What are George Bush and John McCain afraid of?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

The UN is weak and pathetic. The United States is not.

Gary, are you suggesting if the UN can't do something that we can not? Is your opinion of the power of the United States really that low?

No, I am suggesting that some countries can't be reasoned with. Until Iran changes its leadership, talking to them is useless.

I am suggesting that your line of reasoning is weakness.

[GaryC 7]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

And there you go again... who's going to pay for that adventure? You or all of our grandkids?

I think its safe to say that if they were to make overt moves on any of our allies they'd be receiving a couple of cruise missiles anyway so what's the deal with punishing if there is no proof of them doing anything wrong? Oh, right... Bush says they are part of the axis of evil so that must mean they are up to no good. If anyone should be punished its those that are rushing to hunger for war. I think the majority of the American electorate already learned one lesson in Iraq. Strange to see that McCain is trying to tone down the rhetoric on one side while trying to appease the more fanatical wing of his Party with talk of National Security ala being internationally offensive.

Ah, I see. Your idea is to talk to them and if it does not work just let them do what they want because it will "cost to much". Nice plan.

The UN is weak and pathetic. The United States is not.

Gary, are you suggesting if the UN can't do something that we can not? Is your opinion of the power of the United States really that low?

No, I am suggesting that some countries can't be reasoned with. Until Iran changes its leadership, talking to them is useless.

I am suggesting that your line of reasoning is weakness.

Charles, you can't bring up Hitler and WW2. Those lessons no longer apply, remember?

[HAL 9000 96]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

And there you go again... who's going to pay for that adventure? You or all of our grandkids?

I think its safe to say that if they were to make overt moves on any of our allies they'd be receiving a couple of cruise missiles anyway so what's the deal with punishing if there is no proof of them doing anything wrong? Oh, right... Bush says they are part of the axis of evil so that must mean they are up to no good. If anyone should be punished its those that are rushing to hunger for war. I think the majority of the American electorate already learned one lesson in Iraq. Strange to see that McCain is trying to tone down the rhetoric on one side while trying to appease the more fanatical wing of his Party with talk of National Security ala being internationally offensive.

Ah, I see. Your idea is to talk to them and if it does not work just let them do what they want because it will "cost to much". Nice plan.

It is their country.

Besides- as I think most folks with common sense tend to say thus far... its being diplomatic just like with any other adversary. If we decided to play the international bully, outbullying them, then if our demands are not met we can set an ultimatum for invasion and the entire electorate can learn all over again about making poor choices at the polls.

Notice how I did not say letting do what they wanted to do. I don't know where you get these things but its certainly a pattern.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

And there you go again... who's going to pay for that adventure? You or all of our grandkids?

I think its safe to say that if they were to make overt moves on any of our allies they'd be receiving a couple of cruise missiles anyway so what's the deal with punishing if there is no proof of them doing anything wrong? Oh, right... Bush says they are part of the axis of evil so that must mean they are up to no good. If anyone should be punished its those that are rushing to hunger for war. I think the majority of the American electorate already learned one lesson in Iraq. Strange to see that McCain is trying to tone down the rhetoric on one side while trying to appease the more fanatical wing of his Party with talk of National Security ala being internationally offensive.

Ah, I see. Your idea is to talk to them and if it does not work just let them do what they want because it will "cost to much". Nice plan.

The UN is weak and pathetic. The United States is not.

Gary, are you suggesting if the UN can't do something that we can not? Is your opinion of the power of the United States really that low?

No, I am suggesting that some countries can't be reasoned with. Until Iran changes its leadership, talking to them is useless.

I am suggesting that your line of reasoning is weakness.

Charles, you can't bring up Hitler and WW2. Those lessons no longer apply, remember?

Chamberlain is a rather misunderstood figure - for all that he gets blamed for WW2. Europe during the 1930's being a rather different animal than it is today - and certainly in comparison with a totally different region like the ME.

In short - Britain (and Europe) was still picking up the pieces from WW1 less than 20 years before.

[HAL 9000 96]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

And there you go again... who's going to pay for that adventure? You or all of our grandkids?

I think its safe to say that if they were to make overt moves on any of our allies they'd be receiving a couple of cruise missiles anyway so what's the deal with punishing if there is no proof of them doing anything wrong? Oh, right... Bush says they are part of the axis of evil so that must mean they are up to no good. If anyone should be punished its those that are rushing to hunger for war. I think the majority of the American electorate already learned one lesson in Iraq. Strange to see that McCain is trying to tone down the rhetoric on one side while trying to appease the more fanatical wing of his Party with talk of National Security ala being internationally offensive.

Ah, I see. Your idea is to talk to them and if it does not work just let them do what they want because it will "cost to much". Nice plan.

The UN is weak and pathetic. The United States is not.

Gary, are you suggesting if the UN can't do something that we can not? Is your opinion of the power of the United States really that low?

No, I am suggesting that some countries can't be reasoned with. Until Iran changes its leadership, talking to them is useless.

I am suggesting that your line of reasoning is weakness.

Charles, you can't bring up Hitler and WW2. Those lessons no longer apply, remember?

Sure bring on the Lord Chamberlains and then we can surrender our borders to the Iranians over here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

And there you go again... who's going to pay for that adventure? You or all of our grandkids?

I think its safe to say that if they were to make overt moves on any of our allies they'd be receiving a couple of cruise missiles anyway so what's the deal with punishing if there is no proof of them doing anything wrong? Oh, right... Bush says they are part of the axis of evil so that must mean they are up to no good. If anyone should be punished its those that are rushing to hunger for war. I think the majority of the American electorate already learned one lesson in Iraq. Strange to see that McCain is trying to tone down the rhetoric on one side while trying to appease the more fanatical wing of his Party with talk of National Security ala being internationally offensive.

