I'm for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.

[JeremyWestenn]

However, I am not for bombing them at this point in time. Let's sanction them, get the world behind us, and bring down a hell of a lot of weight on them. The reason I do not support bombing them is because their army will literally attack our men and woman in Iraq. It would be totally seperate if we were not stationing people in the country next to them, and even in the country near them(Afghanistan). People have to remember that the Iraqi army turned tail and ran, they fell apart, etc. That was not a real war in the since of an actual military force fighting another legitimate military force. If we did battle with Iran their army would be a totally different story.

My question to the peopleo here on DU is if you to support bombing the hell out of their nuclear facilities, if you'd support it if our troops weren't next door, or if you don't support it at all?

Edit: Instead of rehashing everything I wrote I am going to correct my view. I believe we should go diplomatic with Iran, disuss things there and see what happens, and then if that doesn't work or is clearly going nowhere proceed to then do military action against them.

[RoyGBiv]

1. Literally, eh?

Good luck with that.

[JeremyWestenn]

2. Umm... Ok.

Thanks for a response that says nothing. Way to add to a conversation. /clap

[RoyGBiv]

5. Welcome ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=33728&mesg_id=34016

[mcctatas]

3. I don't think it is our place to bomb any of another sovereign

nations facilities "nucleary" or other...

[JeremyWestenn]

10. Nice to take a potshot in a legitimate discussion!

Baby.

Mind you I edited that to spell Nuclear right before you posted. Anyways, your warped logic works against bombing Germany if Hitler was in power and had potential nuclear facilities. Or does it not? Explain it. Give me something more then that.

[mcctatas]

24. OK....You want more than that...

Iran is not Germany, they have not invaded Poland (or Turkmenistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar etc.), dipping into the "Hitler" pool is a rhetorical device best left alone, it's silly. Even if there were definitive proof of Iran's nuke program (there's not, and I for one don't trust the same asshats who were convinved we would find WMD in Iraq to figure it out), Iran is not Iraq any more than it is Germany...We can't afford to go swaggering around the globe like some half-wit cowboy with unresolved daddy issues, this is a problem that needs united support from our allies and others in the region.

[fuzzyball]

48. Have you heard Ahemedinejad's threats on Israel?

[mcctatas]

64. Threats are not acts....

unless you subscribe to the doctrine of pre-emption, he can spew all the vile toxic bullshit he wants too.

[NickB79]

66. Ahemedinejad does not control the Iranian military

He is essentially a puppet the ayatollah's throw up to the Iranian people. He has no power to initiate a war, must less destroy Israel.

[fuzzyball]

73. I hope that's all it is but why won't the ayatollah's gag this blowhard?

I think as a puppet of theirs he is simply the loudspeaker
of their thinking. So long as Iran has no nukes, these threats
are not dangerous. But with nukes in one hand and anti-Israel+US
rhetoric in other....who knows!

IMO these hate mongers can not be allowed to have any WMD's.

[TankLV]

78. Have you hear of Pat Buchanan and Pat Roberston's idiotic rants?

then by your logic, other countrys should bomb US - "to safeguard" the world...

I don't know if I could blame THEIR thinking either.

what's good for the goose...

[fuzzyball]

86. Yes,,,if US threatened to wipe out another country, they have every right

to attack us in self defense. So far as I know, I have
not seen anywhere in the news media that Bush or any of
the past presidents have ever threatened to wipe another
country off the map, as the political & "elected" leader
of Iran, stinky Ahmedinejad has done AGAIN & AGAIN.

And I never claimed Robertson and other religiopus nuts
are puppets of Bush, but the poster above claims that
Ahmedinejad IS A PUPPET of the ayatollah Khameini.

[TankLV]

77. besides, it's bush that would be closer to hitler anyhow...

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

31. You're not even making sense

How in any way does Iran= Nazi Germany?

Pakistan actually does provide sanctuary to Al Qaeda, actually does have nuclear weapons, and actually does take part in proliferation. Why aren't we bombing Pakistan?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

75. it's not a legitimate discussion.. iran has every right to nuclear power and weapons

[fuzzyball]

87. Any country has the right to nukes but no other nuclear power has ever

threatened VIA THE POLITICALLY ELECTED LEADER to wipe
another country off the map. Even Pakistan, which is a
dictatorship has never threatened their rival India to
wipe them off the map. India, the world's largest democracy,
has declared that it will never initiate first strike of
nulclear weapons. Other nuclear powers US, Russia, UK, France,
China and Israel (undeclared but everyone knows they have nukes)
also have never threatened to wipe any country off the map as a
first strike.

