What will Pres. G. Bush do now?

by hambeak 54 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jourles

  With Mr.Cowboy Diplomacy out there, I think I would arm myself if I was one of the other two countries.

  This is exactly what is happening. For some reason, some americans think that it is ok for us to invade other countries under the guise of lies, but it is NOT ok for another country, who just happens to be on the USA's $hitlist, to defend themselves against such an invasion.

  A huge double-standard exists here. The USA screams that we need to defend ourselves by fighting "over there." But as soon as another country postures by showing off its defenses, "we need to take them out."

  Again, why is the USA the bully in the schoolyard?
• 

  kerj2leev

  RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

  TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

  "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

  Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

  "It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

  Again who are the bad guys here??

  Jourles I couldn't disagree more on your veiws. Most countries have weapons to defend themselves, you don't see us going into them do you ??? What we are talking about is the expected use of NUKES!! And as mentioned before in this thread diplomacy hasn't worked, which is what Clinton tried with N. Korea.

  You asked why is the US the bully, because no one else is doing anything about it. I would love for other countries to get invovled and some are, but their lack of action is what leaves us with no other choice!
• 

  oldflame

  diplomacy hasn't worked, which is what Clinton tried with N. Korea.

  Really ? That's odd I don't remember hearing North Korea building nuclear weapons back then, it did not happen until Bush took office and attacked Iraq on a pack of lies.
• 

  Jourles

  Jourles I couldn't disagree more on your veiws. Most countries have weapons to defend themselves, you don't see us going into them do you ??? What we are talking about is the expected use of NUKES!! And as mentioned before in this thread diplomacy hasn't worked, which is what Clinton tried with N. Korea.

  Everyone can hee and haw over this entire issue until we're blue in the face, but it still doesn't change the fact that no one has used them on another country in over 60 years. NK and Iran will not use nukes against their neighbors or enemies simply due to the fact that THEY KNOW the USA will retaliate against them for doing so. It will be their countries which will be "wiped off the map." Come back to this thread in 5,10,15 years and let's see where we are at. If a nuke gets detonated in one of those countries, I'll eat my shorts and video tape it for everyone to enjoy. Until then, crazy or not, NK and Iran are only bluffing - taunting the US by flexing their muscle. I would be doing the same thing.

  Again, what is with this double standard? How many nuclear "tests" has the USA done? Why didn't other countries impose sanctions against us for doing so? Oh, I keep forgetting. Our nukes are for "defense" purposes only. There's no way that these other countries would use theirs for defense too.
• 

  fleaman uk

  Gassing Kurds obviously doesnt count as terrorism in your book

  Ridiculous comment.It was terrible,inexcusable genocide,true, but not an act of terrorism.

  If gassing the kurds is an excuse for the invasion of Iraq (that happened in the 80,s btw)how about we go back a bit further and invade Turkey for the Armenian massacre in 1915?Or bring it up to date ..invade China for the atrocities in Tibet and their own country?

  Attacking Iraq imo was possibly the most self centred and evil action a Leader of the western World has ever undertaken.
• 

  hillary_step

  Jeff,

  I, though a conservative, agree largely that the invasion of Iraq was folly in retrospect.

  An interesting admission and one that I have noticed an increasing number of posters now adhering too. Some, like yourself are honest in this admission, others have cunningly switched sides hoping those of us who have argued an anti Iraq invasion position for some years would not notice their switch in allegiance.

  The issue is transparent and while the invasion was going on the anti-invasion candidates predicted, no WMD, civil war in Iraq, a massive growth of terrorism, the shelving of Colin Powell, who one week was publicly against the war and the next used as a 'patsy' for the WMD debacle. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unwinnable - the sooner this reality sinks in, the sooner the body bags and the mangled casualties will stop arriving at Western Airports. Some of us knew this from day one, others will eventually learn.

