it is on ..... bring the pain we finaly have the right target

[Spider]

bout damn time .... these ships are enough to strike fear in any country , Iran and North Korea are the real threat ..... Not Iraq

http://rawstory.com/images/other/aircraftcarrier.jpg


US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike

Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday May 11, 2006

Print This | Email This

Use of Iraq terror group bypassed Congress, sources say

Concern is building among the military and the intelligence community that the US may be preparing for a military strike on Iran, as military assets in key positions are approaching readiness, RAW STORY has learned.

According to military and intelligence sources, an air strike on Iran could be doable in June of this year, with military assets in key positions ready to go and a possible plan already on the table.

Speculation has been growing on a possible air strike against Iran. But with the failure of the Bush administration to present a convincing case to the UN Security Council and to secure political backing domestically, some experts say the march toward war with Iran is on pause barring an "immediate need."

"In March/April of this year [the US] was pushing for quick closure, a thirty day window," says a source close to the UN Security Council, describing efforts by the Administration to "shore up enough support" to get a UN Chapter 7 resolution.

A UN Chapter 7 resolution makes it possible for sanctions to be imposed against an uncooperative nation and leaves the door open to military action.

The UN source also says that a military analysis suggests that no military action should be undertaken in Iran until spring of 2007, but that things remain volatile given this administration’s penchant for having "their own way."

Strike could come earlier than thought

Other military and intelligence sources are expressing concern both privately and publicly that air strikes on Iran could come earlier than believed.

Retired Air Force Colonel and former faculty member at the National War College Sam Gardiner has heard some military suggestions of a possible air campaign in the near future, and although he has no intimate knowledge of such plans, he says recent aircraft carrier activity and current operations on the ground in Iran have raised red flags.

Gardiner says his concerns have kept him busy attempting to create the most likely scenario should such an attack occur.

"I would expect two or three aircraft carriers would be moved into the area," Gardner said, describing what he thinks is the best way air strikes could be carried out without disengaging assets from US fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Two air-craft carriers are already en route to the region, RAW STORY has found. The USS Abraham Lincoln, which recently made a port call in Singapore, and the USS Enterprise which left Norfolk, Virginia earlier this month, are headed for the Western Pacific and Middle East. The USS Ronald Reagan is already operating in the Gulf.

In addition to aircraft carrier activity, Gardiner says, B-2 bombers would be critical.

"I would expect the B-2's, the main firepower asset, to be flown on missions directly from the United States," Gardiner explained. "I would expect B-52's to be flown in strikes from the UK and Diego Garcia."

"Finally," he added, "a large number of cruise missiles would be fired from the carrier support ships."

Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, says that the B-2 bomber is capable of such long range activity.

"The B2 bomber was designed, with the Soviet Union in mind, for intercontinental operations," Aftergood said. "With aerial refueling, it has a range of up to 10,000 miles."

Like Gardiner, Aftergood has heard similar claims with regard to a June strike, but has not been able to confirm them independently.

Intelligence sources confirm hearing the allegations of a June attack, but have been unable to fully confirm that such an attack is in the works. Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have previously reported that the Pentagon is studying military options on Iran.

All sources, however, agree that given the administration’s interest in regime change, an attack on Iran is likely, regardless of international support or UN backing. Furthermore, all sources agree that Gardiner’s scenario is the most probable, including an estimated duration and "pause" assessment.

Gardiner believes that the entire initial operation could run quickly, roughly 24-72 hours. "Most of the strikes would be at night," he said. "The Iranian nuclear facilities will be targeted; more important however, a major effort would focus on Iran's capability to retaliate. The US will target missile facilities, air bases and naval assets."

"After the initial effort, there will be a pause during which time the Iranians will be told that if they retaliate, the air strikes would continue," he added.

The Pentagon did not return calls for comment.

Advance teams under way; Congress ‘bypassed’

As previously reported by Raw Story, a terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) is being used on the ground in Iran by the Pentegon, bypassing US intelligence channels. The report was subsequently covered by the Asia Times (Article).

Military and intelligence sources now say no Presidential finding exists on MEK ops. Without a presidential finding, the operation circumvents the oversight of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

Congressional aides for the relevant oversight committees would not confirm or deny allegations that no Presidential finding had been done. One Democratic aide, however, wishing to remain anonymous for this article, did say that any use of the MEK would be illegal.

In addition, sources say that a March attack that killed 22 Iranian officials in the province of Sistan va Baluchistan was carried out by the MEK.

According to a report by Iran Focus filed Mar. 23, the twenty-two people killed in the ambush included high ranking officials, including the governor of Zahedan.

"Hours after the attack took place, Ahmadi-Moqaddam announced there was evidence the assailants had held meetings with British intelligence officers," the Iranian news service reported.

"Radical Shiite cleric Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi also claimed the people behind the attack were the same as those behind a spate of bombings in Iran’s south-western province of Khuzestan earlier this year and in 2005," it added.

Military and intelligence sources say that MEK assets were responsible for this attack, but did not know if the US military was involved or if US military assets were part of the ambush.

One former high ranking US intelligence official described the use of MEK as more of a "Cambone" operation than a "Department of Defense operation."

Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence Stephen Cambone, a stalwart neo-conservative, is considered by many to be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s right-hand man.

During a White House briefing in early May, outgoing press secretary Scott McClellan denied that the administration was using MEK, among several other terrorist organizations named, for ground activity in Iran.

"There are numerous reports about low-intensity operations ongoing in Iran from three different places -- PKK going over the border into Iraq, the MEK southern border of Iraq into Iran, and also certain operations from Balochistan involving also the Pakistanis," a reporter asked. "Does the U.S. have a policy, given also reports which I know you won't comment on, on possible special forces operations in Iran?"

"Our policies haven't changed on those organizations," McClellan said. "They remain the same. And you're bringing up organizations that we view as terrorist organizations."

"We would never cooperate with them, in terms of—" the questioner continued.

"Our policy hasn't changed," McClellan replied.

Military, intelligence community alarmed

According to a New Yorker article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, other activities aimed at intimidating and agitating Iranian leadership are also underway.

"One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of ‘coercion’ aimed at Iran," Hersh wrote.

The increase in violence on the southern border of Iran, the movement of aircraft carriers into the region, the insistence of Iran’s leadership that they intend to be a player on the nuclear stage and the Bush Administration’s focus on regime change make military and intelligence sources nervous.

"[President] Bush thinks that history will judge him as a great leader, not unlike Winston Churchill," one former high-ranking military intelligence official remarked.

For now, Gardiner and others remain on the sidelines as the Administration plots their next move.

[Spider]

if you believe in God , Pray Bush doesnt screw this up ........

[BABronco]

if you believe in God , Pray Bush doesnt screw this up ........:pray:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

if you believe in God , Pray Bush doesnt screw this up ........

Bush not screwing up?

That would be a miracle I'm not sure even God could pull off.

[DBruleU]

What in the world is Iran thinking?

With our capabilites, man, we could destroy the entire country of Iran in a day.

It makes me proud to be an American when I think of the damage we could bestow on our enemies. :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

A bang not a whimper: Bush’s Endgame Strategy

Two of America’s savants have uttered pronouncements about the final days of the presidency of George Walker Bush. In his magisterial statement succinctly titled, “Bush’s Thousand Days,” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. pointed out that we have just crossed a significant date, for now less than one thousand days remain of the beleaguered Bush presidency. Schlesinger raises grave issues facing the deeply unpopular president. In his analysis of “The Passion of George W. Bush,” Sidney Blumenthal dubbed this darkening period the “endgame.” Taken together, these two essays present a disturbing image of a presidency in the throes of decline and desperation. These two essays urge us to consider the likelihood of a political collapse that could lead to disastrous consequences for America and Britain.

Blumenthal dissected the faded and now tattered dreams of the president and his wunderkind, Karl Rove. Gone with the wind is their vision of an Imperial America modelled on the pompous presidency of William McKinley, whose dream of the transcendence of American corporate monopolies and global military hegemony was thrown into the incinerator by FDR when he re-wrote the American social contract in the first one hundred days of the New Deal.

Yet, that aching nostalgia for an Imperial Presidency boldly governing a global American Empire did not die: it merely smouldered and rolled over in its grave, nosferatu, undead, unforgotten and lurking its next opportunity to sink its fangs into the jugular vein of destiny.

Under the darkness of the Vietnam nightmare, the Imperial Presidency revived and possessed the mind of Richard Nixon and his leading lieutenants, only to face the cruel dawn during Watergate, whereupon it crept back into its mouldy crypt, mounted its creaking catafalque and hid itself once again inside its dusty casket. This second un-death of the baroque vision of an American Empire in the Nixon era seared the minds and sealed the fates of its youngest and most ambitious protagonists: Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff under Ford, and Donald Rumsfeld, Ford’s unruly Secretary of Defense. Like bereft twins of Frankenstein, these two true believers in the myth of the Imperial Presidency presided over the reinvigoration of its corpse yet again under the neoconservative ascendancy of Bush 43 in 2001.

Blumenthal recalled the now thrice-repeated rise and decline of American Imperialism. Along the way, he pointed out that the centrepiece of Bush and Rove’s vision, the privatisation of social security, lies in ruins. The transfer of Social Security to the jaws of corporate capital would have sealed the fates of history and dissolved a New Deal triumph, rolling back the clock to the Gilded Age of unbridled laissez faire corporate capitalism along with the overt imperialism of the McKinley Era. Blumenthal made a number of other penetrating observations before concluding that Bush remains an impassioned believer in the truth of his own version of destiny – a conviction elevated to the level of religious frenzy in a faith empowered by his certainty that the abject failure of his presidency is divine confirmation of both his political martyrdom and his own personal sanctity.

While Schlesinger’s and Blumenthal’s pronouncements about Bush are directly on target, let us now turn to the two courtiers who have recently entered stage right at the White House. The former Director of the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), Joshua Bolten, has been named Chief of Staff. Bolten has brought his top deputy, Joel Kaplan, with him in the newly created post of Director of Policy.

In this White House reshuffle, Andrew Card and Scott McLellan have been sacked, and Karl Rove has been demoted. Rove had been the eminence grise presiding over political operations and policy development for the Bush White House, but he had become vulnerable to indictment in the CIA leak case. Even though it is unlikely that Rove will ever serve any sentence – since Bush will surely pardon him and Scooter Libby as well as any others who face trial and indictment – Rove was stripped of his policy portfolio as a matter of political necessity. However, the first news reports explained that Rove was opposed to the next phase of the war on terror, Iran. This factor would not be surprising: Rove regularly reads the polls, and the majority of voters would not encourage any further expansions of what has become a deeply unpopular war on terror.

Rove’s demotion opened up space for Bolten’s protege. Bolten is now the key player in the Bush White House, who will be backed up by his trusty sidekick and top gun, Joel Kaplan. An appraisal of these two new players will provide a deeper context for Bush’s final one thousand days, the endgame that will soon be unfolding in the some of the darkest days ever in American history.

When the little that is now known about the background of Josh Bolten and Joel Kaplan is examined, it turns out that they are slightly more than mere proteges of Karl Rove, as they were initially described. Josh Bolten’s father is Seymour Bolten, who was a top ranking deputy to George Herbert Walker Bush during his brief, eleven-month tenure as Director (DCI) of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1976.

The two men worked closely together. Documents released through the FOIA revealed Bolten Sr’s role in assisting Bush Sr. to probe a troubling problem for a previous DCI, Richard Helms. When embarrassing documents were published that proved Helms had deliberately misinformed the Warren Commission, Bolten Sr. advised Bush Sr. that Helms had lied to the Warren Commission when he told them that the CIA had never “contemplated” contacting Lee Harvey Oswald. Later documents proved that Helms was lying, and this scandal threatened to open one of the most malignant enigmas ever doomed to stalk the shadows of American history: the assassination of JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA. This was a problem that Bush Sr. did not want to see return from the dead to haunt the CIA on his watch as DCI.

