Willravel

All that proves is that they have nuclear material. It is perfectly legal to develope nuclear power in Iran. They even announced that they are seeking nuclear power. No rhetoric, inconsistancies, or lies about it.
I couldn't care less about Bush. This has everything to do with the obvious failings in our intelligence community.
I no longer have trust in the claims of the intelligence community. The Iraq mistake was a massive blunder and should blemish the reputation of the CIA, NSA, and other world intelligence agencies for a long time.

Show me the proof so I can judge. As far as I'm concerned, unless I can see pictures of nulcear weapons in Iran, the administration is just talking out of it's collective a$$. Trust is earned.

Mojo_PeiPei

The point is Will, although in a sense nearly everything I have said is legal to some capacity by the words of the treaty, it was all obtained and withheld illegally. Under the NPT you have six months to disclose anything having to do with your program, excuse me for having suspicions when we find underground nuclear facilities through intelligence, as in non-publically disclosed by Iran, that have been operational for years. What is that thing were you don't tell the truth on a matter, oh that's right, we call that lying. And could you please tell me how Iran took 25 years to enrich Uranium to a meager 3.5% and they disclose it in 2006, yet there have been soil samples taken at much higher levels 3 years prior? In what world is that not inconsitent or suspect?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

I live in the only country in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons in a war. As a matter of fact, we were the first to develop them and we have the most in the world. We have given nukes to our allies, and withheld them from our enemies.

Iran may or may not be responsible enough to have nuclear weapons, but there is no proof that they have them. Did they breek the NPT? Probably. The question a the top of the threads is "Do you think Iran is developing nuclear weapons?" to which I still answer I don't know and don't care. How can ANYONE answer conclusively that they do or don't? It's irresponsible. Speaking frankly, the populace of TFP represents a group of thinkers. There is no proof one way or another, so how can anyone think that they do or they don't?

I am defending the middle, so to the right I look left.

ubertuber

To put threads like this in perspective... Actually will, I can state quite conclusively what I think, which isn't the same thing as what is happening. I even know the difference between the two. One I know, and the other I don't. I'm assuming the poll asks what I think, since it's all I've got. I personally think Iran IS developing nuclear weapons. That's how most of their actions make it look. Hell, it's what I would do if I were the Iranian government. However, I don't know what, if anything, we should do about it.

However, nothing about my vote or what I wrote is conclusive of anything other than how I think. That's all we're talking about here, what we think. Actually, that's all we EVER talk about - which is one reason I hardly ever see a reason to get bent out of shape...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

I'm not bent out of shape, but I am explaining my take on the thread. I could easily say "I think that George W. Bush is a Satan worshiper" and no one could argue that it's what I think...they could argue that there is no proof or reason in my statement, however. That is what I was doing. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but when we state conclusively that Iran does or it doesn't, we get right back in the same boring useless partison conversations we always end up in. The internet is about everyone having opinions without being held to them. TFP is a safe haven for constructive thought in a sea of 14 year olds spewing uneducated opinions. I want to hold Mojo's feet to the fire, and I want him to do the same to me. Without crisitism and critical thought, we're all just 14 year olds spewing useless opinions.

host

Mojo...please examine all of the following and then post some advice on how I can overlook or dismiss it all, and share your concerns about an "imminent" nuclear threat, from Iran.

I think what sets Bush apart, is that he appointed the entire membership of JINSA and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy">CSP</a> to "work" in his administration, and then trotted out their doctrine of "pre-emptive war", as his "policy". Historically, the large power exploits the small state to fight proxy wars for it, but Israel seems to be the big winner here. You don't suppose that Mossad could have had anything to do with the collosal influence Israel enjoys over our government in the post 9/11 world, now....do you?

Examine the link between Timmerman, John Bolton, Cheney, a bunch of active and retired U.S. military officers, and the man who "nominated" Kenneth T. and John Bolton for the Nobel prize, Per Ahlmark. Look at the conflict between Haliburton's business/profit goals in Iran, the "5 step", Bush regime "makeover" (#4 is image rehab via pushing around Iran....), and tell me that it would be "un-American" to wait until next year for an Iran "showdown"...to avoid any question that Iran is about a pre-election "image improvement Op" for Bush and the RNC....

