You can't be 26782 serious?!?

Apparatnly, Hawks have taken wars(usually against innocent people) for a computer game. A villian, a juggernaut and then, bingo, duck soap. Are the Pentagons' war analysts aware of the fact that their boasted earth Penetrating Weapons would leave behind radioactive emission that keeps killing civilians generations, I means it, CIVILIANS, after a any mininuke assults?Waht are they really smoking?
First capture Bin Laden and give him what he deserves, secondly bring Iraq and Afghnistan back to the ground and hunt down their henious former leaders then think about Iran. In those two devastating wars, America mainly killed ordinary peole, mostly against their governmnets. No sir, you are not making any good in your adventures in midleeast.

NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

yall, are boring and stupid get life

Germans had no intention at all to assault the states but we all know how the US benefited from German scientists and scientific breakthroughs afterwards.
Now it doesn't seem to me that Iran is of any imminent peril to the united states and taking measures more wiser and practicable than war can be well preventive, the measures that essentially saves thousand of hundreds innocent lives, unless there are some ulterior actuations, like the one that was posted at the bottom of this forum.

Preimtive strike - Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, in September 1941, when we sank a German submarine while we were technically at peace, did a nationwide radio address and said, 'If you are standing next to a rattle snake, you do not have an obligation to wait until it bites you before you decide it's dangerous.'

two posting earlier in line 14 I meant facilities, but written faculties

there is a good proverb as it goes:
get your own home in order first.
"IRANIAN", before taking pity on free western media and press that has made this discourse possible, try to establish a free media in Iran and see there would be no need to write in Washingtonpost blogs.
Practice what you preach and practice tolerance and plurality.

Whatsoever the ground is I am really happy that there has been a dim of hope for mutual conversation in a vis-a- vis manner between US and Iran. I hope in the meantime a way that secures saving enormous lives will also open up. So I cannot consider this any funny but a promising happening.
I would also like add a few words about Iranian technology, running the entire gamut from nuclear to medical and so forth. I personally cannot seem at all the Iranian A-bomb is any time soon to loom. I speculate if the same story that goes around in any other research institutions in Iran is the case with Iranian nuclear ambitions; it would only be a paragon scene of mess. The Iranian government is one the most fiscally corrupt ones in the world and authorities tend more to stuff their bank accounts than doing anything else when it comes to sign a contract with foriegn countires. They conduct a sybarite way of life and take advantage of every moment and opportunity to accrete wealth in the expense of naitonal wealth. I can imagine that whatever they purchase for Iranian nuclear faculties are of shabby quality that probably are good for nothing since the Iranian dealers must have steal good portion of money to their own benefit. Then they would boast that they bought the best thing available in market pretending to spend the whole money allocated. I can never seem that Iran has been able to hire Russian top nuclear scientists or technology to install the Bushehr nuclear power plant. I have never been attended in any Iranian nuclear facilities( most of them unkown even here at home but untill lately) or been involved in any activity that had something to do with that but I can say, from my experience when worked in an Iranian biomedical sector that when top Iranian officials talk about research and breakthrough, the most likely mean stealing money from national fund for their own selves. Iranian ministry of medical education invites numerious Russian so-called scientists and however pays comparably well but yet paltry amount of money to them, no moving ahead in medical research ever achieves. Russians know how to milk this government that has painted itself to corner of the world with unbelievably inane miscalculations and just regard Iranian governmental sector as a pot bonanza. Too many parallel decision making points, in continuous competition with one another make the situation messier and exposing them to do repetitious parallel activates with no clear anticipation for outcome. In addition, the government usually doesn't pay enough salary to its domestic scientists and hirelings as well, so many of them actually have to moonlight as taxi drivers. Can you expect anything hi-tech ever come out of this great consternation, and epitome of governmental filching and corruption? I personally cannot. I see the Iranian nuclear electricity like a pie in the sky, let alone an A-bomb.

How funny is these western media! reading them is like reading jokes. lies, everyone knows who is lieing. everyone knows who is so slefish that is ready to kill thousend to protect itself from his suspection and nightmare dreams. everyone knows that what this media is doing. thats why nobody believes these any more.

the most recent one. first Larijani answered Hakim's request to talk with US, and said the talks will only be about iraq, and told why there will be no talks on nuclear issue, then Rice and rest of US administrations said that we will speak only about iraq, and western media pretends that it was iran who wants to talk about other things and US rejects it.

dirty game you play, sad for Truth Based Objective Media. Sad day for humanity.

How funny is these western media! reading them is like reading jokes. lies, everyone knows who is lieing. everyone knows who is so slefish that is ready to kill thousend to protect itself from his suspection and nightmare dreams. everyone knows that what this media is doing. thats why nobody believes these any more.

the most recent one. first Larijani answered Hakim's request to talk with US, and said the talks will only be about iraq, and told why there will be no talks on nuclear issue, then Rice and rest of US administrations said that we will speak only about iraq, and western media pretends that it was iran who wants to talk about other things and US rejects it.

dirty game you play, sad for Truth Based Objective Media. Sad day for humanity.

