Um, guys? Iran *IS* a threat!! The Iraq Lie has made you biased.

[rpgamerd00d]

Look, none of us want another war, ever, that's a given.

But Iran getting nukes really IS a bad thing, and this time its NOT A LIE.
Their own LEADER is confirming that they are trying to get nukes.
Its not like any of this is false info. ITS REAL THIS TIME.

If Iran refuses to stop developing Nukes, then there are only two choices:
1) Let them have nukes
2) Stop them by force

Again, I am not wishing us to war, "police action", bombing them, or whatever you want to call it, but if they force the issue, then we have to because 1) is not really an option with such a man leading Iran.

The LAST THING we want to do is look like complete MORONS by opposing military action against Iran if its really required, and before it happens. Being called names for being liberal and anti-war when we are right is one thing, we don't care. Being called names for being liberal and anti-war when we are wrong is entirely different. That has teeth. We don't want that.

I think we all believe that using force as a LAST RESORT is acceptable. The problem is, many of us refuse to admit when we are at the "Last Resort". We are not there yet with Iran. But we may be soon. Let me put it this way: we've arrived at the front doors to the Last Resort, dad has dropped us off to go find a parking spot, and the bellhop is offering to help us with our bags....

[NewJeffCT]

1. the problem with Iran is...

that they were on their way to becoming more open & more moderate until Bush's hard line "Axis of Evil" rhetoric strengthened the conservative fundies in charge of Iran. The students leading the way to a more open & moderate Iran were silenced, the hardliners emboldened and they won the elections there.

It may have taken them another 10 years or more to become truly somewhat moderate, but they were headed that way.

[seabeyond]

6. yet another failure on bush part. yes

and throughout the wholes me, is failure that we will now suffer the repercussion of the failure. the way life works. regardless iran is not just messed up, but it is really messed up

what are we going to do

the only way bush knows how to do is war. he cannot go beyond that. it is beyond his box.

there are other ways. but he wont do it. if he did do it he would fail. because he does not know how.

i mean. stupid 101

bush has clearly showed us he is not capable of anything, but lying. he even does that poorly, the nation and media and repugs just wont call him on it

[pberq]

39. "failure"? really?

I'd say this is more part of the original plan, not a failure. See PNAC.

The idea was and is to stir things up in the Middle East to justify sending U.S. troops in to secure the oil.

[seabeyond]

55. good point, but what he puts out for america to see

that, you perception.... is waaaay beyond hte normal american. but yes, i agree

[fishwax]

86. no kidding. that might go down as the biggest strategical mistake of

the bush administration/war on terror/iraq war :grr:

[seabeyond]

2. nor more than there is a threat in n korea

yes there is a problem. and there is a problem with n korea. there has been since bush toook office. and bush has continually fallen short, ignored or failed

you are right.

doesnt have to be war, if our pres had credibility. i believe that is an argument from dems on bush failure. he has no credibility. he does not know how to resolve issues. he fails at that too

[CJCRANE]

3. It's irrelevant -

because whatever the neocons do it will be in bad faith.

[oblivious]

4. Please provide evidence their leader said they are trying to get nukes.

[renie408]

21. From The Gaurdian Unlimited, 1/15/06

>>Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline President of Iran, launched an angry tirade against the West yesterday, accusing it of a 'dark ages' mentality and threatening retaliation unless it recognised his country's nuclear ambitions.<<

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1686652,00.html

[oblivious]

27. Why don't you read the article and lay off the koolaid. PROPAGANDA ALERT

He added that Iran was a 'civilised nation' that did not need such weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is a wholly peaceful attempt to generate electricity.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1686652,00.html

[renie408]

42. So he removes the UN seals from several uranium enrichment

whatchamajiggers and threatens to stop UN inspections and because he pinky swears that the research is for power, not weapons...is the world supposed to just believe him?

[oblivious]

51. That's the purpose of the NPT and inspections isn't it.

To verify that the nuclear research is for peaceful purposes. Iran had the right under the NPT to remove the seals. Their placement in 2003 was a voluntary gesture from Iran to help establish confidence that it's program was peaceful while negotiations went on with the EU-3. But Iran got virtually nothing except demands that it stop it's perfectly legal research.

Despite going even further than the NPT requires, Iran is being threatened with referal to the Security Council. So why would it continue to allow inspections?

The US and EU-3 by their actions are going to destroy the NPT. They are fools.

[renie408]

57. Ok...I am trying to get this straight

not arguing.

Iran is completely open to inspections of its nuclear research facilities and willing to go along with being transparent in its nuclear research, but the EU and the UN are, for reasons of their own, unwilling to pursue inspections. The
EU and the UN are pushing the situation to the point of war on purpose. That just doesn't make sense to me.

[oblivious]

66. No, I would guess the EU-3 are trying to avoid war.

Like you they don't trust Iran because of two decades of secrecy before 2003. So although it is legal within the NPT for Iran to convert uranium as long as it proves that it is for peaceful purposes only, the EU-3 would like them to have the uranium processed in another country like Russia. They feel this would be enough to convince Israel and the US to lay off attacking Iran.

Iran was willing to consider this if they made it interesting. But all they got in return was the promise that the ban on airplace parts would be lifted and the US might support their bid to enter the WTO.

Iran thought this offer was laughable so has decided to pursue their legal right to convert uranium. The seals were a voluntary gesture, so they had the right to remove them. They invited the IAEA inspectors to supervise their removal and subsequent research.

They have threatened to withdraw cooperation if they are sent to the SC for sanctions. Why shouldn't they? They are about to be punished for doing nothing illegal.

[rustydad]

95. Don't you find it ironic.....

...that we trust Russia with reprocessing Iran's fuel, but not Iran. Russia, a country that has thousands of ICBMs pointed at us. A country we were at war with for decades and that still is actively countering our moves in Eurasia. Strange. Bob

[BiggJawn]

88. Like anything *ELSE* this bunch has "made sense"?

The ONLY thing they've done that makes sense is the first abortive attempt to "get" Oh-Sumguy Bin fergotten.

Nothing since then has made sense, but then, I'm not a Neo-Con, am I?

"Make sense"....S'Yeah, right....This Is Jeebus Dumbya Shrub, Gawd TALKS to him. It don't have to make sense!

