Bomb Iran into the Stone Age?

Yes, we know. We've known for well over a week now.

If they continue to kill american soldiers and develop nukes

Olga - I know you are much better informed than a lot of people. (Take Mod for example). ;)

Mod:
But the IAEA says they're NOT developing nukes. I gather you know something more than they do?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Incidentally Mod - you fail to explain why we need to completely fracture whats left of our military if Israel is willing to get their own hands dirty . . . especially since they are much of the reason for the troubles there anyway.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

If our president hadn't offended Iran in the Axis of Evil speech, they might be our ally instead of our enemy. Prior to his demonization of them, they were helping us in Afghanistan (providing intelligence on al-Qaeda, preventing al-Qaeda fugitives from escaping through Iran, and allowing us to enter their territory to do search and rescue for any downed American pilots). After Bush offended them they pulled back on their support in Afghanistan and knew that they were the next target. This gave them every incentive to prolong our war in Iraq and hope for our defeat. They hated Saddam and would have helped us instead if hindering us with Iraq if we had been diplomatic about it! Now that we caused them to fear us, they elected a really radical new leader who can't be reasoned with and wants nukes. Iran is just one more example of how our incompetent leaders have made us LESS safe in the world with the ignorance and arrogance.

Oh ok doyle the IAEA says there not. They claim they are and the IAEA did not go where we believe they are doing it. OK!

A massive airstrike would not fracture the military

Shari-

They were helping us until they elected an extremist who turned them against us. They would never support us for long because of the religious faction would not allow it. They wanted to elect the irrational man long before us. We did not cause it they are just like this since they had their revoultion remeber they were more westernized before.

Doyle-

Olga is not more informed than me I can guarentee that. I cant help it you both agree

"Oh ok doyle the IAEA says there not. They claim they are and the IAEA did not go where we believe they are doing it. OK!"

Well, I struggled to get the meaning from this painfully incoherent comment. I assume you are meaning to say the IAEA didn't look somewhere where nuclear weapons are being manufactured? If so, perhaps you can . . . uhhhhh . . . educate me. A source might be nice. No offense, but the IAEA maybe has a little more credibility than you do.

Olga and I do not agree on everything. ...and she is MUCH more informed than you are. For example, SHE knows that she's more informed and you don't! :P

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Why are so many people using pics and videos of Nuclear war, when there is nothing suggesting that we are going to Nuke Iran?

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported "significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power."

Bush is acting under and promoting FEAR. Any strike against Iran isn't going to be tolerated by the rest of the world, and GWB would have to have brain damage not to know this. (hmmm, pondering that last line)

"Olga is not more informed than me I can guarentee that. I cant help it you both agree."

Oh shut and up sit back down, you clown! hahahahahahahahaha! You're so full of it, it makes me laugh!

Mod-They elected the extremist in 2006, long after we called them evil, and they stopped helping us in Afghanistan right after we called them evil.

interesting news. thanks for sharing. But I think the pentagon has a plan for almost every nation don't they?

Matt, the quote in my comment came from Doyle's article, and yes, we have "plans" for any Nation that would oppose us. If we were so serious about taking a Country out for developing Nukes, we would bomb the hell out of N. Korea.

"
Olga is not more informed than me I can guarentee that. I cant help it you both agree"

Honey, get informed about spelling, punctuation and grammar before bragging about your superior knowledge, m'kay?

Matt:
Proper planning is to be expected and I know at one point even Canada had been planned for . . . the issue here is the rising level of rhetoric, particularly given the similarities to the Iraq misadventure, and the plan for a rapid, catastrophic attack which would be able to be executed after a potential false flag event before we even get a chance to fully consider the event. It's one thing to plan - but I still need to ask - if Israel wants this one, why not let them have it?

Shari:
Geo. II has never cared one whit for what other countries think. Heck, he doesn't care what WE think. THAT'S what concerns me the most. He's not looking at what History will say about his Presidency like so many second term presidents have . . . because God told him it would be great. ( *shudder* )

Newshound:
"Why are so many people using pics and videos of Nuclear war, when there is nothing suggesting that we are going to Nuke Iran? "

The cassus belli for this action was originally the fear of Iran's development of ( insert drum roll ) a NUCLEAR BOMB ! ! ! ! That's the only reference really . . . I know of no person suggesting we would attack with nuclear weapons . . . just that we would BE attacked with them . . . you know . . . if we don't stop them there we'll have three headed nuclear mutant babies running for Congress in ten years.

Actually . . . the Cassu Belli has experienced a not so subtle change to attacks on our military by Iranians and the use of weapons obtained by Iranians . . . The IAEA has made the original theme less valid . . . and the propaganda machine now has that in the backs of most simple-minded people's minds . . . and that will come up time and again . . . particulary if military action by the US against Iran is initiated.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I am going to hijack this thread to remind alert (and aloof and abashed) readers that the IAEA got everything absolutely right about Iraq despite the long-running demonization of the agency by the Bush Administration and the Neo-Con Ninnies grouped around the Cheney-Rumsfeld Axis of Evil (or Asses of Evil.)

Of course, Bush is now trying to abolish the IAEA so that never again can an independent body of experts dispute the poorly-manufactured deceptions arising from the Administration.

Yeah, the IAEA was who was telling Bush to secure the yellow cake and weapons they had sealed in Iraq, which they were assured would be secured, only to find out that they were not and were looted. I pick IAEA over Bush!

Modern - I hate to say it but you have no clue. Sorry.

Iran is not the enemy of the United States - even though the United states overthrew their government and installed a dictator, assisted Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran with no provocation, Blamed Iran for the USS Stark incident which was actually an IRAQI missile, shot down a commercial airliner of Iranian civilians and tried to destroy Iran economically by destroying their oil production facilities.

No sorry, Iran is a threat to no-one - but it IS sitting on what may be the world's biggest oil reserves - which was the reason the americans overthrew their democratically elected government to install a dictator who then gave western oil companies carte blanche.

We're not as ignorant as some people try and make us out to be ;) and that is AWESOME :D

Peter:
Another excellent point. You know I can't stand to sit back and see how wonderfully successful propaganda can be . . . like a weapon you don't want to get into the wrong hands and now we have Geo. II using it like a child with a loaded handgun. Some people actually believe that Saddam kicked out the UN weapons inspectors even though we all know it was Geo. II ! How Bass-ak-Wards can it get?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Ok, now that everyone is all riled up.

Since Olga is so well informed maybe she can explain how George W. Bush is responsible for 9/11. I mean she is ssssooo smart.

I love this. Iran means well. They mean no harm. They are just fine. Have you heard their leader??

LMAO ! ! ! Oh Mod . . . we need to keep you around if for nothing else as a sideshow!

Nobody claimed she was a genius, genius. ONLY that she was smarter than you! Ummmm . . . she's also smarter than my granddaughter. :P

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Come on Mod, have you heard YOUR leader? Think about something for a second while Geo. II plays cowboy with no rules around the globe . . . Suppose you are some other country and he looks at you and says, essentially, you're next. Now think about how many times this country has EVER attacked a nuclear power. I'm guessing you MIGHT look around for a nuclear weapon to pick up. Maybe?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

lol riled up.

LOL.

What a loser.

What's next - 'only joking'?

I think you're mistaking amusement for being riled. Heheheheheh.

Actually Pub, I HAVE :D

The actual stuff he said - not the fake translations provided to mainstream media by MEMRI.

You're either COMPLETELY gullible or are continuing with the same bullshit script as the other imbeciles.

Dude, WE KNOW. LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuiIao49Xv0
This is an interesting little video history of US policy around the world. Our policy has made no sense and has lead to many deaths. No wonder we are hated and feared.

" we'll have three headed nuclear mutant babies running for Congress ".

hahaha... I thought we already had them in Congress!

LoL . . . No News Hound . . . I keep telling you they're "TWO-FACED", not "three headed" . . . uhhhhhh . . . yet! LMAO!!

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

That's the worst part, Doyle...
They have three heads with only two faces...
and only one brain!

Frightening, most of us work well with one brain. Didn't you mean to say, "only one brain cell?"

I apologize, Doyle. Every once in a while my memory fails me. I'll remember next time, if I don't forget, that they are two faced, not three headed. (are you SURE about that?)

LoL! They MUST be two-faced because when you ask them they say "no". We could ask Dave Barbee, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Murphy or Ted Haggard . . . you know . . . the bastions of the 'family values crowd who have had . . . uhhhhhh . . . misunderstandings.

They say 'no' . . . we know they are liars . . . quad erat demonstrata . . . they are two faced! :)

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

no.. I understand they're two faced. I meant are you sure they're not three headed. I could have sworn I saw three heads when C-span aired Congress in session, but it was late and the bottle of Jack was still half empty (depending on your perspective, to you it might have been half full)

As for Iran, they have been a thorn in America's side for decades. Here is an interesting take on the subject, which explains some of the history and causes of our conflict today: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001456.html

To understand the consequences of a nuclear Iran, we have to look to the recent history of Middle East power arrangements.
Before the American-Israeli alliance was solidified in the late 1960's and early 1970's, the Middle East -- especially the eastern Mediterranean half of it -- was home to regular warfare. This bloodshed arose from the conviction among the Arab nations that they could destroy Israel, which they tried to do repeatedly: in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Even though some of the Arab countries were allied with the Soviet Union, Israel repulsed the invaders, and in the latter two wars even captured territory from the attacking armies. In doing so Israel created for itself a reputation as the most militarily competent country in its half of the region.
And then, as Martin Kramer explains, "the United States began to look at Israel as a potential strategic ally. Israel appeared to be the strongest, most reliable and most cost-effective bulwark against Soviet penetration of the Middle East. It could defeat any combination of Soviet clients on its own and, in so doing, humiliate the Soviet Union and drive thinking Arabs out of the Soviet camp."
In contrast to the benefits that Israel's victories provided the United States in its maneuverings against the Soviets, the 1973 war did create something of a crisis for America, in the form of the Arab oil embargo. Having suffered a gasoline shortage at home, American strategists decided to attempt to impose peace in the region by showing so much support for Israel that the Arab states would henceforth refuse to challenge it. And this strategy has been a resounding success: Since 1973 there have been no more wars between Israel and Arab countries. This security arrangement even ended up prying Egypt away from the Soviets and into an alliance, later joined by Jordan, with America.
What does all of this have to do with Iran today? It has to do with the Islamic Republic's prospects for success in its endeavor to undermine this American-enforced security architecture. Iran is trying to destabilize the Middle East by creating its own set of alliances and clients that it hopes will rival America's. This is why it funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and now Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories; has cultivated an alliance with Syria that seeks to engulf Lebanon and allow Hezbollah free reign there; and provides weapons, money, and leadership to insurgents in Iraq.
Iran's intentions are clear: it wants America out of the Middle East, so that it can control the Persian Gulf and manipulate the rest of the region through its alliances and proxies.

News Hound:
"Iran's intentions are clear: it wants America out of the Middle East..."
I don't think this is so much an Iranian position as an Islamic position. After tossing Massadegh and backing Pahlavi and equipping and training Savak . . . equipping and aiding Saddam and Bin Laden . . . then after backing, we're attacking . . . backing Israel at every turn . . . can we not see this as a largely Islamic and not so much an Iranian desire?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Paine:
"Let's not lose sight of this. What if Israel does strike? Should the American people rally in support of that terror? "

Excellent point. First consideration would be whether or not we would need to help - Israeli military action is historically effective and lethal. Why should we?

"1948: Terrorists founded Israel."

The rejection of UN Resolution 181 and the admitted violence commencing on the Arab side seems to belie this claim. You'll note also that recognition was widespread and almost immediate (the US recognized the fledgling state in 11 minutes). This, of course, was immediately followed by a multi-nation invasion and war.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Doyle, the way I am understanding it, Iran wants the U.S. out of the middle east for economic reasons. As long as America backs anything Israel does, we are a threat to them. We will be in (fill in the blank) way over our heads if we attempt to bomb Iran.

Russia and Iran have signed an agreement for Moscow to supply fuel to Iran's new nuclear reactor in Bushehr.
Under the deal Iran has to return spent nuclear fuel rods from the reactor, which was designed and built by Russia.


In 2005,
WASHINGTON – Russia has signed a deal with Iran to sell 29 of its Tor M-1 anti-missile systems, a development that will complicate any planned pre-emptive attack on the rogue nation's nuclear facilities, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The system would theoretically permit Iran to intercept some cruise missiles as well as airborne missiles that U.S., Israeli or other western countries might use in an effort to keep the terrorist-supporting nation from developing nuclear weapons or using them.

If this turns to war, the war is actually between the USA and Russia! Russia and China have signed treaties against America.

2001,

On July 16, the presidents of Russia and China signed a Treaty for Good Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation in Moscow. 1 This treaty is the first such agreement between these two Eurasian powers since Mao Tse-tung signed a treaty with Joseph Stalin of the U.S.S.R. in 1950, four months before the outbreak of the Korean War. That treaty had been driven by anti-Western sentiments.

The motivations behind this new treaty are much more complex and involve serious geopolitical, military, and economic considerations.
The 2001 Russia-China treaty covers five important areas of cooperation:

Joint actions to offset a perceived U.S. hegemonism; 2

Demarcation of the two countries' long-disputed 4,300 km border;

Arms sales and technology transfers;

Energy and raw materials supply; and

The rise of militant Islam in Central Asia.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1459.cfm

Oh . . . I was thinking you were saying it was Iran and not so much Islamic people who wanted us out . . . whereas it seems to be both, huh?

A military threat by Russia seems bad enough from a historical perspective but the country is no longer what it once was. That being said, however, is not to imply that it isn't a threat and when coupled with China and our overdeployed and extended military . . .

"We will be in (fill in the blank) way over our heads if we attempt to bomb Iran."

I think the statement might be more accurate as 'when' and not 'if' . . . but I hope I'm wrong.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

There's more, Doyle.. It's more in the lines of The rest of the world against the Western World, namely, the UK and USA. I'll find it and share it. Posted it a while back on another article.

The BA has been increasing their rhetoric in the past few months concerning Iran - they are replaying their Iraq script from 2002. Anybody who would fall for this must be mentally challenged. The BA sees their power ending soon and wants to get in as much violence and destruction as they can before the Dems take the presidency in 2008.

Make sure you contact your representatives and demand that the BA be stopped from initiating any action against Iran. If this happens, we may very well be in for WWIII.

News Hound:
Lookin' forward to it.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Sheryl:

What worries me is that the speed of the military reaction to a false flag event, coincident with an impending election . . . may require a suspension of that election . . . if you know what I mean.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Yes, I do know, Doyle. That is what scares me the most about Bush's May Directive. People say that it wouldn't happen, but I really think they underestimate the man's lack of morals and integrity and his lust for power. He has shown time and again that he doesn't care what his or any other country thinks of him and his actions. He's on some kind of "god-given" mission.

WW 3 , what happens if we attack Iran and China and Russia (who depend on Iran for oil) decide to help them ?

The end of civilization ?

At least the end to our overworked and abused military..

it's all rather scary.

It really disturbs me that every time we turn around, our leaders are wanting to bomb the heck out of someone, especially when it's "preemptive."

Because I myself am not as able to throw out specific 'facts', as suspect as they may be depending upon which side of the fence the think tank supplying them came from, i regards to who did and said what in which particular order, I myself will boil it all down to the impressions I have accumulated from wherever ... which are most likely just those that support my own inner philosophy on it ALL.

The point being; we can each cite specific 'facts' to make any case, pro or con, about almost any subject we choose to.

Bottom line; in my case I choose to believe that we would all be better off if we worked together with some amount of mutual respect and cooperation to achieve a much better world for each and all ... based upon peace and love with a belief that there is a God like intelligence inhabiting our universe that would both approve and support such intention.

