OK, I'm going to get flamed - I think Iran is dangerous, we should worry.

[FormerRepublican]

Having said that, I think Bush, Cheney, and all their war/oil hungry pals have put us in a horrible position to try to deal with the situation. IMO, we're so overstretched with Iraq that even if Iran was an immediately critical problem seriously threating our national security (for real, not a Bush fake), we could not respond militarily due to the strains on our military. Unless Bushitler starts up a draft - which he might. And raises taxes significantly - which he won't. And gets the US public behind him - which is iffy after his Iraq lies.

I don't believe for one second that those idiots in the White House are smart enough to understand that we're in a really, really bad position to do anything militarily about Iran. I think they're planning to act anyway, and they're thinking it will be a cake walk, just like they did about Iraq. They don't learn from their mistakes.

I personally DO NOT want to see Iran with a nuclear bomb because unlike others here on DU, I DO believe they would use it - either against Israel or us or someone else who publishes cartoons. A nuke armed Iran is a danger to the entire world. My preference is to deal with it diplomatically, but with Iran's current political makeup I think that hope is impractical. But if the only alternative is the use of some kind of force, we're not in a position to do that either. We're left sheet out of luck in heck with a handbasket because Bush and his pals wanted a little adventure in Iraq.

Now if Iraq had gone the way they wanted and been a cakewalk to a US Welcome Wagon, we'd be sitting pretty to deal with Iran because we've got them surrounded (although that doesn't justify what was done in Iraq in any way, mind). But Bush and his boys have terminal over-optimism (as in it gets people killed) when it comes to military action. They simply CANNOT understand that sometimes things go very, very wrong. They think anti-war protesters were the reason we failed in Vietnam, rather than leadership issues that put us in a bad war and failed to manage it properly. So, because they failed to learn from our past history, they're repeating it. And no doubt blaming anti-war protestors for Bush failures in Iraq.

Iraq is bad enough. But I think they're going to make an even worse move by acting militarily against Iran with piss poor planning, no military or other resources, and 'heck of a job' Bush in charge. That scenario looks to be as dangerous for the US as a nuclear armed Iran. That's what worries me as I watch this unfold...

[Obamarama]

1. I think Iran is potentially dangerous as well. Here's what scares me:

We have a sock puppet prez with some evil, nefarious folks with their hands up his ass. I would feel SO much more hopeful about the situation if we had a statesman at the helm who could think for himself. With the status quo the situation with Iran is doomed to hell.

[cantstandbush]

15. Iran is more dangerous now thanks to Bush and his stupid war on terrorism

Every nation and every place is more dangerous.

[nolabels]

108. It only became dangerous because it was a target they could shoot for

There is nothing special about Iran other than it chose to stand up against the US many moons ago.

Imperialists hate them countries that challenge the authority and the fact they are still standing independent for over 25 years now must really gall at them power seekers. They set up Saddam to fight that proxy-war against Iran in which he got his ass kicked in and had to sue for peace. Only thing I can figure is they still must be smarting from when they were kicked out the country and all them there oil wells got nationalized (again)

[Mythsaje]

2. Either way we can blame Bush and his cronies

for the fact that their "axis of evil" comment fired up the hard-liners and stripped back years of democratic progress in that country.

[Disturbed]

8. The Neo Fascist Regime of Amerika...seem willing to plunge

the USA into a deep hole in order to advance the PNAC Agenda. The control of oil,natural gas and water are more important than anything to them.

Possible consequences of an attack upon Iran?

http://iran-persia.blogspot.com/2006/01/wayne-madsen-reports-on-consequences.html

[jrd200x]

3. I agree with you - we should have gone there instead of Iraq

Iran is truly dangerous to us - and to the rest of the world.

We should have gone there instead of Iraq. They want to kill us and will start something if we let then get a bomb.

Too bad it's too late and Bush has let them and N. Korea get so far while worrying about bullying Iraq and all the others.

[LynnTheDem]

47. Gone to Iran for WHAT EXCUSE?

Just wondering. Have to be the same absolute bullshit as Iraq.

[leesa]

59. They haven't done anything to anyone! WTF is wrong with you people???

[LynnTheDem]

80. Nor have they broekn any laws, sanctions or resolutions,

Good fucking question, Leesa;

WTF is WRONG with you people??! Have we become so fucking EVIL that even supposed liberals advocate what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the most heinous, the SUPREME CRIME of preventive war, slaughtering men, women & kids on a "WHAT IF" Iran gets a nuke IN A DECADE, when Iran hasn't done a damn thing, hasn't broken any laws or treaties??!

WTF IS wrong with you people???!

[ronnie624]

88. Indeed.

Reading these expressions of blood lust on Democratic Underground is very disturbing. I have always come here to escape right wing blather.

[zanne]

122. The thing about Republican propaganda is that...

Some Democrats fall for it, too.

[Ms. Clio]

187. I wish someone would tell me WTF IS wrong with all these people

I hardly recognize this place anymore.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

94. Who brought the koolaid to the party?! It's obviously been spiked..

IRAN IS 10 YEARS AWAY FROM EVEN POSSIBLY MAYBE HAVING A BOMB!!

We have our nutbag cowboy pResildent shakin his hoohaws at Iran's nutbag President, who feels obligated to shake his hoohaws back to show they are bigger!!


Oh, lord. what I wouldn't give for a little sane diplomacy! :cry:

[tlsmith1963]

154. Yes, But Look at Their Most Recent History

Remember the hostages that were taken? And it has been said for years that they support terrorism. Yes, our support for the shah led to all this, but Iran is still pretty scary. I do agree that Iraq was never really a threat, but Iran? Come on. I think that Iran & Saudi Arabia are the main supporters of terrorism. Of course Bush is buddies with the Saudis, so he will never go after them. He just may try to go after Iran, although I would actually be against it if he did. I don't trust the neocons *at all*. We need leaders who aren't completely bonkers, then we can figure out what to do about Iran.

Tammy

[ProfessorGAC]

156. Scary To Whom?

You keep saying "they're scary". Scary how? To whom? They don't frighten me in the least and i tend toward big picture thinking and a future perspective. I don't see them as a threat in the foreseeable future to anybody. Besides, after what happened to the Taliban and Saddam, they would seem clever enough to know they can only push so hard before they get stomped on. And, they don't want to be stomped on. Who does?
The Professor

[FormerRepublican]

159. Are you trying to say that Iran wouldn't take advantage of a safe...

...opportunity to hit the US if it were presented? Especially if it were through a proxy like a terrorist organization? Isn't that the definition of threat?

[ProfessorGAC]

164. Yes. That's What I'm Saying

The soviets had a few thousand warheads with long range capability for 30+ years. They also knew that any strike on our soil, BY ANYBODY, would result in our launch against them. They had a vested interest in knowing that their weapons remained THEIR weapons. Mutally assured destruction works that way. We had a vested interest in knowing that some psychopathic annti-communist group wouldn't get their hands on one either. That's why neither side used a nuke for the 42 years we both had them! No matter who was at fault, everybody was toast.

The same principle applies here. One 50kT device goes off in america, and Iran is a moonscape. They know it. We know it. They have a vested interest in NOT using the nukes, but merely having them to prevent any further imperialism in the middle east.

Developing self-preservation weaponry is, by definition, not a threat.
The Professor

[FormerRepublican]

166. Then you're ignoring actions that Iran has ALREADY taken in the past.

Iran has been implicated (not just by us, but by the international community) in support for terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah - which, as you might recall, were responsible for the Kobar Towers bombing.

"Khobar Towers is part of an housing complex in the city of Khobar, Saudi Arabia near the national oil company (Saudi Aramco) headquarters of Dhahran. In 1996, it was being used to house foreign military personnel, including Americans. On June 25, 1996, terrorists, identified by the United States as members of Hezbollah, exploded a fuel truck adjacent to Building #131 in the housing complex. This eight-story building housed United States Air Force personnel from the 4404th Wing, primarily from a deployed rescue squadron and deployed fighter squadron. In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded. This event has come to be known as the Khobar Towers bombing.

According to the United States, a group of terrorists who wanted to remove Americans from Saudi Arabia organized the attack. They smuggled explosives into Saudi Arabia from Lebanon. They purchased a fuel truck in Saudi Arabia and converted it into a bomb. It contained 3,000 to 5,000 pounds of explosives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing

If you recall, Clinton was President in 1996, and would not have spewed a bunch of lies about Hezbollah merely to get us into an oil war.

And lest you think I'm making up the Iran/Hezbollah link, here's a non-related press report from Iran itself:

"Tehran, Iran, Sep. 26 – Iran’s Hezbollah announced on Sunday that it planned to set up a satellite TV channel to spread the group’s ultra-Islamist message, the country’s state-run media reported on Monday.

“At present, the website Hezbollah is the only active link connecting our organisation with Muslims. But we are seeking to set up a Hezbollah satellite channel”, the group’s Secretary General, Seyyed Mohammad-Baqer Kharrazi, said.

Kharrazi announced that as part of a re-shuffle in the group, Mojtaba Bigdeli was to act as his spokesman while Seyyed Mohammad Qaem-Maqami was to be the organisation’s spokesman."

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3828

Thanks, but with that analysis of Iran, I'm glad you're not the one doing US threat assessment.

[ProfessorGAC]

167. Wow! You Don't Mind Taking A Giant Leap Over The Chasm, Do You?

You don't see the difference between facilitating a nuking and setting off a truck bomb.

And i couldn't care any less if you're glad. I don't have much concern for the opinions of two dimensional thinkers.
The Professor

[FormerRepublican]

168. This was your post:

"You keep saying "they're scary". Scary how? To whom?"

This was the issue I was responding to. And how, exacty, is there a difference between handing Hezbollah a truck bomb, and handing them a nuke? Why would Iran see a difference? If they're going to kill a bunch of people with a truck bomb, why would they hesistate to use a nuke if it serves their purposes?

Here's a link to help you read up on Hezbollah:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content?021014fa_fact4

[ProfessorGAC]

170. Ahem!

If you don't see the difference between a nuke and a conventional explosive, then i already can't help you much.

The difference to Iran is that (and i'm repeating) the MAD doctrine would suggest that NO MATTER WHO IS AT FAULT, THE RETALIATION IS DIRECTED AT THEM! That has a way of strongly motivating a country, whether they have formerly associated with violent terror groups or not.

The whole game changes with nukes, and if Iran wants them, they had better take the responsibility that comes with them. Even Pakistan and India have done so. They both would have used them by now, against one another, if they didn't know that no matter who was at fault, the other side would pay the price.

The Iranians aren't stupid. If they were truly stupid, they wouldn't be able to build a nuke. It's not all that easy.

The answer to your increasingly two dimensional questions (life is not X therefore Y, my friend) is that the U.S. cannot retaliate for a truck bomb with a nuke. But, if we get nuked, nobody would begrudge us retaliating in kind. Hence, one iranian bomb, in the wrong hands, goes off in the United States, and the whole of Iran is but a memory. It doesn't even matter any more if they did it, if they provided the weapon or funding. Now THEY are highly motivated to not let that happen. Hence, they are NOT A THREAT!

Why are you having such difficulty grasping the concept of M.A.D.? It existed as a deterrent threat in this world for 40+ years. It is not a hypothetical. It's real. It's worked. And it will work again. There is no profit in attacking someone who will turn you to vapor.

I will assume you were one of those that actually believed that the Soviets were a threat. After about 1952, they weren't. It was about MONEY, LAND, and RESOURCES. It was never about ideology or military might. Once it was clear that neither side could actually win a fight with one another, the saber rattling was just posturing to assure economic dominance. Apparently in your former life as a republican, you were paying even less attention than now.
The Professor

[FormerRepublican]

172. I think you're failing to understand some of the very real dynamics...

...at play here. First of all, if Hezbollah used a nuke, could the US trace it back definatively to Iran? Would the US strike Iran without knowing for certain that Iran ordered the hit? That's the whole purpose of using a proxy - to muddy the water so retaliation is mis-directed. Even if Iran were the entity that developed and built the nuke, are we certain they won't hand it off to a proxy for use?

Secondly, Iran is sitting on top of THE largest oil reserves in the world. Even if we did know absolutely for certain that Iran was behind a nuclear hit, I wonder if Bush would order the nuclear retaliation against Iran and put all that oil out of commission. A massive nuclear strike would make that oil inaccessible for generations. It gives Iran a one-up in MAD that the Russians didn't have.

Third, religion is involved, and religion is often not based on reason. Consequently, even if those involved KNEW they would be killed, would it necessarily deter them? They're already using suicide bombers. How many more people are they willing to sacrifice to achieve their objective? Since they believe death has no real meaning, why would they fear it in a nuclear counter-strike?

I think I've thought this through pretty well and considered all the angles. And while I know for certain that Bush is a war mad crazy man who will likely get us into trouble, that doesn't prove that Iran is not a risk to Americans.

[agincourt]

194. Very interesting chapter on this 1996 crisis,

In Richard Clarke's book against all enemies. All the RW pig snouts that squeal that democrats will do nothing about terrorism, and then you read what Clinton was ready to do about Iranian terrorism, it's really an eye opener. Shows what a load of shit the conventional wisdom is about democrats and foreign threats.

[lastliberalintexas]

64. No, we should have continued the diplomatic maneuverings that were working

Up until Bush made his Axis of Evil comment, the hardlilners had lost a lot of ground in that country, the younger generation (which is the majority of Iranians, I think) held the most pro-American stands since the days of the Shah/embassy fiasco, and Iran was well on its way to democratic reforms. All without the violent, deadly response you suggest in your post.

