red0blivia

i have not read through this whole thread, so apologies if i am merely an echo of the thoughts that have been repeated throughout its entirety.

two reasons:
1. i know i have more to fear from my own government, who has a direct effect on my daily life, and who's actions and attitude towards foreign policy would be to blame for any attacks (which would most likely be retaliation for a nuclear attack of our own).
in the entire history of warfare, nuclear bombs have only been used 2 times,... both at our hands.
2. no one can be absolutely certain whether iran is developing nuclear weapons or not, but i think it would be reasonable if they were, given the current global state.
what is the best way to weaken the threat of nuclear attack from 'enemy' nations? have your own to represent the threat of retaliation. that is just the reality of war (or national defense, as it stands now).

while 8 countries possess nuclear weapons (britain, france, china, israel, india, & pakistan), the u.s. and russia have built 98% of all nuclear weapons that have been created.
the bush admin. has, infact, been pushing to make more nuclear weapons the entire time it has held power. a while back, the los angeles times revealed the bush plan as:
-calling for the potential use of nuclear weapons against, at least, seven nations, including China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria
-saying nuclear weapons could be used in a number of situations, including in the event of surprising military developments
-suggesting that the US may use nuclear weapons in a Middle East conflict or in a conflict between China and Taiwan
-articulating plans to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations.
"The administration has also made it clear that it will prepare to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't possess them."

the hypocrisy is just too much for me to stomach.
hell, the cia are the ones who gave iran the blueprints for a nuclear bomb in 2000!

i am staunchly anti-militarism, and i would be very happy to see all nuclear weapons destroyed, the blueprints burned, and the 'pandora's box' nailed shut, so to speak. however, i know that will not happen (at least not for some time - it will probably, in fact, take mass devastation via nuclear warfare to move the global community in that direction).
and,as i said...the truth is, if america were to come under nuclear attack, it is most probable that it would be in response to a nuclear attack of our own.

ahmadinejad's letter was the first letter an iranian president has sent to an american president in 27 yrs!
the administration shoved it aside, blatantly dismissing it. i don't believe, for one second, that the admin. has any intention of working anything out with iran. they are probably very pleased with ahmadinejad's refusal to abandon his nuclear program (and they HAD to expect it - if anyone came along and demanded that our admin. destroy all it's nuclear weapons, much less, shut down all nuclear power, imagine how g-dub would react! heh...) and delighted by many americans' responses to this fear-mongering. this is just another veiled excuse (read: scare tactic) for appealing to americans to get behind another invasion.
the downing street memo proved, contrary to prior refutes from the skeptics, that the admin. intended to invade iraq, at all costs, even if that meant falsifying u.s. 'intelligence' and lying to the american public. i believe they, now, have their target on iran, regardless.
hell, as bush entertains with the ruse of advocating diplomacy out of one side of his face and eliciting fear (#1 motivating factor) out of the other, we have already got troops carrying out clandestine activities inside iran.