What would your personal reaction to a Nuclear bombing in Iran,

[Flabbergasted]

How do you think the nation will react?

[rzemanfl]

1. They will hoard gasoline, first and foremost. n/t

[Flabbergasted]

2. So as a whole the American People will largely look to their own needs

rather than societal needs?

[sojourner]

15. absolutely...

what ever on earth gave you the idea they give a rat's behind about anyone else?

[Flabbergasted]

17. Well look at 911. Despite the massive fuck up Bush did of rallying the

nation afterward...(Due to greed)....we still saw a unbelievable out pouring in New York at the time. These people truly helped each other. Could we see this across the nation!

[sojourner]

25. A community under attack will rally to help its own, and New York is

a special case as they feel very unique in their identity as New Yorkers.

Americans, for the most part, are completely self-absorbed and pretty hateful people, I'm afraid. Look at how easily they have fallen for Bush's lies and other tripe. Look at how easily they turn against anyone different - whether because of color, or belief, or their country of origin. Any caring is pretty short-lived as far as I can tell.

[Flabbergasted]

27. I guess really you could see this in many cities. I think here in

Portland Or we'd see alot of support give to others!

[Amaryllis]

76. You are making some very broad generalizations here. I know many,

many people who care deeply.

[sojourner]

92. yes, i am generalizing. i am among those who care deeply..

but are we enough to make a difference? do we care deeply enough and for long enough to make anything REALLY different? are there enough of us? haven't seen that to be true.

[adigal]

8. That will not matter to me, as I will be taking a huge sign

and walking from NY to Washington DC, rounding up anyone else who wants to go and protest the action with me.

[marmar]

21. At that point it might be time for something more than a protest...

Perhaps some serious civil unrest.

[Proud_Democratt]

73. If we were who we claimed to be

as being leaders of the world then we wouldn't STILL be dependent upon foreign oil.

[Flabbergasted]

3. I think largely I'd feel outraged, and truly frightened.

I think I'd stay home from work too!

[HereSince1628]

4. Fear. Huge Fear knowing Bush is absolutely f#@$king nuts

I suspect there'll be a similar reaction all over the world.

[Flabbergasted]

10. And Beyond Bush, as the figurehead of this idealism, is the need for, or

lack of, security. Ultimately there is the human need to protect what we think we own. That was the original idea and thats what still exists today!

[FogerRox]

5. get away from NYC before it gets hit in retaliation.

[Flabbergasted]

11. Can they hit New York from Russia?

[FogerRox]

29. try a back pack & Walk it in, or a radio control boat

too many ways to bring a nuke into a population center.

Or too many ways for the Bush Regime to fake it and blame the Terrorists.

[mtnsnake]

54. Don't worry. Our fearless president will throw his body in harm's way

if they retaliate against us with a bomb. If it bomb drops anywhere near you, he'll smother it with his body to protect you.

[BillZBubb]

6. Sixty five percent will think it was a brilliant idea--initially.

My personal reaction will be one of disgust. I would like to find a useful way to protest. I hope that MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE would be followed by the 30% of us who don't share the criminal and bestial appetites of many of our fellow Americans and their neocon puppet masters.

The bad thing is that once the Iranians retaliate, and they will, those of us opposed to the immoral aggression will be branded as traitors.

[savemefromdumbya]

7. The nation will think it is Tony Blair's fault!

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. My personal reaction would be to start digging a deeper

basement in my house. Working really hard to keep from thinking about what my country did, and trying to keep my kids alive.

[Flabbergasted]

12. Yeah you got it man. What do you do about the kids? My daughter is

6!

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

19. 7 and 11 here. Keep them away from fallout

I guess. Get as much fresh water as I can. Go loot a gun store.

Dunno.

[abluelady]

13. Anger. eom

[TexasProgresive]

14. Look out! We're all gonna die!

And it's one, two, three, four; what are we fighting for!

I'd say it's time to build a hitching post for the 4 horsemen.

