# The next war?



## Flatlander (Aug 8, 2004)

This article from the Globe and Mail, discusses the Iranian nuclear threat. How responsive do you think the international community is going to be to any possible agressive US policy regarding Iran? Is the world ready to face this now, or will this get international lip service only, given the current instablities in the middle east?


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 8, 2004)

In an August 5th interview by Bernard Gwertzman of the Council of Foreign Relations with Rand Beers, John Kerry's top national security adviser, Beers had this to say:

*



What is Kerry's position on Iran? It seems that the administration is not doing much.

It looks that way from the outside. And that's what I remember when I was on the "inside." I think that naming Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" does not suffice for a policy. We have a number of issues with Iran that need to be dealt with. They are: the nuclear program, Iranian support for terrorism, and Iran's relations with Iraq. In addition, there are obviously questions of what is going on internally in Iran, in terms of human rights and the development of a democratic government, which are also important issues.

But as we look at all of those issues, it looks as if the administration is not prepared to find ways to engage. It doesn't mean that the Kerry team advocates recognizing Iran or having formal negotiations with Iran. But we have to find a next step, given the impasse that seems to have occurred as a result of Iran's seeming to pull out of the agreement it reached with the Germans, French, and British last year [on nuclear issues]. We have to develop some next steps, which are going to do more than simply allow Iran to continue down the path it is on, unimpeded by the international community.
		
Click to expand...

from this website 


From the Washington Post, George Bush had this to say:




			"The Iranians need to feel the pressure from the world that any nuclear weapons program will be uniformly condemned," Bush told newspaper editors in April. "The development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable."
		
Click to expand...

From the same article:




			In an even more dramatic move, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) plans to introduce an Iran liberation act this fall, modeled on the Iraq Liberation Act that mandated government change in Baghdad and provided more than $90 million to the Iraqi opposition. The goals would be the same for Iran, including regime change, congressional officials said.
		
Click to expand...

 *


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 9, 2004)

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

I think if Bush is re-elected, that the target painted on Iraq gets a bit brighter. Although, currently, the Neo-Conservatives in the Bush administration are nowhere to be seen, Cheney & Company are not going away. I think the focus will shift to Iran, just to distract us from what is going on in Iraq.

Current support among the citizenry, I think, is quite low. If there were another successful attack using terrorism inside the United States, support might move up. Of course, then the issue becomes finding enough military boots to actually prosecute an invasion.

The United States military's Quadrennial Review is built on the assumption that the United States may have to fight two regional conflicts simultaneously. I have wondered about this policy quite a bit in the past 17 months. We seem to be having difficulty fighting one regional conflict. The stresses on the National Guard are great. A local National Guard unit just returned from serving 16 months in Iraq. I commend those weekend-warriors for their service, but I expect that many will not continue their service in the National Guard.

If there is another criminal activity of the same scope as 9/11, look for conscription service to be seriously discussed in the United States Congress.

If Kerry is elected to the Presidency ... look for further involvment by the international community. I believe it was 5 years of steady diplomatic work by England and France that brought Libea to open his weapons programs for inspections, not the United States use of force in the Middle East. Similarly, it will take patient effort by Europe, Russia and the United States to demonstrate that Iraq's security will not be jeopardized if they are nuclear weapon free.

It has been said before ... this is a very important election.

Mike


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2004)

I can't help but think about the fall of the Roman Empire: corrupt, impulsive, and foolish leaders; inadequate intervention by the representatives of the people; war on multiple fronts; waste of resources; unfair treatment of allies; and generally pissing off the rest of the world.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 9, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I can't help but think about the fall of the Roman Empire: corrupt, impulsive, and foolish leaders; inadequate intervention by the representatives of the people; war on multiple fronts; waste of resources; unfair treatment of allies; and generally pissing off the rest of the world.



Except the Roman empire didn't fall, it just crumbled and faded over a very long time. I personally think that the country will be looking at a war with N. Korea before anything else and I also think that is the only war I would support.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 9, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If Kerry is elected to the Presidency ... look for further involvment by the international community. I believe it was 5 years of steady diplomatic work by England and France that brought Libea to open his weapons programs for inspections, not the United States use of force in the Middle East. Similarly, it will take patient effort by Europe, Russia and the United States to demonstrate that Iraq's security will not be jeopardized if they are nuclear weapon free.
> 
> It has been said before ... this is a very important election.
> 
> Mike


 Well put and I agree.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 9, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.
> 
> I think if Bush is re-elected, that the target painted on Iraq gets a bit brighter. Although, currently, the Neo-Conservatives in the Bush administration are nowhere to be seen, Cheney & Company are not going away. I think the focus will shift to Iran, just to distract us from what is going on in Iraq.
> 
> ...