Don't your sources of information ever seem like a "closed loop", with a curioulsy large, Israeli <b>(JINSA)</b> influence attached to the loop, the U.S. officials, and those who generate the "reading material"? (Such as....author Timmerman?)

Cache of Kenneth Timmerman's Maryland Senate Campaign website in 2000.
Have a look. Describing Timmerman as rabidly partisan, is a tepid phrase:
Here's a sample:
Gore probably "conspired", six years ago, to keep gasoline above $1.00 per gallon! Timmerman received ten percent of the vote in that senate race primary...and the republican who beat him lost in Nov,2000 to Paul Sarbanes.

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

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

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103028&highlight=israeli">Academic Report on U.S. "Israel Lobby" & Is Israel a U.S. Ally?</a>

<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html">February 28 / 29, 2004
A CounterPunch Special Report Serving Two Flags</a>

MoonDog

I'm concerned about it because the European countries that have less reason to trust our intelligence services anymore (Germany, France, etc.) seemed equally alarmed about Iran's intentions regarding nuclear fuel enrichment. Early on, they went into full diplomatic mode and tried to negotiate with Iran to stop their plans. These countries have what I assume to be effective intelligence agencies, so I figure there must be at least some cause for concern.

Seriously, the only two countries on the Security Council who don't support enacting economic sanctions against Iran over this issue are China and Russia. Everyone understands that they have some pretty serious economic reasons for opposing sanctions, but according to NPR, even those two countries are nervous about Iran's intentions.

And why WOULDN'T Iran want nuclear weapons? For years they felt threatened by Saddam Hussein, not to mention the US. It seems apparent to me that there is a serious hatred of Israel in the current leadership, and Israel is widely accepted to possess upwards of 200 nuclear devices themselves. Wouldn't Iran want nukes, just in case they got into a furball with Israel?

On top of all this, Iranians have a healthy nationalistic view towards themselves and their country (which may be well deserved, as they are a culture thousands of years old, and control a large amount of a commoddity that everyone else in the world is willing to pay out the nose for!). Achieving the difficulty of designing and producing nuclear weapons demonstrates the Iranian society's resolve, intelligence, and capabilities to the world, and places them in a pretty small field of players who have the same weapons.

I think that the idea is plausible. What I don't find plausible is that the US will go into Iran - especially when we are still in 2 fronts.

stevo

Ah, but once were in Iran it will just be one big front Then we'll be able to power shift our armies from afghanistan to the middle east at the end of our turn. The ukrain is weak!

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

The_Jazz

Watch for the armies in Irkuskt and Kamchatka. And can Bush get someone to fish the dice out heating duct where Blair threw them when we were distracted?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

SteelyLoins

I won't say the H-word in order that the server not crash from all of the people who will frantically be typing "GODWIN!!!!!!"

It might be educational to look up "Neville Chamberlain," though.

Willravel

Steely, I've had Godwin shouted at me before, so don't hold back. The problem is that we have two Godwin-worthy countries at either end of this: Iran and the US. As much as I don't trust the word of the Iranian government - and I honestly don't trust them - I also don't trust the word of the US agencies that are suggesting that Iran is developing nukes. Back in October of 2005, Jorge Hirsch (New Yorker) wrote that "The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago." Since then more and more evidence has come forward about there being a real possibility of the US using nuclear weapons on a country to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

