NationStates Jolt Archive

Post on Informed Public (http://www.informedpublic.com/2004/10/bush-endorsement-from-iran.html)
AP article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=2&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/iran_us_elections)

Make of it what you will.

Hell, I'm a European centrist and I endorse Bush for President of the US.

It's simple, in the eyes of Americans, Bush strengthens America. In the eyes of its opponents, Bush weakens it.

Everyone wins!

Hell, I'm a European centrist and I endorse Bush for President of the US.

It's simple, in the eyes of Americans, Bush strengthens America. In the eyes of its opponents, Bush weakens it.

Everyone wins!

It's true. Environmental campaign groups now get far more press coverage because of Bush's policies, than before he came to power.

I find this very amusing. It seems that even in Iran, they are wonderin which canidate is the lesser evil.

Hell, I'm a European centrist and I endorse Bush for President of the US.

It's simple, in the eyes of Americans, Bush strengthens America. In the eyes of its opponents, Bush weakens it.

Everyone wins!Well, I'm an American. And in the eyes of this American, the l'il shrub weakens America.

this known that iran against bush.
bush is against their nuke bomb's plane, and they prefer nobody stop them from getting nuke and bomb israel.
also they are islamic rdicals and terror supporters. they know that bush will try to attack them after he will chose.

the question is why he didn't attacked them before he attacked iraq.

Hell, I'm a European centrist and I endorse Bush for President of the US.
It's simple, in the eyes of Americans, Bush strengthens America. In the eyes of its opponents, Bush weakens it.
Everyone wins!
Hehe.
I´m an European centrists as well. Well, ok centre-right. And I also endorse President Bush. I think President Bush shows strong leadership. He also has credibility to improve the transatlantic relations. Kerry would be portrayed as weak if he would do so. Furthernmore Senator Kerry would be much more pushy towards other allies than President Bush who is working with a "coalition of the willing". Therefore I prefer and endorse President Bush for a second term as President of the United States.

Well, I'm an American. And in the eyes of this American, the l'il shrub weakens America.
Hear hear!

As an American, in the critical state of Ohio, I support Bush. His leadership and stance on most issues falls closer to my own..

this known that iran against bush.
bush is against their nuke bomb's plane, and they prefer nobody stop them from getting nuke and bomb israel.
also they are islamic rdicals and terror supporters. they know that bush will try to attack them after he will chose.

the question is why he didn't attacked them before he attacked iraq.

While I'm not sure that that counts as an English paragraph, I'll try to respond to the spirit of it...

Can you read? Iran says that President Bush will better serve Iran's interests. A member of the Axis of Evil thinks Bush will better serve their interests. Either a) They actually do want Bush elected because he will go easy on them or b) They want Kerry elected, and realize that endorsing Bush will further that goal. You'll just have to make up your own minds.


It's worth noting, though- Can you imagine the fallout if Iran officially endorsed Kerry? We'd never hear the last of it!

As an American, in the critical state of Ohio, I support Bush. His leadership and stance on most issues falls closer to my own..

As a citizen of the United States, and ALSO a citizen of the battleground state of Ohio, I endorse John F. Kerry for President.

I find this very amusing. It seems that even in Iran, they are wonderin which canidate is the lesser evil.
well of course they want bush, he let them develop nuclear stuff. which makes them strong, which protects them from the moron that let them develop it

I think President Bush shows strong leadership. He also has credibility to improve the transatlantic relations.
credibility? you mean like trying to justify a war then rejustifying it every time his previous justification was proving wrong? and other than that straight out lying and ignorance

Kerry would be portrayed as weak if he would do so.
pssh, weak by whom? whiny american sheep who are only literate to propaganda?