But Iranian leader Ahmedinejad has declared publicly AGAIN & AGAIN
that Israel will be destroyed off the map. If you fail to see the
difference here, then I give up trying.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

88. not so fast..

Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?

The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

[fuzzyball]

92. No matter what "word" is used, destruction of Israel is the goal

and that is not acceptable. Israel was created by UN resolution
and backing. It is a soverign nation. A stinky dictator regime
of any country has to be dealt with when such threats are issued
in any language or using any words.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

96. destruction? as in kill all and destroy everything?

i think you are talking out the side of your neck or you have been watching too much TV; back up your ridiculous claims with a little proof please.

also, it matters very much what "word" is used; words are the foundation of communication.

fortunately for you there is a "stinky dictator regime" in the white house that share your views; you will probably get your war very soon.. which of course will be sold to the blood thirsty masses as a noble cause.

:puke:

[ieoeja]

98. Dictator?

You do realize that Iran is a democracy, yes?

And again, as the previous poster asked, is that what the recently elected president of Iran really said? Even if it is a correct translation, is it a proper interpretation?

When I first moved to the Chicago area I found myself frequently stepping outside to fight people in response to their threats. It took a couple years for me to learn that a sentence that would constitute a challenge to fight in southern Indiana was just Chicago for, "have a nice day". And that's two English speaking (well, almost) peoples in the same country living about 300 miles apart.

It gets worse when you're dealing with foreign languages and cultures. I once told a woman in Italy to "RUN" a program. She moved it. I told her to move it back then told her to "EXECUTE" the program. Next I had to send her a new copy of the program to replace the one she dutifully executed -- may it rest in peace -- with instructions to "START" the program. That finally worked.

But you are certain enough of your interpretation of a translation of a Persian speaking politician talking to his constituents living in Iran filtered to you via the media to be willing to kill thousands of people.

[lvx35]

20. Yes. We attack if and only if we are attacked, or our allies are.

And I'm not talking criminal terrorists who live in that country attacking, I mean the government of that country.

[mike_c]

4. I do not support it at all....

In the first place, who made the U.S. global cops? We have nuclear weapons. Our middle eastern ally Israel has nuclear weapons. What right do we have to criticize the ambitions of others to attain the level of terror that we ourselves exert?

In the second place, Iran is six to ten years away from developing nuclear weapons, IF THEY EVER DO. Their current nuclear program IS on track toward development of nuclear power generation, again in several years rather than in the near future.

The Iranian "nuclear threat" is a myth, at least for a decade or so to come. Why couldn't that time be used to change our foreign policy and engage the Iranians in the diplomacy necessary to avert catastrophe? A lot can happen in ten years if we're committed to making it happen.

[doublethink]

6. Hip Hip Hooray!!!!!!!!! ........... NOT!

some of my thoughts on this in the following thread ..... here ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x33728#34671 Peace.

[greenman3610]

7. first of all, it's another WMD lie

second of all, there is no way you can be
sure of getting them all in an aerial bombing, even
if they are there
third, to really do the job, nukes are necessary,
casualty estimate is 3 million.

you really want to go there?

Iran is a nation where the young people want to
be our friends. Post 911, there were pro US demonstrations
blossoming all around Tehran....
then came the "Axis of Evil" designation, and all the
sabre rattling, which undermined the moderates in the
government.
Even with all of todays war talk, the iranians are
still repudiating Ahmedinajad(spell?) at the polls.

Diplomacy is the answer here, as it should
have been in Iraq.

[Solon]

8. Considering that Iran has tried, as best it can, to bring us to the negotiating table...

and we rebuffed them at every turn, I don't think we should sanction them.

By the way, an answer to your question is this, IF we bomb any nuclear sites, WE GO BYE BYE, I don't see Russia standing on the sidelines in such a conflict, and we would have committed an atrocity that would be unprecedented since WWII, with no justification.

[puerco-bellies]

9. Sign up then.

I've done 2 Persian Gulf tours, what's your excuse, "other priorities"?

[JeremyWestenn]

13. Another low potshot argument.

That completely avoids any actual DISCUSSION. Which was what I was trying to facilitate here. Instead some people immediatly attack the poster as if their a Republican that came in screaming about how Hillary's a lesbian and the daughter of Satan.