Look at the facts:
-the US pursuit over several years to get an IAEA resolution against Iran, no matter how weak, which it finally achieved in September 2005. It didn't make any sense as a diplomatic move if the goal was to exert pressure on Iran, in view of the clear dissent by Russia and China. It had two purposes: one was to bring the issue eventually to the UN Security Council, even knowing that Russia and China would veto any action against Iran, so that, just as in the case of Iraq, the US could argue that other countries share its concern but not the resolve to act. But more importantly, the US issued a commitment to the UN in 1995 that it wouldn't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries signatories of the NPT, which however explicitly excluded countries that are in "non-compliance" with the NPT. So by securing the IAEA resolution of September 2005 of Iran's "non-compliance" the US achieved that it can now use nuclear weapons against Iran "legally", i.e. without violating its 1995 commitment. This explains why it was pushing for it so adamantly.
-the US has radically changed its nuclear weapons policies since 2001 to erase the sharp line that traditionally existed between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. It now "integrates" both types of weapons in its military strategy, and envisions the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities, preemptively against countries "intending" to use WMD's against US forces, and "for rapid and favorable war termination on US terms". Several scenarios like that, that apply specifically to the Iran scenario, were made public in 2005 in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", to prepare the country for what was being planned.
-the administration has been pushing Congress every year to fund new nuclear weapons, "more usable" nuclear weapons, and bunker busting nuclear weapons, to prepare the public mind for the attack. Many are under the mistaken impression that Congress has resisted these efforts, however they forget or don't know that the B61-11, a bunker-buster that can be used against Iranian underground facilities, is in the US arsenal since 2001. Its yield (power) is classified but is likely to include very low yield, to cause "reduced collateral damage" and thus be more "acceptable".
-the administration is stacked with nuclear weapons experts that are hawks and participated in the formulation of the new nuclear weapons policies: National Security advisor (Hadley), deputy national security advisor (Crouch II), undersecretary of defense for intelligence (Cambone), chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Science Board (Schneider), undersecretary of state for arms control and international security (Joseph) and ambassador to the UN (Bolton). Bolton was appointed in the face of very strong bipartisan opposition. None of these positions require specific nuclear weapons expertise, however these "nuclear warriors" are in high positions for a reason: to advise President Bush to use nuclear weapons. And let's not forget Cheney, who was the architect of new nuclear weapons policies back in 1992 to target non-nuclear-weapon countries, and Rumsfeld who advocates a smaller high tech military where nuclear weapons play an essential role.


To me it is the worst kind of insane to establish the credibility of the US nuclear deterrent against non-nuclear countries that pursue courses of action contrary to US interests. This is a real possibility, and is something I fear more than anything in the world. Why? Two reasons:

1) If we begin using nuclear weapons, espically on third world countries, we will see the dawn of nuclear terrorism. I think we can all agree that terrorists do what they do out of desperation, third world means, and retribution. If we nuke, they finally have a reason to buy that rogue nuke on the market - and there are rogue nukes out there thanks to the Russian Federation, China, and yes even the US.

2) If we begin using nuclear weapons, we run an even greater risk of starting a war with the other two big nuke holders: Russian Federation and People's Republic of China. We can beat either of them alone, but if they were to form an alliance with India and Middle Eastern countries, we would lose very badly (think big smoking hole between Canada and Mexico). If the world percieves the US as a great enough threat, they will do everything they can to stop us, and arguably the greatest threat to the world is nuclear war. Ths US is the only nuclear power to use nuclear weapons in a war or conflict.

I'm not trying to paint the US as a horrible bad guy, but the government is clearly makign steps to prep for using nuclear weapons outside of testing, and that is dangerous, irrisponsible, and frightning. I don't want my kids to have to learn to duck and cover in school in case of a nuclear strike like my parents did for the cold war.



Note: some of the information above, mainly 'facts' section, was from an interview of Jorge Hirsch.

Lebell

Of course they are.

You don't need expensive and dangerous nuclear power when you are sitting on that much oil.

But what the hell, Israel has nukes, so why shouldn't Iran? Besides, most of the fall-out will dissipate by the time it hits the West coast and my Iodine tabs are in the mail.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Willravel

Oil = opportunity cost for any nation blessed/cursed enough to be sitting on it. Whiel Iran could use up all it's own oil and depend on other exports like dates or sand, the best way to keep their econemy afloat is to export their most valuable resource. The more depenant they can become on alternative fuel sources, the better off they will be both short term and long term. By the by, nuclear power hasn't killed even a fraction as much as oil, so the dangerous and expensive power would not be that of the atom, but that of the fossil.

rainheart

You mean a PR department for the western world. Because, frankly, what good would PR do in the middle east or China? They're (mostly) not (that) aloof to fall for PR tricks.

