News Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?

[turbo]

From a careful reading of Seymour Hirsch's article, it appears that the machinations are well in place to make an aerial bombardment a done deal.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

 

[slugcountry]

mmm i really, really, don't think so.. how will it look if the republicans invade THREE countries during their administration??

then again they've more than likely already lost re-election so they must just do it lol sad times

edit: if anyone should make a strike on iran's nuclear facilities its israel, who is directly threatened by both that nuclear program and the government of iran.

 

[edward]

Cheney is crazy enough to attack Iran. Is Bush sane enough to stop him?

 

[Futobingoro]

If it has not already been done, there needs to be a TV special on how the Iranian government works. I have read several news stories that outline important distinctions that need to be clarified:

-How much power does Ahmadinejad really have? I have read that Khamanei is the true driving force behind the government, and that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric (no matter how fiery) has no meaning without the concurrence of the Supreme Leader.

-Who is authorizing the alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Some articles have stated that officers in the Iranian military might have cleared shipments without the blessing of officials in Tehran.

-Does the Iranian government exercise a policy hostile to Jews? I have read that the Iranian government abhors the state of Israel, but does not harbor hostile feelings toward Jews (there is a Jew in the Iranian legislative assembly).

-What is the extent/nature of religious fundamentalism in Iran? While there are reports of women being punished for various "religious offenses," Khamenei has authorized sex changes for those who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body" and vice-versa.

-To what extent does Iran's population agree with the government's policy? Various articles have included questions asked of Iranians in cafes and shopping centers, and many say they will continue to purchase Western music and entertainment in spite of proclamations issued by their leaders. This suggests that Iranians aren't all lined up behind their government, and that conflict might be avoided if moderate voices are given time to come to the forefront.

 

[phoenixy]

If it has not already been done, there needs to be a TV special on how the Iranian government works. I have read several news stories that outline important distinctions that need to be clarified:

-How much power does Ahmadinejad really have? I have read that Khamanei is the true driving force behind the government, and that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric (no matter how fiery) has no meaning without the concurrence of the Supreme Leader.

-Who is authorizing the alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Some articles have stated that officers in the Iranian military might have cleared shipments without the blessing of officials in Tehran.

-Does the Iranian government exercise a policy hostile to Jews? I have read that the Iranian government abhors the state of Israel, but does not harbor hostile feelings toward Jews (there is a Jew in the Iranian legislative assembly).

-What is the extent/nature of religious fundamentalism in Iran? While there are reports of women being punished for various "religious offenses," Khamenei has authorized sex changes for those who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body" and vice-versa.

-To what extent does Iran's population agree with the government's policy? Various articles have included questions asked of Iranians in cafes and shopping centers, and many say they will continue to purchase Western music and entertainment in spite of proclamations issued by their leaders. This suggests that Iranians aren't all lined up behind their government, and that conflict might be avoided if moderate voices are given time to come to the forefront.

hahaha

I would like a similar video system setup within the whitehouse. C-SPAN just won't cut it since congress is acting like a lame duck. I want to know if Cheney runs on energizers. Or more importantly, if there is a memory purger that can reduce any response to "I don't remember".


Intuitively, I think a strike will happen. It has come to a stage where those in power are willing to risk it all in an act of desperation. Why would one want to focus on domestic issues, when we are still able to pay for our big guns? The atmosphere had clearly shift toward a hardline approach regarding Iran. Just watch any Rep debate and see how Ron Paul being the only candidate who is serious about diplomacy. The hawks might not have the consensus to initiate action, but then again they never really need it.

 

[edward]

I seriously doubt that we could do much of anything in Iran without causing an international crisis. China is heavily involved in developing oil production in Iran.

Sinopec, China's state-owned oil giant, signed a $70 billion deal with the Iranians in November 2004 to develop the Yadavaran oil field. Sinopec will also buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years. Iran is committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years.

http://www.investmentu.com/research/crude-oil-forecast.html

China also holds about $600 billion in U.S. treasury bills and other government backed securities. China isn't about to roll over and play dead if do anything that interferes with their oil interests in the ME.

Rather than buying oil on the open market with almost daily price fluctuations, China"s nationalized oil companies have been paying cash up front for long term supply commitments.

 

[hserse]

Oh, the flow of animosity and hatred shall flow for centuries to come. You will not bear the suffering, but your children, grandchildren shall suffer the consequences. Have you not learn anything from age old conflicts that you've created. For your animosity and hatred are the weapons of mass destruction.
Millions people will be displaced, millions will die. Is IRAQ not enough of a holocaust? Does the dead have to be your allies and have to your ideology before you considered a holocaust? Does the quantity have to be >1,000,000 dead within specified time frame before you considered to be a holocaust? In the eyes of the Almighty even ONE is considered a holocaust. To the Jews, Christian, Muslim-the reasons and justification you have of animosity will not modify the hypocracy in the eyes of your creator. Let the conflicts begin, for you shall kill your own brother.

 

[chemisttree]

From a careful reading of Seymour Hirsch's article, it appears that the machinations are well in place to make an aerial bombardment a done deal.

It may be a done deal even if (when) Hillary is elected. She refused to say if the US would be out of Iraq in 5 1/2 years when she is the president. (as did all of the Democrat front-runners) There is a large air base being built only 5 miles from the Iranian border... very provocative.

