...what is? A naval blockade?

And if we go the multilateral route, how do we keep the French from passing them our intel?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1426601.ece

So are you advocating a naval blockade?

Andrew

How do we keep it from happening now?

"So are you advocating a naval blockade?"

I bring it up because it has been discussed as an alternative to an outright attack.

While I'm no geography whiz, apparently with our presence in Iraq, it makes it much easier to squeeze the Iranians with a blockade and have them reconsider their nuclear ambitions.

I see no easy option with Iran if they decide to go nuclear. Like our decision to base missiles in Europe during the Cold War, our French pals will likely go squishy on us and make us the bad guy no matter what we do.

And given their proximity to Iran, they're more likely to get hit than even we are.

Herb

What do you liberals think we should do? Serious question.

I think Bush should come up with a plan that I agree with. So far, I don't have a problem with what he is doing nor with what he is telling us. I may, in the future, have a problem with it - but for now, I'm cool.

I'm still waiting for Herb to tell us what he thinks we should do. And you too, Deane - before asking others what we ought to do, what do YOU think we should do? Then others can comment on your responses and maybe offer their own.

Andrew

Plus, you know, I'm busy right now. My Foreign Policy shift is on Mondays and Wednesdays. That's when The President Of The United States implements my ideas that I present on a Radio Message board.

I think BUSH is responsible to come up with a plan that I like. Not the other way around. Or at least come up with a plan that the 30% who like him disagrees with.

"I'm still waiting for Herb to tell us what he thinks we should do."

It hinges on whether we trust any of our European 'friends' or not.

Whatever we do would be easier with their assistance, but on the other hand, their leaking intel may cause us problems.

No matter what Mr. Bush does, the left is likely to dislike it. Personally, if a blockade isn't used, then take out the nukes ourselves. A land war would require more public support.

Herb

I liked what I saw from Bush for the first year after 9/11 - Dept of Homeland Security, taking out the Taliban, etc. Then he got all astronaut-lady crazy infatuated with taking out Saddam, didn't ask for any sacrifice from this country for the War on Terra (except the blood of our children), then it was time to privatize Social Security to the benefit of no one except stockbrokers.

You make it sound like liberals have some kind of blind dislike for Bush. Well, he has a track record now, and any distrust people have for him has been earned. What is more unsettling to me is the blind loyalty of those 25% that will support him no matter what. What *are* they thinking?

OK, Herb, if your answer to "What should we do about Iran?" is "It depends what happens," then I won't bother to answer, either. What exactly was the point of this thread, then?

Or are you simply saying we should attack immediately? And what does "attack" mean?

Andrew

I never said I had one answer. I was asking a question.

Gee, get torked off because I didn't give you something to pile on about?

Who ****** in your fruit loops this morning? Sound familiar?

Herb

"No matter what Mr. Bush does, the left is likely to dislike it."

So is the right.

No, it's disingenuous of you, Herb, to pose a question to everyone else and then refuse to answer it yourself.

Andrew

I say we launch Hillary at them! She'd nag the poor bastard's to death until they quit!

I already gave my "Afterschool Special" solution in another thread.

We must remember that China, Russia, India and Pakistan all have nukes and live far closer to Iran than we do. It is time to either invite Iran into the, pardon the pun, "nuclear family" or use international pressure to stop the program.

In this world, things are so damn skewed that politics and banking are practically the same. Well, there are two ways to get quick service at a bank. You either have a really big gun or you have a pant load of money. Since Iran is building the former and has little of the latter, I think this is their way of getting attention. Now that they have it, the world needs to start up a conversation with them. It doesn't need to be "Dog Day Afternoon" -- at least not yet.

Herb- You might want to read this article about how Iranians and American Christians are already in dialogue about the tensions between our two countries. The dialogue is going on right now in Tehran. It gives me some hope.

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/jeff-carr-welcome-to-iran.ht ml

The Dems are planning to limit the power of the President by amending, revoking the authorization of military force, granted for Iraq.

Until such time as we have a solid justification for attacking Iran, this is an extremely good move.

This will also limit the Presidents options to those currently necessary to fighting the actual war on terror, and to meet expectations set by us getting involved there in the first place.

