<p>Will the neocons and Bush go home now?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is great that Biden will threaten to draw up impeachment if Busheviks try to invade Iran.</p>
<p>Look who’s crying wolf! [Bush</a> defends Iran policy amid doubts on new U.N. sanctions - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071205/wl_mcclatchy/2774033]Bush”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071205/wl_mcclatchy/2774033)</p>
<p>Two things come to mind.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Just because Iran says so doesn’t mean it’s true. Where’s the rest of the article you’re quoting?</p></li>
<li><p>Why aren’t you getting on France and Britain’s case as well? It seems to me that they, along with Germany to a lesser extent, have been just as suspicious of Iran.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>gee, could it be that they believed Bush? their good buddy? and its not IRAN saying so, its AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE, a report that Bush says he had no clue about…sure he didn’t have a clue…he wasn’t fear mongering or exagertating…nah, he doesn’t ever do that</p>
<p>watching his press conference today…stammering and floundering and avoiding the questions, would be amusing if it wasn’t so embarrasing and scary</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>France??? Bush’s buddy???</p>
<p>Really? France?</p>
<p>And I know where the report came from, but gottaloveucla didn’t show the rest, which is misrepresentation of what’s going on.</p>
<p>But really… France?</p>
<p>Hey, anything that embarasses Bush/Cheney is fine with me.</p>
<p>But if I were President of the United States, or France, or wherever, I would continue to be suspicious of Iran. I would watch like a hawk, I would press for appropriate formal monitoring, I would demand constant intelligence. I believe this report, but that doesn’t mean everybody breathes a sigh of relief and stops thinking about it.</p>
<p>I would, however, stop talking the belligerent, bullying rot that has constituted our Iran “policy” for the past year or so. But, then, I would never have started in the first place.</p>
<p>I think its time for the leading terrorist killing machine in the world to pull in its horns, and stop shaking its nucular-tipped warheads at others. </p>
<p>Isn’t a million point six dead in Iraq, and four million displaced enough?</p>
<p>“Just because Iran says so doesn’t mean it’s true.”</p>
<p>Just because the U.S. says so probably means it isn’t.</p>
<p>(Wolfowitz is back at the Black House, working on WMD…)</p>
<p>From ARI</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wonderful way of diverting the topic, buddy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The sabber rattling that would lead to military action is comming entirely from this side of the Atlantic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>maybe we should eliminate chemistry, physics, and wikipedia.</p>
<p>I like the “Was”, “Is”, and “Will” usage. Gets people in the mood for GTNW and Doomsday. The wording also shows how his current speech writers can make him appear smarter than he really was, is, and will be. His previous writer(s) have confessed.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>Of course the US isn’t the ultimate arbiter of truth, but then again, it’s also not ALWAYS wrong, either.</p>
<p>gottaloveucla,</p>
<p>I don’t see how what I said is any way “diverting the topic.” Furthermore, it’s not only the US that’s been saber rattling: France also made VERY strong statements about Iran back in September. Foreign Minister Kouchner explicitly used the word “war” in a speech as a worst case scenario.</p>
<p>Very strong words from a country that’s been reluctant to use force.</p>
<p>There’s three influential groups trying to create a war with Iran regardless of the intelligence/</p>
<p>1) The Christian Conservative crowd who wants there to be a Clash of Civilization/War of Religions type thing, SEE Pat Robertson.</p>
<p>2) The Texas Oilmen who want to secure supplies for their cronies SEE Cheney</p>
<p>3) The Israel Lobby who wants to attack all Muslim countries to establish tyranny in the Middle East and who was instrumental in the drum-up for the Iraq War. SEE Horowitz , David
</p>
<p>They still are in no comparision to what the US has done. At most the made 1 or 2 off hand statements about worst-case scenarios. The White House Press wants to use it as a first-case scenario, another wonderful opportunity kind of thing.</p>
<p>“Of course the US isn’t the ultimate arbiter of truth, but then again, it’s also not ALWAYS wrong, either.”</p>
<p>There are RARE exceptions. But for the most part, we lie. Bill Clinton (and female sidekick lies), Colin Powell lies (repeatedly), Paul Wolfowitz lies, Dick Cheney lies, George Bush lies, Donald Rumsfeld lies, General Betrayus lies, Condi Rice lies, George Tenet lies. These are only a partial list of those who have been caught red-handed. </p>