Ah, I see. Your idea is to talk to them and if it does not work just let them do what they want because it will "cost to much". Nice plan.

It is their country.

Besides- as I think most folks with common sense tend to say thus far... its being diplomatic just like with any other adversary. If we decided to play the international bully, outbullying them, then if our demands are not met we can set an ultimatum for invasion and the entire electorate can learn all over again about making poor choices at the polls.

Notice how I did not say letting do what they wanted to do. I don't know where you get these things but its certainly a pattern.

The other thing I seem to be reading in some of these comments is the idea that the rule of the government should trump the popular will of the general public. If the public at large is disillusioned by a controversial, drawn out and very expensive war - is it really realistic to bang the same drums over another country?

Democracy it ain't.

[HAL 9000 96]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

And there you go again... who's going to pay for that adventure? You or all of our grandkids?

I think its safe to say that if they were to make overt moves on any of our allies they'd be receiving a couple of cruise missiles anyway so what's the deal with punishing if there is no proof of them doing anything wrong? Oh, right... Bush says they are part of the axis of evil so that must mean they are up to no good. If anyone should be punished its those that are rushing to hunger for war. I think the majority of the American electorate already learned one lesson in Iraq. Strange to see that McCain is trying to tone down the rhetoric on one side while trying to appease the more fanatical wing of his Party with talk of National Security ala being internationally offensive.

Ah, I see. Your idea is to talk to them and if it does not work just let them do what they want because it will "cost to much". Nice plan.

It is their country.

Besides- as I think most folks with common sense tend to say thus far... its being diplomatic just like with any other adversary. If we decided to play the international bully, outbullying them, then if our demands are not met we can set an ultimatum for invasion and the entire electorate can learn all over again about making poor choices at the polls.

Notice how I did not say letting do what they wanted to do. I don't know where you get these things but its certainly a pattern.

The other thing I seem to be reading in some of these comments is the idea that the rule of the government should trump the popular will of the general public. If the public at large is disillusioned by a controversial, drawn out and very expensive war - is it really realistic to bang the same drums over another country?

Democracy it ain't.

Hey they're welcomed to do so... all they do is teach more people their tune to their detriment.

[chri'stina 190]

I have a Q for VJ Troll...maybe the answer is obvious but still I wanted to know what made you switch your support over to Obama when you did. From the articles you post I can sense why but still, what was the turning point? I am genuinely asking, not being a smart butt. I thought awhile ago you might have been more into McCain or Giuliani, if he had the chance(I could be wrong on that one). I just wanted to know what made up your mind.

[rebeccajo 14]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

The UN, a supposed spokesman for the world, has tried to talk to Iran. They have passed resolution after resolution in an attempt to get them to give up their ways. Obama seems to think that he can, single handedly, get them to change. He has delusions of grandeur.

And Bush as a Texas oil man was going to be able to talk turkey with OPEC and get them to keep us in cheap crude also.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

The UN, a supposed spokesman for the world, has tried to talk to Iran. They have passed resolution after resolution in an attempt to get them to give up their ways. Obama seems to think that he can, single handedly, get them to change. He has delusions of grandeur.

And Bush as a Texas oil man was going to be able to talk turkey with OPEC and get them to keep us in cheap crude also.

it's bush's fault!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I have a Q for VJ Troll...maybe the answer is obvious but still I wanted to know what made you switch your support over to Obama when you did. From the articles you post I can sense why but still, what was the turning point? I am genuinely asking, not being a smart butt. I thought awhile ago you might have been more into McCain or Giuliani, if he had the chance(I could be wrong on that one). I just wanted to know what made up your mind.

I liked Rudy until he got all strident on the war. He was such an independent contrarian before, it would have been nice if he stayed that way. But he felt the need to kowtow to the "crazy lobby" in the GOP, the freaks who froth at the mouth at the thought of more war.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think we could all use a break from guys like this

[chri'stina 190]

I have a Q for VJ Troll...maybe the answer is obvious but still I wanted to know what made you switch your support over to Obama when you did. From the articles you post I can sense why but still, what was the turning point? I am genuinely asking, not being a smart butt. I thought awhile ago you might have been more into McCain or Giuliani, if he had the chance(I could be wrong on that one). I just wanted to know what made up your mind.

I liked Rudy until he got all strident on the war. He was such an independent contrarian before, it would have been nice if he stayed that way. But he felt the need to kowtow to the "crazy lobby" in the GOP, the freaks who froth at the mouth at the thought of more war.

So is it mostly a war thing that made you change your mind?

[rebeccajo 14]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

The UN, a supposed spokesman for the world, has tried to talk to Iran. They have passed resolution after resolution in an attempt to get them to give up their ways. Obama seems to think that he can, single handedly, get them to change. He has delusions of grandeur.

And Bush as a Texas oil man was going to be able to talk turkey with OPEC and get them to keep us in cheap crude also.

it's bush's fault!

Jeez.

The argument was made above that Obama can singlehandedly get Iran to change.

My point was the Bush contended he could singlehandedly handle OPEC.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

The UN, a supposed spokesman for the world, has tried to talk to Iran. They have passed resolution after resolution in an attempt to get them to give up their ways. Obama seems to think that he can, single handedly, get them to change. He has delusions of grandeur.

And Bush as a Texas oil man was going to be able to talk turkey with OPEC and get them to keep us in cheap crude also.

it's bush's fault!

Jeez.

The argument was made above that Obama can singlehandedly get Iran to change.

My point was the Bush contended he could singlehandedly handle OPEC.

and that bush didn't means obama's ability to do that isn't likely.