Every failure is a step to success. ~ William Whewell

Good up the good work.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Sounds like an idea of the month!

Great idea………
You guys have any more great ideas

President Bush, responding to concerns Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert brought to the White House, called on Monday for worldwide isolation of Iran until it “gives up its nuclear ambitions.”

The risk to the world extends beyond Israel and the Middle East, Bush said in Oval Office remarks to reporters after meeting with Olmert for an hour. The United States and Israel say they believe Iran is working on nuclear weapons, although Tehran says its work on the technology is aimed only at producing energy.

“Iran’s nuclear ambitions are not in the world’s interest,” Bush said. “If Iran had nuclear weapons it would be terribly destabilizing.”

Get Your Emergency Supplies now. Those Fascists are going ahead with WWIII. As far as I know we survived the last 60 years because of a balance in the US/Russian nuclear arsenal. And now Dumbo tells us that Iran stepping up to Israel will be ‘destabilizing’? Given the fact what the US did to Iran in the Iraq-Iran war (remember Dumbsfeld in Baghdad?) and under the Fascist Shah-rule, it seems unbelievable that the Iranian’s don’t have some Nukes already. There are tons of nuclear warheads unaccounted for.
Iran is a Islamic Republic. Palestinians are not only Arabic but Muslims too. Palestinians get fu***d by Israel on a daily basis since 1948. Their desperate self defense is called terrorism. Seems only Iran will go for a confrontation with Israel. But the Pakistanis have Nukes too. And they are Muslims as well. What are they going to do with their Muslim neighbor being attacked? There are many posts here but I do agree with the opinion that the problem is not Iran. The problem Is JerUSAlem.

Y ‘all are kids whistling past the graveyard. Our national leadership is composed mostly of zealots convinced of their own rightness. Y’all act like they’re reasonable, reasoning people.

Learn, people, learn! President Bush means what he says. He and his will not be dissuaded by facts and truths, they are consumed by a glorious vision and will not be put off by “negative thoughts”.

Michele Bachmann’s comments on Iran, quoted below, are part of Eric Black’s recent piece on his “Big Question” blog. The question was: “If diplomacy should fail to stop Iran’s nuclear program, what should we do?” Bachmann: “I think that at….

A number of investigative journalists have reported that the U.S. has been planning to attack Iran before we invaded Iraq. Most notably, Seymore Hersh wrote of such plans and most recently James Bamford in the August ‘06 issue of Rolling Stone magazine went into more detail even naming those involved.

According to Mr. Bamford, as we planned to attack Iran in 2002 in all likelihood Ahmed Chalabi and/or others told the Iranians of those battle plans. If that is true, Iran would have had four years to strategize on what to do about an inevitable attack. The question then becomes, how would Iran react knowing that a superpower had every intention to attack them? Do they have political or economic leverage with the U.S. to deter an attack? No. Do they have the military might to deter the U.S.? Absolutely not. However, if they developed an atomic bomb, would that deter the U.S? History has shown that the U.S. has never attacked a country with a nuclear bomb. Even North Korea said to be one of the countries in the “axis of evil,” they have the bomb and the U.S. has never even considered attacking them. From the Iranians point of view then, it would make sense to build a nuclear bomb. But what if the U.S. wouldn’t allow them to develop such capability? What could they do? If they can’t stop the U.S. from attacking, their only option would be to devise some kind of counterattack. And if they were to counterattack, how could they realistically deliver a powerful enough response to rid themselves of any future U.S. threat? For Iran to successfully launch a counterattack against a superpower like the U.S. there is only one way they could be successful. They would have to rally the support of the rest of the Muslim world to their cause and then turn that anger against the U.S. at its most vulnerable spot and weakest moment.

As the events unfold in the Middle East, there’s a sickening feeling that there is a method to all this madness. The timing for Hezbollah kidnapping the two Israeli soldiers was too perfect. Many have already commented on the timing. They have said that it was to distract the G-8 Summit and send a message to the world. Maybe it was. It surely was successful. However, what if it was not only a distraction but something much more? Something like a move on a chessboard. A strategic move that was not an end in and of itself, but the start of many strategic moves that sets a trap that will eventually lead to the defeat of an adversary–a trap leading to the defeat of the U.S. in the Middle East. We should not discount this possibility.