How funny is these western media! reading them is like reading jokes. lies, everyone knows who is lieing. everyone knows who is so slefish that is ready to kill thousend to protect itself from his suspection and nightmare dreams. everyone knows that what this media is doing. thats why nobody believes these any more.

the most recent one. first Larijani answered Hakim's request to talk with US, and said the talks will only be about iraq, and told why there will be no talks on nuclear issue, then Rice and rest of US administrations said that we will speak only about iraq, and western media pretends that it was iran who wants to talk about other things and US rejects it.

dirty game you play, sad for Truth Based Objective Media. Sad day for humanity.

Herlad tribune international on March 15 published an analysis that had good sense of truth. Stanely Wiess, wisely indicated that becasue there had been no diplomatic thies bewteen US and Iran since 1979, American statemen failed to understand the real Iran's situation. I cannot agree more. We shouldn't forget that the US and Vietnam kept their diplomatic connections going all the 10000 days war long and except a brief hiatus, same story goes for US-USSR in cold war era.

I will by all means.
For now let me say that the Mullahs enjoy absolutely zero tolerance policy at home. At universitites , a hot point for the government in which several sorts of militia like Islamic soceity or Basij have long infilterated treat even simple objections to poor quality of food with sever respond tiying evrything up with political situation of the country. Perhaps they are not that wrong since whatever strident it is, it should be taken with a little spice of disvapproval of the islamic establishment from people everywhere. I would say the islamic regime has templeted on horrible legendary humicide practiced once by Soviets or Nazis, since they are real brutals.The regime may fesibly hunt on its preys becasue they are usually intellectual, generally helpless learned erudits whose weapon is their pens and blogs. With no NGO or free press, the regime enjoys its having his own way irresponsible to anybody.You can never compare the reformist newspapares in Iran with Nytimes that can trully impeach Presidents and pull them down as it did so far.
In the meantime, I should add that as far as I know, Iranians do like Americans simply because they think whatever the government says must be believed just vice versa. Please don't forget that Iranians were the only muslims to held shiva and commemorate those who lost their lives in 09/11. Iranians carrying candles in their hand marshed through the captial city of Tehran at that night.
Being muslims among most of Iranians is also controversial. You probably do't know that we didn't freely adopt Islam but it was forced to us after Arabs invaded us in early dawn of Islam. The dynasty of Hakhamaneshi was unfortunately firgile and defeated. You can find a brief but definitive count of the invation in History of Civilization by Will Durunt. So, these days, especially that these have been Arab Mmuslims who did terrorist attacks here and there, there is increasing tendensy in Iranians to repudiate from Islam at all and catch up with their ancient religeon of peace and tolerance Zoroasterian. However, I admit that if Iranians are ever attacked they would quickly set against the external enemy, whosoever it is. We fought an 8 year bloddy war with nextdoor muslims becasue they invaded us. The US should not count on receiving considerable help from people if it launched fire.

Atrina,

I have not read/seen the article. But, it is always easy for some individuals to sit back in their seats, judge others, and tell them what they think they should do in a given situation. For example, I suspect that most American citizens would fight to the death to protect their families and country, but yet, if another citizen living in another country of the world says that they truly need to do that, some Americans would not understand their actions. Why? Because they do not know what it feels like to have their way of life truly threatened and/or to live in fear and so they can not personally relate to the situation. While people judge that which they do not know all the time, there really is no excuse for refusing to try to imagine what a different positon might feel like. Additionally, certain people do not see why trying to understand another individual's position is important in the first place. Not good.

I believe that you are correct when you say that certain US citizens do not understand the position of the Iranian people at the moment. While I had a few clues about their positions, I did not know much more than that until I read your posts here. IMHO, your comments, or those of any individual who may live in a foreign country, are extremely valuable to US citizens. Some of us are limited in our understanding of issues by virtue of the content of the news stories that we see/hear. Others may take the time to research issues on their own and may even have other human contacts/associates outside of this country who can serve to educate them, but this is not always the case.

I would ask you to continue to comment and educate the US public as best you can, if you are interested in doing so, about Iran, its people, and its leadership. Such commentary only serves to widen US citizen's perspectives and like everyone else around the world, we need as much information (and as many opinions) as we can get.

Thanks, again, for your input.

testtesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttesttest

Redcat,
Your analysis makes me a little feel like there are people in their sound mind at least at that end,thanks.You have probably read the article" Here a nuke, there a nuke...." in which there is call for Iranian revolt. These kind of opinions are my real cause of worry since it simply mirrors as though there was no true understanding of iranian government answer to such an uproar. The islamic monarch supresses with ultimate military might even small gathering of women activists or public transportation drivers, those who out cried their basic , well globally recognized rights, let alone a real revolt aiming at overthrowing the regime. They wouldn't hesitate to make Iran a blood bath. These kinds of remarks make me think the Iran's status dosen't read properly

Atrina,

Your description of the power struggle is appreciated. We have a similar dynamic here in the US, albeit with different players of various mindsets.

