English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This possiblity was discussed on the Chris Matthews Show on NBC. With the generals and others who did not support the "surge" in Iraq now fired and replaced, who is left to restrain Bush 2 from a new war in Iran? Can Congress do it? Do we really believe they can? If he starts a war with Iran, will Congress be forced to start the drafting of America's young men (and probably women) for military service? Will you serve if ordered to report for duty on the new Iranian front? Have the recent changes in U.S. passport requirements been related to a future governmental need to deter Americans from leaving their own country, as many did during the Vietnam War?

2007-01-13 22:45:21 · 14 answers · asked by In Honor of Moja 4 in News & Events Current Events

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011107.html

2007-01-14 00:33:44 · update #1

14 answers

oh, to keep the draft dodgers like bu$h from bookin!!!!! what about Impeach & Convict????

2007-01-13 22:51:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I think he's doing all he can to fight terrorism, and stemming the tide flowing from Iran and Syria is part of the fight. I don't feel he's directly attacked the Iranian rulership, but is attacking potential terrorist elements that happen to be Iranian.

For the record, the Iranian President just met recently with Venezuela's Chavez:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is locked in a tense standoff with the United States, embarks on a Latin American tour as he arrives for talks with his ideological 'brother,' Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
The trip will also include visits to Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, countries controlled by governments critical of Washington.
Ahmadinejad has heaped praise on Chavez for his outspoken support of Iran's disputed nuclear program, which the US and European governments say is part of a project to build atomic weapons...."

Ahmadinejad is obviously attempting to organize a coalition to counter the US and its allies. And for what reason? Rather than coming to the discussion table to work out a viable nuclear energy program, the Iranian leader insists upon divisive political manuevering.

And what exactly is Ahmadinejad's stance on terrorism? Does he not deem terrorism a scourge on the innocent? He's mute on the point, choosing instead to openly deride Israel and the US, and thus further inflame the already tense relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Ahmadinejad is a war-monger, and if the US ultimately decides to officially conduct a military attack on his leadership then it will be justified.
But such an "official" attack is a logistical matter (a matter of strategy in a military campaign not part of a political agenda).

Truthfully, the Bush administration is walking a fine line, but the administration itself isn't forcing the conflict, as you are implying; the terrorists and their sympathizers are. When they lay down their arms and seek peaceful ways to express their dissenting view then this US-led military campaign will cease overnight.

I'm sure there are people who will argue these points (for whatever reason). To them, I say "start dealing with reality."

2007-01-14 00:52:06 · answer #2 · answered by hertz donut 2 · 0 0

The only ones who have ever wanted to initiate a draft during this war are the Democrats. Now that there is a Democratic congress/senate, they just might do it.

I don't think attacking Iran would gain Bush any popularity. I really believe he is fighting terrorism, and trying to fight it on every front. We have always known that many of the insurgents in Iraq are from Iran. Iran is a major problem. I don't see how you can think that attacking them would make the President popular, when a majority of Americans wants him to bring the troops home. I see him as someone who is willing to put America first, ahead of his popularity. However, do I think he is going to attack Iran? No.

Do I think he made mistakes in Iraq? Yes. Is he a bad guy who is only concerned about his popularity? Absolutely not. He is sincerely trying to fight terrorism.

2007-01-13 23:28:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

If I were Bush 2, I'd have a whole twisted way of thinking about the world and the people in it.

If I were Bush 2, I'd think that common people don't really matter, and their outcries can be easily suppressed with fear-mongering, fake propaganda, intimidation, and suppressive laws.

If I were Bush 2, I'd know that that the long term objectives of my secret society will continue towards their ultimate goal of total world domination because my friends in Congress and the Supreme Court will ensure that my successor is one of my own guys, like Giuliani, Rice, or my brother Jeb.

If I were Bush 2, I wouldn't be thinking about attacking Iran. The plan is to neutralize all the surrounding countries so that Israel can do the attacking with their many mini-nukes that I sent them.

To save my Presidency, or more realistically, my own hide, I'd be busy neutralizing all the evidence and people who might be able to prosecute me in the future. I'd be working on a secret deal with North Korea or the Taliban so that I look like a hero by the end of my term with some kind of demonstrative success.

2007-01-13 23:23:29 · answer #4 · answered by patrioticjock 3 · 0 1

Is he a "failure" in Iraq, or have the Iraqis themselves failed? Since he has not had support from the media since he took office, he will be considered a failure by them. I think history will judge him well in the end. A country is judged by how many people leave a country versus those coming in, the only ones leaving the U.S. are movie stars. The U.S. will invade Mexico or Canada before they invade Iran, Iran will eventually implode.

2007-01-14 00:25:38 · answer #5 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0 0

Yes I would attack Iran and give their big mouth president time out for rest of his life.We did a mistake,we should have taken care of Iran,not Iraq.But our president spelled it wrong when giving orders.Just spelling mistake.

2007-01-14 01:19:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

if i were president bush, for one time i would tell the american people the truth and nothing but the truth. let the chips fall were they may... i would have more respect for the man if he just told us the truth,,,, and i do believe that he would find that the american people are a little smarter than he thinks.

because of his ego he is going down the same road that president johnson went and failed badly because of viet nam. and the lies he told the american people...

2007-01-14 00:24:41 · answer #7 · answered by RED WHITE AND BLUE 4 · 0 0

If i were Bush 2 ... i`d shoot my self to save the Usa nation .. from being hated from the other countries

this administration have gain more hate from USA people and all over the world too

enough is enough ...

2007-01-13 23:58:01 · answer #8 · answered by stow7 2 · 0 1

those are 2 diverse questions, yet enable me attempt to respond to them jointly. As President, Bush is likewise Commander-in-chief. He has the criminal authority to respond to attacks without the consent of Congress. it truly is designed this type because of the nature of conflict. judgements could be made immediately in time of conflict, and there is not time to search for suggestion from 535 individuals of Congress. less than the conflict Powers Act, notwithstanding, he's meant to seek Congressional approval earlier attacking yet another usa. "parts of the conflict Powers determination require the President to consult Congress previous to the starting up of any hostilities as well as frequently until eventually U.S. militia are literally not engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to get rid of U.S. militia from hostilities if Congress has not declared conflict or exceeded a determination authorizing using pressure interior of 60 days (Sec.. 5(b)). Following an valid request by technique of the President to Congress, the time reduce will be prolonged by technique of one extra 30 days (probable at the same time as "unavoidable protection pressure necessity" calls for added action for a threat-free withdrawal)." So, in theory, Bush ought to attack Iran in the journey that they attacked us. ought to he galvanize Iran into attacking? per chance. ought to Congress be able to end him from attacking Iran? again, not in the journey that they attack us first. (and what constitutes an attack? in the journey that they ensue to take a number of our sailors who ensue to be patrolling close to/of their waters, ought to that count number?)

2016-11-23 17:28:06 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Yes I would attack Iran for more OIL for the USA

2007-01-13 23:30:05 · answer #10 · answered by akband 4 · 0 1

I'd be stupid enough to make another mistake just like the first one.

He doesn't care how much he bites off. I heard today we are already sending rockets into Iran from accross the border. We can't cross the border.. yet, but yes we have started to piss them off much much more in just the last 48 hours! get ready!

2007-01-13 23:22:19 · answer #11 · answered by mark [mjimih] 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers