Think the US citizens will get behind this idea?

U.S. Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page A07

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 13 -- With an hour-long slide show that blends satellite imagery with disquieting assumptions about Iran's nuclear energy program, Bush administration officials have been trying to convince allies that Tehran is on a fast track toward nuclear weapons.

The PowerPoint briefing, titled "A History of Concealment and Deception," has been presented to diplomats from more than a dozen countries. Several diplomats said the presentation, intended to win allies for increasing pressure on the Iranian government, dismisses ambiguities in the evidence about Iran's intentions and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091301837.html

Think the US citizens will get behind this idea?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091301837.html

Yes.

I'm really hoping they won't, but I don't know....

Yep. Unfortunately I do. :no:

Are we moving backward or forward on the alphabetic list of potential invasion targets? Coming up on Iceland or Jamaica? Anybody? Sorry, I was absent when the list was handed out.

Military strikes, mebbe.

Invasion? Nope. We're tied up in Iraq, remember?

it'd be waaaay overdue

It was obvious that the main purpose behind the Iraq war (apart from oil) was to get to Iran. And I will never forget an Iranian friend who wrote to me when Iraq was invaded and he said "it's not Iraq they're after. It's us."

It will make Vietnam look like a picnic. I think the US may never recover from it properly and they will drag a good part of the Western world down with them. Anyway, I hope they are not expecting to have many allies. Although they may just manage to get Estonia signed up.... the Estonian soldiers are quite keen on fighting foreign wars because they get very high salaries when they do.

Those who are of the age of the draft... get your arses out of America now. Ask for political asylum in Cuba.

Time to put the "BOMB IRAN? YES!" sticker on my car.

I think everyone should read the statement from the Iranian gov't about how the years of diplomacy with the Europeans was simply to buy time to develop their nuclear program.

They will go nuclear unless they are stopped by force.

Do you:

a) care if the most radical government in the world gets nuclear capability?

b) really believe that one of the most oil-rich governments in the world simply wants nukes for power?

c) think that blind devotion to the principle of respecting sovereignty and always being consistent, is more important than 'a'?

If so, then I hope you enjoy the consequences.

I think everyone should read the statement from the Iranian gov't about how the years of diplomacy with the Europeans was simply to buy time to develop their nuclear program.Source?

Apart from Cuba, you people could perhaps also ask for political asylum in Venezuela in order to avoid the draft.

And maybe Mexico?

Source?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/14/ixnewstop.html (Iran 'kept EU talking' while it finished nuclear plant)

a) care if the most radical government in the world gets nuclear capability?


Quibble: I consider NK to be more radical then Iran. I'd also consider SA to be more radical then Iran as well.


b) really believe that one of the most oil-rich governments in the world simply wants nukes for power?


I think that the urge to have nukes is to discourage the US from pulling another Iraq.


c) think that blind devotion to the principle of respecting sovereignty and always being consistent, is more important than 'a'?


Us violating national sovereignty gives other nations an excuse to violate national sovereignty. Such actions tend to destabilize the world. Sometimes such action is needed, but it shouldn't be something that the US undertakes lightly.

Quibble: I consider NK to be more radical then Iran. I'd be interested to know why.

I think not, because

- Korea is isolated by water, and China, limiting its ability to sell weapons to the Middle East.

- N. Korea is ruled by an atheistic dictator, not a cabal of radical religious psychopaths. Governments like the DPK like to continue existing no matter the cost. The later contains many who simply don't care.

- N. Korea has a track record of using military force, and nuclear development, as simply an extortion tactic. The current Iranian gov't has no such track record.

I'd also consider SA to be more radical then Iran as well. The difference is that they aren't being overtly belligerent, and their fate is tied to ours.

I think that the urge to have nukes is to discourage the US from pulling another Iraq. I don't see why it is relevant. It doesn't matter what their reasoning is.

Us violating national sovereignty gives other nations an excuse to violate national sovereignty. Such actions tend to destabilize the world. Sometimes such action is needed, but it shouldn't be something that the US undertakes lightly. Nations have violated sovereignty before the US existed, they have done so during its existence, and they will do so when it is not around.

Anyone can find an excuse for anything in history. The US not doing something isn't going to persude some other leader to do the same if it is in his best interest.

Korea is isolated by water, and China, limiting its ability to sell weapons to the Middle East.


The DoD disagrees with your assessment about how big of a threat North Korea is, judging by the sheer number of US troops on the peninsula.


N. Korea is ruled by an atheistic dictator, not a cabal of radical religious psychopaths. Governments like the DPK like to continue existing no matter the cost. The later contains many who simply don't care.


Perhaps you disagree, but the North Koreans seem to be rather fond of Kim Il-Sung, to the point of naming him the 'Eternal President' and calling him the 'Great Leader'. This may be just a sign of respect, but it seems to be similar to a religious cult to me. North Korea seems to be pretty divorced from reality, which is extremely worrysome.


N. Korea has a track record of using military force, and nuclear development, as simply an extortion tactic. The current Iranian gov't has no such track record.


Soviet records released after the cold war tied the cause of the Korean conflict to Kim Il-Sung. After the Korean war, they were hemmed in by the UN/US/Korean troops to the south, and China to the north, which more or less eliminated any chance for aggression other than a few incidents over the past 50 years.

Iran, OTOH, has not invaded another country that I've known of (although they had a longstanding border dispute with Iraq). The Iraq-Iran war was initiated by Saddam (incidentally, the US gave Saddam support during the war, which probably has lead to a bit of badwill towards the US in Iran). OTOH, Iran has supported some terrorists, while North Korea just kidnapped people and sent spies to South Korea. Hmmm. Anyways, I guess my point is that while both Iran and North Korea aren't very nice countries, North Korea has more of a history of aggression than Iran.