<p>But on the whole, taking the evidence we have before us, I think it’s worth working from the known when trying to evaluate the unknown, especially when a nation, a known nucular menace, has spawned a reign of terror that has set the tone for the 21st century.</p>
<p>That sounds to me like a mea culpa in the face of previously unknown data. </p>
<p>Of course the French and Germans are going to be more reluctant to make strong statements-- they have lesser capabilities and have less sway in worldwide affairs. The size of the stick you wave around also determines how willing you are to use it. I think it was Barbara Walter who pointed out that the relative size of the threatmaking capability also determines the country’s willingness to make a threat. This can be observed in the threats that the USSR made versus those made by post-Soviet Russia. Similarly, as North Korea has become less powerful compared to South Korea, it makes fewer direct threats, and instead goes for indirect means of demonstrating force willingness.</p>
<p>This makes sense, of course-- rational actors will signal using whatever is most believable. The US can say strong things and back them up far more easily than France and Germany, whose militaries are no longer premier forces.</p>
<p>Heck, even Japan’s “rinky-dink” forces outspend Germany’s. I think they’re ahead of France this year, too.</p>
<p>So yeah, it’s no wonder they aren’t making stronger statements.</p>
<p>^ ^Have you noticed that Wolfowitz has a resemblance to Stangelove?</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>And what, the rest of the world’s governments are chock-full of “truthiness” (to borrow a word from the eminent Colbert)? I think not.</p>
<p>Blair lied, Koizumi lied, Sarkozy lied. Heck, I can give a whole lecture (and have) on Japanese politicians’ many many lies. </p>
<p>Leaders lie when it’s rational to do so. In this case, it depends on what you think their motivations are. Iran has a good motivation to lie, simply because they want to hide their true intentions and true capabilities. The US has a motivation to lie because they don’t want to draw more fire for what may be seen as warmongering.</p>
<p>But let’s not kid ourselves-- international affairs isn’t a game of abject honest and truth. We live in a Morgenthauian world, at best.</p>
<p>The U.S. has excellent motivation to lie. Why is the terrorist nation hiding its WMD program (which continues apace in my own state)? The difference between U.S. lies and Blair lies and Sarkozy lies is that neither Britain nor France nor Japan threatens other nations with the use of nuclear weapons. Neither Britain nor Japan nor France facilitated the use of chemical weapons against Iran, with half a million dead. Neither Britain nor Japan nor France openly committed genocide against Iraq, killing a million people, half of them children. Neither Britain nor Japan nor France created a WMD myth out of whole cloth, lying to its most senior politicians, and setting conditions for war four years later. Neither Britain nor Japan nor France invaded a sovereign nation based on a lie. Neither Britain nor Japan nor France went to the United Nations and openly lied to the world community (lies that were discovered by amateur reporters within 48 hours.</p>
<p>Let’s not kid ourselves. When it comes to truth-telling, there is one nation that uses terror as an instrument of foreign policy with a track record for leading the world in deadly mendacity.</p>
<p>You mean</p>
<p>[BBC</a> NEWS | Middle East | Iran leader defends Israel remark](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran leader defends Israel remark)</p>
<p>As to the alleged deaths and UN sanctions–a more balanced review from that conservative magazine “The Nation”</p>
<p>[A</a> Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum](<a href=“http://globalpolicy.org/security//sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm]A”>A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions)</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, they just ally themselves with the US and let the US do it for them. Remember what Japan was like when it was a military power? The UK? Heck, the UK had NO qualms about firebombing Dresden. The Japanese had no qualms killing far more than half a million in China and Korea. And you’re going to say, with a straight face, that Japan, Britain, and France have NEVER invaded another nation based on a lie?</p>
<p>The only difference between then and now is that then the UK, France, and Japan were relatively more powerful than today. </p>
<p>Like Thucydides said so well: “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”</p>