A high level meeting was held in Geneva between representatives from Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, but little was accomplished. Today's press reports indicate that the negotiations were terminated when Iran refused to say whether it would suspend its uranium enrichment program. U.S. officials, in particular, fear that Iran's ultimate aim is to build nuclear bombs and that a continuation of its enrichment program will bring it closer to that goal.
As the meeting concluded, Iran was given a deadline of two weeks to respond to the enrichment question. If it continues to delay beyond that point, the U.S. will reportedly press for additional economic and political sanctions.
On the matter of Iraq, the Bush administration added to the perception that the war is winding down, Friday, by agreeing to agree on a "general time horizon" for the withdrawal of American combat troops, subject to improvements in security conditions.
No specific deadline was offered or suggested at this point, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki told the German magazine, Der Spiegel, on Saturday, that he supported Barack Obama's plan for withdrawing U.S. troops over a 16-month period.
Obama, meanwhile, was receiving a military briefing in Afghanistan, accompanied by two potential running mates, Senators Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). His trip will eventually take him to Iraq, Israel, other nations in the Middle East and Europe. At some point he will be joined by all three network news anchors.
Meanwhile, as Iraq appears to wind down, the violence in Afghanistan continues to escalate.
Last week, the Department of Defense released the obituaries of five military personnel killed in Iraq (ages 20 to 37), but only one was classified as a combat death. At the same time, the DOD released the obituaries of 14 military personnel killed in Afghanistan, all from combat operations.
Nine of the fatalities occurred last Sunday when insurgents armed with machine guns, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades launched a vicious attack on a lightly manned U.S. outpost in northeastern Afghanistan.
One of the fallen heroes in that action, the worst single-incident loss of U.S. lives in Afghanistan in three years, was Army Sergeant Israel Garcia, 24, of Long beach, California.
Garcia was remembered by his friends in the Ibarra family with these words which were published in today's L.A. Times:
"Well Israel was a great guy and friend...he was always smiling and full of joy that would make everyone laugh...Israel was a great leader for himself, his family and his friends...he will always be remember(ed) in our minds and will always be in our hearts."
According to the web site www.icasualties.org, U.S. deaths in Iraq now stand at 4,125, including two whose families are being notified today..
Total U.S. deaths in Afghanistan were 477 as of July 12, according to the Pentagon.
Four of this week's fallen heroes in the war zones were killed by roadside bombs.
More discouraging news came out this week concerning the private contractors in Iraq, including one story that impacted on the situation regarding the war's number one killer, the improvised explosive device (IED).
In a CBS News story dated 7/18/08, it was reported that the company that had been given tens of millions of dollars to target IED networks essentially took the money and ran.
The company's conduct was investigated by intelligence officer Major Eric England, according to the report, and he found reasons to question the entire path of the company's involvement.
First of all, the company, called MZM, obtained its contract by bribing Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Cal.) with "a yacht, vehicles, antiques, jewelry, cash and fancy property," all of which were revealed in a subsequent corruption trial.
England told CBS News that it extended far beyond Cunningham, however, and that the award "was based on sneaking a large contract to a company that had given millions of dollars in bribes and hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions to powerful members of Congress,"
Cunningham, however, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, was able to classify the earmark and thus keep it out of the public eye. England, meanwhile, has discovered numerous lapses on the part of MZM, including that it hired only one third of the employees it was supposed to take on.
He was quoted as saying that "the troops wanted to target these networks. But without this critical capability, that was given to unqualified people, they weren't able to."
He agreed that, as a result, soldiers have died unnecessarily.
The recently reported contractor abuses continue. On Friday, the Associated Press said that a former contractor named Lee William Dubois had been arrested at Dulles international Airport and charged with stealing $39.6 million worth of jet and diesel fuel from Camp Liberty in Baghdad and selling it on the black market.
And the misdeeds of KBR, the company that was a subsidiary of Halliburton when it won what has been the largest contract in Iraq, are now reported to be more serious than previously thought.
