[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

dan, great post.

This has evolved into a good thread. A few gutterballs here and there but on balance a really good discussion, lots of knowledgeable points to chew over and digest.

[gandalf]

dan, great post.

This has evolved into a good thread. A few gutterballs here and there but on balance a really good discussion, lots of knowledgeable points to chew over and digest.

[gandalf]

dan, great post.

This has evolved into a good thread. A few gutterballs here and there but on balance a really good discussion, lots of knowledgeable points to chew over and digest.

[gandalf]

dan, great post.

This has evolved into a good thread. A few gutterballs here and there but on balance a really good discussion, lots of knowledgeable points to chew over and digest.

[gandalf]

dan, great post.

This has evolved into a good thread. A few gutterballs here and there but on balance a really good discussion, lots of knowledgeable points to chew over and digest.

[gandalf]

I’m long-winded? dan, that’s the longest post of the thread. I ran out of scrollbar.

But I didn’t fall asleep because I’m not in my seventies.

You are correct though, Bolton is not respected.

Now that you’re at the table:

– Which is of greater significance, nation-building in Iraq or security in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

– What should our policy be towards Saudi Arabia? Syria?

– What should our policy be towards Israel and Palestine?

– What is your position on such programs as Guantanamo, torture, rendition, domestic surveillance, etc.?

– How do your answers square with the choices we have in the upcoming election?

Look forward to your responses. I’m sure they will further the debate.

[gandalf]

I’m long-winded? dan, that’s the longest post of the thread. I ran out of scrollbar.

But I didn’t fall asleep because I’m not in my seventies.

You are correct though, Bolton is not respected.

Now that you’re at the table:

– Which is of greater significance, nation-building in Iraq or security in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

– What should our policy be towards Saudi Arabia? Syria?

– What should our policy be towards Israel and Palestine?

– What is your position on such programs as Guantanamo, torture, rendition, domestic surveillance, etc.?

– How do your answers square with the choices we have in the upcoming election?

Look forward to your responses. I’m sure they will further the debate.

[gandalf]

I’m long-winded? dan, that’s the longest post of the thread. I ran out of scrollbar.

But I didn’t fall asleep because I’m not in my seventies.

You are correct though, Bolton is not respected.

Now that you’re at the table:

– Which is of greater significance, nation-building in Iraq or security in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

– What should our policy be towards Saudi Arabia? Syria?

– What should our policy be towards Israel and Palestine?

– What is your position on such programs as Guantanamo, torture, rendition, domestic surveillance, etc.?

– How do your answers square with the choices we have in the upcoming election?

Look forward to your responses. I’m sure they will further the debate.

[gandalf]

I’m long-winded? dan, that’s the longest post of the thread. I ran out of scrollbar.

But I didn’t fall asleep because I’m not in my seventies.

You are correct though, Bolton is not respected.

Now that you’re at the table:

– Which is of greater significance, nation-building in Iraq or security in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

– What should our policy be towards Saudi Arabia? Syria?

– What should our policy be towards Israel and Palestine?

– What is your position on such programs as Guantanamo, torture, rendition, domestic surveillance, etc.?

– How do your answers square with the choices we have in the upcoming election?

Look forward to your responses. I’m sure they will further the debate.

[gandalf]

I’m long-winded? dan, that’s the longest post of the thread. I ran out of scrollbar.

But I didn’t fall asleep because I’m not in my seventies.

You are correct though, Bolton is not respected.

Now that you’re at the table:

– Which is of greater significance, nation-building in Iraq or security in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

– What should our policy be towards Saudi Arabia? Syria?

– What should our policy be towards Israel and Palestine?

– What is your position on such programs as Guantanamo, torture, rendition, domestic surveillance, etc.?

– How do your answers square with the choices we have in the upcoming election?

Look forward to your responses. I’m sure they will further the debate.

[Author]

Posts