Do YOU think Iran is developing nuclear weapons?
 

Just a basic question here for the tfpers....

Do you think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? We need to determine the base of the diaglog before we have discussions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...786634,00.html (note, left wing news source)

Absolutely, for too many inconsistencies and coincedences(sp) for them not to be. What's more fucked up is China and Russia seem hell bent on stopping any form of UN action to remedy the situation, not looking good.

I see no reason to believe that they have or are seeking to obtain or create nuclear weapons. It's a fools errand, and they would be much better off developing nuclear power so that they could increase their oil exports.

The best move right now for Iran is to shut up about Israel. Yes, we all know they hate each other, but every time they open their mouth, they make themselves look like radicals, and that's not a reputation that they should seek to continue. Iran needs a better PR department.

I think Iran has been working on nuke weapons, probably longer than Iraq was, and I believe that they fully intend to use them on Israel and the US as soon as they get a few.

I agree with willravel here - Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability achieves nothing, it would be a completely pointless exercise (not to mention, from the lips of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself, nuclear weapons are "against the will of God")

If they were just to re-phrase their objections to Israel's internal and foreign policy, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I do not like the idea of other (unstable) countries obtaining nuclear weapons.
However I wonder why our polititians think we have the responsibility to tell another nation what defenses they can have. We seem to think we need these weapons for our defense so why shouldn't other countries? Are we so superior to them that we can have them and they can't?

If we truly believe that they are developing these weapons to use against us and war is inevitable then maybe military intervention now is necessary in order to avoid a much larger conflict later. One can only hope our current crop of polititians know what they are doing.

Isn't your thread just a "re-hash", of this one, over a year ago, here, titled:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1695374&highlight=mcclellan+weapons+thought#post1695374">Are the Feb. 18 Harris Iraq Poll Results "The triumph of Opinion Over News"?</a>

How many times do we have to debunk the same, tired propaganda "Op"?
I thought that this thread exposed this BS for what it is:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2051207&postcount=36">Are we going to let cheerleader Robert Joseph, lead us into another unnecessary war?</a>

It's a non-issue. Gold is above $650 oz...for the first time in 26 years....oil is headed back to $75 per bbl, and silver is pushing to $14 oz. (up from $3.75 oz, in 2003) Those are real issues...not the neocon propaganda intended to distract from the real impact of their failed, fiscally and morally corrosive agenda....here is where "they" have us heading:
In 2001, an ounce of gold was $257, by 2006, it was <a href="http://www.kitco.com/">$656.50</a>

Once again, we will attack a country, unilaterally, and then the POTUS reluctantly admit that <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html#1">"the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there."</a>

...the last time we followed the rantings of these folks, we suffered an estimated $2 trillion obligation, when the final cost is fully measured, including lifetime care for most severely wounded troops. The loss of future accomplishments of our 2400 dead troops, cannot even be estimated.

Here's the "news":
and here is what our "Intelligence Czar", had to say, eight days ago. He should know....shouldn't he? He seems to be calm and unconcerned, and he knows a lot more than any of us do.....
Nope....Negroponte doesn't seem too worried about anything, to me....
I responded to the question that you are really asking:
Is there enough evidence of an Iran, nuclear "threat", to give our POTUS the excuse to launch pre-emptive attacks against Iran. The answer, just as it was in Iraq...is <h6>no!</h6>.

I believe they are only because once you get nukes no one will touch you. Look at NK, China, Israel, Russia and the US. Iran knows there is no stopping the PNAC plan to invade them. They look at Saddam who had no WMDs and was still invaded for oil and empire. Their only hope of survival is to become a major contendor in the arms race. Then they will be invited to the White House to chat like China's president is.

edit: Aftering reading Host's clarification of the questsion, I thought I should add that I don't support another pre-emptive quagmire.

against the will of god? I've read most of the quran, didn't see the words 'nuclear weapons' anywhere. it might be just me, but as soon as allah or god is spoken of by an islamic radical, I tend towards disbelieving that individual.

Voted Not sure (and I am worried they would)

They claim they don't and as willravel said they have good reason to use nuclear power so thay can sell their Oil. If they would use their own oil it would be like burning money.

Also most religious leaders (including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) condem the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

The Problem is the question how honest these claims are. Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dangerously mad or is he just posing as a "strong leader" to appease the people? Are the leaders of Iran carzy enough to risk the total destruction of their nation just to blow up Tel Aviv? Does MAD work in this case?

It doesn't matter whether you believe him or not dk - his people hold him in a very high regard - let us hope that he has the earnest integrity to stick by what he has said. And if there's one thing that Islamic Fundamentalists have in abundance, it's earnest integrity.

Amen...brother....e tu christian radicals!
If the new prime minister of Iraq told reporters,
"And no doubt in my mind that <b>Mohammed</b>, was sent by the Almighty. No doubt in my mind about that."

....would he give you any greater an impression that he was not a secular leader, than when you read that our president, Bush, told reporters:

"And no doubt in my mind that Lord, Christ, was sent by the Almighty. No doubt in my mind about that."

The mixture of politcial leadership and the double emphasis of "No doubt" is what IMO, defines the "radical". Scary and disturbing...and not "presidential".

Like any nation ever has. The UN is a joke and won't solve the problem.

There is not anything that could possibly happen that would convince some people that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and intends to use them on Israel and the US (or her interests). Even a nuke going off in tel-aviv wouldn't be enough. The same people that deny Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons and deny Iran's desire to destroy israel would say (if there was a nuclear explosion in Israel), "The Israelies or US did it on purpose just so they could nuke iran."

There is really nothing that can be done or said to change some people's minds. President amubzeasheeba-whatever could say "we are developing nuclear weapons to destroy israel" and TFPers on this board would post things like "its all just rhetortic. he should keep his mouth shut, but no one would really do it. Its not a threat, not even an empty threat. Iran has nothing to gain by destroying israel. blah blah blah."

The thing is, this guy isn't rational. There is nothing rational about a fundamental islamic ideology and assuming these people are rational is the first (maybe second) mistake on the way to defeat.

stevo, we're still reeling from an "episode" of pre-emptive war of aggression that was championed by the same shills (have you read any of my documentation of "sixteen words", Robert Joseph?), who are bleating the BS of the "imminent" Iran threat now.

Our POTUS seems indistinguishable from "radical" militant religious zealots in the middle east, with more blood on his hands, and no greater credibility.

We didn't make Bush's statements up, didn't appoint the assholes he's surrounded himself with. We didn't launch a phoney expensive, completely avoidable war. We didn't create the Intelligenc Czar position, and we didn't appoint John Negroponte to that position.

Negroponte says there is no imminent threat....not even one in this decade.
Bush has no record of credibility, or....of even conducting himself as a secular leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Israel has a record of meeting threats to it's own security head on. Post some opinions or evidence from highly regarded Israeli experts and sources about the Iran "threat".

You need to post more than rhetoric to back your statements/accusations.
Offer proof that this time.....Robert Joseph is right. Rebut Negroponte's statements with some documentation. Until you do that, compare the content of your posts with the content of mine.

What are you bringing to the TFP Politics discussion "table", besides "feelings"?

host,

if Tel Aviv is vaporized next year in a nuclear explosion, and the Bush administration said it was Iran, who would you point to, Iran or Israel/US?

Shoot, I posted, before I realized you were talking about weapons. Although the part about it worrying me is kind of a funny concept. If they were making nuclear weapons, I would hope the whole world would be worried.

I've read the Qu'ran several times cover to cover, and it is very specific when it says to respect other religions, espically those of the book (religions of the book = Abrahamic religions: including Judism and Christianity)...so we can't simply rely on the good book. Religion is a constantly evolving entity, and changes, such as the ruling of nuclear weapons to be wrong, are evidence of such.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a fatma (sp?) against nuclear weapons, which is law. That means that it is wrong, legally or religously, to develope nuclear weapons in Iran.

I have to rule out any statements from Bush. I think that I've made a thorough effort on this forum of backing up my conclusion that nothing the man says can be trusted. He told us that he barely knew Ken Lay, that he had never met Kack Abramoff, and that Saddam posed an imminent threat, not only to his neighbors, but to the U.S. as well.

The president of Iran gives me less reason to distrust his statements, than Bush does. Bush has forged his own "chain", just as Marley forged his.

Why do you succumb to the fear that Bush folks want you to embrace? Post what you "know", that the rest of us have missed, or aren't privy to. Opinions that are faith or feelings based, don't transmit too well, in this medium.
"Bush sez" just isn't enough to take any of this seriously. Neither are the remarks from Iran's leader. They are intended to make Bush seem even more foolish and impotent than he already is. Bush has made up his mind as to what his plan for Iran is. I think that the Iranians know that.