[rustydad]

62. When...

...was the last time a UN inspector was in Israel or for that matter the never bad USofA??? Answer...never. bob

[renie408]

64. What does that have to do with anything?

[mdmc]

68. Sovereign nations can do what they want

the world needs to find a way to deal with sovereign nations. The USA can refuse kyoto, and nuclear inspections. Why is Iran not allowed to do the same (cause we are sane and Iran is insane, right? lol)?

[renie408]

73. That's one of the reasons I hate Bush right now

His 'pre-emptive war' has undermined our ability to deal diplomatically in situations such as these. We have lost any claim to good faith we ever had. You are dead on about needing to find a way to deal with sovereign nations. And that, BTW, is what the Pres. of Iran was saying yesterday. That the US wants to be able to have its nuclear weapons and do whatever it wants while limiting the rights of other sovereign nations to develop nuclear capabilities.

[mdmc]

81. The USA should be influencing the way the world acts...

we just need to do a better job of it.

Peace!

[rustydad]

97. It's called

The double standard. That's the issue. Bob

[dogfacedboy]

154. I don't trust that character any more than I trust Bush.

They probably have nukes already. The problem will be in how the PNAC handles the situation.

[The Straight Story]

82. well he certainly is believable - but if he had an R after his name

would you say the same thing? Hitler said a lot of things too and people took him at his word.

So tell me WHY should I trust the leader of Iran?

[oblivious]

90. I'm not saying you should believe him. But he didn't say Iran wants nukes.

Look, that is the purpose of the NPT. No one trusts anyone about nukes. So signatories must allow IAEA supervision, snap inspections, etc. to prove they are not developing nuclear weapons. Iran is finally doing that after decades of non-compliance.

That new spirit of cooperation should be encouraged, not discouraged.

[The Straight Story]

96. I agree, and a good analysis of - I do wonder though

and I think perhaps the spirit of the OP is - IF we/UN find out they are pursuing nukes and lying, then what?

[rustydad]

102. Don't trust him or bush

But rather keep your eye on the ball. What on earth could Iran do with a few atom bombs to the US? And what could we do to them. Talk about David and Goliath. No, what we fear is Iran's influence on the worlds oil markets, pure and simple. In March they switch to the Euro for payments for oil and gas. Iraq did the same......and...well you know. Don't trust, just think. bob

[Terran1212]

101. Iran has never in its HISTORY been an aggressor

And if you think Ahmenijad changes this, look at the rhetoric of past Iranian presidents. It's always highfalutin.

[oblivious]

108. I'm sorry Terran, I'm not sure how this responds to my post #27.

[Terran1212]

112. It probably doesn't...

But I can tell you from talking to people who are Iranian that they elected Ahmenijad because they felt threatened with the kind of invasion and occupation Iraq endured. I'm sure they want a progressive leader, but not a "weak" one.

It's just like how Bush got elected.

Maybe Bush wanted Ahmenijad to become elected, so delivered threats so he COULD be elected.

And now will use him as an excuse for assaults against the country.

It's cyclical, isn't it?

[oblivious]

139. Yes, good points. Where are these accusations of aggression coming from?

You're right, the rhetoric is nothing new. It doesn't mean anything close to what the propagandists are making it out to mean.

Look at the number of people even on DU who are saying Iran is a grave danger to the US. Talk about drinking the koolaid.

[rustydad]

58. That is NOT proof!

The Iranian President was on C-Span yesterday giving a news conference that was ten cuts above anything we ever see from *. He has threatened retaliation if attacked but not what kind. Does not Iran have a right to develope nuclear sience and power? There is a clear double standard at work here and it is a shame that some DU folks have been mislead. And even if Iran does want nuclear weapons, so what. The genie is out of the bottle. No, the real reason for sabre rattling is oil, oil, oil. Keep the eye on the ball, not the hot air in the mainstream press. The press loves war, makes them lots of $$$$. Bob

[renie408]

69. I have some research to do.

I do not know as much about this situation as I need to. What I do know is that tainting my view of war with Iran based on what has happened in Iraq would be a mistake. My gut tells me that Iran is not a universally loving nation with no animous towards its neighbors. Call me crazy, but that's just the vibe I have. I also am not sure that I am willing to just take the President of Iran's word for stuff. It is floating around in my head that he is not the most laid back guy around. BUT, I do not know enough to back those thoughts up, so I need to learn some more.

[rustydad]

93. Some facts

Iran has every reason to hate the US government going back to the overthrow of an elected government in the 50s by the CIA and the installation of the hated Shaw. They also know full well that we supported Iraq in it's war with Iran which Iraq started with US encouragement. Over a million dead Irainians.

That said they have a legitimate need for nuclear power production. Sure they have the second largest natural gas reserves but gas is what they need to export in order to import goods and food. They have a very young and growing population. They want to join the industrialized first world. They are hard working and intelligent people. They can see no reason why they should be singled out among nations and be denied nuclear power.

And lastly if you can't trust their word that they do not want nuclear weapons and assume they do what is so frightening about that? If they attacked Israel or any other ME nation they would be obliterated. They know that. Their only reason for needing nuclear weapons is deterrence, pure and simple. And I find that pretty hard to argue against when one looks at the nut balls that control nuclear weapons in the US, Israel, Pakistan and other countries. Bob

[dchill]

75. Nuclear weapons must be kept from the hands of...

the Bush administration.

[welshTerrier2]

126. oops ... please ignore ... n/t

[oblivious]

24. Still waiting for evidence.....or is this just propaganda?

Perhaps it's one of these propaganda articles? By "an authoritive source in the Iranian exile community?" This is the same bullshit propaganda by the exile community that got the US into the war on Iraq. This is warmongering bullshit.

Iranian leader wants nuke in 4 months
According to the official, an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community has stated that Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders on the nuclear weapons program.

Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40723

[renie408]

NOT propaganda, did you READ the article in The Gaurdian??

[oblivious]

33. He says Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons. It's for electricity generation

He added that Iran was a 'civilised nation' that did not need such weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is a wholly peaceful attempt to generate electricity.

[renie408]

50. Oh, well, if the President of Iran said it, there is no reason for concern

Look, I am not saying we should go to war. I think we should do everything on earth possible to avoid a war. But pretending that just because this guy says he removed those seals just to research for power, it must be so doesn't really do that. I thought that what the OP was saying was that ignoring the threat because Hussein didn't have weapons was a mistake and I agree with him. This situation still needs to be addressed. There needs to be inspections and if they are just going to remove seals when they feel like it and then make threats when the international community gets stirred up, well, that doesn't look good to me. Remember, this isn't just the US. The EU and the UN are also uneasy.

