This Man is Redefining American Strength and Resolve: Bush Threatens Iran and Syria

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ask this guy

Wow, that guy's site makes him look like a total yahoo. Are you sure those statistics are credible? Besides, you must be carrying a pretty huge chip on your shoulder to be making a stink outta Bush v Gore 3 years later! Damn. But to cut you some slack, I guess people do still bring it up around here...

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ask this guy

Wow, that guy's site makes him look like a total yahoo. Are you sure those statistics are credible? Besides, you must be carrying a pretty huge chip on your shoulder to be making a stink outta Bush v Gore 3 years later! Damn. But to cut you some slack, I guess people do still bring it up around here...

I put that in my sig due to moonbeam, and others, idiotic remarks about the election being stolen. For some reason they just can't grasp the Electoral College.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well SB,

I seem to remember moderate Iranians supporting the US on 9/11. I also remember them trying to approach us, but Bush slapping their face with his now infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. As usual, Bush didn't know when to shut up. He could have worked with a large number of pro-American moderates, but no, he had to play the bully. Cowboy diplomacy.

Yes, some Iranians did make an overture towards the U.S. after 9/11. However the hard line Ayatollahs did not and they are who run the government there. Now, I see that changing soon but as long as they control the govt. they cannot be fully trusted. Once they fall I think you will see full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran. Until then we can talk with them, but only if we keep a sword drawn at the same time.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well SB,

I seem to remember moderate Iranians supporting the US on 9/11. I also remember them trying to approach us, but Bush slapping their face with his now infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. As usual, Bush didn't know when to shut up. He could have worked with a large number of pro-American moderates, but no, he had to play the bully. Cowboy diplomacy.

Winston, your argument might have a little more merit if Iran would quit calling the US the "Great Satan" and having organized demostrations with people chanting "Death to America".

The moderates are not in control of Iran.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ask this guy

Wow, that guy's site makes him look like a total yahoo. Are you sure those statistics are credible? Besides, you must be carrying a pretty huge chip on your shoulder to be making a stink outta Bush v Gore 3 years later! Damn. But to cut you some slack, I guess people do still bring it up around here...

Sorry, but the site in question isn't "that guy's site".

Here is the closest thing to his "site".

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Ask this guy

Wow, that guy's site makes him look like a total yahoo. Are you sure those statistics are credible? Besides, you must be carrying a pretty huge chip on your shoulder to be making a stink outta Bush v Gore 3 years later! Damn. But to cut you some slack, I guess people do still bring it up around here...

Sorry, but the site in question isn't "that guy's site".

Here is the closest thing to his "site".

Shhhh....they're trying to change the subject because they are losing the argument.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Shinerburke:

Thank you for backing up your cheap attack on the one you called "clueless poster of the day". As we see by your articles, there have been talks with Iran and Syria. It seems some good progress is being made.

But those articles do nothing to explain why Bush feels its necessary to make these warmongering threats towards those countries. And that was the crux of the argument presented by the poster that you bashed. Its as ridiculous as North Korea threatening us with "a sea of fire".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well SB,

I seem to remember moderate Iranians supporting the US on 9/11. I also remember them trying to approach us, but Bush slapping their face with his now infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. As usual, Bush didn't know when to shut up. He could have worked with a large number of pro-American moderates, but no, he had to play the bully. Cowboy diplomacy.

Winston, your argument might have a little more merit if Iran would quit calling the US the "Great Satan" and having organized demostrations with people chanting "Death to America".

The moderates are not in control of Iran.

No, they are not. However, it IS true, as you know, that there was a movement largely unopposed towards reform. No one expected a violent revolution, but a moderating trend was occuring. The Iranian goverment itself was making backdoor diplomatic overtures towards us. It would have been in our best interests to pursue that even after 9/11 (especially since demonstrations in support of the US were not blocked regarding the WTC). We might have used a potential relationship to demonstrate we can work with middle eastern countries rather than threatening them with a stick. What a diplomatic coup that would have been for this administraton, and what a benefit to the world. If some mutually beneficial relationship had been started, we might have seen the Iranians more supportive of eliminating terrorists camps from within the country. I know this is a lot of ifs and maybes, but there was a real chance. All hope gone with one bad speech and a war. Now moderates are now in retreat. Certainly, the support for good will is gone, and now we have a country looking at Iraq, and I believe redoubling it's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons as a result. Even if they did shut down their facilities, surely they would try to get black market bombs. Why did we HAVE to go that route? The Great Satan and Death to America rhetoric is a direct result of our attitude towards Iran since 9/11. They had calmed down quite a bit since the Shah was deposed. Well, hope is gone diplomatically it seems.