  Were the anti-invasion element more intelligent, more politically tuned in that their rivals? Not neccessarily. The reality is that many chose to live in denial once they have drawn their line in the sand, preferring to argue a position without foundation rather than admitting defeat. Of course, some proponents of the invasion are rather stupid, and we see an element of this stupidity regularly exercised on this Board. These are yesterday's men. They still live with pride behind the words of their dolt of a leader, when he foolishly uttered the words 'bring 'em on'.

  An example in living in this denail is the fact that even after Prime Minister Blair, and Donald Rumsfeld admitted that no WMD had been found in Iraq, numerous of their supporters were still arguing on this Board that they would/had been found.

  Well they did 'bring em on', and America and its allies will receive a bloody nose for it. Your admission of a retrospectful transference of support gives one hope, especially with these crucial elections approaching in the U.S., that at last common sense may prevail.

  HS
• 

  hambeak

  Thanks for everyones input I think most agree that any invasion is going to have consequences some are more treacherous than others some localized some internationally. However when Clinton was president there were no fly zones in northern and southern Iraq and we didnot have the idiots in NK and Iran spouting as much hatred as they are now. In my opinion don't be fooled these fellows are all dangerous and a big threat to any kind of peace.

  Ham
• 

  proplog2

  The N. Koreans have the bomb for one reason: prevent regime change.

  Any military attack on N. Korea would be interpreted by them as an effort to change their regime.

  They would level Seoul with artillery shells. South Korea doesn't want military confrontation. Especially, they wouldn't want to win such a confrontation and have to integrate N. Korea into their economy.

  China and Russia like situations that make the US look weak. So they really don't care.

  Actually there is nothing to worry about with the N. Koreans unless they export their technology. You can only try to slow down the growth of the nuclear club - you can't stop it.
• 

  exjdub

  My point, not that my opinion matters, is that this [NK and Iran] matter is serious, and attacks on the character and tactics of the president are of no value. Shouldn't we instead support him [even if we disagree with his politics].

  Kinda like the Conservatives supported Clinton, right? It amazes me that Bush can do anything, whether appropriate or not, and the Conservatives keep saying: "Well, I don't like what is happening, and I don't agree with Bush, but we should support him". I am throwing the BS flag. We don't have to support him. That is what democracy is (if you want to call the government we have a democracy) is the ability to disagree with our government...vehemently if need be. The problem is that our voices are no longer heard.

  exjdub (of the "I voted for Gore" class)
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Kinda like the Conservatives supported Clinton, right?

  Actually No, exdub.

  I cannot speak of the conservative camp at large, only myself. If it were instead Clinton who was dealing with these matters, I would feel a need to support his efforts - not in aggreement always, but in solidarity. This was my entire point. Conservative/Liberal agendas' - hidden or open - just add confusion to a touchy situation.

  I know few believe me, but I think that if my vote is made on the other side, and my position is not electable, I must, as a citizen of this country support the efforts of the one who holds power. One, it will not change until election changes it. And two, it becomes a weak spot in national policy and getting something done. That is just my view. There are plenty of elected officials who can proffer opposition, and that I think is absolutely healthy.

  Most likely, as I suspect the Dems will hold the office next round, they will make decisions I don't agree with. Although that may be true, and I may express such, I will hold short of name-calling of either the rabid supporters, or the president himself. That is just me. Calling GW names is what I object to.

  Hillary - yes, I admit that I never liked the idea of invasion of Iraq to begin with. I certainly do not support the cover-ups and spins that try to justify it now. I do not now, nor will I ever, I hope, waffle to and fro to the current spin. I just think that some interpret the Iran/NK situation in a wrong light - that GW is just looking for a new fight. I don't. He might be. I just don't see that currently. I would hope that any administration faced with nuclear proliferation by a country like Iran, would not take such as 'none of our business'.

  We have entered a new world - I don't have the answers - I just think name calling or comical remarks about my education in the matter are uncalled for. We all have the same info before us - yet there are as many views as there are observers. It is not cut/dried. I respect you - and your opinion. Ditto in return. What's wrong with that?

  Jeff