My most serous advice to you is buy more bubble wrap.

Look, you are doing your job, which is to be afraid & wet yourself every time Cheney mentions Muslims and says "boo". You are good at being scared. Its a skill of sorts, I suppose.

It's a job that runs against the grain of the American character, so you can be sure the administration values your services as it goes about the business of transferring wealth from our country to the middle east...

Actually, the intel folks have always been credible, even if Bush did throw them under the bus in an attempt to make the war look like an intel failure instead of a Bush failure.

(Track announcer..) "And he's spinning out of control!"

We're really to take that you're not doing what you falsely accuse Bush of doing? Sorry, no sale.

LOL!!! So now, suddenly, the intel folks are credible? Pardon me a moment.

Actually, the intel folks have always been credible, even if Bush did throw them under the bus in an attempt to make the war look like an intel failure instead of a Bush failure.

The Bush admin cherry picked the intel and pressured the intel community to present reports that showed what they want see. Some of this pressure worked. One more way Bush has damaged our country.

Really Bit, at least try to present intelligent arguments...

Michael, I firmly disagree with your assessment of religion being a reason for our unwillingness to reconcile.

A mere 2 paragraphs below:

Others disagree but we have a more secular government than the Iranians. The religious influences in their government have pushed them into many outrageous positions and statements.

The attack was a defensive move on Saddam's part, a preemptive strike against an Iran which was about to attack HIM.

Do you actually believe that?

LOL!!! So now, suddenly, the intel folks are credible?

and your credible source for your assertion is?

A recent NIE says otherwise

LOL!!! So now, suddenly, the intel folks are credible? Pardon me a moment.

(Sound of door closing, followd by loud yet muffled laughter, and someone slapping the wall, hard)
(Door opens)

Ahem.

After years of bitching about NIE inaccuracy, the anti-war left is not well served by using it as a source to back it's arguments.

"Dantheman, the "axis of evil" speech, as it has come to be known, did not call for the destruction of Iran but it called for Iran to change, to move away from terrorism. Iran must also be serious about reconciliation, empty gestures are rightly rebuffed."

And within the year, we were making preparations to invade another member of the Axis of Evil, who hadn't threatened America. Somehow, actions speak far louder than words.

You mean the war that began when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980?

So, Saddam was the bad guy? Funny how that keeps shifting.

Actually, you should, as the sayng goes, crack a history book. The attack was a defensive move on Saddam's part, a preemptive strike against an Iran which was about to attack HIM.

I don't care if they worship Beelzebub as long as they quit killing people and take peace seriously.

Perhaps they feel the same way about us?

Demonstrably, no, that's not the case. this is about the expansion of Radiacal Islam.

With what proxies have we engaged Iran?

To in any way equate our efforts at securing our interests with the mullah's behavior is in keeping with the worst aspects of the moral equivalence so often practiced by the Left: Democracies have legitimate interests; authoritarian governments do not -- they only have understandable ones which we may or may no choose to accommodate, depending on our own interests.

I agree with you that we should concentrate our efforts at removing the mullahs from power. That is the key. The problem is that we are rapidly running out of time. A nuclear Iran is a nightmare soon to become reality. Can't you see this?

Those who argue Iran is rational need to explain how/why the Buenos Aires and Khobar Towers bombings are rational actions, in Iranian interests.

Those who suggest the mullahs desire a stable Iraq are correct -- but why can't they accept the reasons why the mullahs cannot countenance a stable democracy on their border. They prefer instability to democratic accountability, which their actions should make abundantly clear.

As for "interven(ing) only when things spin completely out of control," I would simply ask you which is preferable: To initiate a significant loss of life on the part of your enemy and spare many of your citizens much pain, or to wait until a massive death toll, on both sides but particularly for your enemy, is unavoidable? It baffles me why American liberals consistently choose the latter.

They are working toward nuclear weapons in order to dominate the region through force. Even with those facts

A recent NIE says otherwise. Show proof please. So far your "facts" sound like hollow slogans. Like the ones used to justify the Iraq war...

Michael doesn't think Iran is suicidal.

Take a good long look at Iran's history. They've been eminently rational as far as how they deal with the world. That's not to say I agree with everything they've done, but all of their plays have made a hell of a lot of sense given their position. That's not exactly what you expect from a suicidal nation.

Bob:

I would propose a similiar list of enemies.

1. North Korea
2. Viet Nam
3. Germany
4. Japan

Different world, Bob. The last half century has made a huge difference in geopolitics. In fact, since WW2 can you think of a single major world conflict that has been settled militarily? As in, one side utterly capitualtes and the other side is clearly victorious?

Steve:

Michael, I firmly disagree with your assessment of religion being a reason for our unwillingness to reconcile. We are too diverse a country and have too much experience with minority religions to think that way any more.

The one thing you said I agree with. It isn't the religion, never has been, witness Saudi Arabia. It's the money. And the power. Iran decided they didn't accept western exceptionalism (read: we get to steal everything they have if we damn well feel like it). Since the vast majority of our foreign policy is based on precisely that they have to go. So we forment some coups. We give their enemies chemical weapons and egg them on to attack. We call them Evil in major speeches to a world audience.

And gosh, then we sit back just *so* surprised when they end up not liking us. It's just weird!

Perhaps they feel the same way about us?

Dantheman, the "axis of evil" speech, as it has come to be known, did not call for the destruction of Iran but it called for Iran to change, to move away from terrorism. Iran must also be serious about reconciliation, empty gestures are rightly rebuffed.

It appears some still imagine the Iranians think the way we do in the west. The cultural differences are such we may never be able to see eye to eye or really understand their motivation. Others disagree but we have a more secular government than the Iranians. The religious influences in their government have pushed them into many outrageous positions and statements.

They have called for the destruction of the United States, explicitly. They have called for the destruction of Israel, explicitly. They are arming people who kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They are working toward nuclear weapons in order to dominate the region through force. Even with those facts we are somehow considered just as bad because we removed a tyrant and are trying to bring democracy to a people?

Michael, I firmly disagree with your assessment of religion being a reason for our unwillingness to reconcile. We are too diverse a country and have too much experience with minority religions to think that way any more. I don't care if they worship Beelzebub as long as they quit killing people and take peace seriously.

Classic. Thanks for defending that poor innocent lamb, Saddam Hussein.

Nice to know someone's speaking up for him on the right; I'm so busy keeping my Ward Churchill and Michael Moore shrines dust-free, I just don't have time to sing Saddam's praises like I used to.