Furthernmore Senator Kerry would be much more pushy towards other allies than President Bush who is working with a "coalition of the willing". Therefore I prefer and endorse President Bush for a second term as President of the United States.
kerry is a far more experienced statesman and negotiator than bush will ever be, both from experience AND mental stability


you are one dense european, but i doubt you are european to believe all that crap

well of course they want bush, he let them develop nuclear stuff. which makes them strong, which protects them from the moron that let them develop it
Ah yes, the delicate circle of life... :rolleyes:

It's simple. The terrorist organizations say that the US is an evil imperialist barbarian Zionist crusader empire. When we go ahead and bomb and invade other countries and set up friendly governments based on extremely shakey 'evidence' that turns out to be fantasy, THAT PROVES THEM RIGHT!

Yes the terrorist groups want Bush to stay in power! That's how they get their recruits!!

credibility? you mean like trying to justify a war then rejustifying it every time his previous justification was proving wrong? and other than that straight out lying and ignorance
I was not happy about the performance of President Bush in that respect either. There was a lack of consistency in the argument and a lot of flip-flops in the build-up to the war (from regime change to WMD to regime change, to bringing democracy to the region, to WMD).


kerry is a far more experienced statesman and negotiator than bush will ever be, both from experience AND mental stability
And what do you expect from him? Running away from Iraq? The US and the coalition can´t afford that. This would not only leave a mess behind but would harm US and Western (also European) interests in the region in a way that would not be repairable. Vietnam wasn´t crucial to the long-term interests of the United States. Iraq and the Middle East is. The United States and the west (even the unwilling countries) can´t afford to run away from it.

And what do you think about his diplomatic capacities? Don´t you think that Colin Powell has them as well? Mr. Powell is one of the finest US diplomats and wasn´t able to win more support then he did - which is quite significant by the way. The coalition of the willing is a great coalition.
But the current French and German governments won´t sent troops to Iraq regardless who is American president. You seem to assume that this would change. It is obviously not President Bush but you and Senator Kerry who don´t take their position seriously.



you are one dense european, but i doubt you are european to believe all that crap
Thank you. But I´m from Europe. And you need to understand that there are a lot of divisions in Europe about those issues. Beetween countries and within countries. There is no CFSP (common foreign and security policy). There are 25 different onces. And that is the case and it is going to remain the case since the EU is an union of sovereign and independent states who conduct their own foreign policy and not an United States with one central government and foreign and security policy.
Europe is in that sense irrelevant. Relevant are the larger players in Europe: Britain, France, Germany - well and to a smaller degree the others.

I was not happy about the performance of President Bush in that respect either. There was a lack of consistency in the argument and a lot of flip-flops in the build-up to the war (from regime change to WMD to regime change, to bringing democracy to the region, to WMD).
then what credibility is he running on?


And what do you expect from him? Running away from Iraq? The US and the coalition can´t afford that. This would not only leave a mess behind but would harm US and Western (also European) interests in the region in a way that would not be repairable. Vietnam wasn´t crucial to the long-term interests of the United States. Iraq and the Middle East is. The United States and the west (even the unwilling countries) can´t afford to run away from it.
we will eventually have to leave iraq and everything wont be peaches and rosebuds there, ever. and one would expect him to stand up and admit he made even a single mistake, which he has repeatedly says he has never made.

And what do you think about his diplomatic capacities? Don´t you think that Colin Powell has them as well? Mr. Powell is one of the finest US diplomats and wasn´t able to win more support then he did - which is quite significant by the way. The coalition of the willing is a great coalition.
But the current French and German governments won´t sent troops to Iraq regardless who is American president. You seem to assume that this would change. It is obviously not President Bush but you and Senator Kerry who don´t take their position seriously.
yes powell is a good little soldier diplomat, but with some one as unstable and gung ho as bush at the helm, a diplomat wont be able to do his job as he has lost credibility. oh right i dont take positions seriously? it is much easier to gain a coalition of anyone without a foolish cowboy leading the charge, custer got slaughtered, the only thing that survived was the horse he rode in on. and unless we admit our mistakes and send some one to the drawing board in the FIRST PLACE we wont get out of there with a any more than our horse.