The Senate just last week passed (76-22) a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The bill was sponsored by Senators Kyl and Lieberman. Clinton voted for it. Perhaps Bush lied to her again? Barak Obama was absent. Clearly Obama wants no breadcrumbs leading to him on this matter or perhaps he was off planning his invasion of Pakistan? Edwards was likewise absent. Apparently he felt it was more important to announce that he would be receiving Federal funding for his candidicy. No loss, the war is just a bumper sticker slogan to him anyway. Clinton's approval for this was stunning in my opinion...

Clinton defended her vote, saying by designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization "gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran."

This clearly shows that Hillary considers dealing with the Revolutionary Guard equivalent to dealing with the leaders of Iran... a position right out of the Bush/Cheney neocon playbook.

I'm sure lots of high resolution satellite photographs are being stockpiled even now.

It's just a question of who gets to say, 'go'.

 

[baywax]

Who do you believe after all the doublespeak coming out of Washington?

 

[mjsd]

we definitely don't need another war so soon...
and WHY anyway?

mind you I have already read the article (by the OP) and other news stories on the matter

 

[kach22i]

FYI......

Ellsberg calls for actions to prevent war with Iran
By MICHAEL YODER, Staff
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Sep 28, 2007 12:58 AM EST
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/210086

He said the Senate resolution passed Wednesday declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization is an invitation for Bush to declare war on Iran.

Click the link above to read the whole article, short but informative.

 

[chemisttree]

we definitely don't need another war so soon...
and WHY anyway?

mind you I have already read the article (by the OP) and other news stories on the matter

If you look at a map of Iran, you will see that the US occupies territory along both the eastern (Iraq) and western (Afghanistan) border. We have them in a classic pincer movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement) and we could (if we had the will) squeeze them like a zit until they popped. That's what Iran is so freaked out about, and I can't blame them. How would the US feel if the former Soviet Union simultaneously attacked and occupied Canada and Mexico while stopping to search all of our sea traffic just outside our jurisdictional waters? If we didn't already have nuclear weapons, we would find a way to get them... and quick.

Iran is a huge source of instability in the middle east and their rising influence has their arab neighbors quite uneasy. It is very likely that the US is acting the part of the mercenary on behalf of wealthy arab states to check Iran's rising power. How many anti-american protests do you see on the streets of Jordan, Saudia Arabia, UAE and Kuwait?

Thus the 'status quo' needs a war with Iran to keep the good times rolling. I can hardly wait until the US is free of the influence of Middle East oil...

 

[BobG]

It may be a done deal even if (when) Hillary is elected. She refused to say if the US would be out of Iraq in 5 1/2 years when she is the president. (as did all of the Democrat front-runners) There is a large air base being built only 5 miles from the Iranian border... very provocative.

The Senate just last week passed (76-22) a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The bill was sponsored by Senators Kyl and Lieberman. Clinton voted for it. Perhaps Bush lied to her again? Barak Obama was absent. Clearly Obama wants no breadcrumbs leading to him on this matter or perhaps he was off planning his invasion of Pakistan? Edwards was likewise absent. Apparently he felt it was more important to announce that he would be receiving Federal funding for his candidicy. No loss, the war is just a bumper sticker slogan to him anyway. Clinton's approval for this was stunning in my opinion...

Edwards was absent because he isn't a Senator. He chose not to run for reelection (i.e. - not to suffer a sound defeat as a liberal Senator in a conservative state) in order to concentrate on the 2008 Presidential campaign.

John McCain was the other Senator (besides Obama) to miss the vote. Lugar and Hagel were the only two Republicans to vote against it (the Democratic Senators from their state voted for it). Less than half of the Democratic Senators voted against it.

Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 )

 

[kach22i]

Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 )

At least read the first few sentences of an article before you post it.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as "terrorist organizations," a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

It took them how long after the CIA over threw their elected government in the 1950's to call a spade a spade?

It's all just dirst balls, hard to take much of it serious.

 

[chemisttree]

Edwards was absent because he isn't a Senator. He chose not to run for reelection (i.e. - not to suffer a sound defeat as a liberal Senator in a conservative state) in order to concentrate on the 2008 Presidential campaign.

I guess I should have said that his wife didn't vote for it because... Clearly tongue-in-cheek.

John McCain was the other Senator (besides Obama) to miss the vote.

But is it likely that McCain will ever be president? I think that "President Obama" is a very likely thing, if not in '08 then perhaps in '12 or '16.

Lugar and Hagel were the only two Republicans to vote against it (the Democratic Senators from their state voted for it). Less than half of the Democratic Senators voted against it.

Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 )

So now I suppose that Iran is free exercise options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with the West and The Great Satan.

 

[chemisttree]

It took them how long after the CIA over threw their elected government in the 1950's to call a spade a spade?

It's all just dirst balls, hard to take much of it serious.

I think that some are just laughing it off.

 

[BobG]

So now I suppose that Iran is free exercise options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with the West and The Great Satan.

Absolutely. Iran can refuse to buy any Western materials, equipment, goods, or technology associated with nuclear programs from any Western nation and it can also refuse to sell arms to any Western nation. Doing so would at least bring Iran's foreign policy in accordance with Newton's Third Law of Physics.

