Well, I'll Be Damned. Mobius, Fire Away. We Have It Coming.

[Arrian]

Good.

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

Hilarious.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Good.

-Arrian

Ohh yippee we get to have a lets impeach the president *** for tat bul****e for the next umpteenth presidents.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

At least this one would deserve it.

[Arrian]

You think the Dems are as vindictive as the Repubs in the late 1990s? I hope not. Impeachment is pointless.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its already been promised if they win the house.

[Arrian]

Really?

Meh. Still, no freakin' way I'm voting Republican. That party has essentially given me the finger. I will return the favor for quite some time.

-Arrian

[Ninot]

I'd like to hear what Drake has to say.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Keep the pressure on for the next few years till the idiots do something stupid.

Because that is working so well in Iraq . You know, maybe if idiot boy hadn't decided getting rid of Saddam was worth jeopardizing national security for, we wouldn't be in this mess. You do notice Iran and North Korea both sped up their programs after the US hit Iraq, correctly guessing that: a) we'd get bogged down and b) being a nuclear power was the only deterrent America understands.

Ohhh man Bush is just destroying his party's ability to reelect in the upcoming midterms.

I suppose there is a silver lining to this after all, eh?

I say we give them nuclear technology and a demonstration of nuclear power.

Via our bombs.

Not because I dislike the Iranians. I just think it'd be fun to have a small, limited nuclear war.

USA!USA!USA!USA!

(*looks at his location field*) Well, I suppose WWIII might not be so bad

At least this one would deserve it.

Yeah, but even I think with him being a lame duck this late in his second term it wouldn't be worth it. Though realistically impeaching him in his last days in office just to remind people how much he actually sucked might not be so bad.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Because that is working so well in Iraq . You know, maybe if idiot boy hadn't decided getting rid of Saddam was worth jeopardizing national security for, we wouldn't be in this mess. You do notice Iran and North Korea both sped up their programs after the US hit Iraq, correctly guessing that: a) we'd get bogged down and b) being a nuclear power was the only deterrent America understands.

What are you talking about? I'm saying we should keep putting pressure diplomatically on Iran like we've been doing. We wouldn't invade until they did something stupid, like smuggle nuke tech somewhere. I mean really, what's your argument here? Iran has had a nuke program for years now. It didn't materialize after we invaded Iraq.

And the reason why they sped up their programs is because they knew that they might get nailed. Should we have just ignored them hoping that they'd get bored? Cause and effect man.

[Geronimo]

It could well be a clever political ploy. It's possible that the Iranians are expected to reject or ignore the offer for whatever reason and it's being offered to make it easier to demand tougher action from the security council in the face of Iranian obstinance. Obviously there would have to be a string attached like DanS suggested which would make the deal politically unacceptable to the Iranians.

[Dauphin]

Takind it at face value.....

As with many a moment, whether this is good or bad is for those with 20:20 hindsight to decide. I'm not convinced it will work, but then the alternatives didn't look viable either. Let's make lemonade.

[rah]

I personally also think that the strings attached will make this a no go, but make it look like Bush was willing to try the peaceful route FOR ONCE. SO when he bombs the **** out of their facilities he can say. "WE TRIED IT THE PEACEFUL WAY" but they wouldn't go along, so they were just askin for it.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


What are you talking about? I'm saying we should keep putting pressure diplomatically on Iran like we've been doing. We wouldn't invade until they did something stupid, like smuggle nuke tech somewhere. I mean really, what's your argument here? Iran has had a nuke program for years now. It didn't materialize after we invaded Iraq.

What sort of delusional fantasy world do you live in? How is the US going to invade Iran? All justification short of Iran nuking someone aside, the US is bogged down in the country next door and there's no public support for making the situation ten times worse.

And the reason why they sped up their programs is because they knew that they might get nailed. Should we have just ignored them hoping that they'd get bored? Cause and effect man.

You yourself agree that our strike in Iraq made them redouble their efforts. This crisis wouldn't exist right now if the US hadn't invaded Iraq. First of all, they wouldn't have accelerated their program, second of all US threats of force would actually be credible.

Takind it at face value.....

As with many a moment, whether this is good or bad is for those with 20:20 hindsight to decide. I'm not convinced it will work, but then the alternatives didn't look viable either. Let's make lemonade.

It's the least of all evils in an unwinnable situation, and it buys time, which is not currently on the US side.

I personally also think that the strings attached will make this a no go, but make it look like Bush was willing to try the peaceful route FOR ONCE. SO when he bombs the **** out of their facilities he can say. "WE TRIED IT THE PEACEFUL WAY" but they wouldn't go along, so they were just askin for it.

Casus belli or no, use of force against Iran right now is beyond retarded.

[Dauphin]

Invasion of Iran is/was not an option.

Raids against facilities would not be a solution, but would be the only other stop gap alternative I can think of should push come to shove. Maybe I'm not thinking hard enough.