I suspect that TPsTB, worldwide, are familiar with the various factions of power within Iran and are negotiating with that information in mind.

I do not know whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not. I also have no way of knowing what is happening with regard to negotiations/talks that may be occurring behind closed doors, between world powers or governments. I can only hope that talks continue and that an accord of some kind is reached versus some entity taking military action against Iran.

I share your fear that innocent people may ultimately pay a price for a government's action, whether in Iran or elsewhere. That scenario is one that should be avoided, at all costs, IMHO.

If the U.S.A. does attack Iran it will be the last straw as they say.

Because it will start World War 3 and show the World that President George Walker Bush is the Nazi Blood Thirsty Greedy War Monger that he is.

To Prevent World War " 3 " Our Only Option is to Impeach President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra R-MI.,W.V. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrener R-WI., Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts R-KS. and any others of their Nazi Gang and supporters and having them ALL IMPEACHED for High Treason and Aiding the foreign Terrorists who have attack the U.S.A. and for Genocide and War Crimes Against Humanity.

It is TIME to STOP the Bush Bloody War Machine.

Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

what worries me enormiously is that if Iran's Desk, with its personnel only recently increased from 2 to 10 is ever aware of the complicated power mechanism and struggle in Iran? It appears to me that there are sveral cabals in lurk to supplant the leadership. Though they are all eaqually eager to see the US halfway and talk the round table to agrue all problems away , every group wants to seize the consenquent profts to their own benefit. That's why eg. Rafsanjani says nothing waiting for Khameni and his crony to prove themselves incompetent, and fears not to take the nation into an already defeated war, many of the other groups in the body of the government alike. With these scene of power struggle a regime outgoing message becomes always vague and indecisive. If a foreign power is unaware of such a house of cards in Iran, it could simply make miscalculation with unforeseen consequences.

redcat,
Mullahs must never get grips to nuks. They would drop it even on their own people if the people attempt to overturn them but in the same time I cannot support bombing Iran. The abominable leaders would easily flee and get no harm but ordinary poeple, most of them sick at nausea with the regime would be unduly killed.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh needn't worry about inflicting pain on the United States of America. The U.S. - particularly under its current president - seems quite adept at administering pain on itself, without any outside help.
Let's face it: the U.S. is a dysfunctional, blundering fool of a nation that is on its last legs. The stupidity of its electorate -- as evidenced in the re-election of George W. Bush -- is bound to guarantee the U.S. an even faster decline than the one already under way.
In fact, the decline of the American empire began some time ago; it is only accelerating now. When they're not shooting each other to death in their violent-plagued streets, its obese citizens are choking on the bad air they pollute with their SUVs and digging themselves ever deeper into debt.
It's a sad state of affairs, but at this point, it's hard to see what can be done to turn things around for this dim-witted nation or the dunces who lead it.

1) 1st problem: Mixed policy positions/messages can and will be used against the US/west in the court of world public opinion. How many countries in Iran's neighborhood have nukes, as signatories of the NPT or not? How many of these countries are 'friends' of the US, recently acquired or otherwise? The message being sent is this: If a country is a friend/ally of the US, it can possess nuclear weapons with the US' permission, whether tacit or overt. Wrong, able-to-be and will-be-used-against-the-US/west message.

2) 2nd problem: Iran's non-compliance with the protocols of the NPT (or resignation from it) will not warrant a military strike in the world's view, IMHO. Should Iran remain in compliance with a treaty that they have already signed? Optimally, yes. Will a military strike against Iran, of any type, be justified if they opt to resign from their NPT obligations? No, not even in light of some of their leader's statements concerning Israel. Why? Because the Iranians have not yet moved to harm any other country - and the people of the world know this.

3) 3rd problem: The administration will not succeed in selling another war/conflict to the American people. Does anyone believe that a majority of US citizens would support a military strike against another country in that region, whether led by the US or by some other entity, with US support? They will not, especially when retaliation for said military strike begins to surface in the US/west, in myriad possible forms. As of today, 60% of US citizens do not support the war in Iraq (CNN.) POTUS completely disregarded that poll result and introduced the idea of Iranian-sponsored support for terrorists in Iraq during a televised speech. The mention of Iran in today's speech, which was advertised as a speech about Iraq, was an example of opportunistic spin, made worse by the fact that the message was intertwined with possible solutions for thwarting the IEDs that have served to kill and maim US forces in Iraq. The inclusion of the subject of Iran was also a slap in the face for every American citizen's opinion that POTUS chose, once again, to ignore. Iran is not Iraq; they comprise two very different countries and any conflict with or within each country represents a unique situation. The Iranian's (or perhaps a group/nation that sympathizes with the Iranians), having now been sufficiently notified of a possible military strike, will respond to same, IMHO, either now, or later.