Moving on... I was one day away from enlisting in the Navy, literally one day away from MEPS. I decided I'd like to finish college, get a degree, go to law school, and am currently thinking about(after doing all that) of joining the military in their Lawyer related career paths or possibly going into criminal law.

So... It looks to me as if joining the military is actually on my plate. Now do me a favor and eat my words. <3

[puerco-bellies]

19. I served, not thought, no almost's, no pie in the sky plates awaiting your bravery.

There is no use entering a discussion on an asinine desire to attack yet another country that does not pose a threat to us. Soviet Russia had/has a tremendous capability to attack us. She never did, the same reason Iraq did not, and Iran would not. It's suicidal. There is no threat. So it looks to me that you are not actually in or will in any time soon be in the military you want to commit to another war.

[RoyGBiv]

22. Well said n/t

[RoyGBiv]

21. Oh give me a break ...

Discussion on this issue takes place on this site every single day. It's taken place earlier today, as at least two links posted in response to this indicate. Your little thread-starter is hardly worth an in-depth counter, given that deep, lengthy, and incisive commentary has been offered for months (at least) indicating why bombing Iran is such an insanely stupid idea.

"Sign up then" is a perfectly valid response in such a context.

[Why Syzygy]

11. I don't support bombing

a country. If there is a legitimate *war*, strategic sites are the only targets.

But your question sparked into my mind the real reason for the "troop increase" in Iraq. Chances are they are tied into plans for Iran.

The USofA is controlled by madmen. They would have us believe Sadaam Husein was a threat.
So why believe them in this situation? I haven't been watching it closely, but it doesn't smell right to me.

[soulcore]

12. I also agree we have no right to *pre-emptively* bomb anyone

And just so you know, the Iraqi army didn't turn tail and run, they were disbanded and left armed and unemployed.

They're called the insurgency these days.

[JeremyWestenn]

15. To a degree they are.

I recind my previous statement in my original message, I'll check and see if I can edit it out or if the time has expired. I am for bombing them if after all diplomatic discussions have failed or if their clearly going no where.

[elizm]

28. You might want to edit ...they're

for 'their' while you are at it.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

69. lol

[Bandit]

53. 101st keyboard warrior

I am surprised you haven't just out and out said "Glass Em" like most of the big bad brave non military serving opinions we read here..Maybe if you ever actually were involved in real Combat you would not be so quick to advocate for it...

[Clarkie1]

14. No, I do not support pre-emptive war. It's bad policy.

Force should only be used as a last resort, and only in the case of an imminent threat.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

17. There is much that can be done......and saber rattling isn't what is needed

at the top of the agenda...and bombing any facilities is an option that will have its own set of consequences. be careful for what you wish for....you might just get it and then realize that wasn't "it" after all.
-------------------------
Last September at a conference I helped organize, General Wesley Clark began the drumbeat calling for direct contact with Iran.
Steve Clemons.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29624

February 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.

March 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think the first thing that needs to be done, really, is the United States needs to talk directly to the leadership in Iran. That's the essential first step. The United States leadership hasn't done this. We've got a lot of different things we can do. There's still a military option - I don't know how effective it's going to be in the long-term, but it's there. There are sanctions. There's the embarrassment of going forward. But, when we push Iran, they're going to push back on us and Iran has positioned itself to be the sort of leader of the Islamic world. It's an historic opportunity for Shia Islam to lead the whole Islamic world in standing up for their right to have nuclear energy and maybe a nuclear weapon. So this is a huge, difficult, political issue for us to face. It's a political issue first; it needs to start with dialogue.

Page Hopkins: How do we talk, though, with a president who is alm…crazy? This is a guy who says 'Israel should be wiped off the planet.' How do you reason or talk to somebody like that?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe you don't have to talk to him directly, maybe you talk to other people in the government first. Maybe you build this thing up over a period of time but this has been an opportunity that we've passed by for years. We spoke strongly about the need to put the right government in place in Iran. We basically, our government, tried to interfere in their election. We probably are responsible to giving Ahmedinejad some measure of support because voters don't like it, in whatever country they are, when foreigners try to interfere in their election. We may not think they had a real election. We may not approve of their democracy but people in Iran believe that they voted for Ahmedinejad so what we have to do is we have to decide what we as Americans want to do to pursue what we believe is in our interests. If we only use the stick on Iran, then it's going to be difficult to move the issue, in a constructive way, in the near term. So we need a combination of dialogue and pressure.