But the reforms and liberalization of Iran wasn't a good thing in the PNAC world, since it didn't give us an excuse to try to secure Iran's vast natural resources. Bush *needs* a dangerous- or at the very least, a seemingly dangerous- Iran to advance the elites' agenda.


Yes, Iran is potentially dangerous- and it's been made that way by the Bush administration. But there are non-violent solutions to the issues in the ME, even if they don't secure resources for American domination.

[blurp]

113. Yep. Bush made dealing with Iran much more difficult after invading Iraq

The decision to invade Iraq has screwed us is so many ways.

The Iran situation is just one, very important, example.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I have Persian friends

who have lived here for years, but who have periodically gone back to Iran to visit relatives. They tell me that the US version of what it is like over there is not what it is like really. And remember, these folks LIKE living here, and like this country. The wife of one friend, who herself is native born American, told me she had no problems while she was over there about five years ago. I don't know about the bomb and their take on it, because I haven't seen them in a while. BTW, they are fellow Sufis, and Sufism is looked upon as heretical by about a third of other Muslims.

[sendero]

25. And I work closely..

... with an Iranian immigrant who says that Iran is the leader in state-sponsored terrorism. He says the people don't want it but the gov't is corrupt and does what it wants. He claims Rafsenhjani(spelling?) was the worst.

Frankly, if we were going to attack someone it should have been Iran, not Iraq. The other thing he says is that the US will rue the day they attack Iran, that they have a very capable military and ruthless leaders.

I think he is right.

[laheina]

40. I do too.

I do too, and they say similar things. One has a husband who was a colonel in the Shaw's army. She has lots of interesting stories about the revolution, but her worst stories are about the bombings during the Iraq/Iran war. Two of her children are still emotionally scarred, and one is completely disabled.

She says that we wouldn't have been so cavalier about Iraq if we had to live through what the iraqis are going through. I believe her.

[FSogol]

5. The Iranian Gov yes, the Iranian people no. Now is the time for Diplomacy

We need adults in charge, not Neo-cons and 2nd rate Russian Majors.

[neoteric lefty]

6. Attacking Iran shouldn't even be on the table

We have seen what happens when we occupy a Islamic nation. I think most people will agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program. Nobody should in my humble opinion (but that is another topic). The real test of our gov't is how are we going to convince the world and Iran that it is in everyone's best interest not to build a weapons' program. Threating them with invasion is not the answer.

Ignoring them is also not the answer. Diplomacy is the key. That is what we should have done with Iraq before 9/11 even occurred. The Iranian leaders are not stupid, even if they do sometimes say stupid things. If they attack Israel or U.S. interests, then they are know they going to incur the wrath of both nations. Mr. Bush, we have a State Department, use them!

[Spazito]

7. The moderates were gaining strength and influence in Iran until

the invasion and occupation in Iraq so if you think Iran is dangerous you have bush to thank for it. Actually, a nuclear Iran is no more dangerous than a US being controlled by right wing zealots. Gosh, good thing the US isn't being controlled by right wing zealots, right?

[Pirate Smile]

9. We are screwed when it comes to Iran.

Military action doesn't work because we don't know where the stuff is, how deep, what they have, etc.

Sanctions? They will respond by cutting their oil supply. I heard on Franken's show (I'll have to look for some confirmation) that (I'm paraphrasing here) the world uses 2.5 million barrels of oil a day and we pump 2.8 - leaving an excess of only 300,000 barrels per day.

They can screw up the world economy, including ours obviously, in retaliation by cutting how much they pump sending oil and gas prices through the roof.

They pulled their $$$ out of the European banks so we can't freeze it.

The lesson of Iraq was that unless you have nukes, you are fair game for the US. Iran and North Korea learned the lesson.

Excellent job, George Bush, you dumb f#$k!

Iran and North Korea were much more dangerous.

Did you read Wes Clark's "we went after the rattlesnake in the box" speech?

edit to add - I agree, they are dangerous. They have assisted terrorists, when Iraq didn't.

[neoteric lefty]

13. They would never cut off the oil

or natural gas, unless they we're backed into a corner by our nation threatening open war with them. Their economy would simply collapse without those revenues. World economies would slow down for sure, but from what I have seen, Iran is not like Saudi Arabia with the ability to cut off the pipes and rely on accumulated wealth. Diplomacy is the answer, not hostilities. Iran is not going to do what is not in its best interests.

[Pirate Smile]

16. They wouldn't have to cut it off, just start pumping less. They already

wanted to do that - along with Venezuela and the Saudis stopped them.

We saw how quickly the prices can go up to $3 plus and send everyone into a tailspin.

They don't have to shut it off, just slow it down.

[0007]

33. Maybe be $6.00 a gallon soon!

[Pirate Smile]

22. Here is Clark's "two-foot rattlesnake in a box " story as posted on Kos

Clark: They picked the two-foot rattlesnake in a box

by hekebolos
Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:43:45 PM PDT

I spent the whole day today at events with General Clark--first the one I wrote a diary about yesterday (and I was at the blogger meeting with Arianna Huffington, which was a treat!!), and then later on in the evening, a fundraiser for WesPAC in Culver City.

I could spend all day writing about how fantastic the general is--his intellect, knowledge, message and genuine depth of feeling are all outstanding--but I wanted to share with you one brief story from the fundraiser that shows just how good the General is, and why he needs our support.

hekebolos's diary :: ::
At the fundraiser later in the day, Clark was talking about national security, and how the Democrats need to recapture the mantle of national security from the Republicans. I'll quote the General as best as I can:

Now, as important as it is how we deal with Iraq from here on out, and how we deal with Iran from here on out--as important as that is, if we want to be the party of national security, we need to talk not just about where we go from the bad situation we're in now--we need to talk about how we got there.

Bush talked about the axis of evil. Whatever you want to call these countries, there were three of them: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Of these, North Korea was the most dangerous. They were developing nuclear weapons, and the administration didn't do anything about it.

The second most dangerous was Iran. They were trying to develop nuclear weapons, had a fundamentalist government, and had the capacity to arrange terrorism.

And the least dangerous was Iraq. Iraq was a two-foot rattlesnake in a box. And guess what? They went after the two-foot rattlesnake in the box. And because of that, they were distracted from and ignored the bigger and more dangerous problems. And now look: North Korea has several nuclear weapons that they've developed. Iran is enriching uranium and has a hardcore fundamentalist in Ahmedinejad as the prime minister. We're in this position because they took the least dangerous country, concentrated only there and ignored everything else.

We need to talk about this. We need to talk about Osama bin Laden. We need to talk about what would have happened if Democrats had been in charge. We would have gone after Osama bin Laden. We would not have spent $200 billion on invading Iraq. We would be talking to Iran, and we would have talked to North Korea. This administration has refused to talk to Iran. They've outsourced our diplomacy to Europe. And I beg the administration: please talk to Iran before it is too late.

We can't shy away from national security. We can't concede it to the Republicans. We have to point out that they have failed at every step of the way. We can't be afraid of it. So let's talk national security--because it should be a strength for us. It's not a weakness.

That, my friends, is a platform we can use. We can repeat this over and over and over again--because given these failures, who knows where they'll take us over the next several years.

We had a few other Kossacks there at this event as well--including Reality Bites Back, Alysheba, and Shockwave. I will blog tomorrow--when I'm allowed by the system!--about the whole day in general, including the rally with the Congressional Candidates and Stephanie Miller, as well as the private bloggers meeting.

If you haven't heard the General speak, YOU NEED TO!!!!! He is the real deal. Check him out. You'll like him.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/14345/52746

[ZombieGak]

39. I could not agree more!

Pirate Smile wrote: "The lesson of Iraq was that unless you have nukes, you are fair game for the US. Iran and North Korea learned the lesson. Excellent job, George Bush, you dumb f#$k!"

The neo-cons have proved the law of unintended consequences is alive and well. Rather than make Iran and NK more docile, they've taken the opportunity of the US being bogged down in Iraq as their chance to take out an atomic insurance policy.

[LynnTheDem]

49. Don't know where WHAT stuff is??? Iran does not have nukes.

Iran, according to real experts, is at least a decacde away from having nukes if nukes are what they want.

This is fucking unreal.

[ingac70]

10. Too friggin late to care now....

Their #1 oil customer is China. Do you think China would let us fuck that up?

Do you want WW3?

[bluemarkers]

11. I agree

Iran is a real worry (have you seen Jon Stewart's jab - we were off by one letter, "q" instead of "n")

NKorea is a another worry.

I really think this whole invasion was laid out in PNAC - they really thought the US could colonize the MidEast. Oopsie. The neo-cons made one huge mistake - they underestimated the enemy - and it is an enemy they largely created. I have wondered what would happen if Iran used nukes - the whole MidEast could be a waste land - aside from the millions possibly billions dead, there is no oil. Oopsie. (again)

Greed fuels this administration. Oddly enough, the "love of money is the root of all evil". ummm, now where have I read that? We're in big trouble if the Dems don't regain control.

[JohnnyCougar]

12. I dunno....

What does Iran think they are going to do with a nuke if they get one, anyways?

This does present a problem, though. Does Iran have the right to have nuclear power just like us? What about defense? Does Iran have the right to defend themselves against illegal US invasion? Since the US illegally invaded Iraq, what is Iran going to do to stop us besides obtaining nuclear weapons? Who thinks Iran is stupid enough to want nuclear weapons for offensive purposes?

[FormerRepublican]

21. There was a time when we said "who would blow themselves up on...

...purpose?" Oh, for the innocence of the past.

[LynnTheDem]

51. Actually yes, Iran has a LEGAL RIGHT to use nuclear power.

But hey, we don't do legal and law anymore.

[OneMoreThyme]

14. Seems more like "Death by Cop"

War is only a beneficial business plan for an assued winner.

I have a hard time believing that a country who is guaranteed to lose a conflict is interested in provoking their own destruction.

That having been said, I have to wonder if the guy was installed by Bushco to do the job of giving them a war.

[Katherine Brengle]

17. What I don't understand is why WE feel entitled to nuclear weapons

but think no one else should have them?

The real answer to all of this is nuclear disarmament. Until we are willing to give up the bomb, we have no right to expect anyone else to.

[annabanana]

18. Iran is MUCH bigger that Iraq

They have actual armed forces, and an air force, and allies..

Where is B*sh planning to get all the soldiers he's going to need for this new adventure?

[Individualist]

19. The PNAC cabal is far more dangerous

than Iran.

[cali]

20. I'm not going to flame you

but I'm not sure that Iran poses a serious danger. Yes, they've got some nuts running things, but Iran has a fairly large, educated middle class. I tend to believe that those in power don't want to end up as a wasteland, and surely they recognize that hostile action, with or without nuclear weapons, will be met with overwhelming force. I think a lot of the rhetoric we're hearing out of Iran is for domestic consumption. I just don't buy into the Iran as an imminent danger to world thing.

[davidinalameda]

78. you're right but

when you have zealots running the place, there's no telling what they're capable of doing

history is full of people like the ones running the show in Iran that don't care what they do their own people let alone those from other countries

I wish that we did have adults in charge here and in Iran, but unfortunately we don't

I'm nervous-if Israel goes to war with Iran, and every other country starts taking sides, I have the feeling that countries like China and Russia will not be on our side and we all know the damage they can cause with their nuclear arsenal

[springhill]

90. You mean like Bush and Cheney?..........

Jeez, if there was a country out there big enought to take us on, they probably would. We are about as dangerous as they come.

When I hear the people on this forum talking about going into Iran, I think, boy, if even they are advocating going into a sovereign country, who is not threatening us in any way, well this country is in deep doo-doo. I don't think Bush is going to have any trouble carring out the rest of his PNAC agenda.

[LynnTheDem]

114. We're in deep doo-doo. Iran's done nothing whatsoever to anyone

but then, neither did Iraq.

Frightened? Don't bother to research! Just KILL KILL KILL! It's the New American Way.

[Redstone]

23. No flames here. Of COURSE we should worry.

They're a bunch of fucking hothead lunatics in charge over there.

Combine that with the bunch of fucking hothead lunatics in charge over here, and you got yourself a prescription for trouble.

Redstone

[StClone]

24. Iran poses a danger because Bush is in office

Bush started the pre-emptive fright show. Iran noticed that N. Korea has nukes and so saw a legitimate need to defend itself. Iran has done nothing wrong except crossing paths with a war king, have oil and been priorly manipulated as a CIA pawn/friend of USA. Iran is said to be exporting terrorists yet like WMDs in Iraq its not substantiated. I think between seven and thirteen countries that either have nukes or are looking to acquire them. Is it not coincidence that as soon as Bush's numbers sink Iran arrives as a threat. Iran does not have nukes it may be years before they get them. Any attack on Iran would be like Iraq only 10 times worst. Bush has the hots for war and the cold dead path he leads is one to avoid. Following Bush has been the WORST possible scenario choice. He was wrong on the immediacy of taking action on Iraq and will continue his worst-ever-legacy-road-show in Iran. Don't follow the War King and his vice prez the Grim Reaper.

[karlrschneider]

26. So, if they got say 2 bombs and actually USED them....they would be

vaporized. They might be nuts but they are not THAT nuts. Hell, I think the best thing would be to just GIVE them a handful. MAD worked between the only 2 'superpowers' for decades...either of which could ruin the planet in 30 minutes. Jesus...

[lonestarnot]

28. The leader IS that nuts.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[StClone]

32. They say that

But could it be an act? Look at Kim in N. Korea and Chavez. both can be called crazy but a closer look reveals other reasons for their words and actions. Kim wants aid and Chavez wants respect and is wary of Bush's scheming.

[lonestarnot]

124. Yes in both cases, but their tactics re nuke weapon accumulation or

procurement is wrong. We shouldn't have them either.

