Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: you're wrong on Iran

Hi Bart - first time writer. 
The problem with what you state is that it sounds parallel to the Bush Doctrine.

If you think it sounded like Bush, you read something that I didn't write.
I'll plead quilty to my words, not your interpretation of them.

This isn't about invading a helpless country so my oil buddies can steal their oil.
Why do people think insulting me makes the Middle East any safer?

Pre-emptive war and/or invasion based on WMDs. 

Who said anything about an invasion?
You say you disagree with me, but you apparently have no idea what my position is.

You're right that we can't wish it away - close our eyes and hope for the best. 
But why does it have to be either/or?  Total aggression or total indifference? 

A naval blockade is not "total agression."
Hell, it's not even violent unless some suicidal nutjob overreacts.
It's containment, something Clinton did really well.

Israel only exists because of protection money and actual protection by the United States. 

So that's what this is about?
You've been driven crazy by that dreaded Middle East disease.
I wish I could argue this point with someone untainted by religious insanity. 
They are sitting there with completely illegal nukes, thumbing their nose at the U.N. and the world. 
Okay.  That's reality right now. 
Obviously, nobody's going to do anything about that, because nobody has.

How is that related to the topic we're talking about? 
It's pretty easy to spot those who don't see a problem 
with a nuked-up Iran - because they have no use for Israel.

Even if you hate Israel with all you've got (not saying you do) can't you 
understand the concept behind 20-40M dead Iranians if Israel gets hit?

There's a phrase associated with Israel: "Never again."
Do you think they're kidding?
But what about all those student protestors and political strife in Iran right now?  That's reality, too. 

Are we changing the subject again?
It seems one way to argue with me is to propose a new subject.
Is that because I'm unshakable on the currect subject?

Isn't there another way to somehow support a movement that is animated by the desire for freedom, 
rather than take aggressive actions that will harm the people in our attempt to isolate and starve the 
"government" (oligarch) in Iran? 

I'm not aware of one because I'm busy trying to stop a nuclear war.
Odd that I don't have any support on this.

We tried that (sanctions) first in Iraq, and that didn't work, and then 
we tried the Bush Doctrine (which we knew was wrong) and that didn't work either. 
Why make the same mistakes twice (not counting Vietnam)?

Why keep calling me Bush?
Do you get that nobody is being invaded here?

I am somewhat disappointed by Obama, too, right now, but it's too early to judge. 
However, I hope and want to believe in one of his highest stated goals - nuclear disarmament. 

ha ha
Yet you're OK with Iran nuke-threatening Israel?

If he can find a way to achieve that goal, than he will be a truly great world leader. 
Let the Republican pricks go down in history as greedy scumbags feeding on 
the carrion of the middle class as they deny them healthcare and other "socialist" rights.

But, you're right, for that Obama will still have to come to work.

I sure wish I could get somebody to address the real questions in this case.

It seems to me you have to have one of the following positions.

1 Iran is a threat and we must invade them today. The Bush Doctrine)
2 Iran will soon be a threat. Shut off oil sales until they comply. (Bart's position)
        Notice there's a difference between position1 and position 2
3 Iran would not use a nuke on Israel if they had one.
4 Iran has no chance of buying/building nukes in the near future

If you know of a fifth option (diplomacy has already failed) please share it.

How can I "debate" people who haven't decided what they support?

Please, if anybody else writes with an opinion, please begin with the number of the option you support.

...and note there's a difference between 1 and 2 so why call me Bush?

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .