Do you even give a Shit what Iran Does?

[The Sushi Bandit]

So they have a nuclear program.. not like they are the only one.

Lets count... Us, India, Pakistan, France, England, Japan, Korea, Russia, Isreal, China, Transblechistan, and Captian Nemo to name a few.

Why cant we just welcome them to "the Club"?

[breakfastofchampions]

1. If they had differant leadership I wouldn't mind too much

But the President of Iran is completly off his rocker, so I would mind they had nuclear weapons.

[anitar1]

5. Sounds like a pResident I know of. Completely off his rocker,n/t

[Telly Savalas]

15. Did he say "the United States has been outlawed. We begin bombing

in 5 minutes."?

[breakfastofchampions]

16. Is that what it will take?

He's said he wants Israel wiped of the map. That is dangerous enough.

[Telly Savalas]

18. My point is people talk all sorts of shit.

Doesn't mean anything will come of it. (e.g. Reagan's comment referred to in my last post)

[breakfastofchampions]

20. Ussually talk is cheap

But with the power of an entire country behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his talk must be taken seriously.

[High Plains]

38. Funny, I feel the same way about the US.

[varkam]

2. I dunno, that new Iranian president is pretty scary.

He said that Israel needs to be "wiped off the map", and is holding talks regarding the veracity of the Holocaust - "All the Jews just went on vacation!" Pretty spooky guy if you ask me, so yeah, I think we should care if he gets nukes. Not that I'm saying we're great and would never use them so it's okay for us to have them (need I remind you that we're the only superpower that ever *has* used them in a time of war), but I don't think we need to be rolling the dice by giving them out willy nilly.

[Azathoth]

3. Ahmadinejad is crazier than Dubya

And Dubya decided to launch a massive invasion of another country simply because he had the capability to do it and he felt like doing it. I shudder to think what a guy like Ahmadinejad would feel like doing if he had the capability to launch nuclear weapons.

[sam sarrha]

4. make it CLEAR to the people of Iran if their Gov uses it we will cover

their entire country with GREEN GLASS...

maybe they will take back their country before it is too late.

[Yupster]

29. I think the bigger fear is

a small nuke goes off in Israel or even three of them at the same time.

They were carried by suicide bombers and no one takes responsibility. Israel is seriously injured with threats of more to come. They blame Iran but have no proof.

The European Union calls for calm.

The Arab world blames Israel for nuking itself or Bush for doing it as an insult to Islam.

There's no one to retaliate against and Israel is finished.

[Amonester]

42. Seriously, I personally am convinced that if it would ever happen

like that, I have not a single doubt that what would happen next (almost "instantly") would be exactly like "shoot first, and ask questions later."

I don't believe for one picosecond that there would be any "pause" for even trying to know "who" did it first. Unfortunately: Iran would be turned into a big "radioactive winter" furnace, and I'm starting to think that it's exactly where the human race is heading at a furious pace, actually, no matter what we do or don't do...

Total extermination due to a massively radioactive nuclear winter, or a long period of suffering through a sudden climate change... or/and pollution.

Unless people start "talking" honestly and have the "desire" to work together in (real) peace for "sharing all the world" (<-Utopia), it's (sadly) bound to happen (that's where it's heading since a few decades).

Nobody will get out of this planet "alive" (except for micro organisms and fishes in very deep waters...) :cry:

Ed: sorry for bad spelling & grammar.

[breakfastofchampions]

51. We can prevent complete nuclear annihilation

We just can't have a President who thinks it is fine for a hot bed of terrorism to pursue nuclear technology.

[High Plains]

39. Ooh, blustering threats of genocide. That's helpful.

[banana republican]

6. At what point does a foriegn courtry have a right to protect its self from

* ???????????????????????????????????????????????????

[RC]

8. Resist a bu$h military invasion?

Why that would make that country a terrorist nation. How many countries would welcome him? That means bu$h can invade any country his little sociopathic heart desires. After all, one is either with bu$h or against him.

bu$h, bringing democracy to the world, one illegal war after another.

