Iran war?

[Ryno]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=260984

Well, let's summarize and draw parallels. First the US. cries, "They've got weapons of mass destruction!" (nuclear). So far, there's no hard evidence of this, and this cannot be confirmed by international investigators. Of course, they are part of the "Axis of Evil" as president Bush stated, so this is enough to get the average American worried. Next, Colin Powell (poor sap) makes some administrative statement that "We really know they've got them." Then...

Now, this situation seems strangely familiar to me.

But are the Iranians really arming up because they are justifiedly scared shitless due to the Bush administration's aggressive use of force instead of diplomacy? Or is it all a smoke screen, as it was last time? Or something else altogether? Hmmmm....

Keep your eyes out folks.

[Scott Ruggels]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/international/middleeast/17iran.html?oref=login&oref=login

From the new York Times.


Scott

[Ryno]

Subscription log-in Scott. What's the summary?

[MoP]

I hope nothing nasty happens. My guitar teacher was Iranian, and a very cool guy. Nearly all his family live in Iran, I don't wanna have to hear anything about "civilian casualties" again...

[That Darn Satan!]

My mentor through most of my theatre years is living in Iran now, as is a friend who almost single-handedly taught me stage carpentry. I feel the same way ... civilian casualties in an attack on Iran wouldn't just piss me off from an ethical standpoint this time.

[AstroZombie]

[ QUOTE ]
President George W. Bush Feb. 11 offered a strong endorsement of U.S. programs to safeguard or destroy the arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materials formerly possessed by the Soviet Union. However, in his fiscal year 2005 budget request to Congress, released just a week earlier, Bush did not substantially increase funding for these programs and actually proposed cuts to the Department of Defense component as well as suggested spending shifts in programs in the Departments of Energy and State.

[/ QUOTE ]

-http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/NunnLugarFunding.asp

[ QUOTE ]
The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on US interests in the oil market.


[/ QUOTE ]

-http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid= 355

scary stuff.

[Scott Ruggels]

[ QUOTE ]
Group Says Iran Has Secret Nuclear Arms Program
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - An Iranian opposition group says it has new evidence that Iran is producing enriched uranium at a covert Defense Ministry facility in Tehran that has not been disclosed to United Nations inspectors.

The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, is planning to announce its finding in Paris on Wednesday. The group says that inspection of the site would demonstrate that Iran is secretly trying to produce nuclear weapons even while promising to freeze a critical part of its declared nuclear program, which it maintains is intended purely for civilian purposes.

A senior official of the group, Muhammad Mohaddessin, said in a telephone interview late on Tuesday that the group had shared the new information "very recently'' with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But he and other officials of the group said it had not discussed the matter with the United States government, and its claims could not be verified.

Iran's mission to the United Nations did not return messages seeking comment on the assertion.

The group, based in Paris, is the political arm of the People's Mujahedeen, which is listed by the United States government as a terrorist organization because of its involvement in attacks on Americans in the 1970's. But the group also has a successful track record in gathering intelligence on Iran, and was the first, in 2002, to disclose the existence of what was then the secret Iranian nuclear site at Natanz.

United Nations inspectors "should not be fooled or deceived by the Iranian regime,'' Mr. Mohaddessin said.

A spokesman in Washington for the National Council for Resistance in Iran provided a seven-page summary of the assertion to The New York Times.

It says that the previously undisclosed site, in northeastern Tehran, covers 60 acres and houses biological and chemical warfare projects as well as nuclear activity. It says that the site, known as the Modern Defensive Readiness and Technology Center, now houses operations previously carried out at another Defense Ministry site in Tehran that was destroyed by the Iranian government this year before international inspectors could visit it.

The assertion by the opposition group is surfacing in a week in which France, Britain and Germany announced a formal agreement with Iran committing the country to freeze a critical part of its nuclear program in exchange for an array of possible rewards.

As part of the pact with the Europeans, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had promised to suspend its uranium enrichment program starting a week from now. But the agency said it could not rule out the possibility that Iran was conducting covert activities.

"All the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities," the agency said in a report, referring to possible Iran nuclear weapons activity. "The agency is, however, not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."

The United States and European countries have argued that Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce weapons. Iran's leadership has insisted that is not engaged in a nuclear weapons program but has the sovereign right to enrich uranium.