[Proud_Democratt]

16. We would deserve the same...

What is wrong with us?
Are we that apathetic about about our current administration that we let everything SLIDE???
We need a leader for a New America!
Bush should be seized and jailed like ANY common criminal. He is about as bad as Hussein, just not as direct.
Our politicians need a reminder that THEY work for us!!!

[TheBaldyMan]

18. There won't be an attack, nuclear or not.

This topic has been worn out over the last week, Bush is not going to attack Iran at all.

[soothsayer]

20. I doubt the nuke (they'd like to, but won't), but I'm sure hearing the

same kind of propaganda as before the iraq attack

[Flabbergasted]

24. The only way for the US to keep its sole superpower status at this point

is to start a nuclear war!

[TheBaldyMan]

32. America is no longer THE superpower, it's too much in hock to be

that powerful. Check the other postings over the last week then post about this again. Lots of baseless hysteria and no reason to start a war.

[Flabbergasted]

39. I read a CFR article recently which emphatically stated the the US was

nearly able to overpower any nation in the world in a surprise fisrt strike!

[TheBaldyMan]

44. Whats CFR and do you have a link?

If it's another RW site saying the US should just start nuking everything until the rest of the world crys uncle, I'd be tempted to dismiss it outright. Some analysis on this site is excellent but other articles and posts aren't worthy to be called analysis. The RW sites are worse.

[Flabbergasted]

48. If only this were true. Council of Foreign Relations is a......

"bipartisan" think tank of sorts that deals with all matters related to US foreign policy.

http://www.cfr.org/

It would take me a while to find the article. This was a couple weeks ago.

[TheBaldyMan]

58. I found the latest article from that site on the subject of Iran

and it's nuclear enrichment programme. I didn't see anything that suggests an attack on Iran. The last paragraph says:

What do you make of these various reports about possible military action against Iran?

The administration had long hoped that pressure could get Iranians to acquiesce and suspend the program. It had hoped that the Security Council process would get them to blink. Now I think they're hoping that invocations of military threat can get them to blink. I think these are what, ironically, Iranians said they are: psychological pressure. What happens when Iranians don't blink? What's Plan B? And I don't think there is one.

You don't think there's a military plan ready to go.

I think the intellectual poverty of the administration's approach to Iran is only mirrored by the intellectual poverty in their planning of the war in Iraq.

[Flabbergasted]

61. Its not about Iran! Its ultimately about control! You have political....

idealogies that work to harness the power of their populations. These two philosophies are in direct opposition. (even though they are really very similar.) Beyond this you have raw power. Russia/China is our opponent not Iran or Iraq. And in the center Hamas and Israel.

[Kablooie]

56. Being in debt is no deterrence.

They just say we refuse to pay you back. Try to come and get it and you go up in smoke.

[TheBaldyMan]

60. A cruise missile costs a lot of money, stockpiling them costs

even more. The level of US defence expenditure takes up a bigger slice of the pie than any other industrialised nation. All of the Bush administration's policies have the effect of driving up the price of oil and the US is a net importer.

What will happen if the rest of the world goes "OK, no money - no oiley". The troops in Iraq can't keep control of that country, the US can't possibly invade every oil-producing area and administer it to ship black gold back to the states.

All talk of an attack on Iran is based in fantasy.

[Flabbergasted]

63. That is 0% logical!

[TheBaldyMan]

68. Where is the fault in my logic? I'm always open to any argument

that can point out where I am wrong.

[Flabbergasted]

70. We are in no way looking at the costs militarily.

They have a massive budget already far surpassing any other country. Bush is bent on pulling every penny out of the treasury and putting into the hands of GE.

[PFunk]

90. If we were talking reason and logic I'll agree with you.

Basicly because wars cost money. Also add the fact that alot of our military equipment is in serious need of repair thanks to Iran. And any attack on Iran will probally put is into a serious resession-if not depression thanks to world response as of what you mentioned in your post. In short america quickly becomes a second world country.

However the resident-in-office doesnt go by reason and/or common sense. Nor does he has anyone that's willing to stop him. So I do expect an attack on Iran. And when it does happened I'll be closely glued to the internet for news of what'll happen next.

