What is your anxiety level about Iran?

[KyndCulture]

[davidinalameda]

1. it depends

if the Bushies bomb Iran, there is no doubt in my mind that the US and their allies will get hit by suitcase nukes

that is one thing I'm terrified of

[Horse with no Name]

19. Problem is

we have no allies. It's just us.

[KyndCulture]

23. yep that's the truth.

[bryant69]

2. Uh - How about extremely worried we are going to bomb them

which will increase tensions in the Middle East, Drive Gas prices even further thru the roof, collaps the american economy and lead to a new stone age.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[KyndCulture]

4. Yep I agree.

I really do think all the signs are there, just as before the Iraq bloodbath started. They're gonna do this.

[bryant69]

18. I don't think it is set in stone

But it is in the extremely possible category at a minimum.

[Vincardog]

5. What bryant said

[uppityperson]

13. Worried bush will bomb them, and what bryant said. nt

[annabanana]

3. I'm very nervous - but not that they'll "nuke us back"

Because I don't believe they'll have that capability for a long time. I'm afraid that an all out attack on Iran will really open the floodgates of exactly what the fundies on both sides have been praying for.

[KyndCulture]

6. Armegeddon?

[Virginia Dare]

7. Part of me thinks it's all bluff and bluster...

but then the other part of me remembers that we have at least one certifiably insane person in the White House.

:scared:

[bullimiami]

8. how about our anxiety level over what bush might do.

iran is nothing.

[file83]

9. Iran doesn't have nuclear capabilities to strike back at us with.

At best, they'll strike back at our Navy with conventional weapons such as the Sunburn missle.

[MadHound]

10. Not worried at all

I long ago realized that this was coming, hell, read your PNAC. Thus I realize that there is only a certain amount that I can do, that yes, we'll probably suffer a good amount of blowback, and this country is going to slide further into oblivion as we waste our money and resources on needless wars for oil.

I've come to expect the worst, therefore there is no need to worry. If the worst doesn't happen, then it's all bonus good.

I have a limited amount of control over this issue, therefore I think it's pointless to worry about things that I can't control. Such fear paralyzes you and keeps you from acting when action is most direly needed.

[etherealtruth]

11. I am very frightened ...

...but not that they'll Nuke us back. I'm terrified that we will kill thousands of innocent men , women and children. (they might nuke Israel, though adding to the slaughter)

I am very concerned that the Chimp and his evil cabal will see this as a chance to show us (and the world) that they can do it right :puke:

I'm very afraid that a significant chunk of the U.S. population will not view this as a horror (if "successful") because of their racist/religioist bigotry :puke::puke:

[KyndCulture]

14. Yeah I agree with that.

It's going to be another slaughter.

The US Academy of Scientists says that 3 million would die in 4 countries with in 2 weeks if we nuke Iran... from the bomb itself and radiation sickness.

[Swamp Rat]

12. Bushler&Co are planning to nuke Iran.

It is the only way THEY can stay in power, as it will shut down our government. This would enable Cheney and Rumsfeld to implement their plans and install their secret government in waiting, and mercenary military currently on standby.

We must stop Bushler&Co before it is too late. :hide:

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Chief of State and Supreme religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamanei who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible.

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity. In fact the IAEA could find no evidence that the Iranians are even working on it.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. (Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )


snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms



http://www.dontattackiran.org
________________________

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.
______________________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[slackmaster]

16. Depends on what you mean by "it" and "they"

:nuke:

[KyndCulture]

17. Who are the 3 trolls that said they deserve to be nuked??

Please pull your head out of your ass.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. This from Zbigniew Brzezinski - Been There Done That

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[libnnc]

21. Jim Beam helps sometimes. n/t

[H2O Man]

22. Other.

I think there is about a 20% chance of increased violence between the US and/or Israel and Iran. This could lead to a significant increase in violence in the Middle East, and indeed world-wide. However, I am not prone to anxiety nor worry about these issues, as that is an unproductive use of energy that is better invested in anti-war activity.