[breakfastofchampions]

13. If their intentions are not to destroy other countries.

[Swamp Rat]

7. I do.

Persian culture is very fascinating. :)

[Road Scholar]

9. Done! nt

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Even if Iran had a bomb or two, wouldn't the theory of MAD

(mutually assured destruction) apply, even if both the U.S. and Iran are governed by psychotic madmen? If Iran set up one explosion, the country would not exist and they'd know it.

I think the bottom line is that * and friends don't want a nuclear explosion against this country on their shift. Makes them look weak.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. I worry a great deal that MAD wouldn't work with Iran.

I'm not convinced that the - essentially theocratic - government is sufficiently in touch with reality not to regard it as a price worth paying.

[High Plains]

40. It's convenient to label as "madmen" leaders you wish to attack

Hey, whatever happened to that "madman" in North Korea, anyway? Hmm, maybe he's not so mad after all; just smart enough to have a deterrant to US aggression. I mean, the madman has the bomb, and yet...

I think Chavez is a "madman," too, and they used the "madman" label against Aristide.

Ghadafi used to be a "madman," but since he switched sides, he has apparently become "unmad."

Are you seriously suggesting the leaders of Iran would see their country destroyed just to get at Israel?

[Dark]

41. North Koreans, Lybians, and Venezuelans

don't suicide bomb.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. I'm seriously suggesting

that there's a non-negligable chance that the Iranian government would use nuclear weapons, possibly on civilian targets, and/or supply them to terrorist groups or other states who would use them, without nuclear provocation.

And "madman" is your word, not mine - I don't for a minute think that either Ahmadinejad or Iran's religious leaders are mad. Nor, alas, do I think that that's sufficient reason to assume they won't use nuclear weapons if/when they have them.

[0007]

25. junior and friends certainly aren't a tower of strength on foreign issues.

They play the shake down racket with perfection, and the blackmail scam to a tee. With good scare tactics and a good snake oil salesman the sheep appear to be happy.

Organized crime has nothing on this crime cabal.

[Yupster]

30. Not if the bomb were delivered by a terrorist group

operating out of Lebanon and it can't be traced back to Iran. I think that's the fear.

[distantearlywarning]

11. I don't think Iran should be developing nukes.

It scares me that they are.

That being said, I absolutely 100% do NOT believe that the U.S. are the people who should be doing something about this problem. We can't get our shit together from the last two wars we started, which tells me that we definitely should not be starting a new one. Not to mention the fact that our leader is just as much of a wacko as the Iranian president, and frankly, the rest of the world might want to be concerned about OUR nukes at this point. We need to get our own problems well under control before we "fix" anyone else's ("fix" under the Bush admin = take something that is not working well, break it beyond repair, and then brag to the world about what a great job we did).

[chimpymustgo]

12. Can't much blame them for trying to ward off an invasion by *.

Plus, I'm not too sure what is really going on there - just what MSM TELLS us, and that We are ginning up for war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Yes, you can.

Developing nuclear weapons makes being invaded less, not more likely.

And while it's very comforting to be able to shrug off any news story you don't like as "just the MSM", the degree of conspiracy required to suggest that Iran isn't trying to develope nuclear weapons is well past ludicrous and into absurd - every single element of what you term the MSM, including many actively left-wing and anti-war ones, would have to be actively fabricating stories about Iran kicking out inspectors, removing seals, making veiled threats and so forth. That's far beyond the realms of believability.

[Yupster]

31. Aout three years ago

Russia, France and Germany assured the US that if we stayed out of it, they would negotiate with the Iranians so there wouldn't be any nukes developed.

It doesn't look like they've been successful, and there isn't really anything the US can do about it.

[The Sushi Bandit]

37. Agreed

[slide to the left]

56. there is a diffrence

Nukes and nuclear power are 2 different things. Iran is allowed t develope nuclear power because they signed the NNPA. Maybe they want energy independance. MAybe they think oil isn't the future, maybe they want to scare the shit out of us. Who knows?

Well, 20 years ago, if you wanted something from the US, you said you were going to align with the USSR. Since that can no longer happen, if they want something from the US, they say they want Nukes. Hmm. I think they just want money and are blowing a lot of hot air.

I have a degree in this (Middle East studies).

[baldguy]

14. Maybe, if WE didn't have 500,000 nukes

our enemies wouldn't be so hot to get one.

[Nutmegger]

17. We're the only country to use 'em

and we'll probably be the only country to use them in the future. Everyone should de-nuke! These things are so deadly and the effects would be catastrophic!

Countries like Iran probably want to work on a weapon only because they need some sort of bargaining chip. This is what Bush Inc has done; they instill fear into nations that don't agree with the agenda.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Their president is insane, but fuck so is ours

Yea, I don't think that they should have nukes. But frankly it's hard for me to say that their president is insane without saying the same about our president. Why can't we have a fucking legitimate person in the white house so that I can say 100% without a doubt that we have a more responsible leader than Iran does?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Ahmadinejad makes Bush like a saint.

This kind of comparison worries me - I think it's emblematic of the lack of perspective of many DUers. Things closer up always look bigger, but there are a great many world leaders not merely worse but immeasurably worse that Bush, and Ahmadinejad is one of them.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. I don't disagree, but...

I'm just saying that I'm not comfortable with my own country's president being in control of nuclear weapons either. I'd like to be in a position that I don't have to worry about my own president so that I can worry about the presidents of other countries.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I am genuinely worried

By the number of DUers who don't care about the prospect of Iran aquiring nuclear weapons.

[Bridget Burke]

44. I am genuinely worried about nuclear proliferation in general.

But I know for a fact that Bush used a lie about Iraq to start his illegal war. Another, worse war looks all too possible. And it's far more likely than Iranian Nukes.

Why are you worried that so many DU'ers disagree with you?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. Because the rights and wrongs are so obvious.

There are many things which I believe which I can easily see how someone could sensibly hold the reverse position. "Iran is trying to aquire nuclear weapons, and it doing so would be a very bad thing" is not one of them - I think that to disagree with it requires willful self-delusion.

In fairness, not many people have actually gone as far as to say that they disagree with it, but a lot have equivocated - they've said "yes, but ABC".

I think that "ABC but yes" is perfect sense - and yes, I do agree with you that nuclear proliferation in general is a very bad thing, that the US is the prime offender, and that Bush is less unlikely to use a nuclear weapon than I'd like - but the choice of emphasis worries me; it's indicative of lack of perspective, and the fact that it's so prevalent is not a good omen for the collective health of left-wing thought, I think.

Too many DUers are unwilling to acknowledge that anything or anyone could be worse than Bush.

[Bridget Burke]

52. Thanks for your concern about the collective health of left-wing thought!

If Bush is left unchecked, more people will die because of his desire to "Protect" us from Iranian nukes than will ever be in danger from the hypothetical arsenal.

Too many of us remember Saddam's WMD's. That is, we remember the concept--since none were actually found.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Lets look at the numbers.

Bush will only be President for another less-than-3 years. He's severely politically weakened and military stretched, to the extent that it is unlikely (although not beyond the bound of possibility) that he will start any more wars, especially not one like invading Iran that would collapse the Middle East and severely jeopardise America's oil supply.

The detonation of a nuclear weapon either by Iran or by someone they sell one to, by contrast, does not look all that unlikely, and could easily kill millions in itself. It would also almost certainly provoke a large-scale war (which otherwise looks unlikely), killing tens if not hundreds of millions.

The difference between Saddam's WMD's before Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions now is that then everyone except the far right was saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs, and no evidence was presented, although Bush claimed to have some. now everyone a non-trivial fraction of the farish left is saying that Iran does have intend to aquire nuclear weapons, and there is considerable evidence to that effect.

OTOH, given that as far as I can see there isn't much that can be done to stop them without starting a war that would be worse than the malady it purports to cure, I can't see that there's much that can be done. Offer help with civilian nuclear power, apply sanctions, and hope, I guess. I'm not overoptimistic, though.

But trying to convince yourself and others that the evidence that Iran is trying to obtain nukes is not overwhelming will not help either the Iranian situation (it will make it easier for Iran to aquire nukes if you succeed) or opposition to Bush (it makes the left look silly and head-in-the-sandish, and discourages voters).

[The Sushi Bandit]

26. The "Captian Nemo" votes tell a great story..

He sinks all the warships... down to Davy Jones Locker!

