Endless War-Iran Next?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Endless War-Iran Next?
18
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 9:01pm
The ominous backlash of an attack against Iran

Posted Sep 13, 2004 08:48 AM PST

Category: IRAN

When U.S. President George W. Bush first identified the two Middle East members of his "axis of evil," Iran clearly ranked as a far more formidable adversary than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But Bush went after the easier target instead. "Did we invade the wrong country?" now asks leading American commentator Charles Krauthammer, speaking for many neoconservative hawks as the U.S. refocuses on Iran.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=8301

So far this seems to be the only Republican plan for dealing with our domestic unemployment. However, if you have a son or daughter about 20 years old or so you might feel differently.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 9:57pm


Our domestic unemployment is quite low, actually, and shrinking monthly, so I think the plan that's in place right now is working. But as far as Iran goes, Bush is really damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, isn't he? The same folks who are at the moment criticizing him for allowing Iran and North Korea to get this far in their nuclear ambitions will be all over him if he decides to actually do anything to stop it. Just out of curiosity, what's Kerry's solution? Oh, now I remember-get France and Gemrany to like us again, and then enlist their massive military forces and generous financial support in helping us solve the problem. Right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 9:58pm
Has anyone read Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace by Gore Vidal ?

And has anyone read 1984 lately?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:01pm
<>

The unemployment rate for August 2004 was 5.4%, which was the same as the 1996 average, when Clinton was re-elected. And for those with fuzzy memories, back then the media and all the Democrats were talking about how great the economy was and how low unemployment was. Hmmmm.......

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:11pm
"Our domestic unemployment is quite low, actually, and shrinking monthly, so I think the plan that's in place right now is working."

The unemployment rate is shrinking because so many people have given up looking for a job. The country needs 130,000 to 150,000 new jobs a month just to stay even with the new entrants to the job market. Any month that doesn't add at least that many jobs is a month of net job loss. Something like 8 million people are jobless, I wouldn't classify that as "quite low".

"Just out of curiosity, what's Kerry's solution? Oh, now I remember-get France and Gemrany to like us again, and then enlist their massive military forces and generous financial support in helping us solve the problem. Right."

Can you provide a link to where Kerry proposed this in dealing with Iran? Thanks.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:22pm
"The unemployment rate for August 2004 was 5.4%, which was the same as the 1996 average, when Clinton was re-elected. And for those with fuzzy memories, back then the media and all the Democrats were talking about how great the economy was and how low unemployment was. Hmmmm......."


Cute.

Clinton inherited an unemployment rate of 7% after the country came out of one of the 8 (out of 10) post World War II Republican recessions.

1992-7.5%

1993-6.9%

1994-6.1%

1995-5.6%

1996-5.4%

1997-4.9%

1998-4.5%

1999-4.2%

2000-4.0%

By 2001, Republicans were in power so of course it started to rise again.

Source:

http://nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm#annl


dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:36pm
Please allow me to rephrase your problem so it makes sense to you:

You wrote: <>

Try this: "The same folks who are at the moment criticizing Bush for SCRAPING DIPLOMACY ALLTOGETHER and allowing Iran and North Korea to get this far in their nuclear ambitions, will be all over him if he decides to STUBBORNLY RESORT TO MILITARTISTIC TACTICS."

Does that make more sense to you?

The more people and pundits wonder aloud what Kerry's position is on any given issue, the more I want to scream at my TV "his position is to not screw things up"! It's very true that there's not a whole lot of room for sweeping change in policy here, but that's because President Bush has backed us into such a corner there's not much you can do except perservere. The primary difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry's not a stauch idealogue being advised by stauncher idealogues. What will Kerry do differently? He wont' screw things up any more than they are already! It's gotten that bad that that's the best we can ask from any political alternative. Bush's failed policies have been such a "catastrophic success" in that the only way out of this mess is straight through it, no matter if we're led be more level headed leaders, or by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Pearle-Feith-and let's not forget...Rice. Bush's catastropic success has been to screw things up so much, that his political opponents have no viable alternative to digging out of the same hole. And then he calls them "flip floppers" for saying "look out for the hole!" in the first place.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 12:46am


No, actually last month many people re-entered the job market and the unemployment rate still declined.



You may not classify it as low, but historically, it is rather low.



No, since I was stating it as a tongue-in-cheek analysis of what his plan might be-I actually have no idea what he plans to do about Iran, North Korea, Iraq, or since you mentioned it previously, Saudi Arabia. Can you provide a link that states what John Kerry DOES plan to do about those issues? You might just help garner him some votes!


Edited 9/14/2004 12:47 am ET ET by liveanew

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 12:54am

Does that make more sense to you? >

No, because he has not scrapped diplomacy, he is NOT stubbornly resorting to militaristic tactics, he is trying to resolve the situation diplomatically and with the help of other countries (isn't that what you all WANTED him to do in Iraq?!?) but you guys don't seem to like that approach either. So which is it? Should he work on the problem or should he just go in and attack? You don't seem to like either idea, so what's Kerry's idea? Just curious...



Well, we disagree that he has screwed things up, but personally if I believed he had I might just want to hear SOME idea (and one that doesn't change weekly depending on who he happens to be speaking to) of what my candidate intended to do about it. But Kerry seems as content as you do to run on the "I'm not Bush, that's all you need to know" foreign policy platform, obviously though it doesn't seem to be working out too well for him at the moment.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 6:53am
What is Bush's plan for Iran & Korea? Recently a reporter asked him about Korea & he shrugged his shoulders for an answer. So do you think thats a good enuf answer from him?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 9:04am
I dont know what is so hard to see about the unemployment rate being the same exact figure it was when Bill Clinton ran for re-election. The numbers are also on an upswing as well, just as they were with Clinton.

Pages