As a Libertarian I would prefer Badnarik, but since the great masses are not ready for "real" change I will have to support Bush this time. Bush will take the fight to those who would harm us while Kerry will show weakness.

and yet again biff pileon shows his ignorance in a foolish subjective interpretation of the words "weakness" and "strength"

then what credibility is he running on?.
He would have a solid base. The left (democrats) would support such a move by him and also the republicans (at least the mainstream). If a democrat would become president - especially one like Kerry, who is after all one of the most líberal and left-wing Senators - he is going to remain mainly on his own party and won´t be able to reach on by-partisan lines.

we will eventually have to leave iraq and everything wont be peaches and rosebuds there, ever. and one would expect him to stand up and admit he made even a single mistake, which he has repeatedly says he has never made..
The Middle East is a dangerous place. If the US would leave Iraq it is most likely that Iran would gain a lot of influence on Iraq.
Iran is a strategic enemy of the US (also of Kerry - the democratic presidents used to be more anti-Iranian then the republicans by the way).
Without a settlement between the US and Iran the issue can not be resolved. This is however unlikely. Irans nuclear program is threatening regional stability and peace. A nuclear Iran would cause a new arms race. A nuclear Saudi-Arabia, a nuclear Turkey, Greece and Egypt could be the consequence. The proliferation of WMD is a serious problem. The same can be said for the North Korea issue which is forcing South Korea and Japan to consider to get nukes themself to reestablish the strategic balance in the region.
We are living in a very dangerous time. And therefore I agree with President Bush on one central thing: If America shows weakness in this decade the world will drift towards tragedy.
There are very, very dangerous developments.
In WW II the US at the end cleared up the mess others had created. Due to its isolationists policy in the 1920s and 1930s the US did not even try to influence the developments. Probably they would have been avoidable. The ideas of the US (Wilsons 14 points) were more just and more fair than any concept of the other winning powers of WW I.
Of course the US involvement in the region is also causing problems. But I sincerely believe that there is only one worse thing than US involvement in the region. And that would be no US involvement in the region.

Bush is a far-right religious fundamentalist; of course Iran likes him.

As a Libertarian I would prefer Badnarik, but since the great masses are not ready for "real" change I will have to support Bush this time. Bush will take the fight to those who would harm us while Kerry will show weakness.

Arent the Libertarians AGAINST the war in Iraq?

Bush is a far-right religious fundamentalist; of course Iran likes him.
President Bush is right-wing and religious. But he is neither a fundamentalists nor is he liked by Iran. Iran is certainly very concerned about him. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry say that they won´t tolerate a nuclear Iran. The difference between the two is: Bush really means it and he would be ready to act if diplomacy fails.

And if we speak about the influence of religion. You are the citizen of a country were up until a few years even divorce was illegal. Abortion is of course still illegal. So most "liberals" would still favour the US over your country.

Of course he's a fundamentalist. How do you call someone who has a day of fasting and prayer voted by the Chamber, and publically tells how God gives him advice at breakfast (which shows he's not only a fundo but also a madman). I only hope one day the American people will be able to elect a secular president (I don't mean atheist, I mean secular) - even Kerry had to say "God " every 2 sentences during the 3rd debate, how disgusting. Personal beliefs shoud have nothing to interfere with politics, and certainly not when these beliefs are as archaic as those of Bush. Like thinking he's a "crusader" (!!!) and talking about "axis of evil" - evil is moral/religious vocabulary, not political or diplomatic.

President Bush is right-wing and religious. But he is neither a fundamentalists nor is he liked by Iran.

He talks like a fundie.
He behaves like a fundie.
He certainly never claims NOT to be a fundie, in fact, he courts the fundie vote most assiduously.

He's a fundie!

