 ouyangwulong says: At a certain point I fail to understand what our President thinks he is doing. It would seem he is newly possessed with an urgent desire to invade Iran, regardless of the circumstances. Apparently, he doesn't understand the game he's playing. He's confirming America's stereotype as a global villain in they eyes of the rest of the world. Bush led the push to attack and isolate Iran because of their nuclear weapons program. When that allegation was firmly contradicted by our own intelligence community, he didn't miss a beat. He's going on as if the NIE never even came out, still talking about nuclear weapons as if nothing had changed. Now Iran agrees to answer questions and open up to the IAEA, as well as fulfilling other obligations to the UN. As they do, Bush keeps cheer leading for war. Doesn't he realize that he's impeaching what little credibility America has internationally? I have four serious questions for all conservatives supporting Bush and his Iran policy: 1.) Doesn't our insistence on war regardless of the circumstances and evidence empower Al Qaeda by confirming to Muslims that America is not a country to be trusted? 2.) Since our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now full-fledged disasters, what makes anyone think a war with Iran would be any different? 3.) If Iran abandoned its nuclear programs years ago, as the National Intelligence Estimate thinks, and if they cooperate with the IAEA, which shows there are no weapons, would we still be justified in invading them? 4.) Why do we really want to attack Iran so badly? While I may not meet your criteria I'm going to offer up my opinion anyway: Other than targeted air strikes, no mass-troop invasion is within the realm of possibility in this political climate and even targeted air strikes are highly unlikely at the very best. He is pushing for further sanctions and continued enforcement of the current ones, not full-scale invasion. So your questions are moot in my opinion. I appreciate the response in good faith, but I would seriously like to go into this in more detail rather than brushing it off as a question not worth asking. A lack of self-critical examination is what got us into this whole mess in the first place! 1.) You have a point, Bush only obliquely alludes to the use of military force, and for now is pushing towards sactions, but... ...he is using the exact same rhetoric that he did with Iraq. In Iraq sanctions were eventually a point of transition for vauge UN resolutions, which Bush eventually interpreted as a mandate for military action. He is not just using the same rhetoric, but the same issues: sponsors of terror, weapons of mass destructio... |
View the Top Clips from January 14, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
