Iran's Nuclear Plans
 

The Israeli PM challenged us (in his most recent UN address), to "draw a red line" where Iran must stop their effort to create more enriched Uranium, or face military attacks to force them to stop.

We've had several years of economic sanctions designed to stop this, but that clearly hasn't done the job. According to some, they'll have enough material for a nuclear bomb, by some time next year.

The Iranians say they will NOT be stopping their enrichment, and I believe them. Will they go on to make nuclear weapons? No one knows.

Despite smart bombs, there would be thousands killed if an attack was made. Mostly Iranians at or near the nuclear processing sites, but some civilians and military personnel on both sides, also.

Wouldn't that move both sides towards more war? Historically, it has had just that effect, on bombed countries.

Do you believe we should "draw a red line" as described in the UN speech by the Israeli PM, and if we do draw such a line, and it is crossed, what should we do then?

I realize "bomb them into the stone age", is one approach, but I'm looking for more sensible suggestions.

What do you think?

To be clear - do we think the Iranians have no right to defend themselves?

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

We should not publicly "draw a red line". That ties our hands if Iran calls our bluff and gives them time to prepare for an attack.

For right now, keep the status quo and be willing to make a deal with the Iranian regime. Our current sanctions are crippling the Iranian economy, especially the Revolutionary Guards, and many Iranians are VERY upset with the regime. We have people monitoring Iranian nuclear facilities so we will know if they make a run for the bomb. We are basically trying to break them before they get too close for comfort.

If Iran gets the bomb, there is a very small chance they will actually use it but may become much bolder in supporting their proxies throughout the world. As much as neoconservatives talk, the Iranian regime is a rational one. The CIA recognizes this and the Israeli equivalent recognizes this. If they get the bomb, they will likely act just as North Korea and Pakistan did, which BTW are much more unstable regimes, and protect it all costs. They will not give their special toy away. Remember, we don't trust politicians in this country. What makes us think that Iranian politicians are any more truthful?

However, Iran getting the bomb is against US national interests. I have confidence we will do something if they get too close but no one knows what we are planning. My top guesses are a bombing campaign against the nuclear facilities or a very nasty cyberwarfare campaign. BTW, we are at (cyber) war with Iran right now.

Agreed. We made an obligation to help protect Israel from attack, not support if they are going on the offensive.

Israel is believed to have a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Bombing nuclear facilities could lead to ... consequences.

Why the heck should the west care so much? Oh yeah, oil. So instead of spending another trillion dollars on another middle-east war, spend a trillion dollars on converting our industry to solar-hydrogen power. We could, like, leave them alone. Forever.

George Jr announced the axis of evil: countries that America would unilaterally attack with no justification. Then George Jr attacks Iraq. What do the other 'axis of evil' do? They better damn well better have nuclear weapons. So both nations divert major efforts into getting those weapons.

Also as a result of George Jr's threat: Ahmadinejad, a hard liner, is overwhelmingly elected (by over 60%) as president of Iran. So America got the 'axis of evil' it wanted. Welcome to inevitable consequences a decade later.

Nothing new. Actually quite predictable. These consequences were discussed what - maybe nine years ago in the Cellar?

I say we take them at their word, they are not developing nuclear weapons.

Then in a couple of years, if they should end up with nuclear weapons we crush their nuts in a vice. I'd bet we would get lots of support for using the vice.

More relevant is what is required to justify a war. Because those basic rules were violated, then Vietnam was a massive defeat. Because the US stayed out of WWII until those conditions were met, then the victory was massive. Becauase those rules were violated, the US wasted thousands of American soldiers and $trillions on Mission Accomplished for no gain.

Netanyahu is justifying war by violating basic concepts. His niave and extremist rhetoric also explained an Israeli disaster in their last Lebanon invasion. And explains a resulting disaster for Israel if he unilaterally "Pearl Harbors" Iran.

First requirement to justify war: a smoking gun. An attack on Iran can only be justified by a smoking gun such as the WTC or Pearl Harbor. Unilaterally attacking justified only by fear is what backwater dictatorships, wacko extremists, and losers do.

By war do you mean war, or war-war?

War and Peace. Maybe I should recommend the book? Then Netanyahu would be too busy reading. Too busy to make more enemies for Israel.