[karlrschneider]

36. More nuts than Bush? I can't imagine that

Do you think he would risk having Tehran turned into a glass bowl? I can't believe that...

[BushOut06]

55. THIS is the problem we are facing

I think we're letting our opinion of Bush cloud our judgement on other world leaders. More nuts that Bush? You seriously think that Bush is the only whack-job out there capable of doing unspeakable things?

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran is actively supporting terrorism through Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and other terror groups. If we truly want to fight terror like chimpy says, we need to address countries that are active state sponsors of terrorism.

[lonestarnot]

126. yes.

[lonestarnot]

125. They are peas in the same pod.

[FearofFutility]

127. Actually, he wouldn't be the one to make that decision

The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the one with the power. At least that's my understanding.

[lonestarnot]

27. The leader of Iran is a nutjob, but the people are mostly good and descent

people. It's a shame.

[karlrschneider]

37. I've known several Iranians pretty well. Found them to be most excellent

people. A little weird but less so than the fundies who live across the street from me.
:eyes:

[PretzelWarrior]

29. NOOOOOOOOO!!! Do you realize how far away they are from a NUKE?

there are plenty of ways to defuse this if the U.S. wants to. ON the other hand, if they want to use this brewing controversy as a way to keep people "askeered of those crazy Muslims in Iran" then they will keep kicking the ball around and doing nothing.

[laheina]

41. Iran is 5-10 years away from a nuclear bomb.

Depending on what estimates that you listen to. They have no ICBM capability. The only way that they are a danger to us is if we piss them off and then go marching over there.

They may be a danger to Israel, but the Israelis have over 200 nuclear warheads, and better targeting capabilities. If Iran even got a bomb, and the inclination to use it, Israel would turn their country into a glass lined crater.

So who are we defending again?

[Inland]

30. It's times like this the US could use a president. nt

[stillcool]

31. I am sick and tired of

...the same old song and dance. I'm not afraid of Russia...I'm not afraid of China...I'm not afraid of Europe, or any other place on the fucking planet. I fear the bombs we make, the laws we break, and the children of the world that we forsake. I fear the time that is sure to come, when we reap all that we've sown,... we're in for a world of hurt, and blowing up Iran, or not, can't help us.

[Skidmore]

116. Yes.

[me b zola]

34. What if.....

What if Iran would give up the pursuit of nukes if the US gave up all of their nukes? Would that work for you?




PS: that works for me.

[yardwork]

35. Of course Iran is dangerous

It will be especially dangerous to us if we make the mistake of invading.

Iran is not Iraq. It is a very large, well-armed country. We don't have the resources to invade Iran and win. Period. Unless we use nuclear weapons, and God help us and the rest of the world if the chimp does that.

[proud patriot]

38. The fact that bush has put the US in this position

in the first place .

Squandering our military for a whim of greed .

OUTRAGEOUS :grr:

[NNN0LHI]

42. No flame but were you worried about Saddam's Winnebago's Of Death too?

Thanks in advance.

Don

[LynnTheDem]

53. rotfl!!!

Love it! :rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. What about Kim Jong Il's Recliner of Rage? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

115. Ok I admit that one scared me.

:D

[kineneb]

43. 2-cents, as a former Iranian citizen

Yes, I actually had a Iranian passport back in the 70's and lived there for a year as pre-teen. My step-father is an Iranian-American (US citizen now).

Attacking Iran is just insane. Yes, they probably want a nuke, but all the credible experts say that they are years away from developing anything. They don't even have nuclear power yet. One must look at the timing of all this blather. And yes, they are a sponsor of terrorism, rather in the same way the CIA is a sponsor of terrorism.

The war mongering by (in-)Glorious Leader and Crew is caused by their fear of an economically independent Iran, able to price their oil in the currency of their choice- apparently the Euro. Otherwise, there is absolutely no threat to us, Israel or East Podunk from Iran, despite their propaganda and speeches.

I would not be surprised to learn that the current president was "elected" in much the same way as (in-)Glorious Leader. There is something just too convenient in the election of such a nut-case president at just the time (in-)Glorious Leader's polls were starting to tank. The fact he is a nut-case makes the war mongering that much easier.

Considering the difficulty the US military has encountered in Iraq, the idea of any kind of action against Iran should be looked at as completely unhinged. The physical country is considerably larger and the environment even harsher. Most of Iran is high desert plateau (4000'+), and most mountains are bare rock. Tehran is above a mile high; I remember trying to breathe in PE class.

The population has a high percentage of young people, most of whom hate the current government, but who would willingly die to defend their country. The Iranian people are very nationalistic and proud of their history; Persia as a sovereign country has existed for over 2500 years. They think this upstart country half-way around the world (the US) should mind its own business.

I believe that if the US government attacks Iran it will set off a chain of events that will result in WWIII. There are just too many crazy leaders on both sides for any rational thinking to occur. It just seems so reminicent of the days before the beginning of WWI; I think I may finally read my copy of The Guns of August (by Barbara Tuchman), although it just might scare me too much.

Sorry, all I can offer is insight, not hope.

[punpirate]

44. As I recall, there was a report very recently...

... that said that over two years ago, the Iranians sent a comprehensive plan for peaceful nuclear power production to the United States through a third party's embassy, and the White House threw a fit with the State Department for accepting it for evaluation. And threw a fit with the third party nation for acting as a go-between. (Sorry, wish I could remember the link.) John Bolton may well have played a role in that reaction.

Beyond that, it's worth remembering that Iran hasn't attacked another country in modern history. It was, however, attacked by Iraq and was involved in a war with them for nearly ten years--both sides took tremendous losses. Despite having tanks and aircraft, they are still short of spare parts because of US embargoes against them. That's likely why they are now buying SAM batteries from Russia--because they are going to need the capability to defend themselves against another attack--this time from the US.

When Bush stupidly announced his "axis of evil" in the 2002 State of the Union, he put Iran on notice that it might be attacked, and many people said at the time that such threats would prompt some nationalistic fervor in the country and would bring out the hard-liners in the government. Funny thing--that's exactly what happened in the last election there.

What's important, I think, is to discern between what actions Iran might take on its own, and what actions it takes because it is being provoked by the US. Remember that Iran is just one more domino in the neo-cons' aims to take over central Asia as a means of choking off oil to China. The nuclear weapons business is another smoke and mirrors routine in an attempt to build public support for another war and to try to use the UN for their purposes. While the IAEA, formally and informally, has said that Iran is not close to building weapons, in part because the embargoes make it difficult to get essential parts, even on the black market, this weekend, John Bolton was intimating, as sneakily as he could, that Iran was building weapons and rockets to launch them--as if this were something Iran had well in progress. No solid evidence presented.

I think anything to improve the non-proliferation status of Iran, short of war, is advisable, but this issue is an excuse, not a reason, for US bellicosity toward Iran. Nor is the US in any real position to stand on grounds of morality in the matter, since it is now being fundamentally hypocritical about the entire non-proliferation treaty process (having single-handedly wrecked the last NNPT discussions, failed to live up to its part of the bargain in substantially reducing its own weapons, and offers open support to countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan which are not signatories to the NNPT and which do not allow inspections). In fact, the head of the US nuclear security agency just announced an entirely new program to not only refurbish existing nuclear weapons, but to design and build--in brand-new automated facilities--a new generation of thermonuclear weapons.

I also think it's rather critical to remember that a belief in Iran's dangerousness to the US has to be grounded in some fact, and, like the situation in Iraq, there is none of substance. Iran does not have nuclear weapons now. Iran has no missiles capable of reaching the United States. Iran has no navy to speak of, and its aircraft are limited in range to domestic air defense. It is not a direct threat to the United States at this time, nor is it a threat several years hence. If it continues to be openly threatened by the US, that situation could change. That's in essence what I mean by provocation.

Do we once again go to war because an ill-informed and propagandized American public thinks a country halfway around the world which has been under embargo for twenty-seven years is a direct threat to their safety? Isn't that just a bit too familiar a scenario these days?

[Skittles]

45. you have retained a bit of brain-washing from your republican days

here is a tip: DO NOT BELIEVE *ANYTHING* THOSE LYING BASTARDS SAY

[LynnTheDem]

46. Worry about Pakistan.

When we do get nuked, that's where the nukes will come flying in from.

Not Iran.

[Greyhound]

50. Somebody has been paying attention. Thank you. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

54. You & me & a handful of others. Guess we'll have a couple mins to say

"TOLD YA SO!" after the one successful assassination attempt.

Not much of a consolation huh.

[flyarm]

63. no kidding ..bravo..someone with some intelligence and reading skills!!

if one were to educate themselves to what is really going on, and has been going on..they would know Pakistan is the gravest danger we face..not iran!

thank you Lynnthedem!!

fly

[LynnTheDem]

73. We will get a couple minutes before Pakistan's nukes hit to say

"told ya so"...won't we?

IRAN HAS NO NUKES. Iran is at least a DECADE AWAY from getting any nukes IF they work full-steam ahead and IF nothing goes wrong and IF they want nukes in the first place.

But hey, be scared shitless now, Americans! bush LIKES that in his subjects! :eyes:

[flyarm]

83. i am so sick of scared shitless Americans...

what ever happened to the "land of the free and the brave"...brave????????? we have become damn sissys...a bunch of stupid ass cowards...

so stupid they can't read or do cognitive thinking for themselves!

scared of their own damn shaddows..

and no i am not scared..the only people who even bother me is my own government..because ..they ...i no longer trust...

from a flight attendant of one of the 9/11 airlines NY based..2001 flight attendant of the year 2001 NY base...

..and no one scares me..but *

but i will fight to stop that sob...fear will never..ever..make me ignorant..or complacent..

any fear i might conjure up will make me fight even harder to remove the only threat i see to this nation..and that guy is in my white house and his corrupt henchmen!


fly

[LynnTheDem]

85. Snivelling bed-wetting frightened little babies.

The entire orld has been dealing with terrorism for centuries. America gets hit, no surprise at all to those of us who actually know the US history of state terrorism around the world and it's mass hysteria. (Rightwingnuts jabber on, denigrating our troops' deaths by comparing the 2300 dead to California road deaths...yet they never do likewise to the American deaths of 911. Gee wonder why.)

Total fucking mass hysteria.

[LittleClarkie]

48. A hardcore Conservative I know, in a conversation I had with him

a while ago said how stupid he thought it would be for us to go into Iran. They have a stronger military for one, and their young people are poised to change the society without our intervention. Wonder if he will change his tune if/when it actually happens.

[okieinpain]

52. yeah, and don't forget the nut case in north korea does have nukes

bush is a complete and total diaster. in his haste to repay his corporate cronies he has place the entire world in danger.

[radio4progressives]

56. You just bought into their propaganda - and that's why they get away with

this crap.

we have reason to be afraid - because of OUR WAY DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons - but they are paranoid, and we're not heliping matters are we?

[LynnTheDem]

57. Absolutely agreed.

How do we straighten out the idiot rightwingnuts when they're not the only ones swallowing the bullshit?

Iran is not a threat.
Iran has never threatened the USA.
Iran does not have nukes, there is no evidence whatsoever that they want nukes, and most experts say they couldn't have a nuke for a decade.

And why the fuck are supposed liberals advocating for PREVENTIVE WAR anyways???! Have we truly become so much the enemy that we're ok with the most heinous crime, what the Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme crime"??! Good God help us all.

[FormerRepublican]

62. OK, more flames for me, but....

You said: "Iran has never threatened the USA." What about the Iranian hostage crisis - that's kinda how this all started (except for the fact that the US propped up the dictator Shah which really started it all, but you know what I mean). That anger toward the US from certain factions in Iran has been ongoing ever since. It's been behind a number of terrorist attacks against the US in the Middle East. Yes, that faction, which unfortunately is currently in charge, do threaten us, even if they don't have the military forces to project their threat to where we live. Consequently, I don't want them to have the bomb (whether we have it or not). And I am furious at Bush for putting us in this horrible position.

Having said that - no, I don't want to go to war with Iran. If nothing else, the Iraq disaster has taught me a few things about caution and that Bush can't be trusted with military materiel. But that leaves us with a problem. What do we do to prevent Iran from getting the bomb? Diplomacy has failed (probably Bushits fault - grrr!!!), and the Europeans have tried diplomacy for many months. We need a new strategy that might work, but I believe Bush is incapable of thinking with anything but tanks and bombs. That's my dilema - I believe something needs to be done to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but I don't trust Bush to do anything that won't ignite the thing into a major war. Probably one that would get a lot of Americans killed and lead to unknown untold disasters.

So I sit here watching it unfold with my heart in my mouth....

[LynnTheDem]

65. Iran has never threatened the USA. Now perhaps we could dig back

a few decades and find some kinda screamfest between Iran and the USA. The Shah had quite themouth on him.

Iran is not a threat.

Iran is not threatening us and has not threatened us.

Iran does not have nukes.

Iran DOES have the legal right to nuclear research and nuclear power.

The IAEA says there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is trying for nukes.

Most experts agree; Iran is a decade away from nukes, IF they work full speed and nothing gores wrong IF they decide they want nukes.
THEN they'd need a delivery system and well before then we'd all have real actual proof. ANd we'd STILL NEED AN ACTUAL THREAT.

PAKISTAN HATES US. They have nukes. The only thing between their nukes and us is bush pal & dictator Mushie. One successful assassination attempt away from PAKISTAN tossing nukes at us and at the VERY LEAST a DECADE before Iran could even get a nuke.

Diplomacy has NOT failed. But you keep reading the US "msm" and you'd never know it.

And we have A DECADE to work on diplomacy, which really kinda should start with Israel and the USA knocking off the daily threats to Iran coz gee if anyone threatened me daily like that, I'd wanna get a nuke too.

