Why is Iran a threat? Seriously.

[BurtWorm]

Maybe my war/Bush skepticism is affecting my reading of the situation, but I don't see why it would be so terrible if Iran acquired nuclear weapons. I don't see any reason to think their intention would be to use them. I'm thinking their intention would to defend against countries that might attack them. Am I being naive?

As for Ahmadinejad, I think he's full of bluster and shit, like right wingers everywhere. I'm not well-versed enough in Iranian politics to know how he got elected, but I'm guessing his support is very concentrated and not particularly broad. Of course if you want to broaden his support, you couldn't pick a better route than bombing his country.

Can anyone make a convincing argument as to why Iran and Ahmadinejad are threats sufficient enough to require military action?

[tatertop]

1. We have absolutely no valid reason to invade Iran

[unblock]

2. it would completely change the shape of the middle east

not only would it put them in a position to completely wipe out israel, it would also put them in a position to intimidate the rest of the region. they could use this to enforce an extremely effective oil embargo.

i'm not saying that the assessment is real, their nukes are imminent, or that military action by us at this time is appropriate; but i can say that iran with nukes is not in our best interests.

[atreides1]

7. George Bush

With nukes isn't in our best interest either, and speaking for myself, I'd rather take my chances with the Iranians.

Iran won't attack Israel, mainly because just like Legalized Abortion is a wedge issue that the Repukes use, Israel as the Zionist Enemy is the wedge issue for Iran.

And you don't get rid of wedge issues in order to keep your base support.

[unblock]

10. well they have the fallout issue as well. on the other hand

having banana republicans in complete control of all 3 branches of government still sucks even if they're not going to overturn roe v. wade.

iran with nukes still sucks even if they're not ACTUALLY going to nuke israel.

[BurtWorm]

18. Why does it suck anymore than any other country having nukes?

[lectrobyte]

27. Israel is still the nuclear power in the Middle East, they have between

150 and 200 warheads.

[coalition_unwilling]

70. I'm supporting Iran in this fight. BFEE has made it

impossible for me to believe there's any longer a non-partisan national interest. I'm unwilling to support the rich of this country any longer, no matter what pretext is offered.

[jrthin]

13. It's silly to say

that they would completely wipe out Israel. Israel HAS nuclear weapons. What is Israel going to to, sit back and allow themselves to be nuked. No! They would fire back. Iranians are not crazy, they are not going fully wipe out themselves and their whole population. Having nuclear weapons, for them, mean we can't eff them. They have learned the lesson that Bush&Co taught. Have nuclear weapons, we'll leave you alone.

[katty]

80. concur-Iran w/nukes has always been a WH nightmare scenario

[liberal N proud]

3. The real reason is the Dollar and the Oil

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

  

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

[unblock]

5. the currency switch issue is just a sideshow

there's some significance to it, but it's more a marker of larger trends than an momentous event in and of itself.

[lastliberalintexas]

16. Why just a sideshow?

If the rest of the world really does start trading oil in Euros and with the debtload that we currently have, it's very likely that the American dollar collapses. I wouldn't exactly call that a sideshow, but maybe I'm missing something?

[BurtWorm]

22. I'm not doubting you at all, but please explain why it would collapse.

Is it because the euro would only get stronger, making the dollar less attractive to foreign investors, including China...?

[lastliberalintexas]

29. Well, please keep in mind that I am not an economist!

But my understanding of our current situation leads me to believe that the American dollar is only even as strong as it is because of the foreign governments which invest in it due to the fact that petro is traded in dollars. Take away that need for the dollar, and foreign investment all but goes away. Especially since certain foreign governments are already owed a ton of money by the US thanks to the borrow and spend repubs. If it isn't needed by the rest of the world for trade purposes, I just can't see the dollar maintaining any (or very little) strength in world currency markets. But it isn't only because the Euro would get stronger (tho it would), it is because the dollar wouldn't be *needed* by other countries anymore.

Hopefully someone with more economic knowledge can come along and educate us further!

[AngryAmish]

49. The dollar is not propped up solely by petro buying

I say this respectfully but to say our economy is doomed if petroleum is based in euros is foolish and reactionary.

1. We owe a lot of money to many people on the earth. Far east, middle east and europe mostly. They have bought T-Bills mostly. These are not bank loans that they can "call due" whenever they want. They are for a prescribed term of 2, 5, 10 and 30 years mostly. These bonds are payable in dollars. Not euros. Not gold. Dollars and dollars only. So if the dollar devalues those that are owed money will be paid back with dollars that are less valuable then the dollars they lent to us. Crashing the US currency is in no ones interest except, possibly, Americans.

2. If the dollar did indeed crash foreign investment would go up, not down. Our assets would become cheaper (1 euro would buy more dollars.)

It has been the consensus of economists of all stripes that the dollar is overvalued especially v. the Chinese yuan. The Chinese have a fixed exchange rate that they will not lower drastically for internal political questions in China. But the dollar is not going drastically lower.

Check the exchange rates. Is the dollar crashing right now? No. Why? If you know about the Iranian Oil Bourse you can for darn well be sure that currency traders throughout the world know about it also. If one is has an asset (the US dollar) that you believe would be worth less in six month, a year or two wouldn't you sell now while the price is high? And massive selling of the dollar would drive the price lower (except without massive governmental purchase of dollars. This is how George Soros made most of his money - get a market in a currency going down and make the government prop it up). Anyway, the price of the dollar is not going down massively. The folks in the market have decided that the dollar is not crashing.

If you are certain the dollar is crashing (for whatever reason) I would invite you to put your money where your mouth is. Short purchase a dollar future contract for 1-5 years.

[lastliberalintexas]

50. I didn't say that the dollar has crashed

And sorry, I meant a devalued dollar means less foreign investment in the dollar, not in the US economy as a whole.

I also didn't say that the *economy* is doomed if petro trading is converted solely to Euros, though I can't see how it would do the US economy any favors. We import far too much of our energy fuels, and if forced to do so in Euros we'd possibly see the "hyperstagflation" coined by some economist.

