Leesburg, Va. — The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.
He said Iran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."
If Iran continues on its current course, Cheney said the U.S. and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." The vice president made no specific reference to military action.
"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.
Cheney's words seemed to only escalate the U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III."
Cheney said the ultimate goal of the Iranian leadership is to establish itself as the hegemonic force in the Middle East and undermine a free Shiite-majority Iraq as a rival for influence in the Muslim world.
Iran's government seeks "to keep Iraq in a state of weakness to ensure Baghdad does not pose a threat to Tehran," Cheney said.
While he was critical of that government and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, he offered praise and words of solidarity to the Iranian people. Iran "is a place of unlimited potential ... and it has the right to be free of tyranny," Cheney said.
Cheney accused of Iran of having a direct role in the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and said the government has "solidified its grip on the country" since coming to power in 1979.
The U.S. and some allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and have demanded it halt uranium enrichment, an important step in the production of atomic weapons. Oil-rich Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity.
At a news conference Wednesday, Bush suggested that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, it could lead to a new world war.
"I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said.
Bush's spokeswoman later said the president was not making any war plans but rather "a rhetorical point."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Kropotkin (anonymous) says…
The foreign policy of Bush and Cheney can best be described as "deranged."
The current issue of Esquire has a splendid article demonstrating just that. They absolutely will not stand for being denied the "opportunity" to expand the war in the Middle East, no matter how much Iran actually has sought to and succeeded at helping Bush's struggle with Afghanistan.
This insiders' look is worth a read, sooner than later.
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/ira...
"The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know"
Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Good.... very good.... But you are not a Jedi yet.
Dundun dun dundun dundun duuuuunn.
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
"Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office........a nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and a need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability--Saudi Arabia, Egypt, potentially others."
George Bush? No. Republican? No.
John Edwards said this so this isn't just a "conservative" issue is it?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
All the nuclear experts who look at this say the Iran is nowhere near obtaining a nuclear weapon. This has really nothing to do with Iran, but it does indicate quite clearly that there is no excuse too flimsy for the neocon warmongers to plunge the entire world into the economic collapse that could easily result from an attack on Iran. Just as the flow of oil from Iraq has slowed to a trickle post invasion and occupation, such an attack would almost certainly lead to a drastically reduced flow of oil from the entire Persian Gulf region, destablize nearly every country in that region, and likely many other countries outside the region who depend on that flow of oil.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Iraq did support the terrorist who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, "
Completely and utterly false. But it leaves no mystery why you'll swallow anything Cheney spits out.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
b3 is still living a dream - FYI - Saddam and Osama were enemies. Do you really still believe the crap this administration said years ago? They stopped trying to sell this in 2003 - where have you been?
Iran with a Nuke is a very bad thing, almost as dangerous as Cheney practicing foreign policy.
yankeelady (anonymous) says…
Iran with nukes IS a bad thing. But going in like the Lone Ranger isn't exactly a great idea either. Thanks to the arrogance of this administration we probably wouldn't have a whole lot of luck attracting allies. Especially considering that we always have to be Supreme commanders, ruler of the universe, etc. Jedi indeed--more like the dark side he is.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Well, DotsLInes, the Martians might invade us, too, but I don't support an invasion of Mars, either.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
You aren't protecting me. You're supporting a$$holes behaving like a$$holes who will harm national and world security and the world economy just to pump up their already pitifully over-inflated egos.
Didn't you learn anything when they lied to you about Iraq (and pretty much everything else?)
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
A selection (not nearly the full list) of the lies told by the administration about Iraq
1) Iraq has Nuclear (or nukulur in the administrations parlance) weapons program and is buying uranium from nigeria
2) Iraq has mobile chemical weapons labs
3) Iraq has several million tonz of anthrax, and many underground chemical weapons labs
4) Iraq is helping Osama
5) Iraqi people will welcome us a liberators and will embrace democracy
6) Mission accomplished
acg (anonymous) says…
"Frankly, bozo, I could have cared less whether there were WMD in Iraq before the invasion or whether they were the ones responsible for 9/11. That's just inconceivable to morons like you, isn't it, bozo? That people could actually have the facts and understand what was going on and still don't agree with you?"--DotsLines
roflmao! Spoken like a true, damned fine 'Merican! Ugh, I shudder at the thought that there are actually lemmings out there that are this stupid, short sighted and naive.
srj (anonymous) says…
Very tough. Why should other countries have WMD in the Middle East. I think the only reason they are making WMD is because the fear the US will invade. I think Libya has the right idea. They got rid of them because if would be suicide for them to use them, and the US is giving them more and more aid.
bugmenot (anonymous) says…
Why was it okay for North Korea to have nukes?
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Reasons why a Nuclear Iran is Bad, but not quite as bad as some people think:
1. Just because they have nukes does not mean that they have the ability to shoot them at the U.S. From all the way over there. I think that we can't nuke Australia from the US ourselves. We would need ships to do that.
2. We have methods of interception of nuclear warheads in flight. From the Star Wars system (which many say will not work) to actually sending planes out to shoot them down. And it is quite possible to down them without scattering radioactive substances across a thousand square miles.
3. They would only be able to make a few. So even if they did strike U.S. land, we would lose like N.Y.. Then we would fire 15 of ours and produce a gigantic crater where Iran now is. And no matter how much places like China and the like may consider them friends, they would never risk a full scale nuclear war when the first launch came from Iran.
Bad:
1. Iran is ran by a bunch of psychos. It would not be above many of them to nuke their neighbors. The Mid-East has been a world-wide powder keg since the beginning of the modern era. There would be worldwide ramifications of them even possessing nuclear missiles or bombs.
2. Other Middle East Countries have nukes too. This includes Israel. We gave them nukes. Why? Because we are idiots. Retaliation could cause enough to be set off that we would have radioactive fallout reaching around the world, causing cancer and leukemia and other such diseases brought on by lower levels of radiation poisoning.
3. Even with all the assurances, we could still end up in a war with places like China. And with a combination of trade embargo's and the fact that China has 1 billion people, we would probably be reduced to a mere fraction of the USA we know now.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
SRJ - I totally agree - The Iraq war has put the middle east on notice - get WMD or be invaded by america - or in Libya's case - extort $$ from USA to stop WMD programs.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Possession - where did all the WMD's go then? Did Saddam just give them to his good friends in Iran? (thats a joke by the way - Saddam hated Iran almost as much as he hated Osama).
Do you believe that the mission was accomplished?
acg (anonymous) says…
DotsLines, regardless of who lied to whom when this war began, the truth of the matter is that lies were told. A logical person says "wow, I didn't have all of the information when I made my initial decision. Now that I do have the necessary information, I will admit that I was mistaken in my original assumption and think we should do what whatever it takes to rectify this problem." An idiot, like you says "I don't care if they have WMD's or if they were involved with 911 dammit I just wanna shoot somebody and I wanna shoot 'em now!" This was Bush's reaction, this is your reaction, as stated above by yourself (should I requote you?) that makes you as dumb as he is, if that were even possible. So, you can call yourself a grown-up all you like, but I, and everyone else will just call you typical lazy, American sheeple.
merrill (anonymous) says…
This is the same approach Bush/Cheney put forth to attack Iraq which was found to be a lie. Recently I read a report that Iran is nowhere near developing a nuclear weapon. The art is quite complex so the report stated and requires many many years with no guarantee of success. Iran has large supplies of oil and natural gas for which western oriented oil companies would love to control.
How many family members is anyone prepared to donate to another Bush/Cheney lie?
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
~~What would a Hiroshima sized warhead hidden in a Hanjin shipping container in Texas City, TX do to the U.S. economy?~~
It would destroy about a third of the city. The Hiroshima warhead was not near as big as what we know as nuclear warheads today.
You are also talking about Korea, not Iran. Big difference there. Much bigger than you might think.
Also. Who the heck would want to blow up Texas City? I would not say it is on the top 50 targets.
badger (anonymous) says…
Ragingbear, within 50 miles of Texas City TX you'll find a substantial portion of the US's petroleum and petrochemical industrial plants centered. It's actually pretty high in the list of targets, because if Texas City or Chocolate Bayou, LA were shut down, production in this country would grind to a halt.
Oh, and the Gulf fishing industry would collapse due to contaminated waters when the phosgene tanks ruptured.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Yeah. Make sure to panic. You also got to make sure to wrap your house in plastic wrap and in order to survive a nuclear blast, you just duck and cover.
RedwoodCoast (anonymous) says…
Hi, this is Dick Cheney speaking. Since Karl is gone, I have some things to say. Don't forget when you're out there mowing your lawns, trying to help out our coal-mining buddies by getting power plants built, getting drunk and not shooting your friends in the face while hunting, that the terrorists are always plotting and planning ways to terrorize you and your friends and family. We can't let Iran get nuclear weapons because then they have REAL oil leverage and could bomb someone. We need to emphasize that their ambition has nothing to do with what we're doing and everything to do with terrorism. Don't forget about the terrorist threat. And you people on web forums talking about this, try to spin any legitimate argument against our administration by invoking disharmony in the Dems' agenda. Basically, keep the heat off of us. Divert the real issue, which is the fact that we are doing quite well at maintaining our deceptive behaviors, even though we've almost been nailed so many times. I think we're invincible. Really I do. Oh, and furthermore, to stifle dissent, we should associate the worst-case scenarios with the Dems' proposed strategies. We must maintain the fear of the terrorist threat. It keeps the focus off of the real issues, as do contentious social issues. Talk about those as much as possible. They have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or anything else of immediate consequence but it keeps people distracted pretty well. Anyway, I need to get back to my office and finish my shredding pile.