No I mean there are certainly various degrees of "war" today. So, Bosnian war: was NATO's introduction justified, in your view?

No one is threatening Iran, beyond their nuclear program. Iraq won't be going to war with them anytime soon, for sure. Iran has huge influence there. Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia, will not attack Iran either, EXCEPT over the nuclear enrichment program.

If the Iranians weren't so bellicose and threatening to wipe out <some nation>, then I don't believe Iran would have any problems going nuclear - including weaponry.

Lots of other countries have gone nuclear, and while we don't like the spread of nuclear weapons, we haven't gone to war over it.

I'd have to say that Netanyahu is *responding* to the playground instigator - which is Iran. Being repeatedly told that you will be "wiped off the face of the earth, and oh by the way - we're enriching uranium", by Muslims, is bound to have that effect on anyone. Especially Israeli's, who have borne the brunt of years of Iranian sponsored terrorism.

The ONLY thing that REALLY irritates me about the Israeli's, is their insistence upon using spy's on us. I know it's common as a cloudy day for nations to spy on each other, but I'd dock them a million dollars of foreign aid for every spying incident against us - permanently. That is such a "biting the hand that feeds you" kind of thing, and a damn insult.

Although there are improved Minuteman anit-missile missiles in Israel, I believe there is no proven defense currently, against a nuclear attack. Could be aerial bombs or missiles, or even trucks, used for delivery of the nuclear bomb.

You either remove the threat of such an attack, or you risk receiving it - period. At some point, you take the offensive, because it's your only defense.

Did we really go to war? First, what is the purpose of any war? To force the entire conflict back to a negotiation table. From earliest recorded history, that has always been the only purpose of war.

Example: how did Clinton finally step in and solve it? Dayton Accords. Milosevik was *invited* to a negotiation table in Dayton Ohio. He refused. And was *invited* again.

Clinton and Holbrook understood the strategic objective - get to the peace table. Milosevik was told he could not leave Dayton until a settlement was negotiated. Yes, the US kidnapped Milosevik. Who then negotiated himself out of a job so to leave Dayton.

Second, Bosnia was Europe's responsiblity. Europe failed. Once the massacres had been too often, too massive, and too extreme (Srebrenica, et al) then Clinton stepped in. The smoking gun was obvious. Only then was the British/French Rapid Reaction Force (and others) allowed to do their job. Clinton, et al focused only on the purpose - a peace table. He achieved a major victory using near zero military.

In WWII, mankind massacred millions to get to the peace table. People were massacred for only one purpose. To take the conflict back to a peace table. Notice how many had so little respect for human life. Welcome to reality. Only getting to the negotiation matters. If tens of millions must be masscred, then so be it.

Clinton (and smarter advisers) routinely solved wars without paying that price. Haiti. A near nuclear war between India and Pakistan. He even empowered the almost solved standoff on the Korean pennisula. And many lesser disagreements solved by negotiating long before any military action was even discussed. By solving problems using near zero military deployments. Go directly to the peace table by spending so little and never forgetting what really matters.

Why is that peace table impossible in the Middle East? Every time a negotiation approaches a conclusion, Likud (the enemy of peace) changes conditions or fails to meet commitments. Likud clearly does not want peace. As demonstrated by even their calling for the assassination of Rabin - and getting it. Likud was quite clear. The peace settlement between Israel and Egypt is considered, by Likud, a major defeat. Never again: their attitude.

Third - back to the point. This same Likud would attack Iran without any hope of a negotiated settlement? Any war that does not seek a settlement at the peace table quickly identifies fools. But then Likud is a perfect example of wacko extremists.

Only viable solution to Iran's nuclear weapons is a negotiated settlement. If military is used as Israel wants, then the only possible solution is an complete invasion of Iran. Boots must be on the ground. If Israel does not want that, then any Israeli attack is only a classic fool's errand. War fought for no purpose. Same Israeli extremists made the same mistake in Lebanon. Will they ever learn?

Only solution with Iran means a negotiated settlement. No other solution exists. So how does the world get Iran to that table? No other question is relevant.

Curiously, the powers that be in Iran are even detaining many of Ahmadinejad's people. Smarter negotiators might find a solution in that inconsistency.

The previous reply was from today's perspective. Let's take another perspective. Let's return to what I said back when. I did not believe a smoking gun yet existed. I worried that not enough people had yet died. Clinton knew better. If I remember correctly, he made that decision on 21 July 1996. History confirms how correct he was. A major victory achieved with near zero military action. Clinton and his people were masters of this.

Because the Iranians have shown that they favor supporting terrorism, over several decades, now. The oil is important, with the Straits of Hormuz right in the Persian Gulf, and so easy to disrupt. With nuclear bombs and delivery systems, the belief is we'd be dragged into a nuclear war by Iran, within decades. Probably because they would try to wipe out Israel, but other Mid-Eastern countries (like Saudi Arabia), would be targets, as well.

We've seen that spending trillions of dollars on Green energy, has gotten us next to nothing for an adequate power supply. Truth is, wind and solar just don't have the "oomph!" that we need for our power supply. Windmills may look quite impressive, but their actual power output per windmill, averaged over a year, is much too small to serve our needs.

Same with solar. It's nice on a sunny day, but just not adequate by a long shot. And no, adding them together is not NEARLY enough. A drop in the bucket x 2 is not near enough.

What was the smoking gun in Bosnia?

Adak, your statements about the amount of money spent on clean energy, and the amount of power it can produce, are as wrong as your one-sided views of the middle east.

I don't mind.

But for the love of all that is decent, stop using apostrophes with plurals.

Please, think of the children.

And we need them because of those damn Canadians? :haha:

Well that, and sinking the USS Liberty, killing 8 of our sailors. :mad:

Yeah, a bad habit I've picked up somewhere along the way. Careful about becoming a grammar Nazi, however!

We've put a huge amount of money into green energy projects. Our national green energy output as a percentage, has increased by about 2-3 %, over a space of a decade.

What really ticks me off about the liberals on this, is that when we DO have a great solar energy project ready to go, they instantly sue to have it stopped, because (in this case), it might impact the desert tortoise!

First, if you can't put a solar energy farm in the Mojave desert (which is practically devoid of wildlife), then WHERE are we going to put them? It is one of the sunniest area's in the entire country.

Second, there is no confirmation that the area proposed even has ONE desert tortoise in it. :mad:

Third, the desert tortoise is not an endangered animal, and might benefit from having some shade, under the solar arrays. This is unknown.

But we know the solar project, is stopped! Hooray for the liberals. :mad:

Since I haven't yet expressed my views on much of the Middle East, it is impossible for you to say that they are one-sided.
I believe you'll be surprised at how "un one-sided", they really are, once you read them.

The Liberty was impossible to accept as an accident, but I do believe it was criminal on our part to send in a "spy" ship so close to another country, without anything protecting it. We had another intelligence ship seized off the coast of North Korea. Same problem! Stupid Admiral/President, somewhere in Washington. I hope they learned something from these incidents.

Bosnia was a difficult one to understand, for me. They have a LONG history between cultures and religious groups, there. If you don't have a good grasp of the history of the area, going back several hundred years, then you don't know enough to really understand the problem/s.

As an outsider, and not up on all that history, it seemed the leaders lead their groups toward intolerance and violence. Once THAT train of thought got rolling, it gained a lot of momentum. It's a great shame that it lead to war, and to the targeted killing of unarmed civilians.

Moving down the path, nations sometimes take a mis-step and wind up in the ditch on the side of the road. Integration of cultural/racial/religious groups within the nation, has always been a difficult task for countries to complete, without a civil war.

First, you are making the assumption that Iran will use the nuclear weapon on Israel. While there is a chance, both the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel do not believe they will.

Second, you are assuming we can eliminate Iran's nuclear program. We can't without a ground war.

Third, you are not addressing the consequences of attacking Iran. What will they, and the international community, do in response. If we attack on a highly speculative reason, we will get blamed for Iran's response. This is not good for US interests.

What about Pakistan?


The same thing was said about shale gas/oil extraction ten years ago. Technology improves rapidly and can completely change the energy scenario in a short amount of time. I know people researching on both and the fields are moving very quickly.

Realistically, wind and solar are not good macro-energy sources. They take up too much space compared to coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. However, they are very good micro-energy sources. This is the future I see with wind and solar.

