REPORT: Air Strikes Against Iran Would Accelerate Nuclear Weapons Development
REPORT: Air Strikes Against Iran Would Accelerate Nuclear Weapons Development
Conservatives such as AEI’s Joshua Muravchik have argued that a targeted air strike “would not end Iran’s weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.” Similarly, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton promoted the concept of air strikes, saying, “I don’t think the military option, with respect to the Iranian nuclear program, would involve forces on the ground. I think it would involve the destruction of the nuclear facilities. And that can be done in a variety of other ways.”
In a new study, the British-based Oxford Research Group reports that military strikes on Iran “could accelerate rather than halt Tehran’s production of atomic weapons.” “If Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapons capacity, it is doing so relatively slowly,” the report says. But in the report’s introduction, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix warns that “armed attacks on Iran would very likely lead to the result they were meant to avoid — the building of nuclear weapons within a few years.” A key portion of the report:
If Iran’s nuclear facilities were severely damaged during an attack, it is possible that Iran could embark on a crash programme to make one nuclear weapon. In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve this in a relatively short amount of time: some months rather than years. The argument that military strikes would buy time is flawed. It does not take into account the time already available to pursue diplomacy; it inflates the likelihood of military success and underplays the possibility of hardened Iranian determination leading to a crash nuclear programme. Post military attacks, it is possible that Iran would be able to build a nuclear weapon and would then wield one in an environment of incalculably greater hostility.
It is a mistake to believe that Iran can be deterred from attaining a nuclear weapons capability by bombing its facilities, and presumably continuing to do so should Iran then reconstitute its programme.
The Washington Post reported last year that the administration was “studying options for military strikes against Iran.” Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace “categorically” denied that the U.S. is planning for such operations. But media reports have indicated preparations for an air strike against Iran are reportedly “at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration.”
UPDATE: The Center for American Progress’s Iran strategy, “Contain and Engage,” notes, “After a U.S. military strike some countries might even decide that it is in their interests to help Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Russia, for instance, might regard U.S. military action in Iran as destabilizing and damaging to its national security and seek to counter U.S. power in the region by strengthening its relationship with Iran.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Could anyone seriously blame Iran?
March 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmMaybe that’s the plan.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmWWIII - YAY It can’t come soon enough… Waiting for global warming to do anything is just painful.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmWar on Iran could ignite global nuclear WW3, so it must not be allowed to take place > PERIOD.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmI’d be hurrying as fast as possible to build a nuke BEFORE the US attacks too. If they already had nukes, we’d leave them the f*ck alone, like we do all other nations which have nukes.
If the US bombs Iran, I will DEFINITELY be buying an AR-15, just in case…
March 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmDespite what the loyal 30% think, Iran isn’t stupid. Bush has PROVEN that countries that are not a threat get invaded and occupied (Iraq, Afghanastan) while countries that rush to get nuclear weapons are safe from American Inperialism (North Korea).
Iran knows they will be much better off and more likely to avoid American manipulation and intereference if they develop (or hint of developing) a nuclear weapon.
Hell, if I was a country, and neo-cons were in charge, I’d rush to build a nuke too. It would be the only way to save my own hide from the Bush agenda and keep Cheney/Haliburton’s dirty hands off my countries natural resources.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pm#1 Not the Iranian people…the government that doesn’t represent the people…yes.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pm(wake-n-bake…..
March 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pmI’ve got a pretty good inventory of flint axe and arrowheads worked up already…..:)
WakeyBakey ~ Absolutely rite on!
March 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pmIsn’t it written in the Bible that nuke1 begat nukes 3, 4 & 5, who begat nukes 12, 13, 14, etc?
The United States President is an idiot and dumb as a door knob don’t think the Iran President doesn’t know this and he is intelligent. Iran will play this US stupidity to their advantage. As we become weak in the military and with our ecomony other countries will look to see how they can take the lead. Iran knows that oil is the way to get rich and they are doing just that. Notice how many countries are joining the US in Iraq/Afghan. Most of the smaller countries called Bush allies are taking their money and moving out. UK is out because the Bush poodle is leaving. Bush invaded countries and put his choice of Leaders there to sign contracts for oil with Halliburton that was the plan along. It had nothing to do with never there WMD or Iraq Freedom. The plan was to kill Saddam and take over Iraq’s oil. As for Afghan notice the President is a former Bush oil company employee and the first thing he did when being appointed President by Bush was to sign the oil rights to Halliburton. American can’t be that stupid to believe the lies anymore as the truth is in your face. Our troops didn’t have supplies because the money went to Iraq/Afghan as ordered by Rummy. Our injured troops are living with mice/roaches as they die by infections from bites. They live in dirt and their own body waste as Americans watch and say this is the way we SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. Halliburton his billing the US taxpayer for food and cleaning for our troops for the past 6 years and the same amount is taken out of the troops pay so Halliburton is double billing. As for the food our troops eat shit, only the troops in front of the camers as photo ops get real food. Don’t worry the Govenment knows all about it but as usual when it hits the front page they will say they are shocked but the 109th Congress and the White House knew it and planned it along. Iran and Syria have smart leaders and know to wait as the United States destroys itself. Remember Bin Laden who’s well protected by the White House well he said in his only reported speech to America that no one would ever have to bomb the US again he knew Bush and company would do that all by themselves as Americans sit back and do nothing. Oh yes the GOP is attacking Hillary for being smart, Obama for being black and calls Edwards gay, now that’s more important then our troops dying everyday.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pm“War on Iran could ignite global nuclear WW3, so it must not be allowed to take place > PERIOD.
Comment by Jay Randal — March 5, 2007 @ 1:26 pm”
Yes, let’s do nothing about it. The Iranian mullahs are trustworthy! They don’t want to hurt any of us infadels! You liberals are a bunch of morons!
March 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm# 11
Attack the United States with what Army ?
March 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmmichael, it’s difficult to take your rants seriously when you can’t even be bothered to spell ‘infidel’ correctly.
Go away, michael. We’re all stocked up on irrational fear now…we don’t need anything you’re selling.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm#11 michelle,
Since you are taking a position of being “knowledgeable”, perhaps you can answer some questions:
1. Specifically, who is Iran threatening and how?
March 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm2. Why is the US in danger from Iran?
3. Who has lied more to the US citizenry, G.Bush or the “mullahs”?
4. What is a “mullah”?
5. When do you graduate from the 6th grade?
6. At what point do you realize that killing other people does not solve your problem? When it’s your mother or sister? Or are they filthy vermin in your eyes as well?
Can’t you smell their cookin?
Escalation and total war is the GOAL.
Ledeen and Wurmser are elated.
Israel’s Likud is running the entire show.
Got blackmail for 9/11?
March 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pm#11 The only one that is a moron is you. We need to bring our troops home now. We do not need to attack Iran. We also need to impeach Old Bush and Cheney and his admin.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmYes, let’s continue to threaten other countries. BushCo is trustworthy! BushCo wouldn’t lie to any of us progressives/infidels! You neocons are a bunch of deluded, easily manipulated lemmings!
March 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pmuh, in what world is Hans Blix a military expert?
March 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pmIt is madness even talking about attacking Iran! Wake up people!
March 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pmYou know the problem here? Hans Blix and others are rational. They weight positives and negatives and make reasonable decisions accordingly. Bush, Cheney, Bolton, and other appear to be irrational. Maybe in their world they’re weighing options but the outcomes are always so irrational one wonders.
I doubt Hans Blix wrote this report single-handed. Doubtless he had input and help from military experts.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pm#18 Dale,
He has been right more than the bush administration, so I would say “the real world”. You should try visiting it some time.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmmichael > go join up to fight for the Bush Regime or shut-up your yapper.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:03 pmNice. “Doubtless he had”. Doubtless he had, huh? Are you sure about that? What evidence do you have that this wasn’t just written by a bunch of bureauracrats?
Maybe attacking Iran *would* be a bad idea. But I think I’d rather get my military advice from reliable *military* sources, not a bureaucrat.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#21, he was fooled also about WMD’s; but let’s get back to the focus of the article. Hans Blix is *not* a military expert, yet he’s pontificating like he is one. And because he’s saying what you want to hear, you’re lapping it up.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pm“Maybe attacking Iran *would* be a bad idea. But I think I’d rather get my military advice from reliable *military* sources, not a bureaucrat.”
how bout that kiley fellow? he seems like an honest broker.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pmSo a nuc scientist is one of the reports authors. The daughter of a friend of mine graduated 1st in nuc engineering, master degree, working on ph.d… wonder what she thinks about Iran’s air defenses? /sarcasm
March 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pmAttacking Iraq because of fictitious terrorism connections actually created a hot spot for terrorists to collect. Now they want to bomb and attack Iran because of they have a nuclear program which can’t be confirmed if it is for conventional use or the making of nuclear weapons creating a hot button issue for the hardliner Iranian leader to use as a rallying call for the arming with nuclear weapons.
Serioously has anyone ever seen a person that consistently makes the wrong decision on every major topic in their life? Bush doesn’t even get lucky every once in a while with a good decision. Everything he does creates a worse situation.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pmDale sez:
You mean these same *military* sources that alleged that Iraq had WMDs? The same *military* sources that held that conquest of Iraq would be a cake walk?
Exactly what makes you think your *military* sources have any credibility remaining after the last six years? I’ll go with Hans’ assessment…after all, he’s been correct more often than this administration.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:13 pmwonder what she thinks about Iran’s air defenses? /sarcasm
Comment by Dale — March 5, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
If she comes from your gene pool - what she *thinks* is likely to be wrong.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pmDid any of you people even read the report?
Out of 27 pages, the author devoted TWO to a military strike, but then only in vague terms.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pmTMM, do you know the difference between *military* and *intelligence*??? The intelligence sources were wrong about WMD’s (as were most other nations’ intelligence services), the *military* had little input as to whether or not Hussein had WMD’s.
But you’ll believe a nuc scientist over the military.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:18 pm#21, he was fooled also about WMD’s; but let’s get back to the focus of the article. Hans Blix is *not* a military expert, yet he’s pontificating like he is one. And because he’s saying what you want to hear, you’re lapping it up. Comment by Dale — March 5, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Actually, he’s an internationally respected expert on *military* nuclear programs. It is you that’s trying to pontificate like an expert, yet you don’t even have enough expertise to know who has expertise! Talk about st*pid! You’re the very definition of *conservative* intelligence - the oxymoron of this administration!
March 5th, 2007 at 2:19 pm“Hans Blix is *not* a military expert”
“But that wasn’t the only gift that Dick Cheney had for Norman Schwarzkopf. Having figured out that the general was being too cautious with his fourth combat command in three decades of soldiering, Cheney got his staff busy and began presenting Schwarzkopf with his own ideas about how to fight the Iraqis: What if we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the far western part of Iraq, hundreds of miles from Kuwait and totally cut off from any kind of support, and seize a couple of missile sites, then line up along the highway and drive for Baghdad? Schwarzkopf charitably describes the plan as being “as bad as it could possibly be… But despite our criticism, the western excursion wouldn’t die: three times in that week alone Powell called with new variations from Cheney’s staff. The most bizarre involved capturing a town in western Iraq and offering it to Saddam in exchange for Kuwait.”