Officials of the opposition group said they believed that the Iranian Defense Ministry and Revolutionary Guards Corps were pursuing their program in secret and had not told Iran's atomic energy agency of the existence of the facility in Tehran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scott

[TomDunne]

I pointed out this very real. possibility on the old site's long-running war thread. What nation is west of Iran? Iraq. What nation is east of Iran? Afghanistan. Knowing that, the rest is paint by numbers...

[joolz8000]

FOUR MORE WARS! FOUR MORE WARS!

[ElysiumGX]

I can't believe this is happening. It was only days ago I was reading an article explaining how Iran was temporarily stopping all Unranium Enrichment programs in order to have talks with European nations. The result could lead to help for Iran in using non-weapon related methods of producing energy for the country.

AND NOW... the American government is pulling out more scare techniques to frighten the bible humping rednecks that put W back in the saddle. And all for oil. What ever happened to the statements Bush made about alternate fuel sources during the debates? I think he spit up some fairy tale about a method of burning coal without pollution. I have the 1st and 3rd debates downloaded on CD waiting to be used against him. So much for America being innovative in technology. But hey, atleast Bush isn't making whores and faggots out of our little girls, right?

[jzero]

[ QUOTE ]
But hey, at least Bush isn't making whores and faggots out of our little girls, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, where was that in the Republican platform? I would have voted for that... A world full of whores and faggots would be much more safe and peaceful than a world full of sexually repressed religious zealots. Not sure if I'm talking about Shiites or Southern Baptists? Neither am I.

That's a strange turn of phrase, Elysium, does that refer to anything specific? All I can think of is, the Bush girls are sorority partiers, and Dick Cheney's daughter is gay.. Hmmmmm.

/jzero

[AstroZombie]

jzero - it was a quote from a Bushlamic Fundamentalist that called in to a show on Cspan. Ranted about how she was voting for Bush because Kerry attended the "Black Mass" and wanted to turn all of our little girls into whores and our little boys into faggots.

[Ryno]

Yeah, I remember that AZ. But even the other wacky right wingers were like "WTF is this loon talking about?!"

[Scott Ruggels]

You guys are amazing.... and Predictable...

Scott

[ElysiumGX]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a strange turn of phrase, Elysium, does that refer to anything specific?
/jzero

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I would throw that in to see if some remember the phone segment from Cspan. It's unlike me to use the "F" word, because I have no stance on the same sex marriage issue. The purpose of my phrase was to show how revolting it is that we (Americans) have elected an administration on such a trivial domestic issue, while "Operation Oil Pipeline Security", rages on killing hundreds of innocent victims in the Middle East.

I'm getting exhausted from all these political threads. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[TomDunne]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are amazing.... and Predictable...

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew you were gonna say that.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[AstroZombie]

Yea, that's the typical condescending and righteous tone we've come to know and expect from the right /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[frosty]

You know you guys are slamming the bloody shite out of the “right” without considering you have applied the same BIGOT filter & stereotyping that you claim we have.

[ElysiumGX]

[ QUOTE ]
Face it, you guys lost, get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. Sounds like what the North has been saying to the South since the Civil war. But man, I'll tell you what, we sure are gonna kick some ass over there in Afganustan, err...I mean Irak, uhm....I mean that one in between 'em. *spit*

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me now, I have to go phuct my cousin/wife, drink beer, listen to a sermon against gays on my old 8 track player in my mobile home & then go hunting for prairie dogs….

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHA! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Ok, let's hear more about Iran. What do you Republicans think about the issue? More WMD's? Kill the ragheads? TERRORISTS!

[MoP]

Yes, I'd like to know what people who voted Bush think about the Iran issue. Is there any solid evidence that they Iranian government are manufacturing weapons of mass destruction? Did they let weapons inspectors into the country quite happily? When was the last Iranian terrorist attack on western civilisation?

[frosty]

Thanks Ely for bringing this back to the focus of what was posted.

The scary thing to me is almost everyone I work with here is past military or has kids in the service, really, and they seem like they need little evidence to go ahead and invade Iran.

Mop – Some the older people about me, myself included are not too young and still recall the Iranian hostage crisis in 1978. Basically the Iranian revolution took over and they over powered the American embassy and held hostages for like 478 or more days while Jimmy Carter acted like a little pussy cat. Finally after Ron Reagan got elected the Iranians released the hostages 23 days later. Bascially people around me see Iran as a religiously ruled Islamic state and feel it is less dangerous than Iraq, but they still recall vividly in their memories about the hostage crisis.

