"Be Afraid"

I'm afraid of today... when we have a man in office who is prideful and dishonest and will let every one of us die, probably even cause us to die, all in the name of HIMSELF. Disgusting.

They need bargaining chips. This is what this appears to be. We know that in all probability this was state managed and that this is threatening language which is being to improve their negotiating position. I think you should be more concerned about the news report I read yesterday that said the US has no real idea of what Iran's weapons capabilities really are. For all we know Iran has had nuclear capability for years, or has had the potential and has perhaps chosen to not to use it.

My fear is the fact that the West's only real ability is to create division rather than to stablise what appears to be a deterioration in relations between itself and Islamic nations. I would be concerned that the civilian populations of some of those countries friendly to the West will demand (in one way or another) that their governments alter their relationship with the West and that yet more Islamic states will be alienated.

Seems to me the Bush administration is doing everything it can to provoke Iran into defiance and eventual war with us by trampling on their rights as a sovereign nation to make their own sovereign decisions. In other words we want to demonize Iran because we made a terrible mistake in Iraq. Now that the Shia are in power, and we put them there after all, Iran, since it is a Shia nation, has the potential to have vast influence over Iraq; probably more than us. Remember, under Saddam, Iran and Iraq were enemies, and fought a long war.

A quick guide to the Iran nuclear stand-off, some of it quite interesting, specifically the fact that Brazil is engaged in the same process as Iran and noone cares to mention it, that there is a fatwa by the Iranian Supreme leader against nuclear weapons and that Iran, unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, (favoured US nations) is part of the non-proliferation treaty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm

Brian, I don't think at present we are too concerned about trying to be friendly with the aggressive terroristic nations who are out to destroy or at least destabilize our way of life.

To say that it is only for bargaining purposes is probably disingenuous at best. I'm reasonably confident that our satelite coverage can detect many things. There are probably enough co-ordinates mapped out into enough JDAMs to significantly impact Iran's future.

It is preferable that this situation gets resolved through diplomatic channels. Personally, I think we are wasting time by pursuing diplomacy, but perhaps Iran will decide that the United States can be trusted as an honest partner.

Meryl, I'm reasonably confident that we would prefer not to have a war with Iran. If it comes to that, there will probably be a collapse of the global trade system. China won't be able to sell it's cheap goods through wal-marts the world over.

Brian, to the best of my knowledge, Brazil is not advocating the destruction of Argentina.

"I'm reasonably confident that our satelite coverage can detect many things."

They didnt do too good a job in Iraq, or did they? It's hard to tell since the Bush and Blair administrations were certain about the WMDs. So im a bit confused. Were the satellite systems up to the job and Bush and Blair just told us blatant lies (stupid question I know) or are they truly garbage? I have no faith in anything Im told by any government, especially when it comes to the pursuit of their own agendas.

The fact of the matter is Bush doesnt care that Brazil is pursuing nuclear power because it doesnt suit his agenda. Because Brazil isnt threatening its neighbours at present is irrelevant. In its not too distant past it was hardly a bastion of democracy, but of course that didnt bother US administrations either.

Steve, North Korea would like negotiations with the US.

Brian, If Brazil was a threat, then we would probably hear about it. If Brazil gets a vehemantly anti-USamerican president, then perhaps we will need to take more steps.

The fact that no one is adressing the warning by the deputy speaker, other than to just say "oh, it's just a bargaining chip" is enlightening. No, it's not just a bargaining chip. It is yet more evidence that members of the power set in Iran are wanting to exert influence in the region, and intimidate. If I were China, I don't think that I'd want the US engaging in wider conflicts.

You are absolutely right that we are currently in a perilous impasse with Iran: Their President wants to preserve the Islamic Revolution started with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and extend it. And the Shi'as have an even more glorified notion of martyrdom than the Sunnis do, since they not only go straight to Paradise but are also greeted by the Prophet's family. We have to have cool heads now; I hope with the current Administration we now have in place who have previously shown lack of diplomatic skills, reason will prevail.

If this were a struggle to survive,
Why sould we be the ones who need to be trusted.
Why should we trust anything, a former terrorist, the pres. of Iran says?

I hope they have a nuclear accident or something.

Tom,
Why should we trust anything a CURRENT terrorist says? (GEORGE W. BUSH, in case you didn't get that)

Tom, I think I was watching CNN, and one of the news readers said that Ahmedinejad said Iran was willing to fight to preserve it's right for nuclear research. Was it willing to fight, or perparing to fight? Hmm, well, there have been several people talking about how the ideology of radical Islam is really what is behind most of these movements.

I wish I had a suggestion that would work in getting our story out there competing with the ideology.

Oh, Lyrical, you don't have to trust anything the president says. That is one thing that makes this a great country. Unless you were serving in the armed forces, and then it is your duty to follow the direction laid out by you chain of command, and ultimately, the president provides general guidelines.

I have no confidence what-so-ever that the Bush Administration can do anything except wage war - and they can't even do that right. Expecting diplomacy from this bunch is like expecting a pig to fly.

One man's terrorist is another man's president. That describes the religious nut jobs in charge of both Iran and the United States quite nicely and nothing will change as long as they remain the leaders of their respective countries.

I am very afraid.

Everybody just needs to keep a cool head about this whole thing. Iran knows that if it were to use a nuke against anyone they would immediately be wiped off the map, but for it's own sake it can't seem like it's not scared as hell that Israel already possesses this weaponry. Word 'round the campfire is that Israel can be pretty heavy-handed.