Before I go any further I should mention that I am an Iranian myself, born and raised, immigrated and assimilated. I think it's fair to say I've been disillusioned of all these talks about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. I can't say I am definately sure that the Iranian regime is seeking to make nuclear weapons but there are some implications other posters here have made I am in disagreement with here.

Except for the part about instability (because if the US didn't have the luxury of a ridiculously large military force it would resort to some relatively cheaper yet deadlier weapons), I agree. The policy makers understand- if Iran had nuclear weapons, who knows what it could do next. It would become too powerful to keep subdued, and frankly in the extreme long term that could be extremely damaging to the people of the U.S.

What irks me is that no politician will really just come out and say this. They always have to blow it up into some dynasty shit like "Israel is going to get nuked" or "we're going to get nuked". Nuclear weapons are a tour de force and are quite strategic weapons because any hostile foreign nation understands that if they push you too far, you might just do something stupid. It limits what the U.S. can do to the Iranian regime.

This is what it's about. It's not about Iranians vs. Americans, that's just stupid. It's about the U.S. government versus the Iranian regime. There's a huge difference between what the people of Iran want versus what the Iranian regime does, just as much as there is a huge difference between what the people of the United States want versus what the United States government does.

I think it's a little more accurate to make that distinction between the people subjected to a government and the people who operate it. Because I don't think you can place an Iranian commoner in front of the launch button and ask him to launch a nuke on the U.S. or Israel. That person will probably break down in a nervous sweat and piss in their trousers.

Take it from me, the majority of Iranians hate Ahmadinejad as a person and a very, very significant sum hate him as a politician... with a few exceptions in the more poorly educated towns or villages... which is ironic because it's slightly similar to what is happening in America.

My real point:
- If you think the United States should launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran and topple it's government because it may have nuclear weapons, because the Iranian regime is inherently more dangerous than the United States government, you've been had by Public Relations (read: propoganda)

stevo

Is this credible enough?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

pan6467

Hmmmmm....... North Korea has had nukes and cash given to them by a HUGE GOP supporter in the Rev. Moon and they seem to have dropped of the "we hate them and they are in the Axis of terror and need to be dealt with" list. Hell, they aren't even in the news anymore. Of course N. Korea has no resources the US can use.... now do they?

Meanwhile, Iran, who has some oil and is demanding the market use Euros instead of USDollars is now the ultimate evil.

Sorry, this whole "we hate Iran and they have the bomb and will destroy us" sounds to me like someone rattling some sabres and wanting to try to start a war. The parrallels to Iraq are pretty damn obvious.

I just wait to see how long it is before we start in on Chavez and Venezuela.

As with 9/11, Iraq and so much more since Bush came into power, it's all about the money and following who is making it where.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

BINGO. After Iran comes South America, and then after that it's the 'War on Tyrany' with China. It's simple stuff. This has all happened before and it will all happen again. It's like a geopolitical soap opera, and it makes me ill.

Mojo_PeiPei

The difference between Iran and North Korea is that North Korea is a joke. It is a joke of a regime propped up in a joke of a country by China. China needs North Korea as a unified Korea is a threat to it.

Pan or anyone else, you really do the topic, and yourselves a disservice by completely oversimplifing(sp) of the topic. Its not just that Iran sits on oil being the worlds 4th largest producer, with the 5th largest crude reserves and the 2nd largest natural gas reserves. It's also that has a regional power player it can disrupt the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, or the UAE. Iran sits on the straights of Hormuz, 40% of the worlds daily oil exports travel through there everyday.

As a country until 9/11 Iran and Hezbollah were the #1 export of terrorism against the US, 9/11 just happened to take the title of most killed Americans away. It isn't just there influence in Lebanon with Hezbollah, a foreign terrorist organization, that's a problem, the problem is Hezbollah has gained support and popularity in ever election since 1992' when Lebanon started having "free" and "Democratic" elections.

