There are quite a few articles floating around about a US air strike on Iran and in the near future. Probably before March of 2006 as that's when the Iranian Oil Bourse will debut and we (the US) cannot allow that -- it could eventually lead to bankrupting our country.

AN EXAMPLE: http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051230-124328-9385r

So for the sake of discussion, let's presume there indeed will be a strike in Iran or an invasion -- my question is simply ...

do you or do you not support a pre-emptive strike on Iran?

On edit: Bonus question: If we attack, should we use nukes?

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ART/ART182/OBJ003.jpg

We finally agree :)

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
do you or do you not support a pre-emptive strike on Iran?

::checks the "do not support" box::

On edit: Bonus question: If we attack, should we use nukes?

No.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
We finally agree :)

That means you're finally right about an issue.

http://www.smileycollector.com/images/smiles/wavey.gif

Actually I think this issue is pretty much a no brainer ... at least I hope it is.

I'd have to be convinced of the evidence that Iran is planning something nasty, and given the missteps of the administration it had better be really good intel. And regardless, no nukes should be used in the attack.

I think we should do a role reversal with the rest of the west this time. Hope that someone does it, and then criticize them when it's done.

"Odder, it is a MISTAKE to be too weak! Your enemies will attack you!"



---said by an ol' Mancuchruian friend once a long time ago



---ALSO said by Adolf Hitler before he launched an attack on Russia...




So much fer all the wise guys, eh?



:(

Uh, footnote?


Adolf 'n his dumbkoffs wuz worried 'bout how STRONG them Russians wuz gittin'...




"It's a mistake ta appear weak..."--zap 'em with a Precedent Ray Gun...

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I'd have to be convinced of the evidence that Iran is planning something nasty, and given the missteps of the administration it had better be really good intel. And regardless, no nukes should be used in the attack.

That's as good an answer as possible Lionel but sadly I report that Bush has blown his wad on the trust and integrity front. It's going to be hard to believe any story from this administration.

That leaves only one possibility and that is another attack, which will be blamed on Iran and of course, not allowed to be vetted based on super high national security importance.

And it would be nukes. Bush can't take any chances on the very real probability of stuffing a seriously high number of body bags with dead soldiers if we try it any other way.

March draws near as does the Iranian OIL bourse. Keep your eye on this one.

Originally posted by In Odder Words
Uh, footnote?


Adolf 'n his dumbkoffs wuz worried 'bout how STRONG them Russians wuz gittin'...




"It's a mistake ta appear weak..."--zap 'em with a Precedent Ray Gun...

Actually, IIRC, Hitler wasn't worried but everyone around him was but they were all too chickensh*t to tell him.

"I'd have to be convinced of the evidence that Iran is planning something nasty, and given the missteps of the administration it had better be really good intel. And regardless, no nukes should be used in the attack."


Did I ever mention that I think LionelHutz is an uncannily clear thinker at times?



www.actually,more-often-than-not,i'd-suspect,but-i-ain't-yet-dug-way-back-into-the-archives-of-time-here...edu



;)



www.diss-whole-idea-about-attackin'-countries-'cuz-they-MIGHT-attack-us-is-the-very-thing-we're-s'posed-ta-fear-terrorist-countries-fer.edu



www.it-ain't-only-a-waste-of-money-'n-lives,it-makes-our-friends-around-the-world-kinda-nervous.edu



:(

By the by, I'd kinda feel well 'n good about postin' my last reply, if it weren't fer...



...havin' ta answer a whole BUNCHA questions on a second splash page 'n log into a SECOND ISP in order ta post it...



None of diss is on account of Borg or any of my Odder friends here...



But it gits me ta thinkin' what ELSE went wrong with my posts on the LAST forum I used ta post on...



www.ah,what's-yer-net-worth-these-daze,mr-gates?.edu




:(

So what happens if Bush wants to invade Iran?

Does he have to get permission of congress? or does he just do it?

I seriously don't know the answer to this one. Anyone out there know constituional law?
Or doesn't that stuff matter any more considering Bush has declared he is a president at war
and doesn't have to answer to anyone, including the american people, the constitution,
the legislature or the judiciary.

question: Iran doesn't need the nuclear power. Does anyone believe there is another purpose for their uranium processing?

If we don't do this, shouldn't somebody?

Dems, please start thinking long-term.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
So what happens if Bush wants to invade Iran?

Then we may find ourselves there in the coming year.

Does he have to get permission of congress? or does he just do it?

He would require congressional approval and backing to order an incursion into Iran.

I seriously don't know the answer to this one. Anyone out there know constituional law?

Nope, although plenty of us know about constitutional* law. :D

Originally posted by Brooks
question: Iran doesn't need the nuclear power. Does anyone believe there is another purpose for their uranium processing?

Iran may not have great need for nuclear power per se, but it, like most nations, desire nuclear power and weaponry. It would be naïve to assume that they are going to use it solely for the purpose of energy production, as they are a Shi'a theocratic state and rather belligerent, so we can expect some form of a nuclear arsenal from them in the future, of course.

If we don't do this, shouldn't somebody?

If things develop further on the situation, should UN sanctions and external pressure fail, it will behoove us to step in, but not just yet.

please start thinking long-term.

Jumping into a war with Iran so prematurely is not exactly going to our nation's cup of tea from the look of the state of things.

If we deny Iran the right to have nuclear weapons, shouldn't that apply to Israel as well? Or shoud they be allowed to keep their nukes? If yes - why?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
If we deny Iran the right to have nuclear weapons, shouldn't that apply to Israel as well?

To put it quickly, yes.

Israel is a small nation primarily of jews in a land with copious amounts of muslims and rapacious, conservative theocracies. They have been involved in many moderately large conflicts in its somewhat short lifespan, and continues to see violence perpetrated on it and by it week by week. A country in such a tense position, with erratic behavior as seen, cannot be trusted to remain a fidus Achates with destructive power present in those weapons.