I voted "Not sure (and I am worried they would).

But I do feel that letting things progress any further (they've already told everyone to fuck off enough times that we should start assuming they really mean it) will open a larger door than is already open for very bad things to happen.

Someone asked why we should be able to have nuclear weopons and not Iran. I feel the answer to that question is so obvious that I have to respond with a blank stare.

But what we have so far here in this thread is the same people predictably saying the same things they always do. Taking sides instead of discussing anything.

Host, how can you possibly say this is a "non-issue?" It is, in the eyes of many countries, one of the largest issues on the planet at this moment. And try discussing a political issue without dragging your hate of the president into it. It's tiring to hear it over and over again.

Stevo, your entire post is hyperbole. A rabble-rousing bowl of nothing. An all-encompassing write-off of those who don't agree with you on Iran? What is the point of such claims?

Regardless, I see Iran as a huge catalyst for whatever is going to happen in the middle-east (including the Iraq debacle), and if they develop a nuclear weapon, well, alliances and enemies will be changing around the world, and the area will be even more unstable than it is now. And that's saying a lot.

thank you. point - don't treat the president of iran like you would a rational person. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are no such thing.

Here's the first paragraph of hosts quote of negroponte that was excluded from host's post: So host, as he may "not seem too worried" he is concerned.

And no, bush didn't say iraq was an imminent threat. I believe the words were, Bush never described iraq as an imminent threat. He said we must act before the threat is imminent.

As for tehran not acquiring weapons "in this decade" Well, we are a good ways into 2006, so the next decade, for all intents and purposes, is less than 4 years away. Host, are you telling me that 3 3/4 years is not a short enough time frame to worry?

I remember when iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Apparently they could have struck us with a mere 45 minutes notice. Or something. I don't know. I have a hard time trusting speculation concerning axis of evil offensive capabilities. Call me crazy.

I think that was Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran

stevo, I'm telling you that the folks, Joseph and Rademaker, appointed to "convey" the message of fear and concern are probably the best the administration can muster:
The "comments" of Mr. Joseph, and his underling, Mr. Rademaker, who I have posted about in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2051207&postcount=36">another thread</a>, are ABSURD.
Their "credentials" as "truth tellers" are equally suspect. If there was a credible argument as to the nuclear "threat" that Iran actually poses, these two stooges would be the last two who I would want to hear making it.

I have to assume that these two jerks and their rhetoric is the best "evidence" that this administration can come up with. It makes it seem like a redundant and pathetic joke, rather than a serious threat apparaisal from respected experts in our govenrment.

Our "officials" don't act like we are "at war", or that there are any threats of actual meirt, rising to a level that supercedes my concern that they are destroying our currency's purchasing power, in record time....so....until they do....I have to regard this as a nonsense performance that precedes another illegal war of aggression.

host lets forget Bush for a moment here.

What does host think, is Iran after nuclear weapons?

You're correct, my mistake.

The supreme ruler of Iran issues a fatwa that nuclear weapons are illegal. That's that.

This statement coming from the guy who described the President of Iran as
For fuck's sake - if you're going to try and have some credibility, do yourself a favour and try to avoid making these kind of remarks. It's quite disgraceful.

From Wiki:
Iran may or may not have an intention to produce a nuclear weapon, but I am not concerned if they do. Bush's intentions regarding Iran are of far greater concern to me.

I was just reading about that fatwa in an interview with Marjane Satrapi, author of Persepolis. Not much is formally published in Iran, but a mujtahid is supposed to be the sole issuer of fatawas (plural of fatwa), in which case it is both a religious and legal pronouncement.

On the other hand, Bin Laden issued what he called a fatwa of war on America and he's no kind of mujtahid.

I think the question of how we should feel about it rests on if we consider Iran a rogue state, not accountable to its own hig religious leaders. I don't think it is. It's surely not a friendly state to Americans, but I don't think the government is now free-lancing out from under legal fatawas.

I don't think Iran is going for weapons, but I don't know they aren't.
The shrub and his buddies have done a good job of keeping Americans scared and paranoid. Fear is a tool.

After the way the Administration cherry picked the intelligence to suggest Iraq had WMD i'm way to skeptical to believe that Iran has them. This administration has lost all credibility by crying wolf with Iraq and now if their is real trouble with Iran no one is going to believe them at least not in the international community.

Now a new question:

For those who don't care if Iran has nuclear weapons, why don't you care?

