Ummm…they’ve had a majority in the Senate for most of the last six years. Between Spector starting as a Republican, Frakens slow election, Byrds illness and Kennedy’s illness and eventual death they only had a filibuster proof majority for something like 14 weeks.
B’lieve he means “60 votes”. Which didn’t happen at any time, either - Kennedy was on sick leave, and Lieberman was being Lieberman, even after Franken’s victory couldn’t be stalled any longer.
You’re forgetting that ‘majority’ was redefined as sixty-one out of one hundred sometime in November 2008.
-Joe
Yeah, I got a bit mixed up, there.
I see. In the same way that once those terrorists killed all those people in New York and Washington, America decided never to meddle in the Middle East again.
Why do some people think that those funny foreigners will cower in fear if America demonstrates a little excess force, but when the tables are turned it just makes us madder? It’s a right-wing fantasy that nuking Tehran would have cowed our enemies. It would have empowered them.
But a nuclear strike in an oil producing area would have meant that Iranian oil was permanently off the market. That would have had a significant effect. And I’m old enough to remember the gas lines, thank you.
You think Israel’s biggest supporter demonstrating a willingness to drop nukes in the Middle East would have made them happy? Wow.
Getting rid of the government, yes. Getting rid of an entire capital city and its civilian population, no.
But they wouldn’t want to be associated with the bigger maniacs either, i.e. us.
A drop in the ocean by comparison.
No, but there are people. And people in Pakistan and India too.
Now I know you’re not serious. Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian target anywhere in the world would have been seen as a majorly provocative act in that it would have demonstrated that we were willing to use nuclear weapons with minimal instigation. Doing so in a bordering country to the USSR would have been seen as a direct threat. After that, the Soviets could never have assumed that we would not use nuclear weapons on them for even minor reasons and would have been much more likely to launch a pre-emptive strike should tensions rise.
Genocide. Is there any problem it can’t solve?
No, Jimmy did Operation Eagle Claw, which failed for reasons that were not remotely Carter’s fault. Had it succeeded, the 1980 election would have been a very different affair.
Okay, Gyrate, I know you want to live in a fantasy world where Jimmy Carter wasn’t the biggest effin’ fail in American history, and we really came out of the humiliating Iran Hostage Crisis okay. I think some fat commie cow tried to make that sale to me when I was in college in 1984, and it was even more laughable.
(Of course, Obama is working out to be even a bigger fail, so it might work out for you.)
Carter…failed. That’s all we really need to know, right?
Again, people who put themselves in danger by going along with their leaders committing an act of war against the US. YOu know, this is where you guys have to realize why we aren’t respected. They ain’t afraid of us.
What is forgotten is that about the same time, another mob of angry students tried to take the Soviet Embassy. Well, guess what, the Iranian Guards moved in and put the kaybosh on that nonsense. Something about a bunch of guys named Ivan showing up with machine guns.
Dirty little secret about the Middle East. Hatred of Israel is largely a show. None of these countries want nukes because Israel has them, but if Iran gets them and no one does anything about it, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will want them, too.
Why do we think that? Proven track record.
We bombed Germany to the stone age. We haven’t had a problem with Germany since. In fact, they are STILL apologizing for Hitler.
We NUKED Japan. Japan has been very well behaved since then.
Our response to Mulsim barbarism has been, “Oh, gee, maybe we should try to understand their greivences, and we’d better not do anything that will hurt their feelings.”
You might have noticed that those wars caused us to pile up a massive debt. I am not sure we’ve even paid WWII off yet. You’re howling about how much we pay presently, but you want to keep ringing up new debts? I am glad your schizophrenic policies haven’t been adopted by any major party…oh wait, they have.
Actually, we had WWII largely paid off by the 1950’s. And we’ve spent more on the “War on Poverty” than a war on anything, and how’s that working out for you?
Usually, we end up with a war because we failed to act decisively. If we had finished off Saddam in 1991, when there was nothing between Stormin’ Norman and Baghdad, we wouldn’t have had to deal with him again a decade later.
Because we had sane tax rates then.
And we “had” to deal with him a decade later because. . .?
Because sometimes a man’s just gotta do what a man’s gotta do.
And when that man is George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, then we find ourselves in a shitload of trouble.
When you’re done arguing with the voices in your head, perhaps you might consider the position I actually set out which falls somewhere between the hagiography you seem to think I wrote and the “Carter sucks, Reagan rules!” position you hold.
I know! 9.1% unemployment, right? I mean, what’s with that guy - the Republicans drove this bus off a cliff and for some reason Obama has been unable to convert it into a plane while in freefall and with all the Republicans in Congress throwing their poop at him. How incompetent is that guy? Good thing the GOP candidates have a plan to save this country, right?
That’s all you seem to have read. The other words appear to have eluded you.
Congratulations - you’ve just given the exact same justification that terrorists give for hitting civilian targets. Way to take the moral high ground.
Something, yes. I’m sure it was all to do with the machine guns and not anything to do with the Iranian-Soviet relationship at the time.
That’s so secret, no one else believes it but you.
Yeah, that whole “Marshall Plan” thing was completely irrelevant. Lots of countries have been overrun, pillaged, occupied etc over the centuries, and the grievances caused by this have often later caused new wars. What we did in Germany and Japan that was important was not just tearing down their society but building it back up again. The Germans aren’t “well-behaved” because the US frightens them; they’re well-behaved because war is bad for business, especially war launched for the sole purpose of national pride. Maybe we should learn something from them.
Yeah - better to just kill them all. That’s always a good plan.
Because Bush Senior thought that if we actually went into Iraq and overthrew him we’d end up stuck in an unresolvable quagmire for years on end. But Bush Junior showed us how wrong he was, right? Right?
Dick Cheney was between Stormin’ Norman and Baghdad. We ostensibly didn’t finish off Saddam in 1991 because “it would be a quagmire”. Given how things have gone in Iraq this time around, there’s little reason to think we’d be out of there today.
Well, I think there would have been a lot of differences.
First, there would have been more international help in 1991, as it was an UN sanctioned effort.
Second, we had 7 divisions available in 1991, as opposed to only 4 this time.
What makes you think that there would have been international help? The UN mandate did NOT include the conquering of Iraq.
What would the extra 3 divisions have done to prevent Iraq from becoming a quagmire? In case you didn’t notice, it isn’t the Iraqi military we’ve been fighting for 6 years.
No, it’s mostly been Al Qaeda, which barely existed in 1991. (That was Bill Clinton’s 8 years of neglect on that one.)
More to the point, at that point, we had Iraq completely down on on the mat. It would have been a much easier campaign. Saddam hadn’t spent years developing a contingency plan of spider holes to run a resistance from, he’d have been caught flat footed.
Cheney’s entire speech was predicated on the fact that there would not be international help for an occupation of Iraq.
The Iraqi army was twice as large in 1991, so we required far fewer troops this time.
Yes, it’s terrible how Clinton balked at taking on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, especially in the face of so much Republican support for such a campaign.
And rightly so. I mean, someone got a blowjob! Investigating that was a far more important project to spend money and time on than catching some foreign guy.
No, no, no. A DEMOCRAT got a blowjob from a woman. When a Republican gets a blowjob from a guy, that’s not newsworthy.
Actually, I’ve heard it argued that Clinton’s “Wag the Dog 1” attacks were probably counter-productive. The Aspirin Factory in the Sudan had nothing to do with Bin Laden after all (whooopsie) and the camp in Afghanistan had been abandoned. But the very fact he took action boosted Bin Laden’s street cred.
Sorry, one attack and then forget it doesn’t impress.