How the fuck do you turn the turtle issue with the government into a "liberal" problem?
I agree this turtle thing is overblown, and not where our priority should be.
Sigh, and you were doing so well.:(
You're right, not endangered. Both sides knew they were there and negotiated how to work around that from the gitgo, as the dune buggys had already been chased out. It turned out there is a shitload more of them than anyone thought, but a bunch have been run over by trucks and killed by bulldozers.
[Reagan] Now there you go again[/reagan] It ain't liberals, son, get your facts straight.

Would you suggest that our "James Bonds" each take a platoon of Marines with them on missions?
A freighter, clearly flagged American, in international waters, is not fair game. They are no better than the Somali pirates. I've read testimony that they knew it was American, saying so over the radio, at least very shortly after the first attack, but continued to attack, concentrating on the communications antennae.

No, this was a blatant and deliberate attack on the USA, but we still give them $Billions every year, put up with their military/industrial espionage/theft,
and them acting like petulant teenagers. I think they need a time out.

And Ireland?

1) When Iran says that they'll sweep Israel off the map, I never ACTUALLY thought they'd use a broom to do it. :p:

I don't believe anyone can say just WHAT Iran might do with nuclear weapons. We aren't even sure that they WILL make them.

2) Obviously, there would be a substantial ground component to a war with Iran. The enrichment facilities are below ground, and our "bunker buster" bombs may not be enough to destroy them. I'm sure they will have added military security around and at those sites, to help fend off any attack, and protect their big investment in those sites.

3) From history, we can be certain that the Iranian leadership would propagandize any attack on their country. All political leaders will do that - and set the stage for more hatred for whomever the attackers are.

Since the real (their dollar), lost a lot of value today on the monetary markets, it's possible that the sanctions will, at last, have the effect we wanted.

Let's stick with Iran in this thread. Yak about Pakistan in another thread.

Unfortunately, generators are a well-researched piece of equipment. We've improved them, (and windmills for sure), but not nearly enough to bring them into the forefront of our nation's energy supply.

The hard core conservation groups are NOT far-left liberal groups? They haven't been anything BUT far left liberal groups, for decades. They didn't start out that way, but they have attracted the hard core lefties, and now they own them.
[quote]
You're right, not endangered. Both sides knew they were there and negotiated how to work around that from the gitgo, as the dune buggys had already been chased out. It turned out there is a shitload more of them than anyone thought, but a bunch have been run over by trucks and killed by bulldozers.

[Reagan] Now there you go again[/reagan] It ain't liberals, son, get your facts straight.

Well son, it's damn sure not the conservatives, stopping a much needed multi-million dollar project to bring in more electrical power!

I know our spy friends will disagree, but I believe we do NOT need to have close in signal analysis done for Israel, especially when it is on a war footing.

I also don't believe we need to have close in signal analysis done by "freighters", unprotected. Marines? No, I was thinking a cruiser, a sub, and a couple of destroyers, should do the trick.

Ships are closely tracked, and that includes freighters. The idea that a "freighter", will be able to work covertly, is laughable.

If it has a great cover story, like the old Glomar Explorer did when it grabbed part of a sunken Russian sub in a CIA op, then MAYBE if it stays far from the coast, and most of the work is done beneath the waves.

Cultural Jews are typically petulant, imo. It is a strength and a bit of a curse, of their culture. If they're complaining, but not too loudly, then you know everything is A-OK. :cool:

I purposely didn't make an absolute statement about Iranian intentions. We don't know what they are thinking but we can infer it through how they act on other issues.

After Afghanistan and Iran? I really don't think there is a ground plan to our (possible) attack against Iran. Foreign policy circles seem to believe it would be limited to bombing, computer viruses, and containment. I don't think any US politician could convince the US of a ground attack against Iran. We would certainly lose too many soldiers.

This is true but not what I was getting at. We don't know the Iranian response but they could possibly attack oil lanes and step up their support of terrorism against Israel and the US. We need to take these consequences into consideration before attacking a country solely on speculation.

That is my hope. The country is really hurting and it seems that many Iranians are blaming their regime.