Because only a complete fool would condemn his own country to obliteration by sanctioning the use of a nuclear weapon against another country. We've been through the whole M.A.D. escalation phase, people are aware than there is no such thing as a 'limited' nuclear strike without the other side retaliating with everything they have.

The only way to win using a nuclear weapon is to completely wipe out the other side - completely - before they can launch against you. With the invention of the nuclear submarine, it became impossible to do that.

Terrorist (secret) usage of these weapons would not be something to hide behind either, any state even looking as though it might be responsible for an aggressive nuclear act would be toast - and they know it.

I believe that if Bush had not squandered his opportunity to reengage with the Iranian leadership when they presented the opportunity, we would not now have an extremist in the role of President. Iran was moving toward a more open society and it is possible that the momentum is merely stalled by political bombast from both countries.

I am not of the opinion that Iran is a "rogue nation" or a member of the "axis of evil." The hyperbole from this administration is geared toward fear mongering and it has been largely successful in manipulating the public. Yes, there are bad actors that are supported by Iran, just as we have our own.

If it is Iran's intention to produce a nuclear bomb, I am not concerned because:
- Use of a bomb would result in Iran's total distruction. They are not as "mad" as some would like to believe
- Iran is surrounded by countries that do have the bomb
- The ability to make even one bomb is a symbolic deterrent to outside aggression
- I believe that the fatwa is sincere and now a part of Iranian law.

But, come now, Ustwo. It is expected that you also provide your opinion as the author of this OP. You have yet to provide a response to either of your questions.

I agree with the above except for the fatwa. Just rheatoric in my opinion but that's not too important. What is important is that they need a bomb to prevent an invasion, and like you said if they were to actually use the bomb they will be victims of the glass parking lot policy.

I suppose to answer Ustwo's question, it might actually be preferable that they get a bomb, then maybe we'd leave them alone instead of wage another half assed war. I guess I just can't see a country that "might" get a bomb as big as a threat as countries like NK and China who already have them. So either way, I really don't care as long as the US isn't involved in another war with them.

Amen.

I guess I believe in the fatwa, because this particular religious leader has been a no BS guy in the past. I place trust in Billy Graham being sincere in his beliefs for the same reason.

Pat Robertson? An opportunistic fraud, unworthy of any credibility.

Good question, Ustwo. I put that I don't care for a simple reason: there are a million and one things at any given moment that can hurt of kill me. I could be hit by a car, I could have a stroke, or I could be abducted by Martians at any given moment. My first priority is simply taking reasonable precautions to protect my family and myself from forseeable dangers.

Until I see evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, I have no reason to care whatsoever. It's an obvious geopolitical move with no root in truth, not unlike the WMDs not being in Iraq. There are power plays on top of power plays, and the odds of there being even one iota of truth in any of this are mind boggling.

*If* Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then so be it. From what I understand of the Iranian government (which is exactly as radical as the Israeli government, who still has not used on nuclear weapon), they are far more likely to use the nuclear weapons capability as a deterrant, and maybe a tool to finally restore balance between Israel and the other Middle Eastern countries. In a perfect world, no one would have nuclear weapons, but this is hardly a perfect world.

Can you imagine if the USSR was prevented from developing nuclear weapons? The US would have taken over the world.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence. Without evicdence, how can one confidently convict and sentence?

You and I have very different standards of evidence, so I won't argue what the evidence is, its kinda pointless between us, so I won't bother with that side of your post, but the first bit struck me oddly.

This is the same argument I hear from people who smoke despite the risks. I would think proliferation of nuclear weapons among radical world elements would be at least a concern greater than smoking risks.

It's funny people bring Bush into it, somehow this problem, a 25 year old problem, is his fault. And for that matter, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Iran is seeking to get nuclear weapons, it just happens you choose not to except it. I like that people buy into the Ayatollahs Fatwa, a man who supports terrorism, with known operational ties to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, yeah his fatwas are legit. Then people are saying that the Diplomatic game is Bush's fault, that's cute. Under their last president Khatami, a reformist, we were making a lot of head way, they claim to halted their programs for a substantial period of time under him to work on (I don't buy it), the second Ahmadinejad took office he resumed his programs.