Bush Sr. instructed Bolten Sr. to analyze Helms’s exposure to further legal problems and criminal charges that might arise from his false testimony to the Warren Commission. In doing so, Bolten Sr. concluded that the former DCI’s predicament might cause him some public discomfort but no additional legal problems, i.e. no criminal charges. Helms had other legal problems involving lying under oath to a Senate Committee investigating the CIA. For these crimes, Helms would eventually receive the censure of Congress.

In this episode of CIA history, Bolten Sr. spelled out the Helms-Oswald case for Bush Sr., advising him that this deliberate misinformation might cause the disgraced DCI some grief but no criminal indictment. Had Helms been subject to the intensity of criminal probes into the JFK assassination and the CIA’s plans vis a vis Oswald, it would have upset Bush, Sr.

In 1976, America staggered in the wake of Watergate and the loss of faith in its government. Much of this lack of faith centred on the US intelligence community and its major failure, the assassination of JFK. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was being proposed to investigate the unresolved cases of JFK and Martin Luther King. Bush Sr. certainly had no interest in reopening that particular can of political dynamite. Bush Sr.’s involvement as a CIA asset in the Bay of Pigs and its aftermath, including the assassination of JFK, is the subject of hundreds of pages on the internet as well as a central theme in the bestselling book of 1991 when Mark Lane published Plausible Denial - and it shot to the top of the bestseller lists. Lane was the leading scholar of the JFK assassination, and his return to the bestseller lists during Bush Sr.’s run for re-election played no small part in the loss of public confidence that doomed his ill-fated presidency.

In 1976, the Helms problem had surfaced for Bush Sr. and Bolten Sr., when David Martin, a reporter with the Associated Press (AP), wrote a story based on CIA memos from 1960 documenting the fact that “the agency ‘showed intelligence interest’ in Oswald and ‘discussed the laying on of interviews’ with him.” In a memo to Bush, Seymour Bolten stated, “This is another example where material provided to the press and public in response to an FOIA request is exploited mischievously and in distorted form to make the headlines."

Therefore, it is clear from the public record that, in addition to his personal allegiance to Karl Rove, Josh Bolten has a lengthy CIA pedigree through his deep family connection to the Bush dynasty that links him directly to the brief reign of Bush Sr. as DCI. That the relationship between Bolten’s father and Bush Sr. involves the lies of Richard Helms about the CIA’s “intelligence interest” in Lee Harvey Oswald has been documented for many years. Ultimately, Bush Sr.’s ‘intelligence interest’ in Oswald is another riddle wrapped in a mystery inside the enigma of JFK’s assassination.

In recent publications about Josh Bolten, some fascinating facts have emerged. Bolten was Executive Director of Legal & Government Affairs for Goldman Sachs in London, where, according to Pravda, he, “supervised Likud legal affairs.”

In his spare time, Bolten who is a confirmed aficionado of Harley Davidson, founded “Bikers for Bush.” Jeff Birnbaum writing for the Stanford Lawyer reported, “Bolten rode a newly purchased bike to the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames. In honor of that trip, Rove only half in jest gave Bolten, who is Jewish, the biker handle “Bad Mitzvah.” In the same article, we read, “For the last fifteen years, the man whom George W. Bush has nicknamed “Yosh” has spent most of his waking hours working for presidents named Bush.” Birnbaum contributed another fascinating detail to the Bolten story that has inspired a considerable wave of Washington and Hollywood gossip:

“Bolten, who is unmarried, has made the gossip columns partly thanks to his bikes. News photographers caught him giving a ride on one of his bikes to actress Bo Derek, of 10 fame, during a Bikers for Bush rally in Flint, Michigan, in November 2000. Bolten and Derek had actually met earlier in the year at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. Derek, a die-hard Republican, was scheduled to give a speech during the proceedings, and she wanted to be briefed on Bush's policy ideas. "There were a lot of volunteers to handle this," recalled Bolten. "I took that task for myself." (The Stanford Lawyer, Number 69, Summer, 2004).

While he was Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bolten became the world’s leading crusader for Bush’s privatization plans for Social Security. While explaining Bolten’s importance for the Bush White House in 2003, Rove succinctly stated, ‘’He’s the explainer of all things Jewish to the White House.’’ It is no secret that Bolten is a devout practitioner of his faith. Bush invited Bolten to open his first cabinet meeting with a prayer. Bolten complied with a prayer in Hebrew.

With a CIA pedigree and direct personal links to Likud, as well as Bush’s sainted plan for the privatization of Social Security, there is little wonder why Bolten was chosen to replace Andrew Card. In their analysis of the recent changes at the White House, Time magazine has pointed to another interesting facet of Bolten’s multifaceted agenda: the reinvigoration of the Republicans’ waning credibility for national security. It seems that Bolten has developed a comprehensive plan to spin the currently dire political situation to reverse the fortunes of the president and to restore public confidence in his waning presidency. It is, thus, unsurprising that Iran plays a crucial role in Bolten’s plan for an endgame. What is Bolten’s plan for Iran? According to Time,

“This is the riskiest, and potentially most consequential, element of the plan, keyed to the vow by Iran to continue its nuclear program despite the opposition of several major world powers. Presidential advisers believe that by putting pressure on Iran, Bush may be able to rehabilitate himself on national security, a core strength that has been compromised by a discouraging outlook in Iraq. ‘In the face of the Iranian menace, the Democrats will lose,’ said a Republican frequently consulted by the White House.” (Time Magazine, 1 May 2006).

The Time analysis basically parallels the reports of a nefarious “confidential document” said to be in circulation amongst senior Republicans suggesting that a new attack on the US by terrorists could return the party to popularity and “restore (Bush’s) image as leader of the American people.” The sequence of events hoped for by the Republican hierarchy could involve a US bombardment of Iran swiftly followed by a pre-election terrorist atrocity. According to one report on the Republican memo, such a catastrophe could “keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.”

This insidious memo may have been the source of remarks made by Bob Woodward during a lecture to an academic audience in Texas earlier this year. Reflecting on information gleaned from recent interviews with intelligence officials, Woodward warned his audience with a sobering thought: a forthcoming terrorist attack could relegate 9/11 to the status of a footnote in American history. Apparently, members of the Republican Party have been talking with intelligence officials about the consequences of terrorism on US soil, and they are already planning to make political gains out of future tragedies.

The political stakes are high. If the Republicans lose control of the House, John Conyers would become the Chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee where he would wield the power to launch investigations into any of several potentially impeachable offenses. If the Republicans lose control of the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy would become Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and he could launch public hearings into the scandals now swirling around of the Bush White House. Imagine: Ted Kennedy presiding over an official investigation into Bush’s clandestine eavesdropping, wiretapping and mail-openings aimed at US citizens or the torture cases of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. There are plenty of potentially explosive scandals, and the Republicans realize that they could face the political Apocalypse if they lose the midterm elections this November. Their fears are driving them to draft plans for a political Gotterdammerung of their own, replete with nuclear weapons and a president who has recently refused to remove the “nuclear option” from the negotiating table.

Josh Bolten’s principal mission is to reconstruct political support for the Bush presidency by ramming through a program for a tough military onslaught against Iran based on its recalcitrance to abandon their nascent – and thus far perfectly legal - nuclear program. Frustratingly for Bolten, Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, Iran has not violated any treaties or international laws and - to make matters worse – a majority of the American people do not trust Bush to make the right decision “about whether we should go to war with Iran.”

Be that as it may, Bolten has four months left to prepare the ground for an Autumn Surprise bombing of Iran to revive the fears of Americans and to herd them into a battle formation to support a renewal of “the war on terror”. This role should suit him admirably, for Bolten was one of Washington’s most vocal proponents of war against Iraq when he was in his old position at the OMB.

Now, let us turn to that other new arrival in the Bush White House, Joel Kaplan, who served as Bolten’s deputy at the OMB. Kaplan went to Princeton and Yale. In 1988, he was involved in right-wing Democratic Party politics, but by 2000 he had morphed into a battle-hardened Republican apparatchik who accompanied John Bolton on the belligerent raid of Dade County election officials that brought the Florida recount to a screeching halt. This episode stopped the counting of ballots in the stillborn ‘election’, ultimately resulting in Supreme Court selection of and the assumption of power by the Bush-Cheney administration.

During the 1990s, Kaplan served four years in the Marines as a gunnery and artillery officer. As a Marine, he patrolled the US-Mexican border in a counter-narcotics operation. At Camp Pendleton, Kaplan trained Marines in the arts of artillery, logistics and the battlefield implementation of howitzer systems. At this date, history does not record whether Kaplan’s military experience had anything to do with his political conversion from Democrat to Republican, but it would not be surprising if it had transformed his political identity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

(Continued)

Another credential that reveals his innate neo-conservativism: Kaplan did a stint as law clerk for the right-wing Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

At Kaplan’s recent wedding in Texas, the pious Bolten read English translations of seven Jewish blessings, a courteous gesture for those in the party who were not fluent in Hebrew.

The tactical situation of the endgame is perfectly clear. Bolten and Kaplan are pedigreed right-wing intelligence and military operatives who will now enter the field to call and run the plays in the endgame of the Bush-Cheney administration. They will respond to input and orders from Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, but they will have a huge amount of independence, latitude and responsibility for the policies and operations that they set in motion.

While the forthcoming bombing campaign against Iran is frequently described as potentially damaging to the security of the US, Iraq and America’s allies in Europe, it is still generally seen to be in the security interests of Israel. I wonder about this, and I frankly doubt it, because a bombing campaign against Iran might trigger a retaliatory attack against Tel Aviv or Dimona or other targets in Israel. In fact, it seems much more likely that any bombing campaign against Iran will not succeed in strengthening the national security of Israel, but in weakening it. In Israel, there seems to be some popular unease with American policy in the region, particularly the war in Iraq and the threat of broadening the war into Iran.

The erstwhile British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, represented the growing sentiment for peace in Israel. He made embarrassing public comments about the Bush administration’s Iran plans, calling them “inconceivable” and “nuts.” Reports that have appeared since his sacking confirm that he was removed from his office on the direct orders of George Bush who demanded that Tony Blair appoint a more pliable Foreign Minister. Blair complied with the appointment of Margaret Beckett, a person seen as incapable of challenging the authority of Washington.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the endgame scenario of Bolten and Kaplan involved the bombing of Iran and the concomitant terrorism of Israel? Yes, it would be ironic, but it would also be tragic. Even so, it is all too clear that the Bush presidency is swiftly moving toward a tragic denouement of Shakespearean proportions, and Bolten and Kaplan are destined to play out their pivotal roles in the tragedy against the backdrop of collapsing national security schemes for America, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the rest of the planet.

The vast majority of the global population does not support the Pentagon’s plans for the bombardment of Iran. According to knowledgeable sources in Israel, Turkey has refused overtures from the US military that requested the use of the Incirlik airbase for the bombing of Iran. Meanwhile, further preparations are afoot in Iran itself. Maryam Rajavi, a leader of the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran, is preparing for her role as the American favorite to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president after the US-led attack precipitates what planners in Washington predict will become a massive revolt against the mullahs leading to a self-imposed regime change in Tehran.

Given the uncertainties taking hold of the international community in the runup to the US bombing campaign, the oil market is getting especially jittery. Formal speculations are now appearing in print that the price of Brent crude will soon soar to $100 per barrel in advance of the bombing campaign itself. This will be yet another windfall for the major oil companies, many of which are based in Bush’s home state of Texas.

