Sunday, March 04, 2007

WHO WILL STOP THE NEXT WAR?

14 Comments:

Blogger Jim Marquis said...

I appreciate Pat Buchanan's efforts to prevent a war with Iran. I'd love to see one of the news channels do a special on what the possible results of that conflict could end up being.

12:07 PM  
Blogger 1138 said...

"687 days to go..."

And every one of them an opportunity for these nut jobs in the administration to instigate armageddon.
We can't rely on time to solve the problem (and I know that's not what you meant).
Time is the friend of the neofacists, time to flip off the world, start a conflagration in the M.E., and encourage another attack here at home and impose martial law.

There's nothing that you can imagine that this gang wouldn't try.
We NEED active and PUBLIC investigations of the wrong doing.
If investigations are happening and we don't know about it then we need to contact the heads of the finance, appropriations, defense and other committees and get them to push the networks for coverage - if the investigations are not happening we need to raise hell in the streets and the media to get them happening.

5:24 PM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

Pat Buchanan. Politics makes strange bedfellows, eh?

5:26 PM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

I used to despise Pat Buchanan, and on a lot of issues I still do, but he's got it right here. Like Sheryl said, politics do sometimes make for strange bed fellows.

Is there anyway we can speed up the remaining 687 days?!

8:38 PM  
Blogger Christopher said...

It is extremely unlikely that the US will carry out airstrikes against Iran because there is almost no support for this outside the US, and very little within.

For instance the Congress wouldn't approve, and important allies like the British wouldn't either.

Even middle-eastern allies like Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Syria wouldn't either because, although they don't like Shi'ite dominated Iran, their subject peoples might well rise up en masse in anger at yet another attack by white men on a middle east country, even though Shi'ite

Absent support from the Congress and from countries like Britain, the US probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Remember that even George Bush was most anxious to get at least the British on side.

This won't be the case in the case of an attack on Iran.

As mad as George Bush seems to be, even he wouldn't be crazy enough to attack Iran, given all the possible consequences that have been talked about voluminously throughout the media.

But however unlikely an attack on Iran is, we can't be 100 percent certain that George Bush won't authorize it.

Perhaps it is only 1 percent likely that he will. So, let's just have faith that he won't.

11:11 PM  
Blogger 1138 said...

"So, let's just have faith that he won't."

I'm not a believer in faith based policy or government confidence..

A lot of what you say was said before we went into Iraq, that the troop buildup was a tool, not intended to be used just to make sure that Saddam understood we were serious.
And to show that it stood behing the military bluff congress authorized it's use.
What could they do after the buildup had been done and Saddam called our bluff?

Iran could very well go the same way. We've certainly put what is needed in place for a strike, two aircraft carrier groups are not need to defend against al-Qaeda or domestic insurgents.

They are either there for the purpose of threatening Iran, or they are there to facilitate a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, take your pick but I don't expect it's the bug out option and threat made is a threat completed, damn the consequence - we learned that in 2003.

9:25 AM  
Blogger Candace Williams said...

I think Bush is hell-bent on this. As I've said before, he seems to think that this is his God-given mission (not realizing that his handlers are using him to gain control of the oil, along with the Saudis.) Nothing has stopped him so far in his idiotic war in Iraq -not the voters, not the Congress, not the Generals, nor the Baker-Hamilton report. We'll most likely hear about the missle attacks on Iran after the fact. If there's not a SERIOUS impeachment effort after that, I guess I'll be going to Canada.

12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Edwards said that keeping Iran from nuclear weapons “is the greatest challenge of our generation.”

Oh please! Health care is the greatest challenge of our generation, you moron!

12:44 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Pat Buchanan.

Attacking Iran would be a disaster, not only because it's wrong and it would alienate every other country (except Israel). Iran is pretty well off economically and militarily; they'd be a much stronger foe than Iraq. If you like our 4-year Iraqmire, you'll love the quicksand we get stuck in if we invade Iran.

Who Hijacked Our Country

5:28 PM  
Blogger Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

The world is well and truly fucked up if even Pat Buchanan starts to make sense. That said, he's right on this issue.

Kvatch, I disagree. The greatest challenge of this generation is weaning ourselves off of the tit of foreign oil so that we don't have to continue funding and dealing with these assholes. Well, that and creating a DVD player that sets the time for you. :P

6:14 PM  
Blogger sumo said...

I was able to surprise even myself with agreeing with Pat Buchanan...and he stands by it too...no matter what. I guess that means they aren't insane all the time...just some of the time.

2:14 AM  
Blogger Snave said...

Yes, Sumo! Even the blind squirrel finds the nut once in a while! 8-)>

7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kvatch, I disagree. The greatest challenge of this generation is weaning ourselves off of the tit of foreign oil so that we don't have to continue funding and dealing with these assholes.

Mandelbrot... I agree that the energy issue is an imperative, but it is most definitely not a challenge. Here's why:

When we're talking about energy, the bulk of the work and responsibility rests entirely with us. Oh sure it would be nice if Detroit made more fuel efficient cars, but we can choose to buy or not to buy the best that's available. We can demand better. And that's only a single example. "Energy stinginess" is a matter of changing habits, of spending in the short term to realize long term gains. Not so with health care.

When it comes to health care, what coverage you have is dependant on your socio-economic status, and the care you get is almost entirely out of your hands--a very, very different situation from energy, and consequently a much bigger challenge.

6:00 PM  
Blogger Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

However, Kvatch, that requires changing people's minds and getting them to alter their bad habits, neither of which are particularly easy to do. Also, there's the matter of developing new environmentally-friendly energy production technologies and deploying existing technologies to a sufficient degree as to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. Then, there's also developing alternative fuels for the massive cars and jets that Al Gore and others like so much. Therefore, I'd say that this poses a far greater challenge than health care.

10:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

RichardDawkins.net