mikk

don't forget Rudd, Gillard and Obama. They all carried it on.

How can you pick someone who's gleaned most of their "knowledge" of world affairs from comic books?

One clue is they will think that Sunni V Shia violence only arose as a result of Western involvement in Iraq, so they will say things like this:
"Iraq is a festering boil of sectarian violence soon to be full blown civil war...(thanks to) Howard, Bush, Blair et al = War Criminals!

Or this, perhaps:
"The whole Middle East is imploding. Syria, Sudan, Egypt, Lybia etc etc...(thanks to)Howard, Bush, Blair et al = War Criminals!

And they have a point. Things were much *quieter* under Saddam, He simply shot anyone who disrupted his *peace* and buried their bodies in the desert --so one didn't get daily front page coverage in The Guardian or on the ABC.

All the little Guardian readers and ABC listeners join in now
(after three) 1,2,3:

Golden slumbers kiss your eyes,
Smiles await you when you rise.
Sleep,
Pretty baby,
Do not cry,
And I will sing a lullaby.

Cantor Seeks New House Resolution to Kill Iran Talks
. http://news.antiwar.com/2014/01/03/cantor-seeks-new-house-resolution-to-kill-iran-talks/

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R – VA) expressed annoyance that his attempt at a resolution to derail Iran diplomacy failed last year, and announced today his intention to introduce a new resolution as soon as possible with roughly the same contents.

Unlike Senate bails aimed at derailing the talks by imposing new sanctions on Iran, Cantor’s previous bill aimed to dictate the terms of an “acceptable” pact, mirroring Israeli demands which would make such an agreement virtually impossible to negotiate.

The bill aimed primarily to demand Iran forever be barred from any civilian enrichment of uranium, something Iran has repeatedly ruled out, and if passed would insist President Obama not negotiate any deal that didn’t include this demand.
. http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/47-us-senators-side-with-israel-on-iran/

A memo to House Majority Cantor: sir, for whom do you actually work these days? Is it for your "alleged" constituents? Or are you really working for the current Israeli government, in attempting to get this legislation passed?!?

This is a fair question, at a time when negotiations with Iran seem to be working, and the implementation of the P5+1 seems to be forthcoming shortly.

That you appearing to be hell-bent on preventing this from happening is...puzzling in the extreme, except for only one reasonable explanation.

I will grant that there are some areas where the interests of the US and Israel overlap: but destroying these negotiations, which will ultimately lead to war, is not one of them.

And how in the world, sir, can you possibly characterize the Iranian government's willingness to negotiate concerning their nuclear energy program as "aggression" ?!?!

. What the country of Israel wants to see happen here, instead of good faith negotiations working, is for the US government and military to attack Iran, and created a regime change which will be to Israel's liking.

Of course, this will mean that there will be yet more American blood and money sacrificed upon the altar of potential Israeli hegemony in the Middle East: and that, sir, is totally unacceptable to thinking Americans.

Your bio tells us that you and your wife have three children: they are all enlisted in the US military, are they not? No?

You know, sir, that is a real problem for Congress. Because it makes the sending of other peoples' children to war, to be killed or maimed for life, very academic and comfortable for all of you, and it shouldn't be.

IF there was a Constitutional Amendment requiring all running for national office to have at least one of their children enlisted, during their candidacy and term of service, and most likely to be fighting on the front lines, war would be a last resort choice for this government.

The US government has its reasons for wanting regime change in Iran, generally having to do with the Iranian government's refusal to sell all of its oil in US dollars. The Israeli government doesn't want the financial competition in non-war nuclear applications, such as the development and sale of medical isotopes.

. I would like to suggest that should the US military engage in this war, it may not go well at all for the US.

Both of us understand that the US military doesn't have the troop strength, the manufacturing, or the money to insure a successful outcome to a conventional military attack against Iran: and that is what makes the military option so scarily dangerous.

Israel will get pummeled from Hezbollah in the North, as well as from other enemies, bent on its destruction: the Israeli casualty count will be enormous, and far worse than the IDF has stated, as a result of their war games.

And then, there is Russia. Russian officials have stated very clearly that should Iran be attacked militarily, Russia will come to Iran's aid.Please tell me, is this what you want, sir?!? A potential nuclear war with Russia?!?

Majority Leader Cantor, I would strongly caution you to be very, very careful about the outcome you would ultimately like to achieve with this legislation you are sponsoring: the results could be both catastrophic...and irreversible. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/03/syrian-opposition-attack-alqaida-affiliate-isis http://www.infowars.com/more-war-in-2014/ http://www.infowars.com/iran-says-saudi-intelligence-ordered-embassy-bombing-in-lebanon/ http://www.infowars.com/england-privacy-concerns-raised-as-more-than-one-million-pupils-are-fingerprinted-in-schools/ http://www.infowars.com/white-house-announces-new-executive-actions-on-background-checks-for-guns/

12 years of war, 1.5 trillion dollars, innumerable deaths and all for what?
mikk,
now that's a tad hypocritical isn't it ? Wasn't it your lot who insisted they stop the intervention ?