If Israel uses nukes to take out Iran (good possibility at this point) should the US get involved? How about Russia, China, India, others? Or should Israel get a pass because ... well they're Israel and they're special and the world owes them ...

They won't.

Does anyone else something has to be done about Iran?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
If Israel uses nukes to take out Iran (good possibility at this point)

No, it really isn't.

should the US get involved?

Because of our influence over Israel, we would have a great deal of effect in any actions or demands to be made. So yes, to put it simpler.

How about Russia, China, India, others?

They are a powerful members of the world community, and have a right to be disturbed and inquisitive over the the actions of a nuclear bomb dropped on Iran by Israel, so yes again.

Or should Israel get a pass because ... well they're Israel and they're special and the world owes them ...

No, now please stop asking these questions, the topic at hand is Iran.

"You forgot Poland!"--Dubbya, without actually thinkin' of the HISTORICAL meanin' of that?




"Let's not forget Poland!"--der Fuhrer mistakes like that, the better?



:(

"First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."

-- President Bush, July 14, 2004, remarks on USA Patriot Act


Obviously our Precedent can Lie as well as Lay?



:(

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush has blown his wad on the trust and integrity front. It's going to be hard to believe any story from this administration.

56,000,000 people in this country have demonstrated time and time again that they will believe anything Bush tells them.......no matter how how much evidence to the contrary is presented.


The --"Iraq has hundreds of tons of WMDs!!!!!!!" claim being a perfect example.

The 56,000,000 ignored/refused to believe his cocaine abuse.

The 56,000,000 ignored/refused to believe that he was AWOL from the National Guard.

They ignored/refused to believe that he was wrongly appointed president in 2000, even though he lost the election in Florida by (conservatively speaking) from 20,000 to 70,000 votes.

They accepted his lies about WMDs, and even continued making excuses for him AFTER it was demonstrated to the entire world that he had lied thru his teeth about it.

You can NOT count on the brainwashed faction of flag-waving fuckwits in this country not believing whatever the Rightwing tells them, no matter how many lies the Righties have been caught in in the past.

If BushCo wants to attack Iran, they will simply instruct the Propaganda Ministry [iow, the mainstream Media] to turn the spin machine to the *high* setting and manufacture public opinion toward approval for it.

Originally posted by Brooks
question: Iran doesn't need the nuclear power. Does anyone believe there is another purpose for their uranium processing?

I would say that they --exactly as the US has done-- are wanting to assemble nuclear weapons.

Except that they will probably have a handful, while the US has thousands.

They no doubt recognize that the only way to deter cold-blooded, calculating, imperialist countries with an insatiable desire for oil from attacking them and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in their country is to have nuclear weapons to give the attackers pause.

The US has been demonstrating for many decades that it will kill anyone and destroy any nation that has the misfortune of getting in the way of U.S. Corporate interests taking what they desire.

B-b-b-b-b-b-ut shouldn't IMAGINARY WMD be enuff ta stop a U.S. invasion?



www.tell-bush-apologists-ta-go-climb-under-iraq,it-makes-me-saddam-mad.edu



:(




www.uh,taiwan,issue-thinkin'-'bout-buyin'-WMD-instead-of-U.S.-"guarantees?".edu

"Everything I said before about Big Brother should now be ignored!"---George Oilwell



;)




www.jest-tryin'-ta-joke-back-some-tears,voters.edu

Dop said:Or should Israel get a pass because ... well they're Israel and they're special and the world owes them ...

Then Evakian said: No, now please stop asking these questions, the topic at hand is Iran.

See what I mean about Israel? Even mention the name and bingo, everyone gets defensive ... like we gotta defend everything Israel for they can do no wrong. WTF?????

Try this one ... Likud says bomb Iran

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3193102,00.html

Will the United States of Israel do it?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
See what I mean about Israel? Even mention the name and bingo, everyone gets defensive ...

Had you actually read my posts in their entirety, you would find that is not the case. I am not defending Israel, but as you see the title and topic of this thread is Iran Strike- thumbs up? thumbs down?, and so naturally the nation in question is Iran, not Israel...redirecting the thread to stay on the topic, as well as avoid repetitive questions from you that are rather pointless about Israel, is not "getting defensive" about Israel.

like we gotta defend everything Israel for they can do no wrong. WTF?????

If you had read my posts in this thread, you would realize I do not hold that stance.

Will the United States of Israel do it?

Not particularly likely at this current time, no. That would be signing a pact with Death for the Israelis.

German media: U.S. prepares Iran strike
By MARTIN WALKER

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051230-112208-8968r
+++++++++++++

Iran is NPT compliant: German official
TEHRAN, Dec. 30 (MNA) -- A member of the German parliament’s foreign policy committee, Ruprecht Polenz, has said that Iran presently complies with the NPT regulations, U.S. media reported Thursday.

Polenz said Iran allows the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to visit and control its nuclear installations but the United States, the European Union, and Russia are trying to prevent Iran from achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle.
http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=272005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Israel considers protesting BBC show on `secret weapons'
By Sharon Sadeh
Program focuses on country's nuclear program

LONDON - Israel is considering lodging a vehement protest after the BBC airs a national program Sunday about the country's nuclear program, dubbed "Israel's secret weapon."

The program reportedly examines the "double standard" of the international community with regard to Israel's and Iraq's unconventional weapons.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273071&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Just in ...

Iran rejects Russia's nuclear offer ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/01/iran.nuclear/

Now it's gonna get good.

Fair question, my Odder friend...



As ta what would HAPPEN?



Well, it ain't just a MUTTER of what our American politicians has decided what's legal or not...




www.that's-why-i-condider-question, oh...only-fair.edu




;)




www.thankz-fer-not-bein'-shy-in-respondin'.edu

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Then Evakian said:No, now please stop asking these questions, the topic at hand is Iran.

