Wayne, do a little research on Iran. Too much to ask? Oh right, Insanity Hannity does your research for you. Hmmmm - who was it that deposed the elected Iranian leader in 1953? Hmmmm - could they have a legitimate reason to be pissed off at the USA? Hmmmm - could it be way past time for you to get your head out of your ass? Hmmmm

Wayne, TN

First the facts:  
-- Al Qaeda is SUNNI
-- Iran is SHIA
-- most of Iraq is SHIA.  

Show of hands, how many here believe that Shia would give weapons to Sunni to kill Shia?  

Show of hands, how many believe that if Iran ever uses its enriched uranium, that WWIII will result? As stupid as Ahmadinejan seems to be, no one is that stupid, he'd would be all alone, with the whole world against him.  There has to be a voice of reason in Iran to talk him back from the brink.  

Show of hands, how many believe that if we invade/attack Iran that WWIII will result?  Who thinks that any one -- even England -- would stand beside us?  No one would be on our side, the whole world would be against us.  As stupid as Bush seems to be, some one in the Pentagon or Congress has to be smart enough to talk him down.  

Wayne, go away, refuting your convoluted right wing talking points is exhausting, but some one has to point out the holes in your rhetoric.  

Wayne, We have our own Doctor Strangelove. It all boils down to the "mine's bigger than yours" syndrome.
The US has its share of swaggering nincompoops.

Wayne, TN: Let's take out the Iranian enrichment programs using air power and through the use of special teams if necessary. Biut let's not invade Iran with masses of troops that will result in a no-win occupation in Iran against the Iranians and other terrorists who will take part.


Let's see a show of hands. How many want to invade Iran and end up with two no-win occupations (Iraq-and Iran). Where our troops are bogged down and picked off by terrorists acts in two no-win occupations. And, how many think our military can continue to carry on two, let alone one, no-win policing actions.

I'm with Diane... It's time the Dem's put it back on the table.  I can't imagine there ever being a more worthy candidate for impeachment throughout this nation's history than the 'Shrub'... unless of course you factor in 'Tricky Dick' Cheney - who would certainly give shrub a 'run for his money'.  No pun intended.

Eric, Dallas TX (Sent Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:53 PM)

I'm with Diane... It's time the Dem's put it back on the table.  I can't imagine there ever being a more worthy candidate for impeachment throughout this nation's history than the 'Shrub'... unless of course you factor in 'Tricky Dick' Cheney - who would certainly give shrub a 'run for his money'.  No pun intended.

And your rationale and impeachable offense is????  Not liking his policies is not an impeachable offense.  Do something constructive for a change.  If you against the war, you can protest, you can speak, that is what our brave men and women have sacrificed for.  I will even go as far as to say that Brenda is being constructive by assembling on September 15th.  I will not be there, but I respect her right to express her views, whether I agree or not.

To paraphrase:  I came, I saw, Iran.  Pretty much the same deal.

"Wayne, do a little research on Iran. Too much to ask? Oh right, Insanity Hannity does your research for you. Hmmmm - who was it that deposed the elected Iranian leader in 1953? Hmmmm - could they have a legitimate reason to be pissed off at the USA? Hmmmm - could it be way past time for you to get your head out of your ass? Hmmmm
Timmy, Milwaukee WI
"
Perhaps you are the one who should do some research.
Iran was a "Constitutional Monarchy" it had no "Elected Leader". The Prime Minister who was chosen by the Cabinet was fired by the Shah when he tried to depose the Shah. No American troops were involved.

"Unsurprisingly, The New York Times reports that Dick Cheney's aides have been pushing for military options in Iran."
In case you haven't noticed there is little if anything in the linked story which would justify that assertion.
The story says
"But in recent months, there has been resurgent debate within the administration about whether the diplomatic path is working, with aides to Vice President Dick Cheney said to be among those pushing for greater consideration of military options"

"Said to be", and "Consideration of" not "lets saddle up".
Truncated quotes are a common ploy, from the truncated Wolfowitz interview in the Guardian onward.
Leaving out a couple of words can make a sentence seem to mean something other than intended. Also the article is opinion of the author not any proclamation by anyone in the administration.
The article's only real information is on possible economic sanctions against holdings of the Revolutionary guard, not a military attack either on the Nation of Iran or Revolutionary Guards operating in Iran.

If a site in Iran were known to be building a nuclear device, its not unlikely that someone would bomb it, not necessarily the US.
Would Iran go to war over losing an installation they claim does not exist?
Or might the Iranian population finally toss the present government out on its ear, possibly with the blessings of the non Revolutionary Guard units of the Iranian military?

Edwards is all over the map with his foreign policy.  He wants to hold the radical islamic extremist's hand to understand their problems.  Their problem is they are beyond warped, and will do everything and anything to destroy anyone that does not believe in their religion.  Barbie doll, you can't reason with these people, they are sick and twisted, and do not value life.  Anyone that goes on a bus with explosives strapped to their stomach has gone off the deep end.  God, how do you deal with such evil

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20316326/

"Edwards does not rule out the option of military force, saying: "With a threat so serious, no U.S. president should take any option off the table."

"
If a Republican said those same words he'd be labeled a Warmonger.

Update, the revolutionary Guard has now threatened to "punch" the US.
According to recent reports 75% of attacks directed towards US troops are made by Insurgent groups affiliated with and supplied by Iran.

Odd isn't it. Those who like to counsel military action directed at the saudi Government, which is Bin Laden's own personal worst enemy, now act as if Iran should be free to attack our forces through surrogates with impunity.
The same saber rattlers also demand invasion of an ally known to have a large nuclear arsenal and bordering a country it has warred with in the past which also has a large nuclear arsenal.

Sounds like someone wants to fight global warming by initiating a Nuclear winter, the following new dark ages would benefit Islamicists just as the dark Ages allowed Islam to spread by the sword in the 7th century.

If anyone is a terrorist organization then it is the current us administration. C. Rice has released an official White House definition of "Terrorism" - and the US admin has committed ALL three crimes listed therein. By their own definition, the US government is officially a terrorist organization.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):