They have been enriching Uranium for 25 years; they claim only recently to have successfully done (for the first time as of April 2006) it to 3.5% a number that is significantly lower than what is necessary for a nuclear weapon. In reality soil samples around Iran were found at much high levels, Iran claims that it was due to contaminated material which they had purchased from Pakistan, or namely Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was caught for selling nuclear technology, nuclear materials, and nuclear weaponry outlines to Libya, Iran, and North Korea... Wow, that sure is a jolly old bunch, I wonder what they might be after?

It's funny how people so easily buy into the inconsistencies, rhetoric, and lies, all because of their distaste for one man, who is in no way responsible for this problem. Sort of cute how in November of 2003 Baradei of the IAEA released a report spanning 30 pages which had found Iran has successfully completed the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle being Uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichement, fuel fabrication, heavy water production, a light water reactor, a heavy water research reactor, as well as various other developmental facilities... all in secret. They happen to forget to disclose the imports of uranium metal, yellow cake, uranium hexaflouride, and depleted uranium, that is conveneient. Or tell how it works out that Iran only recently said they had enriched Uranium as I pointed out above, at very modest levels, yet they were discovered by Division B of the IAEA to have already enriched uranium to extremely high levels in 2003, and the tests suggested that the samples had even been "cleaned" up. It's a fact since the George H. W. Bush administration their have been reports given to congress, stating that Iran had a "continuing interest" in nuclear weaopns and related technology, and that they were in the early stages of a weapons program. In 1982 it was disclosed that Iran had imported 531 meteric tons of yellowcake, that's more then Brazils nuclear reactors produce in a year; ofcourse they didn't disclose that they had been importing materials or enriching until 2003, again the program was at that point 22 years old. Here are a few examples I pulled from a book I got "Countdown to Crisis" by Kenneth Timmerman, a nobel peace prize nominee.

It's all good if you don't care about this whole situation, but it's absurd to sit there and make baseless claims that are contrary to reality.

What exactly are you trying to say Mojo? What claims are you calling baseless and contrary to reality?

Any claims that because something comes from Bush's mouth it is invalidated on the subject, or somehow the Ayatollah speaks the gospel.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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>

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.

Ah, but once were in Iran it will just be one big front :D 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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Is this credible enough?

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

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.

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.

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?

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

:o

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

You got it now.

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.

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?

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 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?

Did you support a preemtive strike of Iran?

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

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.

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 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"?

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.

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.

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

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.

Will, I think Mojo was responding to this:

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."

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>

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".

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.

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.

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...

Also what is so "radical" about Israel, the largest representative democracy in the MIddle East? How do they support terrorism? By acting within their sovereign rights, for their sovereign interest? THe whole purpose of a state is the provision of common defense, it is their duty to act in a manner in which they do. I like how you paint the Israelis has some zealous Arab baby killers, for the love of god your tone lets me think you really know little of the history of Israel and the Arab states.

Again, it's all moot. There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. You can talk down to me all you want...the fact remains that no evidence has been presented.

You might consider reading this book, and then get back to me about how little I know.

Will, there is tons of evidence, I have provided tons in this thread.

Ahh, yes...so you don't consider this anti-semetic propaganda?


Hey HOST!!! What do you think of the article I posted a little ways back? I see you confront people all the time for overlooking or not responding to your posts. Here I go and respond to your request to post something from an isreali that shows what isreal thinks about the iranian threat and you conveniently ignore it. hmmm, suprising? hardly.

You have provided reading material that did not respond to my question and you did not respond to my question.

Does Isreal have the right to exist? If yes are they worthy of US support?


Answering your question - Isreal does not run our foreign policy in my opinion. I think our economic and military concerns run our foreign policy in the Middle East.

an edito from the washington post on this which i think sums up a fundamental problem pretty well--that the americans do not have reliable intel about what is happening in iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050801334.html

i find it more than passing strange how much more convinced of the accuracy claims about the iranian nuclear program are than are folk who actually generate the intel upon which all this is based.
good thing you folk do not have a trigger to pull.

there is something vaguely stalinist about the bushresponse to dissent within the cia.

personally, i see the situation with iran as little more than an extension of the only mechanism the bush people have worked out that sells their bankrupt politics to the public --threat of war. there is also another characteristic of bushworld at play here--the use of shabby information. there is a kind of bizarre codependent relationship, then, that links the administrations in the states and in iran in the same dance, directed at the parallel domestic audiences, to the same basic political ends.