Every person living on this planet with any grasp of reality knows the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a disaster. For three plus years, the situation in Iraq has worsened by the day. Our soldiers and their families have sacrificed greatly for this misadventure. The fiasco Iraq has turned into is not the fault of any soldier. They’ve fought and served bravely as they were ordered to. But now they find themselves in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war. A situation they should never have found themselves in and on a mission they were never trained to do. They’re tired and want to come home and who can blame them. Their mission should be over, but it’s not. And here in America, we’re all sick of this war. Every poll shows that. Our soldiers are starting to feel demoralized and they’re losing support at home. If there was ever a perfect time to counterattack our troops, now is that time.

The government we have placed in power in Iraq is Shiite. Many of its leaders have close ties and sympathy for Iran and Hezbollah. The Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, lived in Iran during the later years of Saadam Hussein and recently refused to condemn Hezbollah for its provocative kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers. There are many reports of other high-ranking Iraqi officials who feel the same way. They didn’t need to have any advance knowledge of the Hezbollah provocation, their sympathies are aligned more closely to Tehran than Washington’s and it’s an absolute certainty that Iran knows this.

As for Hezbollah’s part, they may not have expected Israel to react in an all-out war fashion but they most assuredly knew by taking the two soldiers it was going to provoke a major response. Two weeks earlier Hamas kidnapped one Israeli soldier and Israel invaded Gaza. Whether Hezbollah anticipated the exact level of Israeli response is unimportant. It could be that what is important is that the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers was the start of a series of provocations leading to an ever-escalating fight that eventually leads either Israel or the U.S. into bombing Iran thereby directly linking Iran to the Israel-Palestinian issue and enraging the rest of the Muslim world. On one side you would have Israel and the United States and on the other side Hezbollah, Iran and the entire Muslim world. With the strong Israeli response to the kidnapping and the staunch U.S. support, that could be playing directly into the hands of Iran by compressing the timeline and galvanizing support from the rest of the Muslim world. It certainly seems to be working out that way.

Now there is kind of a ceasefire. But there will be no real ceasefire. Israel can not stop until Hezbollah is disarmed and Hezbollah will never voluntarily disarm. What would be their incentive? Just the fact they’re fighting Israel makes them heroes throughout the Muslim world. They’re winning now and they know it. It could be there will never be a ceasefire because there never was a plan for one. Hezbollah and Iran could have planned for an ever-escalating battle and we and the Israelis are only too willing to oblige. The U.S. has been pushing the U.N. toward some action to stop Iran from developing their nuclear program. At every step of the way, Iran has thumbed its nose at the international community and has done and said everything it could to invite an attack by the U.S. They almost seem to be daring the U.S. The U.S. is increasing the rhetoric against Iran and it could be that George W. Bush is leading our country and troops right into a trap if we bomb them.

George W. Bush thinks the U.S. will hurt and punish Iran by bombing them. But it could be that Iran has already factored-in the short-term losses of a bombing with their long-term goal of defeating us in the Middle East. If they felt the U.S. was determined to bomb them four years ago and felt they couldn’t stop us, they’ve certainly had plenty of time to prepare for the attack and to put a counterattack plan in place. They could be willing to absorb our best punch from the air and comeback with their best counterpunch on the ground by using Muslim resentment of such a bombing attack along with their agents and influence in Iraq to turn the Shiites against us. It might be low-tech, but it certainly would be effective and devastating.

We’ve been fighting a Sunni insurgency since we invaded Iraq and the Shiites have been on our side. Although much of the bloodshed recently has turned into a sectarian conflict, all it would take would be for the Shiites to hold up their hands and say to the Sunni, “Brother, why are we fighting each other when we both agree on one thing. We both now want the United States out of our country.” If that were to happen and the entire country were to rise up against us, we wouldn’t stand a chance. It would be Vietnam all over again with soldiers hanging on to helicopter skids as they flew out of the Green Zone to waiting aircraft carriers off the coast. If we had that kind of loss, we would leave the Middle East for good. And that is exactly what the Iranians want; the Middle East becomes radicalized and Israel is left alone and weakened. Our failed war in Iraq then becomes a Sunni-Shiite alliance template for the entire Muslim Middle East to rid themselves of all infidels except one—the State of Israel. And then there will be only one last move to make before checkmate.