He would have a solid base. The left (democrats) would support such a move by him and also the republicans (at least the mainstream). If a democrat would become president - especially one like Kerry, who is after all one of the most líberal and left-wing Senators - he is going to remain mainly on his own party and won´t be able to reach on by-partisan lines.
are you HIGH? the president doesnt "reach on by-partisan lines" why the fuck do you think the nation is so polarized? bush is a nutcase and the far right wing nutters who follow directly on party lines support him and call kerry the "most liberal senator" just to polarize the country further.


The Middle East is a dangerous place. If the US would leave Iraq it is most likely that Iran would gain a lot of influence on Iraq.
Iran is a strategic enemy of the US (also of Kerry - the democratic presidents used to be more anti-Iranian then the republicans by the way).
Without a settlement between the US and Iran the issue can not be resolved. This is however unlikely. Irans nuclear program is threatening regional stability and peace. A nuclear Iran would cause a new arms race. A nuclear Saudi-Arabia, a nuclear Turkey, Greece and Egypt could be the consequence. The proliferation of WMD is a serious problem. The same can be said for the North Korea issue which is forcing South Korea and Japan to consider to get nukes themself to reestablish the strategic balance in the region.
We are living in a very dangerous time. And therefore I agree with President Bush on one central thing: If America shows weakness in this decade the world will drift towards tragedy.
there is a difference between weakness, and intelligence. bush is a weak fool who makes up for it by being the ignorant bully of the world. a nuclear capable iran is a result of bush's ludicrous policies and with iran nuclear capable bush will go nowhere near it with a force, assuming we had a force able to go in, if iran nuclear capable there is no military capable force to stop it and military force is all bush understands.

President Bush is right-wing and religious. But he is neither a fundamentalists nor is he liked by Iran.

you are CRAZY

bush said god told approved of his invasion of iraq. let me say it again to get through. George W. Bush said GOD approved of his invasion of iraq.

if it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, AND LOOKS LIKE A DUCK. guess what it is

Iran is certainly very concerned about him. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry say that they won´t tolerate a nuclear Iran. The difference between the two is: Bush really means it and he would be ready to act if diplomacy fails.
diplomacy has already failed as bush has refused to sign the last nuclear proliferation whatever thus opening it up for north korea and iran to develop nuclear programs "hey the US didnt sign it why do we have to abide?"
bush is a semi literate baboon who doesnt udnerstand diplomacy, diplomacy must go first, THEN military force, which bush doesn't understand.


you are obviously a member of the either ignorant or foolishly blind right wing, move from whatever country you are in to the US, you will obviously fit right in.

Of course he's a fundamentalist. How do you call someone who has a day of fasting and prayer voted by the Chamber, and publically tells how God gives him advice at breakfast (which shows he's not only a fundo but also a madman). I only hope one day the American people will be able to elect a secular president (I don't mean atheist, I mean secular) - even Kerry had to say "God " every 2 sentences during the 3rd debate, how disgusting. Personal beliefs shoud have nothing to interfere with politics, and certainly not when these beliefs are as archaic as those of Bush. Like thinking he's a "crusader" (!!!) and talking about "axis of evil" - evil is moral/religious vocabulary, not political or diplomatic.
Religion and religious believes are playing a big role in politics in American history - but not only there. You can´t lead a country into war while being an atheist. President Bush is certainly a very religious man. And he is showing that fact - also in order to attract voters. America is a country were 70% of the people go to church in Sunday. That is a huge and significant difference to secular Europe were church attendency levels have declined rapidly and are today below 10% in most countries. It is clear that this is having an effect on how politicans act. Here in Europe societies who are losing their religious and cultural binding (and some would say also their orientation) and there the deeply religious society of mainstream America.
Tony Blair btw is also a very religious man. Although he isn´t showing that since that would not attract the electorate so much in the UK. Bush is in that sense more open about his believes.
And regarding the axis of evil - the two states left of the axis of evil do have dictatorial governments. And they are persuing nuclear programs to produce nukes. They are threats to international peace and security. I hope for a peaceful solution of the problems. But giving up to them would be very dangerous.