The issue involves a pattern of faulty electrical work and a consistent tendency on the part of KBR to ignore complaints. As a result, according to the International Herald Tribune on Friday, "at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military's largest dining hall in the country," and "it is impossible to determine the exact number of the resulting deaths and injuries because no single document tallies them up."
This trio of incidents, combined with other similar announcements, as well as the previous revelation that some $10 billion in Iraq funds are unaccounted for, lends considerable credence to the accusation of malfeasance on the part of those charged with managing the military campaign.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 127
They ought to invite the US and UK to put together a team of inspectors and let them tour the facilities. Oh they already did that with the UN, several times.
What an article! I'm sick from reading this.
How and why are all these companies getting away with endangering and indirectly killing our kids over there and how are we going to make it stop?
We have a government here that regulates every darn thing.....why is there no accountablility? $10 billion is missing that they know of.......our soldiers are stuck there dying because of all this.
there is NOTHING at this point that will EVER JUSTIFY THE MESS THIS ADMINISTRATION STARTED...ALL THE "GOOD INTENTIONS" OR "WHAT IFS" OR "WE HAD NO CHOICE" will make the mess we are in right...Senior Citizens, our children and their children have a long stretch of cleaning up and growing pains to deal with..and they will just have to make the best they can of the mess we are in...and Hope to God someone will turn this around...
We need to make our politician's at the local level responsible for their voting records...which by the way is usually published in local papers..We need to understand what they have stood for up to this point....and what they will probably support and vote for in the next sessions...this election is IMPORTANT do they support the public, or private conglomerations.,
But then, when did justification enter the picture?...
That story has been refuted by Iraq -- and you know this, yet you print it as truth. Besides, if Obama and the Democrats had their way we would have left Iraq with a civil war on our hands. The surge worked, we can now talk of an exit strategy.
DER SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the U.S. troops will finally leave Iraq?
MALIKI: As soon as possible as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
So, what are you saying, Don? That Bush called Maliki and pointed out that he had just knocked the wind out of McCain's strong suit and he forced Maliki to try to backpeddle out of the dilemma? Is that what happened?
And I guess you are also saying that as we tabulate the costs of this war up to and beyond $3 trillion, eventually, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost, and the increased influence it has bestowed on Iran, we can seek comfort in repeating the mantra over and over - "the surge worked...the surge worked...the surge worked...the surge worked..." ad infinitum...
Is that what you're suggesting, Don?
Pretty loose with the facts... you always tend to the most extreme negative.
As for repeating the mantra "the surge worked", you're damned straight -- this war has been won based on that surge. The liberals were sure they could happily tally up a lost war, but it's not happening. And I don't understand how democrats are still supporting Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the others who said that the surge would not work, the war was lost, etc. Had they been in charge, we surely would have lost and many more lives would have been lost.
So, spin however you like, David, but in the end this war will have been worth it.
Also, anytime you have government dollars being spent, there is bound to be some percent of corruption... which begs the question, why would anyone want to expand government programs such as universal healthcare?
The bottom line is that the "Surge" was supposed to allow the Iraqi government to get it's act together. But that hasn't happened in any stretch of the imagination. So stating that the surge has worked because we've seen a decrease in violence ignores the original objective.
The bottom line is that the surge did not work and we are still watching our troops die there for nothing.
And you Repubs that are so GD in love with war should be the ones fighting them. I want to see Don H. driving an unarmored Hum-V looking for IED's.
"That story has been refuted by Iraq"
Sorry, but Maliki (and booshie boy now as well) has aligned himself with Obama on this. Looks like you're wrong once again.
""$3 trillion"..."the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost"
Pretty loose with the facts... you always tend to the most extreme negative."
The estimated cost of the republican/bush/mccain failure in Iraq is projected to be $3 trillion before it's finally over. Got better numbers? Let's see your documentation, shall we?
As for the body count, there have been three, and only three scientific studies to examine the number of civilian deaths in Iraq that have been the direct result of our illegal invasion.
The infamous "Lancet reports," which were conducted by John Hopkins University and published in the British medical journal "The Lancet," and another independent study published in Britain, called "The Orb report."