What would “We The People” do? Bitch, protest, demonstrate, vote one way or the other in November, Blog, witch hunt, finger point, complain about the press..?

If that isn’t the most idiotic phrase, I don’t know what is.

Supporting the troops means avoiding putting them in danger, at all costs. It means assuring they have, not adequate, but exceptional health care and family support before, during and after conflict. It means providing them with safe protective equipment. It means supporting the actual troops, and not using the troops; to promote a political agenda or discredit opposition to war.
It means making some effort, any effort, to guarantee that when a tour is done. the soldier comes home. He or she has done their part. It doesn’t mean sending the soldier back into harm’s way, rotation after rotation after rotation.
Supporting the troops means planning and executing a strategy that provides for the shortest tour of duty in combat.
Supporting the troops, as the pro-Bush phrase, by the insulting right wing are an affront to what all Americans know . Especially the troops themselves.
That the best war is the one avoided. Ask a vet about it.
The most noble causes for war are not based on the most questionable of evidences. Genocide, like that in WWII Europe are a noble cause for war. Attacks on our soil, like Pearl Harbor and 911 were noble causes for war.
Sending troops country hopping, willy-nilly, on ill-perceived threats is not a noble cause. Drawn out wars deplete troop efficiency and equipment, something the enemy watches very carefully. We certainly did that with Japan and Germany in WWII. When the enemy sees a force become weaker from depletion, this often results in further conflicts.
This week proved that point.
Iran, North Korea and most other perceived and known enemies of the US, are saber rattling for their own perceived ‘noble’ causes. They know the US cannot mount other offenses, it has it’s hands full on two major fronts.
Fight the war on terror! Who is terror? Terror is a tactic, not an entity. Anything and everything can be terrifying at some point. Defining the enemy is a key in fighting any war. We fight the war on terror but really can’t find the enemy.
We are not fighting an enemy, we are fighting an ideology with an army.
Ideological conflict is something no amount of bullets and bombs will change. Only dialogue, compromise and a certain level of respect for different ideologies can protect the world from ideological terrorism. It’s not an all or nothing scenario, as the far right claims it to be. We haven’t waged war with the Buddhists? or with the entirety of Islam itself. We are dealing with a very small, but dangerously, loud faction of a fringe religious philosophy. By at least making an attempt to understand why this faction; fractured from the main Islamic belief, and trying to see that point of view can we begin to provide a place for both ideologies to exist.
What is most dangerous is refusing to begin that understanding.
But they cut off heads!!! They don’t wear uniforms!!! They torture!!!
Good grief! Humans have done that since the beginning of war and they are likely to continue to do so in the future. There is a fine line in arguing that vaporizing someone is far more humane that lopping off their head. Both people die. Both are killed in a horrific manner and someone is going to miss them after they are gone. That is why war is hell.
But to simply discount the enemy as barbaric, or somehow not capable of rational debate in coming to a peaceful conclusion to a conflict is not the sign of competent leadership, nor is it a very human mindset.
It does work well for the conservatives who somehow have come to the conclusion that it is a 100% all or nothing, right or wrong process.
And that is usually as far as they get in the debate. Once their mind is made up thats it. Any and all questions to the contrary are taken as supporting the enemy. It’s called attacking the messenger. And that really supports the troops.
It doesn’t make the HumVee stronger, it doesn’t make the flak vest more bulletproof, it doesn’t send the IED or mortar off target thats shot from an enemy bunker.
It just sounds really good.
Pro war cheerleading does not increase the performance of the American military. Troops are not ‘inspired’ by the likes of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, but rather, knowing that their families have enough food and their rent is paid while they serve. Lots of people, especially liberals, work in the social services and support agencies that the troops and their families rely on before, during and after conflict. Conservatives send money to their favorite PAC to make sure the ‘agenda’ stays the course.
The next time you hear some war-happy right winger make the accusation that someone doesn’t ’support the troops’; ask them for money so you can send it to Fort Bragg for the kids of a infantry troop who is on their third tour of duty.