In Washington, neoconservatives are looking forward to the next targets for American hegemony as set out in the documents of their most influential think tank, The Project for a New American Century. In Washington’s neoconservative circles, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are seen as crucial targets for regime change. The strategic importance of these two ostensibly friendly Islamic nations stems from two factors: Wahabism, the fountainhead of the most militant forms of Islamic extremism, and their energy resources. While Pakistan does not have major energy resources, it is seen as a breeding ground for terror with nuclear bombs giving it dominance over the crucial central Asian oil deposits of Kazakhstan, the third largest untapped reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iraq. A growing number of neoconservatives in Washington long for regime change in Saudi Arabia to ensure American domination of the region for at least another century.

In a recent interview with Robert Fisk of The Independent (London), Seymour Hersh insisted that there are growing numbers of American generals who are strongly opposed to the Iran plans, but they are staying in the shadows where they can avoid the glare of publicity because they are afraid of becoming the victims of high profile character assassinations by Fox News, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

In his highly publicized lecture at Columbia University’s school of journalism, Hersh lamented the, “collapse of Congress (and) the military.” In his remarks to Fisk, Hersh criticized, “a Congress that can’t articulate opposition.” Hersh and his sources in the Pentagon believe that the showdown between Bush’s America and Iran may soon be played out as an explosion of tragedy as Bush moves the pieces into position for his endgame strategy.

With every tick of the clock, more people are awakening to the fact that tragedy and horror are stalking America and Iran because this president wants to go out with a bang not a whimper.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAR20060511&articleId=2421

[24champ]

I dont have a problem with bombing Iran, just we need to prove Iran has a secret nuclear facility made for making nukes. I dont know if we will beat Israel to the punch with Irans president continually making statements about wiping Israel off the map.

[ClevelandBronco]

I'm convinced that we're going to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions, no matter which party is in power.

The difference might be that the American Right would likely support the American Left if (when) they do it. The American Left would likely demonize the American Right if (when) they do it.

Just a guess.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm convinced that we're going to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions, no matter which party is in power.

The difference might be that the American Right would likely support the American Left if (when) they do it. The American Left would likely demonize the American Right if (when) they do it.

Just a guess.

A majority of Americans disapprove of Dim Son's handling of Iraq, so opinion re: Iran is not necessarily a matter of right vs. left.

First, it seems the American people would need to be convinced that Iran's "nuclear ambitions" (a rather vague construct) constitute a real threat to our security.

Having been duped once already (read: Iraq, WMD, mushroom clouds, etc.) by BushCo, hopefully the old "fool me once....shame on you, fool me twice.....won't get fooled again" (;D)adage will prevail.

But you never know...:pity:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The American Left would likely demonize the American Right if (when) they do it.


Let's see...

The last time the American Left "demonized" the American Right under these circumstances it was because the American Right lied to the American people about alleged "nuclear ambitions."

Like it or not - you have a credibility problem (although I'm sure you'll think of a way to blame that on the American Left as well.)

[doonwise]

I dont have a problem with bombing Iran, just we need to prove Iran has a secret nuclear facility made for making nukes. I dont know if we will beat Israel to the punch with Irans president continually making statements about wiping Israel off the map.

Whoa buddy, haven't you been paying attention these last six years?? We don't need to worry about proving anything. Trust me, if we want to bomb Iran, we'll have the necessary evidence. And if we don't, we'll make it up. Never forget, the American people don't want to have to think too hard; they'll buy it. And those that don't buy it? We'll discredit them.

[Spider]

Whoa buddy, haven't you been paying attention these last six years?? We don't need to worry about proving anything. Trust me, if we want to bomb Iran, we'll have the necessary evidence. And if we don't, we'll make it up. Never forget, the American people don't want to have to think too hard; they'll buy it. And those that don't buy it? We'll discredit them.
man , part of me agrees with you the other part remembers th transgressions Iran has had with us in the past , unlike Iraq , there is a coflict with Iran , has been since the late 70's , that leader in Iran was one of the kidnapers ..... he is unstable , shown a pattern to taking drastic measures to prove a point ...... i was dead set againt Iraq , but Iran is a different story ...... I just wish we had competent leaders to execute this , it is our own misfortune , we have a dope as a leader who will screw this up .......

[Spider]

Just like to ad, that Saddam was over hyped , Saddam was more of a media creation , this guy in Iran is certifiable . while he is no hitler by any means , he is still a threat none the less .....

[Meck77]

First, it seems the American people would need to be convinced that Iran's "nuclear ambitions" (a rather vague construct) constitute a real threat to our security.

:

Who are we trying to fool here? This is more about Israel's security. Gulf War III......The final war?

[Spider]

well if it is over Israel or not , doesnt realy matter , what does matter is how we fight it , as it is Right now , America is seen as a paper tiger Military. Shock and Awe only came when we got the bill for Iraq .......
China and Russia are watching ........but we both know Bush will fúck this up .....Dont look good

[elsid13]

well if it is over Israel or not , doesnt realy matter , what does matter is how we fight it , as it is Right now , America is seen as a paper tiger Military. Shock and Awe only came when we got the bill for Iraq .......
China and Russia are watching ........but we both know Bush will fúck this up .....Dont look good


Spider- Russian and China both realize that US military is anything but a paper tiger. Both states have began to re-exam and modernizing their military to mimic the US. Russia is attempt to create an all volunteer force that specialize on strategic systems -subs, bombers, C4ISR- and small elite Special Force able to do what ours does. China is doing a similar modernization. The lesson of the current conflict is not to try to stand up toe to toe with US, because our technology and tactics are superior, but rather try to influence US public opinion to win but small military ineffective attacks.

[SteveTensi13]

Let's see...

The last time the American Left "demonized" the American Right under these circumstances it was because the American Right lied to the American people about alleged "nuclear ambitions."

Like it or not - you have a credibility problem (although I'm sure you'll think of a way to blame that on the American Left as well.)

I didn't realize the "American right" controlled the UN inspectors, Israeli, French and British intelligence and even the Democratic party!!Wow, I have so much power I don't know what to do with it!!LOL

[Bronx33]

What in the world is Iran thinking?

With our capabilites, man, we could destroy the entire country of Iran in a day.

It makes me proud to be an American when I think of the damage we could bestow on our enemies. :)


Thats the problem iran has the ayotallas and mullahs and MA pulling the strings all being religous fanantics and religion is keeping them from logical thinking, IMO religion has no place in politics it always conflicts (always).

[RMT]

What in the world is Iran thinking?

With our capabilites, man, we could destroy the entire country of Iran in a day.

It makes me proud to be an American when I think of the damage we could bestow on our enemies. :)

Exactly - which is why I'm amazed we can't even secure our border with Mexico to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Simply astounding.

[Bronx33]

Exactly - which is why I'm amazed we can't even secure our border with Mexico to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Simply astounding.

Our goverment hasn't put forth the effort to close the border, we really can't judge the proformance of something that has never happened. If they wanted to close the border (they would)

[RMT]

Who are we trying to fool here? This is more about Israel's security. Gulf War III......The final war?

Great point, Meck ... it probably has a lot to do with Israel. They would need support with so many of the surrounding countries that despise Israel. The attack is inevitable for those who read the Bible. It's just a matter of time.

[Spider]

Spider- Russian and China both realize that US military is anything but a paper tiger. Both states have began to re-exam and modernizing their military to mimic the US. Russia is attempt to create an all volunteer force that specialize on strategic systems -subs, bombers, C4ISR- and small elite Special Force able to do what ours does. China is doing a similar modernization. The lesson of the current conflict is not to try to stand up toe to toe with US, because our technology and tactics are superior, but rather try to influence US public opinion to win but small military ineffective attacks.
could be .... but I doubt it .....

[elsid13]

could be .... but I doubt it .....
The russians:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060511-112552-7216r.htm

The chinese
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/118mrfqr.asp

[Spider]

The russians:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060511-112552-7216r.htm

The chinese
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/118mrfqr.asp
i dont doubt that part , but they have nukes like we do , but they have a million man army .......

[elsid13]

i dont doubt that part , but they have nukes like we do , but they have a million man army .......

So, having a large army doesn't mean that your effective. It means that you have lot of hungry mouths to feed. The key to a modern military is about C&C not about belly buttons.

[Spider]

So, having a large army doesn't mean that your effective. It means that you have lot of hungry mouths to feed. The key to a modern military is about C&C not about belly buttons. that and make the enemy use more ammo , but then I never said china was right... just gave their view

[Meck77]

it probably has a lot to do with Israel. They would need support with so many of the surrounding countries that despise Israel. The attack is inevitable for those who read the Bible. It's just a matter of time.

It has everything to do with them. Infact Israel just said "Iran can be wiped off the map" also. This is just lovely.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1145961301962&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Infact in this article Peres implies "The United States should lead the way with military action." That's the same stance they took when Sadam was launching scud missles during Gulf I. They get threatened and our boys die. Anyone see a trend here?

[Spider]

It has everything to do with them. Infact Israel just said "Iran can be wiped off the map" also. This is just lovely.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1145961301962&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Infact in this article Peres implies "The United States should lead the way with military action." That's the same stance they took when Sadam was launching scud missles during Gulf I. They get threatened and our boys die. Anyone see a trend here?
i dont know Meck , I dont think we can afford Iran to have a nuke .......

[spdirty]

Cool. Lets take em out like we did Iraq in the first gulf war. Air Power!!!!!!!!

sidenote...I just pray that we never have to go to war with North Korea.

[Meck77]

i dont know Meck , I dont think we can afford Iran to have a nuke .......

I say we let Israel handle their own back yard. They are the ones that got the threat of being wiped out. Not us.

The shiat is destined to hit the fan there anyway. We have two groups of people who believe they are "chosen" by God and will prevail when it's all said and done. This isn't something I'd like to see us get in the middle of. I say let em duke it out.

[Spider]

I say we let Israel handle their own back yard. They are the ones that got the threat of being wiped out. Not us.

The shiat is destined to hit the fan there anyway. We have two groups of people who believe they are "chosen" by God and will prevail when it's all said and done. This isn't something I'd like to see us get in the middle of. I say let em duke it out.
the iran leader is the same guy that took Hostages in 79 , Had nothing to do with the jews ......he has shown hostile intentions to us before ........

[spdirty]

I say we let Israel handle their own back yard. They are the ones that got the threat of being wiped out. Not us.

The shiat is destined to hit the fan there anyway. We have two groups of people who believe they are "chosen" by God and will prevail when it's all said and done. This isn't something I'd like to see us get in the middle of. I say let em duke it out.

I think that if Israel strikes it would turn into Israel vs the middle east. Theyre like our little brother. We have to protect them.

[Spider]

Cool. Lets take em out like we did Iraq in the first gulf war. Air Power!!!!!!!!

sidenote...I just pray that we never have to go to war with North Korea.
Same here , but it will be a just war .......

[Meck77]

Has Iran threatened to nuke us? Weren't you guys the ones saying that Iraq never threatened the United States so we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place? As far as I know Iran only threatened Israel. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I might be?

[spdirty]

Has Iran threatened to nuke us? Weren't you guys the ones saying that Iraq never threatened the United States so we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place? As far as I know Iran only threatened Israel. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I might be?

Just my opinion, but I think Iran and Syria need to be our next 2 targets. Just bomb em into submission. Theyre both threats in my opinion.

[Spider]

Has Iran threatened to nuke us? they didnt have em , but if they did , who is to say ........ Weren't you guys the ones saying that Iraq never threatened the United States so we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place? As far as I know Iran only threatened Israel. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I might be?
nope Iraq never threatened us , Saddam threatened Kuwait , shot at israel in retaliation of us ...... now Iran on the other hand

[Meck77]

I think that if Israel strikes it would turn into Israel vs the middle east. Theyre like our little brother. We have to protect them.

Why is this? They have their own their own military, they have their own airforce, they have nukes. Why does their president suggest we put our blood on the line first. Read the article I linked a couple posts ago!

This doesn't make sense to me at all. Iran knows that Israel is more than capable of pulling off an airstrike. Why should it come from us when Iran already said they want to wipe out Israel?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I didn't realize the "American right" controlled the UN inspectors, Israeli, French and British intelligence and even the Democratic party!!Wow, I have so much power I don't know what to do with it!!LOL

:oyvey:

You are so utterly misinformed it's hopeless.

[Rigs11]

What in the world is Iran thinking?

With our capabilites, man, we could destroy the entire country of Iran in a day.

It makes me proud to be an American when I think of the damage we could bestow on our enemies. :)
That's what makes you proud? That we can kill people at will? How shameful and unintelligent.

[spdirty]

Why is this? They have their own their own military, they have their own airforce, they have nukes. Why does their president suggest we put our blood on the line first. Read the article I linked a couple posts ago!

This doesn't make sense to me at all. Iran knows that Israel is more than capable of pulling off an airstrike. Why should it come from us when Iran already said they want to wipe out Israel?

I just think that most countries who are in the leadership in the arab world are looking for the first excuse to unleash war on Israel.

And I think that it is in our country's best interest to make sure that Israel continues to exist.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's what makes you proud? That we can kill people at will? How shameful and unintelligent.

No doubt.

The really nauseating part is that the guy calls himself a "Christian."

:pity:

[Rigs11]

No doubt.

The really nauseating part is that the guy calls himself a "Christian."

:pity:
He prolly hates them evil gays tooLOL

[Meck77]

Bush not screwing up?

That would be a miracle I'm not sure even God could pull off.

Ok LABF if you were president what would you do with Iran? Iran has made it's threats. You know this.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ok LABF if you were president what would you do with Iran? Iran has made it's threats. You know this.
I said this before and was called traitor, etc.. but what right do we have to tell ANY country they can't pursue nuclear options?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok LABF if you were president what would you do with Iran? Iran has made it's threats. You know this.

First of all, if by "threats" you mean the so-called threat to "wipe Israel off the map" - that story has been debunked (I already posted proof of this several times.)

Second, even your own director of intel in Iraq, viz., John Negroponte (Mr. Death Squad) has stated that Iran is several years away from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

[Meck77]

First of all, if by "threats" you mean the so-called threat to "wipe Israel off the map" - that story has been debunked (I already posted proof of this several times.)

Second, even your own director of intel in Iraq, viz., John Negroponte (Mr. Death Squad) has stated that Iran is several years away from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

Ok so your answer is nothing. Got it.

So are you calling Peres a liar? Here is what he just said.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."

You think he said this just for kicks and really wasn't threatened by Iran?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok so your answer is nothing. Got it.


Yawn.

Your complaint that I advocate doing 'nothing' is only meaningful as long as Iran is actually a threat.

Unfortunately for you, the evidence doesn't support your claim.

Even an arch-neocon like Negroponte admits it.

Israel seems to have taken the threat seriously because in the link I posted before Peres said "we can wipe out Iran".

Israel is always thinking about wiping out Iran.

[Meck77]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN]
Even an arch-neocon like Negroponte admits it.

QUOTE]

He said they may be a few years away. In the meantime you think it's best to just wait and do nothing. That's some fine leadership. That reminds me of our policy towards terrorism in the 90's. That served us real well.

[Spider]

look most of you know my stance on things ,Iran well this leader of Iran having anything more powerfull then a BB gun is bad news ......and if i am wrong it is more easier to ask forgivnes , then it is to get permission ..... I just cant get passed 1979 and those hostages

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He said they may a few years away. In the meantime you think it's best to just wait and do nothing. That's some fine leadership.

What's sad is that (recent) history is repeating itself, and people like you will never learn.

The monkey at the switch is going to frighten you with more "mushroom cloud" rhetoric and visions of boogeymen, and you will unthinkingly fall right in line behind another ill-advised, illegal, unilateral, pre-emptive attack on another country that isn't a threat to the US.

That reminds me of our policy towards terrorism in the 90's. That served us real well.

It served us a hell of a lot better than the "policy" toward terrorism that existed between the time Clinton left office and 9/11/01.

[spdirty]

What's sad is that (recent) history is repeating itself, and people like you will never learn.

The monkey at the switch is going to frighten you with more "mushroom cloud" rhetoric and visions of boogeymen, and you will unthinkingly fall right in line behind another ill-advised, illegal, unilateral, pre-emptive attack for oil on another country that isn't a threat to the US.

There. now its complete.LOL

[Spider]

The monkey at the switch is going to frighten you with more "mushroom cloud" rhetoric and visions of boogeymen, and you will unthinkingly fall right in line behind another ill-advised, illegal, unilateral, pre-emptive attack on another country that isn't a threat to the US.




I think it is more the that , if it was just Bush saying it I would blow it off like Chavez being Hitler .. but this comming from the I.E.A. ..... scary stuff ...... We all Know bush is a liar but the IEA is dead on , i will take their word on whats what

[24champ]

Has Iran threatened to nuke us? Weren't you guys the ones saying that Iraq never threatened the United States so we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place? As far as I know Iran only threatened Israel. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I might be?
Hey meck Iran doesnt need to threaten us, lets say the Iranians give the nukes to a Terrorist organization? What then? Same was said with Iraq.

[Spider]

Hey meck Iran doesnt need to threaten us, lets say the Iranians give the nukes to a Terrorist organization? What then? Same was said with Iraq.
thats a cop out .........

[24champ]

It served us a hell of a lot better than the "policy" toward terrorism that existed between the time Clinton left office and 9/11/01.
Clinton aides rejected al Qaeda info, story says
December 2, 2001 Posted: 7:46 PM EST (0046 GMT)






WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Clinton administration officials repeatedly rejected offers by Sudan's intelligence service to share information it had compiled about Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network during the organization's formative years in the 1990s, according to a report in the latest edition of Vanity Fair.



CNN.COM SPECIAL REPORT

CNN NewsPass Video

Agencies reportedly got hijack tips in 1998


MORE STORIES

Intelligence intercept led to Buffalo suspects

Report cites warnings before 9/11


EXTRA INFORMATION

Timeline: Who Knew What and When?


Interactive: Terror Investigation


Terror Warnings System


Most wanted terrorists


What looks suspicious?


In-Depth: America Remembers


In-Depth: Terror on Tape


In-Depth: How prepared is your city?



RESOURCES

On the Scene: Barbara Starr: Al Qaeda hunt expands?


On the Scene: Peter Bergen: Getting al Qaeda to talk






The top Clinton administration official in charge of African affairs, former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice, told CNN Sunday the allegations were "erroneous and irresponsible."

The article said the overtures were made to the State Department, FBI and other administration officials directly by Sudanese diplomats and through Americans with connections in Sudan.

One of those with connections was a Pakistani-American businessman who was a donor to the Democratic Party and an acquaintance of President Clinton's, the article said.

Senior FBI officials who wanted to see the information were overruled, the article said.

Vanity Fair quoted Tim Carney, the last U.S. ambassador to Sudan, as saying U.S. officials "lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization."

In an interview on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," Rice said Clinton administration officials up to the Cabinet level met on "countless occasions" with officials of the Sudanese government to discuss terrorism.

"Never, during those many, many meetings, was there ever an offer of such documents, were those documents ever provided," Rice said.

"And in fact, out of those meetings didn't even come any detailed, significant information that our law enforcement or CIA operatives found to be of any operational significance."

Rice said she was "puzzled" by Carney's comments because he was in some of those same meetings.

She said he was angered by the decision to close the embassy in Khartoum shortly after his arrival and "perhaps that anger has colored his recollections."

Rice said the United States had a counterterrorism team in Khartoum during much of the period in question and that it sought information from the Sudanese government and "got nothing of great value."

She noted the allegations in the article, written by David Rose, were based on information from Sudanese government officials and people with business ties to Sudan.

According to the article, the Mukhabarat, Sudan's intelligence service, compiled information on bin Laden from his arrival in the country in 1991 until he was expelled in 1996.

It also had detailed information about other members of al Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which eventually merged into al Qaeda and now provides some of its top leadership, the article said.

From the autumn of 1996 until weeks before the September 11 terrorist attacks, Sudanese officials made repeated attempts to get the material to U.S. officials, but they were spurned because the Clinton administration was hostile to the Islamic regime in Khartoum, which it branded as a sponsor of terrorism, and was sympathetic to rebel groups, the article said.

"That information included detailed biographies, photographs, the place within the organization of some of those who played a very direct role in the [1998 U.S.] embassy bombings [in East Africa], who went on to play a planning role in the 2001 atrocities," Rose said in an interview on "Late Edition."

"It seems reasonable that if these offers had been taken up when they were first made, then, in any event, the [1998] bombings may not have taken place, the organization would not have had that first stunning success and perhaps it wouldn't have gone on to do what it's done this year," he said.

The article said U.S. officials may have been skeptical of the information because the CIA had received other intelligence reports from Sudan about purported terrorist attacks that turned out to be untrue, according to the article, and because they may not have appreciated the danger presented by al Qaeda before the 1998 embassy attacks, according to the article.

The article said that after the embassy bombings the Mukhabarat cabled the FBI in Washington, offering to turn over two Pakistani men who it believed played a role in the attack.

Before the exchange could be made, however, U.S. military forces bombed a Sudanese factory, at which point the Khartoum regime sent the men to Pakistan instead.

Rice said it is "completely implausible" that FBI officials, who were on the ground in the region immediately after the embassy bombings, would not have quickly seized upon such an offer if it had been made.

According to the article, among the people involved in the effort to pass along Mukhabarat's information was Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American businessman who it said was a major donor to the Democratic Party and was on personal terms with Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

In an effort to improve the relationship between Sudan and the United States, Ijaz told the magazine that in April 1997 he brought a letter from Sudan's president to Rep. Lee Hamilton, then the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.

The letter offered to allow U.S. counterterrorism officials to come to Sudan "to assess the data in our possession and help us counter the forces your government, and ours, seek to contain."

Ijaz claimed Hamilton took the letter to Berger and to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, neither of whom replied.

Rice told CNN "we didn't need back channels like Mansoor Ijaz because we had front channels -- we had numerous direct, repeated exchanges with the government of Sudan."

"If the government in Khartoum wanted to share this information, if they wanted to give it to us, they had countless opportunities to do so directly," she said.

"If they didn't want to do so directly, they could have come up with any number of ways. They could have dropped the box in front of the State Department."

"They didn't do that, and I believe they didn't do it under the Clinton administration or under the Bush administration until after [September 11], because they weren't interested in doing so."
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/02/ret.terror.sudan/

.

[SteveTensi13]

First of all, if by "threats" you mean the so-called threat to "wipe Israel off the map" - that story has been debunked (I already posted proof of this several times.)

Second, even your own director of intel in Iraq, viz., John Negroponte (Mr. Death Squad) has stated that Iran is several years away from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

So your answer is wait until they actualy have the nukes then do something about it. Ok, that my friend is why democrats and particulary liberals cannot be trusted with national security issues. Your types are purely reactive not pro-active.

Only a liberal would try to even debunk what that NAZI in Iran said about wiping Israel off the map, Liberals are notoriously anti-semetic and therefore they try to cover for eachother when they are caught in their racist slurs.

[24champ]

[/b]

So your answer is wait until they actualy have the nukes then do something about it. Ok, that my friend is why democrats and particulary liberals cannot be trusted with national security issues. Your types are purely reactive not pro-active.