[oblivious]

56. They're uneasy because Iran worked in secret for two decades.

It broke the terms of the NPT. So the US imposed economic sanctions. Fine. Reasonable.

But since 2003 Iran has respected the NPT, invited supervision by IAEA inspectors, allowed snap inspections of nuclear sites and voluntarily suspended research into uranium enrichment.

Why refer Iran to the SC now and risk Iran ignoring the NPT and cancelling cooperation with the IAEA????? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[renie408]

61. But didn't this start with the UN and the EU? Why would THEY

want to push a war into Iran?

Seriously, I just can't understand where any of this could be going if it isn't reasonably close to what it looks like. War with Iran is going to be substantially different from war with Iraq and it seems to me that the UN and the EU have to know that. If they were not interested in a war with Iraq, why would they be promoting a war in Iran if there wasn't sufficient concern?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. They Absolutely Are. As Is N. Korea. Shame Of It All Is Though That

when looked at in perspective from a global point of view, the top threat on that list is unfortunately probably now us.

Sad and terrifying, ain't it...

[acmavm]

7. So, when push comes to shove (how will we really know?) are you

enlisting?

[oneighty]

8. Duck and cover

Duck and cover. More bullshit from our fearful leaders.

Live in fear, kill kill kill it is what *bush requires.

180

[still_one]

9. On what basis should they NOT have nukes?

On what basis should we have them or Korea or China, Russia, Pakistan, etc.

No, what we should do is work through the U.N., and in the mean time become energy independent

[firefox]

10. The rest of the world is watching too.

Are you saying that Iran has done something illegal? Countries have the right to build nuclear facilities. You should be more concerned about the criminal control of our government today than any threat from Iran in the who-knows-how-long future.

[Malikshah]

11. Sorry-- there's so much more to this story, its history than a few

overused platitudes.

Read Kinzer's All the Shah's Men as well as other works...Misagh Parsa's Social Origins of the Iranian Revolution, hell, even Khalidi's Resurrecting Empire.

[Hugin]

12. The first thing to consider before leaping to conclusions...

Where did you hear these things about Iran and it's leader?

If it was via the MSM... Well, then, maybe you need to hit the books again.

I'm by no means a supporter of the Iranians and anything they plan regarding
the U.S. But, keep in mind these folks who are running things in Washington were
once in bed with these same Iraniacs. It yielded the so-called October Surprise.

We must be very cautious.

[renie408]

25. I heard it from him. He said it. It WAS translated, but it was him

on TV giving the interview. He said, basically, that the countries that already had nukes didn't want anybody else to have them because they wanted to be able to tell everybody what to do. Which is pretty much true, when you think about it.

[oblivious]

31. He's talking about nuclear electricity and you know it.

[Hugin]

38. I find the timing of all this "Irananoia" to be very suspect.

Iran has been up to this for several years now... Why does
BUSHCO suddenly find it front and center of their agenda.

It's a diversion using the same playbook as in 2002.

[samhsarah]

45. Whatever you think of Sharon (and I'm no fan)..

In his old age, he did seem to be making some attempt at a more moderate solution for the middle east. I think the timing of this has a lot to do with Sharon being deemed out of comission. I think Sharon would not have gone along with this approach, but maybe the new leader of Israel will? Just MHO, but it did seem that not even a few weeks after his stroke, the drumbeat all of the sudden became noticably louder. And I don't think that's just a coincidence.

[Hugin]

65. Sound reasoning...

There are several items coming due right now.

You have a very plausible argument.

[oblivious]

70. Masny people on DU predicted the war drums would start in January.

Leading up to the start of the Iranian oil bourse in March.

They hit it exactly.

[CJCRANE]

13. The President of Iran

has always said he wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

He also never advocated "destroying" Israel as the MSM say (he's advocated political change that allows the Palestinians the right of return and a vote which would eventually lead to Israel becoming Palestine again).

I don't know whether he can be trusted but a decision should made based on the facts not on conjecture or spin.

[tritsofme]

149. When you're sitting beneath some of the world's largest energy

reserves, what in the world do you need nuclear power for, unless you're planning on creating a bomb?

[freeplessinseattle]

14. so pre-emptive attacks are ok with you?

are you aware that if we attack Irn under the criteria you suggest we fit the very same criteria so what is to stop any other nation from attacking us since we are setting the precedent???

[Telly Savalas]

47. It's the Bush Doctrine, something any good Democrat believes in.

[JDPriestly]

15. Iran with nuclear weapons is not just a threat,

it is a reminder of what the results are when we meddle in the affairs of other countries in order to "spread democracy." What to do about Iran is a dilemma, a terrible dilemma, and it is entirely of our own making. Had we simply allowed the Iranians to develop their democracy and choose their own leaders without interference way back in the mid-twentieth century, had we not installed the Shah there as our agent way back then, we might have a much more rational, friendly Iranian government to deal with. There's no guarantee, but the situation couldn't be much worse there for us than it has been since the late 1970s.

I think that we have made enough of a mess in Iran. We shouldn't go it alone with regard to that country. We should work closely and in harmony with other countries, especially our European allies. Let's don't continue making the same mistake of unilateral meddling in the affairs of other countries that ultimately makes things worse and causes the people of the country to focus their anger and frustration at us. International consensus on the course to be followed is the key in that situation.

[zanne]

16. The U.S. is like someone in a roomfull of people, smoking a cigarette...

and telling other people not to smoke. I can't take credit for that, I heard someone on C-Span say it. I just look at it this way; if you're Texas with a nuke and I'm Rhode Island with no nukes, I'm going to try to get some real soon because you're scaring the sh#t out of me! If you're surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, don't you need them yourself for self-defense?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Wow! Another "real threat"..like the WMD in Iraq.

Or, the Cuban construction workers in Grenada. Or, any of the "real threats" we killed millions for during the notso "cold war".

[renie408]

22. Well, the President of Iran said they were. But maybe he was

lying. I am not real sure what is in it for them to lie about developing nuclear capabilities, though.

[meganmonkey]

18. Wouldn't you want nukes too

if you were constantly being threated by the US and Israel?