With that disclaimer, let me put before Prof. Kia and
colleagues what keeps coming at me, regularly, hitting
me in both the front and back of my head: Mr. Bush was
never in FULL control of his government. All through
his years of formation, his caring father sought to
keep his son confident by literally hiring others to
do his worrying for him. Thus, as a young man with a
scandalous record and no other accomplishments to
compensate for it, Mr. Bush turned himself over to
some others, leaving it to them to worry about his
political career. As for his existing/missing past,
Mr. Bush totally obliterated it with the blinding
glare of his Christian Salvation. It’s not that he
chose this task for himself but rather that his
professional “worriers” did. What this has produced is
a most amiable and unassuming mediocrity who is not in
the slightest ashamed, worried or in need to
compensate for who and what he is. I cannot tell you
how much thousands of influential Republicans were
totally charmed by that in him. It was his “I am what
I am and I’m not worried about it” type of even keel
“compassionate conservative” image that is so
unassuming that made so many of us see him as the
President who will end stress in America.

A group of foreign policy experts calling themselves
the “Vulcans” gathered around him and found him so
soothing that they often had to remember that they
were dealing with the future President of the United
States. Because of the relationship with his dad, he
chose to go with some of the people among the
Republican luminaries who least got along with his
father. To that end Cheney was key and Scowcroft
something of an anti-Christ. As Cheney and Rumsfeld
filled their offices with neocons, they liberated Mr.
Bush more and more from worries. Karl Rove took care
of politics and by the end of 2002 had achieved great
electoral successes.

At that time, the Vulcans pushed two issues: (1)
leapfrog West Europe and build a new NATO around East
Europe; then, tie the old Europe to this vital new
Europe NATO. (2) Encircle China so as to force it to
behave properly in trade. The neocons wanted a Mideast
focus, as did their representatives in power, the
worriers, Cheney and Rumsfeld but the Vulcans ruled
then and this was not to be. 9/11 ended the Vulcans’
agenda. The rest is history. But since that date, so
exclusively theirs did Rumsfeld, Cheney and the
neocons consider the Bush presidency– that Bush ended
still ended up with this “What me worry?” way about
him that it made you think that no matter what you did
he would never take it as stepping on his toes; one
never felt ill-at-ease bulldozing policies (unless, as
in the case of Sec. Treasury O’Neill, Cheney deemed
you un-kindred-spirit). As the US stumbled into a
seeming success in Afghanistan, the neocons never
could accept Bush’s reluctance to go to war in Iraq as
an obstacle. The Pentagon proceeded to present the
President with a fait accompli and he just went with
it, following his worriers instead of worrying that
they were taking over his foreign policy. From this
bunch for example, I kept hearing that Powell was
there to make a couple of speeches as Sec. of State
and then it is good-by. In fact, when in his last
meeting with Mr. Bush Powell warned him to worry about
a Cheney-Rumsfeld takeover of his foreign policy,
Powell failed to appreciate how NOT worrying was the
important operative term for the President.

Bush wanted to take over the White House in his second
term but was faced with: “O.K., we’ll leave and take
the Christian Right with us, then you can worry about
what to do next.” And so, to avoid worry, Bush
continued as prisoner of his first term. I am reminded
of Brezhnev asking his Pravda editors-speech writers:
what is this “Brezhnev Doctrine”? They urged him not
worry about it and just deliver the speech. He did.
And so, the next time the Presidium met it had to make
policies in accord with the Brezhnev policy he himself
has enunciated. That’s how you get policy by
speechwriters. Ditto Bush!

But now worry has infected Bush, what with the polls,
the Plame case, Iraq, Katrina, oil prices etc, etc.
And so, Bush can no longer escape worrying. His only
option for avoiding worry is to return to the able men
of his dad. Swallowing pride is easier than worrying
for him because Bush is not conceited.

I tell all this because, if I am right, and I wouldn’t
type all this if I were not confident, Bush will
decrease the Iraq conflict and will not attack Iran
because that’s the only way he can avoid worrying.
Israel has read him very well and realizes that it
better work out something with HAMAS and the other
Arabs if it doesn’t want to be a source of worry to
him. Sometimes big decisions are made for very small
reasons, that’s what makes history so much more
exciting than science or study of the cosmos.

Daniel E. Teodoru