[mapleflag]

H'worth you're being far too harsh a critic, I mean he does have the right end of the binos up. And nobody said Bush couldn't do simple arithmetic, he can only do simple arithmetic.
Who supplied the binos to him anyway, that should be worth a promotion.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

Ouch. I am from that 60s-70s generation of which you speak. I also retired with just under 24 years of honorable military service. I kind of remember defending a country that actually encouraged freedom of speach. Have things changed that much?

While you served during that time, your civilian peers ran the country. Its those sackless wonders I'm talking about. And then there are those like Murtha, who left theirs somewhere too.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

And just what would have Gore done better after 911? Or Kerry had he won? Or for that matter, you think the Dems will secure our borders? Keep dreaming!! Hopefully the vets of this generation will mature into government leaders who have more balls than the current 60s-70s generation.

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

While you served during that time, your civilian peers ran the country. Its those sackless wonders I'm talking about. And then there are those like Murtha, who left theirs somewhere too.

1. Well, Al Gore has been keeping busy winning the Nobel Peace Prize and all . Also, he would have respected the spirit and intent of the US Constitution, which cannot be said of the present incumbent and co., who've inflicted more damage to the democratic principles and institutions of the US than any adversary could have done ...
2. Usually in a democracy civilians tend to run the country, a fact which I believe is strongly articulated in the US Constitution (military led governments tend to not be known for their respect and adherence to democratic principles ).

[parsig9]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

1. Usually in a democracy civilians tend to run the country, a fact which I believe is strongly articulated in the US Constitution (military led governments tend to not be known for their respect and adherence to democratic principles ).

The choice is order or liberty. I mean, if you had to place one above the other as a value of the American system, which would it be?

For me, liberty wins every time. The military tends to err on the side of order, and for a good reason, from what I know. I never served, but went the college and grad school route with degrees in history and political economy.

To put some of that to use, I'll say I would prefer that our President behaved a little more like a fox and a little less like a lion on the issue of a nuclear Iran. A bit more statesmanship is what is required here and sadly we have bullied rather than listened and led. A nation with such power and proper leadership should rarely need to bully.
I do not think there is a prudent military solution in Iraq. Nor do not think that limiting other nations from producing nuclear power or weapons is really something that a nation which believes in self determination, national sovereignty, and economic freedom can engage in. If freedom and nuclear capability is good, then it must be good for all. For us to limit it for those people is Un-American. What we are doing in Iraq is not about honoring others' liberty but about coercion and imperialism of a 21st century variety.

As an aside, I voted for the President twice and am a card carrying Republican who misses the more libertarian virtues that many loyal party members used to have. I am disappointed in this President for many reasons but I wouldn't want his job or his dreams.

[Shawn 507]

What I meant was I respect his (Cruver's) service during those times, 60s-70s, I assume (rightly or wrongly that is his period of service). Atleast he stood for something. His civilian government counterparts lack that, then and now. I was in no way saying the military should run the government. Are we that paranoid here?
Winning the Nobel, just what greatness has Gore done for the world but open up a pandora's box of disagreement? When one looks at some other Nobel winners like Yasser Arafat, and Kofi Annan what is to be impressed with Gore getting one as well?
With all the great diplomatic minds here, why is noone doing it professionally? Everyone has a answer yet noone is stepping up to the plate. How great is it to pass judgement without being envolved in the process itself.

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by Elmer

You suggested, I think, that he is the "king of goobers." Was that it? The suggestion is perhaps that he is crazy or off base when it comes to Iran? (I said nothing of the war in Iraq.) Others are using suggestions of his being a power crazed Sauron or Gollum (I think the picture is funny too... I saw it a while back and got a good laugh). My point is that we are dealing with a scary Iranian regime. JP posted a link to a story where Bush draws parallels of WWIII if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Instead of folks recognizing this as a threat to the west, folks jump all over Bush as nuts, power crazed, off base, etc. etc. etc. I think it best that we start believing the Iranian regime when they call us the great satan, when they call Israel a one bomb state, when they issue fatwas against citizens of other contries. These are the bad guys. We had better start recognizing who the enemy is. To distract this issue you call Bush a "king of goobers." So what if he is. Tell that to Tel Aviv when it gets nuked and see if anyone laughs.