March 5th, 2007 at 2:19 pm#24 Dale,
I do not “lap” anything up, which is why I wasn’t “fooled” like you on the whole WMD/Iraq thing and why I’m not being “fooled†now.
But, here you are claiming a position of superiority and righteousness while baselessly criticizing the experts. Just like you did on Iraq. Just like last time, you are wrong, But the stakes are even higher this time so I would think that you should be even more pragmatic considering how easily you were manipulated last time. You either like being misled or you are in on the scam.
So, don’t be offended that your credibility is nonexistent. You earned the distinction and seem intent on making the same mistakes you made before.
Sorry to hit you with the reality, but thems the facts.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmTMM, do you know the difference between *military* and *intelligence*??? The intelligence sources were wrong about WMD’s (as were most other nations’ intelligence services), the *military* had little input as to whether or not Hussein had WMD’s.
But you’ll believe a nuc scientist over the military.
Comment by Dale — March 5, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
The wrong intelligence came from the *military*, it was out of the pentagon, you id*ot.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pmDale sez:
No, he’s ‘pontificating’ like he’s the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, and the Chairman of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, which he is.
Don’t presume to know our motives, Dale…you obviously have no idea what motivates us.
What makes you think this is ‘what we want to hear’? Since this administration seems bent on attacking Iran regardless of the facts, I’d prefer that the facts were otherwise, but unlike you, I refuse to modify the facts to fit my preconceptions.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pm**90%** of the US **intelligence** budget **is** spent on **14** military **intellegence** services.
Boy playing with the little starry things really makes the **point** doesn’t **it**?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI fail to see how Iran could enrich Uranium at a production rate needed for weapons if we continually bombed their facilities. Sure, they could hide some minor small production, but it would be less then they have today. Unless this report was suggesting us bombing them Once and then leaving, then sure.
I would bet however that we would bomb and bomb some more each and every time we suspect a nuke site. Logic tells us that it would slow them down.
It couldn’t be any worse. They are currently denying the UN’s mandate and building there nuclear weapons.
In the end, if the bombind doesn’t work, we then invade full force. Just like Obama and Clinton say, “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear capability and the military option is on the table”.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmuh, okay, and that has to do with the application of military strikes how?
#34. Oh, okay, it’s true because you say it’s true. D*mn, where are you when all the important decisions need to be made?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm“Attack the United States with what Army ?
Comment by Burgman — March 5, 2007 @ 1:47 pm”
Who said anything about an army? How about a nuke?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmTMM, do you know the difference between *military* and *intelligence*??? The intelligence sources were wrong about WMD’s (as were most other nations’ intelligence services), the *military* had little input as to whether or not Hussein had WMD’s.
Comment by Dale
I think you need to revisit the sources that had the right intelligence and the wrong intelligence. The DIA which is part of the Department of Defense (read military) was the agency that cherrypicked the information that Iraq had WMDs and that information was used to make a case for war. The CIA (read intelligence) had contradicting information that was left out. So who do you trust? Professionals or ones that take orders from Der Chimpenfurher.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmCouldn’t be any worse?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmHow would you be able to afford to fill up your suv at 12.00 a gallon gas?
http://www.oilempire.us/media.html
Even TP is part of the problem, and not the solution.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pm#37, gee, nice use of asterisks klyde. Where’d you get your info? From here:
The Commission reported that about two-thirds of the intelligence budget at the time
was for NFIP, that almost all of the NFIP budget was for the CIA and DOD, and that
about three-fourths of the NFIP budget was for DOD programs
So if 2/3 was for NFIP, and 3/4 of *that* was for DOD, then it’d be about %49.5 would be for DOD programs *as a whole*.
But keep playing with yourself, I mean with your starry things.
Idiot.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pmRoger_Rhetoric, how many times to I have to slap you down? Again, every time you try to claim that Iran is making nukes, I’m going to come along and ask the magic question:
Answer the question or leave with your tail tucked between your legs (again). One or the other.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pm#31 The intelligence sources - US and foreign - had it right. At most they thought it might be possible Saddam Hussein had WMDs, but they held the opinion that their evidence wasn’t good enough to say anything for sure, and some were dubious. The “intelligence” put out by the Bush Administration and their sycophant, Colin Powell, at the UN on February 5, 2003 was propaganda. Check this article: http://www.theage.com.au/ articles/ 2004/ 02/ 05/ 1075853996640.html?from=storyrhs
March 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pmAs usual our trolls today exhibit their collective talents. All of them are able to take a position and form an opinion without reference to a single fact.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pmthe government that doesn’t represent the people…yes.
Comment by Tracy #7
T’rashy,
…you mean like the criminal Bushites…
…who DON”T represent the MAJORITY of Americans?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pmusing “Logic tells us” and “then invade full force” in the same
March 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pmpost = comedy gold
“Since you are taking a position of being “knowledgeableâ€, perhaps you can answer some questions:
1. Specifically, who is Iran threatening and how?
What? You don’t watch the news? The leader of Iran has verbally attacked Israel and the U.S. He has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. They don’t need an army just a few crazed ragheads who want a quick passage to paradise!