The second Lancet report was a follow-up to the original study, and it confirmed the findings of the first, and updated the body count to be more current. The Orb study was conducted using different methodology (for those who refused to accept the Lancet report, based upon some absurd, mythical belief in failed metholody of that study).
Both studies found a very similar number of deaths, although the ORB study was a tad higher in its conclusion. Both stated that Iraqi civilian fatal casualties was over 1 million.
I would suggest that anyone who discounts these numbers produce their own scientific analysis to counter these two acclaimed studies. Until such time as you are able to do so, accept the results of the ONLY actual scientific studies ever done on the subject.
"and you Repubs that are so GD in love with war should be the ones fighting them"
I will NEVER understand why there is such thing as "college republicans" during times of "war." It simply defies logic, doesn't it?
An especially dumb statement, even coming from you. Do you ever wonder why people find it impossible to take you seriously on anything that you say? You make yourself appear as a blithering idiot when you make these wildly partisan attacks.
"Also, anytime you have government dollars being spent, there is bound to be some percent of corruption"
Especially when republicans are in charge, and especially when functions of governments are privatized. Look no further than the privatized portion of the military, Pentagon procurements, as the gigantic supreme being of all corruption. This is an entity that has ADMITTED to "losing" trillions of dollars. Name ONE known fraud in PUBLICLY monitored funding that even comes CLOSE to that amount of corruption. In fact, you wouldn't come close to that level of corruption of you combined ALL known corruption in publicly monitored funding programs.
What do you think all the missile testing is all about?
Why all the rhetoric about Israel being a bastard state and how it will be just a bad memory soon? Please do not tell me about mistranslations of what Ahmadinejad said either. He came to the US and spoke at Columbia University and had plenty of time and a big audience if he wanted to clear that up.
Then the other day I heard Iran's ambassador to the UN interviewed and asked about these statements ... are they just the ravings of a lone nut president? Apparently Iran, or most of Iran's leadership believes, and I paraphrase, that in WWII some bad things happened in Europe to a lot of people. We are just asking why the Palestinian people have to pay for Germany's crimes?
Surely Ahmadinejad knows about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and if not all he needs to do is to read "Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam" and learn about the leader of the Middle Eastern Muslims and how he allied Islam with the Nazis in WWII and participated wholeheartedly in the holocaust and fascism.
At this point in history the only real fascist states that are left as the Islamo-fascist states that brainwash their people into this kind of blind ignornance, obedience and violence. That this consolidation of power funded by oil and driven by radical Islam is not a threat to the world seems to me to be just wishful thinking.
Now then, let's look at the possibilities. Israel wants to survive. They have done what they can. They have withdrawn from land in order to make peace, and have made peace with Egypt and Jordan. They are fired upon by rockets every day. They are not going to stand to take the risk that one of those rockets on day will be nuclear. So, their only alternative in a world that will not stand up for the innocent will be nuclear weapons in a way with Iran.
So, if we really want to move all fronts of civilization forward in this world, why not try to get Russia, the US, Europe and maybe China to stand up to this radical threat using conventional arms, should diplomacy in the long term prove as useless as it has so far. It is only at that point that Iran will be forced to either capitulate, or be terminated as a radical state threat to the world. Either way chalk one up for the good guys, and let's see the threat from radical Islam fade into history.
And we will never know what that is either.
Indeed.... but that did not fit well into Dave's tale.
"The surge didn't work and not only that, a war will continue to be fought in Iraq for years to come."
"The reduction in violence in Iraq was already happening BEFORE Bush sent in the additional troops known as "The Surge." It was the Sunni's decision to declare Al Qaeda their enemy that started the turn around. In fact, Bush's surge actually delayed the quelling a violence."
You people seriously crack me up. You'll say anything to make it look like we are losing. Sorry, but you're going to have a lot of trouble convincing people that the Iraq war is not winding down and the mission is, dare I say it, accomplished. And Devin, you want to credit the Sunnis and not the buildup of our troops? How about all of the above?