Its not just that they are exerting entirely too much influence in Iraq, as well as facilitating the Shiite militias with operation and logistical means of killing Americans. Its not just that Hezbollah has since started operating there fueling the sectarian violence or killing coalition troops directly. It's not just that they have ties to Ansar Al-Islam in Iraq, an Al Qaeda affiliiate. It certainly isn't their influence in the Shiite bloc of parliament, a bloc which holds 140 of 275 seats.

Certainly none of those reasons pertain to regional stability, or hell global stability, and at the same time none of that would give us cause for concern, when all signs seemingly point to Iran as seeking nuclear weapons, yet another thing that would destabilize the regional balance of power, especially how it pertains to nukes with Israel, India, and Pakistan.

Maybe if Iran didn't affiliate itself with terrorists, maybe if as a regime it wasn't completely anti-jewish and calling for the destruction of the Israeli state it wouldn't be such a problem.

Maybe if there wasn't all reasons, and a great many more, this wouldn't be an issue. But there are all reasons, I don't see how North Korea illegally acquiring nukes somehow means we should let Iran do it, could someone perhaps explain that to me?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

stevo

because mojo, its all the US's fault. Capitalism=Evil=America.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Mojo_PeiPei

Oh so it is like Tim Robbins said in Team America...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

stevo

You got it now.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

pan6467

I would have taken all this Iran hoopla, hysteria and hate more seriously 2-3 years ago and beyond, yet Mr. Bush and company did NOTHING.... but now.... it's all about the oil and ONLY about the oil.

I have stated in past posts I thought Iran should have been the one invaded not Iraq, and some who are now preaching how powerful and how we should fear Iran laughed, scoffed and said "no we went after the right country."

But then again those are probably the same people trying desperately to still believe Iraq and Hussein had WMD's, trained terrorists, and were behind 9/11.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mojo_PeiPei

You do realize as a country we have virtually no contact, whether diplomatic or economic with Iran right? You do realize we don't get anything as far as oil is concerned from them?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

And you're disputing my statements, how?

Actually, I see your statement as more reinforcement to the belief it is all about the oil and money. We decide to go in, claiming it's because of their "nukes" we thus open their oil for us then do we not?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

aceventura3

I am curious. Those who believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but don't care--why don't you care? It shouldn't matter what you think about Bush and our country, do you think anything good can come from Iran having nuclear weapons?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

Did you support a preemtive strike of Iran?

If yes, do you still support a preemptive strike? If you don't now - why?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Charlatan

Given the message that the current administration seems to be sending (if you are like Iraq and you disarm we will invade you, but if you are like South Korea and you have a nuke, we will leave you alone) it behooves Iran make the smart choice and arm themselves.

The good that will come of this is the production of a "stalemate". If the current administration stays true to form they will not invade.

I believe that democracy and reform will come to Iran. I believe it will come from within... it will just take time.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pan6467

Yes, I would have supported a pre-emptive on Iran. I always believed them to be more of a threat (in more than just militaristic ways) than Iraq ever would be.

But now, it's all about the money and not "true security" for the nation. If it were about true security and what was best for the nation, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, would have found a peaceful and or military solution with Iran and North Korea.

Iraq proved to me it was all about the money, as has Bush's neglect over North Korea (granted one of his biggest backers, Rev. Moon, also heavily donates to the North Korean government, not just money but nuke subs he bought from Russia).

Hell, the rest of the world at the time (including China and Russia) were more in favor of us going into Iran.

Now, Iran has powerful allies in China and Russia. We, rather Bush, allowed that to happen and now there is no turning back.

As for why don't I care........ because this administration brought it on ourselves by going after Iraq first and giving Iran the time to develop even more.

Now it's too late to be peaceful and if Iran does have them, there ain't a whole lot we can do now.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

aceventura3

I don't think we are going to leave Iran alone.

From a strategic point of view taking out Iraq first was a better strategy. If we had invaded Iran, Iraq would have gotten involved. When we invaded Iraq, Iran did not care and may have actually wanted Sadaam out of power.