And stay off the streets.

[Flabbergasted]

105. Except we have an oil supply Iraq! Possably Saudi Arabia. They won't

be able to cut off our oil supply, but poor guys like me will be riding the bus.

Not sure exactly what you are saying with this:

"A cruise missile costs a lot of money, stockpiling them costs even more. The level of US defence expenditure takes up a bigger slice of the pie than any other industrialised nation. All of the Bush administration's policies have the effect of driving up the price of oil and the US is a net importer."

[Flabbergasted]

106. In addition it puts perfectly into context Bush's SOTU adress where he

said oddly enough "We are addicted to foreign Oil."

[Flabbergasted]

23. I'd bet all I have on that! Seems pretty obvious from all sides!

[TheBaldyMan]

30. really, how much have you got?

I dunno what the rules about betting online is but it's a bet you'll lose.

[Flabbergasted]

31. How about a remembrance bet?

[TheBaldyMan]

33. whats a remembrance bet?

[Flabbergasted]

37. A remembrance that we are ashamed that we were wrong. Just for fun

[TheBaldyMan]

45. well, seeing as you'll lose and I'll be around to collect OK

:D

[Flabbergasted]

50. You got a big grin out of me. I hope I'm wrong. God I hope I'm wrong!

[Proud_Democratt]

36. What makes a person certain

about a liar???

[Flabbergasted]

40. Because he will always do that which he says he will not!

[TheBaldyMan]

41. because everything says 'no war' ...

polls not at 90% , Pentagon almost in open revolt , the entire world knows that Iraq was based on a lie and won't fall the same old rubbish with Iran , election in '06 will sink every Republican candidate if Iran is attacked , Iraq would rise up leaving 10,000s of troops in the middle of an instant insurrection , the list goes on ...

The right wing has begun to wake up to the fact that the political tide turned months back. Bush will be lucky to be in office another three months.

[Flabbergasted]

43. I don't think so. If you really analyze the theory and idealisms behind

conservatism you don't arrive at that conclusion. We have not seen anything at all indicating any kind of major insurrection in the Republican Party!

[Proud_Democratt]

46. I hope Congress won't let it happen...they can over-ride

a President's veto with 2/3 majority vote......how much do you trust Congress?

[Kablooie]

51. I'm sorry but you must be too bald to really understand.

[TheBaldyMan]

67. please read my many posts over the past week on this subject

I have grown tired of repeating the same reasons why there will not be an attack on Iran. There are a lot of them and based more on fact than the hysterical speculation that has appeared on DU and other sites.

[Flabbergasted]

71. Uh You have some links right?????

[TheBaldyMan]

79. here are some links,

If you become a donor you can search the archives for research purposes.

These are some posts of my long history of posts on Iran.

US determined to strike Iran ... etc.
my response starts at post #24

Secret talks with UK about bombing Iran. my posts are at #6 & #9

The REAL reason we're going to attack Iran ... this is about the petro-bourse in Iran changing to the Euro to trade oil but has some of my thoughts on the effects of a widened conflict in the near and middle east.(4 posts #1 ... #29)

This one about intelligence reliability and the administration's credibility. Thankfully I only made one post out of a total of three.


Those are some sensible threads from the last month that you haven't posted in yourself. I hope you get the idea about why I am not going to panic at the next WE ARE AT WAR WITH IRAN thread.

on edit: sorry I took so long but I was answering to another 'we are already at war with Iran thread'

[Flabbergasted]

80. I really apreciate you gathering these for me. Its too late tonight for

extensive thinking!

[TheBaldyMan]

82. please take your time, I'd appreciate a thoughtful response n/t

[Flabbergasted]

83. I'll go through everything tomorrow but I don't think your "logic" book

will hold up.

Take Care

[Flabbergasted]

84. One last thing! What the media is working with is sugestions from the WH

In other words there is a motive behind the info! What is the motive? Answer this for me?

[TheBaldyMan]

85. The motive is to keep the mushrooms in the dark and to keep

shovelling the fertiliser, maybe you should boycott GE and News International Inc.

Fox and the rest of the 'news' outlets don't run news organisations anymore, it was cheaper to hire a pretty face to read press releases from the autocue.

If you want a motive; go to Greg Palast's website and read some of his articles about the Bush family and Venezuela. That's why the WH & the MSM need each other. The truth makes them both look bad.

Real investigative reporting takes more money, uncovers the lies and scandals of those in power it also shows them all up for what they are: a bunch of crooked skinflints.

[Flabbergasted]

96. Good point but you missed my question...

They have been leaking this information for months. There are three lines of reasoning: 1. They're trying to distract the American public as well as make them fearful. 2. They are bluffing (Iran, Russia, China). 3. They intend on attacking Iran and this is the run up.

[TheBaldyMan]

113. I don't know if those three points are the only possible reasons

I fail to see any plan. This administration doesn't seem to have any foresight, any advice they do get is ignored if it isn't in harmony with the pre-selected outcome. This would seem to point to an attack on Iran.

However recent history shows that what the WH knuckleheads say will happen and how it turns out are two different things, this becomes clearer with every hour. That's why I'd say the intent might be a push for war but it is doomed to failure. The situation is very diffent to 2003 Bush hasn't got the political muscle to go to widen an already unpopular and unsuccessful war. It's said in Britain that America loves a winner, they love to celebrate success, Bush is losing.

I disagree with your premise, Iraq has shown one thing clearly, it is this: the USA may be the remaining superpower but it cannot act alone with any hope of success. In fact, it needs UN backing for any undertaking to succeed.

Mr. Bush would be wise to heed the axiom: If you're in a hole; it's best to stop digging.

[Flabbergasted]

115. I'm not sure that creating a lasting democratic state in Iraq was ever

on the agenda. The first thing a stable government in Iraq would do is say bye bye US. The lack of planning was intentional because they have no real desire to bring peace to the region.

The US is very similar to Hitler in this way. He had an largely impossible vision and got very close to accomplishing it (He needed to have the Nuke first)

Well this Hitler has the Nuke and a vision as well. Remember George gets his leadership from God.

[Flabbergasted]

81. I don't think George is reading your logic book? He has GE's

[Kablooie]

98. The one point you overlook ...

You assume that the reality of an attack on Iran will stop them. I agree that there is no sane reason to attack Iran and a tremendous justification for not attacking.
I personally don't have confidence that decisions are being made based on any kind of reality. I think they have an agenda they set years ago and plan to follow through on it irregardless of the concequences.
This seems to be their response to the real world in a multitude of previous situations and I don't see that anything has changed.

I honestly don't think reason is part of their equation.

[Catchawave]

22. Initially ?

Those poor innocent civilian collateral damage victims.

But ya know, after 9-11, for a few days I did want to bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age.

[enlightenment]

26. If you want to SEE Americans' reaction to even the threat of

nuclear war, watch "Atomic Cafe."

I was flabbergasted, Flabbergasted, reading some of the responses to this thread. I'm neither attacking nor criticizing, just stating my amazement that it takes just the idea of a nuclear strike to bring out the Cold War in all of us.

I suppose I should be glad that I remember all the words to "Duck and Cover."

Just remember, the first thing you want to buy for your bomb shelter is a the economy-sized bottle of Valium.

[Flabbergasted]

28. So what are you doing enlightened?

[enlightenment]

72. I teach history,

Flabbergasted. I'm old enough to remember the Cold War and since my dad spent his AF career in SAC, I was afforded an interesting perspective on that bit of history.

I don't believe we will nuke Iran -- not because I think Bush wouldn't, but because there are enough folks around that understand the ramifications of mutual assured destruction.

That said, if it becomes clear that he plans on attacking Iran, whether or not he wants to drop nukes, then it's time to take to the streets.

I really wasn't being sarcastic -- you asked if Russian nukes could reach the US, which suggested that you don't know too much about the Cold War (and if I am wrong, please forgive my presumption). "Atomic Cafe" is a very cynical take on that period, but in that cynicism is a tremendous truth about how fear can make people behave.