I disagree. You initially stated that we should care about Iran getting the bomb because of their support of terrorism. Iran does support terrorism but so does Pakistan, arguably to an even greater degree. However, Pakistan would never gives their nuclear weapons to the terrorists the ISI trains. I don't see any reason that Iran would act any differently. It isn't in their interests.

However, it should be noted that Pakistan's nuclear weapon gives them an umbrella for their support of terrorism and there have been cases where Pakistani nuclear scientists were selling information to other countries (Libya). This is one reason why it is against US interests for Iran to get the bomb.


You are arguing against a delusional belief that wind and solar are silver bullets for our energy problem, not the reality of its potential. I don't believe that wind and solar will ever make up more than 50% of our energy sector but I do see a very positive use for them. Solar power is currently being used on the microscale with a decent degree of success. This will expand exponentially as technology improves.

To summarize, just because wind and solar will not completely solve our energy problem doesn't mean they can't be effective tools in a larger, multi-pronged solution for our energy problem.

All power that isn't geothermal or nuclear is solar (well, ALL power is solar, or rather stellar - we are star stuff!) (tidal energy and hydroelectric dams are more about gravity and lunar cycles, but it's the sun's energy powering the water cycle that creates the rivers...). It's just that plants harness that power so efficiently and well, that digging up ancient plants (and ancient animals that ate them and the animals that ate them) and burning them is actually more efficient than trying to harness solar energy ourselves.

In theory, there should be some way to harness solar power more effectively than trying to dig up dead stuff to burn. We might get there eventually. But not if we give up on it, and not if we don't keep working harder and harder to use what we have effectively and to research even more efficient ways to use it.

I agree with you hawkeye, except the improvements we will see in wind power, will not be large. Quite small, actually.

The Iranian leaders have already threatened to close/attack the oil tankers in the Gulf of Persia. No mystery or disagreement there.

Already, almost every tanker serving the area, has been re-flagged by it's owner, as an American ship, to allow the US Navy to protect it.
We can't protect other ships, to the same degree, by law.

Soldiers would be needed to set charges in the underground facilities, if the bunker buster bombs couldn't handle it. It wouldn't be a huge ground force like the invasion of Iraq, but it might take a few hundred and LOTS of support from the air, before they went in.

Your note about the probable increase in nuclear weapon proliferation, is well taken. I can't imagine that countries near Iran, would not feel compelled to have them, "since Iran does". Especially the countries that are largely Suni, and traditionally disliked by the Shiite Muslims .

This is by far the scariest idea in this thread.

If you believe it, and I think you do based on the context of your other statements, then by this logic, war is inevitable. Do you also believe this is true for other countries, say, Israel or Iran? Then war is inevitable, since the *removal of the threat of such an attack* will not come from the holders of such weapons.

The ONLY time voluntary disarmament has happened has been in the framework of the START treaties. And still, unimaginable destructive power still exists. If your position listed above is true, then how can we avoid war? Do you think Iran can be persuaded to stop their work that some find threatening? Where is the path to peace?

As I've posted before: *If you know someone is coming to kill you, get up early in the morning and kill them first.

I'd say 'their' intention (to kill 'us') is clear.

So: get up early...*shrug*










*not original to me...this is an old Hebrew saying, applicable pretty much all the time, in any circumstance.

Total nonsense. George Jr said we would unilaterally attak them. The Axis of Evil. So N Korea and Iran desperately need nuclear weapons programs. Which any country should do when overtly threatened by an irresponsible nuclear power. Especially when the US said it would and did attack Iraq (Axis of Evil) for the same bogus reasons.

We 'Pearl Harbored' Iraq using your reasoning. Causing massive harm to our economy. And now you recommend doing same to Iran and North Korea? Iraq was the easy one. How much more damage do you want to do to America?

At what point do you learn from mistakes in history? At what point do you finally learn why 'big dic' thinking is not found where intelligent leaders make decisions?

Your logic is why you would be arrested and executed because a neighbor threatened you. And why everyone and their unborn offspring would remember you as despictable. Described was a "fool's errand" that demonstrates your bogus logic. And still you would recommend the same 'big dic' thinking that got us into this mess?

At what point will you learn from the massive mistake called Mission Accomplish? Or simply learn a well understood concept called "Deja Vue Nam"?