Also the term axis is not new. I´m a citizen of one of the countries of the first "axis of evil" (Japan, Italy, Germany).
The world became a better place after the three regimes were removed. Well - aside for half of Europe who lived under Soviet occupation an supremacy for more than 45 years.
The leadership of the US and its pressure contained the USSR and at the policy of strength to the economic collapse of the USSR and the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe and the other Soviet republics from the dictatorship of Moscow.

Red Buttons straddling a nuclear bomb yelling "Yeeee-Haaaa!!!" = Bush being elected for the Iranians.

"The Mouse that Roared" premise = Kerry being elected for the Iranians. If you were living in Iran, who would you choose?

Red Buttons straddling a nuclear bomb yelling "Yeeee-Haaaa!!!" = Bush being elected for the Iranians.

"The Mouse that Roared" premise = Kerry being elected for the Iranians. If you were living in Iran, who would you choose?
because of course if we go around dropping nukes on every country we don't like, the world will be a safer and colder place, that will fix that global warming

Hehe.
I´m an European centrists as well. Well, ok centre-right. And I also endorse President Bush. I think President Bush shows strong leadership. He also has credibility to improve the transatlantic relations. Kerry would be portrayed as weak if he would do so. Furthernmore Senator Kerry would be much more pushy towards other allies than President Bush who is working with a "coalition of the willing". Therefore I prefer and endorse President Bush for a second term as President of the United States.
Suckling on the bulbous teat of the US of A again, are we? You must not forget wiping your nose, or you'll run around with a feces-covered brown nose ;)

you are CRAZY
bush said god told approved of his invasion of iraq. let me say it again to get through. George W. Bush said GOD approved of his invasion of iraq..
You claim that he said that. I haven´t heard him saying that. And you haven´t given any evidence for your claims.

if it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, AND LOOKS LIKE A DUCK. guess what it is.
In this country we would say - It is an American - talks like a duck, hehehehe. So much for the stereotypes.


diplomacy has already failed as bush has refused to sign the last nuclear proliferation whatever thus opening it up for north korea and iran to develop nuclear programs "hey the US didnt sign it why do we have to abide?"
bush is a semi literate baboon who doesnt udnerstand diplomacy, diplomacy must go first, THEN military force, which bush doesn't understand..
That is nonsense. North Korea built is first nukes in the 1990s during the Clinton era. And Iran began its nuclear program in 1997.
So much for the truth. The difference is - President Bush doesn´t chose to ignore those developments but he choses to confront them.


you are obviously a member of the either ignorant or foolishly blind right wing, move from whatever country you are in to the US, you will obviously fit right in.
I´m not a member of any political party. But I´m against the blind and ignorant tendency of Bush-bashing. The United States of America conducts its foreign and security policy according to its national interests. There isn´t that much of a difference between Bush and Kerry. The difference America - Old Europe is deeper than the difference Republicans - Democrats. Our societies are heading in different directions. I regret that since I´m a fan of the transatlantic alliance. It seems to be the case that this alliance (which was after all directed against the USSR (which doesn´t exist anymore) is weakening due to the "departure" of the common enemy. Instead of a permanent alliance we are back in a world of changing alliances (coalition of the willing) like in the 19 th century in Europe. In my view not a good development. It worked from 1815-1914 but at the end ended in desaster.
And this is only the case because France and the current German government saw it in their interests to play the anti-US card to distract from internal problems. Well - at the end they divided Europe and weakened the transatlantic alliance. I want to preserve the transatlantic alliance.
But probably it isn´t possibly to preserve the old close alliance and we are heading into a world were America and Europe head in different directions. That is going to weaken both of us. And therefore I don´t see it in our interests. I see it more in our interests to follow the US and its policy and from that position trying to influence it. In that sense I agree more with Blair, Berlusconi and others than with Chirac or Schroeder.

because of course if we go around dropping nukes on every country we don't like, the world will be a safer and colder place, that will fix that global warming

I'm trying to point out the ridiculousness of the issue. Do they really want Bush over Kerry? Who knows. Personally, if I was Iranian, I'd want Kerry. With Bush, it is a good chance they'll get a Tomahawk Cruise Missile up their ass. But, maybe that's their ploy - reverse psychology. Any way, it doesn't matter because Americans have to make the choice of who is going to better serve the US, not how Iran will be affected.