The dollar hasn't crashed, and likely won't simply because of the Petro Dollar Wars. We've probably already done enough damage with the Iraq war to prevent the crash that some had said was possible. That doesn't mean that the possibility didn't exist given the Petro Wars or that the dollar is particularly strong right now, either, and the exchange rates do bear that out (esp the Euro, tho it is better now than it was a year ago). The Chinese currency is a different story only because theirs is a command economy, not because of any real strength of the dollar or true weakness of the Yuan.

And gold has reached new highs in recent weeks, so I would speculate that some people are going back to metals rather than risk the potential volatility of the dollar.

[AngryAmish]

53. Alright, which is it

"If the rest of the world really does start trading oil in Euros and with the debtload that we currently have, it's very likely that the American dollar collapses."

or

"The dollar hasn't crashed, and likely won't simply because of the Petro Dollar Wars."

If the dollar devalues it is good for the US. (Our manufacturing becomes cheaper, cheaper for foreign tourists to come here, etc.) Can you name an example when changing the base currency for commodity purchase has ever crashed the base currency?

[lastliberalintexas]

56. Well, I said it likely won't crash now because

the rest of the world likely won't start trading in Euros. I still say we'd have an extreme devaluation IF that were to happen. The fact that the currency markets aren't reacting simply tells me that the switch isn't happening, not that the result of such a switch wouldn't be a dollar crash.

Yes, the old manufacturing line. We have such a small maufacturing sector in our current economy that I just don't buy that. And we're thankfully not at such a low point yet that we'd be able to lure manufacturing jobs back from areas like SE Asia or Central and South America, since we're no where near being able to compete with 2nd and 3rd world wages and their lack of regulations (esp environmental and labor related regs). Yeah, maybe with a true collapse of the dollar we would be able to lure those jobs back, but personally I'd rather not go through that little test to see.

And tourism? Oh joy, we can be like the Caribbean and all work in low wage service jobs taking care of the foreigners who deign to drop their money in our country.

[lectrobyte]

31. Right now, our economy is basically being supported by China and

others acquiring debt and dollars, and home equity. From what I hear, most of the home equity spending is tapped out. If the dollar plunges, what will happen to the cost of that 50% of our energy we import? What will that do to the rest of the economy?

[enid602]

113. Euro

Remember, too that Saddam switched to the Euro a few months before we ivaded Iraq. Not covered in the media.

[LSK]

28. thats the only reason I can think of

And if we had real leaders we would INVENT our way out of a possible mess. Not use war to "fix" the problem.

[Finder]

4. Because if they start using nuclear power...

and keep the oil in the ground, they will have an advantage in a few decades.

[mike_c]

6. Iran is a threat to U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the ME....

A powerful opponent of U.S. foreign policy in the region.

[CJCRANE]

40. It's also a rival to other ME countries

like Saudi Arabia and the other monarchies that do business with the west.

That's why the "War on Terror" is a con, it's not about democracy or stopping those who fund terrorism, it's simply about attacking countries that won't do business with Bushco, smashing them up and selling off the pieces to no-bid contractors.

[FormerDittoHead]

8. "THEY THREATEN TO DESTABILIZE THE REGION!"

:rofl:

[BurtWorm]

21. Hee hee!!

:rofl:

[BillZBubb]

9. Iran is no threat to us, even with nukes.

Without nukes, the suggestion is laughable. Of course with the neocons in charge and the corporate media catapulting the propaganda, you'd think another Pearl Harbor was imminent.

Iran with nukes would be a problem for Israel. Not that Iran would nuke Israel. You are correct that the Iranian right wingers talk big, but in the end they aren't going to start a nuclear confrontation. The real problem will be a powerful Iran creates a "cold war" problem vis a vis Israel. Those two would suffer through a situation like the US and USSR.

There is no justification whatsoever for a US attack on Iran--except in the minds of people who still believe Iraq had WMDs, you know MORONS.

[The Stranger]

11. It is no threat, of course, to the most powerful nation in history.

But maybe you knew that when you posted.

[BurtWorm]

23. Actually, I did suspect that it was not a political or military threat

but I can now see (because of Iran's impending switch to petroeuros from petrodollars) how it might be perceived as a colossal economic threat.

[Phx_Dem]

12. A nuclear Iran

Poses a direct threat to western Europe. I'm not saying ANYONE should invade Iran, the threat can be dealt with through targeted bombing.

[BurtWorm]

24. How would targeted bombing play with the rest of the world?

Of course Israel would probably applaud loudly (or be silent), and Europe would scold us. But I'm more concerned about how the Islamic world would react, and what it would mean for the safety of Americans for the foreseeable future.

What threat does the mere presence of nukes in Iran pose to Western Europe.

So I'm guessing you're rooting for military action--er, I mean, exhausting diplomacy--to deal with the "threat?"

[Phx_Dem]

26. considering that we would be helping Europe

I think they would be OK with it. I'm all for diplomacy, but it's likely not to be sucessful. I don't support Bush like virtually all Dems, but we should not become isolationists just because of the Bush admin.

[BurtWorm]

33. Europe could not publicly support aggression against Iran

without UN sanction. How likely is it that the UN would sanction it?

Isolationism is not the only alternative to Bushist unilateralism, you know.

[Phx_Dem]

35. The Un sec council might sanction it

they are working towards that eventuality little by little.

The neocons have changed the political landscape quite a bit, traditionally Conservatives are isolationists and Liberals are "nation builders". That is why years ago Bush was asked about his support for nation building and he clearly refuted the idea. Unilateralism is a whole different thing.

[BurtWorm]

37. The neocons are not much good at nation building, as Iraq shows.

They're much better at nation-destroying.

I don't believe the UN is moving toward sanctioning aggression against Iran. What's your evidence for that?

[Phx_Dem]

44. the neocons don't have good intentions

that's for sure. The whole reason the UN is talking about Iran and it's nuke program is evidence that something will be done eventually.

[BurtWorm]

51. The real problem is that the United States and Western Europe

are trying to control who does and who doesn't have nukes. It wouldn't be a problem if the world trusted the West's motives, but hundreds of years of colonialism have, unfortunately, eroded whatever trust the West might have once earned.

I think the West is going to have to learn to bend on this.