Who the hell do we think we are trying to tell other people they can't have nukes when we have so damn many?

Just because they have a crazy leader? What, like we don't?

When the US and Israel dump all of our nukes, then we have the right to tell others they can't, IMO.

[Coexist]

19. and if we had any credibility left (as a country)

we could have the IAEA moniter where their research was going.

Turns out the IAEA was dead RIGHT on both Iraq and North Korea.

But "bomb-now-ask-questions-later" has become our policy and serious nations are leery of us.

[samhsarah]

20. Umm, first of all, WE HAVE NUKES, and our leader is just as much

a religious nutjob loose cannon as anybody else. Secondly, look at the map. Iran is surrounded by enemy forces (that would be US) who HAVE nukes, who DO start preemtive wars. All your Middle East bias aside, WTF DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO DO????? If America had hostile forces who had nukes patrolling both our borders, WHAT would you expect our leader to do???? Do you really expect Iran to be any different?

[tyedyeto]

23. Will your next post be...

'Bomb the Shit out of Iran like we did to Iraq'?

[Neil Lisst]

92. I'm with you on this one!! n/t

[tyedyeto]

100. Not understanding what you mean...

Do you think that will be the next thread posted by the OP? Or that you think we should bomb the shit out of Iran?

:shrug:

I, personally, don't want to see ANY country bombed.

[bpilgrim]

26. the neoCONs in the WH are the greatest threat ever known to mankind.

iran has a lot of energy that they want to steal is all.

snap out of the neoCON trance before it's too late :bounce:

peace

[WilliamPitt]

28. You're not wrong

This is example #6,322,887,921 on the list titled Reasons Why The Kooky Klass Klown Shouldn't Be President In Such A Dangerous World.

Iran is a threat. So is China, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, India, etc. Welcome to the end of the end of the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

The fear is that we have such a complete boob at the helm, and a religiously hepped-up imperialist boob at that. It is hard to balance reason in such an unreasonable situation.

[stevietheman]

105. Yes, Iran is a "threat" like many other countries are a "threat", but...

are they an imminent threat?

NO.

Any suggestions of that are HOGWASH and an attack on Iran must be prevented at all costs. Why? Because Russia and China won't just sit back and let it happen... that's why.

Why risk World War IV over a non-imminent threat and the next elective, manufactured Bush war?

ON EDIT: I meant this as a reply to the parent topic.

[fujiyama]

130. Will

I'd have to argue that the US, France, Britain, Israel, and Russia with nukes is a great threat as well to world security. Let's not make the mistake in thinking that nukes only in the hands of nonwhites is a threat (I doubt that was what you were getting at but the nations you listed are all nonwhite). Also, among those you listed, India is a democracy (albeit flawed) and its nukes are in the hands of a civilian government, which is very different from many of the other nations you listed.

[DinahMoeHum]

137. This shit with Iran is nothing but neocons seeking revenge for 1979. . .

Their memories are long.

Unfortunately, Iranians' memories are at least twice as long - going back to the CIA-backed coup that deposed Mossadegh in 1953. Honestly, does anybody really think they're going to go down without a fight?

More than half the Iranians today were born after the events of 1979. Even if they despise the current government, if we sent troops into their country, they will fight us - not for their government, but for their home.

It would be the same thing if the US and Iran switched roles - even though I despise King George, I'll fight, not for him, but for myself and my family and friends. (Just to be sure, though, I'd save a clip of bullets for later on - nyuk nyuk)

:evilfrown:

[lectrobyte]

29. Do you blame them? Iraq didn't have nukes, and look what

happened to them in 2003.

[Rob H.]

30. Not biased--cynical. There's a difference.

Bush and his entire administration have shown that they're not above (and indeed seem eager to engage in) lying and spinning in order to push their radical, neoconservative, PNAC-loving agenda. It would be a mistake not to take pretty much everything they say about Iran from this point forward with a Hummer-sized grain of salt, IMHO.

[shraby]

32. If Iran developed a nuke and tried to use

it, they could be turned into glass in a day's time by Israel, Pakistan or the U.S.
One or two nukes is not enough for an arsenal. Supposing they used them..what would they gain? Their nukes would be gone, the other nations might retaliate and they'd have nothing left to defend themselves with. Be real here.
At any rate, how would they EVER deliver those nukes to the U.S.? Ask yourself some logical questions, and not throw your hands up and start running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

[Telly Savalas]

34. We were at the "last resort" with the Soviet Union back in the 50's

[Neil Lisst]

35. Only two choices?! In your mind, maybe.

People who present things as two choices do so because they want to make one of their choices seem more logical and palatable.

China, Pakistan, and North Korea all have NUCLEAR, and all are probably greater risks in the long haul than Iran.

So do France, Germany, UK, the US, India, Israel, and Russia.

I don't care for Iran getting nuclear power or weaponry, and think life is better without their having it, but there are states a lot closer to Iran who have a greater interest in their level of armaments than the US, particularly Russia and Israel. Let them take out the Iranian nuclear facilities.

[Telly Savalas]

46. Well, we need to invade all those countries too.

If we don't, the "smoking gun" could be a mushroom cloud.

In fact we'd best play it safe and have air raids on any country whose head of state can pronounce "nuclear" correctly.

[Neil Lisst]

91. Yes! Fortunately, I do speak "Sarcasmian"

Anyone else think all this wouldn't be necessary if Bush had been paying attention the first 45 years of his life, instead of being boozed and coked out of his mind?

[Telly Savalas]

115. Bush is a big part of the problem, but not all of it.

A lot of our problems abroad stem from a quasi-imperialist foreign policy that deprioritizes human rights. This policy predates Bush by decades.

And of course there are troublemakers out there who would be up to no good even if our noses were totally clean.

[tyedyeto]

36. A post and runner? OP has abandoned the post?

[Neil Lisst]

44. There's only 30 minutes between his post and yours.

Isn't it a little early in the life of the thread to start attacking anything other than the substance?

It's an important topic, and the OP is not critical to a discussion of it. I share your concern about the tenor of the OP, however, but reserve judgment.

Sometimes I start a thread, leave, to come back later. Sometimes people get bumped offline and can't get back on immediately, or have to run an errand. I simply don't expect the OP to tend the thread like he or she is throwing a party as the host.

