redstaterebel wrote:AND

For all those who proclaim Bush wants to attack Iran, invade Iran, etc etc.

Why do you think that?

Why didn't he?

For the same reason why he didn't attack Iraq in 2000. There wasn't a sellable enough of a reason to at the time. There isn't a sellable enough of a reason for him to attack Iran right now.

IN MY OPINION, Bush desperately is trying to be viewed as the "non-wussy" president, and he's willing to destroy a lot to keep that image.

Kizzume wrote:

redstaterebel wrote:AND

For all those who proclaim Bush wants to attack Iran, invade Iran, etc etc.

Why do you think that?

Why didn't he?

For the same reason why he didn't attack Iraq in 2000. There wasn't a sellable enough of a reason to at the time. There isn't a sellable enough of a reason for him to attack Iran right now.

IN MY OPINION, Bush desperately is trying to be viewed as the "non-wussy" president, and he's willing to destroy a lot to keep that image.

Bush was Governor of Texas in 2000.

I know that you meant 01 and your opinion that Iraq is about the Gulf War - planned before his election - which, of course, I disagree with.

It's not so much an issue about the Gulf War, it's about Bush wanting to be the aggressive president, the "non-wussy" president, but again, that is my opinion, I have nothing to back it up in any way.

Israel continues to fan the flames.


It must be clear that if Iran does not cooperate with the West on the nuclear issue, military confrontation will be unavoidable, incoming Israeli ambassador to Britain, Ron Prosor, was quoted as saying Sunday.

Prosor, who served as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's senior adviser on Iran, told the Sunday Telegraph that Teheran could enrich enough uranium to make an atomic bomb by 2009.

"At the current rate of progress Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009," he told the British newspaper. "This is a global threat and it requires a global response. It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation."


LINK

It goes to show that despite what we do, Israel will take it upon themselves to start a confrontation with Iran.

Tumbleweed wrote:It goes to show that despite what we do, Israel will take it upon themselves to start a confrontation with Iran.

And if they do, we will be in their back pocket. Agreed?

OH, YEAH! we are connected zipper to zipper.

A good article about how to diffuse the Iran thing.


IN the wake of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program, Democrats and others are criticizing President Bush for again having “hyped” a nuclear weapons threat. This criticism, while deserved, does not address the critical policy question: What do we do now?

Clearly, the United States cannot ignore Iran. Tehran may have suspended the purely weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program, but it continues to master uranium enrichment, with no agreed limits in place. And Iran is well positioned either to facilitate or thwart American objectives in Iraq and across the Middle East.


LINK

We cannot ignore it - and the President is right to keep the pressure on. The next president needs to do the same.

And as far as Israel goes - if they think Iran is getting close to a nuke - you bet they will attack Iran.

Israel simply CANNOT let that happen. We shouldn't either. The western sane world shouldn't let it happen either.

OK in 2003, they disbanded their program for weapons as an overture to Washington; they outlined their willingness to end support for Hamas and Hezbollah, would take action against al-Qaeda and accept the Saudi peace initiative on the Israel-Palestine conflict in return for a lighten of sanctions and end threaten behavior toward Iran.

But with the invasion of Iraq, the US needed that extra enemy to keep the cash flowing.. Will they never look for nuke weapons? No one can answer that question, but this whole situation of a possible WWIII could have been avoided, but it appears that that was never a consideration.

US jews are lkosing interest in action against Iran. Cannot be good news for the Repubs.



American Jews are losing interest in Israel, according to figures released Tuesday in the American Jewish Committee 2007 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion. Figures showed that 69 percent of Jewish Americans agreed with the statement "Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew" in 2007, compared to 74 percent last year and 79 percent in 2005.

The survey illustrated continued opposition to the war in Iraq by U.S. Jews, although a third recognized that increased military activity known as "the surge" had a positive effect. In 2006, 66 percent agreed with the statement that "Iraq will never become a stable democracy." This year 76 percent maintain this view.


LINK

US Jews are democrats. Doesn't cost the GoP anything.

The GOP gets lots of its support from AIPAC, so do the Dems but traditionally Israel has gotten more support during Repub admins.

That's true. But it won't cost the GoP any votes.

Oh ypou are right here. It will not cost them any votes, as a matter of fact cash buys lots of votes, especially on arms deals.