4) 4th problem: A Pre-Emptive Strike. Let the American people awaken one morning to find that Iran (or any other country) has been struck militarily overnight, by US forces, without any prior explanation from the administration to the Congress, to the Senate, or to the people. If one believes that the majority of US citizens are upset with this administration's performance to date, just try springing that 'news' on them. At some point, the American people will no longer 'trust' - anyone in government.

5) 5th problem: The Iranian people likely will not tolerate being bombed/killed for any reason whatsoever. Would the Iranian people want to 'overthrow' their current leadership - at the same price currently being paid by the Iraqi's, sans foreign forces on the ground in their country? I am certain that they are hearing all of the statements being made by the US/west and are seriously considering that question.

Iran may, or may not, be in the process of joining the nuclear 'club'. But if they do, it will not be a huge surprise. The days of the US/west determining who 'shall have' and who 'shall not have' are limited, and not simply by virtue of threats of terrorism or other possible acts of retaliation. Rather, they are limited by the inevitable results of the US/west's own unwise actions at different times; that is, individuals and nations have discovered that force is countered only by force and some lessons are best learned by example. Mirrors - reflect.

I truly hope that the discussions concerning Iran stay at the table. Any other scenario can only result in devastating consequences for everyone involved - now or at some point in the future.

Rich,
I appreciate the way you tried to appease me. I know about the President's vow but I am afraid it may not become ever practicable since the Mullahs are real recalcitrant. For wielding the ruller power they wouldn't falter to take the poor Iranian into war with a juggernaut even Sovits didn't dare to do so. A faction of Mullahs fear they would anyway either lose the face if compromise with the States and hence have to step down or be forced out by the American military action. Therefore they see themselves in borrowed time and are just termporizing their fallout. So I should only keep my fingers and toes crossed that the Americans are more rational. I hope diplomacy will work.

atrina:

Our President has said he will seek a diplomatic solution.

I pray that he will.

cannot America find a better way than waging a war to get access to Iran's oil and fresh water resources? a way that is not paved with innocent Iranians' lives? a way that merely targets despicable ayatollahs? Iranians would be even thankful to furnish the states with their natural resources in return of getting rid of the brutal regime

correcting the last line:
....blades of imminent war being waged by their despotic rullers at home and war hungers in....

Yes, the Iran Government not its people.

I believe all the people of the world truly want peace and justice.

please replace "Iran" with "Iranian government" all over the article and mind a little more about poor Iranain ordinary people who are stuck between two blades of imminent war being waged by their despotic rullers at home at war hunders in washington.

Based on the article in the Post today, our diplomatic team in the WH should well understand that they have many diplomatic chits on the table to bargin with in approaching Iran.

Gitmo.

The Iraqi occupation/freedom thing.

I am sure our esteemed posters can help me with some others. But those all have their little problems.

How about we see if Israel will give up its nukes (that it doesn't have) as a ploy to counter Iran's "need" for nukes?

I am sure we can convince out good allies the Israelis to go along since we have well supported them for so long.

I am sort of agreeing that I find the Iran's argument regarding their need for nuclear energy somewhat specious or suspect since they are awash in oil. I guess I should say I don't really understand their need.

But if Israel would give up its nukes in exchange for reaffirming ours assurances that we would be there for the Israelis if needed, so they really don't need them.

This would take the "nuclear" wind out of the Iran's ambitions from a negotiation position. The Iranians would be hard pressed not to agree that if Israel gave up its nukes that Iran really doesn't need them either or otherwise please explain more fully.

In addition, not to susprising, IMHO, nukes are an ethical and moral disgrace of human kind, just like modern warfare and terrorism.

If you want to have a war, dueling is the best approach I say. Keeps a lot of innocent people out of harm's way.

Just kidding about the dueling. A sports competition would be better, like the Olymics, Man I liked that speed skating and moto-cross snow boarding, that was great.

One Man's Opinion

Richard Katz

Bombing Iran is the most dumb ass step away from shaping the politics of the Middle East.

Mr. Fred Shwarb,

I only have one objection to your comments. One might get the impression from your note that we have a misdirected policy as a matter of choice and free will. The fact of the matter is that US policy towards the Middle East and Israel is driven by Israel and its powerful instrument in the US, IAPAC.

Now many might jump at my throat and accuse me of being anti-Semitic, etc. But in my opinion the current state of affairs is no fault of Israel and it resources here.

The fault is with the degradation of our democratic system. The fact that every politician starting from Vice President Dick Cheney feel obliged to crawl to IAPAC and pledge allegiance or else feel the wrath of Israel is indicative that American people have less and less control over their faith and the leaders they choose.