I'm trying to point out the ridiculousness of the issue. Do they really want Bush over Kerry? Who knows. Personally, if I was Iranian, I'd want Kerry. With Bush, it is a good chance they'll get a Tomahawk Cruise Missile up their ass. But, maybe that's their ploy - reverse psychology. Any way, it doesn't matter because Americans have to make the choice of who is going to better serve the US, not how Iran will be affected.


That's a silly thing to say. We can't invade Iran without a draft. And we're not gonna see a draft. And Iran is no third-world country we can just bomb the hell out of to shut them down; I think Iran is secure in the faith that Bush doesn't actually want to start World War III. This plus empirical evidence that Bush isn't a man for diplomacy would make him a more logical choice on their part.

And read the article. Historically, Republicans have better served Iran's interests than Democrats. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.

That's a silly thing to say. We can't invade Iran without a draft. And we're not gonna see a draft. And Iran is no third-world country we can just bomb the hell out of to shut them down; I think Iran is secure in the faith that Bush doesn't actually want to start World War III. This plus empirical evidence that Bush isn't a man for diplomacy would make him a more logical choice on their part.

And read the article. Historically, Republicans have better served Iran's interests than Democrats. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.
I don´t think there is much of a difference.
President Bush says that he wouldn´t tolerate a nuclear Iran as does Senator Kerry. The difference is: President Bush really means it. How he would act against it is an open question. He would certainly listen to military advise.
A preventive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities is certainly an option. Also an invasion of Iran. However me may see a North Korea scenario (Six-party talks there (US, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, North Korea) also Six-party talk (US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Iran).

It's strange that Iran would do that, considering they're the next target for the Bush Administration.

But, I guess that will strengthen their government. They can vilify the Americans if/when they attack...and gain more solidarity that way.

BTW, not all Americans think of Bush as a sort of strength for their nation...MANY of them think he's a complete and utter moron.

I don´t think there is much of a difference.
President Bush says that he wouldn´t tolerate a nuclear Iran as does Senator Kerry. The difference is: President Bush really means it. How he would act against it is an open question. He would certainly listen to military advise.
A preventive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities is certainly an option. Also an invasion of Iran. However me may see a North Korea scenario (Six-party talks there (US, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, North Korea) also Six-party talk (US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Iran).

Why do you say Kerry doesn't mean it when he says the greatest danger to world safety is nuclear proliferation? Bush does not have a great track record in that regard, I'm afraid. He went into Iraq with insufficient evidence to support the war, and before waiting for diplomacy to run its course. Meanwhile, he has left Iran to do whatever they like.

Why do you think someone's only serious about something if they consider war a viable first resort?

Not that it matters. An invasion of Iran is not an option. We're pressed for troops in Iraq as-is, even calling up all the reservists and even National Guard. As I've said before- I'd be amused to hear your plan for dealing with Iran without pulling troops out of Iraq or a draft.

Why do you say Kerry doesn't mean it when he says the greatest danger to world safety is nuclear proliferation? Bush does not have a great track record in that regard, I'm afraid. He went into Iraq with insufficient evidence to support the war, and before waiting for diplomacy to run its course. Meanwhile, he has left Iran to do whatever they like.

Why do you think someone's only serious about something if they consider war a viable first resort?

