Joe are U saying that Fastpat is a co(ksucker...hence his name Fastpat....

A US government attack on Iran would be unsound.

Although I agree to an extent with Tabs' assessment, to actually attack Iran right now, other than with some very strategic airstrikes, maybe even tactical nuclear weapons, seems overwhelming on the political stage. The world will truly give us the cold shoulder if that happens.

On the other hand, Bush might consider the fact he has nothing to lose - he's gone in two years.

All the more reason to get his hands off the levers of power before he kills hundreds of thousands more people.

There hasn't been a mass murderer at his level since Truman.

I guess you forgot about the Khmer Rouge?

There have been several genocides bigger than the Iraqi war death toll since Truman.

I'm not certain the American public cares much about who is being killed by our bombs. We didn't care when Saddam gassed the Kurds, don't care that there's been close to 50,000 casualties of Iraqis since the war began, and certainly won't care if tens to hundreds of thousands of Iranians are killed. We aren't built to care about those who have governments that want to wipe us off the face of Earth. The numbers game is a political game, used to enforce a point for or against Bush's current actions.

What seems more direct in the case of Bush is a rush toward his humiliation and defeat. The Democrats are actively showing this as they align against him. I haven't heard one mention the human aspect of our efforts in Iraq. More the Dems seem myopically focused on Bush only.

Deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi citizenry are simply political plot points.

As always, when I'm talking about what the US government doing, that's the government deaths of which I'm speaking.

While what other governments do concerns me at some level, I'm an American living in America so the US government concerns me a great deal, particularly when it conducts activities that endangers America.

Bush II has endangerd America a great deal from a variety of viewpoints.

650,000 deaths, but you're probably correct. That number of deaths is what Stalin referred to as a "statistic".

"One death is a tragedy. One million deaths are merely a statistic."
~Iosef Stalin

650,000 ?!
I don't think your "freedom fighters" have been THAT productive.

The US government has been very productive in enabling mass murder in Iraq.
Baghdad morgue took 16,000 bodies in 2006

Why argue with Pat, can't convince him of a thing, yur always right when U live in LALA land. and that ain't LA.

When your a Superpower you have responsibilities to your citizens and client states in the fulfillment of those responsibilities your soldiers are sometimes gona die.

Except for the soldiers are "sometimes gonna' die" part, I agree. We are a Superpower, and we have influence all over the world that plays a huge role in the viability of our economy. I have respect for Pat's opinion, but the question is, if we were to become isolationlists, how would that effect the U.S. economy and our standing with the world? I can't imagine becoming isolationists would effect our economy toward the positive.

Not Isolationist, Anti- or Non-interventionist. Huge difference.

But the result is the same: isolation. Because if a country were to pull out of the internal affairs of nations in which it has an economic interest, those economic interests can be kissed goodbye, as well as other interests, including social and cultural. There isn't a sane business leader who'd involve billions of stockholder money in a country of dubious political standing. Before sinking cash into a country, one wants to be assured of the safety of their investiments. Withdrawal, in my opinion, immediately upsets those investments.

Sadly few men of wealth and taste ever 'buy the farm' though, eh Tabs. ;)

No, there's a huge difference, in both day to day life and in long range health of the population.

Quote:

Because if a country were to pull out of the internal affairs of nations in which it has an economic interest, those economic interests can be kissed goodbye, as well as other interests, including social and cultural.

What evidence do you have to support that assertion? I know of none, but plenty of evidence directly to the contrary.

Quote:

There isn't a sane business leader who'd involve billions of stockholder money in a country of dubious political standing. Before sinking cash into a country, one wants to be assured of the safety of their investiments. Withdrawal, in my opinion, immediately upsets those investments.

There's the basic issue, you're speaking of corporate welfare, which is what th military is all about today, and has been for the entire 20th century. War is a Racket was written in 1935 by Major General Smedley D. Butler winner of the Medal of Honor, twice. This kind of welfare by murder must be ended.

I base that assertion on 1) The country doing the pulling out is the U.S.; 2) which has very little support worldwide; 3) Is getting its ideological ass handed to it daily in the M.E.; 4) economically relies heavily on out-of-country oil reserves.

I won't disagree that other nations have pulled out of countries from whom they've received commodities, and not suffered consequences. But I will also argue that the U.S. is in a much more unique situation by virtue of its economic and political power than France, Britian, etc.

And did we do anything about it?

They were new at it; give them a break. It was till one hell of a shot, though.