Contrary to the standard redneck process, I know about a dozen Iranians in the US and most are work associates who are cool Guys. One of my best Pals in school was an Iranian student from Tehran & also a few local vendors. I hope nothing weird happens in their homeland. I can only visualize the chaos since the other two countries we invaded are still unsettled.

[MoP]

I really don't think a 26-year old event is a basis for a war now... Has anything like that happened more recently?

[frosty]

I agree Mop, 26 year old issue is very old.

I don't have much more opinion on it but that I hope no invasion happens. I need to read up on it. But I am overwhelmed by a home remodel/moving, gba games, ebay, gba rom flash cards, my fantasy fighting card game, random names, ut2003, burning books on tape to cd's. Sheesh my head hurts........

[NoSeRider]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think a 26-year old event is a basis for a war now... Has anything like that happened more recently?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rumsfield and Cheney were in the government at the time, they remember.

Saddam seemed more feasible to topple over because he invaded neighboring countries, Iran/Qwait. Iran? I don't know.

It's like convicting Scott Peterson because he's an asshole. No direct evidence of wrong doing, we just feel he coulda done it.

[ndcv]

Seems like if the US does anything in Iran it will be a lot different (sorry, I meant ALOT different Rick) because all of our troops will probably still be tied up in Iraq for the next four years. So there might be some bombing of targets or something but no "Operation Iranian Freedom".

[TomDunne]

It's "a lot". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ElysiumGX]

[ QUOTE ]
"The North Koreans are closely watching Iran's nuclear negotiations"
...
"The main reason why Iran's nuclear issue hasn't reached a final solution is because the United States has adopted the policy of antagonizing Iran"


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the American way. Don't forget we also antagonize France. Those French bastards and their French Fries* and their French Toast*!

*total American ignorance.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=47235

[ QUOTE ]
"A major new alliance is emerging between Iran and China that threatens to undermine U.S"

[/ QUOTE ]

It begins.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002094049_iranchina18.html

[ QUOTE ]
Russian President Vladimir Putin today signalled his country was in the process of developing a new missile, unlike any other, which could evade the American missile defence shield.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh shit. Now would be a good time NOT to piss off Russia or China.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1246395.htm

[AstroZombie]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like if the US does anything in Iran it will be a lot different (sorry, I meant ALOT different Rick) because all of our troops will probably still be tied up in Iraq for the next four years. So there might be some bombing of targets or something but no "Operation Iranian Freedom".

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless Bush orders the other kind of draft...

[ndcv]

[ QUOTE ]
It's "a lot". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, see RickS's sig /images/graemlins/smile.gif

AZ - I don't see why anyone thinks Bush would institute the draft. He doesn't have those powers alone, congress has to okay it. And that is the last thing the republicans would want to do - the draft is political suicide. Any congress person voting for the draft is writing their own pink slip. I think the only people talking about the draft have been democrats trying to use it as a scare tactic that the rep's will enact one... kinda far fetched imo.

Actually the only politicians _seriously_ backing a draft recently have been a handful of democrats, who think that if we had one we wouldn't get into wars so lightly because the rich and powerful people's kids would be enlisted. Yeah that worked great with Vietnam, see GW for an example - rich and powerful people can always get their kids out of stuff if they really want to.

[jzero]

I'd just like to see a third-world-engineered nuclear weapon poorly constructed, launched, botched, and crashing undetonated to the ground... (see Sterlings's 'Islands in the Net')

I would, if the other possibility weren't so tragic...

/jzero

[Scott Ruggels]

Iran was the seat of the New Islamist Fundamentalism. This new Maadism. No Fundamental Islamist Nation or Organization should be permitted the possession of Nuclear Weapons. Read Winston Churchill's "[b]The River War[/b}".

In the mean time:
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200411190830.asp

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/start.asp?P_Article=12903

Scott

[Voodoo]

Do you know what the rules are if a draft is in place? I actually talked to recruiters about joining a branch. My grandfather's fought in WWII and I would have joined the military to do a duty to the US and to help pay for college. Unfortunetly I have asthma and the government didn't trust me with a multi-million dollar jet even though I've been an athlete since I was 6.

Do they drop medical restrictions when the draft is in place? Anybody have any info?

[Scott Ruggels]

They do not drop the medical requirements during a draft. but Please, do not worry about a draft. It's not going to happen.

Scott

[TomDunne]

Selective Service classifications are only determined at the time of a draft - there is no permanent criteria for who is too disabled to be drafted. This info is on the SS website.