Only a liberal would try to even debunk what that NAZI in Iran said about wiping Israel off the map, Liberals are notoriously anti-semetic and therefore they try to cover for eachother when they are caught in their racist slurs.
Basically if the left doesnt have any ideas on how to stop Iran to get nukes then you will have a North Korea type situation. ( Sarcastically)Of course, I think the Clinton administration was great. The United States solved the problem peacefully. It was historic and the North Koreans resumed the development of nuclear weapons as soon as they signed the Geneva Agreed Framework, even before the ink dried on the paper.

[elsid13]

Second, even your own director of intel in Iraq, viz., John Negroponte (Mr. Death Squad) has stated that Iran is several years away from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

The problem we don't if the intel on Iran is correct. The intel community doesn't have resource on the ground to clearly state if the Iran is danger or not. Add to a fact that you have Iranian leader that think the end of the world is less then 2 year away, make the case of diplomatic solution harder.

[Spider]

Basically if the left doesnt have any ideas on how to stop Iran to get nukes then you will have a North Korea type situation. ( Sarcastically)Of course, I think the Clinton administration was great. The United States solved the problem peacefully. It was historic and the North Koreans resumed the development of nuclear weapons as soon as they signed the Geneva Agreed Framework, even before the ink dried on the paper.
see this is what I dont get , th left in alot of cases will go to war faster then the right , the right will for Profit more then any othr reason ......Can you guys name how many wars were started under a democrat president ?

[24champ]

see this is what I dont get , th left in alot of cases will go to war faster then the right , the right will for Profit more then any othr reason ......Can you guys name how many wars were started under a democrat president ?
Thats easy JFK for 'Nam.

[elsid13]

see this is what I dont get , th left in alot of cases will go to war faster then the right , the right will for Profit more then any othr reason ......Can you guys name how many wars were started under a democrat president ?

Vietnam Kennedy
WW2 FDR
WW1 Wilson
Korea Truman

[24champ]

see this is what I dont get , th left in alot of cases will go to war faster then the right , the right will for Profit more then any othr reason ......Can you guys name how many wars were started under a democrat president ?
then there was Clinton that bombed Kosovo.....

[24champ]

War of 1812 under Madison.....

[24champ]

Mexican War under Polk......

[Spider]

then there was Clinton that bombed Kosovo.....
and Iraq , Afghanistan , Sent Aiges Cruisers to Twian made China back down , you know I dont mind opposing point of views , I just hate when people leave stuff out , you have seen me , I dont do that ...... My point of view is strong , I dont have to leave stuff off to get a point acrossed

[Spider]

Fdr Ww2

[Spider]

Harry truman Korean war

[Spider]

JFK . Nam Lyndon B johnson Nam , Rep Nixion Nam and Cambodia

[Spider]

Woodrow Wilson Reform Democrat WW1 ........ so where everyone gets the idea Dems are not Hawkish either isnt educated , or has a short memory ....... exception of Nam , when a Dem gets into war , there is an ending . and we win

[Spider]

Take a look at Congress right now , How many Dems have served vs Republicans . it isnt even close

[Spider]

Senate take a look ....

[Spider]

I just wish we had someone else in Charge to take on Iran ....... we all know Bush will screw up.......A plea to wesley Clark , get involved your country needs you ...........

[24champ]

Spider I wasnt questioning the dems of the 50's, 60's, 70's etc. I simply said that if the dems want to continue trying to negotiate with a country that you cant TRUST then you will end up with a North Korea situation. It has nothing to do with whatever happened in the Korean War, 'Nam etc. Im talking about dealing with countries that have nuclear weapon ambitions and intend to use it towards us or our allies.

[Spider]

Spider I wasnt questioning the dems of the 50's, 60's, 70's etc. I simply said that if the dems want to continue trying to negotiate with a country that you cant TRUST then you will end up with a North Korea situation. It has nothing to do with whatever happened in the Korean War, 'Nam etc. Im talking about dealing with countries that have nuclear weapon ambitions and intend to use it towards us or our allies.
Did you know that Clinton and the IEA had cameras set up in North Korea attheir nuke plants ? probably not , all the rage is appeasement ....... Did you look up the people of our Goverment see wh served who didnt ?
My Dad was a nam vet , Democrat ,served his country with honor , The only thing he told me abut war is this ...... A soldier is the last one that wants war , but the first to fight , and that is so true under the current administration with Iraq , those that took us to Iraq never served , never faught , they dont know what it is like ........ But Bush has plenty of jokes about it .......

[Spider]

point is try what you can to avoid war , there is nothing romantic about it , you try sanctions , blockades , everything except war , but when Push comes to shove , you come loaded for bear , make the otherside regret every day of the war and then some .......

[Spider]

just take alook at the mane , how many posters here beat the drums of war , yet they were old enough to fight chose not to ...... We support the war and the troops but we dont want ot fight , I never did understand that , if you support somting you should be wiling to fight for it .. if you dont fight , then you dont support it ....not 100% anyway

[24champ]

Did you know that Clinton and the IEA had cameras set up in North Korea attheir nuke plants ? probably not , all the rage is appeasement ....... Did you look up the people of our Goverment see wh served who didnt ?
My Dad was a nam vet , Democrat ,served his country with honor , The only thing he told me abut war is this ...... A soldier is the last one that wants war , but the first to fight , and that is so true under the current administration with Iraq , those that took us to Iraq never served , never faught , they dont know what it is like ........ But Bush has plenty of jokes about it .......
The cameras didnt do jack squat.

"Remarkably, North Korea's efforts to acquire uranium technologies,
that is, a second path to nuclear weapons, and their efforts to
weaponize their nuclear material do not violate the 1994 Agreed
Framework. That is because the Clinton Administration did not succeed
in negotiating a deal with North Korea that would ban such efforts. It
is inexplicable and inexcusable.
http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1999/991103-dprk-usia2.htm

[Spider]

The cameras didnt do jack squat.


http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1999/991103-dprk-usia2.htm
Dude I dont know where you get your info , but alas .........
Clinton 'had plans to attack N. Korea reactor'

Monday, December 16, 2002 Posted: 8:40 AM EST (1340 GMT)
Clinton said North Korea might be tempted to sell
ROTTERDAM, The Netherlands -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton says he had plans in the early 1990s to attack and destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities after the secretive communist state was found to be producing weapons-grade plutonium.

At the time, he said, North Korea had plans to produce between six and eight nuclear weapons per year.

"We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and to destroy their reactors and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear program," Clinton told a security forum in the Dutch port city of Rotterdam Sunday.

"We were in a very intense situation," he said.

His statement came days after North Korea announced that it planned to restart its nuclear reactor after Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, announced he was halting supplies of fuel oil to the country.

The United States had been providing North Korea with the oil under the terms of a 1994 agreement, ending the first crisis over the North's suspected weapons program.

Under the deal, known as the Agreed Framework, the North had agreed to mothball its reactor and abandon efforts to construct nuclear weapons, pending the construction of two advanced reactors that do not produce weapons-grade material.

However, in October North Korean officials told a visiting U.S. delegation they had continued with their weapons program in contravention of the deal.
Highest bidder

Last week Pyongyang said it planned to restart its nuclear reactor to cover the energy shortfall created by the cutting of fuel supplies.

Commenting on the North Korean announcement, Clinton said the move made it imperative that Pyongyang be persuaded or forced to halt its weapons program.

"Make no mistake about it, it has to be ended," Clinton said.

"You do not want North Korea making bombs and selling them to the highest bidder because they cannot feed themselves through the winter," he added.

However, he said it was more likely North Korea would use the nuclear issue to bargain for more aid rather than put weapons on the market.

The former president's comments came as ranking U.S. Republican and Democrat senators warned that the worsening standoff with North Korea could become dangerous and should not be ignored simply because of tensions with Iraq.

Republican Senator Richard Lugar, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, called for stronger diplomatic efforts to overcome a recent breakdown in agreements aimed at freezing North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

"I think we're in danger as a result of the Bush administration policy towards North Korea of turning a situation which is difficult into one which is quite dangerous," Lieberman said on ABC's This Week. "We cannot have a nuclear North Korea. That is a danger."
'Very dangerous'
North Korea's Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear facility is set to be reactivated, Pyongyang says
North Korea's Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear facility is set to be reactivated, Pyongyang says

"North Korea is very dangerous, and we cannot miscalculate, because the effects upon South Korea and the neighborhood are great," Lugar said.

"And they are developing ... missilery that could reach us," he added. "I think we have to recognize that."

Both senators urged renewed negotiations with Pyongyang, and said Washington should not threaten it with military action, which Lieberman said would be "unwise."

"I think we're at a point now where each side ... seems to be trying to be more macho than the other," he said. "And when you do that, you can end up in a war that you didn't really mean to get into."

Both agreed that postponing action on North Korea and focusing on Iraq was not a good idea.

"We really have to be in negotiations; we have to be talking," Lugar said. "I think the idea that we can handle one thing at a time is clearly not the case."

"I don't think we can wait," Lieberman said. "As much as I support what we're doing in Iraq, I don't think we can say, 'North Korea, forget about it until we're done with this.'"
your links are bogus Champ ...... Seriously dude the Cameras worked

[Spider]

see champ there is facts , then there is right wing spin

[Spider]

so please tell me again how Clinton did nothing ... I find it rather funny

[24champ]

see champ there is facts , then there is right wing spin
uh how is it be right-wing spin when the House International Relations Committee ruled that North Korea is a bigger threat. Also ruled the 1994 Agreed Framework failed and that quote (from the same link i posted in my previous post): "Second, the American people need to know that North Korea can currently strike the United States with a missile capable of delivering a chemical, biological, or possibly, nuclear weapon."

[Spider]

uh how is it be right-wing spin when the House International Relations Committee ruled that North Korea is a bigger threat. Also ruled the 1994 Agreed Framework failed and that quote (from the same link i posted in my previous post): "Second, the American people need to know that North Korea can currently strike the United States with a missile capable of delivering a chemical, biological, or possibly, nuclear weapon."
oh come off it take a look at those names on your list ......... you are smart , figure it out ......Clinton Stopped N.Korea , bush hasnt al there is to it

[Spider]

From your own link Champ tell me if these names are not familure .....
Members of the North Korea Advisory Group are: Reps. Ben Gilman, Floyd
Spence, Porter Goss, Chris Cox, Tillie Fowler, Sonny Callahan, Doug
Bereuter, Curt Weldon, and Joe Knollenberg.

[Spider]

all neo Cons ......... Imagne that .......

[24champ]

Dude I dont know where you get your info , but alas .........
we can say, 'North Korea, forget about it until we're done with this.'"
your links are bogus Champ ...... Seriously dude the Cameras worked
cameras DID NOT work Spider

The agency was not allowed to monitor nuclear fuels or wastes to check for possible plutonium reprocessing. IAEA requests for regular inspections in September and October were rejected by the North. By early December, the IAEA said that it could no longer provide any "meaninigul assurances" that North Korea was -mot making more plutonium for non-peaceful purposes.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/asb129.cfm

[Spider]

cameras DID NOT work Spider
dude i already exposed your link just admit it and let it go , to futher my point Nork Korea didnt start back up untill Bush got into office or did you forget that also ?

[Spider]

cameras DID NOT work Spider


http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/asb129.cfm
Hertiage org ? Hilarious! , well suffice to say you believe the spin , I will belive the facts .......

[Spider]

heritage org is a neo con think tank .......... Hilarious! come on Champ you can do better

[24champ]

Hertiage org ? Hilarious! , well suffice to say you believe the spin , I will belive the facts .......
if the arguement I make is wrong then show me a link where it says the cameras monitored nuclear fuels or wastes to check for possible plutonium reprocessing.