You are buying into the catapulted propaganda. If you really want to learn facts, read wsome or all of these links;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=354028&mesg_id=355207

The extent to which the Iran propaganda has saturated the views of most Americans is truly astonishing. At this point, one expects and knows to a certainty that all the Bush supporters, including almost all Republicans and conservatives (and even most of the phony so-called "libertarians" who are so plentiful today) will regurgitate the line that an Iran with nuclear weapons is an enemy of civilization on the order of Hitler, and that we must not make the "Munich mistake" again. With one voice, they tell us that a nuclear Iran is completely "unacceptable" and cannot be tolerated.

...as the catastrophe of Iraq continues to play out every day, it is entirely extraordinary for anyone to announce that a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable" -- as if that phrase means anything, and means that we can impose our views on the entire world by military force. We are unable to control the events we set in motion in Iraq, a nation that was a third- or fourth-rate country (or even less) in terms of any threat it represented -- and now we are going to dictate terms to a country that is significantly larger and much stronger militarily? If the matter were not so serious, it would be entirely laughable.

But the Iran propaganda has even infected many liberals and progressives...
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/02/walking-into-iran-trap-iii-mythic-war.html

[lastliberalintexas]

72. Ah, but Iran IS a threat

Why, poor llittle Corporate America will wither away if we let Iran convert to the Euro. Now why would you want to see that happen to poor little Corporate America? What, are you some Commie freak? :)

[LynnTheDem]

74. Hey you left out "pinko"!

I am insulted!

Heh. :rofl:

Yep gotta slaughter men, women & kids, American and other, for that oil! It's the American Way!

[lastliberalintexas]

81. You anti-Merkin bleeding heart pinko Commie Jesus hater!

:P


Have to laugh to keep from crying... I do hate to think where this situation will end. :(

[LynnTheDem]

84. If bush & Cabal get their way, it'll end with making the 'Nam death toll

of Americans look like a "slight disagreement".

It'll end with most the world aligned against the US and hatred towards us intensified (if that's even possible anymore). Sorry America, but you cannot keep attacking other nations who haven't done a damn thing to you (or anyone else) and think the world is going to support that.

It'll end with massive attacks against us. Sorry America, but you cannot keep killing innocent men, women & kids and think survivors won't fight back in revenge.

It'll end as a tragedy. Just as Afghanistan and Iraq already are.

I hope there is no justice in this world. Otherwise this country is doomed along with all of us in it.

[Dunedain]

98. Sorry

We are long over due. Our goose is cooked no matter what happens with Iran.
We needed more people like you, and less people like bush.

[LynnTheDem]

112. I really hate to but

I agree with you on the cooked goose.

God help us all; God forgive us all.

[FormerRepublican]

87. Lord, I wish Clinton was still President. Look at the difference in...

Iranian news stories between the Clinton Administration and Bush. Here's Bush:

"IRAN MUST STRIKE AT THE HEART OF THE UNITED STATES": RAFSANJANI

TEHRAN 17 July (IPS) One of Iran’s most powerful officials menaced Wednesday the United States of terrorist attack in its "very heartland".

"The Islamic Republic must get ready for confrontation against the enemy’s attack by answering its offensive right in its heartland", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told the hard line "Jomhoori Eslami" (Islamic Republic) newspaper, which belongs to Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i.

It was the second time in as many days that the Chairman of the Expediency Council was attacking the recent statement by President George W. Bush, inviting Tehran to abandon its "destructive and belligerent policy".

Informed Iranian political analysts said considering the position of the former president, who is also considered as the closest aid, friend and adviser of Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i, the lamed leader of the Islamic regime, his threats must be taken "very seriously"."

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2002/Jul_2002/bush_khamenehi_17702.htm

I tried to find anti-US rhetoric from when Clinton was in office, but found none. But the anti-American sentiment is still there, and some possible explanations for it:

"PARIS 20TH APR. (IPS) United States Bill Clinton's surprise "admission" that the West has "abused" Iran in the past has exploded like a bomb on the political scene of the Islamic Republic, widening the ever growing gap between the ruling conservatives, led by the leader, the lamed ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i struggling to keep their lucrative positions and the reformists symbolised by the President ayatollah Mohammad Khatami.

"Iran had been subject to quite a lot of abuses from various Western countries, including the United States, in the past 50 or 150 years ago and should be told it had a right to be angry", President Clinton admitted last Wednesday, sparking explosives amid conservatives hard liners.

Washington broke off diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic in 1980 after the take-over of the US embassy in Tehran by the so-called Muslim students in the Line of the Imam (the grand ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeiny) and imposed economic sanctions that, though generally inoperative, but badly affected Iran's economy nevertheless.

The United States and the Islamic Republic have imposed preconditions for the resumption of their relations, but while such event, - quite unlikely in the near future - will enhance the position of any American president who may see it happening, in Tehran, it may herald the end of the regime, as blind antagonism with Washington has become the raison d'être of the present Iranian regime."

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles/clinton_admission.html

I think the situation is far more complex that we give credit for - and I also think Bush will blow it sky high with his incompetence. I wish Clinton were still in charge because he had some capability to quiet things before they exploded. It's called DIPLOMACY! A word Bush doesn't know the meaning of. Clinton might have turned this thing around.

But something to keep in mind about Iran is this:

"However, most Iranian analysts think even if some clerics wanted to open up dialogue with Washington, the forces that are against the United States are strong enough to stop any talks with Washington.

"The fact is that even if the conservatives wanted to accept some degree of political pragmatism, yet forces that operates behind the curtains will never ever allow the chains to be broken", said Dr Hatam Qaderi, a Professor of Political Science. ENDS CLINTON BOMB 2049919"

Anti-American sentiment serves a political purpose in Iran (much as it does here for Bush), and that's part of what makes the situation so dangerous.

[flyarm]

69. please begin by turning off hannity , o'liely, rush..and pick up a history

book...and read about the iran -contra trials..read about papa * making a deal for Reagan for the hostages...read about the real people who were originally in iran who were taken out and hiden in Venezuela..while volunteers (other than military ) who volunteered to go into our embassy in a dangerous situation..

i know i sat daily at a pool in LaGuaria Venezuela with the real embassy people who were snuck out before the Embassy was stormed...and hostages ..were taken..

the real embassy people were sitting at a pool in Venezuela..drinking umbrella drinks ..right next to me!..along with the pilots for the Kuwait pilots who flew the prince of Kuwait back and forth to Miami! collecting their Krugerrands..

please do some studying of what really happened in Iran...before, during and after the hostages..

most of the anger was our own doing..

you can beat humans down only so long ..before they revolt...

please do some studying ...then make real judgements..

not being sarcastic..just trying to make you understand..iran isn't our danger..our own government is!

fly

[FormerRepublican]

96. OK, this is the first I heard that the hostages ended up in Venezuela.

Please tell me which of these hostages you talked to in Venezuela:

"52 Remaining Hostages Released
The following fifty-two remaining hostages were held captive until January 20, 1981.

Thomas L. Ahern, Jr., -Narcotics Control Officer
Clair Cortland Barnes, 35 - Communications Specialist
William E. Belk, 44 - Communications and Records Officer
Robert O. Blucker, 54 - Economics Officer Specializing in Oil
Donald J. Cooke, 26 - Vice Consul
William J. Daugherty, 33 - 3rd Secretary of U.S. Mission
Lt. Cmdr. Robert Englemann, 34 - USN Attaché
Sgt. William Gallegos, 22 - USMC Guard
Bruce W. German, 44 - Budget Officer
Duane L. Gillette, 24 - USN Communications and Intelligence Specialist
Alan B. Golancinksi, 30 - Security Officer
John E. Graves, 53 - Public Affairs Officer
Joseph M. Hall, 32 - CWO Military Attaché
Sgt. Kevin J. Hermening, 21 - USMC Guard
Sgt. 1st Class Donald R. Hohman, 38 - USA Medic
Col. Leland J. Holland, 53 - Military Attaché
Michael Howland, 34 - Security Aide, held at Iranian Foreign Ministry Office
Charles A. Jones, Jr., 40 - Communications Specialist, Teletype Operator. (only African-American hostage not released in November 1979)
Malcolm Kalp, 42 - Affiliation Unknown
Moorhead C. Kennedy Jr., 50 - Economic and Commercial Officer
William F. Keough, Jr., 50 - Superintendent of American School in Islamabad, Pakistan, visiting Tehran at time of embassy seizure
Cpl. Steven W. Kirtley - USMC Guard
Kathryn L. Koob, 42 - Embassy Cultural Officer; one of two female hostages
Frederick Lee Kupke, 34 - Communications Officer and Electronics Specialist
L. Bruce Laingen, 58 - Chargé d'Affaires, held at Iranian Foreign Ministry Office
Steven Lauterbach, 29 - Administrative Officer
Gary E. Lee, 37 - Administrative Officer
Sgt. Paul Edward Lewis, 23 - USMC Guard
John W. Limbert, Jr., 37 - Political Officer
Sgt. James M. Lopez, 22 - USMC Guard
Sgt. John D. McKeel, Jr., 27 - USMC Guard
Michael J. Metrinko, 34 - Political Officer
Jerry J. Miele, 42 - Communications Officer
Staff Sgt. Michael E. Moeller, 31 - Head of USMC Guard Unit at Embassy
Bert C. Moore, 45 - Counselor for Administration
Richard H. Morefield, 51 - U.S. Consul General in Tehran
Capt. Paul M. Needham, Jr., 30 - USAF Logistcs Staff Officer
Robert C. Ode, 65 - Retired Foreign Service Officer on Temporary Duty in Tehran
Sgt. Gregory A. Persinger, 23 - USMC Guard
Jerry Plotkin, 45 - Civilian Businessman visiting Tehran
MSgt. Regis Ragan, 38 - USA NCO assigned to Defense Attaché's Office
Lt. Col. David M. Roeder, 41 - Deputy USAF Attaché
Barry M. Rosen, 36 - Press Attaché
William B. Royer, Jr., 49 - Assistant Director of Iran-American Society
Col. Thomas E. Schaefer, 50 - USAF Attaché
Col. Charles W. Scott, 48 - USA Officer, Military Attaché
Cmdr. Donald A. Sharer, 40 - USN Air Attaché
Sgt. Rodney V. (Rocky) Sickmann, 22 - USMC Guard
Staff Sgt. Joseph Subic, Jr., 23 - Military Police, USA, Defense Attaché's Staff
Elizabeth Ann Swift, 40 - Chief of Embassy's Political Section; 1 of 2 female hostages
Victor L. Tomseth, 39 - Senior Political Officer, held at Iranian Foreign Ministry Office
Phillip R. Ward, 40 - Administrative Officer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

I have a hard time believing that Jimmy Carter would engineer the scenario you describe, and Reagan wasn't yet in office so had no standing to order the CIA to do anything. So, for the record, lets see some documentation. I may be educated.

[flyarm]

100. no you misunderstood..before the embassy was taken over..

most of the real embassy people were taken out of iran..and sent to venezuela..they were like on a holding pattern..many who became prisoners..volunteered to go to iran before the embassy was taken over..all but the military people..they were on orders...

but the real embassey people.. the ones who where there for a long time were evac'd to venezuela when the government knew iran had become "hot"...
the government then sent volunteers to the iran embassy..they were the ones kidnapped..

thats what i and my husband were told by those who lived at the hotel with us for months in venezuela..( we were there for unrelated non government reasons..)
but we partied with them for months!

there was a whole group of them awaiting new assignments..
there kids were being picked up at the hotel and taken to american school...


fly

[FormerRepublican]

101. Uh - that's standard procedure for the State Dept - not special for Iran.

I applied for a job at the State Department years ago, and got quite in depth on their procedures since I contemplated being sent overseas and wanted to know how everything worked so I could decide if I wanted to do it. It's standard for them to evacuate non-essential personnel when safety is an issue. That's why you hear in the news that all non-essential personnel are evacuated from the embassy when things get ugly somewhere. It doesn't mean the people who are left behind are CIA - it means they perform critical functions at the embassy. Like the Ambassador, the IT guys running the computer and crypto systems, the military guys protecting the embassy (which are at every embassy, by the way), etc. - they get left behind because they're critical to the functioning of the embassy. The guys who do visa applications and answer public inquiries and stuff - they get evacuated.

Having intelligence officers is also standard - every embassy has them. And it's not unusual for embassies to have CIA personnel there in dual roles - people like Valerie Plame, for example, who was the wife of a US Ambassador. And believe it or not, the CIA has been caught spying on England, so that tells you that the CIA is in every foreign country as well - not just Iran. But when we have good relations with the country we're caught spying on, they just expel the diplomat (as we do when we catch them).

I think you've mistaken a normal embassy procedure for something that it wasn't.

[flyarm]

104. no

these were not non essentials..these were the essentials..they got the important records out of iran..and they were gotten out ..they were the people who ran the embassy..they were the big dogs...the were the top gun guys..who ran the embassy..the ones who were kidnapoed went into iran as volunteers..knowing full well the embassy would most prob be over taken..they were given special pay to volunteer..thats what hubby and i were told by these people...

fly

[FormerRepublican]

106. Well, if you look at the list of hostages I posted above, you'll see...

...the Charge d'Affaires, the Consul General, the Vice Consul, etc. etc.

Those are the big boys who run things. All the big boys are showing up on the list. The only guys who left were the non-essentials. And yes, they would evacuate certain embassy materials. And embassy officials can get hazard pay just like the military, even when they're not in the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis. If you hunt on the State Department web site, you can actually look at the hazard pay tables - I know because I did it when I was thinking about working for the State Department. So the folks who stayed behind WOULD get paid extra, because of the extra danger in the deteriorating situation. And I doubt the US would force them to stay if they didn't want to, but State Dept. employees are usually gung ho types who don't want to leave even when things get ugly. Which explains why the US had no problems staffing the Iraqi embassy in the past year. Were you aware that when the US staffs an embassy, people apply for those jobs? So a bunch of people applied for Iraq even though it's freaking unstable with IEDs going off everywhere...

[flyarm]

109. do you have dates these people went to iran???

i know what i was told by these people i spent time with daily for months in venezuela..i know what they told us..i know what i am saying..and at a later date hubby and i discussed with two of the hostages..they confirmed what we were told in venezuela..

not to argue with you..i am just simply stating what we were told by these folks..

do you have dates from the list ..i would be curious to see that..that they were sent to iran??

i have had many many years of being disturbed by what i learned in venezuela by these people...many kept secrecy of their real identities!
you see we were in venezuela that year when opec was began..and we had helicopters hovering over our hotel pool..it was a very unnerving time..and where others of my husbands group who were living in the hilton in caracas..machines gun rounds went off in the lobby ..it was a very intense period..

thanks..

fly

[FormerRepublican]

131. Do you have any proof that they DIDN'T go to Iran prior to the hostage...

...incident?

A Consul General is a public official who usually gets some press. I'm sure with a lot of searching, I could pull up documentation on when the Tehran Consul General was posted to the Iranian Embassy pre-hostage-incident. You probably have more time than I do for a lengthy search, so you're more than welcome to do the search and post the results here.

OK, and do you have any proof as to WHO had helicopters flying or WHO fired shots in the lobby? Why should we say the US did it just because something happened? There are a LOT of power mad megalomaniacs in the world besides Bush and his cabal, and any of them are capable of doing what you describe and more. There are also a lot of perfectly innocent reasons why personnel from the Iranian US embassy would end up in Venezuela when the situtuation deteriorated in Iran. Why should we automatically say their motives were the worst?

Anyone can make accusations about just about anything. But to get support for their point of view, they need some hard data to back it up.

You're implying that the US is behind everything you witnessed. I disagree, and I need some hard data before I change my mind.

[radio4progressives]

92. You dismissed the Iran Hostage Crises with the WHY it happened

you mention it as an aside, almost as if one thing had nothing to do with the other. and by the way, the hostages were CIA agents - all of them as it turns out - do you remember that little detail being left out the reporting at the time? plus there is so much more to that story, most americans just can't comprehend, it's too hard to understand. but this current "crises" is a product of our own machinations, driven by our policies.

[FormerRepublican]

97. Link please?

[leesa]

58. You are a shallow thinker. WE are the only country on earth who has used

nukes and we threaten with them regularly. WE have started more wars than any other country on earth. Israel has participated in many aggressive activities...far more than Iran. They have over 200+ nukes pointed at their neighbors, including Iran. You are condemning Iran to a defenseless position. Israel has threatened to nuke Iran and other neighbors.

Is it because of your bigotry against Muslims that you think Iran can't be trusted? You spout unsupported, bigoted nonsense. Both the US and Israel are violent and belligerent countries by anybodies standards and both have pr oven themselves untrustworthy.

Who the hell are you to say Iran is less trustworthy??? We just fucking invaded a country that didn't do one damned thing to us and murdered probably 100,000 of her citizens. Who the hell is the US to say anything about ANYONE'S right to have any weapons??? I'll bet you don't know one damned thing about Iran.

[tjwash]

60. Bravo!!

:yourock:

I don't think I can improve upon that one...

[FormerRepublican]

67. Heh - flames. OK.

You said: "WE have started more wars than any other country on earth."

Actually, that's incorrect. Europe has that priviledge. They started WWI, WWII, France actually talked us into Vietnam even though we willingly manufactured an excuse to sell it to the US public, Europe got us involved in Bosnia, and you might recall some folks like Stalin, Napolean, a boatload of Roman Emperors who started wars for hundreds of years, the various wars between England and France, the wars between England and just about everybody, the Crusades, etc. Well, you get the idea.

We started the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Iraq wars, and a few other smaller skermishes. We've actually been realtively peaceful until Bush got in charge. To avoid wars, keep the Republicans out of office.

Look, I don't have blinders on WRT my country, but I don't hate it either. I don't agree with ANYTHING Bush has done, nor do I agree with his militaristic philosophies. I like peace. But I also like to stay alive. And that means - even if past Presidents blew foreign affairs and provoked everyone into hating us and wanting to kill us, and they have every reason to hate and kill us - I'm going to work to keep myself, my children, and other Americans alive by dealing with any threats I see now. Not necessarily through violence, but they still must be dealt with.

If you disagree with that, I can respect a difference of opinion.

[flyarm]

77. may i suggest begin looking within our own country and our behaviours??

the french did not fake the gulf of tonkin..we did ...

the french and europe did not put the shah of iran in office we did..europe did not put saddam into power and give him wmd ..we did...europe did not help create the mujahadden in afganistan and create bin laden..we did..

europe did not put into their militaries someone on our most wanted list involved in killing Sadat..papa * did and this man developed the bin laden cells..with the help of our military training..and he also went to work as an informer..to our cia...
all while going to summer r&r with bin ladens camps...

stop blaming others..and start looking within..this administration did not begin this dictator design with * boy..this has been at least a 30 yr plan!


so tell us..why has Sibel Edmonds been gagged about 9/11??

why is * tapping americans?????????

why was jeff gannon..White House male whore /prostitute in the hearings with Gonzolez..when he was never given a Captiol hill press pass..??..threat?? perhaps..warning?? most likely..blackmail..i would bet the farm on that...

wake up please...

fly

[FormerRepublican]

93. I think you're making the US into the ONLY bad guy in the world...

...and I don't think that's true either. Have we done some horrible, revolting things that I despise? Yes. But we're not the only ones. And unfortunately we have to deal with other humans in this world who think like Bush does. That means we have to be willing to act to deal with their threats - through diplomacy, if possible, and war if we have no other option. (And more than anything else, we need to neuter Bush and impeach him to get him out of office before he starts more unnecessary wars!)

There are evils in this world that do require war - Hitler was an example of a just war. If you recall, we weren't directly threatened by Hitler, but we fought him just the same. And I think that was the right decision. I personally don't believe Iran is a reason to go to war, but I do believe we must properly assess the threat and take the diplomatic actions necessary to keep Americans alive. And if Bush(Hitler) doesn't control his power lust, we might find ourselves on the bad end of a just war with the rest of the world.

I don't think we should condemn just America and give every other country and dictator in the world a pass. We are all human and subject to the same evil desires. There's plenty of evil to go around. So just as I condemn Bush, I condemn all those in the world who are like him. And I want to act to contain them in the same way I want Bush contained (or preferably tossed out on his fanny).

And regardless of how I feel about my present government (and I despise them more than I can express), when the sheet hits the fan, I'm an American and I will fight to keep Americans alive. That may be crass, that may be insensitive, but that's the way it is.

[flyarm]

103. not at all...

but we are one of the many bad guys..please read the... economic hit man...please do some reading about iran contra..and the shah of iran, and saddams history..read how * made friends with the pres of ubekistan who boils his enemys..and thats where we did rendition flights to ..and * made him one of our lovely coalition of the willing..willing to do what?? get rid of who we weren't legally allowed to under our constitution?? and our laws..??

how many were boiled for *?????????????????

how many bad guys will we continue to support until we decide they have the oil or resource we want or need??
how many bad guys will we support with our tax dollars then send our kids to die in a war for ...when we don't need them or they piss us off because they won't bend to our will?????????
when do we live up to the values we say we espouse??

when do we hold our leaders accountable for breaking laws we won't tolerate from others??

when do we hold our leaders accountable for lies to war??

or torture??
or breaking geneva accords??

or any and all of our conventions/treaties we have not only signed , but have written or helped write?

when is enough enough??

when do we grow some spine and hold these people who represent our good name accountable??
i can't do a damn thing about citizens in another country where people may accept bad bahavior or their laws being broken..but i sure as hell can and will in my country..

these people doing these bad things are my employees ..and i guarentee you, i will hold them responsible...and accountable..its all i can do..and its my #1 responsibility to my nation and my constitution..

that "we the people" is me...and i take it very seriously!

maybe because i have lived in other countries i respect and cherish my constitution more than others who take it for granted..but i damn sure know what my constitution is and i know what my responsibilities are to that wonderful document and laws of my land...

and its fighting words to me if anyone screws with it...it is mine..i was born to it..my family fought for it ..and no man is above its laws..not even a sitting president..after all they are my employee...

as are the congress and senate..they work for me..and you and the person sitting next to you, if american..and its about damn time we all stand up for that constitution and hold anyone accountable who tries to destroy it or alter it..or breaks the laws within it..

fly

[FormerRepublican]

105. See, here's where we get into heavy duty diplomatic trouble.

On the one hand we complain when the US goes into a country and forces the regime (usually by military force) to stop doing whatever bad thing it's doing. Yet, on the other hand, we're complaining because the US DOESN'T stop them from doing whatever bad thing they're doing. We can't have it both ways, and I think it's part of what gets us into trouble.

Do I like the fact that Bush has cozied up to Pakistan and Uzbekistan? No. But I'm also enough of a pragmatist to realize that it was necessary (assuming 9/11 wasn't a US gov't op) to defend the country. The only way to go into Afghanistan and get Bin Laden was to cozy up to disgusting countries and get their cooperation so our military could do their job. Do I like it? No. Were there any other options (assuming 9/11 was not a Bush inside job)? No. I certainly didn't want Bush bombing the h*ll out of Uzbekistan to get a regime change first because they boil their political enemies, just so the US could use their bases when we went into Afghanistan. Is that what you're suggesting?

Perhaps when you do your reading about America you should think a little harder about the difficult situations we're sometimes in that motivate our actions. It's not ALWAYS about American hegemony. Sometimes it's just pragmatism and a reluctance to interfere in the affairs of other countries through means other than diplomatic.

I've read quite a bit about the disgusting events of Iran-Contra, and I've suspected that some of what Bush is doing now is related to the collapse of BCCI. Doesn't mean I condemn America because we have bad apples who sometimes do a lot of damage to our country.

I think we need to somehow separate the disgusting things that Bush and his pals are doing, and America and her people. They're two separate things.

[stepnw1f]

177. Ummm... Europe is a Continent not a Country

The only blinders are the blinders leading us into war after war out of paranoia and misinformation, just like the build-up to invading Iraq. If you are going to use precedence as a reason to worry about Iran, then you have to apply that same line of thinking to every country in the World including your own!

[Judi Lynn]

71. Wonderfully expressed response, not one wasted word.

Lightning strike!

[Spazito]

121. Well said!! n/t

[Malikshah]

61. Chill. Have some dip. Decompress. And report

to reeducation.

It's hard to unlearn all the shit that's been shoved down our throats since the late 1970s

Go and read Michael Kinzer's "All the Shah's Men" if you haven't already.

It will calm folks' nerves and open their eyes to the crap that has gone on

[Strelnikov_]

66. Iran Wants The Bomb To Keep From Having Their Oil Stolen

Look at it this way. They will, at best, have 20 or so Hiroshima class bombs within 5-10 years. We have, what, 10,000. They 'deliver' at best one or two of theirs, we deliver . . , well, Iran is glass. It does not even rise to the level of MAD.

Ditto for the 'inevitable' attack on Tel Aviv.

Yes, the Mullahs are a bunch of assholes when it comes to human rights, but dumb they are not. If anything, they appear to be more sophisticated in foreign policy than our assholes.

I still believe, though, we can find a way to work things out diplomatically.

Did you know in 2003 the Iranians made overtures to the Man/Monkey administration, which was rejected out of hand?

It's about the oil. It has always been about the oil.

[lastliberalintexas]

75. It is NOT all about the oil

It involves natural gas too! Don't short the natural gas and its role in all of this. :)

[Strelnikov_]

120. You Are Correct. Sorry, Methane.

Iran has massive natural gas reserves (the largest?). Be interesting to see how long LNG tankers last in a region wracked by insurgency. They can't even keep petroleum refineries open in Iraq.

[Clarkie1]

68. I'd feel a whole lot better if Wes Clark were president right now.

Security & Terrorism
Clark calls for dialogue on Iran
By KATHERINE GYPSON AND PHILLIP TURNER
Monday, January 30, 2006
UPI Correspondents

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 (UPI) -- Saying that the United States should resort to military force only after diplomatic options have been exhausted, retired Gen. Wesley A. Clark called for the Bush Administration to open a dialogue with Iran in an effort to diffuse the growing nuclear crisis.

Clark spoke at a New America Foundation event offering what he called "an honest and direct" foreign policy assessment in anticipation of President Bush's State of the Union address. Giving the keynote address at the end of a day largely spent criticizing the Bush Administration's diplomatic shortcomings, Clark said that "the State of the Union is not what it should be and not what it could be."

The former NATO allied Supreme Commander in Kosovo and candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been a vocal critic of the administration, berating the president for allegedly letting Osama Bin Laden slip away during the 2003 battle for Tora Bora in Afghanistan and for rushing into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq. Clark believes that the invasion was an example of the United States using a large portion of its resources and attention on what he called the least important of the three members of the Axis of Evil.

"We have a military option for dealing with Iran," said Clark, "make no mistake about it." Despite the Bush administration's tough talk, "Iran is abandoning its international obligations."