RedwoodCoast (anonymous) says…
And don't forget about the terrorist threat.
Bubbles (anonymous) says…
Thank God we have leadership with a set of balls.
I am sick and tired of the malcontent wussies of this country that continually defend the terrorists.
Redwood, you should put sock puppets on your hands and stand in front of the library. You might make a few bucks with your Dick C show.
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
Even a rainy Monday is wonderful when illogicbound0bore is getting owned by posessionannex!!! Keep up the facts posession, logicbound has never been able to argue with those. I can't believe illogicbound questions whether or not there is a criminal element in the Iranian government? WTF? Try to live up to your 3rd grade education log!
EXks (anonymous) says…
Thank God we have leadership with a set of balls.
Babbles
-------------------
Leadership? Balls? Oh, is this why Dick and "W" NEVER served?? Why both dodged the draft?? Why 'W' spent a couple of hours in the champaign unit of the national guard, took an early exit to help with daddy's campaign. Oh yeah, they have balls alright, about the size of marbles....LOL.
EXks (anonymous) says…
Now Iran....if you want someone to do a man's job of taking care of nutcase Iran, let the Israeli IAF do it. They have the know how and guts.
Let Thelma and Louise (Dick and W) finish the mess they started in Iraq.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Posession - that video is from 1992 - are you still living in the 90's? If so, buy as much 99 cent gas as you can, buy Nasdaq stocks, refinance your home, and enjoy a budget surplus. Remind me again, who was president then?
badger (anonymous) says…
Ragingbear said:
"Yeah. Make sure to panic. You also got to make sure to wrap your house in plastic wrap and in order to survive a nuclear blast, you just duck and cover."
Threat assessment is not the same as panic or paranoia, and you'd be well served to learn the difference. Texas City and the Port of LA are the sorts of targets that do merit protection because they are vulnerable points, points at which security is difficult to maintain and an incident could cripple us economically.
You made the point that you don't seem to think we should worry about a nuclear threat in Iran because they can't hit us with a missile. You were asked to consider alternate delivery of the weapon to an industrial target. You blew off what you perceived as an attack on an unimportant city, because you're ignorant of industry in the US. I corrected you as to the importance of your 'useless' target, and your response was to label me as panicked. Fine debating tactic there.
Terrorists could kill ten thousand people in one shot or blow a plane out of the air once a year for the next decade and not do half the damage to our economy that a concerted strike on Texas City, Chocolate Bayou, or the ports in LA or New Jersey could do. You shut down the port of LA, and a week later every auto plant in the country shuts down. Within two weeks, every microchip manufacturer and computer company roll production to a halt. It will take at least that long to get an alternate port and transport worked out. You shut down petrochemical production, and again you've got a couple of weeks before millions of people have no work to do and companies start going under - and there's no way to get those components from another source. It's called lean manufacturing, and it means 'no backstock supply inventory'. Your supply chain, a carefully orchestrated plan dependent on a lot of factors coming together, gets cut and you're dead in the water within a week or so. It's how American industry works.
Add to that the environmental threat that a strike at a chemical plant presents, and you're pretty much looking at the mother of all worst case scenarios.
Panicked? Paranoid? Hardly. I'm not afraid that there are nukes lurking in every shipping container floating in the Gulf; I don't lie awake at night thinking about what I'll do if the Dow or Amoco plants get bombed. But neither do I dismiss the fact that because we are a capitalist society the best way to hurt us is to shut down our economy, or the fact that we use ocean transport and locate a lot of industry on our coasts. Both of those present vulnerabilities to be considered when thinking about national security. Frankly, our airplanes are over-protected and our ports under-protected if you ask me. But at least they're not being managed by people from Dubai.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Cheney: 'We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon'
Bush: 'We will not allow Iran to have a nukuler weapon'
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Hey boys and girls! It's only 5 more days until Yak Shaving Day! So decorate your house with disposable diapers, and make sure to stuff dad's old boots with cole slaw!
mick (anonymous) says…
The White House considers Iran part of some mythical "axis of evil." When 28,000 were polled worldwide it was N. Korea, Israel and the U.S. in that order.
EXks (anonymous) says…
Thanks Ragin, I forgot about Yak Shaving Day!
Let's see...Walmart Shopping list
1. disposable diapers
2. shaving foam
3. razors
4. cole slaw
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Yak Shaving Day?
I'm uninitiated!
Does it require lederhosen?
Will cloth diapers do?
Martin_D_15 (anonymous) says…
I would LOVE to fight in a war with Israel as an ally! We would kick some major butt!
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
"regardless of *why* we're there, we have a responsibility to leave the country in a better position than they are now."
So basically we stepped in it & now we gotta clean the shoe? But still wouldn't the intelligent person try to figure out how not to step in sh*t next time?
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
"Of course, armchair humanitarians who only think people are worth saving if it's their own sorry a$$ think that wasn't a good enough reason. Who cares how many mass graves Saddam was filling in the desert, or which of his neighbors he invades next?"
So true, thank God for Saints like Don Rumsfeld & the GOP.
"Despite the fact that Iraq had been the aggressor in this war and that Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons, the first to launch air attacks on cities, and the initiator of the tanker war, the United States tilted toward Iraq. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of terrorist states in 1982, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad as Reagan's envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and 1984 to discuss economic cooperation, re-established diplomatic relations in November 1984, made available extensive loans and subsidies, provided intelligence information, encouraged its allies to arm Iraq, and engaged in military actions in the Persian Gulf against Iran. The United States also provided dual-use equipment that it knew Iraq was using for military purposes. (Joyce Battle, ed., "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984," National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, Feb. 25, 2003, www.gwu.edu/ ~nsarchiv/nsaebb/nsaebb82/.)] "
Bubbles (anonymous) says…
thussy,
"they", the terrorists, do not have a friggin clue what is "good" for them.
It is friggin hilarious to watch Liberals defend bad behavior. God love them for trying?
denak (anonymous) says…
The real power in Iran does not lie with the Ayatollah or Ahmedinejad,the power lies with the Mullahs. Unfortunately for them, the majority (50.3%) of people in Iran is under the age of 30. The Mullahs are in a situation where the crackdown, ease up, crackdown,ease up and over and over again. The younger population poses a huge threat to the Mullahs power as well as the number one reason as to why we shouldn't go to war with them. The younger generation do not remember the Shah and they do not remember the Revolution. What they do know is that this goverment is oppressive and that inflastion is sky high as well as unemployement. This is a population that is eager for change. And they are willing to stick their necks out for that. There has been an increase in women's groups, students and ethnic groups challenging the government.
Add this all ready existing population with the huge population boom that is underway (10 million people since 1996) and the Mullahs don't have a chance of keeping power for long. They are simply going to die out.
So, the U.S. can either help these groups challenge the government, or allow the grass roots efforts to take hold.
The worst thing would be for the U.S. to expand the war into Iran. Right now, most young Iranians, have a positive view of the U.S. or at least certain aspects of Western life. Combined that with the older generation, who are sick of the goverment, and that is quite a bit of goodwill.
If we were to invade, we would blow that goodwill.
Right now, out of 70 million people, 35 million are open to a more democratic, westernized population. Invade that country, and it becomes 70 million people who hate the U.S.
Lastly, I would like to know just who is developing this nuclear capability considering that Iran is experiencing a huge brain drain. Those in the middle or upper class that are profession are leaving Iran in droves. I doubt they have the capability to have a nuclear weapon.
Dena
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Actually Dots, the intelligent person would probably avoid stepping in it in the first place.
Furthermore cleaning the shoe only cures the symptom & not the problem. You'll have clean shoes but still just as likely to step in it all over again, unless of course you figure out how to avoid it.
"instead of throwing away the shoes and leaving __it laying around on their doorstep."
Where did I ever propose this? Please stick to what I said & not what you think I said.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Yak Shaving Day...
And get busy practicing your underarm noises!
,:-D
I should've learned by now that ALL posts now are Internet links, regardless of font hue.
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
This thread is fun. Full of references to events in Iraq which occurred prior to 1992.
What we should really do is outline the gross human rights violations committed by the government based in Moscow. Then we should invade Russia. Equally relevant, after all.
How many would be dying in Iraq if the US hadn't invaded? Well, right now they are dying in war-related incidents at a rate of well over 10,000 a year. And that's just civilians, not those identified as combatants. Or American.
I'm gonna go with "less." I'm gonna be right, too. How many are dying in Iran right now because of this ultra-dangerous regime? How many will be dying after a US invasion? Gonna go with option one being "less" again.
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Dots says. . .
"And before you come back with the tired whine about "Well why didn't they do anything about this one or that one," save it - we did something about this one. It was justified, neccessary, and past time to do it."
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Bubbles,
"they", the terrorists, do not have a friggin clue what is "good" for them."