The issues between Iran and the US appear to be unresolvable unless Iran gives up on a nuclear program. If they're not going to give up their nuclear program then they have little to lose by responding "Bite me!" to the US. The US will attack the Iranian Republican Guard or it won't. There's little Iran could say that would have much affect one way or the other.

 

[Art]

Shame for the warmongers the IAEA won't play ball and gave Iran a glowing scorecard in their last report.

Still I'm sure the neo-cons will see this as only a small speed bump on their path to war. The character assassination of Mohamed El- Baradei has started already. He is being called such things as the 'Rogue Regulator' for daring to report facts that contravene the Bush propaganda machine.

Funny how not so long back he was being feted by the same propaganda machine as the honest, independent investigator who Iran must satisfy.

Still 'it's an ill wind that blows nobody some good' and so although the rest of the world would view an attack on Iran and it's likely consequences as an appalling disaster some people somewhere will do very nicely out of it I am sure.

DeJa Vu anyone?

 

[Moridin]

The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?

 

[Art]

The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?

Aren't you missing the point that the IAEA says Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon's program whereas Israel on the other hand...

 

[turbo]

The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?

Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.

 

[edward]

Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.

WOW, great post Turbo-1

 

[Moridin]

Aren't you missing the point that the IAEA says Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon's program whereas Israel on the other hand...

Arguments from authority.

Iran announced on 2 September that it had installed 3,000 centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium. This is in defiance of the UN Security Council's demand for Iran to suspend all enrichment activity.

The Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran. The US and its allies want to impose more.

Why are the 3,000 centrifuges important? [...]

The latest estimate from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London (in its 2007 annual review) says: "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm (published 3 Oct 2007)

Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.

I apologize if your Islamic apologetics is in the way of true understanding of the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297982,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38682
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7020603.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

Of course Iran is not locked into iron age belief systems. It is not like they behead people in public or reject science, oppress women

Your living in a world of make-belief. Your comment is using the well-know formal fallacy called 'two wrongs make a right'.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

I do not claim that the US is not locked into an iron age belief system as well, because it is.

Also, Islamic theology does contain demonic forces. Have you read the Qur'an and seen its brutal message? Probably not. In any case, these demonic forces are probably though of being Israel or the US. Wonder how Islam combats demonic forces. Your major fallacy is thinking that Iran is a secular society that can be reasoned with.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.

Iran has about 16 nuclear facilities. But I guess they didn't tell you that on the hate-bush-administration conference, did they? I would say that the 70000-80000 civilians means more than just a couple of thousand US soldiers.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?

Feel free to show how any of those two states are trapped in an iron age belief system that is entirely based on killing everyone that doesn't agree, that everything is controlled by religion, from politics to your sexual preferences. Go on.

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.

When Iran acquires nuclear weapons of mass destruction, there is only going to be one way out. If you want the world to survive, that is.

 

[Art]

Moridin I suspect the irony of your hate filled rants is wasted on you.

 

[sneez]

This is madness moridin. Who brainwashed you so much? is it fox or bbc? You not going to take arguments from somebody who comes and goes to iran on regular basis, probably so I am not going to try. However, if you are such a pro- "reason" person, I dare you to do research to try to disprove your own arguments. Just for fun (even though its serious matter and your delusions are great but), just like scientist, assume your theory is right and start reading only things that would disprove it.

And the only one who is not possible to reason with might be ppl who say that someone else cannot be reasoned with. I like this 16th century witch hunting mentality. keep it up

 

[Moridin]

Moridin I suspect the irony of your hate filled rants is wasted on you.

What an intelligent non-argument. Disagreement has nothing to do with 'hate'.

This is madness moridin. Who brainwashed you so much? is it fox or bbc? You not going to take arguments from somebody who comes and goes to iran on regular basis, probably so I am not going to try. However, if you are such a pro- "reason" person, I dare you to do research to try to disprove your own arguments. Just for fun (even though its serious matter and your delusions are great but), just like scientist, assume your theory is right and start reading only things that would disprove it.

And the only one who is not possible to reason with might be ppl who say that someone else cannot be reasoned with. I like this 16th century witch hunting mentality. keep it up

I just posted links to content supporting my stance.

Do you deny the fact that the President of Iran denies the Holocaust?
Do you deny the fact that Iran is a theocracy?
Do you deny the fact that Iran is hostile to Israel and the US?
Do you deny the fact that homosexuals are stoned to death or buried alive in Iran?
Do you deny the fact that women are oppressed in Iran due to Islam?
Do you deny the fact that critics of the regime are killed by the regime or simply gone missing?

Where is the 16th century witch hunt mentality? Iran. But go on, deny reason and have faith in your forever unprovable apologetics.

 

[chemisttree]

Just for fun (even though its serious matter and your delusions are great but), just like scientist, assume your theory is right and start reading only things that would disprove it.

Is this what you believe a 'scientist' does? This is political science, remember. Do you advocate one-sided research because you believe it is a valid method to test a 'theory' (there was absolutely no 'theory' discussed in Moridin's post) or because you employ it to formulate your own beliefs? You then follow with this gem:

I like this 16th century witch hunting mentality. keep it up

Is it a 16th century witch hunting mentality to provide evidence in defence of one's argument?

