Bush likes letters from congress, they make good toilet paper.

Hope it’s not too late for Congress to take back the authority for declaring war that is outlined in the Constitution. Precedents be damned.

The President has NO constitional right to declare war, even if it is justified.

Iran has already been killing Americans thru supply weapons for
the insurgents. It is Irans stated goals to wipe Isreal off the map and rid Americans from the middle
east. Oh not to mention that they are going forward with nuclear plans that the reat of the world has warned them not to do. This is necessary should things changeover there ( they can change over night) then we are prepared to defend our troops already there and ourselves. Take notes this is called national security it comes first above all else this will keep them from flying a plane into the building you work in. Peace out.

DUDEYO: Peace out? That was funny. Spew war rhetoric out of your hole, then sign off with ‘peace out’………good stuff. Keep memorizing Bush’s line, bro. What flavor IS that kool-aid?

Shall I??
OK, I will. Bear with me fellow non-kool-aiders:

“Iran has already been killing Americans thru supply weapons for
the insurgents.”
Yes, that’s a good one, isn’t it? Do your homework. Why do you think we NEVER hear about what weapons the sunni insurgents are using? It’s because they’re American weaponry, bought from the a munitions company partly owned by H.W. Bush.

“It is Irans stated goals to wipe Isreal off the map and rid Americans from the middle
east.”
Wrong. That’s NOT what he said, but it’s ever so convenient, isn’t it? Anyway, we’ve said some horrible things about other countries for as long as I remember. So, get off your white hobby horse and come back to reality little boy…..

“Oh not to mention that they are going forward with nuclear plans that the reat of the world has warned them not to do.”
So what? The REST of the world says that it would be a concern, but they, ALSO REALIZE that Iran’s 3 years away, so give diplomacy a chance. Also, wouldn’t you want nukes when you’re surrounded by U.S.-provided nukes?

So, let’s see: They’re creating chaos in the middle east (not here). They’re spewing rhetoric about Israel (not us). And, they’re constructing nuclear power plants (so is everyone).
OK, bro. If you’re so hellbent, Blackwater has a rifle for ya. Good luck.

i agree with ya coach, i think we seriosly need to give diplomacy a chance before we ark around in Iran

at the same time though, there is no reason not to serious and tough with the mullahs…also, realize this–at this stage in the game, what happens in the ME and to Israel will effect us, above all, we should at least try and help respect a fellow liberal democracies sovereignty in the face of massive oppostion from everywhere else in the region

Bomb Natanz, then give diplomacy some time to work.

“Bomb Natanz, then give diplomacy some time to work.”

Leave aside the impossibility of effective diplomacy immediately following a hostile attack. How do you-or any of the geniuses responsible for our Iraqi “intelligence”-know that Iran is actually building something at Natanz? Since so much of our intelligence on these matters is flawed, what good will a military strike on Iranian nuclear capabilities have? There is a 99% chance we won’t hit anything.

“above all, we should at least try and help respect a fellow liberal democracies sovereignty in the face of massive oppostion from everywhere else in the region”

“massive opposition?” What massive opposition? Iran has a 3rd rate military and couldn’t build a nuclear weapon even if they tried their hardest. Their president is a joke, the Russians and the Chinese don’t really care what happens to them as long as their fuel supplies stay intact. Iran’s leadership is so weak they are in danger of being toppled from within by student groups willing to impose actual liberal democracy. Why would we end that possibility by bombing the Iranian resistance and fracturing it?

Also, “liberal democracies” don’t black out the media on what military actions they’re taking. The U.S. is a case in point.

IMMEDIATELY following an attack on Natanz there would definitely be some pissed off Persians. Eventually, diplomacy might actually have a better chance of succeeding, assuming the attack actually reduced the Iranian capability to enrich uranium. Maybe Natanz isn’t the best target. The enrichment of uranium is not easy to hide. Find the appropriate targets, bomb them, then talk.

Oil,

Obviously bombing a country will garner support from its people. Wrong. Bombing Iran will convert its people to terrorism. Apparently your are too stupid to see this.

Rice is now being subponead to talk about how the Israeli lobby played a part in the formulation of foreign policy regarding attacking Iraq.

I suppose you want to now talk about the oil lobby? You’re cute. And wrong.

Godd-

Will a limited strike on Natanz or other targets associated with the Iranian nuclear program definitely “convert” the population of Iran to terrorism? Are you that ignorant that you think the Iranians are actually that simple minded? Is terrorism the only choice for the population of Iran to express their opposition to US foreign policy? Should the US determine its foreign policy based on the fear that a population is precariously balanced between the choice to “convert” to terrorism or not to do so? Does the population of Iran really identify that closely with the nuclear program, with inflation running around 18% and unemployment, more than 30%?

Jed-
I have already served with honor. How about you?

I have yet to find someone who thinks they haven’t.

where?

BTW – did you figure out that entropy is the exception rather than the rule? If natural systems are immune to it, then it is not natural… digg?