The world is not "liberal vs. conservative". The world is "wacko extremists vs moderates". Only wacko extremists see solution in military boondoggles. How many times must we foolishly refight the Crusades because the 'wacko extremists' will not learn from history? Because Netanyahu is that dumb, then that makes 'big dic' thinking acceptable?

Please. Stop listening to hate so routinely promoted by 'wacko extremist' talk radio.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is term limited. I think it is surpassing strange that we take every nonsensical threat the lame duck President of Iran makes as absolute truth, ignoring that he is playing to his audience when here in the States Romney is campaigning for an economic agenda we all know he doesn't believe in, taking it for granted that he is lying to maintain his base but would actually get real after he's sworn in. I wonder where he really stands on being Israel's bitch? We don't help the peace process one bit by stepin fetchin for Netanyahu.

That is the Israeli position, I believe. I don't believe war is inevitable, but you know the old expression:

"Only the dead know peace"

We have known a long period of peace, only because we are one of the reigning super powers, and we are not trying to take over anyone's country. Also, we will go to war with those who try to take over another country, if we can, for example {Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait}. In other words, it would be very risky for another country to start a war, that might involve us.

War is inevitable in the Middle East, as long as the Muslims are intent on starting one - yes. The Jews can't run, they have to fight - that's clear.

The only thing in the long run, that will stop the drive to yet another war in the Middle East, is when the people of these aggressor countries, rise up, and tell their leaders:

NO WAR!

There is simply NO solution possible, except a degree of tolerance and acceptance of all your neighbors -- not just the one's you like the most.

If the Iranian rial continues falling in value, the resulting economic crisis may help force a shift in opinion, away from the nuclear effort. Finally, Iran may be forced to negotiate, and allow inspections of it's nuclear plants.

The Iranian leaders have proven so unwilling to negotiate, it's unimaginable that they would ever agree to a START type treaty, unless their economy collapsed very harshly.

The problem with nuclear weapons proliferation, is that it can get out of hand, entirely by accident, very quickly - and lead to a war. If it involved nuclear weapons, it would be incredibly disastrous.

Until the media, the mosques, and the leaders, are talking tolerance instead of sweeping the Jews into the sea, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

That's based on historical fact, not an opinion of support for either the Jews or the Muslims. I don't believe it's a question of right or wrong, it's a matter of either choosing tolerance and peace, or sliding towards war, by default.

Just a quick few notes:

We are currently in the longest war in our nation's history: Afghanistan. We did take over the country...along with Iraq.

The world is easier to digest with sweeping generalizations but they rarely hold up to reality.

There are inspectors of Iran's nuclear facilities. That is why we haven't attacked them. We know where they are what they are doing.


Adak, does Urbane Guerrilla mean anything to you?

Adak, you seem determined to view these issues through a lens of religion, and I think that distorts what you see. Do you consider the war in Afghanistan a religious one? On our part? On the part of our enemy? Who is our enemy? Are we fighting against their religion?

Why do you insist that it will be MUSLIMS who are intent on starting a war?

I think your view would be much clearer if you substituted POWER for RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS in much of what you've said here. The number of non-violent Muslims is many thousands of times greater than the number of violent Muslims, for Islam's sake. Just as it is for Christians. And for Jews.
Perhaps... let's take that as a starting point. If you think that's their position, then what? Attack? Since they'll never disarm? You, yourself, have to be the person who says

We have not annexed or put in our own leaders, into power in Iraq. The Iraqi people are voting for their leaders. Kicking out Saddam and his ruling party, is not the same as taking over the country, and making it ours.

Same with Afghanistan. We are leaving soon, and everyone knows it.

We didn't ask for the war with in Afghanistan. They provided support and protection for Al Qaeda, and chose to fight with them.

Yes, Urbane Guerrilla means you misspelled Urban. Sounds like a new runway fashion trend. :D I can see it now - designer camo for the latest Paris fashions.

Without a firm treaty however, they are free to kick the inspectors out of any of their sites, whenever they wish.

Yes, I am determined to view these issues through the lens of religion, because the countries in the Middle East that have gone to war recently, view their fight through the lens of religion.

