And more deregulation, of course.
Not if we want stable gas prices. When an oil-producing country is torn by civil war, nobody has time to bother with pumping and exporting the oil.
What makes you think that?! I don’t think most Iranians are rabidly anti-U.S., but I think the majority are sincerely anti-Zionist, though to widely varying degrees. So long as the U.S. is Israel’s best friend . . .
Also, as Captain Carrot so helpfully quoted recently from Terry Pratchett’s The Fifth Elephant:
I suspect friendlier might be a better word than friendly.
One thing though. If Moussavi becomes president, he is going to have a hard time keeping the ban on the very communications tools that fed the uprising that got him in. A freer flow of information is good for our side. But he sure as hell is not going to sound friendly to the US right now, or say anything about stopping the nuclear program.
Sean Hannity is so upset by Obama’s (so-called) “lack of action” on Iran that he’s going to play videos of old Reagan speeches on his television show tonight…again.
How they pine for Reagan.
Wonder if he’ll have video of our bold and courageous adventure in Grenada. Maybe get that Grenada War Memorial back on track.
So true. The piners had probably best not read this Newsweek article, though.
It’s just a case of the shoe being on the other foot. Nothing has changed, just “the other side” now runs the show, and I expect similarly disappointing results from our government, regardless of the issues at hand or which party is currently high on the hog.
I don’t expect to be plunged headfirst into a turd-infested fever swamp, so that’s a step up…
Funny thing, anyone who has ME by the balls is not gonna get my heart or my mind. Fists, yeah. :eek:
Good thing that bar is set so high…do you live near Houston?
Very macho sounding. However, history demonstrates that when you have them by the balls, it’s generally guerrilla war and terrorism that follows, not hearts and minds.
Except that they’re not demanding anything of the sort. And I didn’t ask that. I asked, plainly, what the Democrats hope of achieve in Iran. Neither side is seeking to “stir shit up”. But since we’ve headed down that road, I might as well ask “What do the Democrats seek to gain by eating all the babies that they do?”
Bullshit. A free and democratic Iraq that hated America would be a victory for the Republicans and for America.
As long as Iraq hates America, or is perceived to do so, Republicans can keep using it as a boogeyman.
Nonsense. The last thing we as a country wanted was a democratic Iraq; we wanted to subjugate them, and kill foreigners. And the Republicans aren’t even supportive of freedom here, much less elsewhere.
I assure you that the only nonsense spouted here is yours.
Yeah, right, America only tortures and kills people for their own good. :rolleyes:
Yep, and it’s only the eeeeevil Republicans that do it, too. Except when it’s not. Your all Republican bashing all the time schtick gets old. It’s like listening to Ann Coulter, only from the other side. I can assure you that I did not pay you a compliment, if anything I did that crazy loon a disservice with the comparison.
Leading Republicans have criticized the President for not more forcefully making America’s desired outcome in Iran known. That is, Republicans want Obama to engage in old-fashioned saber rattling. This is quite plainly “stirring shit up.”
The Administration does not want to muddy the waters among Iranians by allowing the reform movement to be identified with the American government. They want it to avoid even the appearance of American influence.
I doubt that this was a very hard distinction for you to grasp, and your vexation issues more from your party’s amateurish statecraft than actual confusion between the two approaches.
This really is empty rhetoric. Given that we are in Iraq because of a Republican administration’s preemptive war (instituted under false pretenses) and the ensuing occupation, it will take a lot more than just asserting “Republicans want good things in Iraq!” to prove this particular howler of a claim. If the Republicans did want to create a free and democratic Iraq, they did a pretty shitty job of it in the six years that they had to do it.
Which party orchestrated the whole Iraq fiasco? Republican foreign policy has been an abject failure, and if you paid attention to the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, where the Democrats got an electoral mandate, you will know that it was in part a referendum on–and a repudiation of–Republican policies concerning Iraq.
It cannot be pretended by anyone that it is the Democratic party that gave us the preemptive war doctrine, the detainee treatment abuses, the wiretapping scandals, the no-bid contracts to Halliburton and KBR, and so on.
I know it must be rough to be a Republican these days, as you party speeds to increasing irrelevance. Nevertheless, if you think the evidence damns the Democrats as thoroughly as it does the GOP, you are deeply deluded.
I’m not a Republican, and I’m not deluded.
Just as the party of racism and unnecessary wars evolved into what it is now, the Republican Party will one day once again find itself on the side of the angels. You know it and I know it. So why are you pretending that one party is so much more noble than the other? What’s with this Republicans-love-to-kill-people-and-subjugate-them nonsense? There are millions of people who remember when the Democrats had their turn at it. Holier-than-thou posturing in American politics is nothing more than fortuitous timing.