if the iranians are developing a nuclear program, the bush administration is not in a position to do anything about it. such are the wages of an idiotic and unncecessary war in iraq, the squandering of credibility, etc....the appointment of john bolton indicates that this administration holds to its idiotic assumptions concerning the un and so would not take un-led actions against iran IF it turns out that there is a weapons program as adequate---so you are left with the nuclear option--which is truly terrifying. the first strike use of nukes as a dimension of american policy--for the first time: with the present crew of far right nitwits at the helm this possibility should terrify everyone. particularly given the desperate political straights in which they find themselves.

paranoid aside: if there is an action against iran, it would likely come somtimes between now and the mid-term elections and will be more about those elections than about iran. and so what is lots and lots of iranians have to die to maintain the present american administrations pollratings at an acceptable level?

back to scheduled programming: i am not getting into the debate about the role israel--particularly in its appalling policies toward palestine, toward the palestinians--has played and will play in all this. the likud-like hallucination about the palestinians that you see rehearsed above from folk on the right is nothing more than that. but even if you understand israel as many things--amongst them a representative democracy and an arpatheid-style state at once--the main fact here is that israel is a major nuclear power and that iran is not going to attack israel. the only scneario in which i can imagine iran--assuming that they have a nuclear weapons program--which is not obvious, despite the arguments to the contrary above--would perhaps attack israel is once the americans have lobbed some nukes at major iranian targets based on half-assed intelligence knit into shabby arguments for an action the prime motive of which would be an attmept to rescue a collapsed administration from a richly-deserved oblivion that will begin with investigations of its actions and--hopefully--would end with impeachment/disgrace.

Does Isreal have the right to exist?

My opinion, not until they learn to get along with others and not rely on the US and UK to bail them out when their leaders decide that they need to flex muscle.

I liken Isreal to that punk kid in grade school that tries to butt into everyone else's game and tells everyone else how to play. Eventually the other kids get tired of being told how to do things by this one kid so they start to think about beating him...... problem is it's not just him, he has 2 older brothers who are truly tough and have the strength. The older brothers back the kid no matter what he does, no matter how wrong it is.

Eventually, the other kids find ways to beat the big brothers also.

Isreal wants to exist...... Isreal needs to find a way to work a peace with their neighbors plain and simple.

I no longer buy into the "poor us surrounded by people who hate us, so we're armed to the teeth and they refuse to talk peace". It's bullshit.

NO ONE on this planet in any type of power truly wants Armeggedon (unless they are truly certifiably insane). I don't think Iran's leaders want war anymore than the Chinese leaders or the French or the British or the Canadians or whomever.

Perhaps if we just sat down with the Iranians and truly asked their leaders what they wanted maybe we could find middle ground.

But instead we have the punk kid Isreal, dictating to us, taking BILLIONS of our dollars in "aid" telling us how we are going to handle this situation.

It's time to let the punk kid fend for himself and tell him to either get along with his neighbors or not, but shut the Hell up and keep us out of it.

It's time we look at our own country and see how things are falling apart and work to rebuild our own infrastructure and lives.

It deeply saddens me that people are so eager or have given up for whatever reason, and just decided war is the only solution.

The true solution is to just stop aiding the neighborhood bully that starts all the shit. I have a feeling you pull their aid, they'll find a way to make peace REAL FAST with their neighbors or they go to war end all of it.

But we also need to be firm with Isreal and say if they start the war, WE'LL finish it and them.

Plain and simple.

Just answering the bottom half as I answered the top.....

If our economic and military concerns ran our Middle East policy, we'd be tons more friendly with those countries with oil, such as Iran and definately not in bed with Isreal. I think oil would be cheaper and we wouldn't have all these radical Muslims ready to meet Allah and destroy the great devil the US.

Its baffling how Israel is "at fault" and seen as the aggresor. It history serves as a point of perspective it wan't Israel invading 9 other sovereign nations in 48', it was countries like Egpyt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Likewise in 56' and in 67', and 73'. Maybe if it weren't for the PLO and destabilization that they caused all of that unsightly action in Lebanon would've been lessened. Your comparison to Israel as a kid who butts in and instigates is just plain wrong in a legitimate historical context, granted their hands aren't clean. I think a comparison of the power dynamic is Israel as the kid who gets picked on by a bunch of Arab bullies who picked the fight with the wrong Jewish kid on the block. After every war that has been fought Israel has offered peace, they offered concessions. They would always say recognize our state, make peace with us, leave us alone, and we will pull out of Gaza/West Bank/Golan Heights/insert territory captured in offenses started by Arabs. The problem is not Israel, it is the Arabs and Islamic Fundamentalism.