[jarab]

37. Preemptive strikes may one day be necessary ...

But, I sure don't want the present occupant of that office making the decision. We'd NEVER know whether the justifications were true.

...O...

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. Listen

We had Russia armed to the teeth with a gazillion icbm's aimed at every damned one of our cities. NOW THAT IS A THREAT.

And we got through it by not doing anything dumb and they finally fell apart on their own.

Also, Israel is going to hit Iran long before we think of it. In my opinion, we need to get the hell out of the middle east and just rebuild New Orleans and have a big party.

[Neil Lisst]

53. Thank you!! USSR and China? We've managed to deal with them.

Pakistan is a bigger concern to me. Their guy is already the Johnny Appleseed of nuclear technology among Muslim states, and their government could fall easily to true radicals.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

59. We have faced a lot of threats for a lot of years

by just staring back. It works.

See, I think when and if we have more terrorist attacks, we just just immediately go to THAT country and kick a bit of ass and then back off. No ground troops. In the case of 911, it would have been Saudi Arabia.

Why didn't we? Well...... MIHOP? I don't know. But the response we have come up with is overkill.

[tritsofme]

150. When dealing with Russia or China, the principles of MADD

applied.

To nations with two-bit dictators like Iran, they don't care about MADD, they would engage in nuclear exchange without regard to the consequences.

[OzarkDem]

156. Thank you Grannie

An incredibly salient point that so many seem to forget in the hysterical Bush era.

[Vinnie From Indy]

41. F E A R

Be afraid! Fear and safety are ALWAYS the main weapons used against citizens by regimes seeking absolute power and control. Fascism slowly slinks into the room on cat's paws.

I, for one, will not sign on to subverting our freedom by declaring perpetual war based on fear.

I suggest strongly that you sign up at the nearest recruiting station to protect yourself and your family if you are scared enough to endorse the sending of "other" peoples children into another of Smirky's wars.

Your post is silly and ignorant. I really liked the "THIS TIME IT'S NOT A LIE" line and the "ITS REAL THIS TIME" line! Aaaaaahh! Run for your lives! Be afraid! AAaaahahaha!

[The Whiskey Priest]

43. Iran with a nuclear device is no more a threat than

Pakistan
India
Israel
S. Africa
A lot of ex-Soviet Union Nations
China
France
And may I be so bold as to suggest, the USofA

Then you can add North Korea and a whole panoply of suspected nations.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rpgamerd00d]

71. Correct, RP=Role Playing

But video game != Role Playing Game. Hint: no computers involved.

You have a lot to learn, padawan.

:)

[mikelewis]

106. You are correct...

however the politics of the Forgotten Realms is less complicated than that of our world. There evil looks like evil and good looks like good. Here, it's not so easy. If they've convinced you Iran is a threat to the United States, you should stick to rolling your dice.

Iran has no capabilities what so ever to strike the U.S. in any capacity. The longest ICBM they have reaches Israel, not the United States. Their army cannot leaver their country without being destroyed. So exactly how is Iran a threat to you and me?

Do you believe they'll give a nuke to a terrorist? They very well might, but if they did and the terrorists detonated it here, Iran would cease to exist. It would be suicide for them to do such a thing. So where's the threat?

The only threat they pose is that they plan on switching the currency in which countries can buy oil from them. Right now, they buy in dollars. In April, they switch to Euros. In May, they die.

[rpgamerd00d]

110. What if Iran gives a nuke to a terrorist who detonates it in Israel?

Why do people always say "They cant detonate it in the US so who cares if terrorists get nukes." ???

[mikelewis]

116. What do you think would happen to Iran in that scenario?

They would be commiting suicide by doing something like this and they know it. So, yes, it is a possibility but Israel and the U.S. (not to mention a gigantic coalition of countries) would respond with an overwhelming and complete invasion of Iran. There is no logic in using the bomb as anything but a deterrent. I do not support Iran's building nukes but there is no credible evidence that they are doing so. The IAEA has said they find no evidence of Iran's weaponized nuclear program. Between the IAEA and the U.S., based upon the recent record, which do you believe?

[rpgamerd00d]

118. OK lemme rephrase. What if a nuke goes off in Israel out of the blue?

If Iran has nuclear weapons capability, you can SUSPECT they gave one to a terrorist, but can you prove it?

[mikelewis]

132. Yes, you could prove the uranium came from an Iranian facility..

you could even tell which one and the date it was extracted. We would know and then incinerate them with God's own thunder. Iran is no greater threat to you or this country than Canada. The terrorism it sponsors is not global in nature and they had nothing to do with 9/11. Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah and a few other radical groups who are associated with terrorist groups. Their stated goal is the eradication of Israel, not the United States. Our treaty with Israel protects Israel from invasion but has not stopped terrorism. In fact it exacerbates terrorism by undermining an economic equilibrium between the countries. Israel is rich and we help keep them that way. The surrounding countries are not and their people are resentful of the favoritism of Uncle Sam. It's quite easy to turn this economic animosity into sectarian violence and terrorism. Hitler was a master at it, he blamed the Jews for the countries woe's and fed that ideology of hate into his people. The same has happened in the middle east.

You're not going to end terrorism by invading Iran and that is the only threat Iran poses to us, with or without a nuclear bomb. The threat of terrorism from Iran is also very limited in nature and usually only comes in the form of donations to groups associated with terrorists. If Bush is looking for a War with Terrorists, attacking Iran is the surest way to get it. Right now, we are an army without an enemy. If you want to raise one, beat the drums for an Iranian attack.

[The Stranger]

128. Huh?

As noted above, Iran cannot reach the U.S. with any weapon -- any weapon.

And, more to the point, we've been through this before with the whole weapons of mass destruction lies and the mass murder that has resulted.

Now it is revealed from this post that your concern appears to be for Israel -- not the United States.

If that is the case, then come out and say so at the beginning -- instead of trying to pretend that the U.S. is at risk.

[prescole]

83. I'm so damn sick of this "Freeper! Freeper!" crap. It's shallow,

self-righteous bullshit. Try thinking before you demonize your allies.

[rpgamerd00d]

85. I wasnt insulted. Just disappointed. nt

[Odin2005]

111. "I'm so damn sick of this "Freeper! Freeper!" crap."