 

[JellyBaby]

I fail to understand why Bush is continuing to provoke these nations unless he wants to set up a future fight as only a King can. American Presidents have "sent a strong message" all throughout the 20th century (the bloodiest in history) and what did it acheive? Do you think Iran, Syria, and North Korea are going to bend over, drop their pants and make pleasurable noises of acquiescence just because Bush threatened them?

Mr Bush said their behaviour was "completely unacceptable" and that any state which continued to support terror "will be held accountable".

How about we finally get the naughty details and for once some solid evidence into the light for all to see? Let's see exactly what these nations are doing, find out exactly how they threaten the United States. I'd also like to know how Cuba got on the Death List and I see Libya is back on it as well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
I fail to understand why Bush is continuing to provoke these nations unless he wants to set up a future fight as only a King can. American Presidents have "sent a strong message" all throughout the 20th century (the bloodiest in history) and what did it acheive? Do you think Iran, Syria, and North Korea are going to bend over, drop their pants and make pleasurable noises of acquiescence just because Bush threatened them?

Mr Bush said their behaviour was "completely unacceptable" and that any state which continued to support terror "will be held accountable".

How about we finally get the naughty details and for once some solid evidence into the light for all to see? Let's see exactly what these nations are doing, find out exactly how they threaten the United States. I'd also like to know how Cuba got on the Death List and I see Libya is back on it as well.

I believe the point here is that this is the rhetoric used against Saddam. That was followed by a war of course. The implication of the same language is that unless Iran cooperates, it faces the same fate, even if military action is not explicitly stated. This administration assumes of course, that either no or favorable action will be taken by Iran. It ignores the prospect of negative consequences. The "bring it on" speech typifies this attitude and the pitfalls thereof.

 

[JellyBaby]

believe the point here is that this is the rhetoric used against Saddam. That was followed by a war of course. The implication of the same language is that unless Iran cooperates, it faces the same fate, even if military action is not explicitly stated. This administration assumes of course, that either no or favorable action will be taken by Iran. It ignores the prospect of negative consequences. The "bring it on" speech typifies this attitude and the pitfalls thereof.

WinstonSmith, you know I think I'd like to see an Amendment to the Constitution that forces the President to meet personally with the leader of any nation America seeks to or takes action against. Make the meeting public too for good measure. Let's replace indirect threatening noises, posturing and "he said, she said" with some good old fashioned, face-to-face dialog. There is nothing to lose and so much to gain.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well SB,

I seem to remember moderate Iranians supporting the US on 9/11. I also remember them trying to approach us, but Bush slapping their face with his now infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. As usual, Bush didn't know when to shut up. He could have worked with a large number of pro-American moderates, but no, he had to play the bully. Cowboy diplomacy.

Winston, your argument might have a little more merit if Iran would quit calling the US the "Great Satan" and having organized demostrations with people chanting "Death to America".

The moderates are not in control of Iran.

Yeah, they should know it's better to call their enemies "evil-doers" belongign to an "axis of evil".

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Shinerburke:

Thank you for backing up your cheap attack on the one you called "clueless poster of the day". As we see by your articles, there have been talks with Iran and Syria. It seems some good progress is being made.

But those articles do nothing to explain why Bush feels its necessary to make these warmongering threats towards those countries. And that was the crux of the argument presented by the poster that you bashed. Its as ridiculous as North Korea threatening us with "a sea of fire".

It's called Big Stick Diplomacy.....some people/nations only understand the rattle of sabres.

 

[conehead433]

We'll be watching Syria and Iran.

Unfortunately with the same CIA that came up up with the intelligence on Iraq. Oh Pleeeeze give it a rest. Let these people kill each other off until doomsday. Next Dubya will be saying they are an imminent threat to the USA and we should attack them. Of course he tried making a case against Syria imediately after going after IRAQ but didn't get much in the way of public support. So now we need some more
'evidence' so we can go after these countries.