Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I agree that Bush is not as much of a dope as he is frequently portrayed, but that doesn't make him a genius, either. The U.S. obviously stumbled into a pretty bad situation when it invaded Iraq, and there is some movement to compounding the error further by getting involved in Iran. But that's quite a ways from WW-III. To have a world war, there have to be two sides with at least some semblance of parity. Who are you nominating as the opposing side? The Russians? The Chinese? The French?

I think you overestimate the compliance that would be required by Congress to get an invasion--or bombing, or nuking--of Iran. Bush would have a revolt not only of Democrats but of many Republicans if he tried it...

by asdf on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 12:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who are the opposing side? You should ask Bush about that. (I guess he meant those are not with him.)

As for the revolt thing, other than those who were awkwardly silent at Colbert's performance, I think this person may end up supporting the nuke option:

But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not -- must not -- permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran -- that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

The logic is appealing to many, isn't it? Why not nuke them before they nuke us?  Last time somebody was nuked, the country re-emerged as a democracy. That nuke saved more lives than killed, didn't it? ...I'm afraid we are half way there already.

I will become a patissier, God willing.

by tuasfait on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 05:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's quite a ways from WW-III. To have a world war, there have to be two sides with at least some semblance of parity. Who are you nominating as the opposing side?

The terrists. I repeat tuasfait's point: Dubya himself declared that WWIII is on.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 06:05:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series