Underneath that, provisions will also be included that make sure we meet our training and equipment needs.

From there, we do our homework and persue all avaliable options, diplomatic or otherwise. And if we must engage with our military again, we will be confident that the sacrifice is actually justified this time.

The problem with limiting the President's ability to attack Iran is that, truly, Iran is a dangerous country. A trustworthy American president should have the authority to get tough with the Iranians to defend this nation. Unfortunately, few would trust President Bush with this authority again after the way he abused it in Iraq. As a result, Congress is rightly reluctant to give Bush himself such authority now.

So any legislation limiting Bush's ability to take the US to war against Iran should probably be set to expire on January 20, 2009. Otherwise, it really weakens the presidency. Bush has really put the country into a weaker position, endangering us all.

Andrew

If it takes getting tough, then shouldn't that be justifed fairly easily?

If not, then is it that big of a deal really?

No, it's hard to trust Bush to get tough with anyone anymore. Like the boy who cried, "Wolf!" many Americans will be skeptical if Bush needs to try to justify military action against Iran now. It's Bush's own fault of course but it could be dangerous for the country I fear.

Andrew

"...it's disingenuous of you, Herb, to pose a question to everyone else and then refuse to answer it yourself."

Wait a minute. I wasn't refusing anything. In fact, I weighed in when asked.

Maybe you're dialed in to one view, but I don't always have a firm opinion on everything. I WAS ASKING BECAUSE I WAS SEEKING INPUT.

If you're only after verbal sparring, that's your right. And it's my right to pass.

Herb

Since they will not be firing a nuke into our heartland tomorrow, and if ever, certainly not until after the election, is it the general consensus that we should be asking these questions of potential Presidents starting, like say, last month?

As a country, this dog has plenty of growl in it before it has to bite, and if we are smart, we might have a pack before it comes to a fight.

Thanks for the link, Chris. An interesting article that honestly didn't surprise me with this:

"...the Iranian people have no problem with the American people, only our government. This has seemed to be a theme that we have heard from everyone here so far, and I suspect it will continue. They clearly are able to distinguish between the aspirations of the citizens of a nation, and the government of a nation. I think part of the reason they are able to do this is because this is what they do themselves. There is a great deal of openness and critique about the Iranian government officials, including the current president. I did not expect much dissent, but there really is quite a bit."

From what I have been reading many in Europe want to open up talks with Iran even while they are still in production, however the US won't talk unless Iran stops it's production now.

We should be working this hard from a diplomatic perspective because we do have some support from others in the international community who want to open talks too.

OK - here is my solution - but I demand overtime pay for this idea;

We are trying to put the squeeze on Iran. Right now, it's The United States taking the lead. That is OK by me for now. But only for now. I think we should put equal amount ( but obviously a different kind ) on neighboring countries to get on board with this with the intention of handing it off to them FULLY in the VERY near future. Say what you will about the squandered political capital that the US brings to the table, we have enough to lay a foundation of this kind. But every single European country had better be ready to fully, and I mean fully, take this over very soon. I do NOT mean leading them to the front door of war and then walking away. I think we are as close to being being done with Iran as I want to be. We've got a full plate right now. I am not interested in spearheading every effort to keep peace in every country right now. I was. I'm not now. If Iran get's a nuke, then so be it. If the rest of Europe/Middle East doesn't contribute to the cause during this stage, then they can pay for it - on every level they can pay for it. We CANNOT save the entire Earth by ourselves.

>>>"And you too, Deane - before asking others what we ought to do, what do YOU think we should do?"


I don't. The difference between the liberals and me is that I know I don't have enough information to understand all of the ramifications of each possible move. I prefer to leave it to those who do have the information and resources.

Frankly, it doesn't make any difference what Bush does with Iran. What ever it is, the Democrats will pounce on it and tear it apart. They can't afford to have the U.S. have any success. If we were successful, how would they get back in full power. That's more important to them than the future of the U.S. Screw the U.S. up on the world stage, but win the election. It's downright pitiful.

Touche', Deane.

No matter what Mr. Bush does, from the left side of the aisle it appears to be mainly about demonizing the guy.

What I'm seeing on this thread is a lot of criticizing and few solid answers in response to what you think would be a good manoeuvre against Iran. I've freely admitted I don't have many suggestions aside from those I've mentioned, but I'm not the one piling on, either.

If you don't know what you want, then how in heaven's name can you criticize the President for what he's done to help fight terror?

Herb

Good Lord people-"get a grip" (a Herb favorite).

The bottom line for me is there is no easy answer. I believe the Iranian government is trying to flex some sort of military muscle while we are occupied in Iraq. Even though they have secretly been trying to do this for sometime the timetable seems to be directly aimed at the US from a political posturing sort of way.

We need our allies, but we have pissed many of them off and I believe Bush is directly responsible. It’s an issue of trust and for me Bush has broken that with our allies and many here at home.

Putting all the blame on a Democratic House and Senate and stating they are doing this for political gain seems a bit irresponsible since the man in charge was ultimately responsible and has had no real accounting for his actions. That is what has really happened and yet all I hear is "those damn liberals" from the right. They want to get back at Bush. No- they want Bush to be more responsible in his actions. The American people voted for the same thing, but the bellyaching continues.

Chris, I certainly won't disagree with you that Bush has made some major mistakes, perhaps even the big one. But, what I don't understand is how it helps the U.S. to advance to have anything he does attacked over and over again in the media.

There is little question these days but what this action by the Democrats has emboldened the enemy. And it gets worse as time moves along.

If the Democrats gave two hoots about the good of the U.S. as opposed to grandstanding on TV ahead of the next election, these things would be dealt with privately and quietly behind closed doors and the U.S. would move ahead on a much better course.

I just don't happen to think these extremely serious issues are solved on Meet The Press.

"I just don't happen to think these extremely serious issues are solved on Meet The Press."

So Deane, apparently all Democrats should refuse invitations to go on Meet The Press or any other show? Is it okay for Republicans? Is intelligent discussion anti-American? How do you know they aren't dealing with it quietly behind closed doors also?

Deane- I think the reason Bush is getting attacked over and over again is now there seems to be a change in the political wind. I think many are finally getting their frustrations out on Bush and as ugly as it is, its all going public. This is what this President has created in our society today. Is it right? Probably not. Is it justified? More probably than not. Is it helping...no.

But until Bush shows he has the ability to make the right informed decision the bashing will continue. It's the old playground rules of "he hit me first"...there are consequences to actions and evidently many are choosing to voice them against Bush.

Guys, it's called the 2008 election, campaigning for which as begun ridiculously early. Nothing else.

Agreed. And it's gonna get more ugly before it's over.

Deane writes:
Chris, I certainly won't disagree with you that Bush has made some major mistakes, perhaps even the big one. But, what I don't understand is how it helps the U.S. to advance to have anything he does attacked over and over again in the media.


Unfortunately, Deane, that's politics in the US. Certainly the Republicans care a lot more about their political fortunes than about "the good of the nation." Just look at how the Bush Administration triangulated the Democrats between the 2002 mid-term elections and post-9/11 patriotism to force the Iraq war vote when they did. And look what that has done to the nation.

There is little question these days but what this action by the Democrats has emboldened the enemy. And it gets worse as time moves along.

What enemy? You mean al Qaeda? They were emboldened in the first place when Bush gave them a place to wage Jihad against the United States, just as they were when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The only outcome that wouldn't embolden al Qaeda at this point is a US-style Democracy with no civil war, where al Qaeda is not welcome. That outcome is pretty much impossible by now. Any other outcome will be a triumph for al Qaeda. I don't see how you can blame the Democrats for that.

The other "enemies" in Iraq besides al Qaeda are just Iraqis who want us to leave their country and want to get the upper hand against their "enemy" inside the country (Sunni or Shiite). I don't see them as "enemies" of the US myself.

If the Democrats gave two hoots about the good of the U.S. as opposed to grandstanding on TV ahead of the next election, these things would be dealt with privately and quietly behind closed doors and the U.S. would move ahead on a much better course.

Too bad the Republicans have been just as vocal in the media, what with Cheney and Bush repeatedly questioning the Democrats' patriotism. But I guess the Demcrats are just supposed to shut up and take it while the Republicans continue with whatever failed policy they can dream up this week, huh? To the rest of us, it's the DUTY of the Democrats to stand up against these guys who have created such a disaster for America.

Andrew

Andrew, you've consumed so much Kool-Aid in recent years your ankles are going to start swelling.

"...it's the DUTY of the Democrats to stand up against these guys who have created such a disaster for America..."

It's the DUTY of democrats to stand up to those who've prevented another attack on American soil? Britain couldn't stop recent attacks. Spain couldn't stop recent attacks. Australia couldn't stop recent attacks. But Mr. Bush has, so you're going to snipe at the Bush administration that has kept us safe? C'mon. You're smarter than that.

Herb

Herb, we've been down this "keeping us safe" road before. If that is the key metric that you use to rate the success of Bush's policy in Iraq, it is a myopic one.

First, think about the first two al Quaeda attacks. The first in 1993, the second in 2001. Using your logic, one could argue that Mr. Clinton prevented another al Quaeda attack during his adminstration, too. But, then they attack again soon after Bush steps in - oops, I guess Clinton didn't stop the terrorists after all. My point is that with the long timelines these terrorists use, how do you know the next attack has been stopped or not? Based on al Quaeda's attack pattern so far, the next one should be sometime in 2009. Is Bush stopping that attack, or has he stopped it already? I don't know. I doubt he knows either. I do know that Bin Laden is still at large, and al Quaeda is growing due to the inattention that we've given Afghanistan since Iraq, and that terrorists are getting daily training in the theatre of war that we created in Iraq. It seems very premature to conclude that Bush has prevented anything at this point. I think we may all just be benefitting from the lull between attacks. (I do hope you are right, though).

Second, if the death of Americans is one of al Quaeda's goals, they are succeeding quite well. I'm not sure why you draw such a distinction between American lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan and those lost here. Some of the dead in Iraq/Afghanistan have been American civilians simply doing their jobs. Yes, they knew that they were entering a dangerous place, but as Mr. Cheney like to remind us, the terrorists make anywhere in America potentially very dangerous also. Which brings me back to: if the Bush administration has been as successful at stopping terrorism on our soil as they would like you to believe, why the continued fear-mongering from them? Mixed messages, methinks.

If we're so safe from an attack, why don't I FEEL safe from an attack?

Deane writes:
Andrew, you've consumed so much Kool-Aid in recent years your ankles are going to start swelling.

A classic cop-out, Deane, for someone out of ideas and unable to defend his point. Disappointing from you.

Andrew

Herb writes:
It's the DUTY of democrats to stand up to those who've prevented another attack on American soil?

Herb, did you ever criticize President Bill Clinton while he successfully defended America against a foreign attack on US soil after the 1993 WTC attacks? Because there were none on his watch. How about some congratulations about the most excellent job Clinton did defending the homeland during that time?

And shouldn't we also be congratulating President George W. Bush for the excellent job he did defending the homeland from foreign attack from January 20, 2001 through September 10, 2001? Not a single attack on the homeland. That means everything he did and Clinton did was excellent, so any criticism of their performance would be un-American. Would you agree?

Andrew

"...how do you know the next attack has been stopped or not?"

I know this: If we had a single attack since 9/11, no matter what size, the democrats would crow about how poorly Mr. Bush has protected us.

Since they can't do that, they whine about the things they don't like. They can hand wring all they want, for this president will not be deterred. He and Mr. Cheney realize that regardless of democrat partisan sniping, nothing surpasses the critical importance of homeland defense.

Herb

So you feel safe. OK.

Herb writes:
Since they can't do that, they whine about the things they don't like. They can hand wring all they want, for this president will not be deterred. He and Mr. Cheney realize that regardless of democrat partisan sniping, nothing surpasses the critical importance of homeland defense.

So why did the bipartisan 9/11 commmission recently give the Bush Administration a failing grade for their efforts to improve homeland security? Why did it take a Democratic victory in 2006 to get the 9/11 commision's recommendations to be considered seriously?

Andrew

>>>"A classic cop-out, Deane, for someone out of ideas and unable to defend his point."


