Iran

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Being of draft age and obviously knowing kids of draft age I will tell you the two most quoted statements when it comes to Bush.

"Bush is an idiot"
"I don't really care, as long as I don't get drafted"

If their was a draft in the war against terror, colleges would riot. Parents would freak out, Bush would have the whole US population except maybe 10-15% not just against him, but out to kill him.

That's wishful thinking. Do you think Bob Jones University would riot? How about Virginia Military? Utah? Texas A&M?

85% out to kill Bush? When at least half the people in the country wouldn't be affected? I don't think we have to worry about civil insurrection.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't think we have to worry about civil insurrection.

While I appreciate your optimism, I do not share it. Fire up the draft and it'll be more than the occasional dingbat stalking the ranch in Crawford. Much more.

[Undertoad]

There will be no draft. I pointed this out here in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and I will now point this out in 2007.

Sorry Rich, I have to use you as a foil once again.

Originally Posted by richlevy 3/2003

My son is 17 years old. At the rate we are sending troops over, and with the possibility of a much larger than anticipated occupation force, there may be a draft in 2-3 years. For the first time in 20 years, there is a measurable chance that in the next 5 years I might be laying flowers in front of my son's name on some granite wall in Washington.

It's four years since this "in the next 5 years" statement and STILL the hand-wringing goes on.

Originally Posted by richlevy 11/2003

He can't afford for the economy to pick up in the South for the next 4 years. The other reason, besides patriotism, for the high rate of armed forces volunteerism in the South is the use of the armed forces as 'employer of last resort'.

With the army pounding sand in Iraq, everyone who signs up knows where they will be for the next 12 months. If recruitment levels fall too low, then the US faces the real prospect of reinstituting the draft.

Was he right about that? Or utterly and completely wrong on all counts? Since the economy has been strong for three years, are there no people wanting to sign up?

Originally Posted by richlevy 11/2004

Since the war in Iraq began I have mentioned that I told my 18-year-old son that I believed that there was a %20 chance that there would be a draft in the next six years, the time during which I think he would be eligible.

Considering recent developments, and comments from both Democrats and Republicans, I am now bumping that up to %25. The only unknown is the war in Iraq and the time and manpower required.

Rich's "only" unknown turned out badly. No draft yet. Could it be there was more Rich didn't know?

Originally Posted by richlevy 6/2005

The idea of not having a draft may go down in history as being the biggest campaign lie that Bush told.

You can hate him for his actual policies, or you can hate him for the policies you make up in your head.

Don't worry Rich, there is no chance your son will serve his country.

[piercehawkeye45]

Well here are some articles about a US-Iranian war. If I find more I will post them.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle7147.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle16169.htm

[piercehawkeye45]

Of course it was exaggeration but the point is Americans won't take it likely. At least the ones affected by it.

[Ibby]

No, the average American nowadays is as apathetic as a slug, until you pour salt on them.

[yesman065]

Nice articles, but they certainly are rather biased. Did you read the homepage and the link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/who.htm

[piercehawkeye45]

I am aware of how bias it is but it gives the opposite side than what we are used to hearing so I thought it would be a nice balance. Here are two more articles by the way.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15564.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13590.htm

I thought of something while reading this and I was suprised I didn't think of this earlier.

The US and Israel are against a nuclear armed Iran. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, not weapons. We say it is bullshit. To prove this couldn't we offer to help build power plants with other technology? Then Iran wouldn't have an excuse to become nuclear armed and it would help Iran accomplish it's economic goals.

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I am aware of how bias it is but it gives the opposite side than what we are used to hearing so I thought it would be a nice balance.

Interesting reading indeed ph. Thanks for the links.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Here are two more articles by the way.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15564.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13590.htm

I thought of something while reading this and I was suprised I didn't think of this earlier.

The US and Israel are against a nuclear armed Iran. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, not weapons. We say it is bullshit. To prove this couldn't we offer to help build power plants with other technology? Then Iran wouldn't have an excuse to become nuclear armed and it would help Iran accomplish it's economic goals.

I like it. This is a positive step. Based on Iran's response to our offer, we could determine their intentions. If Iran accepts our technological assistance and allows the inspectors unrestricted access, how can the US or the world deny a country the right to provide an energy source for its people's welfare?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The US and Israel are against a nuclear armed Iran. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, not weapons. We say it is bullshit. To prove this couldn't we offer to help build power plants with other technology? Then Iran wouldn't have an excuse to become nuclear armed and it would help Iran accomplish it's economic goals.

Iran already has oil. You suggest using something other than nuclear technology. Whatever it is, we'd be interested in seeing it in the UK before you start giving it to the Iranians please

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

...The US and Israel are against a nuclear armed Iran. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, not weapons. We say it is bullshit. To prove this couldn't we offer to help build power plants with other technology? Then Iran wouldn't have an excuse to become nuclear armed and it would help Iran accomplish it's economic goals.

It's more than that, now, for Iran. They feel it's a matter of principle that, as a soveriegn nation, they have the right to develop nuclear power. And it's a matter of saving face, to not knuckle under to the satanic Americans.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

However, any time you're generating with nuclear power, you will have plutonium getting made. If there's plutonium getting made, and any real progress toward a fuel rod reprocessing capacity, fission weapons are not merely a likely possibility. Even the presence of a plutonium reactor to use the Pu-239 etc for power generation shall not guarantee an absence of fissile nuclear weapons material in stockpile, awaiting the best misuse.

There's a lot of useless, even fatuous, blather about allowing Iran a nuclear power plant but keeping reprocessing and enrichment out of that country. Keeping monopolies is a foredoomed folly -- who the hell accepts a choice between getting our friends or ourselves nuked soon, or nuked some years later? Somebody who really wants to be remembered like Neville Chamberlain, I'd say.

The combination of the Ahmedinajad government and nuclear power alarms everyone but Kim Jong Il.

[piercehawkeye45]

Yes, after today I have realized that fact that we, against all logic and common sense, probably will go to war with Iran. If Iran does have those Sunburn missles, we are going to get raped in the Persian Gulf, there is no escape route.

[Undertoad]

Hell, Gary Hart believes the Iran invasion will be the "October Surprise" before the November elections.