Obviously you dont really feel it is a waste of time. Because you keep doing it. Dont be a hypocrite.

Because NK has nukes, and because our forces are tied up with Iraq. We could attack Iran if we needed to, but it would make a mess of Iraq in the process.

Thats why.

Why would we have to bring back the draft? What makes you think we cant handle Iran with existing forces in the area?

People were predicting the draft with Iraq too. They were also wrong. I hope our enemies continue to underestimate us as much as you obviously do...

Why would we need to invade? We could simply bomb them.

We are waiting to see if they will cooperate willingly, and save us both the trouble of stomping them down. I dont expect diplomacy to work, but it is worth a try.

We've heard it all before. Things are never as bad as liberals assume they are. They have nothing that can stand against us.

Maybe they have a better grasp of our capabilities than you do, heh heh

They got a ringside seat when we rampaged through the Taliban and Saddam's government. Maybe they dont want to be the next example.

They dont care if their people are blown up.

Legally, yes, he does make all the decisions. He may choose to follow the advice of his advisors...but he can ignore it any time he wants.

You people keep saying how he is an evil genius that has the masses trained to do whatever he wants. Then you call him an idiot. Which is it? Make up your mind.

It might still. Their industry is still on it's knees. They need to get back on their feet before we can be paid back.

So why do you bother? You cant change anything anyway, right?

Source please.

Be patient.

Well said, JP!

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/isr...s%20to%20China

Here is a source for the Israeli weapons deals.

I never said Bush was an evil genius. I certainly did not say he is a genius, and I don't even believe I ever said he was evil. He is an all around ignorant bafoon, although he is somewhat good at PR as the layperson can identify with him. Find where I said that please.

We could not invade Iran at the moment, you are out of your freaking mind if you think that. It was a part of the original plan I believe, as we invaded the countries surrounding Iran, but we couldn't do it without a draft now, which is not going to happen anytime soon. Most of our troops are already on significantly exentended tours of duty, and a great deal of our equipment is spent and worn out. Also, many of the coalition troops are now pulling out, and I do not even believe Britain would support an invasion of Iran as well. That is why the Iranians could win if they attacked Iraq at the moment, it would either force a draft, or force Europe to come in, and Europe may not do so in the first place! It would make Iraq a mess, that is the entire point. It would make Iraq a failure.

And yes, N.K. does have nuclear weapons, that is the other point I am trying to make. Why don't they shoot one at Japan right now while they have the chance? If their leaders aren't willing to die for something, are they really that big of a threat? Leaders can not exist without their people following them, and they have to fear Revolution. That is why they are not the danger you make them out to be. You simply take things out of context and put words in my mouth. I don't believe you have ever given any sources at all whatsoever, so if anyone is the hypocrite, it is yourself. And for the person who told me I don't have the information Bush had, what information is that? Do you have it? Take a look at the facts. Gas is through the roof, our stocks are all shot, our military is bruised and battered, and we have a huge deficit. The middle east is just as dangerous, if not more so then it ever was, and our allies are further from us then they have ever been. Iraq has 25 million people, that is worth devastating a superpower over? Right...

Do you want sources for the stock market being in a slump, the largest deficit in history, the highest gas prices since Reagan--go figure, another moron--and the military being battered? When Clinton was in office, our economy grew faster then it ever had, gas was half the price it is now, Kosovo was efficiently fought with allies, and the budget was in a surplus. The Democrats still are not nearly as efficient as this country could be, and they are only moderates, but they are still much better then Republicans. Both are rich aristocrats, but at least the one knows how to keep their wealth and the people happy. Republicans will be done after this, what else do they have to go on? Their social security plan? Hahahahaha. Government will always be evil, there is simply a lesser evil and a lesser liar. You're a utilitarian, right? Psh.

The stock market is in a slump today, it was not in a slump in 2003. The market will rise and fall. In this case oil prices are hurting the market. However, in terms of gas prices you may want to try a little research. Adjusting for inflation gas prices are similar now as they were at the peak of gas prices under Clinton. Gas prices were even lower under Reagan. The highest gas prices were under Nixon and Carter.

The budget was only balanced because Congress forced him to balance it (oh, he also had the line item veto). I do wish congress was as fiscally efficient today as it was then.

Kosovo was not done with our aliies and was protested by several countries at the time. We did not have UN sanction.

So other than a half dozen mistakes your post was spot on.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Iran is not some big super power. You are out of your freaking mind if you think that.

They'd be an annoyance to us (because it would delay stabalization of Iraq)...thats about it.

The only people that have supported a draft so far are liberals. And liberals are in the minority on Congress right now. So I wouldnt hold my breath on a draft if I were you.

So why arnt they attacking? It sounds like they have every incentive to, right?

Yes. because they wont die in a retaliatory strike. Their people will. Therefore they have less of an incentive to avoid aggressive violence.

They cant even revolt against him now...what chance would they have if their numbers are depleted through a retaliatory strike?

I have provided numerous links. Everything else is my opinion, which I openly admit. I dont try to cloak my opinion as fact, as a lot of liberals on here do.

Are you saying you believe you have access to the same data the President does?

If not, then my statement is accurate.

How many terrorist attacks have occurred since 911? That is the return we got.

And the economy has been steadily improving for a while now.

There are fewer despots in the Middle East than there were before.

Our allies were always further away from us than we thought. We just didnt know it then.

No superpower has been devastated over Iraq or it's 25 million people.

The alternatives were worse. And the economy has been improving.

By putting us at risk. Clinton did not have to deal with 911 or it's fallout.

Gee, where have we heard that before? The republicans will stay in power because all liberals can do is complain. They have no better solutions. The masses can see that now.

Almost the entire time Bush has been in office gas has been high, while it may have only been a short period with Clinton. Gas was at its highest peak ever under Reagan, it was at $3.08 adjusted for inflation in 1981.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/14/news....reut/?cnn=yes

As for Congress, either way, it was still a surplus under Clinton, and the administration has large control of the budget. I never said Kosovo was not wrong either, it was a load of crap. That is my entire point--there is no difference between either party really. However, it was done efficiently for the most part (as far as costs, not in saving civilians) and we didn't lose nearly as many troops. NATO was more involved then it is in Iraq today. And it was not protested nearly as much as the war in Iraq.

oh, and 911 didn't happen under Clinton--whose fault was that? Clinton listened to his memos it seems.

Hey, Saviour, and you're right, you've always been right. I am evil too, and a hypocrite. I also don't know anything. But I admit it. That is why I will always be a step ahead of you.

Right, within 30 days of Reagan being sworn in, but that was his fault! Gas prices rose under Nixon and then Carter and only hit the peak and reversed shortly after Reagan was elected.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

And why was it their fault that gas rose in the first place? A little war called Vietnam and puppet governments the U.S. controlled? Hm..not much has changed it seems. Carter tried running the U.S. on corn and was taken down by members of his own party, he was one of the best Presidents in history--he just had a horrible administration. lol.

And Id like to see some evidence that says we could defeat Iran right now if they invaded Iraq without us needing a draft Savior. Give me sources for once, hahahaha.