Iran: A Bridge too Far? - P2P-Zone

RDixon · 12-01-07, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

Impeach Bush and you can look forward to an other 12 years of a congress controlled by the Republicans.

If Bush once again ignores the constitution and ilegally starts another war he not only should, but will be impeached.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with party affiliation.
It is pretty simply spelled out in the constitution.
The power to make war resides solely in the congress.

As for the ramifications or consequences, I think the new polls after his big surge speech show that the american public is sick and tired of Bush and his croney admin. so, if anything it would be more detrimental to the democrats to not impeach.

JackSpratts · 12-01-07, 02:49 PM

i'm not sure certain members of a supreme court installed by the father of the stooge they appointed president (and whose ties to the familly extend even deeper) is the group that can withstand an impeachment challenge if it came to that, but believe me the 2000 baker coup is the last thing preventing the dems from proceeding with the trial.

i'll say this however, unlike clinton if bush does stand before the house the senate verdict will also be guilty - if unlike nixon he's stupid enough to hang in that far.

i mean, i know he's stupid enough, but there is this low-class strain of clever opportunism that served him until now. that's probably no longer up to the task, but in any event it's bush inc i'm referring to.

- js.

Mazer · 13-01-07, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDixon

If Bush once again ignores the constitution and ilegally starts another war he not only should, but will be impeached.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with party affiliation.
It is pretty simply spelled out in the constitution.
The power to make war resides solely in the congress.

The Dems don't care about the Constitution either. They'll weigh the two years of a stolen presidency against the dozen or more years of a legitimately elected congress and they'll come to the same conclusion I have. It doesn't mean they won't make an attempt, it only means they won't allow an impeachment to succeed.

Quote:

As for the ramifications or consequences, I think the new polls after his big surge speech show that the american public is sick and tired of Bush and his croney admin. so, if anything it would be more detrimental to the democrats to not impeach.

Politicians care only slightly more about their constituents' opinions than they do about the rule of law, but the Dems already know they can ride the wave of Bush's unpopularity through a decade of de facto control without impeaching the man. What's more they can maintain and even widen their influence without keeping their get-out-of-Iraq promises, if they play their cards right. Anything they can do to remind people of the Vietnam war, they're sure to do. If they're very smart they'll draw this war out as long as possible before making sweeping resolutions that make them out to be the saviors of America. That's how politicians think, and Democrats are politicians. They may share your beliefs but that doesn't mean they're really interested in serving them.

As long as the machine can make people believe Bush is the bad guy—the only bad guy—the Democrats will have carte blanche. Promise everything, achieve nothing; it doesn't matter as long as you get reelected.

multi · 13-01-07, 01:04 PM

no..It seems Bush is being controlled by Klingons

multi · 14-01-07, 11:05 AM

China to US: No meddling in our Iran biz

BEIJING –China warned the United States on Thursday not to meddle in its trade relations with Iran after Washington expressed concern about a Chinese oil company’s planned investment in an Iranian gas field.

“We think this kind of cooperation and relationship is legitimate. Normal cooperation should not be interfered (with),” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.

Asked if that meant Beijing believed the United States was interfering in its dealings with Iran, Liu said, “This is our position.”

The U.S. government expressed concern to Beijing last month about a planned investment by state-owned Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd. in Iran’s Northern Pars gas field. Washington said major business dealings with Tehran were inappropriate while Iran is defying U.N. resolutions on its nuclear program.

CNOOC spokesman Liu Junshan said Thursday the company was still in talks with the Iranian side to develop the gas field and to help build liquefied natural gas facilities. He said no agreement had yet been signed, and declined to estimate the project’s value.

The Iranian Mehr news agency reported last month that the deal was worth $16 billion.

Liu’s comments came as Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Beijing. Olmert is seeking a more proactive Chinese role in pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear program.

Iran’s president has called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, and Iran is widely believed to be trying to manufacture atomic bombs — a charge it denies.

In talks with Olmert Wednesday, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Beijing was firmly against nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran and wanted to see a diplomatic solution to the issue, Liu said at a press briefing.

But it is unlikely that Beijing will to bend to U.S. pressure to drop the gas deal, considering China’s growing thirst for oil and gas to fuel its economic boom.

China imported 980 million barrels of oil last year, making it the world’s third-biggest consumer of foreign oil. Its demand for natural gas is expected to rise 26 percent over the next five years.

China’s two major oil companies — China Petrochemical Corp. and China National Petroleum Corp. — are both either involved in gas projects in Iran or in talks to participate in developing gas resources.

Iran has seen the lure of its energy resources and other markets as a way to weaken the willl of U.N. Security Council members to exact harsh punishment over its nuclear program, which Tehran claims is for generating electricity.