Same here. I am farther to the left tham most people here, and yet I am mocked for not agreeing when every one else has thier conspiracy theory circle-jerks. :crazy:

[The Stranger]

129. I'm so sick of the Freeper crap on these boards too.

They have their own web site. Let the war mongers clamoring for more illegal wars go there.

[Orangepeel]

This is what the UN security council is for

the US should work with other countries to deal with legitimate threats to the security of the world. if military action is called for, it should be multilateral.

[not systems]

49. Let them have nukes...

a little MAD could do the region good.

I don't know why the funny "only we can have nukes" idea
is give credibility as any thing but the law of power
preserving power.

What a crock.

[rustydad]

76. Perhaps

A little radiation around the ME oil fields may be the only thing that can keep us fools from burning the resst of te oil and warming the planet by 20 degrees. Like living on a pole, north or south? bob

[mikelewis]

52. Do you make this shit up as you go along?

"Their own LEADER is confirming that they are trying to get nukes.
Its not like any of this is false info. ITS REAL THIS TIME."

As our illustrious leader once said, "Fool me once, you don't get fooled again." Sell crazy somewhere else.

[Neil Lisst]

60. fool me once, shame on you. fool me ... you can't get fooled again!

but I loved Jack Nicholson line!!

The blank look on the face of the Dunce in Chief was priceless!!

[mdmc]

63. the world is full of threats, Iran included.

How do we best protect ourselves and humanity from all of these threats?

And a follow up question... Poverty and addiction are threats to humanity all over the world. By changing our attitude towards human responsibility, we could really effect a positive reduction in these threats. Are you suggesting that a nuclear Iran (or North Korea) constitutes a greater threat than poverty?

War is not the answer in Iran. Worldwide diplomacy and a greater understanding of humanity will best protect us from Iran and all worldwide threats.

Violence only begets violence.

[rpgamerd00d]

67. Sorry, I have my daughter today, not hitting refresh every 1.5 seconds

And we just got snow, so, we were outside making a snowman.

Anyway, I do not believe that the Pres of Iran only wants nuclear power for electricity.

Why?

Because he was offered access to non-weapons-grade materials from Russia, I believe, in whatever supply they need, and he turned it down flat. If he wants to create nuclear power for his country, all he needs are the plants, not facilities to make and enrich his own uranium, which he is insisting on.

I understand that getting material from Russia would make their plants susceptible to supply from Russia, but he could always develop enrichment later once his plants are all online with Russian fuel.

[not systems]

74. Why shouldn't they be able to develop nukes?

Because of some UN treaty?

Last I checked treaties don't count for much these days.

They are much more stable than Pakistan.

[rpgamerd00d]

77. Because no one should have them. Its hard to disarm with more nukes...

... coming online.

[not systems]

80. That is funny...

why don't you advocate for attacking Israel or Pakistan or N. Korea
or get the UN to sanction these nuked up despotic countries.

Face it Iran has every right to nuke up it is in close
range of Israel and Pakistan both who have them and it
has a legitimate right to defend it's self even if they
have our oil.

[oblivious]

84. But the NPT allows Iran to enrich uranium. The treaty is clear about that.

As long as the program is transparant, under IAEA supervision, and clearly for peaceful purposes.

And would you trust Russia for such an important component of your electrical power system? Maybe it's just bad timing but the Russian-Ukraine gas tussle didn't make Russia look like the ideal supplier at that time of the negotiations.

[rpgamerd00d]

89. Ah, I wasnt aware the NPT allows "peaceful" enrichment.

So, I guess all the hubbub about "going the next step to weapons-grade" is the propaganda from Bush?
i.e. If inspectors are watching, there is no way to go to weapons-grade without them noticing ?
Do I have that right?

[oblivious]

103. Informative but long article from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Iran's Game of Nuclear Poker: Knowing When to Fold
By Jean du Preez & Melissa Kessler
August 26, 2005

...From a legal perspective, Iran's recent decision to resume uranium conversion is not contrary to the requirements of the NPT or its IAEA safeguards obligations, even with the Additional Protocol in place. Bearing in mind that the purpose of safeguards agreements is for the IAEA to verify non-diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons, and since the IAEA has reported (as reflected in several Board resolutions including the most recent one) that all declared nuclear material is accounted for and thus has not been diverted to prohibited uses, it raises a serious challenge for the Board, and indeed the Security Council: Does the Board have a legal footing to report Iran to the Security Council, and on what basis could the Council consider Iran in non-compliance with its safeguard undertakings?
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/050826.htm

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

[AndyTiedye]

99. It Is Better To Make Snowmen

Making a snowman with your daughter is a far better thing to do than trying to start another war.

You realize that if you get your wish, you (and me and anybody of any age who can hold a gun) will be DRAFTED to fight in that war.
No more making snowmen with your daughter, because it will be "for the duration". Eventually she will be drafted to fight in it too.

All because Iran *might* be thinking of developing nuclear weapons.

[dchill]

72. Threat or not...

This country is already under a much larger threat: the Bush Administration. We need different leadership to deal with the threat of Iran.

[Skidmore]

78. So who are we to tell other nations what weaponry they may

develop? I don't get the idea that we have the right to dictate to other nations how they are to set up their governments, develop their laws, order their societies, or protect themselves. We certainly are not without blemish when it comes to being belligerent and undemocratic. I don't by any means wish to convey that I believe the world should be anything but nuke-free. However, that is damned hard to achieve when we have Cheney & Rumsfeld trying to escalate things by seeking new nukes on our side. How the hell many times do we need to assure the destruction of the world?

[DeepModem Mom]

79. Nukes + a religious fanatic leader = danger, here or elsewhere. Thanks...

for your post.

[Jara sang]

87. That is bullshit! Every nation on the planet will have nukes one day.

Soon the technology for nuclear weapons will be as antiquated as the patent for the safety pin.

[BiggJawn]

94. So what's Iran's delivery system?

Sorry, but I'm not buying YOUR bullshit about the "immediate threat" from Iran any more than I bought Shrub and Colon Bowell's bullshit about Iraq's ability to take out NYC with an over-grown RC model airplane.

Now, if Iran was to piss-off Israel (even more than they already are), and either attack, or give "cause" for Israel to launch one a them "Pre-emptives" that's all the fashion amongst civilised, peace-loving nations these days, we'd have to jump right in the middle of it to "Help our Ally".

