Americans Back Use of Force Against Iran, Bush Still In Approval Stratosphere

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Good thing foreign policy decisions aren't made by polls.

Don't you mean, "Good thing foreign policy decisions aren't made by polls anymore?" Have you forgotten Clinton so soon?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't you mean, "Good thing foreign policy decisions aren't made by polls anymore?" Have you forgotten Clinton so soon?

Mea culpa.

[St Leo]

We knew that they invaded Kuwait (and most of your pussyass Senate Democrats voted against freeing Kuwait/supporting the president in 1991.)

Why am I supposed to like Kuwait? They are not a very sympathetic underdog. Fundy monarchists are crazier than neostalinists.

[Ben Kenobi]

Look at the borders-stretching from Syria to Afghanistan.

That's not an invasion, that's empire building.

I say end the wars, concentrate on rebuilding what you have in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[TCO]

Originally posted by St Leo
We knew that they invaded Kuwait (and most of your pussyass Senate Democrats voted against freeing Kuwait/supporting the president in 1991.)

Why am I supposed to like Kuwait? They are not a very sympathetic underdog. Fundy monarchists are crazier than neostalinists.

DUH! [teensy font] they have oil [/teensy font]

[oedo]

(...)
The survey also suggests that the fog of war extended far beyond the Iraq battlefield. About one in four Americans incorrectly believes Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces during the conflict. Slightly more than six in 10 said Iraq had not, while the remainder weren't sure.
(...)

[Sava]

Good point... Kuwait is a bunch of ****ers!

[Ned]

Assuming that Iran acquires nukes, are they as likely to use them as Saddam was? Saddam, after all, twice attacked his neighbors and actually used chemical weapons in the Iranian war. However, I don't recall Iran attacking anyone - except for supporting Hizbollah against Israel. The reason I raise this point Saddam presented an entirely different level of urgency than does Iran that was a preciptitating cause in our recent war.

The real threat to world peace is Israel's potential reaction. Israel may try take out Iran's nukes. This may precipitate a nuclear war, something that seemed almost likely last year when India and Pakistan almost went to war.

So, what is the best policy choice here? Tell Iran that their acquiring nuclear weapons would mean war with the United States, a UN SC resolution that may be ignored, or do nothing and hope for the best?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Such as?

Something about bio weapons, or radiation and friendly countries desserting us. Bad stuff. Lately I have been feeling stronger that what happens is likely to take place be around San Francisco. But I'm not 100% sure. Look for this to happen sometime between August 10th and 20th. Also, some sort of a financial panic in late October. A rough year ahead for us, no doubt.

[Sava]

(...)
The survey also suggests that the fog of war extended far beyond the Iraq battlefield. About one in four Americans incorrectly believes Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces during the conflict. Slightly more than six in 10 said Iraq had not, while the remainder weren't sure.
(...)

TRANSLATION: People are ****ing stupid!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Good thing foreign policy decisions aren't made by polls.

Is that the reason why they sucked so bad?

[DinoDoc]

Possibly.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ned
Assuming that Iran acquires nukes, are they as likely to use them as Saddam was?