Are you refering to terrorists like the 9/11 highjackers or terrorists like Timothy Mcveigh or Eric Rudolph? "Terrorist" is a pretty vague term to use when discussing a complex issue like Iraq or do you think everyone in the Middle East is a terrorist?
"You", Bubbles the xenophobe, do not have a friggin clue.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
If that happens, you'd better be prepared to park every car you own, indefinitely, Marion.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
If you want to use shi*t analogies, here's a more accurate one.
If one (BushCo, maybe?) were to decide to dive headlong into a sewage treatment pond, and swim to the very middle, the only way out is to swim back through the same sh*tpool. That's an unpleasant, but necessary fix to the ill-advised dive into a sh*tpool. But believe it or not, there are some who believe instead that all will be made whole and perfect by indefinitely treading sh*t, for no clear or good purpose. Very curious.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Oh man! I can't believe I missed a day of war mongering with Iran! This is what I get for getting work done. I'm so upset, can someone give me the highlights?.... there is no way I can read all of this BS...
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Dots,
"Oh, sorry, I thought we were using an analogy for the war in Iraq."
No, my analogy was for your crappy argument. If you don't regard the reasons for being there then you will not learn how to avoid them in the future.
You attempt to shift the debate from the reasons we went to war to some moral responsibility to the Iraqi's, yet your self righteousness is gone when confronted with the fact that the US enabled & even helped Saddam be the despot you claim needed deposing. Where is your moral conscience about that? Certainly you aren't an "armchair humanitarian who only thinks people are worth saving if it's their own sorry a$$"?
The fallacy of your argument is this, "we have a responsibility to leave the country in a better position than they are now." Which begs the question why? Which you answer by essentially saying because we are there. But the responsibility to leave the country in a better position does not logically follow from simply being there. What your argument says (but you do not) is that us being there has resulted in the country not being in a better position otherwise why do we have a moral responsibility?
To sum up, the war is justified because Sadam was bad, we had to invade & remove him but removing him has resulted in a situation in which we must stay to make things better? According to you simply removing Sadam should have improved the situation.
Keep scraping there's still some on your soles.
riverdrifter (anonymous) says…
"1. Just because they have nukes does not mean that they have the ability to shoot them at the U.S. I think that we can't nuke Australia from the US ourselves. We would need ships to do that."
I got home late and I don't see that anybody called out Bear over this one. True enough, the devil is in the details for them (delivery). WE, however, can kill any civilization we want from any place on earth in a few minutes. We have 14 (at last count?) Trident subs and boy-howdy are they loaded -for bear, with cruise missiles. They are huge, very quiet and very, very fast. Tridents call at Australia regularly -if it suits them. They do have this strange habit of disappearing for months at a time.
kchuskerfan (anonymous) says…
We have bungled the region since end of WWII. You may recall Carter railing on the Shah and his "Death Squads"., then we flipped and said we'd support the Shah to the last once he learned that the Iyatollah's and Mullah's would not thank us, but rather, turn on us. Alas, too late. W. Made the same mistake in Iraq. We also attempted to overthrow Saddam in a poor version of the "bay of pigs" disaster by George Sr arming the Kurds to overthrow him. This alarmed the Turks, who do not want a Kurdish state, nor did they want the Kurds armed. On cloudy days, the Turks have been bombing the Kurds ever since we established the Iraqi "no fly zone" in the north. We've looked the other way. The Kurds had sided with Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Their punishment was the gassing of tens of thousands with the WMD that we all are now trying to act as though were never there. I guess that gassing is as "mystical" as the concentration camps Xyclon B. Then add the nutball in Iran now saying the gassing of Jews were a zionist lie and swore to eradicate Israel. Please note that Iranians were on the side of the Germans in WWII. The Shah had patterned his death squads after the SS and this guy's rhetoric should scare everyone. The US troops are there to attempt to create a democracy in the country that was the least of the evils and we had thought would be most likely to respond positively to our "intervention". Saddam was not liked, he was feared by other countries. He'd just kicked Iran's tail. No one minded us overthrowing Saddam. Now they see opportunity to exploit the situation.
The US is not reliant on gulf oil. We get about 6% from there. The French and German's get over 30% from there, hence their circumventing of the original sanctions. We are there with troops on the ground because it is in our interest to do so. There is little complaining as we are also securing European interests. If we leave now, We would not be able to get back in.
Saddam would've swallowed Kuwait, uae, oman and all others as Iraq needed the sea ports, but he was not a threat to us. He was a threat to the stability in the region. We set him up, and used it as an excuse to get in there. It may not be popular, but neither was entering WWII. Keep looking the other way, keep practicing "peace in our time". We've seen where that got us before. You also might actually educate yourself on the issue's as this issue is NOT W's, or George Sr's. We've screwed this up for 40+ years, and now, we're out of time. This generation of Muslim's has reason's for feeling betrayed and anxious over the US actions. For them to have the bomb? Give you a hint, what would they have done if they had it 40 years ago? Bombed Israel. What has really changed in that time? They are 40 years closer and only 10 years away.
Bubbles (anonymous) says…
A terrorist is a terrorist thussy.
Wake up. While you admire the fact that you are electronically published. True patriots are kicking terrorist arse. Is your babbling about the social nuances leading to war keeping your idle hands occupied? If so, I guess its better than having you stop traffic marching in protest.
acg (anonymous) says…
Save your breath, dear. Arguing with dotslines is like peeing up a rope. She (is it a she? her whiny disposition makes me believe she's a she) is dumber than drain hair and has no idea what she's talking about.
shockchalk (anonymous) says…
Better yet, hold your breath.........dotslines post is right on the mark.
I see illogicbound0snore still hasn't returned after being put in his place by possesionannex and a few others. Oh those pesky facts, always destroying his arguments. Of course, he thinks Iran has no criminal element and they just want nukes to make power??? Right. Maybe he should lay off of those drugs he thinks should be legalized.........they're damaging his brain to the point of ignorance!!!
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
Marion, what you are suggesting is precisely the course of action which worked successfully against Iraq from 1991 to 2005.
Unfortunately, the current administration considered that course of action flawed, and decided a more approproate course of action was a full scale engagement.
The course of action you suggest would only be possible, it appears, under a Democratic administration. Of course, then the fascist posters on this board would howl about "Wag The Dog" or some nonsense.
badger (anonymous) says…
I love how Ragingbear shoots off his mouth about stuff he doesn't understand ("We shouldn't worry about them because we're out of missile range!") and then when he can't back up those assertions (because, you know, they're simplistic and puerile and Just Plain Wrong) or his assertions of paranoia, he flees like a scalded dog, with his tail planted firmly between his legs.
Nice work, kiddo. It's so cute when you try to play with the grownups, but I guess you'll have to keep sitting at the kids' table a little while longer.
(I'm sure we'll see some puffy hysterical reasoning about how we're just illogical and he can't be bothered to continue the argument if we keep insisting on using facts and reason against him. Here's a tip, kid: Back your point, admit you're wrong, or agree to disagree)
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Whooooahhhh there. I still have figured out what the level of BS is here in this thread. But please don't tell me we have idiots out there claiming that Iran is going to be capable of directly nuking the United States. Oh my how public education has failed us.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
posessionannex (Anonymous) says:
"Sooooo, you're saying it's OK for Iran to have a nuke?"
The question is not as simple as that. You don't simply issue an ultimatum and expect others to follow suite immediately. We have to be fair and not hold double standards.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
You posters who think that because the US has nukes that's it's ok for any country to have them are delusional.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"Mkh, does a nuclear device require a missile or bomber for delivery? How was the first nuclear device ever detonated delivered?"
------------------
LOL. So the Iranians are plotting to bring back the "gun-type fission" device? You gotta be kidding me.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Marion (Marion Lynn) says:
"Invasion" of Iran will not be necessary.
Simply utilise existing technology to take out all of the nuclear and defensive capabilities of that rogue nation via land and sea-based air strikes."
----------------------
Great idea General Marion, so much insight and foresight. Who said you were getting ancient and crazy? You're sharp as a tack.
I'm sure your battle plan will go over very well, and leave our troops in Iraq under perfect security.
Bubbles (anonymous) says…
What we need are tuff negotiators like Madeleine "mad dog" Albright. The way she slew the pot bellied pig in N Korea was precious.
My favorite line from mad dog? "They tricked us".
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Posess,
You've been desperately trying to make a point for a while, are you ready to jump off the high dive yet?
I'll clap for you.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"A gun-type bomb could very well be built "in place" in a large city and then detonated by remote control or by a "suicide bomber" which resluting explosion would be very, very dirty due to so much ground material being irradiated and blown up into the atmosphere."
-------------------------------
If this is really the plan Marion, they are going about it the wrong way. If terrorists wanted to blow up a nuke in a US city, they wouldn't wait 10-15 years for the Iranians to build a bomb and have no delivery system, all under tight international scrutiny. They'd go on the black market tomorrow and buy one.
The problem is all of you Fake Conservatives want to go ahead and attack Iran, further provoking the "radical terrorists", meanwhile leaving our nation's borders and ports wide open making it easier for a nuke to be smuggled. You want to protect America, while you leave us open to attack, let Global institutions steal our Liberty, and destroy our Constitution.