Insofar as who practically is excused from a draft, I think you'd almost certainly be let off the hook in anything short of a World War scale national mobilization. My dad was drafted for Vietnam but did not have to serve due to hereditary high blood pressure (has to take one pill every day) despite the fact that he was otherwise perfectly healthy. Even though he was capable of performing any non-combat task, he was dismissed outright. He's 56 now and never had any actual cardiovascular complications, so hbp has been rather a pluss for him to this point.

[AstroZombie]

Interesting thing about the Selective Service department this past week - they contacted the board of education for a list of high school grads so they could check and make sure they had all enlisted with Selective Service. Not sure how common this practice is but sounds to me like they're making their list and checking it twice /images/graemlins/wink.gif

There already is a back-door draft in place. People are being called up from IRR and troops who have fulfilled their active duty requirement are not being discharged (aka "Stop-loss"). In one incident they are trying to recall a man who has been out for 13 years. The military is stretched thin and desperate for troops. Some units are on their 3rd deployment to Iraq. If we get into it with Iran I really don't see what choice the government is going to have. IRR recall is the first step. Don't be so confident that we won't see a draft in the next 4 years.

[Voodoo]

Well I dont mind serving but I'd rather be prepared for it then get a letter out of the blue one day saying "hey come to the recruitment office for your orders".

[TomDunne]

Who's confident? If the CIC decides he wants to roll the dice on Iran or North Korea (the remaining Axis of Evil, both of which are coincidentally in the news today), he's going to need more bodies on the ground than the army can provide right now. I don't think it will happen, but I'm certainly not willing to lay any money on that.

[Voodoo]

does this remind anybody of the fall of the roman empire?

[TomDunne]

No, not really. The Romans had largely slipped into a cultural decadence and malaise. They inevitably became lax in their own defense, and that's why a horde of relative barbarians were able to bring the western Empire down (the eastern half of the Roman Empire lasted until 1472 (I may be off a few years) when the Turks took Constantinople.) The 5th century Romans weren't uptight conservatives looking to spread their influence and control throughout the rest of the world - they had pretty much taken care of that three centuries prior. If Rome is to prove the precedent, we still have a few hundred years before the wheels fall off. Heck, we're still a republic! Also, geography works in America's favor, as the only regions presently capable of mounting an invasion are Canada and Mexico. One of the Roman Empire's problems was that they had to defend all the land they conquered directly, or at least via military proxy. Modern America is sort of taking a page from the latter days of the British Empire, using a cultural sphere of influence as the primary method of control and only using military force on an as-needed basis. At the very least, I figure we've got a few centuries before we need to start panicking.

This is likely a more serious reply than the post warranted, but I've heard the analogy a couple of times in recent years and have actually given the matter some thought, so you all have to look at it as a result /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Voodoo]

yes it was way more serious =) you're taking a very literal viewpoint and I was kind of seeing it as similar but taking into consideration advances. First of all the Romans only had to fear enemies who could reach them, presently and recently it's been proven that america is not invulnerable to attack from countries half way around the world. With talk of nuclear devices the threat becomes more real and the scale of a single nuclear devices destruction in a single use is much greater then that of a roman legion in a single battle. Secondly the biggest problem with the Roman Empire was that it was over extended. It couldn't move troops from one place to another or else it would leave places undefended. We're facing the same problem now. We're trapped in Iraq for the time being. If the need for force is neccessary who will we send AND god help us if we have to stage an iran and korean offensive at the same time. I conceed your point that Rome had to defend it's conquered terriorty but pose the question "Hasn't president bush invaded Iraq in the name of America's defense?"

There is also the potential threat of the American dollar losing value. If this happens we're going to be in a lot of economic trouble especially with the raising gas prices (the control of oil is in my opinion part of the secret agenda of the bush administration).

So taking our near over extension, plus the threat of an economic regression, plus the civil anger that will araise if bush has to reinstate the draft, I think you can at least make a comparison to what happend to the Romans and other great societies which caused their downfall. I'm not saying it will happen I'm just saying I think in the times ahead we have to be very careful about the moves we make. I think we're treading on very thin ice and we need to adopt a new image besides that of the giant, invulnerable super power or else we're going to go crashing right through.

Iran I think we can strong arm, but what's to stop Korea from saying "screw you". They've already got two known weapons and probably more. We cant invade them, they have one of the largest armies in the world and we're no where near being able to pull out of iraq. I honestly dont think their dictator can be intimidated either.

We're just in a very nervous time and I think the severity of our situation needs to be fully expressed. It's better to be a little paranoid and safe then over confident and in danger.

