, he must be an idiot. Lazy arguement, yes, but it sure seems to get tossed around by the left alot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look, I wouldn't care that he isn't as slick as Clinton was if Bush would stop using words that specifically incite our enemies.
No. He set the groundwork for a legal diplomatic or potential military solution. You should give thanks we're not in the same situation with North Korea that we are with Iran. Without the treaties we'd be in a worse situation with NK because at least Iran has promised not to make weapons. That gives us an 'in' in case of trouble. With NK & no Clinton treaties, we'd have nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A treaty they backed out of, so how does it provide a groundwork for a solution, if they are no longer bound by it? The UN had a surrender from Iraq, much more binding i would think than a treaty you can opt out of, and what good did it do? Any solutions provided by it were squandered by the UN, and when the US tries and gets them to actually act on their responsibilities, they ignore them.
Comments
<strong>
Iran may be next, but that doesn't mean war against Iran. And it doesn't mean the US acting alone. The world has an interest in what happens there, but the world may feel it should be again ignored. It could mean encouraging the democratic reforms happening now or other diplomatic solutions. So long as they are encouraged not to develop nuclear weapons, it is in the best interests of the western world. Whether the UN or the US acts to achieve this, it would still result in western influence being extended.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scary, ain't it? I think Iran is a great example of how Bush's pig-headed arrogance and complete lack of ability to negotiate international relations is going to cause many more long term problems than his crusade against Iraq is going to fix.
<strong>bush has made the war against irak a "holy" war. what he didn't think of: religious wars never end (israel/palastine, northern ireland etc.).</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did he make this a "holy" war? Oh wait that's right he didn't. Go spread lies about your own country you anti-american twit. BTW your media is lying to you.
[quote]Originally posted by zero:
<strong>i'm sorry for u.s. citizens... you're government is going insane. i hope your next president will be more open minded and at least a bit intelligent.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the best solution is to just let Europe pick the next president.
<strong>
Scary, ain't it? I think Iran is a great example of how Bush's pig-headed arrogance and complete lack of ability to negotiate international relations is going to cause many more long term problems than his crusade against Iraq is going to fix.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh do tell.
<strong>
Scary, ain't it? I think Iran is a great example of how Bush's pig-headed arrogance and complete lack of ability to negotiate international relations is going to cause many more long term problems than his crusade against Iraq is going to fix.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, too bad we don't still have Clinton as president. He could solve tha Iranian nuclear problem the way he solved the North Korean nuclear problem. Oh wait... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
Yeah, too bad we don't still have Clinton as president. He could solve tha Iranian nuclear problem the way he solved the North Korean nuclear problem. Oh wait... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
How did Clinton fail in North Korea? Without his efforts we could do what to stop them?
<strong>
you anti-american twit </strong><hr></blockquote>
oh, well. i may be a twit but i'm not anti-american.. ;-) anyway, i think bush should have never mentioned the word "god" in any speech but he does all the time. damn, call me atheist.
and of course cnn is truly unbiased <ROTFL>.
i watch cnn, bbc, italian, german, swiss, french television and it's very intersting to compare the news and reactions. i would watch an arabic tv channel too, but i don't understand that language.
...and please don't get anti-european. we have different cultures and different points of view but still we all want a peaceful world to live in (and a fast powermac by the way).
scott, don't take it personally if somebody blames your government. it's not your fault.
<strong>
Yea that's relevant
oh BTW for the anti-thought left out there BUSH NEVER SAID HE AS ACTING THE THE NAME OF GOD. Little fact that that was not made clear at the top of this thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bush stated that he does everything based on his belief in his god. Of course that means that his actions are in god's name.
Anyway. You're lying about what Bush said. I know you're bigoted view about religion makes you recoil whenever someone mentions it, especially a world leader. Here in this country we're more open minded. I'd rather have a religious person like Bush in charge than an atheist like Stalin.
You're government controlled (oops I mean government funded) media lies and distorts when it comes to Bush. Try reading a North American news paper. I hear the Wall Street Journal is good.
<strong>Who said anything about CNN?
Anyway. You're lying about what Bush said. I know you're bigoted view about religion makes you recoil whenever someone mentions it, especially a world leader. Here in this country we're more open minded. I'd rather have a religious person like Bush in charge than an atheist like Stalin.