So, the question in MY mind is:
Who's the bigger threat right now? Iran? Or perhaps it could be Israel, by means of our implied suicide pact with them that's designed to "hasten the coming of THA LAWD!", this "We'll come to your aid, even if you DID start it AND deserve to get your ass kicked" policy. But it's anti-semitic to criticise Israeli policy, so this will never be seen after the mods get back from lunch....

Better get thee to the recruitment Station before it gets too hot for you to do anything about it.

Oh, I almost forgot, it's NOT the "Iraq Lie" that makes me so anti-war, it's being around for every Pax Amerikana operation since Vietnam that makes me so against MORE war.

[kentuck]

98. Let's make a deal...Israel gives up her nukes...her neighbors give up..

their nukes....Naw...that ain't fair.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. They lied

anything they say is suspect.

That said what army is king goerge going ot use after the plan goes to hell in a handbasket after first contact is made?

(Oh I expect King George to use Nukes actually, but that is another story... and rummy has been itching to use them since 1973)

[rman]

107. imagine where we'd be if * had been president around the time of the cold

war...

"they're a threat, so we attack them"
Yeah sure... good luck with that.



Didn't we in fact give Iran blueprints for nukes?

[CJCRANE]

134. That's what I said in another thread -

I wouldn't be surprised if the neocons' backroom boys were selling technology to Iran just to set them up to be attacked later on.

[KamaAina]

109. And why do you suppose Iran would want nukes just at this time?

Might it be that they feel threatened because a world "leader" nearly as crazy as their own, who repeatedly calls them "evil", has invaded and occupied the country right next door to them?

:scared:

[gunsaximbo]

113. personally I think our Government had a hand in getting...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected. We knew who he was, what he was like. A friend of a friend who lives in Iran said that Iranians hate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that NO ONE voted for him and they are all perplexed by how he was elected into office (sound familiar).

This was a strategic move by the neocons and the trilateral commission and the new world order to take control of the worlds most important commodity - OIL.

It has nothing to do with nukes or chemical weapons other wise we would have invaded Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea and any number of other Countries that have WMD. We haven't done that because THEY HAVE NO OIL.

Look, we're setting up the next generation of wars. I Guarantee we'll be in Venezuela within the next decade give or take a year or two. We'll find a reason to make war with Nigeria soon after that.

OILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOILOIL

[spanone]

114. I opt for Number One. eom

[alfredo]

117. First Enhanced uranium doesn't mean bomb. Enhanced uranium

is used for nuclear power. To make it weapons grade it has to be enhanced further, beyond what is suitable for power. As yet I have not heard anyone say there is evidence they are making bomb grade uranium. My impression was that bush wanted us to associate enhanced uranium with bomb making. They found traces of bomb grade material, but that was on some machinery they bought from our "good friends" Pakistan.

They may be making a bomb, or they might be messing with our heads. Such scary scenarios are not unusual while working for a deal that favors their point of view. We used to call it
"brinksmanship."

the only reason I see them wanting a bomb is as a deterrent against a US invasion. North Korea has the bomb, we didn't invade. Iraq didn't, we invaded.

The Iraq was has limited (on many levels) our ability to respond to a real crisis. Iran knows this so they are exploiting this weakness.

Remember, we encouraged Iran to develop its own nuclear industry.

[951-Riverside]

119. OH MY GOD! A brown skin nation is getting nukes!!! OH NO!! OH NO!!!

...If America who is the first ever to use these types of weapons on another nation can have them why can't anyone else?

[EstimatedProphet]

120. Fine. It's a bad thing. Force isn't the answer at this stage

There are other things that will work, that won't require an invasion. We had economic sanctions in place that kept Hussein under wraps until we decided to invade him on an excuse (see here if you don't believe me) that we should try first, rather than starting the solution process at declaring war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.."

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
— Leading Nazi leader, Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials before he was sentenced to death

[many a good man]

122. Stopping nuclear proliferation is a worthy goal

Its in the world's interests to keep the nuclear power club as small as possible. Wish we had a practical plan for non-nuclear renewable energy to give them instead.

We are witnessing high stakes bargaining at the highest levels. The fiasco in Iraq has weakened American power and emboldened our enemies. Bush is completely to blame for empowering Tehran to challenge the Colossus.

Look for the Administration to accede to peaceful nukes and no bombing in exchange for abandoning plans for the new Iranian oil bourse.

[Jose Diablo]

123. What is that green glass called, trinitite, I think it's called.

Used to be able to buy pieces of it at roadside stands during the 50's in New Mexico. Trinitite was made, when the 'fatboys' were tested around Oscura Peak, at the Trinity site.

As for Iran procuring their own 'fatboys', who will stop them? Besides that, Russia and China have a vested interest, the oil. If push comes to shove, Iran will get what it wants. Even a shock and awe will probably kill a lot of them, but not enough to stop Iran from closing the gulf and the oil spigot to the world, cutting the supply lines to Iraq and fighting any conventional war to a standstill with anyone that attacks them. The Persians are not people to screw around with, many have tried and as far as I know, no one has conquered them. They're pretty smart people, smart enough to come out on top of any conflict.

Truth is, I can't think of one good reason for us to fight with them. In modern times they haven't messed with us unless we screwed with them first. Why can't we solve our differences peacefully and get on with living our own lives. I guess the money here probably wants Iran's oil. Of course, over the years the wealth here in the states has messed over Iran pretty bad, so I imagine they have plenty to be sore about in regards to how Iran feels about us.

If I were Iran, knowing what I know about this administration, I'd get nukes too, along with ways to deliver the nukes. Seems to me thats all our country believes in anymore, force.

[LunaC]

124. Israel, Pakistan and India can have nuclear power/weapons

and have declined to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but I don't hear you complaining about them.

As far as Iran is concerned, they've signed the treaty and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty

[Imagevision]

125. Oh, I see, this time WMD'S are for real... as Bushco self destructs..!

indictments, investigations - Abramoff, Libby Delay-- yes! this time wmd's in Iran must be addressed - can we just send the american troops and our "allies" from Iraq to Iran, being that their already in the region?