[Spider]

if the arguement I make is wrong then show me a link where it says the cameras monitored nuclear fuels or wastes to check for possible plutonium reprocessing.
ummm Reading works .....
His statement came days after North Korea announced that it planned to restart its nuclear reactor after Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, announced he was halting supplies of fuel oil to the country.

[Spider]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/15/nkorea.us/index.html
ther ya go .......... home run Yahtzeeeeeee , Touch Down , we scored , who is your Daddy ..........

[24champ]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/15/nkorea.us/index.html
ther ya go .......... home run Yahtzeeeeeee , Touch Down , we scored , who is your Daddy ..........
From your great "post/link"
However, in October North Korean officials told a visiting U.S. delegation they had continued with their weapons program in contravention of the deal.

sorry to ruin your little party spider and nowhere does it say the cameras were focused on the cameras monitored nuclear fuels or wastes to check for possible plutonium reprocessing. Thanks for the effort though.

[Spider]

From your great "post/link"


sorry to ruin your little party spider and nowhere does it say the cameras were focused on the cameras monitored nuclear fuels or wastes to check for possible plutonium reprocessing. Thanks for the effort though.
LOL you didnt ruin my party you showed you cant think deep , if N.K started up after Clinton left , it was clinton that had cameras ..2+2=4 .....but hey thanks for playing .... but then you know I am right , you are just trying to save face ......question is will I let you

[Spider]

oh and Champ that quote was in october of 2002 ,you know the one you didnt copy fully ...so Rovian of you However, in October North Korean officials told a visiting U.S. delegation they had continued with their weapons program in contravention of the deal.
Highest bidder However, he said it was more likely North Korea would use the nuclear issue to bargain for more aid rather than put weapons on the market.

The former president's comments came as ranking U.S. Republican and Democrat senators warned that the worsening standoff with North Korea could become dangerous and should not be ignored simply because of tensions with Iraq.


the entire quote......... enjoy

[Spider]

well I better put the date up , chances are you over looked it also
Monday, December 16, 2002 Posted: 8:40 AM EST (1340 GMT) ...... there ya go

[Spider]

lets see should we look up the word worsening? oh what the hell why not . here it is 2 entries found for worsening.
wors·en Audio pronunciation of "worsening" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûrsn)
tr. & intr.v. wors·ened, wors·en·ing, wors·ens

To make or become worse.


[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

worsening

adj : changing for the worse; "worried by the worsening storm" [ant: bettering] n 1: process of changing to an inferior state [syn: deterioration, decline in quality, declension] 2: changing something with the result that it becomes worse

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

thank you Iwill be here until monday tip your waitress ......

[Spider]

Basically if the left doesnt have any ideas on how to stop Iran to get nukes then you will have a North Korea type situation. ( Sarcastically)Of course, I think the Clinton administration was great. The United States solved the problem peacefully. It was historic and the North Koreans resumed the development of nuclear weapons as soon as they signed the Geneva Agreed Framework, even before the ink dried on the paper.
So as you was saying ?

[24champ]

LOL you didnt ruin my party you showed you cant think deep , if N.K started up after Clinton left , it was clinton that had cameras ..2+2=4 .....but hey thanks for playing .... but then you know I am right , you are just trying to save face ......question is will I let you
Spider North Korea has a long history of breaking treaties.

In late 1991 North and South Korea signed the Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression, Exchanges and Cooperation and the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Joint Declaration called for a bilateral nuclear inspection regime to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula. The Declaration, which came into force on 19 February 1992, states that the two sides "shallnot test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deployor use nuclear weapons," and that they "shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities." A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated with verification of the denuclearization of the peninsula.

On 30 January 1992 the DPRK also signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA, as it had pledged to do in 1985 when acceding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the joint declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime.

When North Korean Deputy Prime Minister Kim Tal-Hyon visited South Korea for economic talks in July 1992, President Roh Tae Woo announced that full North-South Economic Cooperation would not be possible without resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. There was little progress toward the establishment of an inspection regime, and dialogue between the South and North stalled in the fall of 1992.

The North's agreement to accept IAEA safeguards initiated a series of IAEA inspections of North Korea's nuclear facilities. This promising development was halted by the North's refusal in January 1993 to allow special inspections of two unreported facilities suspected of holding nuclear waste. Ignoring the South-North Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea refused IAEA inspections and operated nuclear reprocessing facilities, making the world suspicious of its nuclear intentions.

Lack of progress on implementation of the denuclearization accord triggered actions on both sides that led to North Korea's March 12, 1993, announcement of its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The North's threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) brought North-South progress to an abrupt halt. Tensions ran high on the Korean Peninsula as the confrontation between North Korea and the United States deepened
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/


IAEA began monitoring the five North Korean nuclear facilities subject to the freeze in late November 1994--about 1 month after the Agreed Framework was concluded. While IAEA's monitoring activities provide assurance that operations and construction at these facilities have ceased, several monitoring problems affect IAEA's ability to ensure that North Korea is complying fully with certain aspects of the nuclear freeze.
For example, although activities affecting North Korea's reprocessing facility are prohibited, North Korea has not allowed IAEA to implement required safeguards measures on the liquid nuclear waste tanks at the facility. According to IAEA, the measures are needed to ensure that the nuclear waste is not being removed or altered. This is particularly important because removing or altering the nuclear waste could damage critical evidence about the history of North Korea's nuclear program.

futhermore......
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- North Korea has revealed to the United States that it has a secret and active nuclear weapons program begun years after it promised to never again to pursue such a course, the White House said late Wednesday.
One senior administration official said Pyongyang made the acknowledgment only after it was confronted with evidence that it has a uranium-based program and enough plutonium for at least two nuclear weapons.

The North's admission prompted urgent consultations among the United States, Japan and South Korea -- the three nations that North Korea had promised under the so-called "agreed framework."

The diplomatic term describes the 1994 agreement under which North Korea said it would no longer seek to develop nuclear weapons.

In exchange, the United States and others agreed to help build two light water nuclear reactors to replace the plutonium-producing reactors Pyongyang was using, The Associated Press reported.

The reactors were being financed mostly by South Korea and Japan. Construction of the reactors began just two months ago.

The agreement also called for inspections to verify that the terms were being adhered to, but so far Pyongyang has blocked all attempts to make such inspections.

North Korea confirmed U.S. suspicions earlier this month during a high-level U.S. visit to Pyongyang, led by James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs.

The senior official said the revelation came in a meeting between Kelly and a top North Korean official, Kang Suk Ju, described as the equivalent of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's right-hand man. These were the first such high level discussions between the two nations in two years.

The official said Kelly told Kang that the United States knew the country had a secret nuclear weapons program using "different technology" from that used prior to 1994, and that North Korea had saved enough plutonium for at least two nuclear weapons.

The North Korean official then shocked Kelly when he looked at him and said "something to the effect of, 'Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,'" according to the senior administration source, who was briefed on the meeting.

"They are in material breach of the agreed framework," said White House spokesman Sean McCormack.

"We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation," McCormack said, according to the AP. "Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea."


This statue of the late longtime North Korean leader, Kim Il Sung, graces a plaza in Pyongyang.



"The United States and our allies call on North Korea to comply with its commitments under the nonproliferation treaty and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner," he said.

Following North Korea's admission, McCormack said a series of internal administration meetings about how to respond were held, culminating in a National Security Council meeting on the issue Tuesday.

President Bush is scheduled to meet jointly with the prime ministers of Japan and South Korea later this month at the annual Asian Pacific economic summit.

The development means the United States must end efforts to improve relations with North Korea, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

"The United States was prepared to offer economic and political steps to improve the lives of the North Korean people, provided the North were dramatically to alter its behavior across a range of issues, including its weapons of mass destruction programs, development and export of ballistic missiles, threats to its neighbors, support for terrorism, and the deplorable treatment of the North Korean people," Boucher said in a statement.

"In light of our concerns about the North's nuclear weapons program, however, we are unable to pursue this approach." (Full statement)

Another senior administration official said the United States has told North Korea it had "violated" the agreed framework and that the agreement was now "nullified."

Boucher said Pyongyang also has violated the Nonproliferation Treaty, its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea told U.S. officials it was no longer bound by the anti-nuclear agreement, U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the AP.
A CIA report in January said that during the second half of last year, North Korea "continued its attempts [to] procure technology worldwide that could have applications in its nuclear program," the AP reported.

"We assess that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons," the report said.

Another senior U.S. official told CNN that Washington received intelligence "back over the summer months" indicating that North Korea had a nuclear weapons program involving the use of highly enriched uranium.

The intelligence, the official said, indicated the program was launched in the late 1990s -- several years after North Korea signed the agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea.

The official said that when Kelly confronted the top North Korean official with information about the nuclear weapons program on October 4, the North Koreans were "belligerent" but did not dispute the U.S. claim and "showed not a hint of remorse."

The administration had already shared some of its intelligence with key congressional committees.

In his State of the Union address earlier this year, Bush referred to North Korea as a member of the "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran -- a statement rejected by Pyongyang.

Previously, U.S. fears over North Korea centered on its sale of ballistic missile technology to other countries, including Iran and Syria.

In August 1998, North Korea launched a rocket that flew over Japan. The launch prompted Japan to start work on an anti-missile shield, and the United States agreed to cooperate with the project.

At first, U.S. intelligence agencies told lawmakers in private briefings the North Koreans fired a three-stage ballistic missile. Analysts later concluded the rocket was a failed satellite launch, as North Korea reported at the time.

After months of tension with South Korea, the North resumed high-level talks in August that restarted stalled reconciliation efforts on the Korean peninsula -- divided by the most heavily armed border in the world, the AP reported.

The Koreas were divided following World War II and continued that way at the end of the inconclusive Korean War from 1950 to 1953. The United States still stations about 37,000 troops in South Korea as a deterrent against North Korea, according to the AP.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/

[24champ]

oh and Champ that quote was in october of 2002 ,you know the one you didnt copy fully ...so Rovian of you the entire quote......... enjoy
great since you have the dictionary why dont you find what the word CONTRAVENTION means and then re-read your quote.

[24champ]

Contravention is in French law, an act which violates the law, a treaty or an agreement which the party has made. It is considered a minor infraction, as opposed to other types of legal violations, such as an outright crime.

The act of contravening can be: opposition; obstruction; transgression; violation.

spiders quote:

However, in October North Korean officials told a visiting U.S. delegation they had continued with their weapons program in contravention of the deal.Highest bidder However, he said it was more likely North Korea would use the nuclear issue to bargain for more aid rather than put weapons on the market.

The former president's comments came as ranking U.S. Republican and Democrat senators warned that the worsening standoff with North Korea could become dangerous and should not be ignored simply because of tensions with Iraq.

[spdirty]

oh come off it take a look at those names on your list ......... you are smart , figure it out ......Clinton Stopped N.Korea , bush hasnt al there is to it


Nobody has stopped N. Korea dude. A war with them would make Iraq seem like an irrellevant exercise, trust me. That country and army scare the holy hell out of me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So your answer is wait until they actualy have the nukes then do something about it. Ok, that my friend is why democrats and particulary liberals cannot be trusted with national security issues. Your types are purely reactive not pro-active.

The lunatics you support are not "pro-active" - they believe in a doctrine of pre-emption. That is, they believe it's OK to launch a pre-emptive attack on any country that "might" be a threat someday.

They get sheep like you to support this sort of insanity by scaring you with trumped-up "mushroom cloud" and "mobile labs" imagery.

You fell for it once already three years ago.

Hard to believe you're falling for it again (although I guess I shouldn't be surprised - anyone who is still supporting Bush at this stage of the game is willing to believe just about any lie.)