See what I mean about Israel? Even mention the name and bingo, everyone gets defensive ...

Evakian is not defensive.
Evakian is not everyone.

Wrong twice.

Originally posted by Brooks
Evakian is not everyone.

Aww crap, this changes everything! :(


;)

I think attacking Iran would be a huge mistake right now, unless we are ready to fight a world war. I don't think that the American people are in favor of that.
One basis for action is that Iran is in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. We are signatories of that treaty as well, and also in violation of it, as are most of the other countries that agreed to it. Countries that do not have nuclear weapons agree not to acquire them when they sign the treaty. In exchange they recieve access to buy nuclear technology for civilian uses from other countries. Those countries who already had nuclear weapons agreed to give them up. I haven't seen us, or for that matter any other country that has nuclear weapons, doing that. Other countries have acquired nuclear weapons after signing that treaty, and nothing has been done to them.
Another basis for action would be a preemptive strike to defend ourselves against an imminent attack. If we claim this, we had better have convincing proof. By that, I mean proof that will convince the rest of the world. I don't think that will be easy.
As to what is legally required under U.S. law, the President is required to notify Congress under the War Powers Act when he is sending U.S. forces into a situation in which hostilities are likely. Congress is then required to act to either approve or disapprove the action. If they don't approve, the President must withdraw our forces within 60 days. Here is a link to the text of the law, which was passed to clarify what the constitution means in an era when declaring war is no longer done formally.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

Nice post Imagineer and correct on all counts except one --

Our president has alrready stated, relative to the illegal spying, that he is above all laws, constitutional or otherwise, and above all oversight either by legislature or judiciary.

IOW -- if he wants to attack, he will not go to congress for permission - he will simply do it and no one can stop him. OTOH - the troops can stop him by just plain refusing to attack but that is unlikely.

Ditto, good points Imagineer.

But I think in this country we have become afraid to be judgemental, but I wish the rest of the world would be, sometimes.

I trust Russia, The United States, Israel, India and whoever else may have nukes today more than I would trust Iran with them. I think if these other signatories have not followed the letter of the treaty that should not excuse Iran's actions.

Logic and common sense should dictate that Iran should not, under any circumstances, have these weapons.

Wes Clark was just on FOX and said the military option for Iran is on the table and it will be 6-8 days of bombing.

As usual, our government isn't going to show any proof of Iran having nukes... we just have to take their word for it like the Iraq WMD's ...

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Wes Clark was just on FOX and said the military option for Iran is on the table and it will be 6-8 days of bombing.


I wish he said something last week. This way they would have an extra seven days to prepare air defenses to shoot down our pilots more effectively.

What would you say burns stronger in "General" Clark - his love of military personnel or his dislike of this administration?

(I like your selective views on the veracity of FOX stories)

Originally posted by Brooks
I wish he said something last week. This way they would have an extra seven days to prepare air defenses to shoot down our pilots more effectively.

Iran is quite likely already preparing their air defense to its utmost effectivness.

Originally posted by Brooks
What would you say burns stronger in "General" Clark - his love of military personnel or his dislike of this administration?

Well, if he cares anything at all about America, (and i believe he does) then he must utterly despise the Bush administration.

If the world will publicly unite on this common sense opinion that Iran shouldn't be thusly armed (which they probably all believe), then nobody will have to invade.

This would have also kept us out of Iraq in 1990 and 2003.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Iran is quite likely already preparing their air defense to its utmost effectivness.Reminds me of the TV show "24". The second half of season 3 was based on the premise that the President had to be removed from office because he would not order a 'surprise' retaliatory strike against the country that supposedly was responsible for a nuclear weapon detonating in the United States. I sat there wondering how in the hell can anyone be surprised in a situation like that? Ruined the show for me that year.

General Clark's remarks will have zero impact on Iran's military preparedness. They will be at maximum alert for the next few years, at least.

Originally posted by sedan
General Clark's remarks will have zero impact on Iran's military preparedness. They will be at maximum alert for the next few years, at least.
Good.

I wouldn't want my nation wiping them off the face of the earth under anything less than a full red alert.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Good.

I wouldn't want my nation wiping them off the face of the earth under anything less than a full red alert. Hold your horses there, Praetorian. You wont be old enought to be President for another six years.

If I were to even come close to being elected, some makeup sporting, gun toting, "Freethinker" would blow my ass away before I even got to the primaries.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Nice post Imagineer and correct on all counts except one --

Our president has alrready stated, relative to the illegal spying, that he is above all laws, constitutional or otherwise, and above all oversight either by legislature or judiciary.

IOW -- if he wants to attack, he will not go to congress for permission - he will simply do it and no one can stop him. OTOH - the troops can stop him by just plain refusing to attack but that is unlikely.

Congress could certainly stop him if he refused to withdraw our forces within 60 days. It would have to be by impeachment, but they could do it. If he blatantly ignored the War Powers Act, they just might do it.
Of course he might try to ignore impeachment, but I don't even want to contemplate where that would leave the country.

Originally posted by Brooks
If the world will publicly unite on this common sense opinion that Iran shouldn't be thusly armed (which they probably all believe), then nobody will have to invade.


I understand how you feel to a point Brooks. I wouldn't be happy knowing that Iran had nukes, but if they want them bad enough they're going to get them, whether they make them themselves or aquire them from say...North Korea.

Invading Iran isn't an option...look at an almanac and compare population, land area and terrain between Iran and Iraq, and you'll understand why I say it's not an option. The word bloodbath comes to mind.

As for non-invasive types of military action, if such exist...I'm not sure it's justified.

What's going on now is saber-rattling. We wanted this story about readying a military strike against Iran to leak out to scare them into making a deal. So far it hasn't worked. Brinkmanship can be a very dangerous game to play if someone calls your bluff.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
If I were to even come close to being elected, some makeup sporting, gun toting, "Freethinker" would blow my ass away before I even got to the primaries.