[TomDunne]

I think the odds on an Iran invasion are 50-50. It's pretty easy to do at this point, and there's no one who really gives enough of a fuck to stop America from doing it. North Korea, that's something else. I give that <5% chance of happening. First, the US needs to wrap the mid-East up completely and redeploy a few hundred thousand people to South Korea. Second, while the world grumbles and shuffles it's collective feet over the happenings in Iraq or Iran, China would take a much keener interest in the Unites States invading North Korea. The DPRK is actually a handy buffer zone for the Chinese, as it keeps capitalist and democratically free South Korea at arm's length. A reunified and 'liberated' Korea would go over like a lead balloon with the Chinese government, meaning they're much likelier to forcibly step in before the bombs start falling.

I also imagine that the likelihood of a nuclear debacle in North Korea is infinitely higher than anywhere else, and there's just no point in gambling on that with no apparent gain. I suspect that the Russians and Japanese would be equally opposed to The Korean War Pt. 2, just because of the atomic potential. If Seoul or Tokyo gets vaporized, America is gonna have some esplainin' to do.

[Dukester]

They are removing Dictator pictures in NK all over the place...

[TomDunne]

I read about that, Duke. Wonder what's going on over there...

[frosty]

McCain said last night in the news he is concerned why Iran is so adament on using nuclear energy since they have so much oil.

I also talked to 3 pissed off customers who want us to sell and support pc products since they had problems and when they called support all they got was Indian accented personal and could not understand them at all. This was Dell, HP and another mfg. Maybe our President should concentrate more on out sourceing to India than invading of Iran, but of course we can always invade India and takeover right?

[MoP]

"Why are the powerful countries allowed nuclear energy and not us?"

This is what some of the Iranian public interviewed on the BBC News website are saying. I agree with them. Are they not allowed it because we percieve their leaders as "unstable" or "evil"? The same could be said for Bush or Blair, or anyone - it just depends on the viewpoint.

That said, Iran are cutting back their nuclear program to comply with European demands. They don't want a war. Neither do we. But does Bush?

[ElysiumGX]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, Iran are cutting back their nuclear program to comply with European demands. They don't want a war. Neither do we. But does Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good news. Last I heard the talks weren't going so well. Even now that Iran is cooperating, I doubt US pressure will decrease. Glad to know you Europeans know what it means to communicate.

[Irritant]

I think that the concept of keeping nuclear weapons out of the hand of fundamentalist religious fanantics with poor track records is probably a good thing. Hopefully Iran complies, and we don't have to deal with it.

"Why are the powerful countries allowed nuclear weapons and not us?"

That is because years ago treaties were signed that basically said that if you don't have nuclear weapons at this point, you're not allowed to have them. At the same time, countries like the U.S, Russia, etc, decided to reduce or stop making new nuclear arms.

As far as NK, I think it's in China's best interest to deal with the situation, and they know it. The last thing they want is for us to occupy NK, and they don't want that screwball having any kind of nuclear threat so close to them.

[sledgy]

Where was this policy when India and Pakistan became nuclear powers?

If I was in Iran I'd be asking the same questions. Why are they not allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal? I would be a little nervous with no leverage and the Allies knocking at both my front and back door, claiming I'm part of an "Axis of Evil" This is the Crusades Part Deux. Christians have always had a wild hair up their asses about Islam and vice versa.

[frosty]

Mop I was thinking that too, which groups get Nuclear weapons/energy and who does not?

I guess Iran seems unstable to have them and the ruler in NK is a real real wacko, but then again many of you are laughing right now because you think Bush is crazy. shakes head and shrugs......

Sledgy I hear you, it is the Crusaders vs the Muslims 600 yrs later right? I think on real terms though you are all making it to simple to blame bible-thumpers for Bush backing, plenty of non-chruch-goers, beer drinkers, pro-gun enthusiasts back Bush 100%. I hear more sympathy towards Iraqi's in the "Christian cirles" than anywhere else.
But I still say most people in my area are stupid idiots because they drive 20 to 25 mph faster than posted speed limits without safety belts.

I am more afraid of NK than Iran atm.

[Rick Stirling]

I'm more afraid of the US than DPRK or Iran.