Clark said the United States military is capable of devastating Iran's developing nuclear capabilities without seriously damaging oil production and hindering shipment through the Straits of Hormuz. He emphasized that the use of force should be an absolute last resort because a comprehensive U.S. military strike on nuclear facilities could result in "an embittered and vengeful Iran."

http://securingamerica.com/node/561

Wes Clark: The Iranian Puzzle and the Iraq Report Card
Posted by larry on February 6, 2006 - 3:03pm.
On Saturday, General Clark had a blogger meeting in Los Angeles. Mark Kleiman has two posts on the meeting, and I strongly encourage folks to read both.

On The Iranian Puzzle:
Clark was chillingly detailed about the nature of a possible military intervention to take out Iran's nuclear program: 14 days, 4000 air sorties, some special forces operations on the ground to penetrate the labs buried under schools and hospitals. He thought the whole thing could be done without many U.S. casualties, and that we could destroy Iranian command & control and put a major dent in its nuclear weapons acquisition process.

The problem, according to Clark, -- in Iran as in Iraq -- is what to do after "Mission Accomplished." Bush Administration bungling has already taken America's standing with the Iranian electorate from good to bad; a strike could easily take it from bad to worse. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already ridden anti-American sentiment from obscurity to national-hero status; an invasion that didn't kill him could leave him stronger. And the idea of occupying Iran doesn't even pass the giggle test.

And to no one's surprise, the C student Bush has us on a path where the best-case scenario is Shooting for a C- in Iraq:

Mostly he talked about Iraq. He argued that all the chances to get an A in the course were behind us, and we had a choice now between going for a C- and accepting an F.

The C- solution involves using our capacity to help the Iraq government on the security and reconstruction side of things to convince the ruling Shi'a coalition to share political power -- and, more significantly, leadership of the army, police, and interior ministry -- with the Sunnis. The F alternatives are civil war, which Clark sees as the likely result if the security forces continue to be used as the instruments of Shi'a revenge on the Sunnis, and partition.

The artificiality of Iraq as a nation-state has led me, among many, to wonder whether partition would really be a bad thing, especially since Kurdistan might be both democratic and friendly to the U.S. But Clark pointed out that the intermingling of the populations would force large-scale "ethnic cleansing" as a side-effect of any partition.

Clark made what seemed to me a sensible case against phased withdrawal on a timetable. When we're ready to go, either because we've gotten what we can get or because we've decided that we can't get what we want, we should just pack up and go, quickly. Once we've announced a timetable, we've mostly lost our leverage.

Clark also made a political/operational point: it's not reasonable to expect Democrats to coalesce around a single detailed road-map for handling the Iraqi mess. It should be enough for us to point out how badly the whole situation has been handled by the other guys.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4345

Edit: In my opinion, it is issues such as the Iranian crises that make General Clark the only Democrat with a realistic chance of winning th 08' presidential election. Sure, I may be biased. But I also believe it's the honest-to-God truth.

It's the only way we can win folks. I believe that to the very depths of my soul.

[kentuck]

70. I think Russia has been arming Iran since at least first Gulf War....

Iran,in my opinion, is now an extension of the Russian front. Pooty is telling Bush to go screw himself.

[flyarm]

79. well russia has made sure iran has the sunburn missle...

look up the sunburn missle...

and realize..China just bought billions and billions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of iran oil...into the future..

* will be a fool..but he will take us all on the dangerous road to war with him...

* is the real danger..not iran!

fly

[Caretha]

130. Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner. Not only is Pooty telling Bush to go screw himself....he's setting a trap and Iran is the bait. Unfortunately this misadministration is going to walk right into it. No, correction - they're going to go Full Steam Ahead if you get my drift.

[MakeItSo]

76. How do you define "dangerous"????

If you think Iran is dangerous, what with their lack of enriched uranium (let alone nukes), and with no intercontinental ballistic missiles, you must need to wear a diaper when you think about North Korea, our stated enemy, which has an estimated 20 nukes NOW, along with intercontinental missiles capable of hitting the US! Most estimates say Iran won't have a bomb for at least 5 years. That SHOULD give us time to hit North Korea preemptively, fill up on some Kim-chee and still have time to pick our teeth for a few years before turning Iran into a glass skating rink! Whaddayouthink???????

[LynnTheDem]

82. LOL! But you forgot our #1 danger (aside from bush); Pakistan.

One successful assassination attempt and we're gonna be doing the BOHICA.

[incapsulated]

86. What you should be worried about is the aftermath of an attack

Speaking of Wes Clark (Clarkie 1's post above), he has made the point that after such an attack, the likelihood of a very pissed-off Iran getting enriched uranium by any means necessary, such as from Pakistan, would be a very probable outcome, meaning they would have a nuke even quicker than if we had left them alone. Which is why intensive face-to-face diplomacy is the only way to deal with this situation. Attacking Iran would also encourage even further moves across a still unsecure border with Iraq, they would be flooding over to attack us. There are such a multitude of horrible possible outcomes from such an action that only this group of maniacs would try it.

[FormerRepublican]

89. Personally, I think if Bush hits Iran, the Paks will give Iran a nuke...

...to respond with. Bush in Iran is a nightmare and a disaster. There's no question about that.

[incapsulated]

91. Very possible

Is it hell, yet?

[wuushew]

95. The very act of judging other countries and cultures is racist.

Please describe your objective theory of good and evil and how it may be used to make flawless foreign policy decisions.

We could have been friends with Iran, but instead destroyed their fledging democracy supporting the brutal Shah and then aided Iraq in its bloody war against Iran.


I support a nuclear Iran and a world in which American hegemony is lessoned.

[FormerRepublican]

99. I think we need to take a little trip down memory lane...

Here's a link to the personal stories of the Iranian hostages:

http://www.jamesbancroft.net/id16.html

I think we're a bit too eager to paint the US as the only monster in the world, and too reluctant to acknowledge the reality that we are not alone in that. Personally, I'd like to see Bush impeached for his crimes. Ditto for the idiots in Iran.

I don't live in Iran. I live in the United States, and as a consequence, my loyalty is to the United States. I don't want to see Americans killed. That doesn't mean I want to see people in other countries killed either, but if it comes down to a choice between us and them, I'm going to choose us. Why? Because I have a relationship with my neighbors, my family, and my country, and I have more invested in our future. There are a lot of Americans around the world who have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the actions of our government. No, I am not going to stand by and do nothing while they are killed. That means that - despite the fact that the US is the overbearing bully on the block and has taken actions in the past that more than justifies anger around the world - I'm going to try to keep Iran from getting the bomb or supporting terrorists who kill Americans. Not because I agree with Bush, but because I care about my fellow Americans who are targeted because of Bush. There are a lot of innocent people in America too.

I despise Bush and I don't trust him. I also despise the current leaders in Iran and I don't trust them either. If I could take the button for the bomb away from Bush, I would. By the same token, I don't want Iran to have the bomb either.

Giving WMD to people who want to kill Americans is just plain stupid. I don't see how that helps the situation. You might argue that it will keep Bush from attacking - but will it? Bush is crazy and has totally wrong ideas about what our military can and can't do. I don't think the bomb is as much of a deterrent to him as you think because he knows he has more bombs than Iran ever will. He's already proven that he doesn't much care if Americans are killed, so I doubt he's worried about one or two bombs except as a propaganda tool. Iranians with a bomb are, however, a risk to Americans while Bush and those like him are busy drumming up Iranian hatred toward America. Eventually they will want to strike back, and they will use the same kind of thinking Al Qaeda uses to do it. That's a bad scenario for BOTH countries.

Isn't support ONLY for those overseas just as racist? What's wrong with caring about Americans in spite of what Bush does? Bush is only one man, after all.

Edit to add: WRT good v. evil - well, how the heck do we decide on criminal law? Isn't that a subjective judgement as to what people in society should and shouldn't do (which in effect is a judgment regarding good and evil)?

[rman]

107. the US is the one that's dangerous

you bought right into the neocon propaganda

[Behind the Aegis]

110. I agree...up to a point.

However, as dangerous as they are, are they really a threat? They are dangerous in that they have insane leaders and can whip up anti-American sentiment better than most nations. BUT, they are not a threat...at least not at this point. The chance they would engage in battle is not very likely. Their leaders are more like ours, in that they love to hear the sounds of their own voices and seeing who has the proverbial "bigger dick."

I don't want to see them with nukes either, but we still have a few years to prevent that, and it should be done diplomatically. Instead of the US making threats, we should let the world act, because most don't want to see Iran, or any nation at this point, with nukes. The same goes for Israel. She should maintain she will protect herself, if need be, but should not make "threats." Give Iran the rope and let them decide to hang themselves or find something useful to do with the rope (besides hanging gays).

At this point, the only way Iran could obtain nukes would be through China or Russia. Otherwise, to produce their own, it will take them a few years.

So, we shouldn't be fearful, but we should be watchful.

[timtom]

111. There are quite a few voices of reason on this thread.

And I have to agree with them -- vigorously!

To sum up my view on this:

WHAT F***ING NUKES????

This nation was on the road to a fairly respectable democracy until the last few years. I'm pissed that this nation (US) diverted Iran's path with our cheap bullshit.

Nukes, indeed!!! Bah!

[Hubert Flottz]

117. Fool you once shame on you

Fool you twice? You're a fool, if you get fooled again! If we wade into Iran, we are going for reasons other than the reasons stated so far by Bushco. If we go, it's over money, AGAIN. Another Mushroom Clod buying another "mushroom cloud," I refuse to be! Hitler did it one country at a time too. As soon as Hitler made up his mind about his next conquest, he made up his story, just like Bush does. The world Bought Hitler's lies until he raided Poland. * Don't forget Poland! * Don't forget Iraq!

I say let the UN take care of Iran, like we KNOW now, that the UN, WAS, taking care of Iraq.

Bush scored a big victory in his twisted mind when he out-did his daddy in Iraq, now he wants to out-do St. Reagan in Iran too. The CinC and the people behind him, are insane.

[Skeptor]

118. They got oil there as well as nukes?

Seriously, now, writing as a citizen of a country that's playing junior deputy to yours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a US invasion of Iran is hardly likely. For one, on the domestic front the US is running out of army recruits and the voters are running out of support for Bush. Secondly, the UN is at least doing a reasonable job this time, which makes a nice change from the way it worked hand-in-corrupt-glove with the Saddam regime(BTW has the oil-for-food wheat bribery scandal hit the headlines there yet?).

There is no doubt in my mind that the Iraq adventure, combined with Bushco's exceedingly unsubtle encouragement of Iranians to overthrow their oligarchy, have contributed strongly to the resurgence of hawkish loonies to power in Iran. I suspect even the neocons (at least those of them who retain a tenuous grip on sanity) are beginning to reach the same conclusion.

[Hubert Flottz]

119. Bush has not been known to deal with reality much.

The neocons "Make Up Their Own Reality," they have said!

The man is as unstable, as his chain-saw diplomacy has made the entire Middle East. I think he wants to cause Helter Skelter, he and his little "family."

After all the lies the Bush crew has told the world, nobody but a total fool would believe them. The same type of a crazy fool, who would vote for Bush.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. Iran has a helluva lot more to fear from us than vice-versa.

All they have to do is look at their neighbor to see what happens to those who don't kiss the ring of the emperor.

America is the one who is being the aggressor, invading other countries, subverting their governments, and dictating to them how to be acquiescent client states.

We are now discovering that some people react when provoked.

[MadHound]

128. No flames, but I have to disagree with you

First off, who are we to dictate to a sovereign country what technology and weapons systems that they can explore? After all, who is the only country in the world who has used nuclear weapons? Yes, that's right, the US. Nobody else has proofed so dangerous and foolhardy with nuclear material. And we continue to spread the danger in the MidEast, one DU tipped shell at a time, a slow motion, generation spanning genocide. What would the US do or say if some other country said "Hey, you've got to get rid of your nukes" We'd laugh in their face, say that it is our right as a sovereign country to arm ourselves as we see fit, and dare them to stop up.

Secondly, do we know that Iran is actually building a nuclear weapon? All the evidence that we've seen so far shows that they are working towards their stated intention, supplying their country with electricity using domestically produced nuclear power. It is the US who is screaming that Iran building a nuke. Yet the last time they screamed this hard, about WMDs in Iraq, it turned out to be completely false. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice. . .

Third, even if Iran is building a nuke, quite frankly I can't blame them. It seems that the only countries that the US doesn't fuck with are those who have nukes. And in light of that observation, especially after being included in Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil", I'm thinking that it is pretty damn prudent of Iran to have something as a deterent. I certainly would if I was them.

Fourth, even if Iran is building a nuke, we have time. Time to do something we haven't tried in over twenty five years, deal with Iran as an equal, sovereign country. Talk face to face, put a thaw on diplomatic relations that have been frozen for over twenty five years. Make it in Iran's best interest not use the bomb on the US. Likewise, having a nuke could also bring Israel to the table. We worry about Iran going nuclear, but the only nuclear country in the Mid East is Israel. If Iran had one also, it could be used as a chip to bring Israel to the diplomatic table, and start breaking down the wall between the warring factions of the Middle East.

And finally, I think that this whole "nuclear Iran" tactic is just another Bushco ploy, drumming up an excuse to invade and occupy another oil producing country. If they were so damn concerned about a Muslim country in pocession of the bomb, why didn't they do a damn thing about Pakistan? Instead of punishing them, they embraced Pakistan fully. No, this isn't about nukes friend, this is about oil and the economics of oil. And this is another reason that we must steer our own country off of the oil economy and onto a sustainable, clean, renewable energy policy. Otherwise, we're going to see war after war drummed up in order to steal more oil.

[MrPrax]

129. Bull...

Iran is no more dangerous than 'North Korea'--same situation and SINCE the Admin., Bolton and the freep-tards seem to be able to 'stand down' on that 'threat'--they should have NO problem this time.

"I personally DO NOT want to see Iran with a nuclear bomb because unlike others here on DU, I DO believe they would use it - either against Israel or us or someone else who publishes cartoons."