If that was aimed at me, sir, allow me to fill you in on a few things;

* I don't wear makeup

* I don't tote a gun

* I would not shoot anyone, even a person who advocates the public disembowelment of the children of his perceived enemies

* I don't think that you (or virtually any other person on the planet) could be a worse president than George Bush has been. It's certain that you have a far higher IQ than he possesses.

Originally posted by Brooks
Ditto, good points Imagineer.

But I think in this country we have become afraid to be judgemental, but I wish the rest of the world would be, sometimes.

I trust Russia, The United States, Israel, India and whoever else may have nukes today more than I would trust Iran with them. I think if these other signatories have not followed the letter of the treaty that should not excuse Iran's actions.

Logic and common sense should dictate that Iran should not, under any circumstances, have these weapons.

I don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons either.
I feel sort of like the guy who has harrassed his mentally ill neighbor for years, pushing him around and bullying him, who then finds out said neighbor has purchased a gun. I could go to the police and complain that this gun threatens me, and that the neighbor is unstable. I could just go over and take the gun away from him. I would have to admit to myself, however, that my own past actions had contributed to the problem.
I think many of the neighbors might well feel threatened by both of us. They might feel the need to get their own guns in self defense. They might want the police to haul both of us away.
I think that the rest of the world does understand why we feel threatened, but that they don't neccessarily sympathize with us. I think that many of them feel threatened by both Iran and the United States.

Originally posted by Imagineer
I feel sort of like the guy who has harrassed his mentally ill neighbor for years, pushing him around and bullying him, who then finds out said neighbor has purchased a gun. I could go to the police and complain that this gun threatens me.......I would have to admit to myself, however, that my own past actions had contributed to the problem.

Ahh......but THAT is one thing that the staunch supporters of the extreme Rightwing Government of the U.S. will NEVER DO.

Keep in mind - this is all about the Iranian Oil bourse (opening March '06) that will threaten US dominance in the energy trading world and given some time, will bring severe changes to our economy and our ability to play on the world stage.

Bush will do whatever it takes to keep that bourse from becoming reality.

It's clear that Iran has zero intention of giving up nukes and every intention to play games until they have secured them.

Although the US surrounds Iran from every side - a land invasion would be quite difficult due to the terrain.

Iran must not be allowed to have nukes - if it takes significant bombing of Iran to achieve that - then yes I support it 100%

Originally posted by DrewM
It's clear that Iran has zero intention of giving up nukes and every intention to play games until they have secured them.

Although the US surrounds Iran from every side - a land invasion would be quite difficult due to the terrain.

Iran must not be allowed to have nukes - if it takes significant bombing of Iran to achieve that - then yes I support it 100%

What is/are your reason(s) for not wanting Iran to have nukes?

Drew

So you will take Bush's (et al) word that Iran has nukes or whatever. No proof required same as the Iraq WMD's?

He got it wrong (seriously wrong) last time ... what makes you think he has it right this time?

I don't want Iran to have nukes because the leadership of Iran is clearly unstable. They openly call for the elimination of Israel.

Dop - I'm not listening to Bush, I'm watching the IAEA and the European Union "negotiations" with Iran.

Any risks of significant bombing of Iran are worth taking vs the long term risks of Iran having nuclear weapons. Iran will use nukes in the end if they aquire them.

Originally posted by DrewM
I don't want Iran to have nukes because the leadership of Iran is clearly unstable. They openly call for the elimination of Israel.

I see your point, but I guess I'm not convinced that isn't just more saber-rattling on their part. The elimination of Israel would mean a massive war in the Middle East, and the Iranians know it. Israel also has nukes, and the Iranians know that they must be prime targets for Israeli nukes in the event of trouble.


Any risks of significant bombing of Iran are worth taking vs the long term risks of Iran having nuclear weapons. Iran will use nukes in the end if they aquire them.

I think they will aquire them. They have plenty of oil, and there's a lot of people with nukes who might sell them to Iran.

If Iran were to announce they had nukes would you be prepared to bomb them?

The reality is......they will aquire nukes, if they don't have them now, they will have them in the future. Knowledge cannot be locked in a drawer.

We must find some way to come to terms with the rest of the nations on earth in a nuclear world. Invading them useing "pre-emptive strike" as an excuse is not the way to do it.

A lot of small nations that consider themselves our allies are very uneasy about a nation our size invading countries at the whim of a current regime.

I do not believe that it is a certain thing that they will aquire nukes.

Although the science of making a bomb is simple - extracting U235 from U238, is incredibly difficult taking thousands of gas centrifuges and a lot of time, or plutonium from a specific type of reactor, which also has to be extracted.

The fact they have a lot of oil doesn't mean they will get a bomb due to having a lot of cash - pretty much any nation can afford to develop a bomb if they want - it just takes a lot of time to create the factories to create fissionable material & then it takes a lot of processing to create enough for a bomb. The knowledge is not hard to find - its the practicalities of actually doing it that take time & a certain level of technological know-how.

I think we should not sit passively and say they will get one in the end. A nuclear Iran is a serious issue - not only a risk, but a major destabilization of the middle east. Israel will never let Iran develop a nuke & rightly so. Imagine if Canada was Iran and Canada said the US should be wiped off the face of the earth & Canada was trying to develop a bomb? Would people be so passive?? - No.

Either the US or Israel will bomb Iran's new Russian built reactor and anything else they can identify. Iran can not hide industry of this scale underground - it's not realistic. It can and will certainly be destroyed if they don't give it up - anything less would be certain folly. Iran is a dangerous & rogue nation - just listen to their leaders.