You're government controlled (oops I mean government funded) media lies and distorts when it comes to Bush. Try reading a North American news paper. I hear the Wall Street Journal is good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't mind having a deeply religious world leader. I do mind having a deeply religious world leader that lacks common sense and tact. Invoking god and using words such as crusade when our enemies would only be further fueled by such word use is FVCKING DUMB.
<strong>
How did Clinton fail in North Korea? Without his efforts we could do what to stop them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, pray tell, did Clinton's efforts yield? He negotiated a treaty with North Korea in 1994 that was supposed to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Even you have to admit that this initiative was a complete failure.
Yeah, yeah that's it.
<strong>Uhhh... Bush is stupid!
Yeah, yeah that's it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, he lacks tact and common sense when choosing which words to use when speaking off the cuff.
<strong>
Scary, ain't it? I think Iran is a great example of how Bush's pig-headed arrogance and complete lack of ability to negotiate international relations is going to cause many more long term problems than his crusade against Iraq is going to fix.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scary? Scary is leaving places like that completely unchallenged. Much as the UN seems to have abdicated it responsibility concerning Iraq (and it has-it's all just window dressing and pillow talk at this point), ignoring Iran could be a potential disaster. Which is worse, the US making a call at a later date for the UN to get itself involved in places like Iran, or places like Iran developing nuclear capabilities, and provinding them to a few of the groups that love non-islamic nations so much? Scary? Scary is a nuclear bomb hand-delivered by Hezbollah to Washington, Chicago, LA, Tel Aviv or London, stamped "made in Iran"
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>
No, he lacks tact and common sense when choosing which words to use when speaking off the cuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you say, and so it may be. I would agree he isn't the best public speaker...Clinton was a naturally gifted public speaker who could charm the pants off of the world. That doesn't mean he was brilliant. It means he was a gifted speaker.
However, the single most used arguement against American policy is "Bush is a moron, Bush is dumb, Bush is an Idiot...." If he can't speak well, he must be an idiot. Lazy arguement, yes, but it sure seems to get tossed around by the left alot.
<strong>
What, pray tell, did Clinton's efforts yield? He negotiated a treaty with North Korea in 1994 that was supposed to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Even you have to admit that this initiative was a complete failure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was a treaty that limited North Korea from obtaining plutonium. They've received enriched uranium from Pakistan.
Either way, without a US treaty, without North Korea having signed the non-proliferation treaty, there'd be nothing we or the world could do about the situation. A country that hasn't signed said treaties is free to make as many weapons as they want and we can't do or say squat.
Was Clinton supposed to just attack like Bush is on Iraq? Should he have just thought that "well, at some point in the future, North Korea will probably be a threat. We should just kill them now before there's a real problem...."
No. He set the groundwork for a legal diplomatic or potential military solution. You should give thanks we're not in the same situation with North Korea that we are with Iran. Without the treaties we'd be in a worse situation with NK because at least Iran has promised not to make weapons. That gives us an 'in' in case of trouble. With NK & no Clinton treaties, we'd have nothing.
<strong>
So you say, and so it may be. I would agree he isn't the best public speaker...Clinton was a naturally gifted public speaker who could charm the pants off of the world. That doesn't mean he was brilliant. It means he was a gifted speaker.
However, the single most used arguement against American policy is "Bush is a moron, Bush is dumb, Bush is an Idiot...." If he can't speak well, he must be an idiot. Lazy arguement, yes, but it sure seems to get tossed around by the left alot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look, I wouldn't care that he isn't as slick as Clinton was if Bush would stop using words that specifically incite our enemies.
<strong>
No. He set the groundwork for a legal diplomatic or potential military solution. You should give thanks we're not in the same situation with North Korea that we are with Iran. Without the treaties we'd be in a worse situation with NK because at least Iran has promised not to make weapons. That gives us an 'in' in case of trouble. With NK & no Clinton treaties, we'd have nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A treaty they backed out of, so how does it provide a groundwork for a solution, if they are no longer bound by it? The UN had a surrender from Iraq, much more binding i would think than a treaty you can opt out of, and what good did it do? Any solutions provided by it were squandered by the UN, and when the US tries and gets them to actually act on their responsibilities, they ignore them.
<strong>
He set the groundwork for a legal diplomatic or potential military solution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't even decide what to call this so-called solution and I'm supposed to give thanks for it? Sorry but I pass.