Islam is not just a religion. It is a religion with a substantial ideology that may go hand in hand, with it.
Yes, but the non-violent Muslims have not been able to rein in the spread of the violent ideology of their fellow faithful. As long as Muslim schools, orphanages, and mosques are preaching how the infidel, the Christian, and the Jew, are all worth something akin to the pig, and that violence against others is OK, there will be religious violence. You can call it Jihad or anything you like, but it's killing, and Muslims are the one's doing it (far more than anyone else), worldwide.

People are susceptible to propaganda. They will come to believe what they hear over and over, eventually.

I'm all in favor of peace, but I know better than to believe that the leaders in Iran, feel the same way. They've made their "sweep Israeli's into the sea" speech, too many times to somehow keep ignoring it. It isn't just that I'm tired of hearing their saber-rattling. (Which I am). It's that I believe they intend to do just that. It won't be this year. It won't be next year, it may not be for another 10-20 years, but they will attack Israel. No doubt in my mind. You can't just keep saying you're going to attack another country, and then never attack them - you lose all credibility with your people.

If they have nuclear weapons, I'm not sure they would use them, but they might. Who knows?

I know I don't want to see nuclear weapons proliferation, in the Middle East, for sure. THAT would be a recipe for disaster.

Right now, our best option is to see if the sanctions will collapse their economy, and thus force the Iranian leaders to stop their program to enrich Uranium. That's a hard thing to cause, but far better than a war.

"intelligent leaders"

HA!

Find one.

#

"you would be arrested"

Only if I'm caught.

#

"'wacko extremist' talk radio"

I don't listen to the talking heads on either side.

##

"NO WAR!"

As real a notion as ghost farts...good luck chasing rainbows...let me know when you catch one (I ain't holdin' my breath).

I can't believe you've overlooked my signature for the past several hundred posts.

"OBAMA"
 

'Cunning, glib, and mercenary' is not synonymous with 'intelligent'.

'nuff said... ;)

No, they're not. Neither are they mutually exclusive traits. Obama is intelligent, and to say otherwise is wrong, whatever the reason.

He -- like his opponent, like pretty much any 'politician' -- is mediocre in intelligence and idea...he's a used car salesman looking to sell a lemon.

And: I don't care if that assessment is 'wrong'.

henry, who WOULD be a good leader, or who HAS been a good leader? Anyone? Your neighbor? Your grocer? Some guy on TV? Churchill? Stalin? Juan Carlos of Spain? Generalissimo Francisco Franco (who, by the way, is still dead.)

You think NO ONE can be a good leader...therefore good leaders do not exist. Certainly PERFECT leaders don't exist, but 'shitty leader' is an oxymoron and frankly I get so freaking tired of people who rant and rail about how much everyone sucks and no one should ever lead or follow.

Which makes us LESS individualistic not MORE. We're all the same, then.

:mad:

"who WOULD be a good leader"

Don't really know or care (I do know, however, the current crop is deficient).

'You' may need leading...I don't.

#

"I get so freaking tired of people who rant and rail about how much everyone sucks and no one should ever lead or follow."

And I get tired of every one being so willing to 'follow' any pissant who sports big brassy ones and declares him- or her-self 'leader'.

Not every one is 'wolf' (looking to find his or her place in the pack); some are 'bear' and just want to be left the fuck alone (by 'leaders and their 'followers').

*shrug*

So, I and everyone else who support....well...anyone, are just ignorant following dumbfucks. All however many billion of us should all be completely independent of everyone else.

Seems reasonable and doable.

Where did I say (or imply), "All however many billion of us should all be completely independent of everyone else."?

Very clearly, I said, 'You' may need leading...I don't.

I wasn't being facetious...if you need leading, then go find yourself a leader or leaders, based on whatever criteria you set.

I don't want or need to be led.

I also never called anyone "ignorant following dumbfucks".

Adak:
Attachment 41021

They seemed fair inferences, based on the find an intelligent leader comment and the 'everyone willing to follow' comment.

:facepalm:

Good god, let me off this planet.

You should know me better than that...
 

...I always say EXACTLY what I mean to.

If I was gonna call a body an "ignorant following dumbfuck" then that's EXACTLY what I'd do...I wouldn't dance 'round it, or imply it.

You do me a dis-service.

Yes, that's true.