On the other hand, there are people (the 'other' side to this debate) that do not trust in such a God like intelligence, thus they live with mistrust, fear and fear generated hatreds with suspicions that they have avowed enemies (they do - those that think just like they do) that are out to destroy them and maybe all that think like they do.

The latter is all about power and control for the purpose of defense and offense, most often extremely supportive of very strong (tough) leaders and social systems to support that philosophy, with military and police institutions having very high priorities.

Maybe we can guess the kind of people that the former would consist of ... ? For sure the latter would call them weak, sissified, ignorant and ineffective ... people who were unrealistic and Utopian idealists that did not have a clue ...

Then because in this world as it exists, fear has the upper hand in almost every way because it is all about the orthodoxy because the outlook is so negative that change is suspect, thus fear dictates caution and prudence, practicality when in the case of the 'mighty' USA ... just nuke all of the 'enemies' and get it all over with once and for-all.


Could this be at all close to the thought process's involved ???

I apologize, Doyle. I looked for the article I said I would post, but couldn't find it.

I've just read the thread and have a few reflections.

First, I found at least one early point by Pub that I do agree with:

Pub: "A massive airstrike would not fracture the military..."

In fact, a massive airstrike would bring consequences so dire to the US that it would make the Iraq mess look like a tea party.


politicalpaine: "Let's not lose sight of this. What if Israel does strike? Should the American people rally in support of that terror?"

I find the use (and abuse) of the terms "terror" and "terrorist" in this thread somewhere between quite interesting and absurd. In this case, it's "terror" if committed by the Israelis, and something apparently more worthy if committed by the US.


News Hound: "Iran wants the U.S. out of the middle east for economic reasons."

Think for a minute what you're implying: that policy makers in Iran are genuinely dumb enough to think they can oust the US from a position of significant influence in the ME. I would suppose their thinking to be a bit more nuanced than that, along with the list of "reasons."

On the main point of the article, there is a huge amount of "chatter" promulgated by right wing sources (talk show hosts, columnists, and administration spokespersons) that are attempting to demonize Iran as the killer of American troops in Iraq, and a nuclear threat. The objective is to create a level of acceptance among the American people for military action against Iran. In my opinion, the broader goal is to create an environment of greater conflict in the Middle East that slows progress toward normalization of political and economic relations in the region. The calculation would find a net loss for US interests from progress toward the resolution of tensions among Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Israel, etc. If that sounds insane, take a look at who we elected to run the country. So much death, destruction, and despair to deliver, and only 498 days left.

PPaine:
"Judging by yours, the seizing on "1948: Terrorists founded Israel" overlooking what followed exposes perhaps an eagerness favoring Israel striking Iran."

Absolutely wrong. I have friends in Tehran.

"...he knew that to the Arabs he and likes were murdering thieving terrorists."
Admitted, Begin was a terrorist blowing up hotels, etc. And? Both sides of this conflict were practicing similar tactics . . . It appears to me that you're playing something of a semantics game here. Use any term you wish, and terrorism is appropriate, and you have these two going at it using similar tactics . . . which might have been avoided had the Arab side NOT rejected 181 . . . or do you deny that?

"would it be wise or simply insane for either strikes Russia's and China's friend Iran?"
It would be catastrophic. And well we both know it.

Thanks for the stimulating discourse.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Newshound: Thanks anyway . . . I appreciate the effort.

Jerry K.: The Good v. Evil theme . . . reflected well in all human endeavors . . . with the only issue being people who are unaware of which is which . . . either through ignorance or due to deliberate misleading. Well . . . possibly also including those who knowingly choose evil . . . and such do exist. Truly black and white and the ubiquitous 'shades of gray' nothing more than an unrefined intelligence finding difficulty distinguishing the reality involved.

Dave A.:
""terror" if committed by the Israelis, and something apparently more worthy if committed by the US. "
Terrorism is really a sensationalized act of violence designed first and foremost to attract media attention to a cause. The term is being used loosely and, as you point out, as a way to elicit a response along expected lines (pro or con) -- and, frankly, it's the violence that is the concern . . . whether it's military, insurgent, dead-enders, terrorists or alcohol drinking NRA hunters.

