This is a straw man argument, since Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon now, and won’t have one for at least five years (that’s with a very generous estimate).
GWB, on the other hand, has bombs of all varieties at his disposal now. And given that his trustworthiness is as low as Iran’s, I’d be more suspicious of him merely because that course of action results in the lower risk of anyone bombarding anything.
Then I would still be more concerned about W’s trustworthiness than the Iranians’, because he still would have more power, and many, many more nukes, and would be in a position to do the world a great deal more damage.
Not Russia, anyway. But that’s neither here nor there. (See above.)
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
And if Iran had a nuculur weapon then who …]
Then I would still be more concerned about W’s trustworthiness than the Iranians’, because he still would have more power, and many, many more nukes, and would be in a position to do the world a great deal more damage.
Not Russia, anyway. But that’s neither here nor there. (See above.)
Of course he does! He needs some other country with brown people in it to bomb before the Congressional elections roll around! [/sarcasm…just]
Seriously, Bush has repeatedly shown himself to be absent of any diplomatic ability, and to be apparently unable to appoint anyone with diplomatic ability (hmm, who shall I send as ambassador to the UN? Shall I send the guy who has attacked it on numerous occasions and called for its dissolution? Why, I believe I shall!). However, I doubt whether he seriously plans an attach on Iran for at least 2 years, and probably not at all. But anyone who rules it out is, IMO, failing to look adequately a GWB’s track record, and that of his administration. As Trihs points out, his language right now sounds an awful lot like that he used about Iraq in 2001-2- the difference being, of course, that Iran has an actual army, so he has to get some other countries on his side before he attacks this time.
Oh my God, that reminds me that Clinton got a blowjob back in the 90s! That changes everything! Can Bush run again in 2008? I sure hope so. :rolleyes:
Yea, sure.
And watch his nose grow when he speaks to the American people.
Hey, sorry I forgot about this thread.
I think I need to restate what I think. Do I “trust” Bush in any situation? No. Do I think he’ll probably do the same thing a trustworthy person would do in Iran? Yes, because he doesn’t have the tools to do otherwise.
You missed that the whole thing about a robber who dropped his gun would negotiate in good faith was an analogy. Of course Bush hasn’t tried to kill you or Iran.
I get what irony you’re seeing, but of course I disagree. First of all, I (and most non-idiots) never trusted Saddam Hussein. Still wouldn’t if here were in power. But I recognize that dishonest people are only dishonest when there’s a reason - we’re not talking about pathological liars here.
I think you said you don’t see the difference between an honest person and one who’s acting honest right now. The difference is how they act when nobody’s looking.
I don’t trust Bush because he has a track record of dishonesty when it’s inconvenient to be honest, however (and this is the important thing wrt your claim that I trust my instincts instead of facts in front of me) I don’t think he’ll invade Iraq. I do trust the facts. I’m not claiming Bush is lying about anything right now. I’m just saying that we should be wary if Bush does get some perceived “latitude.”