That is the real problem, the Fake Conservatives are terrified of "terrorist attacks", then they go on agendas that only help the "terrorists" and provoke more people to want to harm America.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
I thought we might want to learn some lessons from the cold war. The Soviets had never fired a shot at our country, and we had been giving money to those who eventually came back to bomb us. Our perceived most dangerous threats, Cuba and Soviet Union turned out to be friendlier than our friends.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"How many nukes are available on the "black market?"
----------------
Hundreds, get a clue.
"How many years away was the U.S. from developing a nuclear weapon in July, 1941?"
--------------------------
Doesn't matter, the US isn't Iran. Why don't you look at the Iranian projects, earliest estimates I've seen is 8 years, and I believe that is coming from Cheney's people, so we know it's accurate.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
I knew you wouldn't like my plan Posess. Protecting the borders, ports and our trade policies are apparently crazy ideas compared to bombing Iran to "the stone age".
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"Unfortunately, there are already plenty of "people who want to harm America." Adding a few more doesn't seem like such a bad trade-off if we can remove the means to do so. If you take the gun out of the hand of a raving lunatic, you might tick him off more and really make him want to shoot you - but he can't."
--------------------------
Adding a few more? Uhhhhh, we are talking about Millions of People. These people don't hate the US, but they Will. Most of them like our ideas of democracy, but they will Not.
Were not going to "take the gun" out of anyone's hands...only give them a reason to shoot.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"Where'd I miss the plan?"
I think it's over your head...better check there first.
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
posessionannex, is the only post 1991 data on Iraqi/Hussen deaths the oft dismissed UNICEF number? Do you really want to enter into a discussion about the UN sanctions, the grossly varied estimates of child mortality, and whether it was the sanctions or the dictator which were responsible? Do you really want to spout off the typical right wing diatribes about the UN's Oil For Food program while at the same time bemoaning child mortality rates?
Again, the course of action Marion has posted has a proven track record of success in Iraq.
An invasion course of action has not shown similar success in Iraq.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Posess,
There are hundreds of unaccounted for nukes out there, and yes the CIA and the Military has been busy trying to recover them for decades. There are several books out there with theories regarding what happened to the loose nukes from the Soviet Union.
So can the Fake Conservatives please tell me how you plan to fund the war with Iran? Are you planning on borrowing more billions from China?
How long do you think this Empire can really last?
I hate big government Fake Conservatives.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Dot Lines:
"So next time you're confronted by a lunatic with a gun, just try talking to him while he's still pointing the gun at you"
-------------------------------------
LOL! You better wrap that plastic a little tighter around your bomb shelter. The Iranians are coming! The Iranians are coming! The Iranians are coming!
Mkh (anonymous) says…
What difference does it make posess, you won't read the book. Knowledge obviously isn't your best area.
badger (anonymous) says…
Mkh, missing nukes from the former Soviet Union certainly shouldn't be dismissed, but neither should the prospect of Iranians getting the plans, the technical knowledge, and the materials together. Either option would be disastrous. I don't know how much can realistically be done about the black market nukes, but given that the last days of the USSR were underfunded and understaffed, and most of those bombs have likely gone without proper storage or maintenance for years, every year the likelihood of an accident with one of them increases and the likelihood of a terrorist event with one decreases.
My point to ragingbear actually echoes your own. Critical targets are unprotected while we're all getting our shampoo confiscated on the airplane. Our ports are vulnerable. But we're focused on bombing people till they agree we've helped them instead of actually protecting our assets.
Worried about Iran directly nuking us? Not as much. Aware that they are one of several nations that could conceivably present a nuclear threat to a US target? Yeah.
And to possessionannex, who said "Tiny bit o Pu in the right reservoir and you can depopulate L.A. county. A trillion dollar hit on the economy. 9/11 with no traces"? You are aware that water distribution systems involve complex filtering mechanisms, and that tap water is tested for a variety of factors, including the presence of radioactive materials? You know they don't just take it out of the lake and drink it like that, right? It would take more than a 'tiny bit' to seriously affect a large population, and that'd get detected right quick. You'd likely lose some water services workers and a few hundred people who'd been in contact with the reservoir itself, and the city would be hurting for water for a little bit, but depopulate LA county with a 'tiny bit' of plutonium? You've been reading too many sensationalist novels.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Mhk, have you ever read this book? It's free online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27ali...
------------------------------------
I am aware of what the book is about, but no I haven't read it. However I can assure you millions of Iranians will buy into it after you slaughter their families.
Did you just ignore my question about how you are going to fund a war with Iran? Or are you just letting the suspense build?
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Oh wow that is funny Dot Lines! First of all I assume you meant invade Iran, cause we already did Iraq.
So let me get this straight, we are going to bomb Iran to shreds and then expect there Not to be a War???? Oh my goodness the sheep are stupid.
What incredible pre-war planning, None. This is all very familiar to me somehow.
Are we going to be greeted as Liberators again?
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"Did I say anything about a war with Iran?"
-----------------------
That's it! I can't read this incredilbe BS anymore. You guys are beyond morons, seriously. If you think you can completely bomb and possible nuke a country like Iran apart and not face consequences when you have 140,000 sitting ducks at their southern border you are too far passed stupid to even deal with.
Have fun sheep.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
logicsound04,
"I am tired of this (which I'm sure will be taken for not having an argument). And again, I don't have time to post every 5 minutes like the two of you apparently do.
Get a life."
There are plenty of excuses others can use, and often, these excuses are used to fend off the direct blames on a certain group of people who are directly responsible for certain actions. It's also a great distraction from the real issue. It's like using science to argue that science is wrong. You can still find problem with Einstein's Theory of Relativity (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_...) or even Evolution Theory.
The other tactic is to keep on bombing of the "fabricated" information so that people become ill-informed. It's often done in communist countries, and I'm so surprised we are doing it here. When people get the "fabricated" information, they thought it's for real. It's easy to "fabricate" information and keep on claiming that it is right. Because a fabricated information is so "perfect" that you cannot find flaws in them. That's why it's fabricated. The Germans used to believe that the Jews were scums.
However, real scientific research and real democracy allow even the right information to be questioned. Thus, this opens the door to a lot of fabricated information and attacks on these scientific knowledge. Scientists intentionally keep these doors open so to allow attacks and they can continue to improve their theories. Closing the doors will close out the knowledge. That is the reason why we can still see people attack the knowledge of Evolution and Theory of Relativity. But scientists rarely want to waste their time attacking "Intelligent Design". So the ID people always think that Evolution is wrong and it has been "accepted".
The same goes with the group of people who have the time to keep on telling you here that you're wrong. You know, I won't waste my time with these folks. I start to realize that it's better to contribute to the society by working on the real science and even question your science. Just like the way we should question the bible (even if it means going against our faith). You ever wonder why these people never question their own conclusions? Nothing is really that perfect, even a scientific conclusion. That's the beauty of science and as a scientist, I'm not going to let these people win over science, using a fabricated scientific approach.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Dots,
So how should we deal with Iran? And what's your solution to Iraq?
Cheers!
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Dots,
There you go again sidestepping my argument & attacking arguments I never made. If you truly believe that "regardless of *why* we're there, we have a responsibility to leave the country in a better position than they are now." then you must defend why suddenly NOW we had this moral responsibility to remove a despot when before it was permissible to turn a blind eye or even help his atrocities.
I've made no argument for or against a moral responsibility with regards to Iraq nor that they were better off with Saddam in power. I've merely attacked your circular logic, "because we are there" is not an argument for staying nor is removing a despot justification for invading. There must be a reason for removing THIS despot because your argument justifies removing ALL despots, your logic is fuzzy on this point.
Furthermore your argument does not explain why WE are justified in removing Saddam but other countries wouldn't have been or would you have supported Russia or China invading Iraq to remove a brutal dictator?
There are answers to all of these questions I just don't think you have any of the answers. I know sometimes that happens to you when the adults speak.
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Dots,
"What I have said (repeatedly) is that the argument against removing him because we don't remove all despots is a specious argument - as would be the one where it's not justified to do now because we didn't do it yesterday."
I never made the argument that we shouldn't remove him because we don't remove all despots nor that we shouldn't have done it now because we didn't then. What I have done is question you as to WHY removing Saddam was a good reason for war when it isn't the solution for all despots.
I merely asked you to justify this statement, "Saddam Hussein was a despot and a blight on his own people, his neighbors, and the rest of the world. Of course, armchair humanitarians who only think people are worth saving if it's their own sorry a$$ think that wasn't a good enough reason."
According to you a "good enough reason" to invade is because someone is "a despot and a blight on his own people, his neighbors, and the rest of the world." This is a pretty vague claim & could be applied to many world leaders currently, so obviously there are reasons for invading above & beyond his being a despot. Why haven't we invaded Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea, China, Myanmar etc? Because we DON'T invade countries just to depose despots, it is NOT a good enough reason. So I'm just asking you, again, what REALLY is the "good enough reason" for invading Iraq?
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
RT- That is because they are declaring all dead civilians the enemy now. There is a big argument going on right now where the military is saying they killed 54 of the enemy. The Iraqi government says that 48 were civilians.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
~~I suppose if the headline read "Victory in Iraq!", it would be a lie.~~
Hmm. Didn't they do that a few years ago with "Mission Accomplished"? How about a few weeks back when they declared that the US won the war on drugs?
Mkh (anonymous) says…
"Sheep"
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air
You better watch out
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Jordan and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.