[welshTerrier2]

127. there is NO EVIDENCE of nuke weapons development in Iran

NONE ... anything that Iran MIGHT do couldn't give it a nuke in less than ten years and there's no evidence that they are even pursuing a development program ... it is fair to say that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons; it's also fair to say that bush and cheney shouldn't be allowed to have them either ... we are NOT the good guys; bush and cheney are considering the possible use of "limited nukes" in Iran ... what kind of madness is that ???

the real incentive for a US attack on Iran HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NUKES ... NOTHING !!! this is not about liberals or looking tough or being willing to use force when it's necessary; this about is about raw US power, imperialism and petrodollars ...

for more information, read these:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060112_the_countdown_to_war.htm
http://telecidal.blogspot.com/2006/01/truth-behind-iraq-invasion-and.html

[rman]

138. According to neocon logic that's evidence Iran is hiding

its nuclear program related activities.

[Hippo_Tron]

131. Have you ever considered why he is announcing that he is building nukes?

I mean, it seems pretty obvious that if someone wanted to give their nuclear weapons to terrorists, they would not announce that they are being built. Furthermore, the President of iran that Bush would have an incredibly difficult time making a case for military action to stop him from building nukes based on "intelligence" after the Iraq intelligence fiasco. So do you think that perhaps he might just be announcing this so that he can bargain with us?

But you know what, let's not take any chances, let's blow some shit up until he stops building nukes. That way Iran will build nukes again in 10 years and next time they won't announce it and they will DEFINATELY give them to terrorists to use against the United States.

Great plan...

[oblivious]

140. He has NOT announced Iran is building nukes. That was a CNN LIE.

The nuclear program is for the peaceful generation of electricity. It is NPT-compliant, supervised by IAEA inspectors.

[Hippo_Tron]

144. Okay, assuming that is true, same concept still applies

My point was that if he had any intention of using this for terrorist activities, it would be done in secret.

[oblivious]

148. Oh I see. Yes, without doubt.

[Mr.Green93]

133. Are you anti Islam?

Shouldn't an Islamic nation have the right to defend themselves?

[tritsofme]

151. Are you anti-NPT?

[AntiFascist]

135. Do we have to go through this AGAIN?!

If the leader of Iran is the problem, then bring down the leader! There must be plenty of support within Iran for this option. The problem is, if anything, the U.S. probably is protecting Ahmadinejad because having a fanatic leader making threats towards Israel is the answer to the Neocons' dreams. Who knows, could he even be a CIA asset?

Remember what happened when we first attacked Iraq. We didn't target Saddam, eventhough I would wager that it would have been more than easy enough to have wiped him out and his government. Instead, Bush Sr. wanted to set an example of the strength of the American military and started babbling about the New World Order in his speeches. 100,000s of thousands of Iraqis ended up dying in the aftermath and then in the second war and, of course, now we are paying the price with the lack cooperation from most Iraqis who want us out.

How many more wars do we need to start before the religious right finally gets what they want: a Holy War and the final conflict of Armageddon?

[MrSlayer]

136. I agree with you for the most part.

Iran absolutely should not have nukes but I have a hard time believing they are an immediate threat. BushCo has cried wolf so many times that I do not find anything they say on the matter to be credible. It is a tough situation. I don't want Iran to have nukes but I also want absolute proof that they are being developed before any action is taken. And diplomacy, real diplomacy and negotiation, must be tried first.

[bloom]

141. The claim that Iran's leader is claiming to want nukes is flat out wrong.

At least "Nukes" as in weapons.

From CNN itself:

Iran: CNN banned over translation error

Monday, January 16, 2006; Posted: 3:55 p.m. EST (20:55 GMT)

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Saturday slams efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program.

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's government banned CNN journalists from working in the country Monday after a translation error broadcast by CNN mistakenly quoted Iran's president as saying his nation has the right to build nuclear weapons, the state-run news agency said.

CNN was not informed directly by the Iranian government that it was banned from the country.

The dispute arises from a moment of simultaneous translation Saturday.

As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking, an interpreter working for a translation company hired by CNN misquoted him as having said Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons.

In fact, he said Iran has the right to nuclear energy, and that "a nation that has civilization does not need nuclear weapons." He added, "Our nation does not need them."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/16/iran.cnn/

[alcibiades_mystery]

142. Blah Blah Blah

The US has had its preemptive strike pass well and truly fucking REVOKED, full stop.

Will we once again see the very credentialed Democrats going along with the bullshit on these very boards, just as they did before the Iraq invasion (you know who you are you fucking skunks). It's over. If other countries want a say, that's fine, but it will have to be through the UN and it will have to EXCLUDE any US involvement. We've proven ourse4lves unfit for international leadership roles and our motives are lacking all credibility. We are no longer fit to say anything about anything in the Middle East. Finito.

[NuttyFluffers]

145. yup, this is correct.

nothing really important left to add.
:toast:

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Well, too fuckin' bad we shot our wad on Iraq, then.

Thems the breaks.

[hopeisaplace]

146. Takes a skilled leader to deal with global threats without starting wars

[NNN0LHI]

147. Have you been to the recruiter so you can lead the first wave into Tehran?

Lets find out just how much of a threat you think Iran is. I know you probably have some kind of medical problems and they wouldn't take you.

Don

[ellisonz]

152. "bad"

Nuclear proliferation is bad. But nuclear holocaust is even worse. I choose to live with nuclear proliferation, I don't like it, but the cost of doing something about it is incredibly high and success is by no means guaranteed. Please, tell me how you expect to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons when we can't even find a tall Saudi man on dialysis?

War is a choice more often than not. America should choose peace.

[ComerPerro]

153. To bad that we aren't set up to wage war on Iran, because of Iraq

Bush has screwed this country over more than some people will ever fully comprehend.

We can't afford to maintain our own infrastructure properly because of all the money we are wasting on this war.

We have trouble affording emergency relief for disasters because Bush has sent us into massive deficit already, and keeps pouring it on.

We will never be able to truly address the health care problems in this country because Bush and the Republicans spent billions of dollars on a Medicare plan that doesn't even work.

We can't even protect our own borders and curb illegal immigration (many conservatives want troops on the border) because our military resources are tied up in Iraq.

We can't practice diplomacy because Bush has turned the world against us.

We can't defend ourselves properly from anything that may become an actual threat (Iran, North Korea) because Bush has wasted money, resources, and lives on an unending war that was fought for no apparent reason other than settling a personal score.


Bush has seriously jeopardized this nation's security, safety, and strength.

[Hubert Flottz]

155. Who can believe Bush?

Only a fool!