posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:08 PM
Originally posted by xmotex
The rush is because Bush leaves office in 2008.
The Republicans are in danger of losing Congress in 2006.
Thus, a deadline: if they can't get their war on soon, they might lose their shot to finish "redrawing the map of the Middle East".
Republicans may lose the Executive Branch- and what may I ask will change? White House's stance on abortion, or gun control, or stem cell research,
or some other domestic policy issue? When it comes to foreign policy in the US, seems to me that nothing has changed since the end of WWII. US
foreign policy is too important to solelly be in control of whoever is in the White House. US foreign policy is an entity by itself, not changing
from president to president, but slowly evolving. Would Kennedy have stopped the was in Vietnam? Why did Regan pull out of the Middle East
(Lebannon)- he is a Republican after all. Why did Clinton find it so vital for US to interfere in Serbia? The President seems to have little actual
control over foreign policy- although it may seem like he does.
Do you think US would not have found 9/11 reason enough to interfere in Middle East for reasons other than fighting terrorists, if a Gore was
President? Any President will do what is in his power, to further the cause of his nation. Any opportunity to intervene when possible gains for the
nation or its interests exist (and so do the pretenses), will be pursued.
Iran will be in the cross hairs no matter what. A Democratic President might be less inclined to pursue military action when gains/success of such
action are not guaranteed to be positive. But if any President has complete certainty that such action will yield success he will most certainly
pursue it. This is true not only for the US. Right now, an attack on Iran probably has more negative than positive side effects- thus it is being
held off untill there are better odds.
And Iran will get a nuke one way or another, just like North Korea got theirs. There is no way of stopping this. You can bomb their facilities.
They will build new ones. You can't invade them- the country is three times the size of iraq in both area and population. UN has about as much
authority as a highschool teacher- not much in the area where it counts. Its better to just agree on Iran's terms, and at least get to monitor their
nuclear program, than be shut out of it all together. Look how U.S. **** up with North Korea. The reason- it alienated NK, only pushing it more to
create a weapon capable of giving it some authority and presence on the world stage. Iran, just like China is out of even U.S.'s scope. There are
some areas where you just have to negotiate without holding all of the cards.