What do you get for pretending the danger's not real
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream.
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green he leadeth me the silent waters by
With bright knives he releaseth my soul
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places
He converteth me to lamb cutlets
For lo,m he hath great power and great hunger
When cometh the day we lowly ones
Through quiet reflection and great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.
Bleeding and babbling we fell on his neck with a scream
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.
Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told
Get out of the road if you want to grow old.
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Dots,
"Do you give to charity, zarathustra? Do you give to ALL charities? Every single one? If not, then how can you justify giving to THIS charity when you don't to ALL charities? "
I do justify which charity that I give to, it's part of the decision making process. Do you assume all charities are equal & just randomly pick one?
The answer to your doctor analogy is that the doctor has to prioritize who he tries to save. There is a process for triage just like there is a process for going to war. It would be perfectly logical to question the doctor in your scenario, if he claims to have done everything he could, to see if that is really the case. So the doctor in your scenario still has liability if he is negligent but the administration that goes to war does not?
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Dots,
"Iran needs to be prevented from developing the capability of attacking the U.S. and its interests with nuclear weapons through whatever means available."
That's what I'm trying to ask you! What are your "means"? We all want to prevent that, I thought you're smart enough to tell me what are the means that you have? I didn't question your stand, I'm simply asking how do you get rid of their nuclear weapons if you do not even know if they have the capabilities?
"I believe I have said several times that we have a responsibility not to abandon the Iraqi people and to do what we can to rebuild their country and help stabilize their internal conflicts."
I'm not an idiot. So how are you going to do that? How are you going to resolve the conflicts between the Sunnis, Shi'tes, and the Kurds? I get your message loud and clear. But what are we going to do to make sure Iraq becomes one piece?
You said this: "Which pretty much justifies the unfinished business of first Gulf war."
So are you suggesting that we invaded Iraq to complete the unfinished business of the first Gulf war? So what is the unfinished business? How come I didn't hear that from the current administration when they first decided to invade Iraq?
livingstone (anonymous) says…
RT,
"They would get their ass kicked and in the process, far-left, anti-war, anti- military nutcase loons like you would get a nice big far wake up call."
There are more groups than simply a left. Chris Rock used to say this: I'm conservative on some issues, liberal on the others. There isn't a total right or a total left. Grouping people together can distort the real messages.
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Livingstone,
Dots doesn't have answers only platitudes.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Anyone here,
"Mission Accomplished"
What is the mission in the first place? I think when they first invaded Iraq, they don't even know what their mission was. Without a clear cause, it's hard to complete a mission, because there isn't a clear mission in the first place. It's not like WWII, where the mission was to bring down imperialism. The nearest missions I can think of is the WMD and to bring democracy to Iraq. Good causes, of course. But we didn't find any WMD. So we have to rely on democracy. Then we realize that it's not easy, since there are three countries and not one! Then we found out that Saddam wasn't that bad afterall! Probably the reason why he needed to be that bad in Iraq, because he needed to keep his throne by being bad. We come to realize that people in difficult cultures behave differently, and need to develop their own sets of democracy. Asking them to follow our system can be very difficult. I call this "grassroot" democracy. This is how America develops its democracy.
Without a clear mission, and without a good understanding of a country, we won't be able to implement our policies very well. It's Business 101, the purpose for doing something. It's very very difficult to succeed without a mission. I don't see a plan from both sides, Republicans or Democrats. I only hear that we need to place our troops in Iraq for as long as the Iraqis need us. Well, if you don't have a mission and a purpose, and they don't have one, nothing can be achieved. It's not easy to work on things without a goal. For Republicans to be successful on Iraq, I think we really need to see a clearer plan. This is what the sensible people are asking for. We can do miracles, but we need to have a plan!
livingstone (anonymous) says…
thusspokezarathustra (Anonymous) says:
"Dots doesn't have answers only platitudes."
Dick Cheney and George W. Bush keep on saying we want to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. Good, I buy into their idea. But what're their plans? Don't tell me they're going to invade Iran? Tell me their plans and then we evaluate them. They've committed the same mistakes in Iraq, so we lost our directions there. To have something in place, they got to have a plan first. No plans, no approval.
This is something beyond Dots' capabilities to answer.
To add more, the complexity of Iranian politics is far beyond what we as Americans can comprehend. We need to analyze what they know, how should we deal with them, rather than imposing our language on them. The more we instigate them, the more they want to instigate us. They're also playing with us, hoping that we fall into their tricks. They say something and send our President jumping? That sounds very funny.
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
This one,
"So I'm just asking you, again, what REALLY is the "good enough reason" for invading Iraq?"
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Dots,
"you only hear "answers" if they agree with your point of view."
That's a common accusation by some people (in this case, yourself) who actually practice it themselves.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
thusspokezarathustra (Anonymous) says:
"So I'm just asking you, again, what REALLY is the "good enough reason" for invading Iraq?"
There are many, one of them, pretty absurd, was the claim by someone that Saddam was trying to assassinate Bush Sr., so it was just a revenge. Some leaders simply refuse to tell us the truth about that invasion, trying to fabricate some excuses. It's hard to know, and we'll never know. But the truth is, WMD and bringing democracy to Iraq are definitely not on their list.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
thusspokezarathustra (Anonymous) says:
If democracy was the reason for invading Iraq, then why are we not invading Myanmar? I thought the monks and civilians wanted democracy so bad? I think it'd be much easier to invade Myanmar and Burmese will definitely work with us to develop a good democratic system. They already has Suu Kyi.
The most common assumed reason: Oil. Good, that's good for America. But did we get a single drop? So the administration fails to bring a single drop of oil from Iraq.
Running out of excuses? Well, the Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq too! They got to share the blames with us! Good. So everyone go down together.
So when Dots says this: "Translation: As people chicken out and run when it isn't easy." It's kind of ironical. The Bush supporters are saying: When the going gets tough, let's share the blame! Look, who's more chicken?
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Dots,
It's not your point of view I disagree with it is the arguments you make defending your views. You don't seem to have a clear idea as to why we are in this war, at least one you've articulated. The closest you came was to say that all despots should be deposed. It is the equivalent of saying crime is bad & then using that as justification for any means you wanted use to prevent crime. Sometimes the harm does outweigh the good. Would you allow America to be destroyed if all the despots were removed from power? I don't think so, I think there are limits to the sacrifice you'd be willing to make to dethrone despots. How much are you willing to sacrifice in Iraq? (please, don't say "any means necessary", this is another platitude).
There are many good reasons for being in Iraq & good reasons to never have gone in but you settle on a platitude like "Saddam Hussein was a despot and a blight on his own people, his neighbors, and the rest of the world." There are other despots, other blights, what was the reason for taking this one down? I don't care what your point of view is I just want to know the reasons. If you don't have any reasons then you really aren't discussing the issue you're just telling us what you feel, which is all well & good but Facebook is more the place for self expression.
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Dots,
"No. There are no guarantees, if that's what you're asking for. The only "guarantee" is the chaos and bloodletting that will ensue if we bail out."
Since chaos & bloodletting are happening now what are you really guaranteeing? (or should I say threatening?)
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Question: "But what are we going to do to make sure Iraq becomes one piece?""
Answer: For one thing, by giving them the time to sort it out themselves without killing themselves in the process. . . Sometimes when you have two factions (or even two people) fighting, all you can do is keep them from killing one another until they can sort it out.
So your solution is time & letting the Iraqi's sort it out? Nothing else? Genius!
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Dots,
"Unlike Iraq, however, there isn't a lot of doubt about Iran's nuclear and missile programs. They're pretty much bragging about them, and insisting they have the right, and the intention, to go ahead and develop working weapons."
I find your analysis fascinating. When has Iran bragged about developing working nuclear weapons? They had always maintained that it's for peaceful use only. So how do you know that they're doing it for military purpose and not peaceful purpose?
"Diplomatically if possible, but if not, then the U.S., Israel, and all the European and other countries whose territories, populations, and interests are being threatened should use any other means neccessary, up to and including lobbing a few dozen missiles of our own in there first."
Nice! I thought you always objected to diplomacy? You bragged that it doesn't work? And wow, you get Israel involved! That's a killer! Europe? Didn't France just bragged about Iran's threat? How did Iran respond? Even Putin keeps saying that it's for peaceful use only. How do you verify that it's true if you don't engage other more relevant countries?
Finally, it seems like there's no solution for Iraq.... I don't blame you. You're not the President.
thusspokezarathustra (anonymous) says…
Dots is also ignoring China which has thrown its weight behind Iran of late. Is it really safer for the US to risk war with China or Russia to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology just based on our "intelligence" that it's not for domestic energy use?
livingstone (anonymous) says…
thusspokezarathustra,
Yes, before we start talking to people, we got to understand others first. China needs Iran for its oil, and Russia is dancing with Iran to make sure that oil price remains at record level. Russia stands to gain when oil and gas prices remain high. So Iran is also playing the game, to push prices of oil and gas to record high. Ahmadinajah is playing the game to make sure he stays in power. If oil and gas prices come down, he's done. His economic solutions are not working in Iran and educated people hate him.