If Iran's facilities do indeed meet their end at the hands of a bombing raid, I would prefer it be done by a faction other than the Israelis. That sort of preemptive action towards Iran to prevent their arsenal gaining nuclear weaponry could result in things much larger than the bombing of that facility, Iran will not be happy to see billions of their funds and hopes of military supremacy go down the drain, and we could see conflicts flare up in the Middle East as a chain reaction to all of this.

The Middle East is very tense right now, holding their breath as Iraq transforms, Iran grows in Western hostility, and Israel goes into talks with the new PLO leadership. An event such as Israeli forces bombing Iran's nuclear program could lead to war, diplomatic conflicts for years, destabilization of the region itself, and others, which in turn do not bode well for our hopes there as oil prices rise and US-controlled Iraq is effected by its borders being at odds.

Annihilating the nuclear weapons manufacturing of Iran is a serious step, the US is not going to be the best candidate to do it, but perhaps the most likely. Let us hope the world comes to acknowledge this situation before Israel does anything overly drastic, or the US has to go alone, (both of which are not exactly preferable scenarios) and work to resolve this quandary.

I watched the documentary on Raegan last night on PBS - I wasn't into politics at that time. He was a compassionate man but he made a boo-boo giving weapons to Iran.

Isreal destroyed Iraq's nuclear program & there wasn't too much consequence. Iran will be the same.

Most of the countries in the middle east would also like to see Iran's nuclear ambitions destroyed. It wouldn't start a war. Iran is not capable of starting a war & winning it.

People are often scared of doing anything, but I tend to be afraid that doing nothing would be the worst thing of all.

Originally posted by DrewM
Isreal destroyed Iraq's nuclear program & there wasn't too much consequence. Iran will be the same.

Most of the countries in the middle east would also like to see Iran's nuclear ambitions destroyed. It wouldn't start a war. Iran is not capable of starting a war & winning it.

People are often scared of doing anything, but I tend to be afraid that doing nothing would be the worst thing of all.

That's the same way Reagan felt and Bush and I feel we had to do something but I didn't think we should start a war.

Originally posted by Echo2
We must find some way to come to terms with the rest of the nations on earth in a nuclear world.

THAT is the absolute bottom line in all of this.

And the U.S.'s *coming to terms* with all of them is quite do-able.

But it would require that the U.S. government stop killing people in the Middle East, and stop trying to bomb the Middle Eastern countries into submission in the quest to control the flow of oil from the region....

....something that --given Bush and Cheney's deep ties to the oil industry-- is virtually certain NOT to happen.

I see a West-versus-East nuclear exchange as a very strong possibility sometime in the future......with the only possible path of avoidance being if the Middle Eastern nations follow the lead of the rest of the various nations of the world that the US has attacked militarily, and knuckle under and give them what they want.

Originally posted by Freethinker
THAT is the absolute bottom line in all of this.

And the U.S.'s *coming to terms* with all of them is quite do-able.

But it would require that the U.S. government stop killing people in the Middle East, and stop trying to bomb the Middle Eastern countries into submission in the quest to control the flow of oil from the region....

....something that --given Bush and Cheney's deep ties to the oil industry-- is virtually certain NOT to happen.

I see a West-versus-East nuclear exchange as a very strong possibility sometime in the future......with the only possible path of avoidance being if the Middle Eastern nations follow the lead of the rest of the various nations of the world that the US has attacked militarily, and knuckle under and give them what they want.

Unrealistic. The best way to avoid nuclear weapons being used on US soil is to ensure the possible users of such weapons don't have the weapons and/or don't have the missile technology to deliver them. This is a cold hard reality for which appeasement will never provide a solution.

You act like US interests in the middle east started with Bush & Cheney.

Originally posted by DrewM
Unrealistic.

It is not unrealisitic that what i'm talking about would work....but yes, i would agree with you that it is unrealistic to think it will happen.

Originally posted by DrewM
The best way to avoid nuclear weapons being used on US soil is to ensure the possible users of such weapons don't have the weapons and/or don't have the missile technology to deliver them.

That is the bully way of doing it; the ---"Well, of course WE in the U.S.A. will have all the nuclear weapons that WE want!.....we need them in order to rule over the rest of the world!!....but as for anyone ELSE trying to have them???...NO way!!!"" --- attitude.


Originally posted by DrewM
You act like US interests in the middle east started with Bush & Cheney.

I did not mean to imply that.

US Corporate interests have had the Wsashington crowd of political whores in their pockets for many decades now, and have long been in total control of the US.

Your underlying presumption, however, in all of this is --like most Americans-- that the US is a good and kindly and benevolent nation, while all the other nations of the world who seek to protect THEIR own interests are somehow evil adversaries that must be dominated and defeated.

I see the US for what it is----- a cold-blooded Corporate oligarchy that cares nothing about human rights, the environment or peace, but cares only about more profits and more power.

I am just as frightened by THIS country having nuclear weapons as I am by nations like India or Iran or Israel having nuclear weapons.

______________________________

If the flagwaving cheerleaders for all-things-American were ever forced to recognize and conceed that the US is the number one exporter of terrorism around the globe, future arguments would have to take a different form.

I agree the US is looking out for itself & doing what it needs to do to further it's own interests. That's normal - every country does it to the limit of their ability - the US just has a lot more ability.

It's wrong though to say that the US is a cold-blooded Oligarchy that cares nothing about Human rights. It is true that capitalism has no face - but that doesn't mean that the people in this country are not generous & giving. The US gives a lot to the rest of the world - it's not all so black & white as you would like to imagine.

