i hate reading this kind of stuff. humanity may never learn.
So far they don’t have the capability to make a bomb, nor do they have a delivery device (ie: missile, bombers) capable of delivering it very far. While I wouldn’t trust President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as far as I could drop kick him, all we can do is wait and see where they go from here. If their research seems to take them closer to building a bomb (which by some estimates, could take years), then the US should get involved.
Israel, on the other hand, I can’t speak for. I imagine they will deal with this much sooner.
16 days and counting….......
It is clear that neither Europe or the UN will do anything to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear state.
It is also clear that the Israelis will never allow Iran to have the ability to develop a nuclear weapon.
Which would be worse…......Israel or the US donig the dirty deed on Iran?
It looks like cooler heads will not prevail, and once again we’ll be snookered by Bush administration propaganda. Bush’s ratings are way, way down and the Republicans are in danger of being trounced in the fall elections. So why not have a nice little war to improve the ratings?
Yeah, it looks like Iran may have managed to enrich maybe a teacup full of uranium. And after all, who goaded them into it? Not us, by declaring them part of that evil axis of evil, of course. So the proper response is to go nuke them, letting the “nucular” genii out of the bottle? Once we’ve broken all of those treaties and agreements in effect since the end of WW II, what’s to stop anyone who wants to from nuking us? Do you really wanna go that route?
MJ—I would really like to agree with you and believe that Iran’s unambiguous threats of nuclear annihilation are part of a GOP conspiracy to boost its approval ratings running up to mid-cycle elections. That would imply that the world is operated rationally according to a plan and that all of parties involved are merely actors. There is insufficient evidence for that belief.
The really dumb thing here is, why would Bush think a war would give him an increased improval rating? It hasn’t worked so far. Perhaps the third time would be a charm?
The dumbest thing about this is that there is, again, no achievable goal. Who are we going to replace the current regime with? It’s not like there is a large secularist or ethnic block in Iran that we could prop up as a government (which would only culminate in a civil war, anyway). If we go in under the guise of bringing them “democracy,” they’ll simply vote for the same fundamentalist Muslim clerics that are already in power (or the next ones down the line, if we kill the current ones).
And what will the rest of the Muslim world do? And what will we do when the new Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran decides to continue the nuclear program? Invade again?
We’d be in a much better position to do something about this had we not wasted our moral authority and money, and overextended our troops, on Bush’s Iraqi adventure.
And the Iranians know it.
All choices are fraught with peril. Therefore, do nothing.
Personally, I’d set loose the special forces to go on a murder rampage of Iranian leaders. And destroy anything which is used for their WMD program.
But I’m not a statesman or a military strategist.
For what it’s worth here is the opinion of one ex-Air Force General.
These guys usually have pretty good insight into what is going on at the planning level within the Pentagon.
“If we go in under the guise of bringing them “democracy,” they’ll simply vote for the same fundamentalist Muslim clerics that are already in power (or the next ones down the line, if we kill the current ones”
Bringing them democracy? But my dears, this nut now in office in Iran was duly elected in a properly conducted democratic election, wasn’t he? Just as Hamas got into power in a democratic election among the Palestinians? It seems that we don’t really want democracy anywhere unless the results are what we want them to be.
Also, take a look at a map. Iran is almost surrounded by nations with nuclear weapons, especially if you consider that Iraq is probably permanently going to be occupied by us, and we certainly have them. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. Israel, prime enemy of Iran, has nuclear weapons up the kazoo. In modern history, Iran has never attacked anybody. Iran was attacked by Iraq, aided by us, after all, and now we keep insisting they are the most dangerous country in the world. Of course they feel threatened. They are threatened.
Read the Hersh article in the New Yorker. It’s pretty stark and taken from material from present and past officials in the administration who are leaking like sieves to get this information out to the public. It seems that the Bush administration thinks, once again, that if we bomb the s**t out of Iran, preferably with “tactical nukes,” the people of Iran will “rise up and throw out their government.” Yeah, that’s realistic, like they’re gonna throw out the government they just elected. Sheesh! And like little lambs being led to yet another slaughter, we still believe this crap!
What’s the difference between the US stopping the Iranian’s builiding nuclear weapons -
the US threatening to use nuclear weapons on Iran…..or any other country the US happens to have disagreements with.
Its the same deal imo.
I don’t hear the US going after less vulnerable opponents..ie. Nth Korea.
I’d like to see the US disarm itself…....
How does that sit with the more conservative posters….wouldn’t hear of it I bet…but its okay to stop other’s.
Why is it the business or right of the US to interfer with another country.
That’s been the whole problem…from the start.
What if the shoe was on the other foot…and another regime was telling American’s how to live.
p.s. if american’s trust the Bush regime..then that’s a sad factor in all this.
I don’t really care if Iran has a democracy any more than I care if Iraq had a democracy. I just don’t want Iran turning into a nuclear superpower. This nation building stuff is for the birds. We got it right in the first gulf war. We try sanctions and diplomacy. If that doesn’t work we take out their nuclear capability. Irael did it to Iraq back in 81.
I would say a nuclear armed Iran is much more dangerous than a nuclear armed North Korea. You can thank Islam for that.
[quote author=“MJ”]It looks like cooler heads will not prevail, and once again we’ll be snookered by Bush administration propaganda. Bush’s ratings are way, way down and the Republicans are in danger of being trounced in the fall elections. So why not have a nice little war to improve the ratings?
Once bitten, twice shy says me, MJ. I do not think that the US will be as stupid or as trusting as we were with Iraq.
Yeah, it looks like Iran may have managed to enrich maybe a teacup full of uranium. And after all, who goaded them into it? Not us, by declaring them part of that evil axis of evil, of course. So the proper response is to go nuke them, letting the “nucular” genii out of the bottle?
And the fundie christians are just licking their chops… praising jesus all the way. Isn’t this supposed to be a key sign of Jesus’ return? Israel gets way laid or do I have that wrong?
See? it’s going exactly as planned with the book of revelations… it says right here….
Conservative Atheist provided this intriguing link to a general’s POV about what to do with Iran from a post Iraq standpoint:
According to the [general] who helped plan the first air war against Saddam in 1991, U.S. aircraft, armed with conventional bunker-buster bombs, would be more than enough to wipe out Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities, and cripple its ability to command and control its military forces.
Why is this a bad idea?
I say economic sanctions first. When that does nothing but get Iran to fart in our general direction, then a coalition needs to be formed with many countries on board. If we can get that formed, we bomb their nuclear facilities.
If we cannot get the coalition support, we do nothing. Why? Because, then, the democracy has spoken and we need to quit running in guns blazing willy nilly doing whatever the hell we want regardless of the democratic process.
I am guessing that a coalition would be relatively easy to form… btw.