People just fall into the trap of a stupid leader who simply tries to put up a stage show to keep himself in power. Bring the oil prices down and we'll put him out of power. Stop playing with him, and he stops gaining popularity and support. It's that simple. Our intelligence can no longer be relied upon, after Iraq. I think Putin knows the answer better than us now, maybe we should pay him a few millions to get some information to verify if Iran is really developing nuclear weapon?
The worst case scenario: We bomb Iran, but found out that it doesn't have the capability to develop nuclear weapon. And then it destroys the oil production capability. Now, you see the problem? What will happen to the gas prices? Putin will be laughing his way to the Swiss Bank. If we attack, we fall into Putin's trick. If we don't and start smiling like Putin, we'll send Putin craving for more love of a high oil prices.
Now, who's blaming Al Gore for pushing up gas prices?
livingstone (anonymous) says…
DotsLines,
"When did I say I was not in favor of diplomacy, you lying little worm?"
Read your posting on 29 September 2007, at 9.55pm, you said: "They're the ones who were capable of making an offer you couldn't refuse. Seems at one time the UN at least conceded that negotiating is a lot easier when you have a very large and dangerous associate standing next to you. And yes, I realize that membership in that little club has grown - diplomacy didn't do one heck of a lot to stop that."
And there were more. But it's a cubic example of how you keep boiling yourself with contradicting "words". And talking about fabrication.... I bet you're pretty good at it.
Cheers!
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Marion,
"Can such Iranian bombs directly threaten the USA? At this point, no but such weapons threaten world security and lunatics like those in control of Iran cannot be allowed to possess such weapons. Surgical, non-nuclear strikes could readily resolve this matter and I'm certain that in the not-to-distant future, will."
I think you miss my message on how Ahmedinajah is playing around with our a...s.... you think he's serious in destroying us? He's just playing with the oil prices. I'm in awe to know that not even Cheney know about this! Just like North Korea's Kim... you think he's interested in developing a weapon to destroy us? It's bargaining. It's so nice to see, Iran talking, US jumping. I feel so much like a fool now.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
DotsLines,
"I thought you were referring to that, you cretin. And someday, livingstone, when you grow up and decide to take an English course, you'll see that statement says diplomacy only works when backed up by a credible threat of forceful consequences"
Ahhhh..... now, didn't you just said: "you only hear "answers" if they agree with your point of view."
And didn't you quote several points about me, and did that soooo many times, such as the world is flat, and mother teresa is a man? hmmmmmm...... I'm wondering who should be talking that English course, and who didn't want to hear the "answers" if he doesn't agree with the "point of view"?
Anyway, your answers seem to show absurd ignorance about foreign policies and international diplomacy. You make a huge mistake by involving Israel, you fail to understand the meaning of diplomacy and how it works, and of course, you fail to know what is the purpose of diplomacy. Most importantly, you didn't know why Iran is playing the game with us.
You kept claiming that Iran wants to bomb us, but Ahmedinajah has never said that once! He only wanted to "destroy" Israel. I don't know if he's able to fly a bomb into the USA (Iran has no such capability yet). Through the terrorists? Sure, what is the purpose of our airport security for? You don't trust it after you spend billions of dollars in it?
It's so funny to see our leadership falls into the trap set up intentionally by Iran and Russia.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
DotsLines said:
"Or how about:
"War, what is it good for? Absolutely something! Many forgot that war is natural."
I think there's something wrong with your interpretation of things.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Anyone who does not take this administrations 'intelligence' and foreign policy plans with skepticism has clearly been asleep for the past 5+ years. And dickey cheney is one of the worst when it comes to foreign policy and predicting the outcomes military conflicts. The good news is that 2008 is close, and we can finally be done with these dangerous, overzealous idiots.
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
Unfortunately, PA, when everything produced by the CIA, NSA, and State is taken as gospel, it is because it will actually be "everything."
The current administration likes to pick and choose, and then 3 years later the information counter to their belief system trickles out. That information typically represents the majority opinion of the CIA, NSA, and State.
Your ilk, though, is all too eager to take a single opinion, voiced as a counter to dozens of others, and declare it "T R U T H." That is a hallmark of the far-right, not in its current mainfiestation in the United States but rather in a 20th century historical sense.
That's right - your ilk.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
PA - Im trying to figure out what you mean with your post, kinda vague. My response is -- hopefully the next administration is smarter (not asking a lot) and better prepared than this one was. Also hopefully they will use diplomacy more often than military action - and perhaps they can patch up our global image and our relationship with the rest of the free world. You can count on me criticizing them if they continue the trend of american cowboy politics and run a state department that is as clueless about the rest of the world as the current one is.
Are you saying that you believe everything this administration says is gospel? Do you believe that this administration and Cheney in particular has done a great job with foreign policy and correctly predicting the outcome of the Iraq (and perhaps Iran) war(s)? Are you are one of the 'head in the sand' people that believe 'Mission Accomplished" and just want to stay the course because it is working so well? If so, read a newspaper - you may be surprised to learn that all is not well in the world, and at home, at the moment.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
posessionannex
"Essentially, your position relies on four things:
1. Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, just pretending to get "bargaining power." (power to do what, we do not know:) or "drive up oil prices" (If the ol' Mahdi cared about oil exports, he'd invest in infrastructure.)
2. Iran has a future where it is exporting oil. (it does not)
3. If Iran is developing a nuclear weapon in violation of their agreements, they have no intention of using it, (except maybe to destroy Israel, but , oh well..) because M. Dinnerjacket is some sort of rational person and:
4. M. Dinnerjacket is not one of the Hojattieh.
I'd bet you are wrong on pretty much all four.
Cheers!"
Nice try to simplify things.
First, I didn't say that Iran wasn't developing a nuclear weapon, but we have no proof that they are doing it. We fall back into the same trap as the WMD case. We didn't have proof and what happened? The only thing we can rely on is what? Nothing. We cannot insist on something that doesn't have proof or evident.
Ahmadinajah needs high oil price to boost his regime. That's the truth. The nuclear thing is a distraction. The very reason why Putin aligns himself with him.... that's the evidence. We shouldn't be jumping around.
He said that he's going to destroy Israel. But will he? You think Russia will allow Iran to do that? Of course not. But Russia stands to gain more from economic growth from expensive oil. We've seen Kim JongIl playing this kind of trick before.
Not sure if you realized that we've independent Nuclear Weapon inspectors, and regional resolution methods. These take time, but are worth the effort. How can we solve the nuclear problem? Not difficult. If the poll is correct, over half of the Iranians do not support Ahmadinajah. However, the more we oppose him, the more support he could gather. Iran didn't have a nuclear ambition before him. It's only a recent event after he became the President. He needs the extremist votes but cannot care too much about the moderates. But the moderates can bring him down. I wonder why we didn't learn a thing from Iraq. If a western country endorses a candidate in a ME country, it somehow marks the downfall of that candidate. So we got to let the moderates do it themselves, while at the same time, talk to Russia and China, the two biggest partners of Iran. Other ME countries should get involved in the process. Europe and Israel..? Not yet at this moment.
Did we learn anything from Iraq? I think not.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
posessionannex (Anonymous) says:
"My point is, you have Bush Derangement Syndrome. Everything the administration does is wrong."
Hmmm.... why get so political? Are we analyzing the situations as independent? First, I didn't think every Bush does is wrong. His idea of developing a work permit system for the lower class jobs is something that I support. His tax cut is something, as an upper class, that I enjoy. His "no child left behind" is a good concept but implemented wrongly. So it's not everything that I or most disagree with.
It's not about Clinton versus Bush, for many independents, it's about going back to the basics.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
posessionannex,
Show me when did Iran start their nuclear ambition? My statement is exactly accurate.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
PA - there are many people that would argue that the conventional right is a huge hate group as well - Im not one of those people but do find the extreme right pretty narrow minded and hateful to others that they consider to be sinners or to have views other than their own.
None of your arguments change the fact or even acknowledge that this administration has seriously messed up and left the USA and the next administration with a huge pile of s**t. Seriously, this Iraq thing is a HUGE failure and continues to drain our treasure and the blood of our youth. The consequences are not even close to being fully realized, but Iran increasing their nuclear (nukuler in bush speak) ambitions is one of the most alarming results of Bushy and Cheneys foreign policy. Whats next, Venezuela with a bomb?
There is no doubt that the next administration has their hands full, and will have to try and pick up the mess that these dummies have left behind. My only hope is that a fresh group of people might bring some sanity and logic into the equation - no one can possibly be as stupid or myopic as these dorks.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
so do you all really think the bush/cheney admin is going to do a better job at a war with iran?
who they gonna send to fight them?
do u all really think russia and china are gonna sit back and let the bush/cheney hoodlums start a war?
ww3 yeah real smart comment from bush..what does he know about world war?
he disapeared during vietnam....the deserter....while i was over doing his job from 71-73...and i had just turned 20...
bush jr is no chip off the old block....at least his dad saw combat....bush senior was part of the greatest generation as was my old man who was in Anzio...
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
PA - Iran with a nuke is something that we all need to worry about, Ive never said otherwise - and a "nukuler" Iran scares the pants off of me. The trouble is that there is no way this administration can get a global consensus on what to do - nor could they build an effective alliance to deal with it. I suppose we could coerce some of the former eastern bloc to join us by supplying 20 peacekeepers or get great britian to contribute another 2500 troops, but outside of that we will be on our own - and I for one am not ready for another cluster f**k war managed by these idiots.