The best protection you or I can offer our friends and loved ones is prevention -- whatever that takes. The alternative is that economy-sized bottle of Valium, a lead-lined hole in the ground, and the heartbreaking certainty that all that protection won't make a difference.

[Flabbergasted]

74. Ok Honestly I'm 30 yesterday. I don't remember the cold war. But to be

perfectly honest we are dropping a nuke somewhere. I feel it in my gut.

[enlightenment]

93. Felicitations on your birth day, Flabbergasted.

:party:

Now, take a deep breath and consider all the reasons why * won't drop a nuke.

I can't make promises, I don't possess the certainty of some others in this thread -- but I do believe that wiser heads will prevail.

That said, focus your anxiety outward, not inward. Use that energy to counteract the spin that has convinced so many Americans (and others) that preemptive war is not only necessary but right.

[Proud_Democratt]

42. Our priorities are not in order!!!!!!!!!!!

We're more concerned about humane treatment of cattle, dogs, cats, etc. It's important....but I wonder how MANY members of PETA have protested this war or Bush for lying???

[oblivious]

34. The grave consequences to America of nuking Iran

...Finally I would like to discuss the grave consequences to America and the world if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. First, the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans both on American soil and abroad will be enormously enhanced after these events. And terrorist's attempts to get hold of "loose nukes" and use them against Americans will be enormously incentivized after the US used nuclear weapons against Iran.

Second, it will destroy America's position as the leader of the free world. The rest of the world rightly recognizes that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from all other weapons, and that there is no sharp distinction between small and large nuclear weapons, or between nuclear weapons targeting facilities versus those targeting armies or civilians. It will not condone the breaking of the nuclear taboo in an unprovoked war of aggression against a non-nuclear country, and the US will become a pariah state.

Third, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will cease to exist, and many of its 182 non-nuclear-weapon-country signatories will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an attack by a nuclear nation. With no longer a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, any regional conflict may go nuclear and expand into global nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are million-fold more powerful than any other weapon, and the existing nuclear arsenals can obliterate humanity many times over. In the past, global conflicts terminated when one side prevailed. In the next global conflict we will all be gone before anybody has prevailed.

Jorge Hirsch is a professor of Physics at the University of California at San Diego. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and an organizer of a recent petition, circulated among leading physicists, opposing the new nuclear weapons policies adopted by the US in the past 5 years. He is a frequent commentator on Iran and nuclear weapons.
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/apr/1094.html

[Old and In the Way]

35. shame

that we couldn't remove these criminals before they had a chance to do this.

[APPLE314]

107. DITTO

[Proud_Democratt]

38. No matter the type of warfare in Iran..

you know that the Bush Administration will be lying about the REASONS why.

[dajoki]

47. Sad and scared for the entire world n/t

[Proud_Democratt]

49. I would also...except that N. Korea might get involved..

they are very Anti-American.

[dajoki]

55. Might be a lot more...

involved also.

[Proud_Democratt]

64. That's even worse

isn't it?

[dajoki]

97. YES, it is!!

[RethugAssKicker]

52. How do we as a people... without the Congress or Senate

stop this madness. Seriously, is there a way we can non-violently demand the impeachment of the whole Bush admin!

[Flabbergasted]

53. I think civil war!

[Kablooie]

57. Well, at least we may be living history.

[Flabbergasted]

59. I think we are living history but I don't expect much of a civil war here

[RethugAssKicker]

65. Cant we storm the "CASTLE" with enough numbers that it does

not have to be violent?

[Flabbergasted]

66. I'd go for a constitutional amendment requiring the execution of the top

fifty political leaders once the approval rating reaches 29.9%

[ProudDad]

88. I'd prefer 34%

[Proud_Democratt]

69. I'm not an advocate of violence but

Revolution might be the only option. It won't happen though....we can't part from A/C, I-pods, cell phones, PCs or other daily distractions from the real world. We can't even go out to eat without a phone stuck to our ear!