Not that it matters. An invasion of Iran is not an option. We're pressed for troops in Iraq as-is, even calling up all the reservists and even National Guard. As I've said before- I'd be amused to hear your plan for dealing with Iran without pulling troops out of Iraq or a draft.
Don´t be naive. In order to invade Iran or to launch strikes against it you needed to take over Iraq first. That is logical. With the current US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq the US can put pressure on Iran. The problem is of course the problems in Iraq which are leading Iran to do a very dangerous misjugement - that the US is not ready to act against it. I think this conclusion is wrong. North Korea is pretty safe but Iran isn´t. It is now top at the agenda. And all options remain on the table. Together with the UK - Blair is a loyal ally and even more with a conservative British government - Iran is going to be next on the agenda. Even if Britain choses not to participate in Iraq it could sent more troops over there. Britain is already taking resposibilities outside of its sector now. So, it is an option to use some troops from Iraq and Afghanistan for the invasion. And for what purpose does the US still need 100,000 troops in Europe? They can be substantially reduce.
The US could reconsider its international deployments (also on the Balkans and leave that to the Europeans). Taking all those facts into account I see the possibility for an invasion in Iran. That would bring the US capacities on their limits. But then there would still be the option to consider to establish a draft as a last resort.

When I refered to Britain I of course meant - even if they chose not to participate on an invasion of Iran they would most likely be ready to increase their engagement in Iraq for the future of the "special relationship" with the US. Blair is ready to pay the price for this relationship. And that is the case for the leading class - political class - of the UK.

And if we speak about the influence of religion. You are the citizen of a country were up until a few years even divorce was illegal. Abortion is of course still illegal. So most "liberals" would still favour the US over your country.
Yes, I agree with you. Ireland has long had a virtual theocracy, but that's changing now. Abortion will problably be legalised within the next couple of decades. Most young people see nothing wrong with allowing it, and the old religious generation will be dead by then.

But America appears to have a far larger and more radical Christian fundamentalist movement.

But, I guess that will strengthen their government. They can vilify their opponents if/when they attack...and gain more solidarity that way.


YES!!! If you know something about the development in this country, except regarding their armament, you would know that there is a strong modernisation movement amongst the young and educated. They fight for a real democracy, less power to religious groups and homosexual rights.
*got it?*

So the regim tries to focus on and blow out of proportion an out of state threat. Like this they hope to gather there allies and justify the repression of dissidents. *got it yet?*

Hey wait a minute! Am I talking about Iran or what.......
I can think of at least two english speaking countries with similar policies.

Please also consider while talking about the diplomatic skills of respective presidential candidates that one of them might have burnt quite a few bridges in europe and united nations. A new president might have a bigger diplomatic option.

When are we going to see the NS poll on the presidential election and a thread on democrat or republican economics for the next period?

(Sorry for changing the qoute from ameriacans to opponents, but I needed to)

Makes sense to me. Their endorsement is meant to be a blow to Bush.

Don´t be naive. In order to invade Iran or to launch strikes against it you needed to take over Iraq first. That is logical. With the current US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq the US can put pressure on Iran. The problem is of course the problems in Iraq which are leading Iran to do a very dangerous misjugement - that the US is not ready to act against it. I think this conclusion is wrong. North Korea is pretty safe but Iran isn´t. It is now top at the agenda. And all options remain on the table. Together with the UK - Blair is a loyal ally and even more with a conservative British government - Iran is going to be next on the agenda. Even if Britain choses not to participate in Iraq it could sent more troops over there. Britain is already taking resposibilities outside of its sector now. So, it is an option to use some troops from Iraq and Afghanistan for the invasion. And for what purpose does the US still need 100,000 troops in Europe? They can be substantially reduce.
The US could reconsider its international deployments (also on the Balkans and leave that to the Europeans). Taking all those facts into account I see the possibility for an invasion in Iran. That would bring the US capacities on their limits. But then there would still be the option to consider to establish a draft as a last resort.


Actually since Iraq hated Iran Saddam might have joined our side just so he could kill some more Iranians.
Iran didn't join our side to defeat Iraq thus it was a smarter idea to attack ran instead.

So your arguement is nonsense sorry.