"In my opinion, the broader goal is to create an environment of greater conflict in the Middle East..."
Sounds profitable to some, doesn't it? With the war profiteers in an orgiastic frenzy over the incoming money . . . I mean, even Billions simply missing . . . MISSING . . . you MUST recognize that there is some very STRONG incentives that this chaos never ends . . . . so, send the soldiers home WITH their weapons . . . don't guard the stockpiles . . . find an Iranian soldier behind every other attack . . . and hope for a massive attack against us requiring a response . . . or make one.

Excellent point.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Provocative---I had not seen this yet, so for those of us a week behind, interesting.

Thanks Dena - not much has changed on this topic yet.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Pol:
Are you saying they bear NO responsibility? I fault both sides but the fact is the nascent state of Israel was invaded on the day of its birth and the goal of the Arab opposition is its complete elimination. To what lengths a country may go to avoid annihilation I don't know, but it might be substantive.

"how would it view a stabilized U.S.-created Iraqi government reflecting the Shia majority – favorable in spite of Iran?"

I regret to inform you that I'm not sure I can understand the question . . . though the premise is clear.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

And I'm not supporting 181 as much as citing it to counter you one-sided characterization of the state being founded by terrorists without recognizing the balance of the equation . . . that it was founded amidst terrorists as well as by them.

The facts are as follows:

Iran claims to be pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes only and IAEA has yet to find evidence to the contrary.

Pakistan, a country led by a military dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat, already has nuclear bombs and the Bush administration seems okay with that because they are currently helping the US. The fact that the Pakistani government's grip on power seems increasingly fragile seems not to bother anyone, but who ever comes to power next inherits the nukes. This is also a Muslim country that is already partially under the control of Taliban-like groups that support Al Qaeda (along the Afghani border).

The only country in the world ever to use nuclear weapons on their enemies is the United States of America, and their current leader who has already violated the UN Charter and Geneva Convention to which his own country is a signatory by starting the unprovoked war in Iraq wants to claim the moral high ground and decide who can and who can't have nuclear weapons.

As already alluded to above, having nuclear weapons seems to be a guarantee against American invasion. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were dubbed the "Axis of Evil" in famously stupid speech George Bush gave and Canadian bootlick David Frum claimed to have written for him. Iraq has been invaded and is now in chaos (they had no nukes). North Korea has managed to get the US and others to sit down and negotiate with them and won all kinds of concessions including an enormous pile of money (they have nukes). Iran is being threatened almost daily with bombing and possilbe invasion -- nothing is off the table -- by the USA (they don't have nukes yet).

Why wouldn't they want them for defensive purposes?

Pol
"They responded rightly"
Do I read in this that you endorse the use of terrorism in the response?

"You do support 181 as it stands today"
Hardly. That was a historical reference to the nascent problems in the region . . . and it's a completely dead issue at this point. How you arrive at a current situation is relevant . . . but how relevant? I'll use the US, for an example, and its policies regarding Native Americans as an analogy. How do you resolve the idea of removing 300,000,000 people and returning it to them? You cannot, physically or politically. This doesn't excuse terrorism. We are where we are. This is true in the Middle East as well. The question is more one of where do we go from here?

"What could be said of 181 is that it indeed successfully introduced a wicked combination of American Indian reservations with Nazi concentration camps to the Holy Land. "
That wasn't 181 . . . that was Palestinian refugees who thought to flee briefly in the hopes of returning after Israel was wiped off the map. Those Palestinians who remained are Israeli citizens, right? AND, they are producing numerous progeny and will overwhelm the Jewish side sooner or later . . . taking back legally that which they could not take back through armed conflict.

"So, give good reason the "Arabs" should have accepted unquestionably Europe's refuse. "
Calling victims of the Holocaust 'refuse' shows something of the bias on your side, does it not? 60 years of labor has produced advancements and improvements in the area . . . are you suggesting they walk away from it? If so, to where?