A $3 trillion war to make a small class of Americans rich. It cannot even be described as a Pyrrhic Victory. This whole mess is the biggest catastrophe in American History, and you slapping a victory sticker on it won't change that for a second.
Therefore, the only difference a vote can make is in casting it for pushing forward "Bush's", meaning the far right's, social and domestic agenda, basically big business fascism, or hoping that Obama actually is what he says he is, and that a Liberal agenda cannot go to far in 4-8 years other than to undo what Bush and his endless tax cuts have done so far.
Or, somehow a vote at the convention puts Hillary back in play, in which case we might go back to the 90's ... and have a bit of progress.
What Americans do not seem to get is that we, America, are not going to change our stripes overnight and retire to be the shrinking violets some of your lefties want us to be, so our interests in the world, particularly economic are held hostage by lunatics in the Middle East until we do something. What we do is dependent in them, no us, and it looks like we have no choice, or rather a choice to fight, or just lay down and turn the lights off ... we are gonna fight.
So, all things being equal, where do you want to put our social and domestic agenda? You want to care only for the rich, or do we want to finally join the rest of the first world and start living up to our obligations and responsiblities regarding our own country and people.
That's the way I see it anyway.
That's because we have a president who's a "cut and runner," who appeases nazis while they murder 6 million jews.
"You people seriously crack me up. You'll say anything to make it look like we are losing."
Weren't you ignorant wingnut fools hopping up and down and cheering our "grand victory" back in May of 2003 as well? And, in fact, every time another fraudulent propaganda story was concocted in the "liberal media," to glorify der fuhrer and the grandios majesty of his perfection of foreign policy in Iraq, you fools have immediately stepped up to mock anyone who warned caution, and you STILL haven't learned your lesson? That goes BEYOND foolish, and straight to downright stupid.
Well, I don't want to take all the credit, but I proudly voted for him twice.
Yes, Diana, we just saw the greatest feat of backpedaling since Barnum & Bailey's circus, after Maliki got chewed out by Bush, and his position suddenly became exactly what McCain is proposing, a position that, incidentally, is so vague as to any definition of the circumstances that would justify a withdrawal, that the NY Times refused to publish his op-ed article.
Today's news seems to be suggesting that Obama and Maliki are back on the same page again..... But listen well to what Richard B. had to say above:
"There's more to this than what's in the papers Dave. And we will never know what that is either."
And check out Clark Kent's comments as well, in case you missed them.
Judi, the money involved in politics has gotten so huge at this point that it totally buries any sense of shame that should rightfully overwhelm the Washington establishment.
And great site, Bernard...everyone should check it out...Thanks....and - hell - I'm voting Republican!
Would this view be predicated on the idea that we have an oil shortage here in the US and that arabs are to blame? If so, you are grossly misinformed. There has not been, and still is not, a shortage of oil here, or anywhere else. In point of fact, speculation that Bushco's minions have not cracked down on, though they could, and the BushBuck, that product of bush economic policy, that is worth so much less, and buys so much less gasoline, are the causes of all our problems, not the Arabs. The lunatics sit in the oval office and Wall Street.
Because, the oil industry is a monopoly that has conspired to rape and pillage at will. There is no current oil shortage, either here or elsewhere in the world.
Well then all of you can pay the rest of us what you cost us, and then we'll let you reap all the "benefits" of your wisdom.
We'll just call it even for all the foodstamps and other welfare programs you and your fam have been taking advantage of all these years :)
That said I will now write my comment about your article, Dave. Obviously the way you present these statistics the corruption has infiltrated every segment of our government and our military, as none of these outrageous rip-offs would have been possible without cooperation. The one that really got me, though, after the others had me down and out, was Lee Wlliam Dubois and his $39.6 million theft of diesel and gasoline from Baghdad. The sheer volume of that heist, even over five years, is mind-blowing.
Perhaps you should know something about me. I come from a military family. My father was in the Air Force and my grandfather fought in Vietnam. I have lots of cousins and uncles who are either still serving or are retired. I know military life and it permeates through my family. My entire family knows my point of view and regard me as highly intelligent in my opinions and facts so much so that they look to me to be an intellectual role model for the youth of our family so I can speak for all in my family who serve and have served and soon will be deployed when I tell you to F#CK OFF.
So, you think the responsible thing to do would be for the government to step in and lower the price of oil so everyone can go back to being a mindless consumer, when the threat of war and great shortage looms ahead of us?
I don't see that. I don't like the high price of oil, and like I said there is likely no shortage, per se, but there is the threat of of an interruption of supply - a critiical threat , that shows up in the market specualtion and futures.
i am all for appropriate government regulation, but I maybe what you would like is for the government to pass out tranquilers so everyone can go to sleep.
So, I know I am being a bit sarcastic here ... but what is it that you do condone? Or are you just attacking everything?
You will note there are two figures dated 7/11. One is for July 11, 2003, when the price of crude, per barell, was in the $35 range and one is for July 11, 2008 when it was more than $200 higher.
Guess which is which...
U.S. Weekly Crude Oil Ending Stocks Excluding SPR (Thousand Barrels)
07/11 296,888
07/11 278,594
I know that whatever kind of legislation the govt can pass will just result in the oil companies getting their profits through other manipulations through their means and what I plan to do is vote for progressives who will implement responsible foreign policy and not try to be Cowboys in the Wild, Wild East.
The fact is that the current amount of the "stock" is higher than any of the 52 weekly figures for 2003.
Figures for the world's supply and demand for oil also reveal the lack of any problem in the availability, as spelled out in the article posted here on Gather entitled "the contrarian - What Oil Crisis?" and dated 6/13/08.
That is not to say that there won't be an increasing demand down the road, particularly if China gets some 20 million cars on the road as projected, and India continues to crank up its economy as well.
But the rising prices are not justified by current conditions and therefore represent in large part speculative investing in the commodity markets. Some notable experts have said that if you were to take the speculative element out of the picture the price of crude would be in the range of $50 - $70 per barrel.
It might be next to impossible to do that, however. If restrictions are imposed in this country, speculators will go elsewhere. And don't forget, big oil loves the dilemma and is paying Congress big bucks to ignore it or do little about it.
That guy will spend the rest of his days in jail. The thing that blows my mind is the unaccounted $10 billion. How do you lose $10 billion?
Francis -- my dad served as a pilot in Navy from 1960-68, my older brother on a nuke sub for 6 years, and my younger brother was Special Forces. As well, I have relatives who died in WWII and many others who served. You sure don't sound like military to me.... the ones I talk to tend to vote Republican.
That's rich...LOL. Sucker born every minute.
And that push is what everyone wants and it's been going on for a long time.... it just hasn't delivered on the goods yet. I think solar power is going to be the next big thing. Nano Solar just came out with very inexpensive panels that don't use silicon, and there is some county in Hawaii that legislated new building codes such that all hot water heaters must be solar powered on new homes. I've been looking to go solar for years, but it's just not affordable yet. We may have finally got the price issue solved. We shall see... Nano has some very big names on their investor page.
Excellent and interesting article!
To use them aggressively, Iran would have to be nuts. We could turn them into glass without denting our supply and so could China and Russia.
A big part of the problem here is that we didn't raise any complaint when Israel started developing nukes. No sanctions, no bad press, no nothing. Now here is the one non Muslim nation in the area with nukes and all the Muslim nations without. It tends to make us look like we are talking out of both sides of our mouth in condemning them for that desire.
The money is a huge problem. Why aren't these Congress types being charged for felonies accepting bribes? Why is Congress always allowed to skate?
Can you tell me the price of a barrel of oil in 3 months? I'd really like to make some money of your prophetic powers.
I already told you, the BushBuck, and speculation.
"There is no oil shortage per se, there is plenty of oil, but if it is not offered to you personally at a reasonable price who cares. You are just bringing up who has their hand on the faucet"
And you were trying to blame the whole thing on Arabs, falsely. That I care about considering I know your fight to the death agenda.