2. Why is the US in danger from Iran?
Boy you lefties are so dense! Iran wants control of all the oil that comes from that part of the world. If that happens they could bring the entire West to its knees!
3. Who has lied more to the US citizenry, G.Bush or the “mullahs�
Stupid questions don’t deserve answers!
4. What is a “mullah�
If you don’t wake up you will find out first hand!
5. When do you graduate from the 6th grade?
Read the answer to #3!
6. At what point do you realize that killing other people does not solve your problem? When it’s your mother or sister? Or are they filthy vermin in your eyes as well?
If we see what their ultimate plan is, and in case you missed it, their plan is to convert or kill! Yes I do consider them filthy vermin!
March 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm#39 Dull,
No, I listen to experts, do my own research, and analyze facts. That is how I make decisions. All you want to do is have some moron make decisions for you and then spend all your time attempting to defend the moronic decisions.
If this were a play, I would be laughing at you. However, this is as real as it gets and people are being murdered and terrorized by the moron you choose to follow and support. Good luck to you on that, by the way.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmi’m still waiting for an answer too:
“Any country that sits on top of one of the world’s largest lakes of Oil does not need Nuke energyâ€
so why was the u.s. helping them with nuclear technology in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s? and how bout that huge dam on the karun river? is that a big decoy?
Comment by pgw — February 27, 2007
March 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pmAug ‘02
Privately even the hawks within the US government lobbying for war acknowledged that President Saddam was no threat to America, according to [former NATO commander Wesley Clark]
And they had been arguing for the attack long before September 11, he said.
“There are some in the administration who have always felt that military power should be used to eliminate Saddam Hussein.
“Secondly, those who favour this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/ foreignaffairs/ story/ 0,11538,777700,00.html
Joe Wilson - June 14, 2003
“The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90’s which was called, “A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm.” And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem.”
19:46: http://next.epic-usa.org/ epicdev2/ _media/ 2003forumaudio/ 28-lecture-wilson-32.mp3
“On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there’s a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon’s life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we’ve had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it’s a terribly flawed strategy.”
13:33: http://next.epic-usa.org/ epicdev2/ _media/ 2003forumaudio/ 29-lecture-qa-32.mp3
May ‘04, Gen. Anthony Zinni on 60 Minutes
“I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility”
Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known as “the neo-conservatives” who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel.
They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.
“I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.
“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that’s the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn’t criticize who they were. I certainly don’t know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I’m not interested.”
“I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don’t believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn’t know where it came from.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2004/ 05/ 21/ 60minutes/ main618896.shtml
The War Party - BBC
http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=6453738561338241311
Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted, [NY Times columnist Tom] Friedman says. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
http://www.haaretz.com/ hasen/ pages/ ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
March 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pm“#11 The only one that is a moron is you. We need to bring our troops home now. We do not need to attack Iran. We also need to impeach Old Bush and Cheney and his admin.
Comment by Mary Poplins — March 5, 2007 @ 1:51 pm”
Your screen name is so fitting! Bring home the troops now? Who’s going to prevent Iran from taking over Iraq?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmTalking head neocons, including those awful people over at the AEI, seem to envision perfect surgical strikes on targets in Iran that would be followed by total submissiveness on the part of Iran. You don’t have to be a *military* expert to see that they’re either deluding themselves or trying to deceive the public.
As much as those that scream “bomb Iran!” would love to believe that Iranians are stupid and subhuman I imagine that Iran has taken steps to throw American attacks off and that there might be some blowback that all of those *experts* at AEI didn’t think of.
I just don’t have an confidence that attacking Iran would produce a compliant, nuke-free Iran.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmnice use of “ragheads” smartacus. were you one of the clowns who attacked sikhs after 9/11? don’t worry, they’ll teach you the difference in the 7th grade.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmRepublicans, please continue to push the idea of war with Iran. I think most of America would support you on that platform. Every republican candidate in every campaign speech should stress the importance of attacking Iran as soon as possible. Now I know people are going to point out that Bush said we had “faulty” intelligence on Iraq, and more recently, that we had “bad” intelligence on North Korea for five years. They will try to say stuff about diplomacy, negotiations, the Cold War & the Soviets. Don’t you listen to them, republicans. Do your party proud and constantly push for war with Iran right up until election day! Also, if you could keep harping on illegal immigrants, the need to detain Muslims, and America’s war on Islam, that would be nice too. Thanks.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmsounds like you missed getting to take a relaxing drive in the mountains again this weekend, eh, sierra boy?
March 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmI think Michael should wakeup. In the first place it is not Iran that wants to control the OIL. It is old Bushie and his cronies that wanted to steal the OIL from Iraq. The only reason that Old Bushie went into Iraq is OIL, OIL, OIL and make his buddies richer.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pm#50 Michelle,
Your responses are so amateurish and off base that it’s difficult to point out your numerous faults.
1. I asked for specifics, you gave me baseless propaganda. Find something specific (you may want to look that word up in the dictionary).
2. Baseless and inflammatory accusation. Good God you know nothing.
3. Seems the truth of that answer is inconvenient to you. So you just call it stupid and run away.
4. So, you can’t even define a “mullah”? And you expect people to listen to you?
5. Does a non-answer mean “not yet”? That explains a lot.
6. Please show me this “plan” to which you refer. It sounds more like you are projecting your plan upon them. Do you know what “sociopath” means?
All in all your answers did inform me of something, and that is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Good luck and good riddance.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pmYour screen name is so fitting! Bring home the troops now? Who’s going to prevent Iran from taking over Iraq?