Pretty well sums up the headspace of many: Israel must be supported at all costs--even if Israel might be use one of it's 200 nukes against them...

Pure racism...

[FormerRepublican]

134. Ok, you said: "Pure racism..."

So I felt I had to explain my position. If Iran nuked Israel, what do you think would happen to the Middle East? The whole thing would blow sky high. Israel would turn around and nuke Iran, Syria and other sympathetic countries would turn around and attempt military force against Israel, the oil flow would stop when every freaking oil field was blown up for strategic reasons, which would get the rest of the world involved for survival reasons...

Well, you see how fast the situation deteriorates. Not all concerns about an attack on Israel are racist, my friend, and I find your quick assumption itself to be racist.

WRT North Korea, Pakistan, and all the other threats in the world caused by some power hungry megalomaniac with an itchy trigger finger on the button to the bomb - well, WHERE have I said ANYWHERE in this thread that I think we shouldn't watch those countries for emerging threats as well? Why should the US ignore threats that could lead to war even if the US ignored them completely as benign nations? History has more than enough proof to show that the US is not the only country who has ever engaged in warfare. Ignoring that fact seems to be both a foolish and blind approach to diplomacy and foreign affairs, not to mention an approach that could lead directly to the very warfare we're trying to avoid.

Threat assessment and diplomacy to avert those threats are the best war preventives we have in the arsenal!

[tlsmith1963]

132. I Agree With You

But the neocons are just as dangerous, so I don't want them to attack Iran. They will just make a bad situation much, much worse, just like they always do. I fear that if they attack Iran, there will be more terrorist attacks on our own soil. Better to get some level-headed people in office, *then* figure out what to do about Iran.

Tammy

[CJCRANE]

133. You forget that muslim arabs live in Israel too

and that the Occupied Territories were the Palestinians live are literally right next to Israel (like a mile away across fields etc).

So, if the Iranians pre-emptively nuked Israel they would kill the very people (the Palestinians) they're trying to help.

[dryan]

136. I think Iran is a threat too

[LynnTheDem]

145. Yeah coz in 10 years gee they just maybe perhaps have a nuke!

OMG!!! HOLD ME!

[FormerRepublican]

152. What if the IAEA is wrong about the timeline?

What if Iran is further along in the process than they think? And even if it's 10 years off, does that mean we should look the other way and let Iran develop the bomb?

Prevention doesn't necessarily mean war. And evaluating Iran as a threat doesn't mean we support Bush war madness.

[LynnTheDem]

173. What if all this time CANADA is the enemy! What if martians are

building nukes!

What if...omg LET'S JUST KILL everyone in the entire world just in case!!!

It ain't just the IAEA; MOST EXPERTS say 10 years. But WHAT IF THEY'RE WRONG OMG!!!

:eyes:

[FormerRepublican]

175. Who said anything about killing?

But I don't think we should ignore Iran while they develop nuclear weapons. Doesn't mean we should kill them, but it does mean we should be concerned and use diplomatic means to dissuade them.

Look, I hate the fact that ANY country has nukes. But we can't put the genie back in the bottle - they exist. And getting them out of the hands of countries that already have them would be next to impossible - even if countries SAID they eliminated them all, someone would be lying. It's the way of the world. But I don't want them spreading around the world so everyone has them, either. Why? Because it increases the chances that some crazed madman (Bush?) might use them and turn the entire world into toast. We've got enough problems without adding to them, thanks very much.

[LynnTheDem]

176. "We" don't do "diplomatic". As long as Americans like yourself

are scared silly and told the choice is invade & kill or do NOTHING OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE...then bush will carry on with his illegal, immoral, "supreme crime" wars of aggression and a lot of innocent people will die.

[FormerRepublican]

180. You forget - I don't support Bush, even if I worry about Iran.

Even if I am told the choice is invade and kill or do nothing, doesn't mean I'm going to accept what I'm told. Also doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the risk.

[LynnTheDem]

185. The risk, if any, will be in about a decade.

Have you started yet worrying about Pakistan? You should. We get nuked, they'll say "Made in Pakistan, die you Yankee MFers".

And they do actually have nukes.

[FormerRepublican]

190. Yes, I do worry about Pakistan, North Korea, and the other global threats.

[LynnTheDem]

192. Great! Maybe you can help wake Americans up to the biggest threat

we face. And it's one successful assassination attempt away.

Pakistan.

[FormerRepublican]

195. I hope they don't succeed.

Because if they do, it's WWIII. India would be a target. So would we. So would a lot of people. And Iran would still get the bomb, because the Paks would give it to 'em. ;) Unfortunately, Al Qaeda would probably get it too.

[dryan]

165. I'm not....

talking about nuclear missiles.

[FormerRepublican]

137. Might they not simply view them as martyrs to the cause?

Having innocent Muslims killed has not stopped terrorist attacks in the past, so why would it necessarily stop the Iranians? Aren't there a lot of Palestinians who DON'T live in Israel who could replace any killed in an Israel free ME? (I'm not advocating that, I'm just playing devils advocate from a potential Iranian wacko mullah's point of view.)

[CJCRANE]

138. Why would they turn the Palestinian homeland

into a nulcear wasteland? Doesn't make sense.

They would be committing genocide on their own people. The Palestinians want to return to (what they consider) their land, not destroy it.

I think the fact that Israel has 200 nukes and that Bushco committed "shock and awe" on Iraq has more to do with it (i.e. self defense/deterrent).

[FormerRepublican]

143. One nuclear bomb would not turn the entire area to a wasteland.

I'm sure Iranian nuclear physicists are aware of just how much damage and nuclear fallout would be caused by a nuclear weapon.

And who knows what an extreme far right whack job leader in Iran might consider acceptable losses. He might think the world would restrain Israel and prevent them from using their nuclear weapons, as they've done in the past over other actions. He might think destroying the hated Israel is desirable enough to take the risk. Who knows what he might think when he gets his finger on the button to a bomb!

We all want to think the guy on the other side with his finger on the trigger is sane and rational enough to think very hard about their own survival because that's what keeps US alive in a MAD scenario. But is that what we're really dealing with here?

In the case of Bush v. Iran, I see it more as Bush wandering around the ME in a suicide belt, and Iranian mullahs confronting him with their own suicide belt. Bush would press the button. So would the mullahs, and their presence with a suicide belt might make Bush nervous enough to press the button pre-emptively. So the only thing that can avert a crisis (short of impeaching Bush and his cabal) is preventing the Iranian mullahs from confronting Bush. Does that make sense?

[CJCRANE]

147. Why drop one nuke on a country that has two hundred?

To be honest, I don't know anymore. All I know is that Bush is destroying the American economy and if he nukes Iran, the global economy and global politics will go into complete crisis.

I just want to go back to the Clinton era of diplomacy and prosperity.

[FormerRepublican]

149. Ditto on the Clinton thing.

The crazy mullahs might think, probably accurately, that the rest of the world would go absolutely bonkers at the idea of Israel using a nuke and destroying global oil production, and might do some very severe arm twisting to prevent Israel from nuclear response.

Consequently, they might not see it as a big risk.

[CJCRANE]

151. Not much time for arm-twisting when nukes are flying about.

The Israeli response would happen before a nuke had even hit their soil.

[FormerRepublican]

153. Yes, but there's a lot of time for arm twisting in the run up to a nuke...

...strike. I think we'd see escalation before the missiles actually flew. And I think Israeli intelligence would be all over Iran finding out about their planned launch, and Israel would be all over the world pointing fingers. Plenty of time for the world to go wacked and exert pressure - including the US, which as you might know, holds some pretty hefty purse strings for Israel. Can you imagine Bush telling Israel it's OK for them to turn the oil rich ME into a glass parking lot incapable of producing the black stuff for an eon? He'd tell Israel to take the hit for the team.... And his Saudi pals would back him up, as would the rest of the ME.

[slor]

135. Are you sure you are a "former" rethug...

Have you forgotten how "dangerous" Iraq was supposed to be? And how it is now really dangerous for our troops there, for no good goddamned reason?

[FormerRepublican]

140. The fact that Bush is a raving lunatic doesn't mean there aren't...

...very real threats in the world. We are just in the very complicated and unfortunate position of being forced to figure out which are the real and the made up threats in the midst of endless lies spewed from Bush and his minions. The terrorists in planes on 9/11 were a very real threat to Americans regardless of who was ultimately behind it. Kapish?

It would be just as foolish to look the other way when faced with a real threat as it would to blindly swallow Bush lies in the midst of a fake threat.

That's my whole point here - is it possible that Iran might really be a threat, and we're letting Bush's unforgivable acts in the run up to the Iraq war blind us to a very real threat that needs attention? Diplomatic attention, not BushCo war mad insanity.

Nightmare scenario? What if the Iranians are really building a bomb with the plan to hand it over to Al Qaeda to use in the US as a means of forcing our withdrawal from Iraq and the broader ME? And we're running around saying Bush is lying about the threat and nothing should be done... I'm not saying that's the case here, but I am saying that we should not blind ourselves to a potential threat just because we despise what Bush did in Iraq. We should keep our eyes open and QUESTION everything!

[CJCRANE]

142. Iran is Persian Shi'ite, al-Qaeda is Sunni Arab.

Al-Qaeda hates Shi'ites AFAIK (and blows up their mosques in Iraq), doesn't seem like they'd work together.

[FormerRepublican]

146. That works until their hatred of the US grows so great it overcomes...

...all obstacles. Here's a report showing some Al Qaeda activity discovered by Germany under Schroeder, who as you recall, opposed the Iraq invasion vociferously (and so I doubt would manufacture the data on Iran to support future invasion of Iran):

"July 21 - Just eight months before the September 11 terror attacks, top conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh received a four-week visa to Iran and then flew to Tehran—an apparent stop-off point on his way to meet with Al Qaeda chiefs in Afghanistan, according to law-enforcement documents obtained by NEWSWEEK.

German government documents showing the previously undisclosed trip by bin al-Shibh, a captured Al Qaeda operative who played a crucial coordinating role in the 9/11 plot, is the latest evidence that the World Trade Center conspirators frequently used Iran as a safe transit point in their travels to and from Afghanistan.

The final report of the 9-11 Commission, which is due out tomorrow, contains significant new information about a possible “Iran connection” to the plot, including a U.S. intelligence analysis indicating that Iranian border inspectors were instructed not to stamp the passports of Al Qaeda members entering and exiting their country. Although the information has been known to the U.S. intelligence community for some time, President Bush told reporters this week that the U.S. government was “digging into the facts to determine if there was” a possible Iranian connection to the September 11 attacks."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek

The reason why I point this out is that we really have no idea what they were doing in Iran. For all we know, they were picking up orders from Iranian mullahs to do the hit on 9/11, instead of getting their orders from Bin Laden. They could have been there on an innocent vacation. We don't know. Since we don't have definative data, we MUST keep an open mind to all possibilities.

As an armchair analyst, we have to be careful not to dismiss risks that could be very real.

[CJCRANE]

150. 9/11 was bought and paid for

by Bushco allies. Plenty of people hate America but Rove's indifference to ordinary American's is more dangerous.

[FormerRepublican]

157. Doesn't necessarily mean Iran wouldn't still use them for a hit.

Would Iran necessarily know the extent of any conspiracy? Is it possible that Bush WASN'T behind 9/11? The data is compelling, but not definative.

I agree, Bush is just as dangerous as Iranian wackos with a nuke. That's why I'd like to see him impeached and stopped.

[CJCRANE]

160. Yes, it's a catch-22.

Iran may be dangerous but can the world trust Bush to deal with them in good faith?

(We're talking about an administration that destroyed the career of Valerie Plame and her associates - the very people tasked with tracking WMD around the world).

[FormerRepublican]

162. We are in agreement, I see.

:)

That's exactly how I feel as I look at this.

[slor]

169. "Diplomatic attention" is not in their bag of tricks...

and that is why this is so dangerous. I am not saying to ignore real threats, but this is an administration that ignored 58 warnings about Osama and Al Queda, and then ignored the intelligence saying Iraq was NOT a threat. This is why we need other countries to take the lead on Iran diplomacy, and just more proof of what a disaster going into Iraq has become for our country. Believe me, going into Iran, without conclusive proof, really will "open the gates of Hell".

[FormerRepublican]

196. I agree. That's exactly why I feel so much anxiety as I watch this unfold

[0rganism]

139. Iran becomes "dangerous" (to us) when they start selling oil in euros

If this is the primary scenario that concerns the current administration, and I'm pretty sure that it is, the first strikes against Iran happen before March 20.

[FormerRepublican]

141. Something that has bothered me about this whole thing...

...is China and Russia agreeing to refer Iran to the UN Security Council as long as they refrain from taking any action until March. What the heck does THAT mean? SOMETHING else is going on here, and I believe Bush is busy screwing it all up and getting us into trouble...

[0rganism]

155. Yeah, that fishy smell is no accident -- March 20 is D-Day

Up until now, the oil markets have used dollars, so countries had to hold onto American currency. Now, the Iranians are planning to start a euro-based oil market on the Persian new year, aka March 20. Russia and China, whatever else they may think about a nuclear Iran, understand that they can use that market as a great way to undercut the dollar and manipulate the US's economic position. China has a lot of American holdings, and may not be so much interested in unloading it at a decreased value, so their motivation is probably more along the lines of getting additional resources to a massive population.

In any case, if military actions can be deferred until after the market is established, then there will be some precedent for keeping it running as such during any ensuing occupation or sanctions regime.

That's my take, FWIW.

