<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Do we REALLY want Donald Rumsfeld, Dick cheney, and George Bush calling the shots in our coming crises with Iran? A country which beleives that Armmagedden is in order, and a welcomed event which will bring about Muslim power in the world?
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> Gayle,
While conceding that most ofus would like more honesty overall in government, I feel most Americans would not be comfortable with alternatives to Bush on the Iran situation. Yes, he only has a 33% approval factor, common during most unpopular wars. However, I just can't see most Americans supporting any of the alternatives. We are lucky that we don't have a Kerry in office now as he would still be pandering to the UN over Iraq. Now that Iran is a threat, would we really want a democrat, like Hillary who would simply watch the poles for public and war policy? <font color="red"> Is Iran a threat to the USA ???? How come you see Iran as a threat but you cant seem to realise that to a lot of countries in the world, including Iran sees the USA as the greatest threat- and with good reason.
Are they more of a threat than the USSR were? What ever happened to nuclear deterent? Arent Atomic bombs primarily defensive weapons ? WHY SHOULD THE USA BE ALLOWED TO HAVE 6000 NUKES [ AND DEVELOPING MORE ALL THE TIME] BUT IRAN IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE 1! [ not shouting Q] </font color>
I admit, it would still be easier for Bush to roll over and play dead but he still has the responsibility of protecting our country as his prime focus. He has done this even if many of us think he has spent too much money and been too slow to agressively go after the a quicker victory. However, with the few exceptions of Murtha and a few others who would have cut and run, most democrats are still only complaining and offering no solutions other than get out. The Iranians know they will have no problem developing weapons if the democrats are elected and they may just wait us out until a democrat is in office so they can do whatever they want. They do fear Bush as he has proven he is willing to go against public opinion and even his own party. While you see any unpopularity as proof a president should be impeached, some of us see it as not such a bad thing.
Running public policy on the heels of popularity surveys is not what all of us want. If this was indeed a democracy, that would be acceptable. Of course, bold leadership is not always popular. Winston Churchill was very unpopular and was not even re-elected after the war. His numbers were worse than Bush now. I guess what I'm trying to say is that history remembers him differently than the war weary English did at the time.
I believe that Bush will pay a price for some of his policy and certainly for his not toeing the pacifist line. However, give it a few years and I'll bet he is remembered better than those who now bite and yap at his heels.
Deeman</font color> <hr /></blockquote>
To understand the problem and solve it, you also have to look at it from the Iranian side.
Iraq was NEVER a threat and Iran is also not a threat- not nuclear anyway. Once Iran has a bomb, the US cant bully them any more. Thats what GW and Co are worried about.
The only ones who should be worried is the Israeli's, bit guess what- they also have nukes! I dont hear anyone who claims to support 'no nukes in the ME' ever mentioning that little fact.
Q...gotta go-to be continued. [img]/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]