Now it is just a matter of time for Iran. We are on a collision course. The war won't start during Bush's presidency, but it will happen given the posture and threats coming out of Iran. I think we will need a Democrat to lead us to victory in stabalizing the Middle East because half of the country won't believe a Republican no matter what happens. Its pretty sad, because our enemies use this division as an opportunity to prepare for war.

We have had nuclear wepaons and have not used them in the past 60 years. Am I to understand that you think Iran having nuclear weapons today will promote peace through "stalemate"?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

Does Isreal have a right to exist?

Iranian leaders want to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. If they act on thier desire we will come to the aid of Isreal therefore Iran will want to wipe us off the face of the earth.

I think its all about Isreal. As a nation we need to face the question of Isreal's right to exist. If the answer is yes - it means war. If the answer is no - we need to leave the middle east alone.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Why don't I care? I don't know. Iran might have nuclear weapons, andd bird flu might wipe out a quarter of our population....of course there isn't evidence to suport either of those claims despite those claims being made right and left.

Even if Iran had nukes, there is no reason to believe that the US would be in any more danger then than we are today. There are plenty of rogue nukes on the market already, some of which do have enriched fuel from the US (a la Sum of All Fears, the book not the crappy movie). Iran should have nuclear power, and they probably need nuclear weapons in order to ensure MAD in the Middle East. I do not like Iran having nukes, but I also don't like Israel having nukes...so I'd rather both of them have nukes than only one of them. Does Iran support terrorism? Yeah, not as much as Saudi Arabia and Syria, but yes. Of course, so does the US and Israel. Most countries support some sort of terrorism. Don't forget that Osama Bin Laden was CIA trained.

In a perfect world, we could disarm Israel until they solve the whole Jew/Arab thing...but we don't live in that world.

Mojo_PeiPei

In effect putting in jeopardy the lives of 5 million+ people? Yeah that would really solve the problems.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

And how is that? The only people in danger right now are the people of Iran. The US has nukes, we've used them before, and we'll use them again. Read post #51 of this very thread. The US government is more likely to use nukes than Iran. IRAN IS STILL YEARS AWAY FROM DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The US gov is prepping to use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What kind of crazy, half assed logic is that? I'm going to prevent you from maybe killing someone by killing everyone in your country, and poisoning your land for generations. That's like putting out a fire with napalm, it doesn't work.
Nothing happening right now is going to solve anything. The real solution is disarming everyone of their nukes, including ourselves.

ubertuber

Will, I think Mojo was responding to this:

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Charlatan

What steaming load of dingoes kidneys. You say this like it is accepted wisdom and inevitable. Iran and the US are acting like a couple of drunken idiots about to get into a barroom brawl... I just hope they have friends who can drag them out before one of these idiots gets hurt.


MAD worked in the past. The new version is, "we have a nuke and might use it on you" or "You threaten me I will threaten you."

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

host

aceventura3, when I read your post, the milk that I was drinking with my cookies, shot out through my nostrils...what a mess!

<b>The question we need to face, ace, is whether Israel runs our foreign policy, and whether we have been manipulated (some of us...) into a perverse, reversed role where the giant acts as the military proxy for the client state, instead of in the traditional role, which is the other way around.</b>

Israel's interests are well taken care of, aceventura3. In fact, U.S. policy has shifted from
"honest broker" in mediating the disputes between Israel and the Palestinians in
the 90's....to the current state of affairs; where it is now impossible to tell
who is in charge of u.S. policy.....Israel...or the Bush administration.

What moderate Arab, Muslim, or Iranian would trust an American president today to
broker a fair deal with Israel, or in any other matter, the way the Palestinians trusted
the POTUS and the State Dept. to be their "broker" in the 90's?