[The Sushi Bandit]

32. ...in his effort to de-militarize the world

I liked the disney version best

[unkachuck]

28. no....

....MAD still works and is working as we speak....we've got to approach this nuclear weapons thingy from a different, anti-corporate-interest angle....I'm not sure what that is but building a fisson bomb is 60 year technology....

....not many societies today can't duplicate a 60 year old radio, a 60 year old auto, a 60 year old washing machine....etc.

[midnight]

33. No - I don't care what Iran is spending its resources on.

I'm more interested in what we are spending our resources on.

[breakfastofchampions]

34. we live on the same planet

Isolationism no longer works

[rucky]

35. Everyone UN-NUKE. Starting here.

we are less safe with nukes.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. The very thought of them possessing nukes is frightening!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. I'm Concerned But NOT Panicked Yet

I'm deeply concerned about Iran having nukes and I agree that we should really be working hard with other countries to discourage Iran and, frankly, any other countries that don't already have nukes from obtaining them now and in the future. I firmly believe that we need to step up non-proliferation efforts throughout the world and re-start/continue the efforts to get rid of nukes and other WMDs among countries that already have them (including the US!). Despite my concerns about Iran, I steadfastly REFUSE to buy into the current (and what feels like growing) drumbeat for military conflict with Iran being proposed by Buscho/GOP(of course) in order to halt the development of Iran's nuclear weapons programs. I have heard from some sources that Iran actually has several years (possibly 5-10) before it can develop, much less use, nuclear weapons, which should give the US and other countries plenty of time to negotiate with Iran assuming that all parties are working constructively with each other. Also, bombing/invading Iran NOW or in the near future would likely only be a short-term solution to the problem as anything but a full-scale regime change (and maybe not even that given how Iraq turned out politically) would likely fail to prevent Iran from EVENTUALLY developing nukes and would probably encourage Iranians to rally around their President (who may not be fully embraced by the Iranian people at this time) and increase their desire (and drive) to obtain nukes. It would also likely foment even MORE anger and hatred towards the US and Israel in Iran and throughout the ME and could lead to a nasty military situation for us in Iraq if Iran decided to retaliate against our troops stationed in Iraq after a military strike (which they almost certanly would!). The more threatening and bellicose we are (i.e. "Axis of Evil") towards Iran and other countries, the greater their desire to obtain nukes either to protect themselves or to strike at us "pre-emptively" would probably become. We need to give diplomatic solutions as much support and time as humanly possible. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail in this case as they did not with Iraq, however because we have a President and advisors whose own judgement and intelligence are "questionable" at best, all bets are off. :(

[leesa]

47. Nope. They have a right to defend themselves.

[The Sushi Bandit]

50. You get a valentines heart for speaking straight from the heart!

[Warren Stupidity]

48. As long as they leave everyone else alone.

I mean I feel sorry for Iranians living in a creepy fundaloonocracy, but then again I live in a creepy fundaloonocracy, so I have my own problems to deal with.

[johnnygirl]

49. Do a little 'hammid cartoon and...

these guys really tilt. Poke a little fun of their prophet and they start killin each other.
That's stone age man.
Imagine what they will do if the gays in san Francisco get under their turbines.
These are the clowns that do snuff flicks for allah just cause you want your wife to drive!
"Load it on the boat Amet, and lets sail
this thing into the Bay Area!"

No way, that's way worse than W having a key to the nukes.

[Bridget Burke]

53. "turbines"? This could be the next "Morans"!!!

Thanks for your input. It was amusing, if not coherent.

[bush_is_wacko]

54. Personally, I think any one of the above is just as likely to

"pull the trigger" as Iran is.

[slide to the left]

55. We created the Iran sitch. in the 50s

When the CIA overthrew Muhhamed Mosedeq. He was the democratic leader of Iran and nationalozed the oil. Well, the CIA didn't like that very much and put in place instead the much hated Shah. The revolution was to overthrow the Shah. Hmmm, I seem to recall the US letting him in the country, and the Iranians, fearing another US lead coup, took hostage. Interesting. We lose.

[Throd]

58. Apocolyptic whack-jobs frighten me...

...of any stripe!