To some degree it’s true of all administrations that policies and problems are seen more as fixing the PR around the decisions rather than offering convincing rationales, but this group seems to have taken that to an extreme. There is probably more pressure against an Iran adventure from Republican aparatchiks concerned with salvaging future power than from any other source. Bush is, however, the Decider and will do what he wishes.

What remains to be seen is what form the PR will take as we launch into another war and whether or not nuclear weapons will be used.

We do not respond within our rights because it is not in the national interest of the United States to do so at this time. That is the basic reality of our relationship with the mullah regime of Iran. To ignore that is to take up the “white man’s burden”. No thanks.

We rightly hope that the iranian people will recover from this mad regime and choose themselves a better form of government. By protecting Sistani’s right of free speech, by assisting the free Iraqi government in keeping Shiite pilgrimage sites open, by fighting as best we can for peace in a free Iraq, we’re striking powerful blows against the mullah regime’s claim to be the only way forward for Shia Islam. Without this, they lack legitimacy and the Khomeinite mullahs don’t like it. Sistani’s dream, eventually Sistani himself has to go for the imams in Tehran to be happy. That’s what is really on the table when we negotiate with Iran. Is that a price that moderates are willing to pay? I think not, at least not when it’s put out in an open, honest way. Open betrayal is for the “realists”, the moderates seem to want theirs couched in nice, disguised language that hides the stink.

so, image paying 100 dollar for a bottle of water (depression cause by our debtor, china), while getting bomb by china and russia (image 9/11 for every single day) for attacking iran, while the soldiers can’t help you because they are fighting 1 million standing men iran, iraq, and afghanistan but hey, we prevented iran from attack us right?

Not only this but also Syria’s mysterious weapons cache or building that had something to do with nukes was bombed by the isrealis also unconfirmed reports of isrealy commandos being involved in all of this .

Then you have the whole It was Nkorea who somehow either build something in syria or their were weapons from Nkoriea ,it is still not very clear .

You then have the axis of evil that bush had talked about in one of his state of the union speeches , if I am not mistaken his first .

Nkorea ,Iran Russia ? , world war 3

Also what is the deal with Russia not wanting the US to build a defense shield in Europe ?

The warmongers have long been trying to make the case that Iran is directly behind the smuggling of arms to Iraqi militias

If by “warmongers” you mean the US military, then you’d be right! For those of us who follow such things, there is a wealth of evidence and pretty sound agreement all around that Iran is sending weapons into Iraq. It’s quite surprising to find that some still believe this might still be in doubt. In fact, it would be quite surprising if Iran were not sending weapons. Even “warmongers” like Pat Lang agree.

First of all, Cernig is flat wrong on his assessment of the U-2.

Secondly, the U2 has been flying in Iraq since 1991. The idea that the US would send an aircraft into Iran that can be shot down with cutting-edge 1960’s air defense technology is ludicrous, and U2’s are certainly not needed for target development.

And I’m not sure what the poster here is talking about Congressional approval. Since when do British soldiers need permission from our Congress to do anything – even if this silly story had even a remote amount of credibility or evidence to back it up.

After the spin element in the runup to invading Iraq, even the bare an unvarnished truth would be met with scepticism. And it should be, if we are to avoid making the same mistake twice.
But how to avoid the oppostie mistake, ignoring the truth because of excessive scepticim?

I, for one, would take the President more seriously, if he wasn’t so obvious and repetivice in his advocacy. Urgency can be better conveyed by the rare and carefully chosen word than by a steady drumbeat of seductive messaging.

Once again, the scarcity of in-depth news resporting
is creating a gullible audience among the citizenry.
We will be relying on instinct and gut reactions instead of hard information.

This post, at least,, provides some information.

That said, I am not sure this constitues war. It if either side wishes it to be the cause of war, sure.. But actual war as opposed to ‘cold war’ scenarios? Not quite yet IMHO.