Only a liberal would try to even debunk what that NAZI in Iran said about wiping Israel off the map

Only a willfully ignorant moron like you would unthinkingly swallow the right-wing propaganda about what the "nazi" allegedly said without actually researching it himself.

Liberals are notoriously anti-semetic(sic)

:stupid:

Easily one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard (I have to remind myself that it's you speaking.)

According to your reasoning, every liberal Jew is anti-Semitic.

You make Michelle Malkin sound like a Rhodes Scholar.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I said this before and was called traitor, etc.. but what right do we have to tell ANY country they can't pursue nuclear options?

You're not a traitor - you're simply stating the facts.

As much as the BushCo chickenhawks/warmongers would like to hype the alleged "threat" - Iran isn't viloating any international laws.

If BushCo tries to attack Iran, it will be another illegal, go-it-alone misadventure that, once again, just like Iraq, violates Article VI of our Constitution.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

U.S. history lesson: Stop meddling

In the last 100 years, the U.S. has ousted the governments of at least 14 countries and forcibly intervened in dozens of others -- to what end?

Stephen Kinzer, Los Angeles Times

THE UNITED STATES is facing a major crisis in Iran, where the clerical regime, despite its denials, is evidently embarked on an effort to develop nuclear weapons. Because American leaders say they will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, this has led to intense speculation that the Bush administration is preparing a military attack.

History suggests, however, that such an attack would have disastrous long-term consequences. Iranians know as well as anyone how terribly wrong such foreign interventions can go.

Iran was an incipient democracy in 1953, but Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh — chosen by an elected parliament and hugely popular among Iranians — angered the West by nationalizing his country's oil industry. President Eisenhower sent the CIA to depose him. The coup was successful, but it set the stage for future disaster.

The CIA placed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi back on the Peacock Throne. His repressive rule led, 25 years later, to the Islamic Revolution. That revolution brought to power a clique of bitterly anti-Western mullahs who have spent the decades since working intensely, and sometimes violently, to undermine U.S. interests around the world.



If the Eisenhower administration had refrained from direct intervention against Iran in 1953, this religious regime probably would never have come to power. There would be no nuclear crisis. Iran might instead have become a thriving democracy in the heart of the Muslim Middle East.

Overthrowing a government is like releasing a wheel at the top of a hill — you have no idea exactly what will happen next. Iranians are not the only ones who know this. In slightly more than a century, the United States has overthrown the governments of at least 14 countries, beginning with the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, and forcibly intervened in dozens more. Long before Afghanistan and Iraq, there were the Philippines, Panama, South Vietnam and Chile, among others.

Most of these interventions not only have brought great pain to the target countries but also, in the long run, weakened American security.

Cuba, half a world away from Iran, is a fine example. In 1898, the United States sent troops there to help rebels overthrow Spanish colonial rule. Once victory was secured, the U.S. reneged on its promise to allow Cuba to become independent and turned it into a protectorate.

More than 60 years later, in his first speech as leader of the victorious Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro recalled that episode and made a promise. "This time," he vowed, "it will not be like 1898, when the Americans came in and made themselves masters of the country."

Those words suggest that perhaps if the U.S. had allowed Cuba to go its own way in 1898, the entire phenomenon of Castro communism might never have emerged.

The U.S. deposed a visionary leader of Nicaragua, Jose Santos Zelaya, in 1909 and sent his unlucky country into a long spiral of repression and rebellion.

Forty-five years later, still believing that "regime change" can end well, the U.S. overthrew the left-leaning president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, and imposed a military regime. That regime's brutality set off a 30-year civil war in which hundreds of thousands died.

Today, Latin America and the Middle East are the regions of the world in the most open political rebellion against U.S. policies. It is no coincidence that these are the regions where the U.S. has intervened most often. Resentment over intervention festers. It passes from generation to generation. Ultimately it produces a backlash.

Countries that have been victimized by past interventions are especially determined to resist future ones. Iran is one of these. Over the last 200 years, the British, Russians and Americans have sought to dominate and exploit Iran. If the U.S. intervenes there now, it will face the pent-up anger many Iranians harbor against all outside powers.

Some in Washington evidently believe that it is worth trying to set off upheaval in Iran because any new regime there would be an improvement.

This is a dangerous gamble, as intervention would strengthen the most radical factions in Iran. Militants, including the bombastic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would use it as an excuse to crack down on dissent. That could lead to a wave of repression, produce a regime more dangerously anti-American than the current one and set back the cause of Iranian democracy by another generation.

This looming crisis might be resolved by direct and unconditional negotiations between Washington and Tehran, but American leaders refuse to bargain with the mullahs. The trauma of the Islamic Revolution, and the hostage crisis that followed it, left a deep scar on the American political psyche — so deep that it prevents the U.S. from engaging Iran in ways that could have great benefits for American security.

Yet far from being doomed to conflict, these two proud nations are potential allies. Both want to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, assure the free flow of Middle East oil and crush radical Sunni movements like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What prevents talks from materializing is the deep resentment both sides feel over past interventions.

Iran has intervened across the Middle East, sometimes using the extreme weapon of terror, to attack U.S. interests. For its part, the U.S. intervened to crush Iranian democracy in 1953, imposed the shah and supported his repressive rule for 25 years.

The cure for the effects of past intervention is not more intervention. Given the seriousness of the nuclear crisis with Iran, American leaders should put aside their self-defeating and increasingly dangerous refusal to negotiate. The alternative may be violent intervention in Iran. Americans have tried that before. The results would be no happier this time.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinzer13may13,0,1453684.story

[Spider]

great since you have the dictionary why dont you find what the word CONTRAVENTION means and then re-read your quote.
CONTRAVENTION after clinton left office ........Denial isnt just a river in egypt

[Spider]

Nobody has stopped N. Korea dude. A war with them would make Iraq seem like an irrellevant exercise, trust me. That country and army scare the holy hell out of me.
did you try reading the link ? I agree , and thats the entire point , ties in with Iran , can see Iran being like NK . better to nip it in the bud now .......

[Spider]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- North Korea has revealed to the United States that it has a secret and active nuclear weapons program begun years after it promised to never again to pursue such a course, the White House said late Wednesday.
One senior administration official said Pyongyang made the acknowledgment only after it was confronted with evidence that it has a uranium-based program and enough plutonium for at least two nuclear weapons.

The North's admission prompted urgent consultations among the United States, Japan and South Korea -- the three nations that North Korea had promised under the so-called "agreed framework."

The diplomatic term describes the 1994 agreement under which North Korea said it would no longer seek to develop nuclear weapons.

In exchange, the United States and others agreed to help build two light water nuclear reactors to replace the plutonium-producing reactors Pyongyang was using, The Associated Press reported.

The reactors were being financed mostly by South Korea and Japan. Construction of the reactors began just two months ago.

The agreement also called for inspections to verify that the terms were being adhered to, but so far Pyongyang has blocked all attempts to make such inspections.

North Korea confirmed U.S. suspicions earlier this month during a high-level U.S. visit to Pyongyang, led by James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs.

The senior official said the revelation came in a meeting between Kelly and a top North Korean official, Kang Suk Ju, described as the equivalent of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's right-hand man. These were the first such high level discussions between the two nations in two years.

The official said Kelly told Kang that the United States knew the country had a secret nuclear weapons program using "different technology" from that used prior to 1994, and that North Korea had saved enough plutonium for at least two nuclear weapons.

The North Korean official then shocked Kelly when he looked at him and said "something to the effect of, 'Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,'" according to the senior administration source, who was briefed on the meeting.

"They are in material breach of the agreed framework," said White House spokesman Sean McCormack.

"We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation," McCormack said, according to the AP. "Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea."


This statue of the late longtime North Korean leader, Kim Il Sung, graces a plaza in Pyongyang.



"The United States and our allies call on North Korea to comply with its commitments under the nonproliferation treaty and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner," he said.

Following North Korea's admission, McCormack said a series of internal administration meetings about how to respond were held, culminating in a National Security Council meeting on the issue Tuesday.

President Bush is scheduled to meet jointly with the prime ministers of Japan and South Korea later this month at the annual Asian Pacific economic summit.

The development means the United States must end efforts to improve relations with North Korea, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

"The United States was prepared to offer economic and political steps to improve the lives of the North Korean people, provided the North were dramatically to alter its behavior across a range of issues, including its weapons of mass destruction programs, development and export of ballistic missiles, threats to its neighbors, support for terrorism, and the deplorable treatment of the North Korean people," Boucher said in a statement.

"In light of our concerns about the North's nuclear weapons program, however, we are unable to pursue this approach." (Full statement)

Another senior administration official said the United States has told North Korea it had "violated" the agreed framework and that the agreement was now "nullified."

Boucher said Pyongyang also has violated the Nonproliferation Treaty, its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea told U.S. officials it was no longer bound by the anti-nuclear agreement, U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the AP.
A CIA report in January said that during the second half of last year, North Korea "continued its attempts [to] procure technology worldwide that could have applications in its nuclear program," the AP reported.

"We assess that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons," the report said.

Another senior U.S. official told CNN that Washington received intelligence "back over the summer months" indicating that North Korea had a nuclear weapons program involving the use of highly enriched uranium.

The intelligence, the official said, indicated the program was launched in the late 1990s -- several years after North Korea signed the agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea.

The official said that when Kelly confronted the top North Korean official with information about the nuclear weapons program on October 4, the North Koreans were "belligerent" but did not dispute the U.S. claim and "showed not a hint of remorse."

The administration had already shared some of its intelligence with key congressional committees.

In his State of the Union address earlier this year, Bush referred to North Korea as a member of the "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran -- a statement rejected by Pyongyang.

Previously, U.S. fears over North Korea centered on its sale of ballistic missile technology to other countries, including Iran and Syria.

In August 1998, North Korea launched a rocket that flew over Japan. The launch prompted Japan to start work on an anti-missile shield, and the United States agreed to cooperate with the project.

At first, U.S. intelligence agencies told lawmakers in private briefings the North Koreans fired a three-stage ballistic missile. Analysts later concluded the rocket was a failed satellite launch, as North Korea reported at the time.

After months of tension with South Korea, the North resumed high-level talks in August that restarted stalled reconciliation efforts on the Korean peninsula -- divided by the most heavily armed border in the world, the AP reported.

The Koreas were divided following World War II and continued that way at the end of the inconclusive Korean War from 1950 to 1953. The United States still stations about 37,000 troops in South Korea as a deterrent against North Korea, according to the AP.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/...
again in oct of 2002 when this was done , the date is in your link . the other sites you posted , I dont trust enough to coment either way on Clinton was out in 99-2000 ...........

[Rock Chalk]

I dont have a problem with bombing Iran, just we need to prove Iran has a secret nuclear facility made for making nukes. I dont know if we will beat Israel to the punch with Irans president continually making statements about wiping Israel off the map.
I have a HUGE problem bombing Iran.

First, there is still no evidence that they are enriching Uranium to weapons grade. Even conservative estimates put them at 5-10 years away. There was some material supposedly found in Iran near weapons grade, but because the equipment used was formerly in Pakistan (or maybe India) doing inspections, there is a good chance that the sample was contaminated from its former destination. This has happened once before and it was determined the sample supposedly weapons grade was not from Iran.

Second, Iran's facilities are deep underground and the only way to effectively remove the facilities is with a tactical NUCLEAR strike. No matter what they have done and who is on our side right now, we use nukes and we will be standing alone against the ENTIRE Muslim world.

Third, China and Russia, TWO of the five veto wielding powers on the UNSC, are against sanctions and NO ONE is on board with a military strike. If Bush decided to go ahead with a strike on Iran, we will have lost the last of our allies in the war on terror.