Originally posted by Freethinker
If that was aimed at me, sir, allow me to fill you in on a few things;
Of course it was aimed at you, but don't worry - I was just being an asshole. :) I know you don't wear makeup, and I know you don't own a gun. If I ever poke you in the chops, I only mean it in good fun. Actually, despite our huge political differences, I enjoy having you as a member.
Originally posted by Freethinker
I would not shoot anyone, even a person who advocates the public disembowelment of the children of his perceived enemies
I wouldn't either. The world is a more colorful place with someone like that in it. It's the unimaginative dullards out there that beg to be executed in a heinous, medieval fashion. You know, like most of the new-school Republicans. (Even I can find fault in COMPLETELY linear thinking...;) )
Originally posted by Freethinker
I don't think that you (or virtually any other person on the planet) could be a worse president than George Bush has been. It's certain that you have a far higher IQ than he possesses.
You're too hard on him, FT. He's NOT A STUPID MAN. I'd agree that he's made some boneheaded calls, but trust me...most of the sharks in his tank are anything but dumb.

Originally posted by DrewM

It's wrong though to say that the US is a cold-blooded Oligarchy that cares nothing about Human rights.

We disagree.

Originally posted by DrewM
It is true that capitalism has no face - but that doesn't mean that the people in this country are not generous & giving.

Apples and oranges.

YOU are talking about this nation's **people** being generous and giving.

Maybe they are.

But the People of this country do not run this country, the Corporate sector runs this country and on the matters of deep and meaningful interest, they decide what political direction America will take.

The People are given the choice of candidate A or candidate B, true enough.

But BOTH candidates are pawns of the Corporatists who pay to have them elected.

Originally posted by DrewM
The US gives a lot to the rest of the world - it's not all so black & white as you would like to imagine.

I am as far removed from possessing a --"the world is all black and white"-- worldview as any person on this planet.

When you say "the US is this, or the US is that", you seem to approach it from a democratic viewpoint, a view of the make-up and character of the average Amercian citizen.

When I talk about what the US does vis-a-vis the rest of the world (i.e., its foreign policy) I am talking about the government, and the controlling powers-that-be.........people who have long ago abandoned any allegiance to democracy; or to a government -- **Of, For and By the People*.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Of course it was aimed at you, but don't worry - I was just being an asshole. :) I know you don't wear makeup, and I know you don't own a gun.

Au contraire.

I own a few guns.

A shotgun that was my grandfathers, a .22 Ruger rifle, a .177 caliber pellet gun from my childhood, and an old .25 pistol I won (but that looks so decrepit that i have not felt the urge to fire it) in a poker game.

It would seem the Iranians are intent on enriching uranium.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/international/middleeast/04iran.html?ex=1294030800&en=2185c8a142c7fe8b&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It would seem the Iranians are intent on enriching uranium.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/international/middleeast/04iran.html?ex=1294030800&en=2185c8a142c7fe8b&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Yes it would according to this article but let's not forget the NYT isn't exactly truthful ... witness what NYT's Judith Miller did for the bush administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. She lied over and over again while she nearly personally guaranteed the existence of WMD's. Then, after 2000 dead american soldiers, 100K dead iraquis and the whole world hating us, she has no more to say other than oops.

I think, this time, the evidence needs to be deeply vetted, not just an article in a lying rag.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I think, this time, the evidence needs to be deeply vetted, not just an article in a lying rag.

In no way did I mean to imply that we should take any action as a nation, based on an article in the NYT...of course any action we take should be based on solid intelligence.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
.....after 2000 dead american soldiers, 100K dead iraquis and the whole world hating us, (Judith Miller) has no more to say other than oops.

Oh well.

At least the despicable Ms Miller DID say ---"Oops".

George Bush (and the willfully blind dittoheads who support him and his "war") won't even make that small concession.

Originally posted by Freethinker
We disagree.

Apples and oranges.

YOU are talking about this nation's **people** being generous and giving.

Maybe they are.

But the People of this country do not run this country, the Corporate sector runs this country and on the matters of deep and meaningful interest, they decide what political direction America will take.

The People are given the choice of candidate A or candidate B, true enough.

But BOTH candidates are pawns of the Corporatists who pay to have them elected.

I am as far removed from possessing a --"the world is all black and white"-- worldview as any person on this planet.

When you say "the US is this, or the US is that", you seem to approach it from a democratic viewpoint, a view of the make-up and character of the average Amercian citizen.

When I talk about what the US does vis-a-vis the rest of the world (i.e., its foreign policy) I am talking about the government, and the controlling powers-that-be.........people who have long ago abandoned any allegiance to democracy; or to a government -- **Of, For and By the People*.

I just have a markedly less cynical view than you. The points you make are rather obvious - of course the US is a capitalistic country - that whole system, not unique to the US, is based on a drive for wealth generation - that will take it's opportunity wherever opportunity lies, but nobody ever paid me to vote for somebody. Other systems are many times more corrupt. You can look at that and say the system is bankrupt, inhumane and without morals - but you'd be wrong. The system is what it is, the world is what it is - people are what they are. In essence you fret over what is essentially human nature. Human nature has it's negatives, but also it's positives.

Every country on earth looks out for it's own interests in whatever fashion it can. There is no country called Freethinkers Utopia - why? because you are an idealist with a cynical worldview. You offer no realistic alternatives and focus on utopian dreams of how the world could be...if only we were not saddled with human nature.

The US works for its own advantage, in some cases that is ugly, but it's no different than what any other country does in their own fashion. The US also does a lot of positive things based on American values. American values still exist.

I always read your posts and are left with the impression that you feel you are enlightening people with some radical truths. Yes much of what you say has merit with many factual truths, but your views don't exist in the vacuum you imagine - we live in the real world. Nothing is quite as simple as you present it to be.

Originally posted by DrewM
I just have a markedly less cynical view than you. The points you make are rather obvious - of course the US is a capitalistic country - that whole system, not unique to the US, is based on a drive for wealth generation - that will take it's opportunity wherever opportunity lies, but nobody ever paid me to vote for somebody. Other systems are many times more corrupt. You can look at that and say the system is bankrupt, inhumane and without morals - but you'd be wrong. The system is what it is, the world is what it is - people are what they are. In essence you fret over what is essentially human nature. Human nature has it's negatives, but also it's positives.