Or is it 16th century witch hunting mentalilty to only investigate one side of a story with the goal of disproving someone else's "theory"?

 

[chemisttree]

Arguments from authority.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm (published 3 Oct 2007)



I apologize if your Islamic apologetics is in the way of true understanding of the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297982,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38682
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7020603.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

Of course Iran is not locked into iron age belief systems. It is not like they behead people in public or reject science, oppress women

Your living in a world of make-belief. Your comment is using the well-know formal fallacy called 'two wrongs make a right'.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

I do not claim that the US is not locked into an iron age belief system as well, because it is.

Also, Islamic theology does contain demonic forces. Have you read the Qur'an and seen its brutal message? Probably not. In any case, these demonic forces are probably though of being Israel or the US. Wonder how Islam combats demonic forces. Your major fallacy is thinking that Iran is a secular society that can be reasoned with.



Iran has about 16 nuclear facilities. But I guess they didn't tell you that on the hate-bush-administration conference, did they? I would say that the 70000-80000 civilians means more than just a couple of thousand US soldiers.



Feel free to show how any of those two states are trapped in an iron age belief system that is entirely based on killing everyone that doesn't agree, that everything is controlled by religion, from politics to your sexual preferences. Go on.



When Iran acquires nuclear weapons of mass destruction, there is only going to be one way out. If you want the world to survive, that is.

WOW, great post Moridin!

 

[kach22i]

I think that some are just laughing it off.

Good for Gravel he made his point, Hillary sucks.

Bill Richardson for president!

 

[sneez]

Moridin, I am not going to go into this since you made up your mind already twice over. It does not matter how strong emotional attachments you have to your political opinions about iran ,they are primitivelly naive. I can toss out hundreds of links and you can toss out 200 more that support your conclusion, its not going to change anything. So let me not waste time on that.

Do you deny the fact that the President of Iran denies the Holocaust?
Do you deny the fact that Iran is a theocracy?
Do you deny the fact that Iran is hostile to Israel and the US?
Do you deny the fact that homosexuals are stoned to death or buried alive in Iran?
Do you deny the fact that women are oppressed in Iran due to Islam?
Do you deny the fact that critics of the regime are killed by the regime or simply gone missing?

Who in their sane mind is not opposed to US foreign policy and Israel? What hostility r u talking about? Who is threating who here, who is planning war agains who here?, anyway You should take a educational trip to Iran and see for your self about the nonsense opinion you hold so dearly. I do not deny that Iran has made bad judgements. I can as well bring out the houndred cases of US/Israel violation of much broader scale (genocide, torture on mass scale, well all those thing you know about and do not admit). But that is not going to do as good talking about Iran.

Iran is all but what you present here you think it is. I am pro discussion on the sharia law of iran, the religious aspect and etc, but I am totally numb from the ignorance you present about Iran. And ofcause its not your fault since you have never been there. You probably don't even personally know anyone from there, so all your opinions came from external source. A source you just prefer for one reason or the other. Your refusal of looking at world just for a second through different lense is astonishing but hey, if it works for you. I am just sad that ppl with similar minds are in governments.

"Is this what you believe a 'scientist' does? This is political science, remember. Do you advocate one-sided research because you believe it is a valid method to test a 'theory' (there was absolutely no 'theory' discussed in Moridin's post) or because you employ it to formulate your own beliefs? You then follow with this gem:"
WTF? How did I imply any of that nonsense? This is not the thread to be investigating your inability to understand an argument in the context of forum posting.

 

[baywax]

Let's put it this way, if Iran actually made the mistake of dropping an A bomb or a Vacuum bomb on Isreal, suddenly there would be no more Iran. Not much else would take place after that other than Russian sabre rattling, Chinese goose stepping and Peace activists crying... but, for the most part, we would be minus one culture in a world where cultures seem to be falling more often than rising.

 

[kach22i]

Do you deny the fact that the President of Iran denies the Holocaust?

Just an FYI here, you guys do realize that Turkey still denies the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915, right? And that Turkey has successfully lobbied the US Congress and all our Presidents for nearly the past 100 years to suppress the truth the whole world knows.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US ally Turkey and by the US government is long overdue, but you will not be seeing this in the news as a justification for war on the US or Turkey by anyone anytime soon.

Just think about the hypocrisy for a moment.

Wikipedia Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

 

[slugcountry]

kach I agree that is an enormous crime against humanity but iran is IMHO more relevant because israel is being threatened TODAY

that said I agree absolutely that the armenian genocide deserves far greater recognition than it receives today.

 

[slugcountry]

Who in their sane mind is not opposed to US foreign policy and Israel? What hostility r u talking about? Who is threating who here, who is planning war agains who here?, anyway You should take a educational trip to Iran and see for your self about the nonsense opinion you hold so dearly.

U.S. foreign policy is one thing but Israel is entirely different. Perhaps YOU should take an educational trip to ISRAEL before spouting your own nonsense opinion.

 

[chemisttree]

Just an FYI here, you guys do realize that Turkey still denies the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915, right? And that Turkey has successfully lobbied the US Congress and all our Presidents for nearly the past 100 years to suppress the truth the whole world knows.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US ally Turkey and by the US government is long overdue, but you will not be seeing this in the news as a justification for war on the US or Turkey by anyone anytime soon.