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 2006

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.

------------
"I would encourage the United States leadership right now, this week, before March, before it goes to the United Nations Security Council, immediately to talk to the Iranian government. Iran has been a -- it's a great nation. It's 60, 70 million people with a tremendous heritage, and we've got a wonderful Iranian-American community. And the policy that we've pursued toward Iran for the last five to 10 years, no matter what the historical antecedents were or our anger at 1979 and the hostages, still, it's a policy that hasn't served American interests.

We should be doing business -- we should have been a long time ago doing business with the Iranian business community. We should have worked with them. We worked with East Europe when it was under communist domination, and it was one of the key factors that helped East Europe throw off an outmoded set of ideas. We need to be working in the Middle East to help their business communities move past old ideas.

So right now what we need to be doing is talking to Iran -- right now, this week."
http://securingamerica.com/node/607

-----------------

Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'

all Interviews transcripts sourced here....
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/8

Clark understands that all stays on the table...the difference is that it doesn't become the point of emphasis...or the central thesis.

[Clarkie1]

36. There is no need to rush to a catastrophic and ultimately ineffective military option.

Here's some more context for Clark's remarks:

ElBaradei warns on Iran nuclear facilities attack
‘Preventive strike would be catastrophic,’ IAEA chief says
Updated: 1 hour, 47 minutes ago

<snip>

‘Are you going to bomb the knowledge?’

Even if Tehran proves successful in installing 3,000 centrifuges — in the first stage of what it says will be a network of more than 50,000 such machines — experts estimate it would take several years for all of them to be running smoothly. Once that happens, Tehran could produce two bombs a year.

“They have the knowledge, sure they have the knowledge,” said ElBaradei of Iran’s nuclear program — which has been under IAEA investigation for more than four years. “Are you going to bomb the knowledge?”

ElBaradei indicated he was not against U.N.-sanctioned force against world renegades as a last option. But “in the case of Iran, we are absolutely far away from it.”

Talks, first between Tehran and European powers Britain, France and Germany and then the five Security Council permanent members and Germany have failed over more than two years to persuade the Islamic republic to shelve enrichment plans and led to the U.N. sanctions.

But ElBaradei said new negotiations — this time involving not only the great powers but all countries in the region — were the best way to reach compromise. And the “U.S. has to be engaged,” he said, in indirect criticism of America’s refusal up to now to hold one-on-one talks with Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16813170/

[fuzzyball]

50. Except there was no way to know 911 was imminent

It is suicidal to wait until you are attacked with nukes.
Iran's Ahmedinejad has been threatening distruction of Israel.
That is good enough reason to pre-empt mr. Ahmedinejad. Use CIA
to take him out before starting to bomb.

[Debs]

71. Ahmedinejad

Has virtually no power. The man who DOES have the power is Khameini and he is basically moderate. The council of experts just had elections and the former leader Ahmedinejads mentor lost big to Rafsanjani another moderate. Look we elected a nutbag to BE our president and HE unlike Ahmedinejad has the real power. Would that have justified China from bombing US? This needent become WW3 which your course of action could easily precipitate. Its the CONSERVATIVES who preach that any potential threat be treated as a threat that must be acted upon immediatly. How did that work out for us in IRaq? Vietnam? KILL, KILL, KILL isnt the only answer and its usually the WRONG answer.

[fuzzyball]

74. Why don't Khameini then gag Ahmedinejad?

Or is Ahmedinejad the mouthpiece of Khameini's agenda?

[TankLV]

79. why doesn't bush* gaga Fartwell, robertson and buchanan?

balls in your court...

stupid straw-men discussions are fun - but my post is still valid - why doesn't bunkerboy gag these idiots unless he WANTS them to spout off and AGREES with them...

[Debs]

83. Becauase Khameini

Isnt a dictator, he isnt Saddam and Iran isnt Iraq. He has the EXCUTIVE authority as Tank pointed out your argument is a strawman why doesnt Bush muzzle Coulter? Savage? Or Kennedy and Pelosi for that matter? Because it doesnt work that way. We scared the Iranians by invading Iraq and naming them in the axis of evil speech so the elected a far right nutbag to a largely symbolic post. Scare any people and they vote to the right. This country is far more out of control than Iran. Bush didnt THREATEN Iraq we invaded Iraq and used LIES to do so. Would that mean China would be justified in bombing US if they were capable of it? How does someone get to a place where is so afraid he justifies an action that could easily end up in killing thousands and tens of thousands of innocent people? Just how many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice so you dont feel threatened? How many women and children is it ok to kill so you feel more secure? Give me a number so we can do a cost benfit analysis then put YOUR childrens faces on that sacrifice and ask how many of YOUR Nieghbors it would be ok to sacrifice so THEY feel secure?

