Because in their evaluation, we’ve become paper tigers? The Iranians know what George Bush seems not to, which is that we can’t fight Iran without instituting the draft.
The irony is that Saddam may have made the same calculus, and you know what? He was damn near right.
Really, xtisme? What do you think would happen if tomorrow Bush ordered an all-out series of airstrikes on Iran? Who would stop him?
But I know one thing: You would be right here in GD defending Bush’s second unprovoked attack on a sovereign country as right and just.
Let me answer your question by posing you a question. Whats stopping him NOW? What stopped him a month ago…or a year ago? Why has he not ordered air strikes into Iran? What is he waiting on? (ok…several questions there).
Thats sad if in fact that is the one thing you know. Why? Because you are quite wrong about it. C’est la vie…and thanks for playing. We have some nice parting gifts for you. A copy of Straightdope, the game. Also this lovely ceramic dog…
-XT
God help us.
No one panic. If Bush can not steer us through these dangerous waters and bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East, Mrs. Clinton will show the steely determination needed to cradle the nation of Iran in her motherly arms and whispher sweet nothings into its ear, fulfilling the holy aims of our nation and our duty to the world.
And by that I mean bomb the fuck out of Iran until they follow orders. But you know how it goes.
Because he’s not ready yet.
Now, why don’t you answer my question? Who is going to stop him?
I guess we’ll see, won’t we?
:dubious: What’s he waiting on? The end of his term? He going to launch strikes the day before he bolts or something?
Um…no one. That’s kind of the point I was making. No one is going to stop him…so what’s he waiting for? He COULD attack Iran anytime he wanted a la Clinton tossing a few tomahawks at Iraq. He COULD have attacked them in fact anytime in the last 2 years…or any time in the last 6 for that matter.
To answer the question you tap danced away from, I think one of the main reason’s he hasn’t is that he doesn’t have the political capital to boil an egg at this point. An attack in Iran with the current circumstances would probably provoke a Republican revolt in the house and senate…let alone what the Democrats would do. They would go ape shit at this point. And a substantial percentage of the public would probably be right behind them, signs in hand. It would have the exact opposite effect from what BG is predicting…instead of drawing attention from Iraq and all the other fuckups of the administration it would draw even more focus to them (IMHO).
I hope you are holding your breath. It will be amusing to see you turn blue and then gasp and splutter when Bush’s term ends and nothing happens.
Could you provide subtitles? What’s the point of this exactly? Is this supposedly part of the Great Republican Propaganda Blitz of '07™? If so its pretty weak. IIRC Bush was quoted (to paraphrase): yawn Fine by me if he talks there. Now give me a jelly donut… (that jelly donut part was a complete dramatization…I think he actually asked for a toasted english muffin with butter)
Or, let me break it down for you…when the President of Iran actually COMES to the US then its going to generate news…good and bad. Unless you figure this is some really subtle plan by the Bush administration/Republican’s/Illuminati (of which only one of those groups can even be mentioned in the same sentence with ‘subtle’…guess which?) to bring him over so they can launch their covert anti-Iranian plan its not part of a big propaganda push…its what is commonly refered too as ‘news’.
-XT
Come on. That’s one of the funniest headlines I’ve read in years.
It would be funny if it weren’t so accurate.
C’mon. Ahmadinejad might be an antisemitic Holocaust-denier (out of conviction or strategy, who knows), but comparing him to Hitler is unfair to both of them.
The new moon, so our bombers will maximize their night-fighting advantage? Perhaps he’s waiting to get his little Gulf of Tonkin causus belli act together? Maybe the plan is to continue to poke the Iranians with a stick until they fuck up enough to call it a causus belli. Or maybe he’s waiting for a message from God—no reason to assume he’s a rational actor at this point. But the point of my original statement was to point out that, from their perspective, the Iranians don’t have any incentive to cooperate whether they’re developing nuclear weapons or not. Inspections won’t save them, no matter what the outcome. If Bush gets the idea to bomb them, he’s going to bomb them and nothing they do is going to change that. How do I know? That’s what he did the last time. There’s no reason to expect him to act any different this time, especially since his naked aggression toward Iraq ultimately got him reelected. And once the bombs start falling, the Iranians will have to retaliate and the war’s on. Nobody in Congress will stop it once the Iranians start shooting back.