Comment by michael — March 5, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
The Shiites of Iraq will welcome them in whether we leave now or at a later date.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pmhttp://www.oilempire.us/media.html
March 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pmWho’s going to prevent Iran from taking over Iraq?
Comment by michael — March 5, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Thank you. Keep pointing that out! Forget that the current president of Iraq is a Shia who is working to develop diplomatic ties with Iran. Ignore the fact that Saudi has agreed to also work with Iran. You just do your duty to the republican party and point out that if we bring the troops home, Iran will take over Iraq. Also, remember, that if we bring the troops home, the terrorists will follow. We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. This is, in Rumsfeld’s words, a “generational” war. Now get all republican candidates to repeat these same points in every campaign speech. I’m sure America will vote for that!
March 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pmSo…what….are you Isreal’s protector? You going to be the world police? Sign yourself up then …get in the front lines and fight those “rag head” arabs….oh…but wait….they’re Persians…not Arabs fukstic…but then, you think all brown people are the same; all muslims are the same, etc.
Iran is no threat to us. Let them have their one nuclear bomb. If they bomb someone, they will no longer exist. I mean, I’m no mathematician or anything but I’m fairly certain 1000s > 1. Besides, if our administration were the least bit intelligent, they could use the anger the Mullah’s have for their firey-voiced president to their advantage. In principle, their president is as big of an idiot as ours. We can beat them with intelligence and diplomacy rather than a bunch of death and destruction.
I mean seriously, do you think bombing Iran will teach them a lesson? Do you really see the Persians going “oh ok…I’ve learned my lesson…I won’t seek revenge…I’ll just curl up into a ball and retreat” - yeah right. Vengence is a cruel cycle.
Of course Iran wants to be prosperous - who doesn’t? I’ll give you a hint - Iran isn’t the only one trying to control all that oil. Haven’t you realized Jar Jar Bush has played right into their hands? We’re fighting and loosing our troops, taking some faction hits, and conducting someone else’s civil war (if you’ll notice it’s a civil war between Saudi Arabia and the Persians but we’re apparently the ones loosing (well that and the Iraqi people).
If Iran can bring the entire West to its knees (that’s funny) why the hell haven’t we invested in alternate energy for the last six years, if this was so predictable. Hell if Jar Jar Bush spent have the $ he’s lost into energy programs we could say “F” the middle east, “F” Isreal, and “F” them all - they should police their own; we can’t even police our own; what the heck are we doing over there besides creating hate for our beloved and once respected country and creating generations of terrorists?
Your overgeneralization of a group of people you don’t understand is the classic coke of the Republicant party. So I hope you’ll be signing up to go fight “them brown people” - maybe you’ll meet a few and realize they don’t all want to destroy nonbelievers. And if you read your own shite, you’d realize you’re describing the history of the Christian religion, thank you very much (you know, that whole convert or die…which has been watered down in recent years to “convert or burn in hell for all eternity” - same diff - every religion has its nutwings.
Just say no to religion!
March 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmAttack the United States with what Army ?
Comment by Burgman #12
…that’s the problem with myopic POWER rangers…
…they don’t grasp the concept of…
…”more than one way to skin a cat”…
…or in this case…
…demons…
…DUHmerica’s planned downfall…
…is economic…
March 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmWhat? You don’t watch the news? The leader of Iran has verbally attacked Israel and the U.S. He has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. They don’t need an army just a few crazed ragheads who want a quick passage to paradise!
Comment by michael
What? You don’t watch the news? The leader of the US has verbally attacked Iran, Syria and North Korea calling us an Axis of Evil. Israel and the US are planning a war with us. They don’t need an army just a few crazed neo-cons to okay dropping bombs and nukes on us thinking it will bring the second coming.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmcomment by bahar
Yes Chris, Iran must continue to be vilified at every possible opportunity so that the neocons can use the threat that “Iran will take over if we leave Iraq!”. Do they not realize that the logical conclusion to that argument is that we would then need to stay in Iraq FOREVER?!
The best news I heard lately was about plans for Iran and Saudi Arabia to talk to each other to conceivably avoid a confrontation.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI really don’t need to argue form the repug point of view since it is the accepted point of view. Clinton and Obama have said over and over that Iran is one of the biggest threats to America. They both say over and over that we will not allow Iran to enrich Uranium. They also say over and over that the military option is in play.
So, this isn’t some pipe fream from the right. This is accepted logic that even your leaders agree with. It doesn’t matter if they are currently enriching Uranium to weapons grade. If they have the capability, you know they are or will be doing it shortly. Either way, the UN has decided that it is illegal for Iran to enrich Uranium PERIOD.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWhen we finally attack Iran, the resulting WWIII will be WWII on steroids - Shock & Awe following by a rapid Iranian Shock & Awe response of their own!!! And don’t think for one second China, Russia & North Korea won’t lend a helping hand in attempting to stick it to us Americans and the British.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pmEither way, the UN has decided that it is illegal for Iran to enrich Uranium PERIOD.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 5, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Yes! You must stop Iran from developing nuclear weaponry that they could use to attack Israel. After all, Israel has tons of nuclear weapons, refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, openly trades arms with China, and is in violation of 65 UN resolutions. They need our help. We must work together to insure that Iran, a country who is years away from developing nuclear weapons, doesn’t attack the largest nuclear superpower in the middle-east. After all, if you let Iran do whatever they want, the next thing you know they will be harboring Al-Qaeda like Pakistan (another muslim country with nukes).