" "- and then you start fantasizing about there. Fine, think what you want, but it is a non-sequitor to my post so don't drag me into a poiintless argument with you.""
Duh, maybe I just wanted to point out that you were using it as a way to justify your "kill all the islamofascists" spiel.......mistakenly. I don't think it is I that's doing the fantasizing, when you are using patently false arguments that you seem to know are false, to forward your crusades agenda. I'm sorry, but I think it was anything but pointless, and I'm not dragging you anywhere, just pointing out the fallacy in your statement, which I think I have a right to do, if you have the right to put it out there in the first place.
And the "Arabs" ... let's not forget Iran ... are to blame in part, they have held production steady with rising demand thus pushing the price up.
STOP. STOP. Um, I'm pretty sure there is more than one oil company, so that statement is false. It follows, the rest of your statement that follows is false.
What you state is absolutely true. However, with our lax attitude toward Israeli nukes, it makes us look like we are actually speaking out of both sides of our mouth in condemning and sanctioning anyone else in the area who tries to develop them.
Particularly when Israel has a committed United States to give them the mantle of protection that the other countries lack. From a political standpoint, that does hinder our effectiveness in dealing with other Muslim nations in the area, in any manner other than brute force. And brute force hurts us in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The oil companies constitute a monopoly without a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there are about five of them who rule the oil world and market. It isn't called competition at that stage, it is close but pronounced collusion! Don't doubt it for a minute.
Sorry, but you're dead wrong, yet again. Although there are a tiny handful of brand names still being marketed, they have operated as one entity for years now, ever since conspiring in the 80's to dramatically reduce refinery capacity as a means to artificially jack up gasoline prices.
The oil industry, as with every other industry under disaster capitalism, has become a core enemy of democracy and humans in general, as they all work feverishly to enslave us even further.
The only reason Israel's star isn't the 51st on our flag is because it's the wrong shape.
Sure it wants the bomb. It wants to be the preeminent regional power, and thanks to our Iraq adventure, it has its chance. If it is possible to look at these questions from Iran's point of view (heresy!), it makes perfect sense. America doesn't invade countries with nuclear weapons; Israel has nuclear weapons and hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty (ironically, Iran did, for what that's worth), plus it has bombed and invaded its neighbors in the past few years. It's threatening to do the same now, and we aren't far behind. All good reasons from Iran's standpoint to have a nuke and the means to deliver a warhead. We have good reason to mistrust the Iranians, and if I were an Israeli I'd be in crisis mode over this, frankly, but, all the rhetorical blather notwithstanding, Iran isn't being "lunatic." We need to keep on truckin': sanctions, ratcheting up pressure, and talking. But if we can't analyze the situation intelligently it will be harder for us to come up with meaningful strategies. Ok, now I'll sit back and wait for the tantrums to begin.
That's how I was raised and that's how my family was until the current presidential administration made all the dishonesty and corruption impossible to ignore by any rational person.
Missile technology is an entirely different thing from nuclear weapons technology. You test missiles by firing them and seeing where they go. You test nukes by detonating them.
There are vitial differences between the Islamic states and Israel.
One who puts things excellently and very civilly on this subject is Jacob S.
I think is his name. Very informative and brilliant writer and historian.
Israel has to have nukes of they would be kaput.
Israel has never declared any intention to destroy any states or to
take over any land.
Israel is concernee about survival and security.
Iran has no beef with Israel. Iran is butting in to grandstand for
the Islamic fundamentalist murdering terrorists.
Israel strikes into Palestine, and Syria and where it needs to,
aren't we all glad they took out the Iraqi reactor so that Iraq
did not have WMD?
Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, they
all have traces back to Hadl Amin Al-Husseini the honorary and
best buddy Islamic leader of Palestine Nazi friend of Hitler who
wanted to kill as many Jews as possible and ally with Hitler in
WWII. Who started the Muslim Brotherhood, and mentored
Yasir Arafat in terrorism. Who tried to poison Tel Aviv's
water supply in the 1920s ... way before there was a state of
Israel.