I don't think I ever said I had any ideas on what to do with Iran. If you're going to criticize what Bush does, then you should have an alternative. That's what I think the Democrats should do. Offer an alternative. Cutting and running doesn't count.

"So why did the bipartisan 9/11 commmission recently give the Bush Administration a failing grade for their efforts to improve homeland security?"

I'll take the FACT of no bombings since 9/11 over the OPINION of pencil-pushers. Doesn't that just make sense?

Herb

Do you know what Joe Biden's plan is? Well, he HAS one. A very specific one. But the Democrats don't have an alternative right? I'm guessing you would prefer Biden not have a plan, because you love hearing yourself say the Democrats have no plan.

It's almost pointless at this moment for the Democrats to offer anything, though, because Bush has already made clear he cares absolutely not at all what the Democrats think about his foreign policy. Actually, he doesn't care what moderate Republicans like James Baker think, either. He's going to do it HIS way, period, America and the troops be damned.

Democrats, seeing this, can only say, "If our choice is between Bush's failed policies, which clearly aren't working, or getting out, then we should get out." There should be a third way where we chuck Bush's failed policies and try something that works to bring peace and stability to Iraq, but Bush isn't about to budge from his stubornness. So, we should get out.

Biden's plan would repartition the country and redeploy the troops out of the Sunni and Shia areas. But, you guys define anything that deviates from Bush's failed policies as "cutting and running" I guess.

Andrew

>>>"Biden's plan would repartition the country and redeploy the troops out of the Sunni and Shia areas. But, you guys define anything that deviates from Bush's failed policies as "cutting and running" I guess."


I don't have the knowledge or experience to know if dividing the country would make sense or not. I'm pretty sure pulling our troops out of the Sunni and Shia areas would result in some sort of a slaughter of one or the other, or perhaps some of both.

Deane-I still believe diplomacy needs to be used with Iran. I'll be the first to admit it maybe too late but our troops are spread too thin as it is and any military action with Iran only fuels the terrorists.

I know the talk is not to send in ground troops if military action is taken against Iran, but we are asking for more trouble than we can handle.

Diplomacy takes time, lots of time. It won't happen overnight. I would hope that any talks, off and on with Iran, along with some critical allies might take a couple of years, just enough time to get Bush out of office and maybe an administration that will only use force as the absolute last resort.

someone said: "Like the boy who cried, "Wolf!" many Americans will be skeptical if Bush needs to try to justify military action against Iran now. It's Bush's own fault of course but it could be dangerous for the country I fear."

exactly. Because of this I say we do NOTHING until the next admin comes in, whether a demo or GOP, and deal with it then from a position of strength.

Partitioning the country might be a good idea, but like Deane says, it could lead to a bloodbath.
I wish those guys over in Iraq would pull a Rodney King and all just 'get along.' Muslims killing Muslims...it makes the warring that occured in Northern Ireland look almost tame.

Herb

In case you missed it, Herb, it's already a bloodbath in Iraq. Every day. We've re-opened a century's old pandora's box of violence that had been held shut for decades by the foot of a brutal dictator. Just adding more "security" in Baghdad isn't going to quell the hatred between the Shia and the Sunnis.

No solution at this point will be pretty. Even partitioning is not a particularly good soltuion - but it could be the best of the worst scenarios. In the Balkans we effectively enforced partioning after the end of Yugoslavia but not without years of bloodshed and violence. Of course, Bush is set in his failed policies and won't consider anything that deviates from them - except new language. The Democats like Biden who DO HAVE a detailed plan are being ignored. So are respected statesmen like James Baker.

Maybe on January 21, 2009, we'll finally see some sort of change. Let's hope. In the meantime, I only hope we'll see as little violence as possible, but I fear we're going to lose a lot more brave men and women (killed and injured) not to mention the Iraqis who will suffer or be slaughtered. So sad.

Andrew

"We've re-opened a century's old pandora's box of violence that had been held shut for decades by the foot of a brutal dictator."

This is why a trip through the history books ought to be taken before decapitating the dictator of the next 3rd world country. Me thinks George "H" W Bush did his homework.