Musings of a Drunken Monk: Individual Entry Archive

See. I don't understand what the problem is. Unlike Iraq, Iran does have a record of supporting terrorism, and the risk of it attaining nuclear weapons is real.

Of course, I supported the Iraq war as well. So, my hardline bias is well understood.

(Granted, we likely won't actually engage in a full out invasion of Iran. We have no troops.)

I see your point regarding a hardline stance for Iran vs. Iraq. Iran is (arguably, as is everything) more dangerous than Iraq. The problem I have with this new "stance" is that it is yet another "smoke and mirrors" technique to draw the public's attention away from the Bush administration's terrible domestic failings. Not only that, but who are we to go around "spreading freedom" on people who might not necessarily want our rule? It basically amounts to colonization in my opinion. We go out, we conquer a country, we "civilize" them to our way of thinking (so-called democracy). It sounds a lot like the European colonists back in the day.

well, i wouldn't say it's smoke and mirrors, at least not now, given that his state of the union speech was 3/4 domestic policy.

and there are similiarities to colonialization, to be sure, but those are only skin deep in many ways. Especially in Iran where there is a recent history seeking democratic change in the form of the current (impotent) president.

Of course, we're not even close to that point. Right now the debate is clamping down on an irresponsible regime's quest for nuclear weapons. And using American power (something not inherently evil) to stop that ought to be on the table.

Well, we will see just how much he adheres to his "domestic policy." He certainly didn't adhere to just about any policy promises from last election. Bush has this awfully strong tendency to spew bullshit ... along with terribly botched English.