Bush isn't so stupid that he can't do simple arithmetic: Hateful Fascit Iranian Regime (driven by religious zeal) + Nuclear Bombs = big trouble for Israel and the west. I can do this math. So whether you think he is the worst president ever, or not, what does this "thinking" have to do with Bush warning of WWIII if the west does not wake up and start defending itself from Islamo Fascism? Yes, it is fun to poke fun of Bush, I do it all the time. But I find it a bit troubling that no one on this thread, so far, expresses the least concern. Far from it. Some have even said it ain't gonna happen because nothin happened with the Soviets during the cold war. September 11th plays out vividly in my mind almost daily. I will never again fail to imagine that the worst case scenario couldn't happen. If we fail to imagine, we do so at our own peril.

I stand by my quote about this being overblown. Yes, Ahmidenijad is nuts. So was Kruschev. He threatened us continously, but we never fought a nuclear war with the Soviets. Right now, Iran does not have a bomb. And, every time I hear a story about it, the time frame for the Iranians to get one keeps changing. Anywhere from 1 year to 5 years, depending on which day of the week it is.
And yes, Iran getting the bomb would be a bad thing. But, has a nuclear war been fought since other nations (ones that we did not want to see) joined the nuclear club? NO. India and Pakistan, the two most likely countries to engage in a nuclear slugfest, have not done so. Remember, not so long ago we were hearing stories almost daily about how the North Koreans were going to incinerate the US West Coast. What's going on nowadays? North Korea, under pressure, is now (for the first time) going to open its nuclear program to the outside. Take it for what its worth, but I think the nuclear threat from NK has disappeared (at least for a good while).
Here's what would happen if Iran got the bomb, and actually did use it- a World war would indeed start. In the process, the Islamic countries would be thoroughly destroyed. However crazy Ahmidenijad is, I don't think he wants to go down in history as being the man responsible for the destruction of his own religion. He is, above all else, a politician first. Politicians have a knack for being more bark than bite, no matter their ethnic/religious/national backgrounds.
Finally, if Iran did get the bomb, the country in the Middle East that needs to worry most about being an immediate target is Saudi Arabia. SA is a Sunni country, and they financed the Pakistani bomb (Pakistan is also a Sunni country). Iran is Shia- they would be just as likely to drop a bomb on a Sunni Muslim country than they are on a non-Muslim country. It's a proven fact that Muslims kill each other when they lack a perceived common enemy.
Do you think Ahmidenijad is dumb enough to try to wipe out the common perceived enemies of Islam, knowing that after they were destroyed, the Muslims are going to turn on themselves, especially with nukes being available? I, for one, don't think he's that stupid.

P.S. Saying our negotiations with the Soviets over the years is substantially different with what we would have to do with Iran (if they get the bomb) is not entirely correct. While we don't formally recognize the present government of Iran, we have negotiated with them before, whether indirectly or on lower levels of government. Remember Iran-Contra? That occurred while we were officially backing Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. Also, IIRC, didn't Condi Rice have some sort of "official" meeting with the Iranian government within the last few years? I guarantee that if Iran did get the bomb, we would recognize them formally.
If we truly want to see a non-nuclear Iran, I suggest we put the CIA back into the business of fomenting regime change. It worked during the Cold War, it will work now.

[mikeb1958]

I think Harry summed up the whole intelligence of the current president (see his previous posts/pics) in this thread. Enough said by me.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Here's what would happen if Iran got the bomb, and actually did use it- a World war would indeed start. In the process, the Islamic countries would be thoroughly destroyed. However crazy Ahmidenijad is, I don't think he wants to go down in history as being the man responsible for the destruction of his own religion. He is, above all else, a politician first...

It would seem so to the rational western mind. However, I fear your sentiments, which are rational, are widely shared among the western world. MA announced in October 2005 his intention "to wipe Israel off the map." (see Phillips, Melanie, Londonistan, Encounter Books, NY, 2006). He has called Israel a "one bomb state" and that the Islam can sacrifice millions to wipe Israel off the map and still be a viable religio/political system. This is a man that initiated a massive public works project in Tehran to widen streets in anticipation of the return of the hidden imam. This is a devoutly Shi'ite muslim that believes he can accelerate/facilitate the return of the hidden imam by creating world chaos, and thus put down the enemies of Islam. I agree with you, he is a shrewd politician. He plays the world media like a violin. Are you certain he is as rational as the reasonable western mind should be?

Originally Posted by Rush104

Finally, if Iran did get the bomb, the country in the Middle East that needs to worry most about being an immediate target is Saudi Arabia. SA is a Sunni country, and they financed the Pakistani bomb (Pakistan is also a Sunni country). Iran is Shia- they would be just as likely to drop a bomb on a Sunni Muslim country than they are on a non-Muslim country. It's a proven fact that Muslims kill each other when they lack a perceived common enemy. Do you think Ahmidenijad is dumb enough to try to wipe out the common perceived enemies of Islam, knowing that after they were destroyed, the Muslims are going to turn on themselves, especially with nukes being available? I, for one, don't think he's that stupid.

You are right, muslims kill each other over perceived and real differences. The problem is, Sunni and Shi'a do perceive a common enemy: they both hate Israel, and they both hate free democracies more than they hate each other. I do not think Ahmidenijad is dumb at all; rather, he is extremely intelligent. But he is also, again, devoutly shi'ite; he believes the return of the hidden imam will put down all enemies of Islam and correct the right path for all muslims to follow, be they shi'a, sunni, or some other sect. In the shi'a mindset, chaos must come... it is prophecized, it is inevitable, it is apocalyptic. He is a man who earnestly wants to hasten an apocalyptic showdown. It is the only way the hidden imam will return, and the only way to achieve final victory and world conquest for Islam. I respectfully submit that parallels/analogies with the Soviets, North Korea, or any other communist actor do not square with what is going on in Tehran. The Soviets and the North Koreans did not fear god. Tehran does.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by parsig9

Nor do not think that limiting other nations from producing nuclear power or weapons is really something that a nation which believes in self determination, national sovereignty, and economic freedom can engage in. If freedom and nuclear capability is good, then it must be good for all. For us to limit it for those people is Un-American. What we are doing in Iraq is not about honoring others' liberty but about coercion and imperialism of a 21st century variety.

Parsig, do you think the Nazis, or the Japanese getting nukes first would have been "good for all" in 1945? And do you think that fascit regimes, anywhere in the world, but particularly in the middle east (since this is what we are talking about) believe in self-determination for their peoples and economic freedom? Freedom is good for all. It is anathema to the american mind to believe otherwise. And nuclear capability is good for all for PEACEFUL purposes. Tehran can double speak. It can tell the Islamic world it intends to wipe Israel off the map with nuclear ability. It can also tell the wider world it only seeks nuclear capability for peaceful purposes. The western mind does not understand this contradiction. The Islamic mind, however, sees no contradiction, especially when its intent is to deceive infidels to promote the spread of Islam.

We have no choice but to limit the spread of nuclear capabilities, especially in the middle east. The fate of the world depends upon it.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

1. Well, Al Gore has been keeping busy winning the Nobel Peace Prize and all . Also, he would have respected the spirit and intent of the US Constitution, which cannot be said of the present incumbent and co., who've inflicted more damage to the democratic principles and institutions of the US than any adversary could have done ...
2. Usually in a democracy civilians tend to run the country, a fact which I believe is strongly articulated in the US Constitution (military led governments tend to not be known for their respect and adherence to democratic principles ).

Cardo, I sympathize with your sentiments, and agree with them to a large extent. I admit, I have not been a fan of the Bush administration, and terrible mistakes have been made. But to claim that the current U.S. President has inflicted more damage to the institutions of the U.S. than its adversaries--who rammed two fuel laden jets into the twin towers (killing more than the Japanese killed at Pearl Harbor -- and civilians at that), who bombed London, Madrid, and inflicted loss of life on western citizens by the hundreds over a thirty year period--well, this is a stretch.

(But you never stretch the truth about great diecast models! )