Actually since Iraq hated Iran Saddam might have joined our side just so he could kill some more Iranians.
Iran didn't join our side to defeat Iraq thus it was a smarter idea to attack ran instead.

So your arguement is nonsense sorry.

Or maybe since Iran has a long story of grudges with Iraq they support the Bush people killing of iraqis.

Arent the Libertarians AGAINST the war in Iraq?

and more important, aren't libertarians supposed to be against huge levels of government spending (huge increases in pretty much everything anyone?), police state policies, indefinite detentions, the use of torture (at least by the state, surely), rightwing authoritarian religious fundamentalism, wars of agression in general (what was that about non-initiation of force?), etc, etc.

anyone who claims to be 'libertarian' and votes for the republican party, and bush in particular, doesn't have a damn clue what libertarianism is. a large percentage of the rightwing 'libertarians' seem to be on fairly shaky ground about the whole concept already, but the ones who vote republican are at best completely delusional.

though personally, i don't think many of them are delusional...

Actually since Iraq hated Iran Saddam might have joined our side just so he could kill some more Iranians.
Iran didn't join our side to defeat Iraq thus it was a smarter idea to attack Iran instead.
So your arguement is nonsense sorry.
No, it isn´t. Because your suggestion happened in the 1980s - if you want to see it that way. But in 1990 Saddam destroyed its relationship with the US due to his invasion of Kuwait. By doing so he has proven to be unreliable (like Hitler). In that sense regime change was a necessity. Because an alliance with an Iraq under Saddam would have been impossible for the US to sell to itself and its own public. And against its own interests. After all: Saddam Iraq would have remained a destability factor.
Regarding the Thrid Gulf War (2003) Iran remained neutral (like in 1991). But it was a positive neutrality - it wanted the US to remove Saddam which was its strategic main enemy - like the Taleban in Afghanistan.
So thus far the US has with its policy actually served Iranian interests. Now it would of course be in the Iranian interests to increase its influence on Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a fact the US can and will not allow. So the conflict between the two is almost a necessity. With or without nuclear program.

It's strange that Iran would do that, considering they're the next target for the Bush Administration.

But, I guess that will strengthen their government. They can vilify the Americans if/when they attack...and gain more solidarity that way.

BTW, not all Americans think of Bush as a sort of strength for their nation...MANY of them think he's a complete and utter moron.
Perhaps, they are following the lead of Lybia, and getting out of the terror business whiel they are ahead.

and more important, aren't libertarians supposed to be against huge levels of government spending (huge increases in pretty much everything anyone?), police state policies, indefinite detentions, the use of torture (at least by the state, surely), rightwing authoritarian religious fundamentalism, wars of agression in general (what was that about non-initiation of force?), etc, etc.

anyone who claims to be 'libertarian' and votes for the republican party, and bush in particular, doesn't have a damn clue what libertarianism is. a large percentage of the rightwing 'libertarians' seem to be on fairly shaky ground about the whole concept already, but the ones who vote republican are at best completely delusional.

though personally, i don't think many of them are delusional...

Apparently they are too fearful of their security to follow their own conscience. At least that is what Biff says. He votes for Bush because he trust him more in security.

[QUOTE=Kybernetia]
Saddam destroyed its relationship with the US due to his invasion of Kuwait. By doing so he has proven to be unreliable (like Hitler). In that sense regime change was a necessity. Because an alliance with an Iraq under Saddam would have been impossible for the US to sell to itself and its own public. QUOTE]

Saddam was rather Hitleresque long before the invasion of Kuwait. Being unreliable was far from his worst caracteristic. Still USA supported him throughout the 70 and 80, economically and millitary as a part of the cold war (where Soviet Union supported the firts Iran revolution) So an alliance was not impossible before and if it would have served US's interest this time as well I am sure they would support Saddam again. In Afghanistan US supported several warlords with similar Hitler-records as Saddam because they need to get to al Quaida. With a similar propaganda, in the after 9-11 state, I am sure it would have been sellable to the public.