Just think about the hypocrisy for a moment.

Wikipedia Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The real leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, does not deny the Holocaust although he does advocate the abolishment of Israel.

"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/

but not by force (apparently).

"the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2050168,00.html

Is he lying through his teeth? I guess it depends on what you mean by 'threaten'. His statement that, "...this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." coupled with Iran's funding of Hezbollah and desire to obtain nuclear materials could be construed by most sane people as a threatening posture.

Would any sane people go to war based solely on the fact that the Jewish Holocaust is or isn't a real event in history?

 

[sneez]

"U.S. foreign policy is one thing but Israel is entirely different. Perhaps YOU should take an educational trip to ISRAEL before spouting your own nonsense opinion."

Kinda funny, as a jew i am in israel at home :d, If I could I would tell you about jewishness more than you can imagine in your wake state.

Just general question, what you do you understand by the word "MYTH" ? Thats the word used by Iran's president. And anyone who critically examined the holocaust myth (with many of my predecesors in it) I can tell you its not all that it thaught in elementary school textbooks.

 

[Moridin]

Just an FYI here, you guys do realize that Turkey still denies the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915, right? And that Turkey has successfully lobbied the US Congress and all our Presidents for nearly the past 100 years to suppress the truth the whole world knows.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US ally Turkey and by the US government is long overdue, but you will not be seeing this in the news as a justification for war on the US or Turkey by anyone anytime soon.

Just think about the hypocrisy for a moment.

Wikipedia Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

That is the same formal fallacy again. Two wrongs does not make a right.

Moridin, I am not going to go into this since you made up your mind already twice over. It does not matter how strong emotional attachments you have to your political opinions about iran ,they are primitivelly naive. I can toss out hundreds of links and you can toss out 200 more that support your conclusion, its not going to change anything. So let me not waste time on that.

There is a difference between being open minded and downright gullible. Being open minded means assessing each new piece of evidence objectively, and trying to see the wider picture. This mean accepting possibility, but evaluating probability. It does not mean believe everything. It does not mean to assert absolute truth in the absence of evidence.

Yes, I have drawn a conclusion from the available facts that are available to me.

The facts are there and if your slavish and blind devotion to your own world view and inability to stop skewing things through your lens of bias clouds your mind from being able to understand the evidence, that is your problem, not mine. The evidence is there. Accept it. Or alternatively, provide evidence for your position to counter my evidence. That is what a debate is all about, you know.

Who in their sane mind is not opposed to US foreign policy and Israel? What hostility r u talking about? Who is threating who here, who is planning war agains who here?, anyway You should take a educational trip to Iran and see for your self about the nonsense opinion you hold so dearly. I do not deny that Iran has made bad judgements. I can as well bring out the houndred cases of US/Israel violation of much broader scale (genocide, torture on mass scale, well all those thing you know about and do not admit). But that is not going to do as good talking about Iran.

Iran is all but what you present here you think it is. I am pro discussion on the sharia law of iran, the religious aspect and etc, but I am totally numb from the ignorance you present about Iran. And ofcause its not your fault since you have never been there. You probably don't even personally know anyone from there, so all your opinions came from external source. A source you just prefer for one reason or the other. Your refusal of looking at world just for a second through different lense is astonishing but hey, if it works for you. I am just sad that ppl with similar minds are in governments.

Also a very intelligent non-argument. You have not tried to argue against any of the questions I asked in order to demonstrate your view.

Since you have not done this, we can only accept them.

The President of Iran denies the Holocaust
Iran is a theocracy
Iran is hostile to Israel and the US
Homosexuals are stoned to death or buried alive in Iran
Women are oppressed in Iran due to Islam
Critics of the regime are killed by the regime or simply gone missing

We have established that Iran cannot be compared to any democratic country with a rational political system. This is also why certain countries are more reliable with nuclear weapons than others.

When it comes to your accusation that the US is a terrorist state you must realize that it is a completely fabricated notion? Do you even know what terrorism means? Here is an example to illustrate my point.

Postulate smart bombs that can kill precisely without collateral damage when it comes to buildings or human life. Would the United States acquire these weapons and substitute their primitive weapons for it? Yes, if not only because public opinion. Would a terrorist state like Iran do it? Hardly. A terrorist wants to inflicts as much causalities and structural damage as possible.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism

 

[Moridin]

Just general question, what you do you understand by the word "MYTH" ? Thats the word used by Iran's president. And anyone who critically examined the holocaust myth (with many of my predecesors in it) I can tell you its not all that it thaught in elementary school textbooks.

To be fair, the divine right of existence of Israel is based on a myth as well.

 

[chemisttree]

Shame for the warmongers the IAEA won't play ball and gave Iran a glowing scorecard in their last report.

Is this what you mean by a glowing scorecard?

3. Since May 2007, Iran has continued to test single centrifuge machines, the 10- and 20-machine cascades and one 164-machine cascade at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP). Between 17 March and 22 July 2007, Iran fed 14 kg of UF6 into the single machines; there was no feeding of nuclear material into the cascades. Between 17 March and 22 July 2007, Iran fed 14 kg of UF6 into the single machines; there was no feeding of nuclear material into the cascades.
4. Since February 2007, Iran has fed approximately 690 kg of UF6 into the cascades at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP), which is well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design. While Iran has stated that it has reached enrichment levels up to 4.8% U-235 at FEP, the highest enrichment level measured from environmental samples taken so far by the Agency from cascade components and related equipment is 3.7%. Detailed nuclear material accountancy, which is necessary to confirm the actual enrichment level, will be carried out when the product and tails are withdrawn from the cascades. As of 19 August 2007, twelve 164-machine cascades were operating simultaneously and were being fed with UF6; one other cascade was operating without UF6; another cascade was being vacuum tested; and two more were under construction.