Absolutely!  KT


----------



## shaolinchi (Aug 9, 2004)

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be faught with, but World War IV will be faught with sticks and stones"---Albert Einstein

Unfortunately, I Have to agree.  All this nonsense going on is going to get everyone killed.


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 10, 2004)

Mike - I always enjoy your post while I may not agree with them. I had to make some comments here and look forward to your reply.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.
> 
> 
> I think if Bush is re-elected, that the target painted on Iraq gets a bit brighter. ..I think the focus will shift to Iran, just to distract us from what is going on in Iraq."





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is there any similarity to what is happening in Iraq and Iran? My point being, that even John Kerry feels war with Iraq was inevitable -"GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq *even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. *Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 10, 2004)

The problem is the Middle East is already upset with the US and if we go into IRAN then WW III will start stat.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 10, 2004)

Twist of, would you please cite your source for the contention that we know Iran actually has nuclear weapons? My understanding was that we know they've been working on something, we believe it's weapon production, but...

I'd also note that the claim of England/France having no ties to Libya--other than oil companies!--seems a little contradictory. Then too, the argument about our leading the way towards relations with the country would seem to be in direct contradiction of an often-expressed policy of getting rid of State-sponsored terrorism....

Or is it all just expediency, profits, and highfalutin' language?


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Twist of, would you please cite your source for the contention that we know Iran actually has nuclear weapons? My understanding was that we know they've been working on something, we believe it's weapon production, but...
> 
> I'd also note that the claim of England/France having no ties to Libya--other than oil companies!--seems a little contradictory. Then too, the argument about our leading the way towards relations with the country would seem to be in direct contradiction of an often-expressed policy of getting rid of State-sponsored terrorism....
> 
> Or is it all just expediency, profits, and highfalutin' language?


Robert,

A few items here.  On the Iran/Nuke issue I took the summary data from the IAEA..." the IAEA says Iran has admitted to importing technology capable of making weapons-grade uranium. The finding contradicts earlier statements made by Tehran that the parts were made by Iran itself. The IAEA also says fresh traces of highly enriched uranium have been found in the country." (Google on BBC, Iran IAEA, etc..there is a lot there).

On the France/UK relationship - I should have said "ANY official" since the Total Oil company is only partially owned by the Government.

And lastly on State sponsored terrorism...profits, et al...you are correct.  

Glenn.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 11, 2004)

Glenn, thanks for playing ...


Concerning Iraq ... 

President Bush has told us repeatedly that he is a 'WAR PRESIDENT'. I take him at his word. He has also told us the war in Iraq is 'Accomplished'. He has handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi people. Obviously, we are no longer at war, which means he can no longer be a 'War President'. If only someone would tell the soldiers in Iraq.

That Senator Kerry's statements over the last three or four years seemed to indicate that he would have prosecuted the war in the same manner is irrelevant. The US Military is in Iraq now. Halliburton is in Iraq now. Today the question is, how will Kerry administer the war if elected.

Believe me, I wish we weren't there. I wish somebody told President Bush that Hussein *did* *let the inspectors* in to inspect and verify that Saddam Hussein had disarmed. I wish the United States did not start an unjust war. But ... we did ... Now what?

I believe President Bush's hubris has alienated many other countries around the world. If Kerry is elected, he will have a difficult time garnering their support. But, I believe Kerry is patient where Bush is 'decisive'.

Concerning Iran ...

President Bush tells us he is a 'War President'. So, he is going to have to fight a war. Where will it be? Well, the oil is in the middle east. Iran is working on refinement processes for Nuclear material. Our military is in the middle east. Our newest military bases are in the middle east. 

North Korea is an awful long way to go from there.

I believe Iran will be the next target for US Might, under President Bush. 

What I find ironic, is that it seemed US-Iranian relations were improving. A moderate reformer was elected to power in Iran. A large number of Iranians do not have effective memory of the 1978 revolution, embassy seizure and hostage crisis. Our national soccer teams met on the field of play, even if we hadn't normalized political relationship between the two countries.

And then President Bush labeled them as a member of the 'Axis of Evil'. Where did that come from? Personally, I think Bush knew the earlier Axis had three players, and he needed a third to accompany Iraq & N. Korea. Anyhow, once Iran was included on this dubious list, any chance of improving relations was gone ... If I were Iran, I, too, would start working on a nuclear device.

Concerning Libya ... 

I think, like most Americans, Libya had become a non-player in international affairs for me. I certianly wasn't hearing about Libya in the news. Well ... except that somewhere along the line, they handed over two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing case, and they were being tried in The Hague. Other than that, all quite.

I was quite surprised when I heard that Libya had offered to give up its Weapons of Mass Destruction program. It seemed to come 'out of the blue'. With no instigation. The Bush Administration spun the announcement that because we were successful in over-running the Iraqi military, Libya realized that it too could get run over as easily, especially if Quaddafi remembers that night of B-1B bomb attacks during the Reagan years (86?), so they came to their senses. 

Only after the initial reports came out here in the states, did we see reports that Europe negotiated quite hard with Libya over the preceeding 5 or 6 years. Much of these negotiations were about the Lockerbie suspects, granted, but at least it brought the parties to the negotiation table. 

I believe England normalized diplomatic relations with Libya in July 1999, after the handover of the lockerbie suspects, *and* when Libya accepted 'general responsibility' for the murder of a English police officer (Yvonne Fletcher) at the Libyan Embassy in London.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/23/britain.libya/

I don't believe the United States led the diplomatic efforts toward Libya. Your article on the Damato Law seems to point toward Iran rather than Libya as the benefactor of the Clinton and Albright waiving restrictions in the Damato Law.

Thanks for letting me rant. Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 11, 2004)

Back to Iran.  From The White House press releases, I found this recent discussion,which seems to be a town hall type Q&A. Bush had this to say:





> Q I'm concerned about the nuclear threat coming out of Iran.
> 
> THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
> 
> ...


 

And I also found this on an online Kerry - Edwards discussion forum.  I was unable to verify the source because all I could find was the Persian website.  Though I'm able to speak some Persian, I cannot read it.  Sorry about that.

*May 28, 2004 From: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 28, 2004.
*


> Iran's Revolutionary Guards Official Threatens Suicide Operations: 'Our Missiles Are Ready to Strike at Anglo-Saxon Culture There Are 29 Sensitive Sites in the U.S. and the West'
> 
> The London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that "an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening to replace the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Department of Liberation and Revolutionary Movements, which had been in charge of helping and training revolutionary forces across the world." [1] The article went on to report a speech given by an official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, threatening the U.S. with suicide and missile attacks at already-selected sensitive targets, and threatening to "take over" Britain. The following is the report: [2]
> 
> ...


So, the first article indicates to me that Bush doesn't seem to feel the need for any sort of immediate military campaign in Iran, rather, he figures that he can 'peacefully' facilitate the revolutionary movement, and Iranians will take care of the problem.  But the second article indicates that the Iranian government would not allow their feet to be put to the fire without a military response.

Where can this go?


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Glenn, thanks for playing ...
> 
> 
> Concerning Iraq ...
> ...


Michael - I disagree. My premise was if he would have behaved in the same manner (end result not personality) on Iraq, what will he do with Iran? Different than Bush? If so how? This is not a criticism, I am not aware of Mr. Kerry's specifics.


Good Rant!


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 11, 2004)

Glenn,

To think that the Democratic nominee for president would have behaved in the same way as the current President (visa vi Iraq) brings me a great deal of anguish. I don't believe that if Kerry was president for the last 3 and a half years, we would currently be in Iraq with 140,000 troops .. regardless of his public statements. But, truthfully, we will never know, and we never can know.

Senator Kerry's public statements on Iran and North Korea always revolve around building global alliances to control the highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Without these fissile materials, a nuclear weapon can not be detonated. 

It seems that President Bush is less interested in mutual security via alliances, and more willing to use force to remove a perceived threat (imaginary threat?).

This Kerry speech discusses Kerry's view on securing nuclear material.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0601.html

Mike


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 11, 2004)

MichaelEdward, you said:

_Senator Kerry's public statements on Iran and North Korea always revolve_ _around building global alliances to control the highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Without these fissile materials, a nuclear weapon can not be detonated. 

It seems that President Bush is less interested in mutual security via alliances, and more willing to use force to remove a perceived threat (imaginary threat?)._

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment:

Do you believe that every country would be honest and aboveboard about their respective caches of those materials, much less some of them consent to some quasi-governmental body controlling their use?  I suspect that, especially the two countries named above, not one would submit to complete scrutiny and/or control of their supplies for fear that the others would not, either.  And, what about all the small countries no one "worries" about in the Third World?  Is it realistic to expect that they do not have access to such things, and, if they do, that they will act in a responsible manner.

I agree with your statement about Dubya concerning his facile use of force versus an implied (imaginary - _sic_) threat.  I abhor his use of our nation's people as "cannon fodder" to satisfy this agenda.

So - do you believe there to be a happy medium out there -- somewhere?  Or do we have a sci-fi scenario here, and should I be awaiting St. Lebowitz?  KT


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 11, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Do you believe that every country would be honest and aboveboard about their respective caches of those materials, much less some of them consent to some quasi-governmental body controlling their use? I suspect that, especially the two countries named above, not one would submit to complete scrutiny and/or control of their supplies for fear that the others would not, either. And, what about all the small countries no one "worries" about in the Third World? Is it realistic to expect that they do not have access to such things, and, if they do, that they will act in a responsible manner.
> 
> I agree with your statement about Dubya concerning his facile use of force versus an implied (imaginary - _sic_) threat. I abhor his use of our nation's people as "cannon fodder" to satisfy this agenda.
> 
> So - do you believe there to be a happy medium out there -- somewhere? Or do we have a sci-fi scenario here, and should I be awaiting St. Lebowitz? KT


Well ... I think the Senator's speech puts forth a respectable argument, it is worth reading I think. It is in the interest of all the nations in the world to prevent fissile materials from falling into 'the wrong hands'. Certainly, negotiations would need to take place to get all participants comfortable with IAEA camera's recording activities at nuclear reactors. There is an element of invasion of sovereignty in any inspection plan. But, terrorist had demonstrated that they will strike where ever they can find a target.

As for small countries. First, it appears pretty difficult to actually build the facilities to refine nuclear material. It is, supposedly, an expensive and complicated task. Without 'highly enriched uranium' or 'plutonium', you can't get a nuclear explosion. You can purchase all of the other components required for a weapon ... but that last ingredient, it's a doozie.

I am certian we will never be 100% safe. I do think that with Kerry's inspection, monitoring, and prevention of proliferation plan, we are safer than with President Bush's 'we will strike before the threat can materialize' plan.

Thanks for listening. Mike


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 11, 2004)

In a simliar vein I saw a poll once just recently asking the American People if they want INTERNATIONAL MONITORS to safeguard the Presidental Elections this year.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 11, 2004)

> In a simliar vein I saw a poll once just recently asking the American People if they want INTERNATIONAL MONITORS to safeguard the Presidental Elections this year.


 ha ha ha ha ha!Yes.  Yes I do.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 11, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> In a simliar vein I saw a poll once just recently asking the American People if they want INTERNATIONAL MONITORS to safeguard the Presidental Elections this year.


Only American Hubris (arrogance) would reject such an offer.

If you were an African American in Broward County Florida in November of 2000, you would probably be more in favor of it.

Speaking of 'similar veins'; Did you hear about Florida's 'Felon Voter Role' list during this election cycle? 47,000 Felons who will be denied the right to vote (Double-Jeapordy anyone) ... only 61 on the list identified themselves as  Hispanic.

Mike


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 11, 2004)

The Problem is we can not all be one big happy family in this world of differences, religions, Creeds, etc.... 

Americans will I say again Americans will never allow an outside agency to become involved with our polictical process.

I for one would not be happy with the fact that I would have some Non-American tally my vote.  Smacks of corruption and influence of the UN and or Foregin Government involved in our Presidential Election.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 11, 2004)

I don't think 'International Monitors' would be *involved* in our political process. They would be *watching* our political process. If questions arose, we would still have US Citizens, county supervisors holding the ballots up to the light to determine the intent of the voter. By having a neutral third party around to watch what was going on, we would have someone to point out, without the hinderence of politics (aka Katherin Harris) that something is fishy.

Don't you feel so much more comfortable knowing your vote is going to be tallied by a non-testable, non-traceable, non-recountable electronic voting machine that has been described as woefully inadequate in computer security proceedures.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don't you feel so much more comfortable knowing your vote is going to be tallied by a non-testable, non-traceable, non-recountable electronic voting machine that has been described as woefully inadequate in computer security proceedures.



A voting machine is nothing but a glorified adding machine.  It counts I/O s.  Yet this machine is classified.  No one is allowed to see how it works...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 11, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> In a simliar vein I saw a poll once just recently asking the American People if they want INTERNATIONAL MONITORS to safeguard the Presidental Elections this year.


 This is already in the works.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/international.observers/index.html

 To sum up, 13 Democratic congresspeople wrote UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan requesting international monitors for the elections this year, citing concerns about the 2000 elections.  Annan rejected the request, saying it had to come from the country in question.  The congressfolk then made the request of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the State Department apparently asked the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to do so, and they agreed.

 The OSCE previously monitored the 2002 mid-term elections, and the gubernatorial recall election in California.


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 12, 2004)

Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to worry about security all the time...?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 12, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to worry about security all the time...?


I think that was the reason for people did drugs back in the 60s and 70s.

International monitors for our elections.  Hmmm.

MichaelEdward, 
(You notice I'm being particularly careful in how I address you.  You New Englanders are a testy lot.)

I'd like to think that it's that difficult for third world countries to obtain the final piece  - i.e., fissionable material - but, realistically, I must respectfully disagree with you.  There are too many wealthy people manipulating too many poor countries to believe that the funds aren't available should the "right" situation present itself.  Poor countries are only too willing to trade some of their natural assets for liquid assets and goods (e.g., gold mines or diamonds in South Africa for weapons).

And, what about the 'sleeping giants'?  I was reading an article about the upcoming election in Egypt.  They've remained fairly quiet within the context of all the happenings in the Middle East (ours and others).  I can't help but think that some of those 'quiet' countries could be functioning as clearing houses for a whole passel of weapons - nuclear and otherwise - because of their low profile right now.  KT


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Aug 12, 2004)

Well, we still have unfinished business with North Korea.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> . . .
> MichaelEdward,
> (You notice I'm being particularly careful in how I address you. You New Englanders are a testy lot.)
> 
> ...


Well ... I try not to be too testy ... my first name is michael, my middle name is edward, my last name is atkinson .... michaeledward is the name I used to use when I was a guitar player ... it was never quite as catchy as 'Sting' ... but we try.

Concerning Fissionable Material ... it seems to me we have 3 choices. 

1 - We can work on monitoring and controlling these materials.
2 - We can confiscate the materials, where ever they are (perhaps requiring military action)
3 - We can keep doing what we are doing, and hope for the best.

Are there other options? I don't know. Of the three I list, I believe that #1 is the best choice. And it is the best choice for those countries that don't have nuclear capabilities as well. South America is Nuclear Weapon Free *by choice*. But, a nuclear weapon can detonate in South America as easily as anyhwere else; thus it is in Brazil's interest to monitor fissile materials.

Concerning Egypt ... well, dont' we send alot of cash their way each year? Isn't that the price we paid for Egyptian - Israeli peace? Anyhow, it certainly is in the interest of the Egyptian government to ensure the safety and security of any fissile materials, where-ever it is. 

It is not a perfect solution. There will always be the possibility of danger. So, how do we make the most reasonable steps toward securing our safety? The current relationship the United States has with Pakistan is an interesting example. There are some bad people in Pakistan. In their own self interest, they have become a player in fighting al Qaeda. We need to nurture that behavior, and expand upon it. It sure is strange to do this dance with the devil, but if we keep ignoring the country, they will work harder to get our attention (North Korea anyone).

We'll see. I am interested in what other ways people think might be effective in securing the worlds supply of 'highly enriched uranium' and 'plutonium'. Thoughts?

Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 1, 2004)

I'm concerned. I have been for a while. This is developing, folks.


> Tehran  Defiant legislators  shouting Death to America  unanimously voted Sunday to approve the outline of a bill requiring the government to resume uranium enrichment, a move likely to deepen an international dispute over Tehran's atomic activities


Complete article.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2004)

> Iran is not prohibited from enriching uranium under its obligations to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, but faces growing international pressure to suspend such activities as a good-faith gesture.


 ... and we think they're going to just hand over a gesture such as this?  Have we learned nothing from our involvements with the East?

 *sigh*  One wonders how we are supposed to feel comfortable with ANY energy decision whatsoever.  If we develop alternative fuel technology like many of us are sure we can, then we may be threatened into buying oil for our nation's safety (organized terrorism), and if we do maintain petrol-based energy technology and encourage this commerce, we must pay inflated prices or be threatened with our nation's safety, and if we try to control the area we lose the lives of thousands of volunteer soldiers for a temporary stranglehold that dissipates before we have even shaken the sand out of our boots.

 The nuclear weapons threat just doesn't wanna go away, and I am increasingly concerned as well.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 1, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> One wonders how we are supposed to feel comfortable with ANY energy decision whatsoever.



Indeed.  Iran,, a country notoriously starved for foreign currency, claims that it's developing nuclear energy to free more of its oil production for overseas sales.  You know, to oil-hungry nations like, say, the United States.

Moreover, to play devil's advocate, I imagine any sovereign nation in the region would feel a need for balanced deterrence, given Israel's likely possession of varieties of WMD, including nuclear weapons.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 1, 2004)

More worrisome to me than the debate over Iran's justification is how the US administration will respond.  I have a feeling that they won't be interested in discussing the subject in a flexible fashion.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 1, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> More worrisome to me than the debate over Iran's justification is how the US administration will respond.  I have a feeling that they won't be interested in discussing the subject in a flexible fashion.



Certainly not as long as our Middle East policy is dictated to us by the Likud Party.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 1, 2004)

Oh, THERE's the pink elephant in the room!  :rofl:


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> ha ha ha ha ha!Yes.  Yes I do.


 Hey!  I know!  Let's let the Canadians count the votes!!


----------



## raedyn (Nov 1, 2004)

SS - I'm confused. Was that sarcastic, or heartfelt?

My first reaction was to volunteer for the task. But then I thought about it... I don't want to be held responsible by either side if their canidate doesn't win. So good luck to the elections officials; what a huge task!


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2004)

:ultracool Mostly sarcastic and slightly heartfelt.  Sorry!  I should have used an emoticon to clarify!!


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 18, 2005)

The next war may happen sooner than we might have thought.  Iran's newly elected President is an experienced terrorist, and has been documented as saying and doing some very, very disturbing things.

Read this and see.

 And bookmark that site.  Its a good one.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 18, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> The next war may happen sooner than we might have thought. Iran's newly elected President is an experienced terrorist, and has been documented as saying and doing some very, very disturbing things.
> 
> Read this and see.
> 
> And bookmark that site. Its a good one.


  We've been ignoring Iran for far too long.  They have had a hand in the vast majority of terrorist attacks on the US since 1979, and have done so virtually unpunished. Iran founded and continues to fund one of the most notorious terrorist organizations in history, the most with the exception of Al-Queda, Hezbollah.

They have sought nuclear weapons technology and, if they do not already possess it, will shortly.  

A great deal of evidence suggests that high-ranking Al-Queda members fled to, are currently being harbored in Iran, to include Al-Zawari, and even possibly Osama Bin Laden himself.  
Further mounting evidence exists that Iran played some as yet unclear role in either operations and planning for 9/11.  Iran has engaged in whole sale assassination of any dissident within Europe it can send it's hit teams after for years.  

This possible link with Al-Queda has some seriously spooky connotations.

It's current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may have personally been one of the hostage takers in the US Embassy.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2005)

Iran, North Korea...there are plenty of problems to go around. But Yes, Iran is worrisome.

Let's hope they don't see the new, improved, semi-democratic Iraq as either a threat or a weak neighbor after we leave.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 18, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Iran, North Korea...there are plenty of problems to go around. But Yes, Iran is worrisome.
> 
> Let's hope they don't see the new, improved, semi-democratic Iraq as either a threat or a weak neighbor after we leave.


 It seems pretty clear they are already see it as both weak and a potential threat. It's not small surprise that many of the insurgents we are fighting are taking shelter in Iran. It is believed that Al-Zawari regularly crosses border in to Iran. What is becoming evident, though not overtly publicized, is that Iran is quietly funding, arming, sheltering and training insurgents. Many Intelligence analysts have been blinded to this fact by the commonly held, though ultimately erroneous belief, that Shiites and Wahhabist Muslims won't work together. This belief has clouded the mind of US Intelligence analysts for years who have failed to understand that the Islamic world views the west as the big enemy, not each other, dispite factional tensions. 

We ignore Iran at our peril.


----------