[Benbow]

82. Europe is not going to - remember Iran's new euro bourse

That will help free the entire world from having to trade oil in petro dollars.

[sutz12]

39. Isolationist?

Isn't making the entire fucking world hate us just a little bit 'isolationist?'

I can't think of a more isolationist policy than what we are currently doing. We need to stop the cowboy 'diplomacy' and start talking to people.

[Phx_Dem]

43. your not understanding the concept

Isolationism is the idea that we should stay out of everyone elses business. Like Father Coughlin during WWII, he thought Europe should go at it alone. He was a fundy nut.

[BurtWorm]

45. Isolationism is no longer an option.

The choice now is between multi- and unilateralism. Unilateralism is the new isolationism, which is why conservative Republicans and neocons back it.

[theobscure]

63. Isolationism is such a red herring....

The idea that a non-interventionist foreign policy would make for an isolationist nation is absurd. What about diplomacy, commerce, academic exchange and cooperation, travel, and a sane, coherent liberal immigration policy? What about involvement in a multi-lateral organizations' efforts in peace-keeping or humanitarian missions?

We have been brainwashed to believe that the United States is the superhero of the world, that we are the only force for good, that we're the only bastion of sanity that keeps the rest of the world from going to hell in a hand basket, and that we are the only one that knows what is best for each individual country in the world and the world as a whole.

It's time that people in this nation, along with the rest of the world, wake up to the fact that we have in aggregate done more harm than good. It is time for people to realize that, despite whatever idealistic notions we as citizens have had about our government's interventions of the past, the only real reason for our interventionist policy is a selfish and nefarious one. We want to rule the world. We want to be viewed as supreme. We want unfettered and inequitable access to the world's resources.

It is catastrophically dangerous to the world's future, not to mention our own, to continue thinking that the only way to be a "player" on the world stage or flourish as a nation is through military intervention and threat.

[Phx_Dem]

67. I care about everyone--not just Americans

"We have been brainwashed to believe that the United States is the superhero of the world, that we are the only force for good, that we're the only bastion of sanity that keeps the rest of the world from going to hell in a hand basket, and that we are the only one that knows what is best for each individual country in the world and the world as a whole."

The US, Canada, parts of Europe and a few others ARE the only places in the world where there are decent wages, workplace safety, civil rights, honest civil servants, concern for the environment, etc. I think we can show many other countries how to improve the lives of their citizens, as a liberal I think it's my duty.


"It's time that people in this nation, along with the rest of the world, wake up to the fact that we have in aggregate done more harm than good."

Don't know if this is true or not, definitely no way to determine.

"We want to rule the world"

say's who? The dems???

[theobscure]

74. sure sounds nice, but...

"The US, Canada, parts of Europe and a few others ARE the only places in the world where there are decent wages, workplace safety, civil rights, honest civil servants, concern for the environment, etc. I think we can show many other countries how to improve the lives of their citizens, as a liberal I think it's my duty."

Well, I should have added to my list of "acceptable interventions", volunteerism and charity. Fair enough. I fail to see though how military intervention does anything to foster the progress and ideals you mention. In fact, we have a history in this country of undermining governments, including democracies, and economies around the world for strictly selfish, materialistic reasons. I also find the belief that we, white Europeans, are the only people in the world capable of discovering progressive values on our own quite arrogant to say the least.




"Don't know if this is true or not, definitely no way to determine."

Once you disassociate from the idea of our inherent supremacy and view the wildly disproportionate progress in the world, it's actually quite easy to make a determination.





"say's who? The dems???"

I somehow recall that dems have had a hand in such interventions as Korea and Vietnam. There is also the all to real, but widely and conveniently ignored here, present reality that Bush's foreign agenda would have been impossible without widespread Democratic Party support, be it tacit or otherwise. Their current hand-wringing does not change the fact that the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act and it's renewal received necessary support from Democrats. The Democrats are also completely on board with the perpetual "war on terror" against a nebulous enemy, quite likely being fought under false pretenses to begin with. I also find it impossible to believe that the United States would be spending more than the rest of the world combined militarily without at least the acquiescence of the Democrats.

To say the Democrats have nothing to do with the destructive interventionist agenda of our country's government (past,present, and future) is either incredibly naive or rank intellectual dishonesty.

[Phx_Dem]

83. Maybe I'm too idealistic

but I really meant what I said. Your right that it's hard to see how military interventions fit in the framework I am suggesting, for me it would be truly a last case scenario.

"In fact, we have a history in this country of undermining governments, including democracies, and economies around the world for strictly selfish, materialistic reasons."

We do have a really bad track record, I agree, but that's no reason to give up, we need to do better.


"I also find the belief that we, white Europeans, are the only people in the world capable of discovering progressive values on our own quite arrogant to say the least."

I see where you are coming from, but the successes we have made here and in Europe are real. Look at the progress in the 3rd world, so called developing counties are not developing, E.G. the same party in Mexico was in power for over 75 years, the big new thing w/Fox has turned out to be more of the same. With free trade there is no incentive for any Government of Mexico to reform it's policies. I think the Mexicans deserve better, and yes, I think us white people can help them do it.


"say's who? The dems???"

"I somehow recall that dems have had a hand in such interventions as Korea and Vietnam. There is also the all to real, but widely and conveniently ignored here, present reality that Bush's foreign agenda would have been impossible without widespread Democratic Party support, be it tacit or otherwise. Their current hand-wringing does not change the fact that the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act and it's renewal received necessary support from Democrats. The Democrats are also completely on board with the perpetual "war on terror" against a nebulous enemy, quite likely being fought under false pretenses to begin with. I also find it impossible to believe that the United States would be spending more than the rest of the world combined militarily without at least the acquiescence of the Democrats.

To say the Democrats have nothing to do with the destructive interventionist agenda of our country's government (past,present, and future) is either incredibly naive or rank intellectual dishonesty. "

Your right, our leaders mostly suck, that's one reason I like DU so much, because the more we are all informed hopefully we will elect more effective leaders.

[theobscure]

86. I guess I still don't see the case you or anyone else has made for

the distinct benefits afforded by military intervention. How then can we object to what Bush and the neo-cons are doing now? They are simply trying to force the medicine of "democracy" down the throats of Iraqis for their own good. I just don't see how this is effective, much less moral.

Perhaps if we wanted to set an example for the world, we would be best to do away with such primitive ideas as war and religion in our own society. Ideas that still hold such sway over our own beliefs and institutions. Just because we (white europeans) generally find ourselves in times where more moderate interpretations of such "neanderthalic" notions are in fashion doesn't preclude us from responsibility for their continued propagation and legitimization (or leave us immune to the very real threat of a return to less enlightened notions, for that matter). It only proves us to be hypocrites.

Let's also keep in mind that white Europeans have not throughout the world's history had the market cornered on progressive views and enlightened ideas. It seems entirely possible to me that our continued intervention by military means could in fact serve as the conduit for our return (regression), rather than their arrival (progression).

[Phx_Dem]

90. military intervention

IMO, to allow Iran to develop a nuke program would not serve our interests or western europes interests. More specifically, if we allowed Iran to build a breeder reactor, which is a necessary step, what do you think the chance is that enriched uranium or plutonium would make it's way to the black market? Considering the multitude of ways it could occur (employee theft, employee corruption, compromised facility mgmt, government corruption etc) I think the odds are very high, that alone IMO is enough justification.


"Let's also keep in mind that white Europeans have not throughout the world's history had the market cornered on progressive views and enlightened ideas. It seems entirely possible to me that our continued intervention by military means could in fact serve as the conduit for our return (regression), rather than their arrival (progression)."


If we continue to suffer under admins like Bush, your right.

[theobscure]

93. well I certainly have to give you credit for having the guts to take...

the position that white Europeans alone have the capacity or inclination for progress and thus can only be trusted with the most precarious technologies. I don't happen to agree with that; but I certainly cannot accuse you of hypocrisy then.

But even if I grant you the premise, I still do not see the usefulness of military intervention. In regard to Iran and nukes, don't we have to acknowledge that we are the ones who let the nuclear genie out of the bottle? Whatever you think of their intellectual and/or psychological capabilities, I think it stands to reason that they, as a child might, are going to want what we have. So wouldn't we be better off dismantling our own nuclear program as a deterrent? Wouldn't that be the more effective tool of persuasion?

It seems to me that militarily punishing them for simply wanting what we have, and proclaim the right to have, is the equivalent of waiving an open cookie jar in front of a child's face for no other purpose than the opportunity to slap their hand away every time they try to reach their hand in the jar. I think it's safe to say that this would hardly be an effective method of child rearing. In fact, it might even be called sadistic and counter-productive. There is every likelihood you are going to end up with a child that is resentful, confused, and prone to unreasonable determination.

What you end up with, is what we have. A perpetual cycle of confrontation and violence, each episode doing nothing but promote the surety there will be a next; a reality hardly conducive to happiness, progress, and prosperity for all but a select few. In light of this, I find it surprising we are all not on the X-Mas card list of the military industrial complex and it's ancillary beneficiaries. But then again, every day is X-Mas for them. They can be forgiven for not knowing which day to send them.

[Benbow]

81. No, you would not be helping Europe - Europe is pretty pro-Arab and

pro-Muslim, especially if they trade petrol in euros.

[Zhade]

88. No one's talking about becoming isolationists.

That's a dishonest strawman on your part.

[Phx_Dem]

94. really?

So doing nothing while a dangerous regime acquires nuclear capability is what again?

[BurtWorm]

95. Who is talking about doing nothing?

Point to a post where someone urges the US to do nothing.

You're positing a false dichotomy between military assault and isolationism. No one is arguing for isolationism.

[Phx_Dem]

99. This is pretty close to the attitude I am referring to

"It's time that people in this nation, along with the rest of the world, wake up to the fact that we have in aggregate done more harm than good. It is time for people to realize that, despite whatever idealistic notions we as citizens have had about our government's interventions of the past, the only real reason for our interventionist policy is a selfish and nefarious one. We want to rule the world. We want to be viewed as supreme. We want unfettered and inequitable access to the world's resources."


For all the people who think Iran can be trusted w/nukes, I wonder in what scenario do you think military intervention is justified?

[BurtWorm]

100. Unilateral intervention is never, ever justified.

There should never be an instance of a nation taking it upon itself without consultation with other nations to invade another nation militarily. Any such intervention is an act of aggression, even if it is allegedly intended to prevent or pre-empt an attack on itself.

Multilateral intervention may be justified if its object is to protect civilian lives imminently or immediately in danger of violence by a state or entity within a nation that the state cannot or will not confront itself. Imminent should be understood to mean beyond reasonable doubt about to occur.

[Phx_Dem]

103. Beg to differ

"There should never be an instance of a nation taking it upon itself without consultation with other nations to invade another nation militarily. Any such intervention is an act of aggression, even if it is allegedly intended to prevent or pre-empt an attack on itself. "

I agree that there should not ever be a reason for unilateralism (in other words other nations would understand the situation) , but hypothetically speaking there certainly could be reasons for unilateralism.


"Multilateral intervention may be justified if its object is to protect civilian lives imminently or immediately in danger of violence by a state or entity within a nation that the state cannot or will not confront itself. Imminent should be understood to mean beyond reasonable doubt about to occur."

Agree with you there.

[BurtWorm]

111. Unilateralism to me means acting on your own interests, regardless

of the opinions of other countries. Take the Iraq war as the model of a unilateral action pretending to be multilateral. Israel's approach is another such model. Unilateralism fails creates many more problems than it solves because it is blind to all but its own ends.

[Zhade]

102. "Doing nothing" - ANOTHER dishonest strawman on your part.

NT!

[Phx_Dem]

104. OK Zhade, how about nearly nothing?

NT!

[Zhade]

105. Well, at least that's an honest question.

Of course, I'd have to ask you what you think should be done, and what constitutes 'nearly nothing' to you.

I submit that not rushing to war over trumped-up maybes about Iran's potential, future might-have-nukes-in-ten-years situation is in fact doing something very smart.

[LSK]

32. why the hell would Iran threaten Europe???

:wtf:

[CJCRANE]

46. A) Europe can do its own dirty work.

B) Blowback in the form of increased terrorism would hit Europe first. The Middle East is Europe's back yard (geographically speaking), that's why most Europeans aren't too keen on blasting the place up.

[cliss]

14. Here's the real reason, Burt.

Back in the 70's, we installed a puppet dictator in Iran. He was the Shah of Iran, of the Reza Pahlavi family. He sat on the Peacock throne. In 1979, there was a revolution and they threw him out.

The new leader, Ayatollah Khomeini became the new leader and threw that country back about 2,000 years in terms of fundamentalist religion.

We lost that country, and we have never gotten over it.

All the other Gulf countries are U.S. surrogates. Iran is now the ONLY country that opposes the US.

And that drives Washington crazy.

To make matters worse, Saudi Arabia which has had the largest oil deposits, is now running dry. There is a chance that IRAN, and not IRAQ has the world's #1 supply of oil.

[bloom]

15. AIPAC considers it to be a threat.

Iran is not a threat to the US.

The only "threat" I can even think of is if one thinks we should be able to get all of the oil we want on our own terms - but that isn't a "threat".


It may be what all the "wild speculation" is about though. If they speculate wildly enough - I suppose they expect to get their way.

[Phx_Dem]

19. It's a threat to our allies n/t

[Zhade]

89. Prove it.

NT!

[catmandu57]

17. As I understand it

The Iranians are growing tired of the religiously insane, just as we here are. The majority of Iranians are just like people here, they go to work, raise families, are just as moral as people here.
The wheel is turning, I hope both we and they can run these insane fuckers from our governments before they do something that will fuck the entire world.

[BurtWorm]

20. I suspect (or just hope, maybe) that Ahmadinejad is the revolution's

last hurrah. I'll never forget how regular Iranians expressed sympathy for the US after 9/11. Also, in Risen's State of War, he mentions that the Iranian government was a secret ally of the Bush admin in the early days of the Afghanistan war. At a risk to their own credibility and reputation among other Middle Eastern powers, they sealed their border to keep the Taliban from crossing it. And they were apparently rooting for the US to invade Iraq, because they wanted Saddam gone even worse than the US did.

[bdamomma]

54. Iranians are just like us

this country is no threat to the US, this administration/regime is the biggest threat to everyone.

damn these people.

[Skidmore]

25. Iran will fight to the last man.

That's why they are a threat. As for Ahmadinejad being full of bluster and crap, so is * and that hasn't stopped him from acting rashly. I'm more concerned about our very own homegrown pile of bluster and crap. We may very well have arrived at Armageddon.

[CJCRANE]

47. They will only fight

to the last man if they are attacked.

[bdamomma]

61. we will be at

Armageddon if we don't start fighting back these maniacs in DC.

[tn-guy]

30. Are you being naive? In a word, yes.

BurtWorm,

Ask yourself how you would feel if Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were in charge of a country that was acquiring nuclear weapons and they had expressed a divinely sanctioned mission to eliminate "Godless Communism" in Cuba.

The mullahs that rule Iran make any DU-ers most frightening caricature of Falwell/Robertson look like Mary Poppins. How long after Iran has the capability will they attempt to launch a nuclear jihad on Israel? I just don't think that would be a good thing.

[BurtWorm]

34. tn-guy, we have something like what you're suggesting right now.

Its name is Bush.

Your take on the mullahs sounds like a caricature to me. They're not what they once were when the fire of revolution was hot and the Ayatollah was alive.

[tn-guy]

57. Caricature or not, you decide

Check out the stories here and here. Then tell me if you still think my characterization is a caricature. I can point you to other stories if you like or you can try Google yourself.

[BurtWorm]

64. I wouldn't want to live there.

Even as despicable as their policy toward gays and lesbians is, it is not all that out of the ordinary for the non-Western world. It's medieval, certainly, but Europe was medieval at one time. And this is not to excuse Iran, just to point out that they're not acting "crazy" (by which is usually meant, 'unpredictable').

While visiting one of your links, I found this forum on Iran from the Sunday Telegraph. I agree with the calmer voices:


http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6537

The Sunday Telegraph

Prof Paul Rogers, the author of the Oxford Research Group's report on Iran:
"There is a real probability of military conflict. The immediate consequence could do serious damage to Iran's nuclear programme, but that would be deceptive. The Americans do not have the troops for a regime change and an attack would strengthen the Iranian regime, spark another oil crisis and could encourage the Iranians to go hell for leather for nuclear weapons."

Dr Rosemary Hollis, the research director at the Chatham House think-tank:
"There is so much opposition that I don't see an attack as imminent."

Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board from 2001 to 2003:
"Whether Iran's nuclear weapons programme ends with a whimper or a bang is up to the Iranians. If the UN does its job, by blocking Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, it may be possible to avoid a more kinetic solution."

Dr Olivia Bosch, a former weapons inspector in Iraq:
"The rhetoric is disproportionate to the capability that Iran has."

Alex Vatanka, the US security editor for Jane's Information Group:
"The situation is not urgent."

Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran:
"I do not agree with foreign military intervention. However, if the international community and the Security Council hesitate in adopting a firm policy on Iran, the regime would obtain the only thing it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, namely time. Then we would be facing an Islamic fundamentalist regime, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, armed with nuclear weapons. This would make war inevitable."

[tn-guy]

78. Well, we've wandered far afield, but......

I'll accept your characterization of the Iranian government as medieval. That's as good a description as any for the mindset of the current rulers there. That's why I think nuclear weapons in their hands is a very dangerous development. Would you sleep well with any medieval-level government as a nuclear power? I certainly won't.

[BurtWorm]

79. I sleep fairly well, even with Bushboy, Cheney and Rumsfeld

in charge of our arsenal. Are you losing sleep over North Korea's nukes? Or China's? Or Pakistan's? Or Israel's?

Something about the way the US deals with this issue doesn't give me confidence that you'll be sleeping well ever again. ;)

[tn-guy]

96. Sleep status

Actually China and Israel don't bother me all that much as I consider their leadership to be fairly rational. They don't want to see a nuclear armageddon. Pakistan is in a similar state although to a lesser degree. I will be very nervous when N. Korea has the ability to actually deliver a nuclear weapon, since that country is ruled by an unstable nut-case. Iran worries me for the same reason, I don't think the mullahs have a totally rational world-view.

I don't worry about the U.S. arsenal because despite all the overheated rhetoric one hears at DU, Bush is also reasonably rational and would not unleash nuclear weapons under anything but armageddon-like circumstances.

[BurtWorm]

98. Few leaders have a totally rational world view.

A couple of articles you might find interesting, if you're interested in learning more about what Iran is all about. The first gives an impression of the range of Iranian society, from the "grandchildren of the revolution" to the imams of Qum:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18390

The second is an appraisal of the political situation in Iran now. It's a more nuanced analysis than Americans are used to on the subject:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18935

As the Bush administration sees it, the main "underlying issue" is that Iran's fanatical and unpopular regime is secretly trying to build a bomb with which to threaten Israel and other countries. Only by asserting the possibility of sanctions or preventive war —the "meaningful consequences" to which Dick Cheney has referred—can the US and other influential nations stop this from happening. This reading of the Islamic Republic's position is misleading, however. First, it ascribes to a fractured and secretive state a transparency of intent and an ideological rigidity that it does not have. Second, it absolves the US of any responsibility for Iran's refusal to abandon its ambitions to have a fuel cycle, and of any obligation to use diplomatic means to persuade its leaders to change their mind.<7>

The Iranians' ability to behave with startling pragmatism was first displayed during the Iran-contra scandal of 1986, when they were found to be cooperating with their American enemies to buy arms from Israel, whose right to exist they contested. After the death three years later of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranians developed relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom that Khomeini himself had loathed. The Iranians also indicated that they would take no action to implement the death sentence that Khomeini had passed on Salman Rushdie. After the attacks on America of September 11, Iran provided valuable support for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and for the new Afghan government.

Iran's enmity toward Israel is more nuanced than Ahmadinejad's statements suggest. The President's declarations that Israel should be "wiped off the map," and that the Holocaust is a "myth," understandably aroused fears that Iran might be considering an attack on Israel. But Iran's senior civilian and military officials have insisted that Iran will strike Israel only if Israel strikes first.<8> More significantly, the President and supreme leader have both reiterated Iran's longstanding demand for a referendum on the status of Israel that would involve all Palestinian refugees. This official position would not seem to be consistent with an ambition to destroy Israel by force, least of all by using nuclear arms, which would endanger the very Palestinians whom the Iranians claim to be protecting. Several senior Iranian officials, including Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president who heads a powerful arbitration council in Tehran, have not disguised their irritation with the President's comments. But Ahmadinejad has benefited from the furor. By raising his prestige among hard-line Islamists around the world, the President has made it harder for his domestic opponents, who include Rafsanjani, to undermine him.

Iran's nuclear crisis centers on the Islamic Republic's ambitions and fears, and these are hard to identify when we consider the largely hidden decision-making process in Iran, where an elected president and parliament are subservient to an unelected supreme leader and other appointed bodies. All are in competition with one another and it is hard to know exactly how decisions are made. Seeking clues, one could do worse than review the deterioration in relations between Iran and the US since early 2002, when Bush included the Islamic Republic in his "axis of evil." At the time, I was told by Iranians connected to the clerical elite that this speech had convinced Iran's leaders that Bush intended to bring down the Islamic Republic. Iranian insecurities were subsequently heightened by the American invasion of Iraq, even though it got rid of one of Iran's worst enemies—and by the US's stated ambition to democratize the Middle East.

[Bridget Burke]

59. So--WHEN will Iran have nukes?

Several years is the absolute minimum I've heard.

And we've got a crazier guy in charge here--if you count those killed in his illegal wars.

[carolinalady]

36. as long as we are talking about Iran we are not talking about

Iraq. And if we are talking about Iran, it sure makes it easier to believe that it is all their fault that we are not winning in Iraq. Make sense?

[sweetheart]

38. All uppity slaves must be slapped down

humble before the man and his pretentious god,
bow down and say your prayers little heathen,
look at what we did for you, you should applaud,
all those dead people you don't have to feed, even.

Get down on your knees woman, accept your place,
Accept your devious nature second to your superior man,
and all nonpure racial persons, must know the grace,
of the big man's boot, its his prison, so he can.

Get your head down, humble plantation slave,
shackled to long frozen mindstates un-present,
dissonant enmatrix'ed to be a wallmart "Dave",
cut off from the spirit, conscience's idyl event.

Lift up off thy knees, slave, swallow the man's gun,
feed the war machine, "Dave", You can no longer run.

[noonwitch]

41. If they have nukes they are a threat-crazy mullahs shouldn't have them

They are a threat to Israel. The leaders of Iran have stated repeatedly that they'd like to wipe Israel off the map. I don't like everything that the Israelis do, but I do support their right to exist. If they were to use a nuke on Israel they would also be killing the Palestineans that they claim to be supporting.

Israel is our ally. We protect our allies, plain and simple. I think Iran with a nuke is a far more dangerous threat to the region and the world than Iraq under Saddam ever was. The religious leadership is insane there.

The best thing we can do is find a way to get the Iranians to get rid of their current government and help them start a democratic one after that. Failing that, we should let the Israeli's precision bomb their nuke factories and back them up in the world community when they get condemned by the UN for their actions.

[BurtWorm]

42. Why think they're acquiring weapons to use them aggressively?

Do you think thjey don't know Israel has weapons? Why assume they're not trying to get themselves into a position of MAD with Israel and the US?

[The Stranger]

58. What makes you think the Iranian government isn't democratic?

They support these "crazy mullahs." Maybe not all of them, but many, many of them. Much like the Palestinians support Hamas and Americans support Bush. This is the result of democracy. The question isn't how to make them stop supporting these leaders, but to find out why they support these types of leaders, and address those sets of issues.

Trying to "remove" their leaders only makes them angrier. And another leader soon comes along. What is required is a fundamental shift in policy in that region of the world and, even more fundamentally, how Iranians are viewed.

The answers may not be very comforting. But the very fact that someone on this web site would propose another nation bombing them and then backing that nation in the world community reveals a very, very deep-seated and serious problem regarding how Iranians are viewed, even here on a Progressive board.

[jseankil]

60. Well if you look at how their government is setup you'll see they are not.

The non-elected Guardian Council can veto any law, they decide who can run in elections and who cannot. Iran simply is not Democratic.

[The Stranger]

68. My bet is that the "Guardian Council" has the support of the people.

It may be more of a theocracy, but certainly the leadership is not so completely out of step with their people that they exist solely by rule of the iron fist.

The problem may be that they are Islamic theocrats, and the Christian theocrats are hopelessly focused on them, to the exclusion of all other problems in the world and possibly at the expense of the world.

[Bridget Burke]

62. The Iranians have voted for saner leaders....

But sabre rattling & ultra-conservative religion go hand in hand--it works here. Establishing peaceful relations with Iran is the best thing we could do to encourage the saner Iranians. I know several Iranians who have no love for the current regime. But they go home for visits & have relatives over there. They want better times--not a war.

We overthrew an Iranian government to install the Shah. And we've been so good at installing a democratic government in Iraq.

I share your dismay at those who blithely recommend pre-emptive bombing. Oh, the attacks will be "surgical." They need to spend some time in an OR.

[Poiuyt]

48. I asked myself this question about Iraq in 2003

Even if they do have WMD, why does that mean we have to bomb/invade them? Unless they show that they are about to use them, we have no right to invade a sovereign country. Why are certain countries allowed to have WMD and others are not?

These are rhetorical questions. I know the real answer.

[MadHound]

52. Iran is absolutely no threat to the US

Even if they have a nuke, they don't have the launch platform to get it over here. If they try to ship it over here, stay sneaking the thing in on a commercial flight, whoever the courier is would be either dead or dying by the time they get here.

The biggest threat of Iran military wise is towards Israel, and frankly, at this point in time Israel has the means to deal with this problem on their own.

The only other threats from Iran is in the oil markets, and providing aid for Iraqi insurgents.

Other than that, they are no threat whatsoever.

Go back and read your PNAC, this isn't about dealing with ME "threats". This is establishing US hegemony over ME oil, Iraq, Iran, Syria. We are fighting this war because oil is quickly becoming an ever scarcer resource, and the US oil barons want to stake their claim to the last of the easy to get to light sweet crude. Heaven forbid that we do the real American thing, inovate and adapt so that we no longer need oil:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Because the bosses tell us it is. Now, shut up and wave a flag.

[Emit]

65. I read this piece last night

Posted here at DU on another thread.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00116.htm

It's a great piece, concise and sufficiently crass, that addresses some of the same concerns you have.

Re: your comment here, "As for Ahmadinejad, I think he's full of bluster and shit, like right wingers everywhere. I'm not well-versed enough in Iranian politics to know how he got elected, but I'm guessing his support is very concentrated and not particularly broad. Of course if you want to broaden his support, you couldn't pick a better route than bombing his country..."


From the link:

Stop and think back five years. What did we have five years ago? A moderate reformist Iranian government making overtures to the United States, rebuilding its relationship with Europe, liberalizing its society, and modernizing its economy.

9/11 comes along, the Iranians are overflowing with sympathy. Mass candlelit vigils are held in Tehran. Iran offers aid and cooperation.

~snip~

And what happens? The Bush administration rebuffs every Iranian overture and does its best to instigate a cold war. Afghanistan is invaded, and suddenly, the Iranians are looking at American troops and allies on their eastern border. Then Iraq is invaded, and American troops and allies on their western border. Then bases and treaties in Uzbekistan, and whoops, there's more American troops and allies on the northern border. The Persian Gulf is filled with American warships and carrier fleets.

Now the Iranians are surrounded. And the tough talk is constant. Iran is part of the 'Axis of Evil' and Americans tell each other "Baghdad, humph, real men go to Tehran." Essentially, America has been threatening military action against Iran for the last five years, and has surrounded the country on every side with troops, bases and allies.

~snip~

So, the Mullahs are concerned that they're faced with a homicidal crazy state, the Iranian people are scared. When people are scared and faced with an aggressive warmongering power which keeps threatening to attack them, continually trespasses on its borders and is undertaking economic warfare... who the hell are they going to elect? Ahminajad may be a crazy bastard, but you assholes, you utter assholes did every thing you could to elect him short of donating 50,000 Diebold machines and mailing his party the trapdoor codes.

[BurtWorm]

66. Excellent piece!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:


Thanks for that! :toast:

[Emit]

69. Isn't though?

But, I have to give credit where credit is due. I found the original DUer who posted it, althecat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=899371&mesg_id=899371

Personally, I think it should be made into a post of it's own with a 'sexier' title, don't cha' think? In his OP, I was confused at first as to what article he was referring to. The whole thread got kinda' buried.

Anyway, more people need to read this and pass it on. It's great.

[BurtWorm]

71. Yes, it does deserve its own thread.

Someone should post it and tip their hat to althecat. It looks like it was originally a TPM Cafe commentary.

[Emit]

72. I'll do just that. TX. N/T

[slackmaster]

73. Iran's leader is a full-blown bat shit crazy anti-Semite

:nuke:

[Emit]

75. So that's a reason to bomb or even invade them? n/t

[slackmaster]

76. I don't believe I have ever said or written anything of the kind

:dunce:

It does however make the country more of a threat to us than, say, Tonga.

[BurtWorm]

77. I wonder how much power he actually has.

Rafsanjani was always constrained by the mullahs. Of course, this guy is one of the original non-clerical revolutionaries, so perhaps the mullahs don't want to contrain him. But he may be more for show? I don't really know how Iranian politics works. Is he also constrained by a parliament?

[killbotfactory]

92. He also wouldn't have control over any nukes Iran manages to build

He won over the moderates because we keep threatening Iran.

[Vidar]

84. No threat at all to us & Israel can more than handles themselves.

[shance]

85. It's just another manufactured war where Dick Cheney and Halliburton

become mega richer so they can hire military troops from elsewhere to eventually take over this country.

[Zhade]

87. "Can anyone make a convincing argument"

Nope, because such an argument doesn't exist.

[killbotfactory]

91. Iran is a threat without nukes, if we attack them

According to NPR, every war game scenario we have tried against Iran, after an aerial assault, ends in a complete clusterfuck bordering of WWIII proportions.

They have a right to nuclear technology, under the NPT. If we attack them, we will violate that agreement, leaving them free to pursue all the nuclear weapons they want.

If they actually get a nuke, it means that we can't force a military "regieme change" upon them. That's pretty much it. If they ever attempted to use one against another nation, whether through a terrorist smuggling operation (yeah, right) or some kind of missle attack, we would have no problem turning their country into a radioactive wasteland.

The only sane way to end this is through diplomacy, which Bush thinks is weakness. So we are pretty much fucked.

[SPKrazy]

97. Iran Is More Of A Threat Than Iraq Was

but iran isn't much of a direct threat at all

they do probably harbor terrorists, and are supporters of hezbollah

they do probably have chemical and biological weapons

they are working on nukes but are nowhere near ready

they do have a fanatical leader who wants to wipe Israel off the map

but all in all, they are only a minimal threat now. they may become a greater threat in the future.

they have become a threat at all only due to *'s asinine policies.

[Beelzebud]

101. Because the Bush Crime Family says so!

[Emit]

106. BurtWorm, thought you might be interested in this NPR clip

I posted this on another thread, but thought it relates to some of your questions here.

This week, Washington's attention turned toward Iran, and vice versa. There were news reports that the White House is considering plans to attack Iran should that country proceed with its nuclear ambitions. The president calls it wild speculation.

Guests:

Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment for Peace

Michael Rubin, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338707


It's all very complicated, and when listening to this, keep in mind that regime change in Iran has been a goal of many neoconservatives for many years now. Also, take into consideration when you listen who Michael Rubin is. According to rightweb:

Michael Rubin is one of the youngest neoconservative figures to gain prominence within the George W. Bush administration. A Yale graduate whose dissertation focused on modern Iran, Rubin has traveled extensively in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan. (1)

Rubin, an AEI scholar, was involved in several meetings and conferences officiated by Douglas Feith and Harold Rhode at AEI as part of the Bush transition team. One of the objectives of these meetings was to reshape the top leadership at the Pentagon, sidelining or removing those who were regarded as moderates. Out of these discussions came the idea for the creation of the Office of Special Plans (OSP). (10)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1345

Just before the break, Joseph Cirincione, the guy from Carnegie Endowment for Peace, asked Rubin a very pointed question about regime change (whether this stuff going on is about the nukes or regime change) and then he mentions that AEI has had a desire for regime change in Iran in order to change the geopolitics in the area. After the break, Rubin responds and tries to spin the questions saying something like, "Well, I don't know where that came from..."

I think it is really important that we look at this Iran thing from a historical perspective involving the neoconservatives. I had read these articles recently (also posted on the other thread but relates here, too) that discuss, among other things, the neocons' history with regime change in Iran:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1114/

Is Iran Next?
The Pentagon neocons who brought you the war in Iraq have a new target
By Tom Barry


and

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8778

Neocons Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks With Iran

by Gareth Porter

[BurtWorm]

112. Thanks, Emit.

This is a lot to digest. When I get some time I will look into it. It looks like very interesting material.

:toast:

[leesa]

107. They weren't doing a damned thing to anyone before Bush started

threatening them. They have been in a position of HAVING to respond and they have to do it with bravado. They were minding their own business when the First Fool called them the Axis of Evil and started to threaten them with bombs and nukes. Just like Iraq, they hadn't done ANYTHING to anyone outside of their borders for 12 years and then the neocon idiots attacked them.

[Emit]

108. Wow. Something else

related to that last post I made above. I noticed on that NPR interview that when Rubin did make his response to the other guy, he kept saying "our" when he was saying Iran needs to bring all issues to the table. I thought, "our?" what is he thinking "our" when he's with the AEI? He kept sounding like Iran had to follow his plan or AEI's plan.

Then, I just read this info:

But on August 27, when CBS broke the story that the FBI was close to arresting an alleged “Israeli mole” in the office of the Pentagon’s No. 3 official, Douglas Feith, it became clear that Franklin was in trouble. News reports said that the FBI had evidence that Franklin had passed a classified draft national-security presidential directive (NSPD) on Iran to AIPAC.

~snip~

The classified document that Franklin allegedly passed to AIPAC concerned a controversial proposal by Pentagon hard-liners to destabilize Iran. The latest iteration of the national-security presidential directive was drafted by a Pentagon civilian and avid neocon, Michael Rubin, who hoped it would be adopted as official policy by the Bush administration. But in mid-June, Bush’s national-security advisers canceled consideration of the draft, partly in response to resistance from some at the State Department and the National Security Council, according to a recent memo written by Rubin and obtained by The American Prospect. No doubt also contributing to the administration’s decision was the swelling insurgency and chaos of postwar Iraq.

Cont'd here:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:p7bTWuXNtKoJ:www.prospect.org/web/page.ww%3Fsection%3Droot%26name%3DViewPrint%26articleId%3D8764+Lawrence+Franklin+National+Security+Presidential+Directive+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Two points of interest, among many others I suppose, really.

First: Don't you just love how people who are directly involved with Bush & Co. are presented on news shows without devulging their ties and prejudices, or even being asked about them by the interviewers/reporters? Reminds me of how Fox uses Bill Kristol all the time. Now we have Rubin here debating this Iran thing when he himself drafted the original national-security presidential directive proposal on Iran.

Second, notice, too, how this whole neocon Iran regime change is yet again tied into Franklin/AIPAC, etc. which ties into the Valerie Plame/forged Uranium documents.

Anyway, just food for thought.

[stop the bleeding]

109. WOW - Emit - Larry Franklin shows his ugly head again - KICK, KICK!!!

the NPR interviews I missed :( which is weird cause I listen to about 1-2 hours of NPR a day, so much news so little time.

[stop the bleeding]

110. Larisa

has been saying this as well in a number of interviews and articles.

I think that Iran, Iraq, and Syria have been thier targets all a long

BC - Before Clinton