ALL of this testing is in violation of the Security Council Resolution’s dating back years.
(http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-48.pdf)

El-Baradei and Iran have both rewritten the schedule for the disclosure of remaining issues. The Security Council has demanded immediate compliance but el-Baradei has given Iran as much time as Iran needs. No definite dates have been agreed upon and cooperation on many of the unresolved issues is contingent upon the resolution of the so-called “Uranium Metal Document” as a prerequisite for further cooperation. The document in question deals with the procedure to isolate metallic enriched uranium metal from the enriched UF6 stream and it’s subsequent machining into hemispheres. Hemispheres! How are they going to use that in a peaceful way?

Remember that el-Baradei earned the moniker “Rogue Regulator” for secretly agreeing to a deal with Iran that contradicted the UN Security Council’s several resolutions dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. The IAEA has absolutely no authority or mandate to enter into agreements with any government regarding issues related to their nuclear program. The IAEA’s mandate is clear… inspection, verification and reportage only. This ‘agreement’ of el-Baradei’s is clearly rogue diplomacy that upsets all the multi-year efforts the Security Council. Germany has abandoned the UN process entirely as a result. This can only embolden the US to attack and is counterproductive.

This is hardly a glowing scorecard. Perhaps ‘glowing’ is too double entendre for this discussion?

 

[sneez]

-hmm- Obviously your conviction that you ate the knowledge of the world and that your opinions are not subject of being possibly wrong or incomplete in the given context is established. The fact that you wave your 'hands' along with the other dude throwing rehtorics of logical fallacies here and there yet yourself are guilty is also sign of something. And just for your own education: "Since you have not done this, we can only accept them." Not proving somebody's arguments wrong does not make them right. But I think you know that, you are just blinded by the automatic emotions that are trigered by this topic. I feel sad from our conversation, not because of our difference of opinion, its the again and again reccuring theme of a person not being able to look beyond the limits of his/her own knowledge. I know you have many years ahead of you and hopefully if you like philosophy at all, you may come to learn better ways concerning even political opinions (which are really philosophical in nature). Its the fact that the automatic emotions rule the people that make decisions if some nation will suffer injustly or not.

So maybe again on some other topic...ba

 

[Art]

Is this what you mean by a glowing scorecard?

Let's put things in context. The UNSC resolutions were passed originally on the basis that Iran refused to come clean on their past nuclear activities. A core part of the IAEA mandate is to clear up these open historical questions.

ElBaradei has succeeded in persuading Iran to answer nearly all of the questions outstanding to the IAEA's full satisfaction and for those few still open Iran has promised to reply to them in full by the end of the year.

The report also says Iran is now in full compliance with the IAEA's requirements re snap inspections, giving full unrestricted access to their 219 inspectors and remote monitoring and that there is no sign of Iran running a parallel weapons program.

That Iran shall shortly be in full compliance with the requirements of the NPT is very good news which is how the other world powers see it. It is especially good news for Israel who should feel very happy knowing Iran, unlike them, does not have a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Some in the USA administration do not like this as it severely weakens their case for war. Seeing as how these were the IAEA's findings it is hard to see what else the IAEA could have reported other than the facts ElBaradei is to be congratulated on achieving a large part of his mandate but instead is being attacked.

With the historical questions settled the major outstanding issue now is the UNSC demand that Iran stop processing uranium but seeing as how the reason for that demand was Iran's secrecy about it's past activities and that has now been largely resolved and will likely be fully resolved by the end of the year it will be difficult to justify a war based on Iran's non-compliance with the UNSC which is what has the neo-cons in the US and ironically Israel frothing at the mouth at this time.

Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, sums it up well. He said

"Those critical of ElBaradei should take a deep, hard look at their own role and record for the war in Iraq."

"We have an American government seemingly itching to go to war, and we find that those who are proposing negotiations and inspections instead of war are themselves coming under attack"

The reaction of the Bush hawks suggest that the whole nuclear business was never the real issue, it was simply their excuse for marching off to war again.

If Iran did want to do serious damage to Israel or anybody else for that matter would it make sense for them to go the nuclear route? I very much doubt it when there are other equally devastating weapons that can be developed far faster and several orders of magnitude cheaper such as fuel air bombs - the 'poor man's nuclear bomb' as used by the US during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and by the Russians in Chechnya to devastating effect.

 

[chemisttree]

Let's put things in context. The UNSC resolutions were passed originally on the basis that Iran refused to come clean on their past nuclear activities. A core part of the IAEA mandate is to clear up these open historical questions.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different Security Council resolution. I was referring to the resolutions that demanded a cessation of Iran's enrichment and heavy water programs. Neither of these programs have been addressed to anyone's satisfaction and no timetable for it’s resolution has been agreed to by either Iran or el-Baradei. It is a current, not a past, activity.