[loyalsister]

62. Utter Terror

I would be extremely frightened of the retaliation.
The odd thing is I recognize a right to self defense and reasonableness of some kinf of retaliation. I would have great concerns as to what the manifestations and proportions would be.
As to how the nation would react, I have only some vague speculation.
I think that would depend on how cleverly the admin would manage to play it. Their desperation to get people on board could lead them to use some desperate measures. They still have a way of using fear and propaganda effectively.
The recent demonization of "brown people" has been something that I would not be shocked to them them use to their advantage.
Racial profiling was one of the binding characteristics of our post 9\11 let's kick ass in the M.E. lead up.
Fear and a recognition of a greater risk of terrorism could stir up the jingoistic "ugly American" pot in uglier ways than we have seen yet.

[Peanutcat]

75. MY reaction?

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!! WWWIII HAS STARTED!!!!!!!!!

[proud patriot]

77. first I'd cry , then I'd get up and try and stop it

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. I would get sick to my stomach. I would weep and feel desperately ashamed

since we are on the subject -- here is the latest from Juan Cole:

link: http://www.juancole.com/

"Kiriyenko: Iran's Method "Unfeasible" for Fissionable Material

Here is what a nuclear official who has no interest in getting up a war on Iran says about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claims earlier this week to have slightly enriched a small quantity of uranium:
link: http://www.kyivpost.com/bn/24251/
MOSCOW (AP): Russia's nuclear chief on Thursday said Iran is far from being capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, the Interfax news agency reported. Russian Federal Nuclear Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said the enrichment facility in the Iranian city of Natanz, equipped with 164 gas centrifuges, could not produce any significant amount of enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel power plants or produce atomic weapons. "These centrifuges allow Iran to conduct laboratory uranium enrichment to a low level in insignificant amounts," Kiriyenko was quoted as saying. "The acquisition of highly enriched uranium is unfeasible today using this method."

How refreshing, a high government official who isn't LWB (lying while breathing)."

link: http://www.juancole.com/

More from Juan Coles'article:

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

[thatsrightimirish]

86. i would pray

i really don't know how else I would react. I believe if we drop a bomb somewhere someone will retaliate. The nuclear radiation will reach China and God only knows what would happen then.

[Flabbergasted]

101. I don't think we'd see a retaliatory nuclear strike. Russia and china

the two likely candidates would weigh their options very carefully. We would see some military maneuvering.

[ProudDad]

87. Hmmm

My personal reaction? Same as 9/11 -- what took them so long? These assholes are crazy so it's only a matter of time.

Nation: They'll probably be brainwashed by the evening news into accepting the nuking of Iran as "what they deserve for their saber rattling and their support of Saddam".

What we should do is storm Washington, D.C. and give bush the same end as Nicolai Chauchesku of Romania...


Interesting: Some history of Chauchesku -- He'd make a hell of a republican:

"In 1966, the regime decreed a ban on contraception and abortion on demand, and introduced other policies to increase birth rate and fertility rate - including a special tax amounting to between 10 and 20 percent on the incomes of men and women who remained childless after the age of twenty-five, whether married or single. Abortion was permitted only in cases where the woman in question was over 42, or already the mother of four (later five) children. Mothers of at least five children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least ten children were declared ´´heroine mothers´´ receiving a gold medal, a free car, free transportation on trains, etc.; few women ever sought this status, the average Romanian family having 2-3 children (´´see Demographics of Romania´´). Furthermore, a considerable number of women either died or were maimed during clandestine abortions.

The government also targeted rising divorce rates and made divorce much more difficult - it was decreed that a marriage could be dissolved only in exceptional cases. By the late 1960s, the population began to swell, accompanied by rising poverty and increased homelessness (street children) in the urban areas. In turn, a new problem was created by uncontrollable child abandonment, which swelled the orphanage population and facilitated a rampant AIDS epidemic in the late 1980s - created by the regime´s refusal to acknowledge the existence of the disease, and its refusal to allow for any HIV test to be carried out."

http://www.delaplata.net/articles/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu

[Flabbergasted]

102. Good guess except Iran never ever supported Sadamn

[ProudDad]

120. I know Iran was Saddam's enemy

but the amerikan public doesn't...they're so ignorant they'll believe any BS the media'll feed them.

