Re: Nukeing Iran. Consequences? ID/YEC up in US and down in EU ?


AC wrote:
On 17 Mar 2006 08:16:32 -0800,
Matt <neilmatthew9@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>

I can easily see a lame duck Bush trying to rationalize a
"bunker-buster" nuke on said enrichment facility as part of his
(recently restated) doctrine of pre-emptive defense.

<snip>

The thing about this, is that Bush is not an entity unto himself; he is
beholden to the Republican party. Republicans would never allow one of
their own to saddle the party with starting such a huge conflict,
possibly World War III. While he personally has nothing to loose,
except for his reputation in the history books, his party is powerful
enough to keep it from happening. Republicans want to stay in power,
and this would completely strip them of it.

There's not a lot that I can see the GOP doing to stop the president. The
POTUS runs the military, and while in theory he's supposed to go hat-in-hand
to Congress for military ventures, reality seems a good deal different than
what the Founding Fathers intended.


Yes. As far as Bush is concerned, he has the legal right and the moral
right; he is waging a "War", after all. One which only he can declare
an end to, apparently. What does he have to lose at this point? He
spent his first 20 years of adulthood in denial, and never had to pay
the consequences of his behavior.

But I really do not think Bush will do this. This is bigger than Iran, the
Middle East or the Muslim world entire. Look at Iran's location on the map.
It's sitting on the doorsteps of a number of nuclear powers, and two of them
(Russia and China) are major global players. Something like this could lead
to a new arms race. Not even his worst Neocon advisors, I think, would
recommend this as a course of action.

Maybe not. But they may feel committed to this path. Dubya will deny
more and more fiercely as it becomes obvious that he will leave office
the most disliked and most disastrous president in a hundred years,
perhaps in 230.

LBJ was smarter and *he felt committed to wage war in Vietnam. He
thought it was politically necessary.

I can see Bush thinking something like "If I pull this off, I'll go
down in history as the strongest, most macho president ever". I don't
expect him to do this, but it would not astonish me.



Chris

Matt



--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx

Kermit,
who really does have other plans for his old age.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Okay, folks, here it is -- the Republican campaign theme
    ... party of wimps. ... the Democratic Party began in the Cold War era, ... obligation to save the world from it," the president continued. ... there began a slow shift of philosophy in the Democrat Party." ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: {OT:} We have a new President
    ... After the election is over we, as Americans, need to ... support the President of the United States from whatever party he came. ... to George Bush when a whole political party fought most everything he did. ... Iraq was not one more front in our ongoing war with the radical Islamic ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Palin reminds me of Mrs Thacher.
    ... Which party did the president who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki belong to? ... Which party got did the president who America into the Vietnam War? ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Palin reminds me of Mrs Thacher.
    ... Which party did the president who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki belong to? ... Which party got did the president who America into the Vietnam War? ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Is New Orleans finished ?
    ... again I do strongly blame him and his party for ... >You don't have politicians in Massachusetts? ... wouldn't be much different no matter who was President. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Loading