Security Council Resolution 1696 demanded the immediate cessation of enrichment activities and heavy water development by August 31, 2007 (sponsored by France, Germany and UK). Iran failed to abide.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

Security Council Resolution 1737 enacted sanctions for Iran’s failure to halt enrichment and heavy water projects (sponsored by France, Germany and UK). Iran failed to abide.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm

Security Council Resolution 1747 reaffirmed the two previous resolutions (1696 and 1737) after Iran had failed to abide.

Also, the various IAEA Board of Governors resolutions such as GOV/2006/14 (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf) which details Iran’s 1) failure to halt its enrichment program, 2) failure to ratify the Additional Protocol of the NPT, 3) to provide for inspection an Agency-sealed document regarding the manufacture of uranium metal hemispheres, to 4) halt work on heavy water projects, 5) to implement transparency measures to provide inspectors access to individuals and records related to equipment procurement, dual use technologies and military equipment workshops.
El-Baradei’s report outlines some successes such as the questions related to reprocessing and the granting of visas to 219 inspectors (only 13 are multiple entry type visas, however). He also reports resolution on other minor points related to explanations of enriched uranium contamination at several locations and that the inventory of declared nuclear inventory is accurate.
In el-Baradei’s most recent report, only one sentence of his summary deals with Iran’s resolution of outstanding matters. The rest is either negative or hopelessly hopeful…

G. Summary
22. The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities. However, the Agency remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. It should be noted that since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the Additional Protocol, for example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research.
23. The work plan is a significant step forward. If Iran finally addresses the long outstanding verification issues, the Agency should be in a position to reconstruct the history of Iran’s nuclear programme. Naturally, the key to successful implementation of the agreed work plan is Iran’s full and active cooperation with the Agency, and its provision to the Agency of all relevant information and access to all relevant documentation and individuals to enable the gency to resolve all outstanding issues. To this end, the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures provided for in the Additional Protocol.
24. Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to build confidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional Protocol. The Director General therefore again urges Iran to ratify and bring into force the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date, as requested by the Board of Governors and the Security Council.
25. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued with the operation of PFEP, and with the construction and operation of FEP. Iran is also continuing with its construction of the IR-40 reactor and operation of the Heavy Water Production Plant.
26. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

The bolded items were the only positive statements I could find.

That Iran shall shortly be in full compliance with the requirements of the NPT is very good news which is how the other world powers see it. It is especially good news for Israel who should feel very happy knowing Iran, unlike them, does not have a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

If only this were not complete fantasy, alas. Where did you hear this news?

With the historical questions settled the major outstanding issue now is the UNSC demand that Iran stop processing uranium but seeing as how the reason for that demand was Iran's secrecy about it's past activities and that has now been largely resolved and will likely be fully resolved by the end of the year it will be difficult to justify a war based on Iran's non-compliance with the UNSC which is what has the neo-cons in the US and ironically Israel frothing at the mouth at this time.

WTF? What fantasy is this? (I want some too…)

If Iran did want to do serious damage to Israel or anybody else for that matter would it make sense for them to go the nuclear route? I very much doubt it when there are other equally devastating weapons that can be developed far faster and several orders of magnitude cheaper such as fuel air bombs - the 'poor man's nuclear bomb' as used by the US during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and by the Russians in Chechnya to devastating effect.

I doubt that Iran could successfully deploy a FAB in a hostile environment even if they had it. In your examples, two superpowers that had complete control of the sky used them. Why attack from the air when you can use car bombs and proxy militant groups at will?

 

[Art]

Chemistree perhaps you didn't understand my post so here's a question which should prompt some research for you to help educate yourself on this.

Why do you think the resolution was passed demanding Iran cease enrichment?

Here's a clue. There is nothing in the NPT which forbids signatories from performing enrichment so why do you think Iran was singled out for special treatment? If it wasn't because of it's previous non-compliance then there is something seriously amiss with the UNSC.

You will find many countries practice uranium enrichment such as Germany and Japan for instance both of whom have less than glowing histories in world affairs so why is Iran special despite never having attacked anybody in modern history?

 

[chemisttree]

Chemistree perhaps you didn't understand my post so here's a question which should prompt some research for you to help educate yourself on this.

Why do you think the resolution was passed demanding Iran cease enrichment?

Because Iran sits atop a huge reserve of oil and yet still thinks that now is the time to develop nuclear energy. The rest of the world doesn't believe him either.

Here's a clue. There is nothing in the NPT which forbids signatories from performing enrichment so why do you think Iran was singled out for special treatment? If it wasn't because of it's previous non-compliance then there is something seriously amiss with the UNSC.

I agree. If only Iran would actually comply with the NPT. Its non-disclosure of its enrichment program (before the resolutions) was in itself a serious violation of the NPT. Subesquently it refused to abide by the Additional Protocol (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1998/infcirc540corrected.pdf ), enacted in 1997. This goes back a long way.

You will find many countries practice uranium enrichment such as Germany and Japan for instance both of whom have less than glowing histories in world affairs so why is Iran special despite never having attacked anybody in modern history?

Point taken. Are Germany and Japan in violation of the NPT and the Additional Protocol as IRAN IS? Oh, and by the way, I consider Iran's takeover of the US Embassy and the imprisonment of the hostages for 444 days an attack on the US.