The council, of which China is one of five permanent members, voted last month to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to abandon uranium enrichment — a process that produces the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs.

http://digglicious.blogspot.com/2007...-iran-biz.html

Mazer · 14-01-07, 01:27 PM

We don't have to interfere with China's business to cripple Iran's economy. All we have to do is make it impossible for them to transport their oil out of the Persian Gulf with a naval blockade. Iran will still have its natural gas pipelines, but without the ability to sell oil over seas the whole nation will fall into a depression and no American soldier will ever have to set foot within Iran's borders.

RDixon · 14-01-07, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

We don't have to interfere with China's business to cripple Iran's economy. All we have to do is make it impossible for them to transport their oil out of the Persian Gulf with a naval blockade. Iran will still have its natural gas pipelines, but without the ability to sell oil over seas the whole nation will fall into a depression and no American soldier will ever have to set foot within Iran's borders.

sounds like a slamdunkin cakewalk and we all know how those turn out...

Mazer · 14-01-07, 10:55 PM

It's a far better option than invasion. Besides, it's about time the Navy had something to do.

Is there any better way to contain Iran?

13-01-07, 01:04 PM	#4
multi Thanks for being with arse Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The other side of the world Posts: 10,343	no..It seems Bush is being controlled by Klingons __________________ i beat the internet - the end boss is hard Secret Temple of It

14-01-07, 11:05 AM	#5
multi Thanks for being with arse Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The other side of the world Posts: 10,343	China to US: No meddling in our Iran biz BEIJING –China warned the United States on Thursday not to meddle in its trade relations with Iran after Washington expressed concern about a Chinese oil company’s planned investment in an Iranian gas field. “We think this kind of cooperation and relationship is legitimate. Normal cooperation should not be interfered (with),” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. Asked if that meant Beijing believed the United States was interfering in its dealings with Iran, Liu said, “This is our position.” The U.S. government expressed concern to Beijing last month about a planned investment by state-owned Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd. in Iran’s Northern Pars gas field. Washington said major business dealings with Tehran were inappropriate while Iran is defying U.N. resolutions on its nuclear program. CNOOC spokesman Liu Junshan said Thursday the company was still in talks with the Iranian side to develop the gas field and to help build liquefied natural gas facilities. He said no agreement had yet been signed, and declined to estimate the project’s value. The Iranian Mehr news agency reported last month that the deal was worth $16 billion. Liu’s comments came as Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Beijing. Olmert is seeking a more proactive Chinese role in pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Iran’s president has called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, and Iran is widely believed to be trying to manufacture atomic bombs — a charge it denies. In talks with Olmert Wednesday, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Beijing was firmly against nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran and wanted to see a diplomatic solution to the issue, Liu said at a press briefing. But it is unlikely that Beijing will to bend to U.S. pressure to drop the gas deal, considering China’s growing thirst for oil and gas to fuel its economic boom. China imported 980 million barrels of oil last year, making it the world’s third-biggest consumer of foreign oil. Its demand for natural gas is expected to rise 26 percent over the next five years. China’s two major oil companies — China Petrochemical Corp. and China National Petroleum Corp. — are both either involved in gas projects in Iran or in talks to participate in developing gas resources. Iran has seen the lure of its energy resources and other markets as a way to weaken the willl of U.N. Security Council members to exact harsh punishment over its nuclear program, which Tehran claims is for generating electricity. The council, of which China is one of five permanent members, voted last month to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to abandon uranium enrichment — a process that produces the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs. http://digglicious.blogspot.com/2007...-iran-biz.html __________________ i beat the internet - the end boss is hard Secret Temple of It

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-01-07, 02:49 PM	#2
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,020	i'm not sure certain members of a supreme court installed by the father of the stooge they appointed president (and whose ties to the familly extend even deeper) is the group that can withstand an impeachment challenge if it came to that, but believe me the 2000 baker coup is the last thing preventing the dems from proceeding with the trial. i'll say this however, unlike clinton if bush does stand before the house the senate verdict will also be guilty - if unlike nixon he's stupid enough to hang in that far. i mean, i know he's stupid enough, but there is this low-class strain of clever opportunism that served him until now. that's probably no longer up to the task, but in any event it's bush inc i'm referring to. - js.

14-01-07, 01:27 PM	#6
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	We don't have to interfere with China's business to cripple Iran's economy. All we have to do is make it impossible for them to transport their oil out of the Persian Gulf with a naval blockade. Iran will still have its natural gas pipelines, but without the ability to sell oil over seas the whole nation will fall into a depression and no American soldier will ever have to set foot within Iran's borders.

14-01-07, 10:55 PM	#8
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	It's a far better option than invasion. Besides, it's about time the Navy had something to do. Is there any better way to contain Iran?