Every country on earth looks out for it's own interests in whatever fashion it can. There is no country called Freethinkers Utopia - why? because you are an idealist with a cynical worldview. You offer no realistic alternatives and focus on utopian dreams of how the world could be...if only we were not saddled with human nature.

The US works for its own advantage, in some cases that is ugly, but it's no different than what any other country does in their own fashion. The US also does a lot of positive things based on American values. American values still exist.

I always read your posts and are left with the impression that you feel you are enlightening people with some radical truths. Yes much of what you say has merit with many factual truths, but your views don't exist in the vacuum you imagine - we live in the real world. Nothing is quite as simple as you present it to be.

Excellent post Drew. Very well said. :)

Originally posted by DrewM
I just have a markedly less cynical view than you. The points you make are rather obvious - of course the US is a capitalistic country - that whole system, not unique to the US, is based on a drive for wealth generation - that will take it's opportunity wherever opportunity lies

The less that people know of the world around them and the way that it works, the inherant corruption that it operates under, the less cynical view they will take of it.

You seem very intelligent and very aware, yet are somehow able to simply dismiss all cynicism and all criticism by resignedly opining -- "Oh well, it's just that pesky human nature, and it's often ugly, but hey, everyone else is doing things as bad or even worse, so we may as well accept it".

My point is not simply --"The US is capitalistic".

The deeper point --the point that is semingly obvious yet that is consistently ignored-- is that the People have lost control of their government, and in the process lost control of their own destiny. Political control has been tranfered to the Corporate sector. You can tell people that, and they will nod their heads and sometimes reluctantly agree.......but the next time the election comes around, watch them as they trudge to the polling booth like lemmings and vote for more of the same. Time and time again, ad infinitum.

More of that *human nature* that provides us a perfect excuse for every negative action undertaken by humans, I suppose.

Originally posted by DrewM
Nothing is quite as simple as you present it to be.

??!

It's news to me that I was presenting any aspect of what we're talking about as being *simple*.

Every intellectual, logical and historical point about our history with Iran is valid. Imagineer, you're right that we've made mistakes with them in the past. Unfortunately, that is no longer relevant. This is different. They cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Some people here don't like Israel having them. Iran is different.
US, Russia, India, etc all have them. Iran is different.

Get past all the debates and pedantry. The day Iran has viable nuclear weapons the world changes.

Blair has to back off on his claim linking terrorism and Iran.

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/jan/1019.html

WHY????

Because the entire world called BS on his claim the very day he made it. He truly is a lap dog for the US -- even to the extent of tarnishing his own reputation.

If that's an argument against Iranian nukes, it doesn't matter. Their current leadership and instability is the reason.

They're real stable in Pakistan and India and especially Israel where Sharon orders his bull dozers to invade Jenin and crush the homes while the occupants are still inside.

Real friggin stable.

Originally posted by Brooks
...They cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

....Iran is different.
....Iran is different.

Get past all the debates and pedantry. The day Iran has viable nuclear weapons the world changes.

Since this is a debate forum, I think I'll offer up some more debate, with perhaps a tad bit of pedantry for flavor. :)

I understand that you and Drew both think Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes, and you've said Iran's government is "unstable". That being a rather subjective opinion, I wonder if you might explain more fully.

In what way is Iran "different"?

What actions would you suggest or support to keep Iran from having nukes?

Personally, I don't want Iran to aquire nuclear weapons, but to borrow Imagineer's analogy, I don't think my fear of the crazy man with the gun next door justifies my shooting him. North Korea "aquired" nukes fairly recently, and we didn't intervene militarily. This no doubt had something to do with the fact that North Korea borders China, but nonetheless, if we attack Iran because it's geographically more convenient, it lessens our moral stance to a degree. I don't have any problem with military intervention if it's done through an international body such as the UN or NATO, but if we take unilateral military action against Iran, I would be opposed.

What actions would you suggest or support to keep Iran from having nukes? How about BushCo giving them the plans? (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15721)
No wait that just plain stupid....

What to do about it?

First, any country that feels that Iran shouldn't have nukes should say so. In my opinion, Russia, France,Germany and the UN were too compromised by oil for food to side with us against Hussein.

I think that the "Let America Do It" faction of the world will say nothing and let us carry the water for them. They will benefit by the outcome without having any risk. If only we all spoke up together about this, I don't think any action would be necessary.

But if action is necessary, we cannot be forced to act, pretty much, alone.

My prediction: We'll threaten, 3 countries will join us, much of Europe will say we are hurting the chances for diplomacy, we will do nothing constructive, Iran will have nukes, will pray they don't have another religious revolution, and much of this forum will say it is President Bush's fault.

Iran isn't going to nuke anyone. If they did it would mean the end of Islam as both the US and Russia would nuke every muslim nation right into the stone age. So quit saying Iran is gonna nuke us unless you have a logical reason all muslims want to be doing dirt naps.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

Personally, I don't want Iran to aquire nuclear weapons, but to borrow Imagineer's analogy, I don't think my fear of the crazy man with the gun next door justifies my shooting him.

From the perspective of the tens of millions of mind-numbed, reactionary rightwing folk in this country, who are obsessed with the notion that........... --"America is a great place!!, but every other place on the planet is a worthless piece of SHIT!!!!!" -- "America is a peace-loving and godly nation but all other people around the globe are wrong-Gawd evil-doers who we must slaughter before they possibly try to harm us!!!!" .......ONLY the nation of America should be allowed to possess massively powerful weapons-of-mass-destruction with which to inflict a nation's political and military will on others.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
So quit saying Iran is gonna nuke us....
Are you seeing some posts that I have on "ignore"?

Originally posted by Brooks
Every intellectual, logical and historical point about our history with Iran is valid. Imagineer, you're right that we've made mistakes with them in the past. Unfortunately, that is no longer relevant. This is different. They cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Some people here don't like Israel having them. Iran is different.
US, Russia, India, etc all have them. Iran is different.