Israel did not create Abramoff and other corrupt politicians who represent whoever pays them, She is just using the corrupt system for her own national interest, and shame on us.

"Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
George Washington

Mike T: This post is directed to you.

" ... is up to each and every individual to take the problems, each as their own and do whatever is within their immediate grasp to maintain whatever dignity remains of this 'democracy'."

A statement from an American citizen who maintains a sense of pride in country and hope for the nation's future. Both admirable traits, IMHO.

" ... What is missing from the current 'group think' is the energized history, which has enabled us to this point to be free."

Statement caused me to reflect and think about our history, as a nation. I agree that our energy has been somewhat depleted.

" ... because to be with no action is to be without virtue and without honor to your fellow citizens."

Again, an honorable statement.

" ... The current revolt is NOT a situation of Republican against Democrat or even Liberal against Conservative, but a fight for our very existence as a free society. "

How much would it cost to have that message heavily promoted by the MSM? "Divided we fall", and we have.

I suspect that a few of our forefathers would be proud to see that the American spirit/soul, has survived, despite our sometimes-awful history. While I do not speak in terms of 'tyrants/revolt', I do agree with your perspective.

Your courage is stunning, and your apparent belief in the power and possibility of change within the United States represents the mindset required to enable us to survive as a nation.

Are such ideas 'naive' or reflective of 'weakness' as some may say? No. They simply emanate from a mindset that is able to envision a different America - a strong America, yes, but a country which is better able to respond to the needs of its citizens, take its place in the world, and interact more fairly with the rest of the world.

Maintaining the status quo is both mindless and easy. Change requires vision and planning, or, in other words, thought. Those who see no reason for change and improvement have already lost faith - in the nation and in its people.

Thanks, Mike.

IT IS DISINGENIOUS TO DESCRIBE ISRAEL AS A UNITED STATES ALLY.

PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT ISRAEL THE GOLDEN PARASITE OF THE UNITED STATES.

BELIEVE YOU ME, I LOVE ISRAEL & I WISH HER WELL BUT LETS KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE:

EVERY YEAR, THE UNITED STATES GIVES ISRAEL US$6 BILLION OF MY TAX MONEY FOR MILITARY & ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE, AS OUR LEADERS CALL IT. THIS IS FREE MONEY WHICH ISRAEL DOES NOT REPAY...

BUT I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. I CAN ALSO LIVE WITH THE FACT THAT FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER, BENJAMIN NATANYAHU ONCE BRAGGED THAT THE U.S. IS ISREAL'S GREATEST WEAPON TO BE DEPLOYED HOWSOEVER ISRAEL PREFERS.

WHAT IS BEGINNING TO ANNOY MILLIONS OF VOICELESS AMERICANS LIKE ME IS THAT REALIZATION THAT THE ENTIRE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE U.S. SEEM DESIGNED AROUND WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ISRAEL RATHER THAT WHAT IS AMERICA'S BEST INTEREST.

TO TAKE CARE OF OUR FRIEND IS OK (AND I'VE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THE UNITED STATES TAKING CARE OF ISRAEL) BUT TO HAVE OUR TOP-MOST POLICY MAKERS (DR. WOLFOWITZ, DOUGLASS FEITH, LOBBYIST ABRAMOFF, TOM DELAY, DONALD RUMSFELD, CONDI AND CO) BEHAVE AS IF ISRAEL IS THE ONLY REASON WHY THE UNITED STATES EXIST IS UNFORTUNATED.

THE LAST TIME I LOOKED, THE U.S. HAD 50 STATES ONLY AND ISRAEL ISN'T ONE OF THEM.

Redcat wrote:
"And what does one do with an opinion, if/when it is formed?"

It is the 'real story', which you do not see addressed: "The apathy of Americans appealed to be those who wish to take control."

The truth is: The American people are just as empowered as ever to seize control of the government, bureaucracy and social distortion that has become the new order. It is our inherent duty as Americans to change that which requires change. Do not rely on your vote as your 'only' voice. Speak out and be heard.

It is up to each and every individual to take the problems, each as their own and do whatever is within their immediate grasp to maintain whatever dignity remains of this 'democracy'. If that means 'risking it all' then that is what must be done.

Our citizenry has become one of complacency and of lazed inaction. What is missing from the current 'group think' is the energized history, which has enabled us to this point to be free.

I am a 'family man' with kids, a wife and career. Yes, at the end of the day we are all tired because we are working harder then ever just to live paycheck to paycheck.
However, I make it my duty as an American Citizen to speak out and be heard, whatever the cost, because to be with no action is to be without virtue and without honor to your fellow citizens.

I have been arrested for reading the names of dead soldiers aloud on veterans day, however that has not stopped me from continuing to read them aloud. We must stand fast against the tyrants of today and remain resolute in our stance.

The current revolt is NOT a situation of Republican against Democrat or even Liberal against Conservative, but a fight for our very existence as a free society.