The next administration may be able to go to the world community and get some help, but too much damage may already be done by these foreign policy novices and yes - they are dorks who have behaved stupidly and myopically - and yes, they are responsible for the disaster that is Iraq, and the complete and total failure of the state department. And yes, they did f - up katrina and yes Osama is still at large. And no, the mission is not accomplished.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Dots - considering that nothing the UN and Europe has said or done has stopped Iran from continuing to pursue a nuke - yes our foreign policy has failed. I would argue that if we still had the good will of the world that we had post 911 and pre Iraq - that things might be different, and we could influence our former european allies to take a stronger approach to this looming disaster. As it stands today, we may find ourselves on our own once again. Hopefully the next administration will be able to find some friends or use diplomacy to build a consensus and a coalition that has the will to stop Iran. There is no way anyone in Europe is going to lend Cheney a hand.
One question - why is Cheney practicing foreign policy anyway - is that not the job of the state department? Cheney needs to mind his own business, oh wait that would be halliburton - How about he just goes back to shooting his friends in the face.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Dots, It is a foreign policy failure when we cant lead the world in stopping Iran from developing a nuke - how can it be anything less? At one time the USA had the pull to rally the free world - now they want nothing to do with Bushy, Cheney and Co. You can go ahead and talk about all the failures of Clinton, and Bush 1 and Carter and JFK blah blah blah - but the truth remains - we have almost zero political capital to spend in the world community , its all been squandered on Iraq - which is an unmitigated disaster from both a foreign policy perspective and a military one. Now when we have a serious threat that is clearly trying to get WMD we are impotent.
My suggestion - back out of the picture on Iran for a while, let Europe, Russia, China, and others take the lead until we can get some people that may have a chance at political success in office - cause the only thing these a**holes have left is to play the military card - and in case you have not been paying attention over the past 5+ years, the current administration really sucks at military solutions. I for one, am not ready for another bush mismanaged war.
What is your solution? Nuke first, use diplomacy later.
nugget (anonymous) says…
Iran likely has the same weapons of mass destruction Iraq did, people. How would this country know? Pffft.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
PA How can you possibly argue that Europe, Russia etc, have nothing at stake? If anything they have way more risk that the USA and the threat is in their backyard. Why not make them stand up for once.
You should work for the Bush Co. You have an IQ that would fit right in. You can deny there is a problem, insist that that we stay the course and alienate more of the world. Heckofa job PA!
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
What the solution then mr ' thinking man'?
Nuke anyone that hates america? Thats over half the world at the moment.
Then you could really say mission accomplished, heckofa job, and nukuler all you want.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Marion, continue the thought....
And the fascist right will finally have the excuse to exterminate everyone they are scared of - which is everyone that does not look like or think like them.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
DotLines - you advocating the same thing for Iran as we have for Iraq is classic. Let me repeat that: Dotlines wants the same for Iran as we have in Iraq!!!!!
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
hey Einstein, it turns out that the mission is not accomplished in Iraq, or didn't you get the memo? Not dot, its not accomplished, in fact it is one of the worst, potentially the worst, political and military disaster in US history. You wanting the same for Iran is very revealing.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Hey dot, double up on the medication. I can rest assured that your idea of how to handle the Iran deal will never come to pass - No way in heck anyone other than you, Cheney and the utterly delusional would want another Iraq.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
[dot sitting there with his hands over his blow up dolls ears singing "mission accomplished -mission accomplished, since Iraq is such a success - Iran will be even better:"]
Kinda Scary, really
Hey - maybe dot is using his mail order brides name since he got busted rubbing toes with Sen Craig at the airport. That and the fact he wants another Iraq explains a lot really.
Can someone say Lithium?
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
I daresay that the Dick Cheneys of the world are far more dangerous than Ahmedinejad. Dick cares about nothing but money, and he sees an invasion of Iran as a way to secure more oil for himself and his right wing cronies.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
I guess thats the consolation for living in Kansas - even though your politics, economy and culture are irrelevent, you just might live a few moments longer during the nukuler holocausts. And a few moments are all someone like you will need for a last go round with your blow up doll.
justfornow (anonymous) says…
Back to the original story, Did anyone really think that we would allow them to have Nuclear weapons? Please raise your hand.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
I just cant understand how another Iraq is in our interest? That defies any logic or reason. Anyone that thinks that we are winning are the same people that probably want us to still be fighting in Vietnam. My opinion is that Iraq is a disaster and I believe this administration needs to be held accountable. This issue with Iran is just one of the many consequences of this disaster, and the fact that Iran continues to develop WMD can be considered nothing less than a foreign policy failure. How can Iran having a nuke be a good thing? Unfortunately because of our our inability to find a political solution (foreign policy failure) we are left to hope that the UN, Europe etc gets some ba**s and steps up. I cant see how they will not understand just how risky it is for them - I believe they are at a much greater short term risk than we are - and they will have no choice but than to confront this. If they do not, I guess we are left with some tough choices. Im not sure that militarily we have much of an option other than a tactical nukuler strike. Our conventional military is pretty used up - unless they leave Iraq immediately and get a few months or years to heal and re-establish morale. Really tough choices that need to be made by a different group than the current administration.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
While its obvious that our opinions, and values, are very different - I think we can all agree that Iran with a Nukuler bomb is a serious problem. The differences are in how we respond. I for one do not believe that another Iraq is a good thing - and Im pretty sure given the recent opinion polls that over 60% of Red/Blue America agree that Iraq is a failure and would not allow another one to happen. But this congress, despite being the opposition to the president is pretty wimpy, and may just let themselves be rolled over again. Thats sad.
Im disappointed (but not surprised) that there has been no political solution and stand by my opinion that if a political solution can not be achieved it can be considered nothing less than a foreign policy failure. Is sad that our state department is powerless to stop this either by unilateral politics or by influencing others in the free world to take serious action - not UN resolutions - not lip service - but true action.
Im sorry that some people believe that Blue America is somehow to blame for everything that is wrong in America and would like the Blue/coastal areas to be wiped off the map - thats a very sad example of just how divided we have become since 911. Oh did I mention that it is in blue America that the Terrorists have attacked and are still plotting to attack. So dot -- you may get your wish and see more of us maimed or killed in the future.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
The Marshall Plan? The Treaty of Versailles? Im not a history major, but Im pretty sure that in between the two was the largest war in human history, the holocaust, and the dawn of the nukuler age - Im struggling to find the parallel to Iran? What do the put in the water out there in newton?
This is my attempt to simplify my opinion: They want nukes, we dont want them to have them - we can stop them one of 2 ways: 1) with a political solution - this seems not to be working - we can argue about why all day - but the fact remains - Iran continues to try and get nukuler arms. foreign policy seems to be failing. 2) with a unilateral military action (or perhaps with a couple of coerced 'allies' but you can count most of Europe and the UN Security Council out) that we do not have the sufficient conventional forces to do now. So unless we go back and try to work some kind of political solution and get Europe to step up we have only one choice - to Nuke Iran. While im sure this makes dot very happy, Im pretty sure most of America and all of the free world is scared to death by this.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Occupying and rebuilding Europe - where we shared cultures, religions etc is no where close to occupying Middle east or Vietnam for that matter. And some of the reasons that it worked in Japan is because of the near total destruction and complete, public capitulation by a ruler the people considered a god. Trying to compare the Iraq war to that of WWII is a huge stretch as well. They started under different pretenses and America did not participate in the war until almost 4 year into it - and until after we were attacked first. I just don't agree that we can invade and occupy and rebuild Iran and have it turn out like 1950s Europe - I think you would be better served to look at our Invasion of Iraq as a more likely outcome - and as far as just about everyone other than dot is concerned- the Iraq war has been, and continues to be - a unmitigated disaster.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Dot for brain -why do you keep forgetting that Iraq is a utter disaster? Do you think Iraq is a victory? Why do you think that these pin point air strikes would work any better than they did at accomplishing the mission in Iraq? How do you think Iran will react if we send in air strikes? Do you think they will welcome us a liberators? Do you think they will be too intimidated to strike back? Given how strained our military is how can we take on Iran conventionally after they retaliate?
I have no objections to Israel defending themselves, but I do object to us blindly giving Israel a free hand in the region. They cause us way more trouble than they are worth as far as I am concerned.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
PA - I'm not advocating any use of Nukuler weapons - I just think that that is about our only military option left. With that said, I suggest a political solution led by Europe and other countries that may have a workable foreign policy or a state department that is worth a crap. No one is going to do this administration any favors, as any government in Europe seen by its people as helping us out will fall.
By the way, I was in Dresden in 1989, and many part of it were still in ruin.
EXks (anonymous) says…
I have no objections to Israel defending themselves, but I do object to us blindly giving Israel a free hand in the region. They cause us way more trouble than they are worth as far as I am concerned.
----------sfjayhawk
sfjayhawk....can you explain your above statement " they cause us way more trouble than they are worth"
Having been to this part of the world many times, having family and friends that live in Israel, your anti-semitic statement causes me concern and this is where I part company with many of my liberal minded friends.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
pa - and your plan is what? another smashing success invasion and occupation like Europe in 1945 - and Iraq in 2007?