As for Israel and aid, they are the number one of America aid which comes primarily in loan form. Israel has never defaulted, the only country to never have defaulted; plus they use all the money to buy American products. The second biggest recipient is Egypt which they got for making peace with Israel. Furthermoer maybe US relations wouldn't be so cold towards Arab nations if they haven't historically been in bed with the soviets, or maybe their support of various shoddy things such as human rights, terrorism, or conflict.

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.

lol at the thought of Chomsky as an anti-semite :thumbsup:


EDIT: I had to come back and post Chomsky's own response to charges like this:
-- http://www.democracynow.org/article..../10/21/1441204

The whole Iraq thing has made me kind of wary of believing anybody automatically has plans for WMDs. I think that Iran is probably working on it, but I'm not sure. I think it's more likely they'll just pick some up from Pakistan than get some by themselves. And then get missile technology from North Korea.

Of course, as someone in the midwest (and moving to the west coast), missles don't really worry me so much- but somebody loading a nuke into a boat and delivering it to a port city does.

Thank you! People posting their opinions wholly based on fear of what Bush says might happening has been for a long time a bit of a sore spot of mine... anyway I agree I think Iran knows very well that Bush is not leaning in anyway towards peace with them. I have not seen any evidence that suggests this and so far everything I have read from both your posts in the pasts and others news links usually reports a pressured stressing of Bush on Iran's potential capabilities with nuclear weapons. I view making decisions out of fear and then whining about them with the answer "how could I have known" as a result to be single-minded and increasingly annoying. Facts are much more useful for a debate than consistently reading "Well Bush said this" when it has been repeatedly shown that Bush 1. Either has a severe lack of understanding of many matters, 2. Thinks that people will do what he says because of his the "almighty" power of his administration, or 3.
Both and more.

I also agree with the prospect the Israel needs to be on its own, I don’t buy the "everyone hates us and wants to kill us" speech anymore either, as long as the US stands with them no one every stood a chance in really beating them.

There are extremists in Israel too, and Israel has nuclear devices as well. But then again our Israeli allies would never hurt use us for gain now would then.... Not compared with how badly Iran has used us in the past...

I will end on that note, I feel I am having the effect of ranting.. My apologies.

This post has been edited... ( I will usualy read back through my post's the next day, when my eyes are better. If you see many spelling mistake's you dont need to point them out, in due time I will attempt to fix.)

On with the topic now :thumbsup: Thank you all for your patience with me.

where's isrial? whats an isriaily?

Who's singleminded? Who can't spell?

I hope you're kidding. This isn't an english class, so correcting grammar as a part of an argument is rather moot. As someone with pretty crappy spelling skills, I can appreciate that an argument is best judged on it's merrits, not it's spelling.

I'm kidding about 30%, I know this isn't fark, and we're not the grammar police, but when you can't spell israel and don't bother even trying to correctly, just about all credibility is lost in whatever point you may be trying to make. But then to go on and call people "singleminded" in the same paragraph containing the word isriaily is insulting. I can forgive typos, even bad grammar, hell, even regular misspellings, but "isriaily" come on. Give me a break.

What I mean is that you make youself look bad, stevo, when you correct grammar. You're of course right, and the spelling is pretty bad, but you'd be better of simply saying, "you're wrong because..." The way I took your post is 'this guy doesn't have any good argument against the points made, so he's attacking the poster." I'm pretty sure that you DO have a good argument against the post, though. Moving on...

Iran does have it's fanatics just like any other country, but I don't see tham as any more or less dangerous than fanatics from the US, Israel, the Soviet Federation, Paskistan, India, etc. We've managed to keep our nukes from being siezed by madmen pretty well. In addition to that, there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They could very well be developing nuclear power. Check post #51. That's where the problem lies.

You've got to be kidding me. You say it makes me look bad. ok, if those were the only 2 posts in the thread you've read. There are plenty of arguements as to why it is thought by a wide range of people across the globe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. You would have to ignore most of 3 pages of this thread and base your view on two posts to come up with the way you took my post: "this guy doesn't have any good argument against the points made, so he's attacking the poster."

Maybe I see the previous post as assanine and not worthy of an actual rebuttle so instead of reiterating points already made I decided to point out how horribly "Israeli" was spelled.