[smoochpooch]

89. WWIII- The world against us,

and the only thing that could contend militarily. That's exactly what we're moving toward. People around the world see the U.S. as more of a threat to world peace than anything else, including terrorism. Any action involving nuclear weapons would verify for them that our country threatens life on the plant as a whole. Who knows what kind of coalitions would be formed in response?

[Flabbergasted]

103. No we'd still have Mexico, Canada, Australia, Most of Europe, and Israel

Possibly India but I believe they'll feel pressured to defect to Russia.

[oblivious]

91. I would regard the nation that did it as the most cowardly in history.

[IndianaGreen]

94. It would give a moral justification for the nuclear bombing of the US

The entire Cold War strategy known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was that any nation armed with nukes would be reluctant to use them for fear that they themselves would be nuke. It was a crazy concept, but it kept peace for 50 years.

If Bush turns into an atomic cowboy and start nuking countries, he would provide the moral justification for anyone else to retaliate in kind. Millions of innocents will die because moderates in our country refused to heed the Left's warnings that Bush was a Hitler and that he needed to be dealt with accordingly.

[Flabbergasted]

104. See post 39

[TankLV]

111. I totally agree.

If they let this genie out of the bottle, there will be PLENTY of "unintended consequences", that's for sure.

I see at a minimum a major realignment of the world politically, to the detriment of the US.

Then I also see that all bets are off regarding other countries using "preemption" just the same way these REPUKE War Criminals have done!

And WE will be a long time paying the price for their folly.

[saltpoint]

95. What would Pete Seeger do? I'd vehemently object, agree to march on

Washington, re-double my efforts to elect Democrats to the next Congress, and contribute more generously to the ACLU.

[Fabio]

99. Get the hell out of NYC

[Jack Rabbit]

100. My personal reaction?

I will hardly be able to contain my anger. I will vow not to rest until the war criminals in the Bush junta are brought to justice and will offer my assistance to any international agency toward the effort apprehend the mass murderers and put them on trial.

I don't know how the nation will react. That may depend on how sycophantic the "librul media" is this time.

[Neil Lisst]

108. I would be very disappointed, and hope the US public would ...

... demand Bush be removed from office, and Cheney, too.

[Booster]

109. I would probably bend over, grab my ankles and kiss my ass

goodbye, cause if we nuke ANYBODY, somebody is going to nuke us.

[SeaBob]

110. Open Season

I think it would be open season on politicians

[onenote]

112. why would it need to be a nuke attack?

If we attack ...and I'm not saying we will or we won't...I think its far more likely it would be with conventional weapons designed to disrupt the Iranian nuke program by taking out key facilities and personnel.

onenote

[Flabbergasted]

116. You're not taking into context the poltical spectrum world wide....

[onenote]

117. I'm not following?

What context?

[Flabbergasted]

118. Think of it in terms of a massive chess game. Our country will look at

things in terms of how to best maintain and increase our advantage. In this case politics are very important. Thinking about the left wing (communism) right wing (Democracy) spectrum what we have is population control mechanisms that compete against each other.

We can already see major events unfolding with alliances around the world especially with Hamas, Russia, China, Iran, and Venezela. Our strategic advantage is our military and flauting or using our 10,000 war head strong nuclear arsenal. We are now in an age that under the right circumstances the US nuclear arsenal could wipe out every enemy we have in a surprise attack. We are clearly either warning that we are willing to use nukes or showing that we will.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

114. Been talking about this-- a lot of people would emigrate

The alienation that's been setting in throughout the country, particularly among progressives, is the highest I've ever seen. I can't believe that Vietnam was ever this awful or deep-rooted. Many of my closest friends and patriotic Americans are not taking language courses (Pimsleur, Berlitz, Teach Yourself series) in areas like French, Italian or German in preparation for a move. It's just becoming too intolerable, and the political system has broken down.

[banana republican]

119. Detrich Bonnehoffer is alive and well in the US of A. n/t