There are those of us that are willing to rise above the greed and corruption, which has tainted this country with evil.

We are with you. You are not alone in your battle for freedom. Stand fast and stand strong...........Long live Freedom!

Mike T: Comments to follow are directed toward some of the ideas contained in your post; response is not directed at/to you personally.

" ... Actually, we the People of this country ARE responsible for what actions are taken in our name. It is the job of the Citizenry of this country to speak out and be heard, by any and all means necessary. This is the root reasoning behind freedom of speech. Perhaps it a lazy, less than apathetic attitude which has enabled Bush &Co. to take over."

We are not 'free' to speak/write/act in the way in which we once were. In an era of national security letters, wiretaps, intel/military databases collecting information on American citizens because they happen to march in an anti-war protest - we are not free. Journalists are no longer free to report, apparently, either. The new word of the day is: intimidation.

I also have a problem with the idea that Americans don't care to remain abreast of important issues, political or otherwise. They wake up in the morning, pack up the children (or not) and rush to work, work 40, sometimes eighty hours per week, run errands, return home exhausted, cook dinner, watch the local TV news if they have the time (perhaps cable, if they can afford to subscribe), read on the net if they have the time (and can afford a computer and an internet connection), fall into bed, and then wake up the next day and do it all over again.

I agree with you that increased participation on behalf of average American citizens is required to change leader's attitudes and behaviors with regard to issues currently confronting our nation. However, the apathy that we see with regard to citizen participation may be a direct result of: 1) Americans having already tired of reading false or spun 'news', 2) Americans having realized that political leaders engage in politics for their own gain and not for the benefit of citizens, 3) Americans having experienced little reward for their participation in political activities in the past, and 4) the introduction of new, fear-provoking 'intimidation' techniques, as referenced above.

If the media does not promote a given issue (like the ports controversy), the average American may not know about that issue, let alone be apprised of its details. IMHO, American citizens DO want to know about issues but the presentations made by the MSM in most cases about relevant issues comprise well-spun soundbytes versus detailed, non-biased, factual reporting. Sample a story on FOX versus other stations for an example of 'soundbyte spin'. 'Experts', usually well known, whom appear to present opposing points of view are also oftentimes spin-masters. Citizens are left struggling - to understand relevant issues such that they can form an independent opinion.

And what does one do with an opinion, if/when it is formed? Note please that our leaders don't typically hold referendums, locally or nationally. Why? Because after they have won their seats, it is politics as usual, with the voter only having had the power to elect them and being subsequently forced to live with the consequences of that election (their decisions) for two to four years.

Can an 'unhappy' voter call and/or write to a Congressperson/Senator to express their views? Of course, but unless many individuals do this at the same time, opinions/concerns are usually not acted upon.

Our political system is a decent system, but it does have negative aspects. Beyond actual elections, citizens are at the mercy of the media for receipt of factual information and as we all know, the media can not be trusted to present it. Citizens can write on blogs and 'opine' via other venues, but are politicians actually interested in the opinions presented or are blogs, etc., simply serving as outlets for unwanted public opinion and/or substitutes for the demonstrations that used to be held in the streets in the 60s? Politicians don't typically listen very well, unless it happens to be an election year; they are usually too busy talking, amongst themselves.

And why would any administration state that they are not interested in poll results? The easy answer was that if they attended to poll results, true 'leadership' would suffer. I would submit that more expansive polls should be conducted and more referendums should be held, on a national level. If referendums were held, the level of active participation by typical voters would indeed increase, if only due to the added responsibility to assist in deciding the outcome of a particular issue. There is a reason why referendums concerning important issues are not typically held - and it is not good for America or for American citizens.

Some leaders deliberately shield themselves from their people's opinions and leave them only with the option of marching in the streets, thereby 'causing' water cannons and gas canisters to be bought in. While complacency can be said to be everyone's fault, if leaders to whom a message is being sent pretend to be selectively deaf, eventually 'the people' stop talking - and some may even begin to fight.

Citizens must be encouraged to speak, versus remaining mute, but leaders must also be willing to listen. It is a two-way street and to date, American citizens have been defeated by their own leaders, time and time again. That is why I have great difficulty in accepting the idea that American citizens are responsible for the current state of affairs with regard to our nation. We can only elect our leaders - and then await the results of their performance.

quite a mess here eh?! Wrote:
"the citizens aren't responsible if the president, cheyney, rumsfield, rove, geo. h.w. and a few others decided to overthrow the government are they?"

Actually, we the People of this country ARE responsible for what actions are taken in our name. It is the job of the Citizenry of this country to speak out and be heard, by any and all means necessary. This is the root reasoning behind freedom of speech.

Perhaps it a lazy, less than apathetic attitude which has enabled Bush &Co. to take over.

If we are to assume that the government operates on a "higher calling" basis or believe that they know something that we do not, we no longer have an effective democracy, but one in which is a true Oligarchy.