Get past all the debates and pedantry. The day Iran has viable nuclear weapons the world changes.

The past may not be relevant to the United States, but I am sure that Iran considers it very relevant. If you try to look at things from their point of view, they feel they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from us. We have troops on two borders of their country, and a history of interfering in their country. I am certain that if the United States were in Iran's position you would be in favor of the United States getting nuclear weapons.

With that in mind, I see no way to prevent Iran from getting the bomb short of military intervention. I think that would be a disaster. A more sensible course right now might be to swallow our pride and apologize for our past actions. Of course, that has a down side as well, because every other country in the world that we have "made mistakes with" will want them as well. It is a real quandry.

Originally posted by Imagineer
1. If you try to look at things from their point of view, they feel they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from us.

2. I am certain that if the United States were in Iran's position you would be in favor of the United States getting nuclear weapons.

3. A more sensible course right now might be to swallow our pride and apologize for our past actions.
1. But do you think that's a reality?

2. Yes I would, but that's because we can be trusted more with those weapons than they can. Don't you think so?

3. What will they do as a result of the apology?

1. But do you think that's a reality? 2. Yes I would, but that's because we can be trusted more with those weapons than they can. Don't you think so? 3. What will they do as a result of the apology? 1. yes. And Israel too. Need you be reminded that Israel is pretty damn unstabe and they have undeclared and 'illegal' nuclear weapons.

2. I'm sure they're thinking the same thing.

3. That is entirely up to them.

Originally posted by Brooks
1. But do you think that's a reality?

Reality to us, no. Reality to them, yes. They are going to operate from their perceptions of the world, as we do from ours. We have invaded two neighbors of theirs in the last several years. Our countries have been less than friendly for several decades now. What would keep us from invading them?

Originally posted by Brooks
2. Yes I would, but that's because we can be trusted more with those weapons than they can. Don't you think so?

I would trust us with them more than them, just as I would trust a gun in my hands more than one in yours. Would you trust me with a gun more than yourself? It all depends on your point of view.

Originally posted by Brooks
3. What will they do as a result of the apology?

I think that it might make them less hostile toward us. It is better to try to reach a friendly relationship than to continue a hostile one. Someone must reach out first. To admit our mistakes and to apologize for them is not weakness. It is instead honest and neccessary for healing the relationship. It might encourage them to do the same.
We trust England with nuclear weapons because they are a friendly nation. It might be a better strategy to settle our differences with Iran, and hopefully to become friendly again, than to confront and attack them. I know that rebuilding trust is difficult. It will be tough for them to learn to trust us, and it will be tough for us to trust them. Once we were friendly with them, and if both parties are willing to work at it, we could be friendly again. I think it is worth trying that, rather than launching another war.

Originally posted by Imagineer
I would trust us with them more than them, just as I would trust a gun in my hands more than one in yours. Would you trust me with a gun more than yourself? It all depends on your point of view.

We can keep going round and round with "this is what we think / this is what they think" but can't we say we are right in this case? Please don't tell me "yes, but they think the same thing". There is such thing as absolute truth. Everyone's afraid of it.

If you are implying what I'm inferring (that we're the same as them, but too biased to see it) we can end this now, I suppose.

We can keep going round and round with "this is what we think / this is what they think" but can't we say we are right in this case? Please don't tell me "yes, but they think the same thing". There is such thing as absolute truth. Everyone's afraid of it. "the world has to be black and white otherwise its just too complicated. Please tell me I'm right."

You want absolute truth?

Nuclear weapons are an abomination to humanity and more savage then any other weapon ever created. Those who speak of using such weapons "pre-emptively" are raving, fucking psychopaths who don't deserve to exist.

How's that?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
"the world has to be black and white otherwise its just too complicated. Please tell me I'm right."

Not black and white, but at least 80 / 20.

Around the election did you ever try to talk politics with someone who didn't follow but didn't admit it? What do they always say: "I don't trust the Democrats or the Republicans. They're all the same". That always frustrated me because, in reality, the person just didn't know enough to have an opinion.

I can't believe that so many people here can't bring themselves to say that Iran with nukes is worse than us with nukes. You can't possibly believe we're the same.

I know we tend to over-debate here, and sometimes what we believe hurts our argument, but there is such thing as truth.

Originally posted by Brooks
We can keep going round and round with "this is what we think / this is what they think" but can't we say we are right in this case? Please don't tell me "yes, but they think the same thing". There is such thing as absolute truth. Everyone's afraid of it.

If you are implying what I'm inferring (that we're the same as them, but too biased to see it) we can end this now, I suppose.

Brooks, I'm afraid this is one time when we're just going to have to agree to disagree. We just don't see the issue in the same way.

Originally posted by Brooks
I can't believe that so many people here can't bring themselves to say that Iran with nukes is worse than us with nukes. You can't possibly believe we're the same.

Brooks, you're the one who said Iran was "different"...repeatedly. What is it that's different?

Around the election did you ever try to talk politics with someone who didn't follow but didn't admit it? What do they always say: "I don't trust the Democrats or the Republicans. They're all the same". That always frustrated me because, in reality, the person just didn't know enough to have an opinion. "the world has to be black and white otherwise its just too complicated. Please tell me I'm right."

It's a false dichotomy put forth by the owning class. Politics is top versus bottom not left versus right. LvR is about petty squabbles. TvB is the goal. Most politicians hate Bush because he's so brazen about fucking the poor and crony handouts hes going to expose the whole thing.

Murhta says Peter Pace says we can't win militarily in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060106/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Oh well -- cut and run from Iraq and try Iran next or Syria. Maybe we can win there.

This just in:

Brooks says Dop says Murtha says Peter Pace says we can't win in Iraq.



Murtha didn't work out. The Dems are back to ignoring him once again.