I'm just going to chime in here and say I wish we were all a LOT more ready to point out when others are using incorrect spelling and grammar. It would raise the level of discourse, and we'd finally be able to get some serious debate going on. I agree whole-heartedly with stevo that someone who fails to spell Israel correctly is not helping their argument. I know it's not friendly. I know it doesn't sit with the "Respect Everyone, no matter how stupid they sound" mentality of the TFP. But it's the way I feel. Call me a grumpy old man, but what did some people spend their time at school doing?

If it's too hard to remember how to spell things - download and use an in-line spell-checker (it's what I do), there are lots of them about - and treat the people you expect to read your posts with some respect by correcting your most glaring typos and spelling mistakes. It's all about having, and showing a little respect.

So, respect to stevo - I'm glad you're unafraid to stand up and point out when someone is slipping up. Having said that, willravel is right too - it doesn't mean a badly spelled opinion has no merit - it just really gets on my nerves.

/rant over/

As Bill Maher sez....."NEW RULE"....if you're gonna throw stones at someone else's spelling, make sure that you don't live in a glass house....

"NEW RULE"....if you're gonna rant about someone else's spelling, make a well researched and referenced post, along with your rant.....
stevo....two words that you included above are actually spelled:
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=asinine&spell=1">asinine</a>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=arguments+&spell=1">arguments</a>

stevo, I want to remind you, again...that you "know" what you read. If you read what the neocons, like Stephen Bryen, co-founder with his wife, Shoshona Bryen.....of the U.S. "mossad franchise" called JINSA, clog the media and PR's with.....you will probably support "pro neocon" policy and goals.....

I wrote about Stephen Bryen's "cooperation" with mossad here, and about JINSA and it's "directors" and past affiliates, including more than 100 former U.S. flag officers, Cheney, and Bolton. Bryen's "background" is detailed in the counterpunch.org link, and in the tfproject.org link, above it:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...32&postcount=1
http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html
<b>If you believed this Stephen Bryen "cheerleader" piece on the eve of invasion with Iraq....check again. Nothing that he wrote, turned out to be true.....he had the huevos to trot out the fear "hype" of associating the technology of the bio-chemical "mobile waepons labs", with anthrax "attacks in the U.S. The "mobile" trailers did not exist....but they were Powell and Bryen's "smoking guns".</b>
<b>Now....Stephen Bryen is "cashing in"....he's president of a defense contractor....no doubt because of his connections to other neocons in the DOD. His wife, Shoshona is still <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=iran+Shoshana+Bryen&btnG=Search">the voice</a>, and the force behind JINSA:</b>
<b>Six weeks earlier, Finmeccanica executive, Stephen Bryen, told an NBC reported the exact opposite.....he justified his company's doing business with Iran:</b>
stevo, did Stephen Bryen, the neocon, former executive director of JINSA, former undersecretary at DOD under Reagan, a man accused, before he "served" in the Reagan administration, of passing along classified material to a mossad agent, a man who hyped false justification for invading Iraq in 2003,
<b>seem worried about the "threat" that Iran poses to the U.S....just one year ago?</b>

He seems preoccupied with "selling" his connections in exchange for an executive spot in a European defense contractor that has already parlayed it's strategy into a lucrative and high profile "contract" to build the new fleet of helicpoters for the POTUS. If Bryen is as "afraid" of Iran as he was in his "shilling" of Saddam and "anthrax attacks", WTF was he doing defending his company's participation, a year ago, in an exhibition of advanced helicopter technology.....in....Iran?

A year ago, Stephen Bryen said that Iran is <b>behaving like an enemy...</b>
...but if it means making money, he'll work as an executive for a company that trades with Iran. stevo....the policy is all about making money for the connected "few", and hyping enough "fear" into the sheeple to keep them voting for the regime that will keep them from "getting hit". It's the same regime that was "on watch" when we did "get hit".....by what they described as hijacked jetliners in a plot masterminded by a cave dwelling "kidney patient", and by a mysterious, and 4-1/2 years later...."unsolved" series of anthrax attacks that conveniently "terrorized" only politicians who were democrats.

These are the same folks that were totally wrong about the Iraqi WMD threat,
unless you believe that the world's most sophisticated satellite spy network "missed" the uprooting and transfer to Syria of the stockpiles and manufacturing infrastructure or the entire WMD "stash". The spy satellite network also seems to have conviently failed to snap even one shot of flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon....and the Pentagon proved unable to even defend itself from an attack ordered by the cave dwelling kidney patient.

Don't you ever have any doubts about what they want you to think, stevo?