I'm really just so very tired of...well, everything. I have to live in this fucking world. And all it is is negative negative negative. Would I like to be autonomous...maybe avoid this ulcer I'm developing...sure. But I can't. I live in this world, and I haven't won the lottery.

I'm sorry for inferring. You do say what you mean.

But, as a person of 'feeling' I'm not sorry I am so fucking tired of all the crap, and to add to the "I live on this planet" I'll say that I'm human, too...and I think it is quite reasonable for a human to infer that TYPICALLY when someone says things like 'needs leading' and 'follow any pissant' it isn't exactly a compliment or a toast to their individuality.

I think Obama selected the best approach - diplomacy and economic sanctions...

To Wit:


NY Times
HOMAS ERDBRINK and RICK GLADSTONE
10/3/12

Violence and Protest in Iran as Currency Drops in Value

I guess if I was really worried about Iran getting the bomb, I might agree. Economic sanctions do a great job of punishing the greatest victims of oppressive states, the folks who happen to live in them. Having a bomb might just sober up the nutters.

In a Bruce Willis movie, everyone else is incompetant and dumb. Only Bruce Willis can do anything right. Bruce Willis portrays mythical characters. Reading these 'Bruce Willis' claims are just as absurd, contradictory, and fictional. Complete without even one reason to believe any of them.

@Lamplighter:

I agree that diplomacy (step one) and economic sanctions (step two), are the right first responses. That's been our standard response to countries who "take a serious wrong turn". Has mixed results, but absolutely, the best first steps.

With Iran, it's been a few years now. Are we coming to some points of agreement with them? Something that keeps the option for the Iranians to work with the peaceful end of nuclear power, but keeps the region safe from the military weapons side of nuclear power.

That's the part that is not settled, in my mind. First, will they move from peaceful nuclear work, into the military use? Second, if they do move into the military side of nuclear power, will they use it?

My opinion is:

1) They haven't decided if they'll develop the nuclear military weapons yet.

2) Yes, if they had them, eventually a leader would emerge who would use them.

Right now, I'm comfortable with #1. The second one, I'm WAY concerned over.

That's where a red line starts making sense. The Iranians have just convinced me that they mean business with their saber-rattling speeches. I believe they mean every word of it.

I thought Obama erred with the weak economic sanctions when they were first begun. They just didn't have much "bite", and everyone knew it. True, you don't want to start out with the strongest sanctions first, but these were nonsense.
With the newer and stronger sanctions now in place, Obama has got it right - finally.

Well done Obama, on the sanctions issue.

@Ibby:

I took that exact class, and have read the Koran.

If you want to say, in your mosques, that the followers of the Prophet are the favored people - OK. But when you ACT that way, with that value system, with non-muslims, it's dangerous. Nobody likes to be treated unfairly, to be de-valued as a person, because of their religion or race/ethnicity. Unfortunately, this is part of Islam.

This kind of belief is called fascism, and leads to subjugation or the slaughter of those who are deemed inferior. WWII was caused by fascists.

Slavery is a kind of fascism. Segregation is an attempt to avoid fascism, that simply can't work, and winds up being fascism.

This is a topic that all nations with multiple races, religions, or ethnicities have had to struggle with - and usually have a war over, before finding a way to move away from it.

If there isn't *EQUALITY* between groups, then it will lead to fighting, sooner or later. Islamic laws and traditions, do not allow for equality. jews, infidels and christians are all given a different status than muslims.

Naturally, the muslims think of this as "separate but fair or equal". But I'm from the USA, and we know ALL about the lie that is inherent in "separate but fair or equal"! Been there, have the T shirt, and 100 years of segregation experience behind us. Not something I would ever want to see repeated. :mad:

Whether it's military service, taxation, choice of leaders, choice of a spouse, or any other important matter, non-muslims are not treated the same as muslims are, in Islamic law and traditions. Neither are women, btw.

Until Islam is reformed, it's going to always have friction with ANY other religion. A little "varnish" to cover up these basic parts of their religion and tradition, is not going to do the trick.

Neither will some cute people holding up funny signs. It's very cute, but lack of cuteness is not the problem with Islam.

TW
 

I prefer to get up early.

You (and everyone else) go do as you like (sleep as late as you can).

Are you taking time zones into account? Getting up early on the west coast may be sleeping in on the east coast?