The radical Muslims seek to terrorize and murder random
citizens in Israel and destroy the country, and refuse to
negotiate.
I'm sure eventually even Obama will not be able to get
that reality through the solid thick skulls of the far left
who think Israel is evil incarnate.
Who is democratic? Who is capitalistic. Who has to create
something for their economy,not just suck sludge from
the groundf and collect money?
Nukes are nothing without a delivery system.
The first calls for the United States to assert its global dominance and the second calls for the U.S. to meet threats BEFORE they become dire. In the case of Iraq, in order to justify a preemptive invasion as called for in that statement, the administration had to invent the threat.
In the case of Iran, the water is also muddy. Is there a threat because Iran wants to do what it has a legal right to do, as was pointed out above? Is there even a threat if Iran did get the bomb, given the number of countries already in the nuclear club?
Personally, I wouldn't be happy to see another nation so armed, but I wouldn't see it as a threat. Iran would be well aware that it would be annihilated if it used it against Israel, as someone also pointed out above. This whole crisis is based on overblown histerics, in my view.
I think, and hope, that the future emphasis should be on reducing the nuclear armaments of all countries in the club, with a final goal of eliminating them altogether, as proposed by Senator Obama.
Since "the bomb" is the great equalizer between nations (e.g. much smaller Pakistan has been in a standoff against much bigger India since they both became nuclear), the interests of the U.S. would be enhanced by eliminating the nuclear threat entirely. Without nukes, the superiority of our military might would be greater than it is today.
Of course, the elimination of all nukes would be a daunting task requiring strong international agreements and controls and the smallest nuclear nations might be the most difficult to convince. That shouldn't mean it's not worth trying, however.
I concur with what you are saying except that I don't believe Israel "has to have" nukes because the United States has plenty and we'll use them if necessary to protect Israel. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying but it does make for an inconsistency in US policy that will ten to cause both fear and hatred in other Mideast countries.
I fully support Israel, the US has a long standing commitment to support them and protect that tiny nation. I support that policy. Just explaining how Israel's nukes may contribute to part of the problem. I agree that that is not the major factor and that they have sworn to wipe out the Jews. That is totally unacceptable. Anawar Sadat was able to come to terms with the Israelis existence which he had sworn to destroy. If he could, others can who who sincerely want peace. Frankly, I'd have felt safer with Saddam having nukes than the president of Iran. Saddam wanted to live, the other doesn't care!
Those who do not want peace, like the current president of Iran, are frankly, nuts on this issue! It does not make sense. The Iran citizens do not want a nuclear war or any other kind of war. Frankly, a nuclear war in the Mideast could quickly move beyond that to the world and the end of civilization as we know it. No sane leader wants nuclear war! That is the reason no nuclear equipped nation has ever been invaded.
Some of the Arab states will eventually get nuclear capability, it is only a matter of time. Packston has them now, along with an unstable government. Problems waiting to happen. The best we can hope for is that the leaders of any nation acquiring nukes is sane by the time they are operational.
> United States has plenty and we'll use them if necessary
> to protect Israel.
What total folly. The US protect Israel. Could be, but we do
not have a great track record of protecting anyone James, and
if Iwas Israel or anyone else I would not rely on the US,
particularly with the strong ignorant streak of the far left who
seem to want to nuke Israel themselves based on their own
ignorance.
If you really want to get a historic perspective of what has
driven this whole thing from the early 1900's until today,
one key focus is the Grand Mufti Of Jerusalem. I suggest
reading the brand new book entitled "Icon Of Evil: Hitler's
Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam".
People talk about this and have no idea what has happened
in history and they are swayed by talk of defense by Iran or
the Palestinians who want to live in peace.
Leaning on he history of what has and has not happened
before in history maye sound fine from the comfort of an
overstuffed chair in an ivory tower but as governments
respoonsible for the safety of millions of people, and the
future of the planet one should not base an argument on
that.
You talk about suicide of a country, look at what both German
and Japan went through in WWII and tell it cannot happen.