Strongbow said:
What speech did Bush actually state that he wanted to invade Iran?
No one speech, just many references in various ones over the months. And while he never came straight out and said, "I want us to invade Iran", his language sure let us know that was what the administration wanted to do.
Strongbow said:
As to Bush's comments about "World War III", it only seems extreme if you have never heard the President of Iran discuss what he would like to do to Israel. I think that everyone can agree that the chances of any hypothetical World War III senerio are far less if Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. That is the point Bush was making.
Yeah, Iran and Israel aren't buddy-buddy-name me one area in that part of the world that
is. But that doesn't make our reference to WW3 any better, especially since I believe Bush was using that phrase mainly as a means to try and frighten us into supporting the idea. Which is something this administration's been very good at doing during its entire time in office.
Besides that, we have nuclear weapons, too. Many, many countries have them. So why we're targeting Iran specifically for this, I'm not sure. If we want Iran to refrain from having nuclear weapons, we need to disarm ourselves, too, as does everyone else.
Strongbow said:
The only ones that are really gung ho about Bush going to war with Iran are the democrats who use at talking points to drum up support for their campaigns.
It may be talking points with some, but with others, I think their response to Bush's plans are valid and worth stating.
Strongbow said:
I've never heard that Obama and Edwards had 100% ever ruled out the use of any type of military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I'd be interested to see a speech or comment where they stated that.
I don't know exact specific lines from speeches, I don't have time to read up on every one. I just know that Obama, at least, has been pushing more for diplomatic means to dealing with Iran-I've seen him talk about such things in the stuff I've watched with him, I've yet to hear him state any mention of using military force to deal with Iran. And I hear on the news about how Hilary's critique of Iran, calling one aspect of it a terrorist organization, makes her a target of criticism for Edwards and Obama, which tells me that they disagree with her on that issue.
Strongbow said:
On a different issue, it may come as a shock to some, but Obama and Edwards would not rule out still having US troops in Iraq in 2013.
Now that I have heard, and that disappoints me, as I think we need to be gone from there way, WAY sooner than that.
(I would think that'd be an argument for their being opposed to military action in Iran, too, by the way-if they find it likely troops will still be in Iraq that many years down the line, then that means we won't
have enough troops to send into Iran, so I highly doubt they're looking at joining Bush on the push for an Iran conflict anytime soon)
Strongbow said:
Back to Iran, again what evidence do you have that the administration was clearly trying to attack Iran? When did they make the effort? Such a major operation would require a noticable build of military force beyond what is already in the region. It certainly would involve consultations with all of the United States regional allies from Israel to Saudi Arabia, since a major response from Iran, possibly against other countries in the region, would be expected.
I will refer you to Irvine's answer here, as he explained it much better than I would've been able to
.
And I guess that's another thing, too-if we know Iran would respond to an attack, why bother starting one in the first place? I don't
want them to respond, just as I don't want them to start anything, either.
Angela