March 5th, 2007 at 3:10 pmFister Fister:
Sign up then and lead the charge. Obama and Clinton would obviously try to use diplomatic options first rather than the “bomb first and figure it out later with no plan for aftermath” approach. The only pipe dream is throwing the military in some general direction (led by those w/no military experience mind you) to solve all problems big and small.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pmNot only would it speed up production of ONE NUKE, it would make Iran either USE IT or SELL IT TO TERRORISTS FOR USE AGIN’ THE U.S.!!!!! GOD, WHAT DOLTS ARE IN Bushland Uber Allies!!!!!
March 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pmMichelle, Roger Rabbit, and Jason M Salad Tosser - you three need to STFU and sign up - support our country and our troops by enlisting yourselves.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pm#67 Actually, I don’t believe that larger secure countries like Russia, China, and the USA would use Nuke’s these days against each other because they would be assuring each other’s demise as no one wins.
Then again, we are setting up our ICBM defense system throughout europe. You know, the one that you guys said was a waste and would never work. It works so well that Russia is crying about it and is very concerned. I highly doubt they would care if they thought it was the failure you all think it is. It would kinda be unfair if we can shoot all their nuke’s down while we can bomb them freely.
Either way, Russia and China don’t concern me because they know it would be fruitless. In the end, the big powers always get together on these things. They will either help or simply stay out of it like Iraq. The USA will once again get a UN resolution oking the mission if Iran doesn’t stop enrichment so what could Russia and China really do? They could vote the UN stuff down, but then Isreal will just attack Iran.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pm#71 I served in Desert Storm. Did you serve?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pmIf Iran were attacked by BushCo, there are a few things to consider. Iran has money - lots of it. North Korea needs money - lots of it. North Korea has nukes. North Korea’s President Kim Jong Il is insane. I can’t help but to connect the dots.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pmFister Fister:
So you don’t think those with many many nukes would ever use them due to mutual assured destruction yet you think the Iranian nation, the Persian empire, which has existed for a very long time, is stupid enough to even think about using just one nuke (or even selling it). They only reason they might even think about doing that is if they feel their identify is threatened, and the only reason they would feel that way is because some monkey declared them part of the Axis of Evil. Like I said, I’m no mathematician but if they launched this one nuke at any of these enemies you mention, they would most certainly be destroyed…and they know it. Why else do you think the Mullahs are so pist at Amajamabama-bohamma hamma mamma mo-jamma doobie scoobie doobie dooooooooo?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:22 pmI served in Desert Storm. Did you serve?
Comment by Roger_Roger #73
…thank you for your service…
…NOW, since you LOVE war so much…
…GO BACK and get some more Bushite BI*CH…
March 5th, 2007 at 3:23 pmI’m serving right now munch. And I’ll appreciate it when you return to active duty instead of arm-chair dictating you rightwing tool.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pmThe USA will once again get a UN resolution oking the mission if Iran doesn’t stop enrichment so what could Russia and China really do? They could vote the UN stuff down, but then Isreal will just attack Iran.
Comment by Roger_Roger
What previous resolution are you refering to that the US had form the UN okaying a mission to attack another country? Iraq? Um, there was never a resolution that okayed the US to atack Iraq. Sorry to burst your bubble. Even Kofi said the invasion was illegal according to UN Charter.
And why aren’t you concerned about Russia and its nuclear arsenal? It seems short sighted of you to discount them so easily when they have ready made weapons, lax security of those weapons and a failing economy where a little bomb could be quite profitable.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pm#
#71 I served in Desert Storm. Did you serve?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 5, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Thank you. I served in Iraq from Feb ‘03 to June ‘04 for the US Army, 1457th Engineer Combat BN, as a 12B (Combat Engineer). What unit were you with in Desert Storm?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmFunny, I would think that basic skills in mathematics would have been a prerequisite for getting to serve in Persian Gulf 1. 1000s > 1 buddy. But we need a new Phantom Menace and a way to keep Cheney making money off our children for a few more wars.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmIf you mess with Russia or China’s major oil supplier, they most certainly will protect their interestes, especially with their massive emerging economies. Funny how Iran wants to destroy all the infidels, yet they have no problem supplying predominantly non-Islamic China.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pmIt’s got absolutely nothing to do with nukes.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq — the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.†I said, “Well, you’re too busy.†He said, “No, no.†He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.†This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?†He said, “I don’t know.†He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.†So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?†He said, “No, no.†He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.†He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.†And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.â€
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?†And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.†He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs†— meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.†And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.†I said, “Is it classified?†He said, “Yes, sir.†I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.†And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?†He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!â€
March 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pmWhy is the Bush administration so hell bent on bombing everybody back to the stone ages? Have they no concept of unintended consequences?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:45 pmJar Jar - do you think that the neocons are TRYING to provoke some kind of huge confrontation? It certainly seems that way sometimes. They’ve spouted so much rhetoric that it seems like they’ve made it almost impossible to tone things down without losing face.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:45 pmYou actually believe that linking to a report on 10 year old data proves something.
Oh Boy
In 2004 while testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services committee one of your heros the senile madman agreed with one of your other heros rape gurney joe that DoD was responsible for 95% of the US intl budget. Find me something less than a decade old and I’ll admit I was wrong. Something you neo-con shills will never do no no matter how many times you’re proven wrong.