Read about who has recently served on the JINSA advisory board:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JINSA

Read my OP about JINSA and it's influence on U.S. policy and it's outsized
role in the Bush administration:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=104074

<b>Read this 21 year old article. Read the description of JINSA, google the names in the article, especially JINSA's first director, Dr. Steve Bryen</b>
The influence of JINSA and the Israeli lobby AIPAC, on U.S. policy has cost us a functioning CIA, 2400 troops, 17000 wounded, huge military expenditures, Iraqi occupation and reconstruction costs, many former allies, and ultimately it has cost Bush his presidency. He's squandered it and the American people no longer trust him or believe him....and ....for what?....
It comes down to this question, aceventura3:
<b>What natioal interests are served by US support of Israel?</b>

Willravel

Oh...well Israel is a radical state that suypports terrorism, and is a sworn enemy of the Arab countries surrounding it. Not only that, but they have a formidable military, and an arsenal of nuclear weapons just waiting to kill arab muslims. No one should have nukes, espically the US, Russian Federation, Peoples Republic of China, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Someone once asked me what was worse than a nuclear weapon. I answered, "A thousand nuclear weapons backed up by a well funded military".

aceventura3

Do you take a position of nuetrality? Do you support the positions Iran has taken as equal to the positions the USA has taken on this issue? Do you support te efforts of the UN? Are your feelings representative of most Canadians?

Call it what you want but when a couple of drunks are about to get into a barroom brawl someone has to take the weaker drunk out of the bar and talk some sense to him. When people take a "nuetral" position the fight happens and it affects everyone at the bar. I admit I am drunk with a lack of tollerance with Islamic countries making threats to wipe people off of the face of the earth. In the back of my mind I know I should have such a high level of emotion, but I do, and I think the number of Americans who feel the same way is growing.

Also, arms races are not "stalemates". And trust me - this ain't gonna get to a point of a level playing field.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

I'm afraid it isn't as simple as just 'trusting' you. The reality of the situation is that you're right, there is no such thing as a level playing field in dealing with nuclear weapons. The problem is that the playing field is so skewed in the Middle East, that Arabs ars practically slipping off the side into the ocean. While the giving everyone nukes option is hardly my first choice, giving one crazy side a nuke, and painting the other side as too crazy to have nukes is bad news. No one should have nukes, and in a perfect world no one would. Because the Pandora's Box has already been broken, we have to think and act accordingly. Israel has nukes, and neither you nor I can take them. The US has nukes, and nothing short of an act of God is going to take them. Iran shouldn't have nukes, but in this case they need them.


But it's all moot, since there is no proof that they are developing nuclear weapons. Let's not forget that.

Mojo_PeiPei

I still cannot fathom how any even comes close to siding with Iran on this one. It is fact that inspite of much evidence there is no "smoking gun" proof of nukes, they have grossly violated several aspects of the treaty, had extremely shady dealings with extremely shady people, and have gone out of there way to hide it. At the sametime there is overwhelming evidence which points to the notion of them pursuing nuclear weapons, but a little lip service is enough to sway some people it seems. What part of anything Iran has done surrounding their weapons program, or anything else whether it is hardline anti-west/anti-american rhetoric, support of terrorism, gross violations of human rights, screams "we are trustworthy" for them?

And what is the big deal about Israel having nukes? They are not party to the NPT, Iran is, North KOrea is. There is 0% chance in hell Israel would ever use nukes aggressively, they by and large a reactive country except for in a few instances such as the 3-day war (but historical Arab military aggression prompted that reaction). They are a deterrent for Israel, a country who has been at war 5 times in the last 60 years, its nice to have a step up when you are constantly the target of aggression by foreign nations. And btw please don't paint Israel and America as against all Arabs. The Arab countries have historically been stupid, blinded by their hatred of Israel they refuse to make peace, countries like Egypt, the country with the 2 highest amount of foreign aid behind Israel, and Jordan have great relations with the US, or at least their governments do to that extent, and guess what? It came from making peace with them.

Will your idealism is a disturbing notion as it pertains to this thread, agreed nobody should have nukes, but people do. Your plan of action is all to strikingly similar to that of Chamberlin when he didn't feel like standing up to Germany when they were going buck wild and firing up their war machine. History showed the follie of that one...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.