Its easy for me to not love bushy - I only wish he were more like his father - someone who not only served - heroically - I might add, in a just war, but had style, could speak intelligently and modeled his foreign policy on Regans - god rest his soul.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Marion Goebbels and Dot Himmler - this 'top of the food chain' stuff sounds very much like a 'master race' complex. Take the pillow cases off your heads and stop burning crosses. Dot Himmler wants Blue America to be nuked, Moron Goebbels believes that he is the pinnacle of evolution (even though his parents are also siblings). Sieg Heil! What a bunch of bigoted dorks!
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
(The Jews) "cause us way more trouble than they are worth as far as I am concerned."
Tricky use of brackets there PA - but actually I never said that, and don't have any issue with Jews, in fact I married one. I said Israel - the country (in case you never heard of it). There is a difference between a political state and religion - although I would venture a guess that you would like to see church and state merge here in the USA.
I'm afraid the only group of people that I discriminate against are hateful Nazi bigots.
I actually respected many of your arguments PA until you decided to call me anti semitic. Go ahead a join ranks with the bigoted dorks PA. They are having a rally in Nuremberg in 1938, you should definitely go. We already have dork (dot) Himmler and Moron Goebbels, why not make your fascist club name Herman Goring Annex - the fat, morphine addicted, perverted Nazi.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Can you imagine the dinner conversation at dork (dot) himmlers house? Just dork and his blow up doll talking about the liberal media conspiracy, the intellectual elite and gays in America being to blame for all the worlds problems - and rubbing his hands with glee with the thought of another terrorist attack on blue America while he j**ks off to a picture of an Aryan superman. what a bigoted latent homosexual dork.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
dork Himmler - is there not a KKK rally someplace that you need to get to? If not, Im sure fred phelps will take time out of his busy day to hold hands with you and chant 'god hates gays, god hates blue 'merika'. Im sure the touch of a grown man will excite your 'curiosity'
What a bigoted dork this wanker is.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Dork himmler - Im only against fascist bigoted dorks. Now run along, back to the online klan meeting for you!
What a dork
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Sorry Dork himmler, I'm signing off this thread - continue to dork out all you want - im sure you are quite comfortable playing with yourself anyway.
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
To Quote posessionannex:
"D I E thread D I E."
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
I refuse to be a part of any forum exceeding 400 comments.
sundancewierdo (anonymous) says…
we need to get the h??l out of iraq. i can't see any purpose to being there at all. we need to stay the h??l away from iran. in fact we should put out tail between our legs and come on home, regroup and try to make friends. we had the sympathy of the world on 911 and we blew it. absolutely no reason to go to iraq. our fearless leader has cost the lives of 4000, give or take, and has rendered many many more of our soldiers handicapped. they are supposed to be fighting for our freedom, but it seems maybe there is too much of it. the last thing our soldiers need is to be sent to another war, "conflict", war or whatever it is now. what happened to mission accomplished? i have 2 small boys and i could not imagine if they were among the soldiers called to duty and lost thier lives for this. i just hope our "leaders" have the good sense to let the un handle this situation with iran. dick cheney is the most evil man in the country. i almost feel sorry for w. he honestly has no idea what's going on much less control of anything. how we elected a c student into office is beyond me. oh wait just like every c student he cheated. figures. nice guys finish last and then win a nobel peace prize.
sundancewierdo (anonymous) says…
marion,
i don't want iran to have atomic freaking bombs either. all i'm saying is we as a nation have a track record of invading nations for no real reason. i have a hard time believing any information from cheney or his cronies. i just think we should step back and ask for help. i said w and co. would start ww III when they were initially "elected". it seems to not be so far fetched. and i get what the referenced article was about, i was just trying to make a point that they said the same thing about iraq and look where that has gotten us. we have started a civil war that will last through the next several generations to come. i'm not sure stomping right over to iran next is such a good idea, even though i don't think they should have nuclear freaking weapons. btw, that wasn't an al gore plug, it was more a "what if" sort of statement. i think he's a hippie but he definitely couldn't have done any worse as our nation's leader. at least he has a higher iq than a monkey. don't get me wrong gw makes a good cheerleader and all but i can't wait for all these frat boys to get the h??l out of office. thanks marion have a nice night.
justfornow (anonymous) says…
Again, Democrat or Republican do we have a choice to allow this country to possess nuclear weapons? Stop the rambling because we dont have a choice.
sundancewierdo (anonymous) says…
dot says:
Um - you are aware that Arabs have been fighting Kurds and Shi'ites fighting Sunnis in Iraq for a little while before we went in there, aren't you? They'd been "controlled" for a time, because that was something Saddam managed to do - not sure we should really copy his methods at suppressing those internal conflicts, though.
yes i'm aware and we should have left them to it. saddam was a horrible, evil man. there's no doubt about it. and taking that control away has left power up for grabs, hence the civil war. i say whatever works, his methods or a democracy that nobody wants and is sure to fail. do you really think iran would be allegedly making nukes if they knew our military wasn't stretched so thin? there is too much chaos and iran is taking advantage of it. bottom line, this is all our fault. i just hope there is better intelligence this time around. i would sure hate to be wrong again because we don't have the funds for another "mission accomplished".
GretchenJP (anonymous) says…
Sweeeeet, this article is up to 428 posts. It's catching up with our other one!
GretchenJP (anonymous) says…
I saw those posts were getting high too but I think I'd rather twist this discussion around. Cheney will love it.
JobbyJobless (anonymous) says…
dick cheney is the anti-christ
merrill (anonymous) says…
Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missile Strike
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66157
Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/forei...
Better trade in those low miles per gallon vehicles while someone will take them. Bush and Cheney know how to raise the cost of living daily.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
Cheney's obsession to bomb Iran has nothing to do with our safety.
Try Peak Oil.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Dots, Marion, Pasmax, RT and gangs,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/politics/12/0...
Apparently, most of you still think that Iran is still making nuclear weapon, just like our dear George. How many mistakes can a president make? One, two or ten? He never read the report this time? Oh, he never study the report before the Iraqi invasion too! Now that's what I call impeachment! Would you trust another candidate like him, like Mitt Romney?
cap10_insano (anonymous) says…
Looks like Cheney is a success story on this issue. Great Job Mr. Vice President. Keep up the pressure, we don't want Iran slipping back into nuclear development. The NIE is a good news report that shows the wisdom and vision of great leaders. We're safer because republicans are strong leaders in national defense. God Bless America
livingstone (anonymous) says…
cap10_insano,
"Looks like Cheney is a success story on this issue......."
Yeah, good job.... all these "safety" with trillions in debt, devaluation of the dollar, rising oil prices, credit crunch, Iraq overran by Al-Qaeda, no milk can get across the airport checkline but bombs can...
Iran has been "developing nuclear weapon"... and for months of pressure, US (Cheney) could "reverse" the trend... wow, sounds like Iran is listening to him....
What a naive guy!
cap10_insano (anonymous) says…
Stoner,
You've recognized that you are "a naive guy!", the next step is to become informed. The trillions in debt is a GNP drop in the bucket, especially compared to other wars we've fought. Second, we are turning back Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the sanctions on Iran are having an effect as it relates to their involvement with Shiites in Iraq.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
cap10,
Not even sure if you even listen to other radio stations and news agencies. Al-Qaeda is an ideology, and it's not even a group. So how do you turn away from an ideology? So who are we fighting? Did Osama personally appoint someone in Iraq to take over? The insurgents were not "baptized" by Al Qaeda, they didn't receive any training and were mostly recent converts. It takes time to recognize who's the real naive guy. To become informed, you should open your eyes to news from all over the world, especially, Al-Jazeera. You didn't even know that Al-Qaeda is an ideology, not a group anymore.... and you dare to tell me you know a lot? What a joke!
And I don't think you truly understand the relationships between Shi'ites and Sunnis, if you haven't watched Al Jazeera or other Arab news....
livingstone (anonymous) says…
General_Distraction,
Nice distraction, anyone not supporting the Republicans should be an Al-Qaeda, just like what Republicans claimed Obama's a Muslim (probably they cannot differentiate between a black and a Muslim). Al-Jazeera is an "extremist" programming... then Fox News must be a joke.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
posessionannex,
You gotta know what is happening over there, and ours and news from Europe will not be able to cover enough from their perspectives. I may have to quote more, there're also good news sources that cover the conflicts between Sunnis and Shi'tes in Iraq, like the Lebanese news etc... and these are broadcasted over the web and if you subscribe to them. Their viewpoints tend to agree with Al-Jazeera on most issues, except for some. However, if you don't watch Fox news, how do you know what they report. But everytime I watched Fox News, I thought I've wasted my time. But I still watch it.
To know how Osama think, you gotta watch those twisted news that cover him. Why our soldiers failed initially? They don't even know who they were fighting! It's not as easy as eliminating Al-Qaeda, it's eliminating an ideology. Ideology spreads like disease, and no one can stop that, especially among the uneducated. You can kill Osama, but you cannot kill his ideology. And now we're sitting here talking about Nuclear weapon and Islamofacists, and totally miss the points about the ideology of Al-Qaeda.
You can capture the entire Al-Qaeda, but they can capture any democratic parliament in the Middle East, if you're not careful. Entering a country and try to eliminate them is an useless strategy.