Perhaps debating the issue of the role of secrecy in a Democracy would lead to the exposing the rotting underbelly of our congress... What could they possibly have to hide?

Take to the streets, engage your neighbors, family and co-workers in debate before it is too late.

The power truly does belong to the people.........

Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan:

A true American!!

Thank you.

Oil for Lebensraum.

9/11 for the Reichstag Fire.

Iraq for Austria.

Iran for Czechoslovakia.

Saudi Arabia for Poland.

World War III for World War II.

The Bush-fronted regime, plagiarizing Nazism.

will america be striking itself as it has more weapons of mass destruction than almost any place in the world?

Based on the Bush Administration's track record, an attack on Iran is imminent.

PNAC?

I would diffuse the situation by working with the truth....

the citizens aren't responsible if the president, cheyney, rumsfield, rove, geo. h.w. and a few others decided to overthrow the government are they?

we may be kneed deep and over extended but we still have economic might...

if we fall the whole box goes up in flames...

I'd probably be talking to Greenspan, and some other thoughtful types and see what they can do with where things are....

what is true is that the citizens need to be allowed to ride the freedom train too....

any company is more stable when the citizens are invested....

not just used like slaves.

muslims, christians, jews need to be talked to as-if they could think

.

Get the picture of how our current political economic policies have made us vulnerable?

Republicans and Democrats.

Or worse:
China decides to cash in its trillion dollar IOU in treasuries it holds with Uncle Sam's signature, the day we go to war with Iran.

Tom Grey wrote:

"Most anti-war folk above are not serious -- they believe, without being intellectually honest, that the USA should allow Iran to get a nuke.
Even though Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and promised NOT to get nukes, a Treaty which neither declared India nor non-declared Israel signed.

The USA did not "force" Iran to sign. Do treaties mean nothing?"

Yes, treaties mean nothing. Nations routinely ignore treaty obligations if it suits their interests.

Look at the United States, and the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war, which we signed for good reason ... redefining captured personnel as "enemy combatants", stuffing them in territories allegedly outside the reach of the US justice system, playing word games with what "torture" means ....

In fact, I'd argue even the US Constitution means nothing to Mr. Bush (who hasn't thought it through) and Mr. Cheney (who has thought it through, but came to the wrong conclusions.

What piece of paper binds those with the gun?

If you were leading Iran, what would you do to protect your population against hostile Sunni's (Iran-Iraq war), Jews (nuclear-armed), and the US (nuclear power, invaded pre-emptively, and has a history of meddling in your affairs going bac to the 1950's, installing the Shah - which Khomeni deposed in the religious revolution in the late 70's) -

if Iran said, we'll quit on the nuke thing, so long as the US disarms, would you bite? I wouldn't, but I can't be surprised that any power that is the focus of our antipathy wants to get nuclear weapons to hold us at bay

Can we really afford to "bomb" our political problems? The Nation State is the underpinning necessary component of modern civilization and without it, I believe our current political and diplomatic system would collapse.

That's why Iraq was a mistake. So that is were I stand on the issue.

The world has become a much smaller place and with currency markets the way they are today (basically a gentlemen's agreement not to upset the apple cart) we ill afford the economic realities which would be inflicted if our "sugar daddy" foreign lenders were to say: enough no more money for you USA.

Bush is right to seek the diplomatic solution. Google "NewBank" and learn what I am talking about. I learned about it reading articles concerning M-3 Money Supply.

The Bush Fed is not going to make those numbers available anymore and I was sort of wondering why. What I found was NewBank.

If no one showed up for our Treasury Bill Auctions, life as we know would cease that very day.

Just one man's opinion.
Richard Katz

It aint too bad an idea to bomb a country which has bankrolled international terrorism.

I.e. Saudi Arabia

The United States has never been satisified with simply living as an equal among the the community of nations. The United States is a meddling nation that is bent on the domination and destruction of any nation or people that fail to comply with its will, its interests, and its narrow vision of the world!

We should change the name of our country from the United States of America to a more befitting name, 'The United States of Meddling and Hegemony'.

Ashamed to be an American'

Mr. Arkin and bloggers:

Is anyone going to point out the economic ramifications of all this? Iran is buying nuclear help and technology from the Russians and India is buying theirs from us.

The real question is: are we going to use our military to try to hurt our nuclear industry competitors? Couldn't one argue that this is the same goal in Iraq, only regarding oil? Doesn't anyone remember Bush's plea to Iraqis as Baghdad fell, "Please protect the oil!"

Whether or not you agree that we're using our military to promote our economic interests the appearance of it is clear enough to talk about.

If you look at Bush's entire presidency through the filter of believing that everything he does is for this same type of special interests then his entire presidency makes perfect sense.

If you'd like to reply, I'd like an example of how I'm wrong, not just a bunch of name-calling.

"Tom Grey - Liberty Dad" says: 'Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty...Do treaties mean nothing?'

