Iran NOT a nuclear threat. . . .(IAEA).. Why isn't this being

[annabanana]

broadcast along with all the sabre rattling? Whenever one of those neocon warmongers starts with "we must do something about Iran. . and SOON" crap, I wonder why they haven't heard this:

http://tinyurl.com/lol7d
(Yahoo:ElBaradei: Iran not an immediate nuclear threat)

Yet they are never confronted with this annoying piece of reality.

This information MUST get pounded into the collective skull of the semi-conscious until they think of it AS SOON AS someone starts with the war drums.

(on edit: go to link & vote up the Yahoo article)

[ixion]

1. of course, you won't hear this on the 'liberal' media

because they've got their collective noses too far up BushCo's butt. :grr:

[Terran1212]

2. But he said he wants to wipe out israel!!!!!

Which gets said all the time by sensationalist Iranian politicians...

That's about the best one they have against Iran, but I have a feeling a lot of apathetic and ignorant Americans will show that's all it takes.

[eallen]

3. I have no doubt that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons ASAP...

Given Bush's foreign policy, they would be nuts not to do so. No, that does not make them an immediate threat. Yes, Baradei is absolutely right, that we should avoid the mistakes of Iraq and North Korea.

Unfortunately, we won't. Bush is president for 31 more months yet.

[annabanana]

4. I also have no doubt that there are many avenues

still open to us that don't involve bombing the crap out of another country. My fear is that these avenues will be torn up by our reckless, feckless maladministraiton.

[eallen]

5. No doubt.

[pola]

6. hopefully this article will get around, and others like it....soon

[sandnsea]

7. To prevent the threat

I don't recall anybody saying that Iran is an actual nuclear threat today. So I'm not sure what your point is.

[annabanana]

8. If we look back before the Iraq invasion...

The neocons were always talking about WMDs in Iraq, at the same time that Baradi was saying that there really was no apparent nuclear capability there..

The neocons, by virtue of their big multi-network echo chamber, all but drowned out the factual evidence to the contrary.

This is the same think that they're attempting now with Iran. That's all I'm saying. We can't let the truth get swamped by the truthiness again..

[sandnsea]

10. Actually, they flipped all around

The public wasn't holding them account to what they had actually told the American people in 2002, that the purpose of the vote was to send inspectors into Iraq. As they gradually changed their line to war, people didn't force them back to inspections - but went along with them so that the debate was war and anti-war.

So whenever anybody talks of war in Iran instead of permanent inspections - you actually help them make war the issue instead of inspections to prevent nuclear weapons. They aren't talking about war right now, don't help them down that path.

[annabanana]

11. today the word on TV is that there's something "new".....

We will talk to them if they first agree to stop all enrichment programs (peaceful & otherwise both, I guess). And it must be verifiable, on Condi's terms.
I'm not really sure how this is different from what they were saying before.

[sandnsea]

12. It's not, that's the point

Stick to the facts, we're talking about potential nuclear weapons years down the road. Don't let them drag us to the "mushroom cloud" bullshit again. If the IAEA says there's no enrichment programs, then post that report ten times a day if you have to, ask people to send it to their local newspapers, drum it into people's heads. Keep focused, because you know good and well they won't. And I just think it's dangerous to help them pound the war drum, because no matter where the word "war" comes from, the more people hear it the more acceptable it gets.

[annabanana]

13. In your post (#7)

You said "I don't recall anybody saying that Iran is an actual nuclear threat today. So I'm not sure what your point is."

My point was, just what I just reiterated, and you reinforced... There are the usual neocon talking heads popping up everywhere implying that, if they aren't right this second.. they will be soon.

We have to make sure that "soon" doesn't go to "within 5 years" to "within 36 months" to "We could be hit in 45 minutes"

[sandnsea]

14. That's right, don't help them

They AREN'T saying Iran is a nuclear threat today so for heaven's sake don't put those words in their mouth and help them along the way. Your OP implies that they ARE saying Iran has nuclear weapons today and they aren't. Keep focused so they can't obscure the issue in the mind of the public. The issue is really nuclear proliferation around the globe and that's really what we should be talking about as Democrats, not just Iran.

[malaise]

9. Same as Iraq

These fuggers control the spin.

[joe_shmoe]

15. **Please sign this petition against military actin against Iran**

It is with grave concern that I observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn/