The Radical Christian Right?

Oh, have you ever heard of a Radical etcetera that doesn't want Iran's mullahs decorating lampposts? At least a little bit?

1 August 2005 : According to The American Conservative (by Patrick Buchanan) : Cheney’s staff is now planning a nuclear attack against Iran that would follow an important attack against the USA (like 911). The responsible of this program is Ralph E. Eberhart (already responsible of air defence (NORAD) during the 911 : Thanks to this « succes » he was named chief commandant of the Northcom).

Imagination or reality ?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CE0E9957EA.htm

Iran's President calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map":

I think we should give the Isrealites a good part of Oregon. Then, they'd be safe and Oregon might get a little much needed culture.

We've basically given them New York--more Jews already live in NY than in all of Israel. Arguments of who's right or wrong aside, I think the Israelis should just get the hell out of there. But then again, I don't require specific land, buildings, or symbols to support my faith.

This is what happens when you sleep under a rock for 25 years.

Iran has been attempting to join the nuclear community since the early 70s. And one can hardly blame them since it was common knowlege in privileged circles that the US had long since quietly ushered Isreal into the nuclear age by then.

By 1977, The Shah of Iran had grown weary of waiting for the US to usher Iran into the nuclear community so the Shah, fiercely loyal to the US up to that point, had no choice but to turn to our cold-war adversary, the USSR for help in building a nuclear arsenal. And the dominos were set into motion.

Enter the CIA (who all but issued the blindfolds).

Exit the Shah.

Enter the now-empowered Ayatollah.

Fast forward to 2005.

"Iran's and Korea's nuclear self-sufficiency is W's fault."

Now, if you want to assign the blame for instability in the middle east on the United States then we have a basis for healthy and interesting discussion and debate. But if you want to lay Iran's and NK's nuclear ambitions and current capability at the feet of George Bush, then I'm inclined to recommend that you augment your basis for forming an opinion of world politics on something other than NPR's Morning Edition.

If you want to blame a US president for both Iran's nuclear power grab cloaked under the guise of a self-deterministic Islamic jihad against the west and North Korea's unapologetic, self-empowering nuclear ambitions then blame Jimmy Carter - a key player in both - long before conservative power brokers even considered a perpetually drunk W as an easily manipulatable figurehead for the advancement of neoCon policy.

George W. Bush, while perhaps the most incompetent president in U. S. history, inherited a world where both Iran and NK are nuclear capable. Notwithstanding his role as a conduit for a reconstituted Pope Urban II model of world politics, putting the blame on W for NK and Iran's current nuclear capability is at best laughable and at worst doomed to repeat by propogating the idea that those who oppose it are responsible for it while issuing get-out-of-being-responsible cards to the weak-minded enablers who were either too naieve or too gutless to nip it in the bud when they had the chance. Bill Clinton, while hardly responible either, does not get a pass from the history books for looking the other way for eight long years while Iran and NK were unmistakebly taking giant steps towards arming themselves with atomic weapons.

So, let's all blame George. How is this position materially different from George's embarassingly simplistic view and and equally simplistic prescription for a solution?

W isn't the source of the problem, he's a sympton of the problem. The voters who elected the administrations who allowed this situation to fester and develop with their placating policies of carrot-but-no-stick are as much to blame for the current state of affairs as the voters who elected W in a desperate attempt to do something about it.

I'll take my share of the blame. Will you?

Iran "took it back" after the security council and almost all major governments condemned their statements:
But not all the way back:

Does that include the USA? :right:

Nihilism is in.
 

Let Iran attack Israel. Israel responds, and then maybe one thing leads to another and we've got a whole lot of new glowing glass. Then we slant-drill for less-radioactive oil from the nearest upwind area.

Israel isn't first on their list.

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com...seen-this.html

I could care less if Iran has nuclear bombs. Merely having them does not make them a threat to us. It seems these days the only way America won't invade another country without justifiable cause is if they actually have nukes. Neither Iran, or any other nation on earth requires the permission of America or the UN to develop any weapons they choose.

Here's another view of Iran. It may surprize you. :dunce:

I've just seen an Iranian calligraphy exposure.

It was beautiful, graceful and peaceful.

Quite cool to forget nuclear threat, sometimes.

[quote=tw]Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.[quote]

ok. in my opinion...

because there are already nuclear powers in the world, other nations are automatically going to follow with their own nuclear weapons programs. as a leader of a nation in a world run by nuclear powers, it is only logical to arm yourself in defense of nuclear attack, especially when the power seeking unilateral hegemony has shown in the past it is not shy about using WMD; if we continue to raise the bar, other nations will only try to catch up. it's an arms race. if China developed a weapon that could control a localized black hole, we would undoubtly develop one ourselves, and iran, n korea, and others would follow as they desire to "play ball" with the world powers.

now, america has only recently complicated this by introducing the pre-emptive strike against iraq. If a nation can attack another nation on false intelligence and the UN allows it to happen without consequence, then it follows that ANY nation could by the same standards attack another nation and legally get away with it.

so, exponential arms race + unilateral hegemonous nuclear power + weak diplomatic communications between nations + new pre-emptive strike policy = ?