Research complete.

 

[turbo]

There is no need to argue over the enrichment program. That "reason" was a red herring, and administration has now changed the reason to terrorism. Now a substantial portion of Iran's military is charged with supporting terrorism, and the attack will be made on that premise. There is no need for another war, but it sure looks we're going to get one. The president's spokesperson keeps saying the the president believes that there is a diplomatic solution to this "situation", but somehow, there is no diplomacy currently underway because Bush won't negotiate with Iran. Real diplomats know that negotiating with your enemies is far more important and possibly productive than negotiating with your friends. Scroll down to "Iran drumbeat" and prepare to be dismayed. Those of us who remember the run-up to the Iraq invasion know the drill all too well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

 

[Moridin]

-hmm- Obviously your conviction that you ate the knowledge of the world and that your opinions are not subject of being possibly wrong or incomplete in the given context is established.

You are the one who is refusing to enter a rational debate. I have posted my views with the evidence I present to support it. You have two options: i.) try to use logical arguments to refute my arguments with supporting evidence or ii.) withdraw from the discussion.

The fact that you wave your 'hands' along with the other dude throwing rehtorics of logical fallacies here and there yet yourself are guilty is also sign of something. And just for your own education: "Since you have not done this, we can only accept them."

I have made no such fallacy. In fact, I have pointed out the logical fallacies in your argument.

Not proving somebody's arguments wrong does not make them right. But I think you know that, you are just blinded by the automatic emotions that are trigered by this topic.

No, but since I have presented valid and strong evidence for my point whereupon you attempt to withdraw from the discussion, we can only accept them as valid in the light of the evidence presented.

I have no emotional investment in this discussion or the real life situation. You, however, have shown plenty. Iran, Israel and the US can bomb each other to pieces for all I care. In fact, such an event would actually strengthen my view on religion in this situation.

I feel sad from our conversation, not because of our difference of opinion, its the again and again reccuring theme of a person not being able to look beyond the limits of his/her own knowledge.

...

How can I look beyond the evidence presented by me when you have presented no such evidence to support your claim at all? In other words, I take this as your withdrawal from this debate and the forfeiting of all arguments. Thank you for your time, have a nice day.

As for the arguments made by turbo-1, you seem very cynical and perhaps you have read too many conspiracy books about it? There are plenty of obstacles for Bush before he can launch another war. Congress for instance.

 

[chemisttree]

Well, Turbo-1 is right about the enrichment program not being used solely as an argument for the inevitable bombing of Iran. The regime itself will probably be branded a terrorist regime and the words "regime change" will have to pass the lips of those in power before anything will begin. As for diplomacy solving anything of substance remains to be seen. Someone refresh my memory, please.

When did diplomacy work to avert an impending war?

 

[Art]

Yes. That video sums it up well. The American people are sleepwalking into another war unless they wake up and make their resistance known unless of course the majority are like Chemistree and still want revenge for the American hostage crisis in 1979 .

Lets just pray the Iraqis don't bear grudges as long

 

[turbo]

When did diplomacy work to avert an impending war?

We will never know how many conflicts that could have escalated into war have been averted through diplomacy. Our western society does not define itself in terms of the periods of relative calm - only in the terms of conflicts. The point is that Bush did not use diplomacy with Iraq. He demanded that they turn over all WMDs (that they didn't have) and since they did not turn over WMDs (that they didn't have), he declared them to be in possession of WMDs and invaded. Now, Bush refuses to negotiate with Iran because he's already branded them as supporters of terrorism. Without diplomacy, there will be no peaceful resolution, and Cheney's Halliburton holdings and stock options will only continue to balloon.

The real point is not that negotiations could ease tensions - they could. The point is that Bush and Cheney want another war to enrich themselves and their friends and they will not permit any attempt at diplomacy to succeed. They will attack Iran, then claim it was necessary because diplomacy failed. Guess what, people? Diplomacy can only work if you actually try it. There is absolutely no problem with us averting this war. Iran is not attacking us, and if we do not attack them, there will be no Iranian war. Bush may inform a few of his congressional lap-dogs after he gives the order to attack Iran, but there will be no public discussion of this war, nor of its "necessity". It's funny that Bush calls the Iranian military "terrorists". What do the people of other countries call the US after our military and intelligence agencies train terrorists to unleash on their populations? The US is the largest exporter of terrorism in the western hemisphere. Just ask the families of the tortured, murdered, "disappeared", etc in South and Central American countries.

 

[chemisttree]

Hey, I don't want a war with Iraq either. I just object to bad diplomacy and gross mischaracterization of el-Baradei's shameful behavior.

As for revenge for the hostage crisis, I feel that Iran has punished itself far more effectively than the US could have. http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Iran-oil-exports-could-dwindle/2007/01/05/1167777251449.html
Iran's oil infrastructure continues a steep downward decline and exports are expected to dwindle to zero by 2015. Already, Iran has seen serious gasoline shortages reminiscent of the Oil Crisis in the 70's here in the US.

I'm happy to wait them out while they empty their treasury to continue their insane behavior. And if they do get the bomb, I'm OK with that as well. That will only hasten their demise. If its a nuclear arms race they want with the West, bring it on! The bigger the bill, the faster we can get all this behind us.