Three critical issues, so little time. Which should be done first, in your opinion?

[blondeatlast]

Poll question: Three critical issues, so little time. Which should be done first, in your opinion?

I think we all want to see them resolved, but reality dictates that one take precedence over the others. So what truly is most important to you at this point?

This poll isn't regarding what's possible, expedient, or realistic, even, just which issue is the most important to DUers. As much as we would all like to see them resolved, I think most of us recognize that it won't be possible (I would like to think I'm wrong about that, however)

Please read all choices before responding, if you would.

[Bucky]

1. I voted for the Iran option, but really job one is getting Edwards into a green friendly house.

Maybe they could move into a solar powered geodesic adobe hut.

[blondeatlast]

3. I was wondering how I could keep this one kicked up.

I think you've done it for me! :rofl:

[sandnsea]

12. If ALL our homes were energy independent

we wouldn't be having talks of war for oil in the first place. We could have invested in solar for every home in America and I bet it wouldn't have cost a quarter of what we've spent on war and preparing for war over oil. It's that kind of ridiculing of new energy policy that caused this country to ignore Jimmy Carter too.

[porphyrian]

2. Whichever can be done first without making things worse.

I'm not sure which one that is, but, then, I'm not in charge.

[Booster]

4. I think Iran should take precedence. If the dimson nukes Iran, we

can all collectively bend over, grab our ankles and kiss our asses goodbye.

[Selatius]

5. Preventing the war on Iran is an issue of NATIONAL SURVIVAL.

If there is war to be had with Iran, then America would likely be smashed as a superpower. It will become a pariah state, a nation feared the same way the USSR was feared.

The economic fallout from the conflict alone will result in 5 dollars/gallon for gas, and countries like China could opt to stop buying more US treasury bonds to support American deficit spending. This will hit the US Dollar hard, causing a sharp deterioration in the value of the US Dollar. All of a sudden, foreign made goods, from all over the world, will become even more expensive on US shelves. The kicker is that the US economy is a net importer of goods, not a net exporter, so that means most goods on US shelves would likely inflate in price as the value of the dollar drops.

We haven't even talked about the economic disruption due to possible oil embargoes in the ensuing war. There is only one thing I've seen in recent economic history that could cause stagflation (rising unemployment coupled with rising inflation). That's a potential oil embargo or even a supply cut-off due to all the oil not being able to leave the Persian Gulf because there's missiles and bombs being tossed around in the Hormuz Strait.

Couple that together with a deterioration in the US Dollar and you're looking at a perfect storm.

[nealmhughes]

16. I must concur completely. Impeachment takes 60 senators to convict.

Bush still has enough money to carry on his war for another year, regardless of what Congress does, it seems.
A Constitutional Crisis has an inevitable result: Fat Tony et al. trumping any act of Congress.
Iran is a huge country to whom the United States has a bad history, yet one which even given our past support of Pahlavi and his SAVAK, was amazingly gentle with the US hostages (whom the Iranian Revolutionary Govt. maintained a fictional distance) during the Carterzeit.
I pity the people of Iran, all 77 Million + or - of them, first a "shah," then mullahs and international estrangement. Were Iran oil-free no one at AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or any of the other asylums for the Rand addicted mini-erstwhile Napoleons out there would care less what occurred in Persia. Or Iraq. Or Saudi Arabia...
Oppeneheimer may have felt as did Shiva, "Death, the destroyer of worlds" at Alamagordo, but what a conventional aerial barrage of Teheran would do -- the helpless millions huddling as the bombs rain down.
And the specter of a mushroom cloud hanging over their heads.
Pariah status for 300 Million US citizens. Economic collapse. Utter devastation of our standards of living and morality.

[Zorra]

6. Impeaching and imprisoning Bu*h may be the only way to stop

an attack on Iran, and get our troops out of Iraq.

Bu*h is the puppet of the PNAC, and the PNAC does not care about anything else but forwarding their agenda of eternal war for profit.

[blondeatlast]

9. That is a good point, except that I think others are pulling the Iran/Iraq strings.

It might serve more as a distraction for them.

I'm not stating my opinion, but I do think these are the three most pressing issues and would like to see how DUers weigh the issues.

[scarletwoman]

13. There isn't any TIME for impeachment - the bombing of Iran is going to happen by April at the latest

And by "at the latest", I mean that it MOST likely going to happen in mid-February, and at the very latest in mid-March. Watch the phases of the moon, the U.S. will strike during the dark of the moon (the new moon).

There's no time left for investigations, for non-binding resolutions, for more debate.

Bushco has planned a war on Iran. It has been planned for some years. The final pieces are now being put into place. The action will commence very soon.

This must be addressed DIRECTLY and NOW.

sw

[John Q. Citizen]

7. We Democrats can multi-task. n/t

[blondeatlast]

8. As I say, it's not about expediency, it's about what gut-level matters most

to DUers.

And I have to say I'm a bit surprised so far--not at what is leading so far, but at the other choices.

[qwlauren35]

10. Just 1 month ago,

my answer would have been soooooo different.

I still can't believe we didn't see this coming.

If I thought we could manage to get him impeached AND CONVICTED before Valentine's Day, then perhaps I'd go for Door #3. But barring that, I have to take Door #2.

[blondeatlast]

11. Amazing, isn't it? We gain some power and are staring into

an issue precious few saw coming.

It may not be much, but thank whatever powers amy be we didn't enable W again.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. I voted Iraq.

We're not in Iran, so far it's just posturing. The Bush family has no personal history with the Iranian leaders, so there may not be as big an urge to go there. Not like the history with Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega.

Iran may be just another wag the dog ploy. I hope.

I don't know what happens in Iraq after we leave, whether the parties work out a reasonable government or the whole country blows up into civil war. If the latter, maybe the UN can send in some folks to quiet it, maybe.

If I had magic words (like ooga, booga, ... I forget the rest) I'd roll Iraq back to pre-war. Give supremacy to the Sunnis, put the Baath party in charge of the Sunnis, put Saddam as head of the Baath, and give him Kuwait, he won it fair and square. That can't happen, so what's second best? Get out.

ITMFA? We'll have some nice committee investigations, but he'll be around until Jan 2009.

[blondeatlast]

15. Kick. nt

[blondeatlast]

17. Kick again. nt