Fourth, even with tactical nukes, there is no gaurantee we can get all or enough of their facilities to stop their momentum in uranium enrichment.

This is primarily a scare tactic, hopefully to push the Iranian's back to the diplomatic process and get them to get their nuclear fuel from Russia who has generously offered to supply them civilian grade nuclear fuel.

While most of us agree Iran cannot be allowed to get the nuke, if we stop for one moment to look at it from their side we may see things a bit differently. This is a country surrounded by nuclear powers. Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Israel all within striking distance of them. Iraq next door had used chemical weapons on their people in the past and a great many of the Iranians feel insecure in a world growing and full of dangers. Now, Im not defending Iran here, I do not want them to get nuclear weapons, but as far as we know for certain, they do not have any and cannot at present make any. They have a right as a signatory under the NPT to forge ahead for civilian nuclear technology and until the IAEA, or someone OTHER than us finds some concrete proof that they are indeed working secretly towards nuclear weapons, then we can decide where to go then.

And the most important thing we have to do is prevent Israel from acting unilaterally. It will weaken our position with regards to the road map to peace as the Muslim world will look at it as "American allowed israel to attack a muslim country" and their hatred for us will grow even more.

Diplomacy has not yet failed and, given the circumstances of all 5 of the UNSC permanent members is against Iran developing nukes, I think it will work. China and Russia will agree to impose sanctions in time, if it is clear Iran is not going to compromise or cooperate with IAEA inspectors but we are at least a year or two away from that point.

A military strike right now is absolutely out of the question though.

[24champ]

CONTRAVENTION after clinton left office ........Denial isnt just a river in egypt

The intelligence, the official said, indicated the program was launched in the late 1990s -- several years after North Korea signed the agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea.
Well read the whole article.

[Spider]

I have a HUGE problem bombing Iran. i think we all do , just wish iran would coperate ......

First, there is still no evidence that they are enriching Uranium to weapons grade. Even conservative estimates put them at 5-10 years away.I just cant trust that , according to Bush we had faulty intell , nothing has been changed to fix that , so either we have faulty intell or a faulty president .... we are forced to go with what the IEA says ......

There was some material supposedly found in Iran near weapons grade, but because the equipment used was formerly in Pakistan (or maybe India) doing inspections, there is a good chance that the sample was contaminated from its former destination. This has happened once before and it was determined the sample supposedly weapons grade was not from Iran. last I knew this was still being investigated .......

Second, Iran's facilities are deep underground and the only way to effectively remove the facilities is with a tactical NUCLEAR strike. No matter what they have done and who is on our side right now, we use nukes and we will be standing alone against the ENTIRE Muslim world. Agreed this is a huge problem , but there is also a very strong pro western movement in Iran .......

Third, China and Russia, TWO of the five veto wielding powers on the UNSC, are against sanctions and NO ONE is on board with a military strike. If Bush decided to go ahead with a strike on Iran, we will have lost the last of our allies in the war on terror. This would be a major improvment and realy help sanctions

Fourth, even with tactical nukes, there is no gaurantee we can get all or enough of their facilities to stop their momentum in uranium enrichment. agreed , but we could effect the output of said WMD .........

This is primarily a scare tactic, hopefully to push the Iranian's back to the diplomatic process and get them to get their nuclear fuel from Russia who has generously offered to supply them civilian grade nuclear fuel. this would be the best solution

While most of us agree Iran cannot be allowed to get the nuke, if we stop for one moment to look at it from their side we may see things a bit differently. This is a country surrounded by nuclear powers. Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Israel all within striking distance of them. Iraq next door had used chemical weapons on their people in the past and a great many of the Iranians feel insecure in a world growing and full of dangers. Now, Im not defending Iran here, I do not want them to get nuclear weapons, but as far as we know for certain, they do not have any and cannot at present make any. They have a right as a signatory under the NPT to forge ahead for civilian nuclear technology and until the IAEA, or someone OTHER than us finds some concrete proof that they are indeed working secretly towards nuclear weapons, then we can decide where to go then.
I dont care if they get nuclear power , I support even more nuclear reactor in the states , just dont want weapon grade uranium .......


Diplomacy has not yet failed and, given the circumstances of all 5 of the UNSC permanent members is against Iran developing nukes, I think it will work. China and Russia will agree to impose sanctions in time, if it is clear Iran is not going to compromise or cooperate with IAEA inspectors but we are at least a year or two away from that point.

A military strike right now is absolutely out of the question though.
i gree let diplomacy work , but there is nothing wrong with flexin some muscle

[24champ]

i think we all do , just wish iran would coperate ......


Nothing I have seen from Iran says that they will cooperate unfortanately.

[Rigs11]

I said this before and was called traitor, etc.. but what right do we have to tell ANY country they can't pursue nuclear options?
Yup. We have 12000 plus warheads, dubya dropped us out of the nuclear proliferation act and yet we have the right to tell other countries that they can't pursue nuclear options because we "think" that they might give them to terrorists. What a crock.

[Spider]

Nothing I have seen from Iran says that they will cooperate unfortanately.
lets hope they see the light ...... but if we get China and Russia on on sacntions

[Spider]

Yup. We have 12000 plus warheads, dubya dropped us out of the nuclear proliferation act and yet we have the right to tell other countries that they can't pursue nuclear options because we "think" that they might give them to terrorists. What a crock.
well I happen to agree with Iran not getting Nukes , most understand that Nukes are a show piece , but you get some of these Armaggedon believing turds in power with Nukes .......Thats like putting O.J. Simpson in charge of a battered womans home , there are just somethings you dont do ......

[Rigs11]

well I happen to agree with Iran not getting Nukes , most understand that Nukes are a show piece , but you get some of these Armaggedon believing turds in power with Nukes .......Thats like putting O.J. Simpson in charge of a battered womans home , there are just somethings you dont do ......
We used to lead by example, now we instill fear through "do as I say not as I do" threats. What happens the next time someone tries to acquire nukes? Who are we to make the decision that pakistan and israel can have nukes but not Iran? It's rubbish.

[Spider]

We used to lead by example, now we instill fear through "do as I say not as I do" threats. What happens the next time someone tries to acquire nukes? Who are we to make the decision that pakistan and israel can have nukes but not Iran? It's rubbish.
Israel we will let have anything they want , Pakistan we tried to stop as with India , but the collaspe of Communism made that impossable , but India and Pak have been pretty stable ,Iran has not .......

[Meck77]

First of all, if by "threats" you mean the so-called threat to "wipe Israel off the map" - that story has been debunked (I already posted proof of this several times.)



You called out SteveTensi as misinformed yet you post LIES like this? Iran has repeatedly threatened to "wipe" out Iran. It's very well documented.

Please pick any of the dozens of websites reporting the same thing. Right wing, left wing, Israeli, AlJazeera take your pick.

http://www.google.com/search?q=iran+threatens+to+wipe+out+israel&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N


Just wanted to point out that LABF was a LIAR before I left. See you guys in a week.

I'm out.

[GonzoLays]

You would have to think the leader of Iran is in cahoots with the US government. I just find it terribly funny how leaders just step up, one right after the other, and tell the world how much devastation and destruction they are going to cause when they know good and well they are asking for war with the US. Iran's leader popped right up after Sadaam.

It is like the guy is almost begging us to invade his country.

And did you guys notice that how the newspapers started to direct all their coverage at the "new enemy" after we invaded Iraq? They were running tons of stories about how this is the country we need to invade and protect ourselves from. Almost like propaganda.

The world has to be ruled by different personages than we imagine. Everything just falls into place like it is planned.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You called out SteveTensi as misinformed yet you post LIES like this? Iran has repeatedly threatened to "wipe" out Iran. It's very well documented.

Please pick any of the dozens of websites reporting the same thing. Right wing, left wing, Israeli, AlJazeera take your pick.

http://www.google.com/search?q=iran+threatens+to+wipe+out+israel&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N


Just wanted to point out that LABF was a LIAR before I left. See you guys in a week.

I'm out.

As always, you are completely clueless and full of crap.

Cole's photo essay today is powerful and heartbreaking. Besides nailing Hitchens, he debunks the alledged Ahmadinejad quote about "wiping Israel off the map."


The speech in Persian is here:

Sorry that I misremembered the exact phrase Ahmadinejad had used. He made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.

I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies. Nor do I agree that the Israelis have no legitimate claim on any part of Jerusalem. And, I am not exactly a pacifist but have a strong preference for peaceful social activism over violence, so needless to say I condemn the sort of terror attacks against innocent civilians (including Arab Israelis) that we saw last week. I have not seen any credible evidence, however, that such attacks are the doing of Ahmadinejad, and in my view they are mainly the result of the expropriation and displacement of the long-suffering Palestinian people.

It is not realistic for Americans to call for Iran to talk directly to the Israeli government (though in the 1980s the Khomeinists did a lot of business with Israel) when the US government won't talk directly to the Iranians about most bilateral issues. In fact, an American willingness to engage in direct talks might well pave the way to an eventual settlement of these outstanding issues.

cheers

- Juan Cole

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitc...-hitchens.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have a HUGE problem bombing Iran.

First, there is still no evidence that they are enriching Uranium to weapons grade. Even conservative estimates put them at 5-10 years away. There was some material supposedly found in Iran near weapons grade, but because the equipment used was formerly in Pakistan (or maybe India) doing inspections, there is a good chance that the sample was contaminated from its former destination. This has happened once before and it was determined the sample supposedly weapons grade was not from Iran.

Second, Iran's facilities are deep underground and the only way to effectively remove the facilities is with a tactical NUCLEAR strike. No matter what they have done and who is on our side right now, we use nukes and we will be standing alone against the ENTIRE Muslim world.

Third, China and Russia, TWO of the five veto wielding powers on the UNSC, are against sanctions and NO ONE is on board with a military strike. If Bush decided to go ahead with a strike on Iran, we will have lost the last of our allies in the war on terror.

Fourth, even with tactical nukes, there is no gaurantee we can get all or enough of their facilities to stop their momentum in uranium enrichment.

This is primarily a scare tactic, hopefully to push the Iranian's back to the diplomatic process and get them to get their nuclear fuel from Russia who has generously offered to supply them civilian grade nuclear fuel.

While most of us agree Iran cannot be allowed to get the nuke, if we stop for one moment to look at it from their side we may see things a bit differently. This is a country surrounded by nuclear powers. Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Israel all within striking distance of them. Iraq next door had used chemical weapons on their people in the past and a great many of the Iranians feel insecure in a world growing and full of dangers. Now, Im not defending Iran here, I do not want them to get nuclear weapons, but as far as we know for certain, they do not have any and cannot at present make any. They have a right as a signatory under the NPT to forge ahead for civilian nuclear technology and until the IAEA, or someone OTHER than us finds some concrete proof that they are indeed working secretly towards nuclear weapons, then we can decide where to go then.

And the most important thing we have to do is prevent Israel from acting unilaterally. It will weaken our position with regards to the road map to peace as the Muslim world will look at it as "American allowed israel to attack a muslim country" and their hatred for us will grow even more.

Diplomacy has not yet failed and, given the circumstances of all 5 of the UNSC permanent members is against Iran developing nukes, I think it will work. China and Russia will agree to impose sanctions in time, if it is clear Iran is not going to compromise or cooperate with IAEA inspectors but we are at least a year or two away from that point.

A military strike right now is absolutely out of the question though.


Holy shiite!

I just fell off my chair.

Alec just made an intelligent, well-reasoned, and well-informed post.

[24champ]

lets hope they see the light ...... but if we get China and Russia on on sacntions
I highly doubt it, China and Russia have pretty good ties with Iran economically.

[Spider]

I highly doubt it, China and Russia have pretty good ties with Iran economically.
this I am a afraid of ......