The Republicans aren’t going to revolt, and the Democrats will fall all over themselves trying to figure out new ways to appease Bush. His total lack of so-called political capital means he has nothing to lose. And on the off chance we would win a Bush-initiated war with Iran, he goes from being called the worst President in history to a visionary. His interests are no longer aligned with the interests of the country.
Take off your partisan blinders for a minute and just look at that front page. It calls the president of Iran Hitler. I’d say that qualifies as war-with-Iran hysteria, and my calendar indicates that Labor Day has passed.
Conversely he/they might not be planning anything (though I have no doubts that if Iran gives us the excuse then Bush will follow up on it). This seems the simplest explaination to me. YMMV.
All I can say to this is…you either haven’t been paying attention to current events or your are so far off the political scale that even democrats look like right wingers to you.
Um…sure vibrotronica. One front page in an obscure newspaper and when the president of Iran actually came to the US (i.e. when there was actually a newsworthy reason to talk about the man)…its obviously my ‘partisan blinders’ that are keeping me from seeing this massive propaganda push by the evil Republican’s to take us to war with Iran, blah blah blah.
At this rate all we need is for him to come over several more times for us to stir up enough war fever too…well, at least laugh derisively at him again making a fool of himself trying to manipulate the American people in so clumsy and stupid a manner.
-XT
Oh, fer crying out loud. Imagine that Bill Clinton were still president or that Hillary or Edwards or Obama were president. Ahmedenijad comes over here and speaks at Columbia. Now, what do you think the Daily News headline would be? Hint: exactly the same.
In short, you do not need a vast right wing conspiracy to explain that headline. Adding in such a conspiracy as an explanation doesn’t pass the laugh test, much less the Occam’s razor test.
And saying that a lack of a propaganda push just proves Bush decided it wouldn’t work is equally as laughable. Again, you start with a premise, and it gets “proven” no matter what the outcome. Heads you win, tails… you win! Man, what insight!!
Hand-waving dismissals, accusations of conspiracy theory, anti-Clinton rhetoric, raising the dreaded specter of extreme leftism–all right on cue.
Reading comprehension difficulties, strawmen, rampant assumptions and fact free content all in one post (and taking up only one line as well!). At least you didn’t make the hamsters work for it…
-XT
I wish the Daily News were obscure!
It is blindingly obvious that you’ve never heard of the New York Daily News before. Getting riled up about a government conspiracy because of some venom in a Daily News front page is like blaming NASA for covering up bat boy because he appeared on the cover of the Weekly World News.
The Daily News is well-known for making inflammatory headlines in attempts to sell more papers. For example, note the incredible "restraint " exhibited after 9-11. Hell, they declared the war in Iraq OVER a full 20 days before Bush did!
They Daily News has its own agenda, and it certainly doesn’t take orders from the White House. They are too full of themselves to help propel anyone’s agenda but their own.
Yes, Ravenman, you’re right. They’re a right-wing newspaper. The OP predicted a post-Labor Day right-wing propaganda campaign designed to whip up support for war with Iran. It’s after Labor Day, and the Daily News, along with a whole bunch of other folks, has gone absolutely apeshit on the Iranians. And I’m a scary leftist for pointing it out.
It said the Vice President is directing a roll out of a propaganda campaign. As I have pointed out much earlier in this thread, Iran is frequently in the news, and there are frequently conferences and discussions in thinktanks about Iran.
The truth is that, this New York visit aside, there really hasn’t been any difference in the Administration’s approach toward Iran or the press’s coverage of Iran before or after Labor Day.
You are suffering from a case of confirmation bias. The fact that you are grasping at the hot-headed Daily News to show you’re right indicates that the case is severe.