[fuzzyball]

85. Because YOU claim Khameini has the REAL power & Ahmed. is a

puppet, so extending your hypothesis, Ahmedinejad can
be muzzled by the ayatollah.

[Debs]

91. No I didnt

Yes Khameini has he power, the claim that this automatically means Ahmedinejad is therefore a puppet is a false dichotomy. Is that the only possible scenario? I didnt say nor does it follow that Ahmedinejad is a puppet he was elected to a largely symbolic post. That doesnt mean that he is a puppet NOR that Khameini has the authority to muzzle him. You act like having the executive power means he is an all powerful dictator. I didnt make that claim nor did anyone else.That simplistic Manichean worldview doesnt follow. Do you think every countrys government functions either like the US or like a dictatorship? NO, Khameini doesnt have the authority to gag Ahmedinejad nor does Ahmedinejad have the authority to start a war or direct the Amry of Iran. This isnt that complicated.

[corvusblog]

18. Have you ever heard of following our laws and constitution?

Have you ever heard of following our laws and our constitution? This may come as a shock to you, but you have no legal right whatsoever to attack a sovereign nation absent a Congressional Declaration of War or verifiable proof of imminent threat of imminent attack against the United States of America.

Just like Iraq, our U.S. military has never rated Iran a strategic threat to the security of the USA.

I don't care what Dubya told you, you cannot go around this planet conducting yourself like George W. Bush, who has violated our laws and constitution in an unprecedented manner. And I don't want to hear any garbage about 9/11 serving as justification to break our laws and violate our constitution. On Sept. 11th, 2001, terrorists destroyed some concrete buildings and killed 3,000 Americans, but they didn't knock down and destroy our constitution and laws.

We need law enforcement: not in our bedrooms and private lives, but in Congress, the White House and our guvmint agencies.

[Contrite]

23. Who can blame the Iranians

when Israel isn't even legally in possession of nuclear weapons?

This is such a lopsided situation and it NEEDS to be resolved by diplomacy.

There is no reason for an attack on Iran unless Iran attacks us directly. But if we make that condition, "someone" will stage an attack on us and blame it on Iran, anyway.

There is no way out of this with the neocon Zionists (and Cheney) in charge.

[Erika]

25. Who can trust W intelligence?

We can't.

[BlueIris]

26. People have asked me how I could miss the block function...

I don't know what to tell them...

[rman]

27. But why? Why nuke them at all?

You believe Bush and the neocon gang when they say Iran is a threat? If they think Iran with nuclear technology is a threat, why did they provide Iran with the technology in the first place?

Cheney & Halliburton Sold Iran Nuke Technology
http://knowyourbfee.blogspot.com/2006/05/know-your-bfee-cheney-halliburton-sold.html

[Eurobabe]

29. Are you fucking nuts? Let's put more radioactive toxins in the atmosphere

That's a great plan. :shrug: WTF?

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

30. Everything About Your Post Is Wrong

Starting with:

A) There will never, ever, ever be a situation where any European country will go willingly with our intention to put one of their major trade partners into total chaos.

B) Iran is, in a situation with few better options, a rather moderate voice. The rise of a lunatic like Ahmaninejad is if anything a direct response to our actions in the area.

C) A military strike would completely destabilize the region, possibly even bringing war between Iran and Israel.

D) Iran has a prosperous middle class and in terms of demographics is one of the youngest nations in the world. They have the potential to be the democracy we claim we actually want in the area.

Its not fucking Command and Conquer, dude. When those bombs fall, we've committed ourselves to having them as an enemy for the next twenty years.

[Zero Division]

32. Why is it considered inevitable that Iran would launch a nuclear attack?

If any kind of nuclear attack gets traced back to Iran, their government can count on being destroyed with 100% certainty.

Look at the situation in Pakistan, for comparison. Pakistan successfully tested nuclear weapons in 1998 and its intelligence services have well documented ties to terrorist organizations. Using the same expectations that those who say that a nuclear Iran is an inevitable threat, one would have expected that terrorists would have received and used nuclear weapons or dirty bombs of some type by now or in the near future. But Pakistan is not treated by the United States or Israel as though it is an inevitable threat, unlike Iran.

However, bombing Iran seems almost certain to start a war which may very well lead to another disastrous occupation (which might end up overstraining our military to the breaking point and/or requiring a draft). I think preventing a nuclear Iran is a laudable goal, but it needs to be accomplished by means other than military action. The risks involved with a military attack on Iran seem greater than the risks involved with a nuclear Iran, at this point.

[windbreeze]

33. A better question might be.....would I trust "our leader" to make the

correct decision about this...and the answer is a resounding NO...!!I am not sure I would trust any one man, or group of men, or group of women, to make such a decision...Especially when you consider that most of our checks and balances Congress has used the excuse that they were lied to, to cover their asses regarding Iraq...I wasn't fooled for one minute, but Congress was???? yeah, right!!! This planet is the only one we have to live on...We already face serious global warming, that's becoming a big threat to mankind as a whole...so WHY, oh WHY...would we even consider putting more radiation/heat/pollution into our world's atmosphere, and possibly hasten our own total demise??...I say, let all countries have nukes...it effectively stops the argument about who should and who should NOT have them, and it could possibly be it's own best deterrent...after all, I believe the US IS the only country that's nuked another country, up to this point...NO NUKING ANYONE...EVER...NO EXCUSE IS GOOD ENOUGH for taking such an action....
windbreeze

[zulchzulu]

34. Hey, let's bomb China, Pakistan, India, UK, France, N. Korea and Israel too

They have nukes. They might bomb us.

Plus, wow, what great video that would be.

But seriously, why do we assume that Iran would want to commit suicide as a country by striking with nukes 10 years from now? They know that they would be vaporized within minutes of their initial strike.

[fuzzyball]

51. They have not threatened destruction of Israel or USA

besides UK, France, India & Israel are democracies.

[zulchzulu]

59. Iran has elections...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/648415.stm

[Porcupine]

72. Israel needs to deal with the enemies it makes alone.

As long as Unca Sam bails their shit out they will keep being the war-mongering, water stealing, bastards they are.

Not our problem as long as Darfur is not our problem.

[TankLV]

80. but people in their countries have, so using your idiotic logic...

[specimenfred1984]

35. What facilities, the ones in delusional repuke's peabrains?

What flavor is the Kool-aid today?

[AtomicKitten]

37. We have some new neighbors

that hold monster parties til 3:00 A.M. I propose we bomb them too.

[mtnsnake]

38. I remember you. Your the same 1 who wished he coulda seen Saddam's "neck snap"

in that other thread you started right after the execution. This one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3015433#3015462

So why am I not surprised that you'd pull another stunt like this one.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. You have swallowed the Kool-Aid, man, gallons of it

First of all, many nations have nuclear programs, including Pakistan, which has an actual bomb and which has supported the Taliban. However, most of these programs are nukes for peaceful use.

Second, our troops are the ILLEGALLY. The way to protect them is to get them the hell out of the Middle East. Anything less, any attempts to keep them in the Middle Easte or expand the war is tantamount to deliberate MURDER of our troops.

Recall when Bushboy named the "axis of evil"? He named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Let's see, he invades Iraq (unprovoked), so guess what? Iran and North Korea decide they need some invasion insurance in the form of nukes.

You don't have to love Iran or North Korea to understand why they would go for nukes.

There is NO circumstance in which military action against Iran is justified. They are showing no signs of attacking anyone, and so what if they make nasty remarks about other countries? That is NOT grounds for bombing them.

[uppityperson]

40. No, No and I don't. So many assumptions.

So you want to try to deal with Iran diplomatically, then when our military is no longer occupying Iraq, bomb them. And you don't support bombing them while we are still occupying Iraq because bombing Iran would then make the Iranians attack the US occupiers in Iraq?

I agree that if the US attacked Iran, it would be facing a different set of opponents. That is about all you write that I agree with. No, I do not support bombing Iran. No if the Iraqi occupation is over. Not at all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Then enlist.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[conscious evolution]

43. IBTTS

YEAAAAHH!!!:bounce:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

44. I've read some of your posts. You're kind of like Borat , right? nt.

[doc03]

45. Why? We faced down the USSR that had 10s of thousands

of nuclear weapons and nobody got killed. If Iran ever used a nuclear weapon they would be wiped off the face of the earth and they should know that. After all the USA is the only country that ever used a nuclear weapon maybe the rest of the world should demand we get rid of ours. I am no scientist but I would assume if you bombed a nuclear site even with conventional weapons you would poison a large portion if not all of the middle east for eternity. Look what happened at Chernobyl and that was just an accident..

[IndianaGreen]

46. Anyone that advocates war with Iran, should enlist in the military at once!

Our troops currently in Iraq should not shoulder the consequences of a US/Israel attack on Iran by themselves, all the warmongers should be in country with them.

[Vidar]

47. I would have to recommend you take Slim Picken's position on the bomb.

[saltpoint]

49. I don't support it at all. I don't see any good coming from

air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities or any other strategic sites within Iran.

I very strongly support negotiation over a table of civil tongues and plan to vote accordingly in 2008.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. We need to get serious about negotiations first, Ahmadinejad isn't very popular

And his party suffered heavily in their local elections. My hope is that they replace him with someone not as confrontational and that will provide an impetus for negotiations with Iran. Meanwhile, we can work on replacing George W Bush with someone who isn't as confrontational.

If negotiations fail then we can discuss the possibility of sanctions and cruise missiles. But right now it seems completely premature considering we haven't even tried diplomacy yet.

[gorfle]

54. The genie is out of the bottle!

We should not bomb anyone over nuclear development issues.

1) All sovereign nations should be free to develop weapon or energy systems as they see fit. We do so, so should everyone else be afforded that freedom. It is immoral for us to say that we can do a thing but others cannot.

2) As the barriers to the technology decrease, sooner or later anyone will be able to develop the means anyway. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle, and it is foolish to try.

3) Our national policy should move forward under the ASSUMPTION that our enemies already have nuclear weapons. Sadly, I believe this means a return to policies based on MAD. Nuclear programs are still extraordinarily expensive. The people with the money to fund them have a lot to loose. Those people need to understand that if the fruits of their efforts are used against us we will kill them.

[DuaneBidoux]

55. Practical problem: it cannot be effectively done

They have at least a dozen facilities, half of which are not exactly located and are deep underground. It simply can't be done so strategically it is off the table.

[Madspirit]

56. Wow!

So we get to just bomb at will? The future of the planet is entirely ours to decide?! Cool. Well, not so much. You're a scary person.

I don't know if I will get in trouble for this, bringing up something past. I haven't gotten in trouble here yet. <g> I've been around since 2005 but only have 100+ posts because I run a lot of other Groups and they take a lot of time. Anyway, I went to the link someone supplied, above, to one of your previous posts about the fun, fun, fun it would have been for you to hear Saddam's neck break. I must reiterate, you are a very scary person.
Do you realize it has nothing to do with Saddam? It's what it shows about YOU, that you could possibly enjoy something like that.

I think these issues are linked. I am a lesbian and so have no great love for Islam but I don't have the audacity to think we just have some Divine Right to go around killing, maiming, bombing, being The Deciders For The Earth and All It's People, etc.

I must ask about this entitlement problem of yours. (everyone else, cover ears) WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
Madspirit

[Javaman]

57. So what is worse?

Bombing nuke plants that will then release radiation?

Or using nukes on facilities that manufacture nukes, then release radiation?

It's not worth it either way.

[KurtNYC]

58. How big of a war do you have in mind? How many people would you be

willing to see dead on BOTH sides? How many Iranians would you like to risk your own life to kill personally?

Or do you think we would just bomb them and that would be the beginning and end of the conflict?

[Geek_Girl]

60. Don't forget about the Three Fold Law

We reap what we sow.

[TankLV]

81. I've been taught it's the "ten" fold law...

[hijinx87]

61. bombing their nuke facilities out of existence would remove the excuse

for invading yet another country. I will say that for it.

We still have to make it to 2008 without this regime trumping up
another war.

[mayflower]

62. What Part of "Thous Shalt Not Kill' Don't You Understand?

[agincourt]

63. The current Iranian leadership needs an airstrike,

to help them politically. The last election has went poorly for them. Bombing what we THINK are their nuke facilities will only help the more radical anti-west faction.

[mayflower]

65. You're a WarMonger

[tkmorris]

68. Methinks you misunderstood his point

He wasn't saying he WANTED bombing to occur, merely that if it did it would actually be a tremendous help to the hardliners in Iraq.

[agincourt]

84. Thanks for helping with clarification,

Just as Bush needed a LIHOP terrorist event to improve neo-con political power so do radicals in Iran need US bombs to solidify their political power.

[0007]

94. A troll and first class shit disturber is JeremyWestenn

[Codeblue]

67. I agree with others here

that not even an insane madman would be unstable enough to nuke another country in this world. In fact, I don't think we were ever really that close to nuclear war, even during the Cold War. All of those were probably blown way out of proportion at the time to frighten Americans, much like terrorism today.

Anybody knows that to launch a nuke is to condemn your country to death. There would be no hesitation on the part of any other nuclear power to nuke the hell out of your country. Nuclear deterrence does in fact work, though one nuke would probably be enough for that.

Ahmedinejad's threats are empty and hollow. The only way he will be wiping Israel off the planet is to invade Iraq and go through that way.

Bombing them at any time is just going lead to escalation which will soon spiral out of control. World War II? No World War III will be the war that truly deserves the moniker.

[JCMach1]

70. Then, let's also give the Israelis the same deal we did the Pakistanis

place their nukes under DIRECT US control.

How about that?

It's about sovereignty...

[seabeyond]

76. i understand that happened once before and iran took steps. question:

they took them underground and they cannot be gotten. but we ignore this and bomb it. for no other reason but to send a message. not that it will acooplish what we want. we see with both iraq and afghanistan bombing does not bring us the result we look for. but we do it anyway, like we did with the other two countries

iran has hamas and hamas has not set their site on u.s. that is irans army. whether we think it chicken shit way to fight or not, there it is. as much as we would like to sya they shouldnt fight that way, it is the way they fight to protect their country.

iran sets hamas on us

for what?

bombing sites we cannot accomplish the goal we "pretend" we cant to have hamas attack american citizens even though we say how wrong and not fair to fight that way

this makes sense to you

how?

[Zhade]

82. You're advocating unjustified, potentially illegal acts.

You should reconsider, based on the lack of evidence for any threat from Iran.

[unlawflcombatnt]

89. I can answer your question easily

"My question to the people here on DU is if you to support bombing the hell out of their nuclear facilities, if you'd support it if our troops weren't next door, or if you don't support it at all?
"

I don't support it at all. When Iran can hit the United States with a nuclear-tipped ICBM, then I might reconsider.

We previously lived in world with a million-times greater threat when the Soviet Union existed, and we didn't have to "bomb" anybody. And we never got "nuked" by anybody.

[MadHound]

90. Which nulcear facilities?

The ones they're using to enrich uranium for fuel purposes, or the facilities they're using to manufacture weapons? If all you're worried about is weapons, well then, you can put off that latter option for a few years, because Iran doesn't have any facilities dedicated to weapons development. All of their facilities are for the manufacture of fuel grade material.

And I would suggest that you hold off on bombing anything for awhile. Best estimates of Iran having any sort of nuclear weapons capability is at least ten years out.

Stop falling for the BS and hype. Iran has shown time and again that all they're after is creating their own fuel.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

93. since they are 10 yeears off having any nuke and Pakistan has nukes up and running

who would you fear most?

[MadHound]

95. What is there to discuss? Their nuclear energy program?

That's about it quite frankly. They have no nuclear weapons facilities, their nuclear weapons program is going nowhere, and all the enriched uraniums they've produced(a few whopping grams) is all five percent stuff, fuel grade, not weapons grade.

These people are building a nuclear power economy, because they are actually thinking ahead and realizing that they're running out of oil. Therefore they are developing nukes as the way to go for them. Yet despite massive evidence to the contrary, everybody and their brother seems to think that they're going to have the bomb tomorrow. They won't, they can't, it's not even physically possible.

Stop buying into this meme that Iran is becoming some nuclear bad boy. They aren't, they can't, and there is really nothing to discuss with them.

[Bake]

97. Let's suppose Iran does get nuclear weapons

What then?

I would imagine we diplomatically tell them in no uncertain terms that IF they use them in an unprovoked first strike against the U.S. or any of its allies, we would ensure that they simply cease to exist. God knows we've got more nukes than anybody. Tell them that they can HAVE them as long as they don't USE them offensively. Anything else is assured destruction.

That's not a lot different from the "mutually assured destruction" that held off a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. It's not very comforting, but it worked, at least back then. There absolutely has to be some kind of deterrence to using nukes.

MAD worked becase at least the U.S.S.R. was rational. I'm not so sure one can say the same about religious fundamentalists (of any stripe).

Bake