Wanker
March 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pmThis last stand will be for all the marbles. It will be for world domination of oil reserves. On a successful US vs Iran campaign, either the world deals with America calling the shots on the international price of oil and gas or on an American defeat, where Iran, China & Russia has their say in price.
Iran remains the eternal arch enemy of the US, while being strong allies of China & Russia. There should be no doubt, once this war gets underway, that China & Russia will assist Iran with either technological expertise, arms or whatever is needed the to concur, according to the Iranians, “the Great Satan.â€
March 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pmYes I think the New Coke Republicants are always trying to provoke, which is Why Dickless Cheney, who never served, is always starting stuff with Russia and China, for example. They need the boogeyman/Phantom Menace else we wouldn’t need them to protect us from the martians…I mean commies…I mean the Satanists…oops the 80s are over…I mean the new Phantom Menace…brown people…er uh..it’s the gays - they’re coming to get us! Oh wait, no…it’s the flag burners…no no, it’s the immigrants…no no wait…I mean the Muslims…yeah that’s it this year. All I know is “someone” is gonna get us!
#84 - I wouldn’t expect much from the New Coke Republicants as far as logical thought, research skills, and apparently elementary mathematics, especially with their support and often times, celebration, of their ignorance. (cue country song about how happy they are that they don’t know the difference between Iran and Iraq). But then, what do we expect when they gladly funnel money away from education - easier to manipulate the ignorant and uneducated with fear and their West Virginia, incest, repressed, and beastiality conservative values.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWell, to be fair, “Satan” in the Muslim world isn’t the same as in the Christian. The Christians have made Satan a much bigger boogey man than other religions. From what I understand, and I certainly could be wrong about it, is that the Muslim world regards Satan as a great temptor, not exactly the downfall of civilization. It’s our Western values that are the real threat to them. See, what they really ought to think about is threatening to air-drop millions of porn mags, vibrators, and drop a crate that will unleash Marylin Manson, Michael Jackson, and Mel Gibson upon them and their culture - that’s what would really scare them…even more than sanctions.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:06 pmOh yes…I think the main reason Cheney wants to attack Iran is because it’s the only way Republicunts can learn any bit of geography; hell, it’s taken them nearly six years to learn where Afghanistan and Iraq are located. They figure since Iran is geographically between them then they might as well learn where it is.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#81 Iran is NOT russia major oil supplier. Hate to burst your bubble but Russia themselves is the largest supplier of Oil of any country in the world. Russia overtook Saudi Arabia and is now the World’s leading Oil producer. I highly doubt they are buying outside Oil as they are the biggest supplier afterall. Also, Iran has a TON of Oil but they don’t produce that much because they aren’t a free market. You see when you regulate the piss out of your markets and mandate government control over industry, your economy fails mostly and never does as well as economies like ours.
http://www.mosnews.com/ money/ 2006/ 08/ 23/ russiaoil.shtml
March 5th, 2007 at 4:16 pmI see the usual cast of bedwetters are here to sound the alarm against Iran.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:45 pmWould you rather we back off and simply let Iran become a nuclear power? I guess I never thought of the back away and fold idea. It seems from reading the posts lately that many of you come close to just saying it. I hear that Iran has the right to enrich Uranium and that we have no right to attack even if they are enriching. Basically, you would rather we step back and allow them to become a nuclear power. I guess that is an option (not one your 08 Dem presidental canidates support).
March 5th, 2007 at 4:59 pmPlease listen to some sanity people:
March 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pmScott Ritter, former weapons inspector and author of Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change, says it is a deception that the U.S. government is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program or that they mean to use diplomacy to put an end to it, but instead is determined to have regime change in that country regardless. He also discusses some of the likely consequences if America does attack.
Rrooggeerr,
We can let Iran become a nuclear power just like we did with N. Korea, Pakistan and Israel. And the billion dollar question is what are they enriching uranium for? Weapons or energy? If you say weapons please provide solid evidence that they are doing such a thing.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm#96 If you say Energy, please provide some logical reason. A country with one of the world’s largest known oil reserves that has tons in poverty has no business spending billions on Nuke energy when they can simply kick the ground and have energy flow out. I, like Hilary Clinton and Obama, realize that there is only 1 logical conclusion. Any sane person can see that.
The real question is whether we should be talking with them right now or if we should make them stop enrichment before we talk. I am of the belief that we could talk to them in good faith while they are still enriching to see if we can get them to completely stop. In the end, they must be stopped no matter what it takes.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pmi believe his evidence was:
“Any country that sits on top of one of the world’s largest lakes of Oil does not need Nuke energyâ€
heady stuff indeed
March 5th, 2007 at 5:26 pmso why was the u.s. helping them with nuclear power technology in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s? and how bout that huge dam on the karun river? is that a big decoy?
March 5th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI don’t think John Bolton’s comments were quoted sufficiently to give the slant of what he was really saying. It is clear from other parts of his interview not mentioned here that he thought strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be problematic because some secret hidden facilities might be missed, thus accruing all the problems of war without the intended result of stopping nuclear weapons production. Bolton has made clear elsewhere his opinion that the only thing WORSE than war with Iran is a nuclear-armed Iran. So I do not think it is fair to say Bolton is promoting a fight with Iran. He has also made it clear he favors peaceful regime change from within the country aided by Iranian nationals outside the country who know how bad off their relatives at home are so that a government more democratically reflecting the real will of the Iranian people could result. He believes the present government of Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons no matter what for as long as they exist and can.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm#97 - Listen to Scott Ritter. What he says is true. There are very good economic reasons for Iran to sell oil while not using it for their own fuel.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pmDick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld both endorsed Iran’s nuclear program in 1976.