[Irritant]

I'm not as worried about NK as Iran. Reason being, that culture does not exude a hatred for western ways and cultures that anyone without their head in the sand realizes is very strong in the Middle East. It's far more plausible to me to see someone in Iran sneaking a small nuclear device into the U.S and detonating it on U.S soil than someone from NK. There just is no precedent for this amongst Asian cultures, which are among the most civilized and honorable on the planet. Yes Kim Song Joo is a madman, and has the worst hair in the history of dictators, LOL, but does anyone honestly think he's going to fire a missile at the U.S? First off, he'd be lucky to have the technology to even develop a missile that could reach Alaska, much less the U.S West Coast. Secondly, if the missile wasn't plucked out of the sky before it landed, having his country turned into a pile of radioactive rubble is probably not something even a man that crazy is looking for. The bottom line is, he wants leverage to get sanctions removed from his country for restarting his nuclear program in the first place.

This is really China's problem, and the U.S. is leaving it up to them. I can't see us getting involved too much. I think Kerry wanted to, but that would have been a major mistake.

As far as Iran, invading them would be easy enough, given their lack of military strength and the fact that we are right next door already. I think the reason that Iran is negotiating, is because of that. If we weren't already in Iraq, Iran would be alot more defiant.

Regarding India and Pakistan, those countries already had the bomb before those treaties took place in the 80's.

[Irritant]

Oh please. Do you think that we are going to invade Scotland? Think we are going to have some radical Christians strap some bombs to their backs and blow up a school?

Think Bush is really a tyrannical christian dictator who is going to take over the world and impose the will of the west on your country? C-mon, these kinds of statements are really out there.

[Rick Stirling]

"Think Bush is really a tyrannical christian dictator who is going to take over the world"

No, I dont think he'll manage it.

[sledgy]

frosty, I apologize for the religious jab and I agree it is too sweeping. I'm a beer drinking gun toter (so that's 2 out of 3!) but I'm against a war with Iran without provocation. You may hear more sympathy in Christian circles, but I hear more sympathy in non-Christian circles - I think it just all depends on who you hang out with /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[frosty]

Hey Slegy no need to apoligize mate. As far as who I hang out with, well actually nobody but you guys and my wife. My draw on the who is in more sympathy is basically local co-workers and community, neighbor’s and local readings. Although I know you and I on a polycount global scale are nearly neighbor’s, I am sure we hear varied opinions. My very local neighbor’s are basically just good old boys with guns and usually putting away a 12 on weekends, Saturday and Sunday. Btw, I just had some pizza at one of your local shops, I think Yebo’s or something like that, and it was the biggest pizza I have ever seen! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Irritant – I don’t think Rick see the U.S. as an Ally to the UK. : )
(John, btw that pic of you is cool and she is so hot!) : )

[TomDunne]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why are the powerful countries allowed nuclear weapons and not us?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm. When MoP wrote that, he used the word 'energy'. Why did you change it to the word 'weapons'? Or where you intendeding that to be a separate topic?

ANyway, with regards to nuclear energy, other nations are allowed to have it as long as they abide by international guidelines. The question, of course, is simple - are the Iranians processing nuclear material for energy generation as they claim, or doing so as a precursor to weapons to development? If Iran allows the IAEA to fully inspect the Iranian nuclear program and they report that everything is entirely on the up-and-up, Iran is in the clear.

[TomDunne]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was in Iran I'd be asking the same questions. Why are they not allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were Iran, you'd know that you voluntarily signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970 and endorsed the extension again in 2003, stating that you will cooperate with the IAEA and not pursue nuclear weapon technology. Of course, if you were Iran, you'd probably also know that you've been secretly working on nuclear weapon development since the 1980s, just in case.

[Irritant]

Vermillion, I misread his post. Your response is correct of course.

[PaK]

Entering the Nuclear Club is an international status thing, it's like buying an exotic sports car. More often than not those rich old guys who buy them don't street race, similarly, the only bomb dropped in a time of war was in 1945.

Furthermore, just before the test ban treaty was first drafted the USSR tested a 50 megaton thermonuclear device that was downgraded froma yeild of 100 megatons. Everyone developing that project admitted that it was completely inconcievable as a weapon of war.

When Pakistan developed their nuclear program they tested it, screamed real loud and now they have America as an ally. (a muslim country, there aren't too many btw) Almost all of America's key allies have a nuclear weapons program. I'm not suggesting iran wants to be an American ally, but if you wanna play with the big boys, it seems you gotta get some big toys.

Dad makes the rules, and the kids learn first by example and then by listening. Americans involved who draft foriegn poilicy should understand that.

-R

[Scott Ruggels]

Read this guy's collums for the "Long View" of what is happening in the current war.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

it's a lot more complicated than it seems.

Scott


Scott