As it happens, indidentally, my friendships in Tehran can be proven (some of them) but that is, indeed, beside the point. I am aware that there's a difference between Persians and Arabs. But how many others do you imagine count all peoples of the middle east as arabs? I suspect many. Just as people in this country seem to think there is some big difference between Shia and Sunni when in fact there is no serious differences . . . certainly not to the extent they seem to think there is.

"Tell me, how is Israel essential to these United States' national security"
YOU tell me how Israel is essential - I suspect she's more essential to the oil industry than to the US. But many here have convinced people that oil is vital and have determined to prevent the development of alternatives to ensure the profits continue in the industry . . . and seem to feel the presence of that state is vital to secure those interests. The surest means to achieve peace both here AND there would be the development of alternative energy.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Some good points, Rory.

"Iran claims to be pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes only and IAEA has yet to find evidence to the contrary."
Largely due to the IAEA report clearing Iran . . . Geo. II has gone back to his old style that he used so successfully to launch the attack in Iraq. He has shifted the cassus belli to Iranian attacks on our forces in Iraq. This does THREE things for him . . . it plays on the minds of lesser educated, less observant people . . . who recall, and always will recall, that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons. Big plus for him and we'll see the charge made time and again, regardless of the facts. Now, he also has somebody to blame for Iraqi failures . . . AND a fresh new reason to get his dreamed for invasion. It is much harder to prove Iranians are not attacking troops in Iraq . . . independently. And any rogue attacks by Iranian individuals, or extremists who happen to be Iranian will be held up although that does not necessarily imply state sponsorship.

"Pakistan, a country led by a military dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat, already has nuclear bombs and the Bush administration seems okay with that because they are currently helping the US. "
And protecting Bin Laden which is likely helping Geo. II. - Pakistan is just another example (like Saddam) where the US backs up people based on considerations that have absolutely nothing to do with what might be best for the people who live in the country. The biggest threat of extremists getting their hands on nukes may well come from this country.

"Why wouldn't they want them for defensive purposes? "
Agreed . . . and their buddy Russia has all that Uranium just sitting around.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Nuclear weapons are indeed, formidable weapons and as a defense mechanism have proven effective throughout the cold war! Of course, they proved pretty effective in WW II as well. Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons is of great concern due to the instability of the government. If radical Muslims take over the government are we going to invade/bomb/attack Pakistan as a preemptive measure?

I most fear nukes in the hands of less than fully sane people. Back when Mou(?) was in control of China and Stalin in Russia there was great reason for fear. Now we may face the same in Pakistan if the wrong person sits at the helm. However, just because the government changed would not necessarily mean that the new person was not a sane person, with the proper fear of his own personal death from nuclear suicide!

I'll reiterate what I've stated previously, that we may not have that many years left before mankind must, absolutely must, find a way to solve problems and control population without resorting to war. A two year old knows to fight to get what he wants and maturity is learning to do it in a more acceptable manner. It's time for our species to develop the maturity needed to maintain life on this planet or all of our great grandchildren will be out of luck.

It is hard to look at my great grandkids and think they may well face a nuclear winter and the possibility of no more human life!

James:
Well spoken and most rational people share your concerns.
"I most fear nukes in the hands of less than fully sane people."
...It seems apparent that that might include even US leaders. Does it matter who pushes the button?

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Hello King of Cool, Mr amature Photographer,
Your talking about Sane People????

i question the sanity of anyone who listens to this current administration. If your not crazy, then your just a evil war monger who loves to see people getting killed. Pretty pathetic and your the one footing the bill and your just fine with it too.... well.. im NOT.

GO TRUE!!!!!

Doyle,

I agree about American leaders. Actually, I question the sanity of anyone who takes on an elective war. Doing so represents an all time low in the United States! But you are absolutely correct, it matters not who pushes the button, we'll all pay the price.

Thanks for the (currently) uncommon voices of sanity. How anyone could support this criminal, sneering, corrupt little sycophant of a President will forever bother me. It's not, I fear, an issue of sanity . . . it's an issue of grotesque ignorance.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~