Vice President Cheney recently said, “They’re already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy.”
Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.
To make reactor-grade nuclear fuel you need it to be at least 5% enriched. To make weapons-grade material you need it to be at least 95% enriched. It’s very difficult to hide the fact that you are enriching it for weapons from the IAEA.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:52 pm#99 Before the terrorists captured Iran, they were an ally. While they were an allie, the US government decided (Wrongly) to assist them in making Nuke Bombs. Today, Terrorist run the country and Iran is one of the Biggest THreats to us and our allies.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pm#40
It isn’t us who would launch an airstrike against Iran if it was found out they were close to producing a nuke.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pm#45
How do you know what they are making?
March 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pm#48
The majority voted him in. In Iran however that minority kicked candidates off the ballots.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm#65
I hope you aren’t suggesting that Iran has any economic power to even dent the U.S….are you? You do realize that over 50% of Iran’s refining capacity is done in other countries…don’t you? Iran doesn’t have any economic leverage in global economics. You are right however there is other ways to skin a cat and Iran would be an easy task.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:37 pm#96
“If you say weapons please provide solid evidence that they are doing such a thing.”
The evidence is obviously classified. If there was no concern about Iran obtaining a nuke then why is the EU so concerned and tried multiple times to negotiate with Iran?
March 5th, 2007 at 6:46 pm#97
Roger I think we should enter into talks with Iran just to expose them for the frauds that they are in regards to the intent of their nuclear program. We need to lay down the criteria they need to meet in order to avoid more sanctions on their economy, which BTW is going down the tubes.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10590/
March 5th, 2007 at 6:51 pmthanks for the oversimplified version of iran’s history. [you left out the part where the u.s. staged a coup of their democratically elected president.] the u.s. gave them assistance for nuclear power plants. now why would they do that when iran “sits on top of one of the world’s largest lakes of Oil [and] does not need Nuke energyâ€? and again, why did iran go through the trouble of building a giant dam on the karun river if they don’t need it?
March 5th, 2007 at 7:17 pmIran never threatened Israel dolt. Iran threatend the Zionist regime in Israel. The difference is more than subtle. Iran has a fairly large Jewish and Christian population, and there are Jewish groups that oppose the Zionist control in Israel - including many in Israel that oppose their govt policies much lke many oppose the current adminstration policies now in the USA. If he was to attack Israel, US would change the Iranian landscape into glass. They are not going to do that. Most experts agree they are several years awy from developing even one nuke, also they lack the delivery mechanism to reach us anyway. As for Russia and China, apart from being allies with Iran - if we were to hit them with nukes - the fallout would poison the atmosphere for many miles away - even into Russia and China. That combined with the sheer shock of our stupidity - could easily enduce them to launch nukes against us. Then what? Why do you repug apologist continue to support an adminstration that has been consistently wrong and corrupt on Iraq? If the intent was to steal their oil and create a total chaotic cluster-fvck in Iraq then they have succeded. And since the evil vampire Cheney has called Iraq a great success - the perhaps that was the intention. How does that benefit us? I do not want my kids to die for Israel nor do I want a bunch of lunatics to start Armegeddon.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:53 pmWe are not a monolithic group on the left like you lock-step authoriterian bootlickers on the right. I could give a rats ass what the dem candidates say about Iran during a campaign season, I trust that they wil do the right thing about Iran - including real diplomacy. W and all of his henchmen are warmongers pure and simple. As Americans we should all support country before party!!!
#109 I completely agree we should go have talks now even if they refuse to stop enrichment beforehand. IN the end however, I disagree with the Libs from this site and think it is very important that Iran stop enriching uranium. I cannot see how anyone is ok with them enriching Uranium. Either way, it currently sounds like the Dems leaders agree with me on this point and won’t take the military card off the table. Talking with them now is important though. WE need to give them a last chance to stop what they are doing before we start bombing and potentially full scale war against Iran to stop the terrorist leaders from building their nuke.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:03 pmIt goes without saying that attacking Iran would be an even bigger mistake than attacking Iraq was.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:13 pm#111 …and who will fight your war against Iran?
March 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pmComment by Tracy #107
T’rashy,
…I realize that you exist in a vacuum…
…but TRY and think outside of your box…
…there are countries with financial interests in Iran…
…who certainly (in concert) possess the economic leverage…
…to make life uneasy…
…for you greedy Bushballickin’ ingrates…
…and judging from your imperious tone…
…you deserve it…
March 5th, 2007 at 9:32 pm#114
“…there are countries with financial interests in Iran…
…who certainly (in concert) possess the economic leverage…”
Funny those same countries, i.e. China and Russia have the same objections to Iran having a nuke that the REST of the world has. Do you honestly think that Russia and China will stand with Iran against the rest of the world?
“…and judging from your imperious tone…”
Imperious tone? I was just stating the fact that Iran is beholden to the rest of the world for their economic existance.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pm#111
“WE need to give them a last chance to stop what they are doing before we start bombing”
Remember it isn’t the U.S. who will be doing the airstrikes, although it helps that we control the airspace in Iraq….hint, hint.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:15 pm#116 You are all giddy, aren’t you?
March 5th, 2007 at 10:46 pmWoger Woger:
You’re about as fuctup as a football bat. I think you might have logged onto the wrong web site; I think you’re looking for thinkdecline.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:03 amWHO ARE YOU I WAS IN THE 1457TH
March 28th, 2007 at 11:50 am