[FormerRepublican]

161. I don't know how immediate an effect the oil bourse would have, tho.

I'm not sure it's sufficient reason to compel Bush to go to war. I do think his oil cronies clammoring on about how they want oil contracts in Iran would induce him to do stupid things.

There's something weird about March, and I'm not sure it's the bourse. Maybe China and Iran are planning a hit on us pre-Iran invasion (not necessarily militarily)?

[unschooler]

144. Use of a nuke by an Arab government or terrorist group would bring down

an unimaginable rain of destruction on that entire region. I agree the "President" of Iran is a nutjob, but he's got to know that actually using a nuke would mean the end of everything he has worked to attain.

I worry more about the security of nukes in Pakistan and the former Soviet bloc nations.

The government of Iran watched what happened in nuke-free Iraq and knew it needed a bomb NOW.

[FormerRepublican]

148. How does a nuke keep them safe?

Bush is as crazy as the Iranian nut jobs. I doubt a nuke would keep ol' Gorge W. Bushit from a new war adventure when oil is involved. Nor does Bush have the brains to realize the end result of his stupidity.

You give Bush too much credit.

[0rganism]

158. It would be the mother of all IEDs, if you know what I mean

Nothing deters a land invasion quite like the possibility of having the mass of an entire infantry division instantly converted into energy.

[FormerRepublican]

163. But if you've got enough men, and Iran don't have enough IEDs, and

...Bush is in charge - well, we're screwed. He didn't cry much when Americans in New Orleans got wiped away in the space of a minute. He didn't even look shaken - remember that? Any NORMAL person would have been shaken up by the tragedy of it all... Lord, I can't stand Bush.

[The Stranger]

171. This is not a flame and is meant in all seriousness, but the notion that

an educated group of elected officials of a large and sovereign nation would immediately start bombing people if they ever got their hands on the most powerful type of weapon in the world is a notion that is racist, bigoted and dehumanizing.

Such a notion is the carefully cultivated result of a mass media that needs seemingly intelligent people to be confused, so its corporate allies can wage illegal and hopelessly immoral, racist and bigoted wars of exploitation.

[FormerRepublican]

174. Didn't stop Bush from bombing Iraq. Why would it stop Iran?

You give them too much credit. The world is being run by mad men, or we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

And since when is worrying about someone who has already threatened and killed Americans in the past racist? That's silly.

[The Stranger]

179. Nothing you have said really disputes my points.

Bush is not going to launch on Russia and commit suicide -- he is seeking tactical nukes, a new generation that would wipe out hundreds of thousands of civilians without having to introduce any troops into the area. And he is not going to use it on the Russians or Chinese -- he is going to use it on Muslims and Arabs. And you are right: judging from the weapons of mass destruction lies, Fallujah, torture at Abu Ghraib, use of white phosphorous, etc., he has already shown he is capable of this.

But the Iranians are not going to commit suicide as soon as they get their hands on some rudimentary, crude and primitive weapon. They are not going to run to a sling shot and launch it as soon as they can. This kind of thinking is ridiculous.

But the corporate media has for years stoked the embers of a deep, racist hatred for the Iraqis, Iranians and other people in the Middle East. From this fear comes the irrational belief that little desert despots are somehow a threat to the greatest superpower the world has ever known (remember "weapons of mass destruction" and Saddam Hussein). This mania is completely ridiculous as well.

[FormerRepublican]

182. The way that Iran gets around the retaliation problem is by using a proxy

...like Hezbollah. So, they get Hezbollah to use the nuke, cover their tracks to it can't be traced back to them, and bam - retaliation free nuclear attack.

Granted, the radioactive isotopes can be examined to see if it can be determined where the nuke came from, but there are sources we have no data on - North Korea, Pakistan, Iran (if they develop it), etc. Tracing the nuclear material back to it's source might not be definitively possible.

I don't think the problem is that the media has stoked our fear, I think there have been actual attacks against Americans that has stoked our fear. Khobar Towers is an example. So are the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa, the Iranian hostage incident, the various hijackings and killings over the years, etc. We react the same as we do when we read about crime in our neighborhood. We become concerned, lock the door, and start paying attention on the streets so we don't become the next victim. Same kind of thing with terrorism and terror sponsoring states. I don't see anything inherently illogical or racist in that. It's just a normal human response to danger driven by the survival instinct.

To be fair, we don't spend a lot of time thinking about why a criminal is resorting to violence before we demand the police catch them and lock them up, using deadly force in the process if necessary.

[The Stranger]

184. On the contrary, knowing that they would be committing suicide by allowing

a proxy to bomb the U.S., they would make damn sure that it never got out of their hands. They realize that they would pay the price, hence they would be extremely careful not to provide another excuse for their destruction, as if there weren't enough excuses as already, given their being deemed part of the "Axis of Evil." That very term is pregnant with hateful meaning and crystallizes the demonization of the people from that part of the world. But this is a drop in the bucket of a deluge of propaganda that streams from the administration.

You make an analogy to crime. But it is interesting that we don't refer to criminals as an "Axis of Evil," even though the threat that they pose is very real. Individual criminals are prosecuted for actual crimes that they commit. This is more just, moral and rational than declaring war on half of the urban center and claiming that everyone there is a threat. Then torturing them. But, again, criminals aren't tortured. Even the Nazis were not tortured.

But this new type of "enemy," which is so dreadful that we cannot know it and would not understand it, does become the target of torture and the undoing of our own timeless rights, laws and legal principles dating back not decades, but centuries. Everything is a secret, which should immediately cause any freethinking person to start asking questions, and fast.

You mentioned two attacks. But neither the Khobar Towers attacks nor the attacks on embassies in Africa were even attributed to Iran. And this mistake on your part is very telling. Under the new, racist view, Iranians may be held responsible and blamed for something that someone completely unrelated to them has done. This has happened before, for example, in the lies and buildup for the illegal war in Iraq, remember? The administration had people convinced that Iraq had weapons it was never close to having and that it was involved in the September 11 attacks, when all of this was known by intelligence agencies to be demonstrably false.

How do they do it? They do it with fear, and the carefully crafted objectification of the "enemy," and all of the brown Muslim people become one big "enemy," subhuman, dangerous, fearsome and that must be attacked and destroyed. If there is any relation to crime, this would be it.

[FormerRepublican]

189. Oh, now you're just being totally out of line...

You said: "And this mistake on your part is very telling. Under the new, racist view, Iranians may be held responsible and blamed for something that someone completely unrelated to them has done. This has happened before, for example, in the lies and buildup for the illegal war in Iraq, remember? The administration had people convinced that Iraq had weapons it was never close to having and that it was involved in the September 11 attacks, when all of this was known by intelligence agencies to be demonstrably false."

Hezbollah is an Iranian entity, funded by Iran. How could Iran not be involved if they support and fund them?

Here are some links to show the connection:

"Tehran, Iran, Sep. 26 – Iran’s Hezbollah announced on Sunday that it planned to set up a satellite TV channel to spread the group’s ultra-Islamist message, the country’s state-run media reported on Monday.

“At present, the website Hezbollah is the only active link connecting our organisation with Muslims. But we are seeking to set up a Hezbollah satellite channel”, the group’s Secretary General, Seyyed Mohammad-Baqer Kharrazi, said.

Kharrazi announced that as part of a re-shuffle in the group, Mojtaba Bigdeli was to act as his spokesman while Seyyed Mohammad Qaem-Maqami was to be the organisation’s spokesman."

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3828

"Origins
Hezbollah was formed from numerous other Lebanese Shia groups shortly after Israel's 1982 invasion, largely fought in mainly Shia southern Lebanon. The group was conceived by Iran, or at least was aided in its inception by the arrival in Lebanon of 1,500 Islamic revolutionary guards from Iran, three years after that country's own Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran, as an Islamic republic — a Shia one — remains a close ally, financial backer, arms supplier and model for Hezbollah. Syria backs Hezbollah morally and has also supplied it with money and arms, such as Katyusha rockets. In return, Hezbollah protects Syria's interests in Lebanon and aligns with Syria in its confrontation with Israel over the occupation of the Golan Heights. <15>

One of the main objectives of Hezbollah at the time was to spread the Iranian Revolution. Since then, the party has publicly declared that it will suspend its attempts to create an Islamic state in Lebanon "because the conditions are not met". It remained underground for a number of years and did not make a public announcement of its existence till 1985, until which time its earliest members operated under the auspices of the "Lebanese National Resistance", an amalgam of forces united in their opposition to the Israeli invasion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

"Iranian Hezbollah Launches Election HQ

TEHRAN, Nov. 14--Spokesman of Iran's Hezbollah Party said an election headquarters has been launched by his group for the upcoming presidential election.
Mojtaba Bigdeli also told IRNA that Mohammad Javad Feyz will head the election headquarters. He asserted that in the first phase, members of task teams of nine major Iranian cities were appointed and they also began work on launching the headquarters.
"Tehran, Mashhad, Qom, Isfahan, Bandar Abbas, Tabriz, Shiraz, Ahvaz and Karaj are included in this phase," he added.
Commenting on the possibility of introducing a candidate for the next presidential election, Bigdeli said some people have talked about the candidacy of the secretary-general of Iran's Hezbollah Party and others.
"The Central Council of Iran's Hezbollah Party is presently profiling different candidates. It will make the final announcement within the next 10 days," he said."

http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2139/html/national.htm

The Iranians themselves call it Iran's Hezbollah.

It's not racist to hold someone accountable for their actions. And I suspect you have an agenda in suggesting that it is.

[The Stranger]

197. You are STILL confusing various unrelated entities.

As I stated in my prior post:

You mentioned two attacks. But neither the Khobar Towers attacks nor the attacks on embassies in Africa were even attributed to Iran.

These sentences were also missing from your quoting my prior post. And none of the information you have posted about Hezbollah or any other entity will change the fact that you confused Iran with the entities who are alleged to have made the two attacks you mentioned.

Now, it would appear, you are throwing yet another entity into the confusing mix, perhaps as a smokescreen. Now you seem to imply that Hezbollah was involved with the attacks on the Khobar Towers and the embassy attacks in East Africa, when there has been no credible allegation that Hezbollah (nor Iran, as mentioned previously) is involved in these attacks.

Again, this is alarmingly like the dangerous shell game of enemy others that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney played in lying to the American people that Iraq was involved with September 11, 2001. This lie was used to launch an illegal war on Iraq and has created repercussions that will impact the U.S. deleteriously for decades.

Do you STILL not understand?

Then you state this:

It's not racist to hold someone accountable for their actions. And I suspect you have an agenda in suggesting that it is.

What is racist is grouping all of these unrelated organizations together, and then seeking to paint entire nations of peoples with the stigma of what an extraordinarly small portion of their population is doing. Yet this is the only way launch an unjustified war on another nation of peoples, which will inevitably lead to the unjustified deaths of hundreds of thousands, as we are seeing in Iraq, when the vast majority of these people are not terrorist, are not hate-filled and are most likely seeking the same things in life most Americans and Europeans seek: a job, decent home, basic necessities from government.

Painting all of this vast majority of these ordinary people as terrorist or hate-filled, claiming that they are "evil" has roots in racist thinking going back generations. Think about the struggle of African-Americans in the U.S. and racist notions and stereotypes that persist to this day. Think about how wars are propagated and maintained -- racist stereotypes are essential to fomenting the necessary hate to launch the masses.

So then you want to talk about "agenda." Attempts to de-escalate the massive brewing of hate by the corporate-owned mass media (which has much to gain by war, as usual) and the fundamentalist, mentally challenged leaders of two countries heading towards war, and attempts to avoid a needless war in the cause of Peace -- must it be termed an "agenda"?

Meanwhile, a "former republican" comes on a Progressive web site impliedly supporting action against yet another Middle Eastern country that poses no threat to the U.S., when the current Republican Administration is still not finished extricating the U.S. from the last illegal war based on unqeustionable lies against a Middle Eastern country that posed no threat to the U.S., and you want to talk to me about "agenda"?

[stepnw1f]

178. Same Fear, Different Enemy...

Same reason we are in Iraq ILLEGALLY... because "we" freaked out and lost control!

[chonce]

181. Pre-emptive war

Is not the answer.

Iran's leadership is full of bad people, and they shouldnt have nukes. Of course, our leadership is full of bad people, and we shouldnt have nukes either. In fact, we are the only country that has ever used them.

The Iran desire fro weapons is not a suprise.

Imagine, you are the leader of a country full of Sunni-Muslims. You have been targeted by the worlds only superpower -- one with a policy for regime change and pre-emptive invasions -- and they are surrounding you with forces in nearby countries.

In anycase, if the US is so concerned about peace we should work to get rid of all nuclear weapons, including ours.

[K-W]

183. The United States is the warmonger, not Iran.

But of course its easy to convince Americans that the country we just happen to want to change the regime of poses a threat to the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

[LynnTheDem]

186. HEY I'm telling on you!!! You stop using

common sense right now or else!

:D

[FormerRepublican]

191. If Iran is not a warmonger, then why do they need Hezbollah to...

...expand the Iranian revolution?

[confludemocrat]

188. They have oil, ergo, they are dangerous. Got it? Good.

Works perfectly huh?: 2000-2001 they are moderating, sick of clerics

Iran--OIL BIG TIME
2001: call them "axis of evil" thereby prompting them to develop nukes sooner and more determinedly
2003: invade Iraq for bullshit reasons and oil, they speed up nuke development, naturally
2004-2005 they elect hardliners and keep speed up of nukes
2006 we start talking openly about war

North Korea--NO FUCKING OIL
2001 ditto
2003 ditto
2004-2005 nothing happens
2006-? silence

[FormerRepublican]

193. I agree - Bush is mishandling foreign policy big time, and the US pays.

It's about both oil AND Bush stupidity.