Target: Iran, How Close Are We?

who can argue that getting rid of saddam hussein and helping reinstitute democracy in iraq was a bad thing? nobody. the war in iraq is a win win.

the war in iran will be less of a win win but a win win nevertheless.

But he has such an trustworthy beard!

He's dating Liza Minelli??

my 2 cents...

nuclear weapons potentially affect the entire world, not just a few random countries. it is a global issue, and as such, a decision should be made by the global community. i agree that there should be regulations on who should be able to practice nuclear technology, hopefully preventing a less-than stable government from attaining nuclear weapons. however, i loathe the elitism of the US when making these types of decisions for the rest of the world. the US is not the only major power in the world, and should not be the one to decide what country is, or is not, allowed to enrich uranium. this is an issue that should be handled jointly by the UN, EU, and other global organizations.

no it doesn't - true intelligence investigates fact then assesses action. i would never ever take an 'intelligent estimate' from this godforsaken administration. fah - stupid little catch phrases! 'intelligence estimates' - lol!! let alone by way of the cnn 'situation room' - gahhh!!! marketing and fools!! 'the -situation- room' - hahahahahahaha!!!!

mr. bush (never was prez gives a radio chat about how nuclear power will save us from soaring energy costs. (lol - like he meant it, but still...

iran says they're developing nuclear power to save themselves from soaring energy costs. (now, two people in the same room can both be liars - but right now, i know the one closer to home -definitely- is.)

mr. bush says iran wants to make nuclear weapons to hit their neighbor (several borders away, but still pretty close), israel. indeedy, mr. bush wants to get soooooo ready for this inevitability (funny how inevitable bad things are to 'good christians') that he has been dabbling in tactical nuke development himself.

iran, doubtlessly, wonders if making nukes might not be such a bad idea, considering that the occupying force in the neighboring country -right next door- hates their guts, is dabbling in new nukes, and wants to nuke them before they nuke anybody else with their stealth tactical turbine powerplants.

everything makes perfect sense, in hell.

I still don't get it though. Maybe I missed the history report that said that Israel was very important or something.....

It would kind of ruin the whole being remembered as the "President who destroyed New Orleans" thing.

Hum

So we are going to attack a nation for no reason eh??? figures .

I thought a hurricane ruined New Orleans???

A hurricane injured New Orleans. The bungling and continued neglect of New Orleans by the Bush administration has destroyed it.

*giggle* I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Umm..why would anyone trust what our administration says or our intelligence estimates say???

How bout we get the U.N. behind us this time and get other intelligence that Bush and cronies can't manipulate to suit their needs. And then if we do go to war with Iran, let's do it as part of an actual large U.N. approved action instead of just our Oil Company controlled government declaring war.

And let's not do any more military actions with Bush as our president. I think we've been shown his corruption and incompetence vividly enough to not make that terrible mistake again.

Read this and you will u-stand more:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815604130/sr=8-5/qid=1144857441/ref=sr_1_5/102-0161630-0553717?%5Fencoding=UTF8

...my father putted it in my hands before we visited NY NY first time.. to visit some close friends..

Its old I know.. and its ”hot” to mention or write about so now I close my mouth and hide in a corner.... far away...

/Tina

I have to ask...

How many of you (Briana) who are cheerleading this (while apparently knowing no one who will actually have to put their ass on the line) are the sort who give their full wallet to a known con artist who assures you that this time they're being honest?

I mean, really. "Intelligence estimates"? From this administration?

Did you know that "gullibility" isn't in the dictionary?

I say by the end of the summer.... As soon as the Katrina anniversary rolls around and people start protesting again.... He will need something to make people forget yet again....

gullibility


gul·li·ble Pronunciation (gl-bl)
adj.
Easily deceived or duped.
[From gull2.]
gulli·bili·ty n.
gulli·bly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. gullibility - tendency to believe too readily and therefore to be easily deceived
credulousness
naiveness, naivete, naivety - lack of sophistication or worldliness

laffs

Nah, that's not scheduled until 30-50 years from now

Okay everyone, here's your chance. I see plenty of people saying military action against Iran is the wrong thing to do.

So, I'd like to know--what do you think the right thing is?

Frog March the Bush administration straight to The Hague would be an excellent start.

1) Iran's nuclear program is in violation of treaties they've signed. Without this there would be no reasonable legal framework for pressure on them to drop their program.

2) Iranian U-235 enrichment is not remotely plausible for a nuclear program that exists solely to generate electrical power.

3) For almost two decades, Iran has had five or more separate nuclear research programs. One of these programs includes research into making small nukes stealthy to bypass sensors such as scintillation detectors. This technology would be useful primarily for nuclear terrorism. Nuclear missiles and bombs would not need it.

4) Iran has also declared it's intention to arm Islamic terrorists with nuclear weapons.

5) Unlike in the case of Iraq, Iran's own leaders have declared their nuclear ambitions, and intentions to attack their neighbors.

6) One Iranian leader stated Iran's goal is the nuclear destruction of Israel. This could lead to a nuclear exchange that could engulf the Mideast.

7) Diplomatic solutions will be difficult given distrust, history, and current events. Nevertheless this remains the best approach. No other possible solution would be without bloodshed.

No, I mean what is the right thing to do about the situation with Iran? Is "nothing" really the answer? So we're all confident that Iran isn't interested in obtaining nuclear weapons?

The choices are doing nothing, military action, or diplomacy. Of those, I choose diplomacy for the reasons detailed in my earlier post.

If even just a few of these are true (and we know for a FACT that most of them are with possibly a few exceptions that I don't know enough about), how could we be satisfied with letting the UN bungle through alone for another TEN years like they did with Iraq so beautifully?

The problem with the UN is that they just don't give enough of a shit if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. They're willing to piss and moan, and maybe even try some sanctions eventually, but that'll be it until a nuclear bomb goes off somewhere. Then they'll be like....oh....uh ..wtf? Well who's fault is this? We should form an investigative council and vote on it...