This is all the same stuff they said before they invaded Iraq. Those aluminum tubes were clearly for Iraq's development of nuclear capabilities.

It is never going to stop until some of our elected officials grow spines and do some of what they promised prior to the last election. Not to mention invading Iran would almost surely require instating a draft as our military is already spread so thin.

But hell, who cares as long as arms manufacturers and Haliburton make money. Right?

Often times I wonder why no one has tried to assassinate Bush, then I remember Dick would replace him.

it'd have to be a 2-part assassination..."Do we have confirmation that Vader is down? I can't take the Monkey down before Vader, do we have confirmation?"

Chomsky has said it many times. Whether or not a nation is branded a terrorist state is almost invariably a question of whether or not their policies are cooperative with the strategic interests of US multinational corporations. The Saudi royalty has long had financial connections with the Bush family, which has been well documented...



The Bush-Saudi Connection

Yeah, I get it. You're not overly fond of Dick Cheney. But don't let you're hatred of the current administration blind you to a real threat. Even the French have hinted at military action against Iran and they usually support anti-American trouble makers.

Ahmedinejad did say that Isreal should be wiped off the map and the loss of Iran is a small price to pay for it (according to the Iranian government's IRIB/IRNA translation). He is a Hojjatieh Shia, a branch of apocalyptic fundamentalists so radical that Ayatollah Khomeni actually banned them. This is not a "George Bush fundamentalist Christian" fundamentalist; this is a David Koresh kind of fundamentalist. With a nuclear bomb (almost). I would not bet on him not doing something foolish to his own detriment as his reward is in paradise.

The Iranians are trying to destabilize Iraq. The forces they control within Iraq focus their energy on destroying infrastructure and local government/police personnel, rather than attack US forces. Yes, they want the US to leave. But they want this so that they can have a showdown with the Sunnis in the gulf states over the directoin of world Islam.

So hate the current administration by all means, but don't be like the well-meaning liberals who supported German re-armament after WWI as a reaction to the French, without thinking about the wider picture.

Iran is very dangerous.

+1

what I'd like to ask the administration is "We know how to make a nuclear bombs, and we have them in our arsenal ready to go, but does that mean other countries have the right to disarm us?" You know, if we kept our noses out of other peoples' business, we wouldn't have entire countries hating our guts. Last time I checked, Australia wasn't getting bombed by these fools.

Iran may be capable of threatening American lives and interests, but it doesn't follow that it's analogous to Nazi Germany, or that the administration's policy of confrontation and belligerent rhetoric is even an effective approach to dealing with those threats. And Ahmedinejad may be a whacko, but that doesn't mean he has the authority to use nuclear force aggressively.

um...Iran is not dangerous. The political players are. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan are not dangerous. Their leaders are a threat. What do we learn in this story??? THEY ARE ALL THE SAME. It does not matter which country, which government reigns over the lands...governments are as dangerous as they are just. What is the solution to such a complicated question/system? Simple: if the people being ruled over are not happy; they change it!

I'm no way an atheist, anti-government, liberal/republican or any of that BULLSHIT category pasting. I am a citizen upset with the rulers, the country's direction, the world's direction and ALL that is directing how I live my life day to day. WE are unhappy. Period.

So, there is a little thing called revolution...

The rhetoric may be somewhere between useless and counterproductive, but the policy of the US and Europe in confronting them is key. This is not one of things that you can ignore and it will go away. I believe a nuclear Iran will eventually either use its weapon, or else Isreal will strike first. The Iranian programme learned from the mistakes of the Iraqi programme destroyed by the Isrealis and is geographically decentralised and in hardened structures. It is likely that only a nuclear strike would be effective against it. So either way you get nuclear war, without even thinking about what happens to the surrounding region.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Ahmedinejad hasn't got the power. But know one knows that in the west, and the reports that his support is falling away is coming from the same sort of dissident sources that said we'd be welcome in Iraq. The only option is to keep up sanctions with the firm threat of military action in the hopes that the lunatic fringe gets pushed out by calmer heads in Iran.

Can we just say "Goodwin" and move along ?

That image is great and all, but it would be nice if it wasn't poorly Photoshopped.

Actually, it's now accepted that Ahmedinejad didn't say that, even if someone in IRIB News chose to translate it that way.

"Israel must be wiped off the map" means, in idiomatic English, Israel must be destroyed or obliterated. But there is no equivalent expresion in Farsi. What Ahmedinejad said, apparently, was "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)." In other words, it was the now familiar attack on Zionism, rather than a threat to obliterate the land of Israel. Some will find Ahmedinejad's anti-Zionism equally offensive, I know, but there is a big difference. One is the threat of war or genocide, the other a call for the end of particular form of government.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has on several occasions tried to correct this mistranslation, but the story has a life of its own.

Fascinating post. Literally, everthing you have written here is wrong.

First, let's take the comment about the French. The French recently had an election. A very conservative leader took over - for his domestic policies, not his foreign policies. So, to bring up the French at this point as a method of comparison is spin bordering on a blatent lie.

Second, Ahmedinejad DID NOT say that Isreal should be wiped off the map. That translation was provided by ONE media service. The true translation is quite different. Some paper called the NY Times wrote an article about it. It is a blatent and pathetic lie, just like the ones we saw in the build up to the Iraq war. But I'm sure the truth won't stop you from using it. The rest of your line of thought that Iran is David Koresh is based on the first lie, so obviously you now see that you were wrong and will apologize.

Third, Iran is trying to destabalize Iraq? Hey, what's left to destabalize? America already did that. Have you been in a coma the past four years? There is no proof of Iran doing anything in Iraq. NONE. The US Army trotted out a bunch of bombs that were made in Iran, and after the press noticed all the bombs had English written on them, instead of Farsi or Russian or Chinese, the bombs were quickly scooped up and the press pushed out. That's what happens with lies. Also, any "news" coming from a military source is the definition of propaganda. But you keep believing it, as it seems to service your need for war so badly.

Love how you put all the blame of attacking the infrastructure on the Shiites. Links please. That would be great since if is contrary to everything I know about the Baath party (Sunni) and their ongoing war, also the fact that the Sunnis don't control any of the oil and therefor don't want stability as it may lead to the formation of a country where they have zero power. But that's just me thinking unrationally. Your "They want a regional war" theory is so fucking plausible and easy to back up that I could easily be wrong.

I'm not a "well meaning liberal", I'm a "well read liberal."

Totally different.

Where's the evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and not nuclear power??