The alarmists are calling the President of Iran a new Hitler because of his tough talk, but what these fearmongers don't tell you is that the only real power he has is economic while the supreme power in Iran lies with the ayatollahs and one in particular who I am unable to name.

If a nuke goes off in Israel, who are we going to think it came from? We have enough nukes to make Iran a big hole in the ground. They may not like us or Israel but they are not going to cut their nose off to spite their face.

Having nukes will only ensure that Israel will not attack them. Yes, a bargaining chip.

John S, An accident is not something that should be hoped for. They will experience accidents by the nature of living in a siesmically geologically active area of earth where tectonic plates are moving against one another. The fact that this plant is 120 miles south west of Tehran isn't too comforting. The call up of 1200 (or 12000) marines from the inactive reserves, is also of concern.

Glen D, I don't think that Iran will be able to use a nuke.

I was watching "in the footsteps of Bin Laden" on CNN, and I saw that he recieved justification to kill fewer than 10 million Americans.

"You are absolutely right that we are currently in a perilous impasse with Iran: Their President wants to preserve the Islamic Revolution started with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and extend it."

Why would they have to preserve their revolution when their government is a result of it? The only government trying to extend it's own values is ours. Many, not all, Republicans justify our actions in Iraq by saying, "But we're trying to bring them democracy," as if we were doing them a favor. Is that what we're doing now? We're spreading democracy? Democracy has suddenly become an aggressive ideology. Forced Democracy is an oxymoron. Maybe democracy in the sense the President is using is not true democracy. If by democracy he means a capitalist-friendly hegemony set up to look like a democracy, then ok I'll agree that's exactly what we're trying to spread. A "New Middle East" as Condi put it.

As inconvenient as the truth may be, the best insurance that a non-Western government can have to protect its culture and country from being trampled upon or invaded by the US is to have nuclear capability. Hence we invade Iraq, but trade insults with North Korea.

If we wanted to invade North Korea, we could, but it's not really something that's of concern to us right now.

Glen D, by democracy, we are hoping to spread a form of representative democracy. Yes, we are probably hoping that ultimately, we will have a capitalist friendly regime in place. Capitalism as a system works incredibly well. Witness the successes in China. Democracy is about trying to level the playing field for capitalism. Trying to spread the money out in the system, as opposed to just having it concentrated in a few hands. Granted, there still will be those who have more of it than others, but at the same time those with less should have more than they did before Saddam was overthrown.

"Capitalism as a system works incredibly well."

Tell that to the Third World and those who live on the verge of the third world in the first world.

The real fear here, is that they may not worry about a retaliatory strike, seeing it as a way to be a martyr. When people don't care if they die, it is a different ball game. Suicide by nuke....
Then of course, they don't even have to use one, just give it to some radical group to use keeping their hands clean so to say. Nice small tactical nukes. Even dirty bombs is a nightmare.

Relative dirtiness of the bomb has already been achieved by the rudimentary enrichment levels achieved so far. I'm pretty sure. Now that they have a heavy water reactor, I think they might be able to build more nukes faster. The fact that they live near collision points of tectonic plates might mean that nuclear accidents are nearer than they might otherwise be, but heck. Ahmadinejad might not hope to live to see 2007. Maybe Bush thinks Ahmadinejad is the anti-christ.

I'm sure the feeling is likewise!

Who would be stupid enough to believe that Bush is motivated at all to spread democracy? When since the reconstruction of Europe has America truly supported democracy overseas, except possibly in Israel. Democracies are very hard to control and economically exploit -- dictatorships are much easier for us to exploit and deal with. And when we do work with democracies, we do not work to "democratize" them -- instead we support powerful elites capable of keeping the peasants in line by force if need be -- it is much easier to bribe a rather small group of people who control the wealth, than lots of people at the bottom of the food chain. Why do you think we always get nervous when a democratic government arises which gives a rip about the poor -- we always try to undermine such countries as they can be very messy to bring under the control of our corporate interests.

Since Ahmadinejad has so little control over the the policies and the stated will of Iran guess what would happen if he were removed?

Nothing good! He's like the most progressive Iranian president ever. Before this little tiff he was being studied by Western intellectuals for the modernization he's helped bring about in Iran under the noses of the Ayatollahs. The balancing act that a man in his position has to do to bring about change and keep the ayatollahs happy is astounding. Removing this man will only bring forth a President who will really make the righties crap their pants.

Anti-Christ is such a strong word. Evangelical Christians are using it to describe the Iranian President because they reeeaaaally want Armageddon to come. They call him it strongly but deep down they really hope he is. They hope that a war between Jews and Arabs will bring Rapture and they don't care how many Jews and Arabs have to die just so they can be assumed into heaven because Jews and Muslims don't get to go to heaven anyway.

Be wary of the strong language coming from the Christian Right because this is what their investment in Israel is about.

Unfortunately, Glen you are correct. There have been several scholarly studies indicating that a new pro-Zionist lobby has appeared on the scene to support Bush because they feel his policies will help usher in Armageddon. There are some truly surreal aspects to American politics of late.

I've seen the bumper sticker, "In case of Rapture, this driver's seat will be empty." I know people who think that will happen. I am friendly with several devout christians, but I'm not sure that I accept the whole rapture notion. 10,000 people, or however many aren't that many when we have a global population of billions.