You tell me Tom. The US signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, yet unilaterally abrogated it as soon as they (wrongly) thought they could build an effective ABM system.

The US also signed the UN Charter, then flagrantly broke it going into Iraq without Security Council backing.

The US also signed the Geneva Conventions, yet went into Afghanistan claiming they didn't apply, and inventing a completely new class of person who was outside its protections.

NPT, unlike Geneva, has a legal get-out clause and Iran would be within its legal rights to drop out anytime.

Where would that leave your argument?

And by the way, under the terms of NPT Iran has every right to reprocess their own fuel. Yet the US is saying they can't.

That's asking them to go BEYOND their NPT commitments.

Until RESPECTABLE international inspectors say they're building a bomb, all the rest is just WMD speculation by the proven liars Dick Cheney and Co.

If you Americans want us to take THAT seriously, maybe you shouldn't have been so free with the unfounded accusations last time around.

And nobody is going to nuke Israel, silly. That's about as likely to transpire as the Rapture.

According to a number of Congressmen I've talked to, the Bushies plan to air bomb Iran sometime in July.

No, it makes no sense. But they mistakenly believe that it will take some of the heat off of their failed policies and let thier party survive the coming bloodbath this fall.

I think you're buying spin.

We didn't go to war in Iraq because of WMDs. That is now clear. Yet that was the reason given.

Why is Iran any diferent? That is, if the Administration is giving the same reason that we know they falsely used in the past, why should we believe them this time?

No. There is a real risk they're pre-empting. But it's not WMD.

It's the end of the dollar hegemony and the decline of oil supplies and, through that, the end of US hegemony in this world. It's the rising threat of China that, unless energy supplies and environmental degradation slows it, will surpass the US within decades. It's the rising debt crisis in the US.

I'd love to hear what you say about the risk if you were to consider the REAL reasons for the warmongering, rather than the stated reasons. I think it's possible, and, like you, agree we still don't know what Iran will do.

Empirical evidence shows that most wars are unnecessary and could have been avoided.

Military action would solve nothing and server to only make matters worse.

Bush has said he wants a diplomatic solution. This is the correct decision and the President should stay firm here.

In IMHO, the problem with the Iranian/US situation is a failure to communicate and two basically strong headed leaders (ours and theirs Presidents) who are currently "fighting" one another with a war of words. Both are saying things to the other that are proper criticisms but are more meant to score points than help resolve the situation.

My humble suggestion would be to try and remember the first rule of diplomacy.

Respect.

In order to begin a dialogue in any negotiation there must be some ritualized showing of respect as to each side's opinions, beliefs, concerns, etc, in order to begin a discussion and interchange of thoughts in order to reach a "win-win" solution which, I believe, is available to be had most of the time.

What that diplomatic kabuki could be is best left to the diplomatic experts, but I think it would be a good first step.

The President is right to seek a diplomatic solution and we should all support him in that decision with good well reasoned ideas as to how to bridge the culture gap between the east and west and resolve our differences.

One man's opinion.
Richard Katz

Hey LoneMule,
First you must have some common sence which you don't,

"Is an attack on our common sense by this Blog inevitable?
Posted by: The Lonemule | Mar 9, 2006 11:11:31 PM | Permalink"
Ralf as in you make me sick you communist nazi.

Most anti-war folk above are not serious -- they believe, without being intellectually honest, that the USA should allow Iran to get a nuke.
Even though Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and promised NOT to get nukes, a Treaty which neither declared India nor non-declared Israel signed.

The USA did not "force" Iran to sign. Do treaties mean nothing? Oh, right; after N. Vietnam signed their (& Nixon's) treaty, they knew the USA was running (w/o honor) and that they could violate the treaty. And win. And kill -- thousands; hundreds of thousands.

Yep; lots of other countries signed Kyoto-- but they're violating it.

Iran wants nukes, and to nuke Israel, and anti-war folk are saying its OK with them.

Where is our fleet at this time?

I am personally concerned about the whole concept of legitimizing a pre-emptive strike. To me, it seems offensive...in more than one sense of that word. With this kind of logic, could you not argue that 9-11 was a pre-emptive strike?

Is an attack on our common sense by this Blog inevitable?

Israel doesn't want to leave the occupied territories or give Palestinians their right to return so they are using their servants, the US administration to neutralize Iran, which for its own reasons has stood by the Palestinians. If it wasn't nuclear energy they'll find another excuse. Ask Israel to go back to its pre 1967 borders so we can all live in peace.

Let me get this totally straight . . . an attack on Iran is NOT inevitable?

Like hell its not.

The rhetoric goes up every day, and Bush & Company have killed tens of thousands with the Iraq war. Do you really think they are staging up this Iran thing as some kind of "bluff"? They'll attack, because they don't know anyone in the military and they don't live in Iran and they will forever be isolated from any reprisal.

They are very rich and very inclined to stay that way. Our problems are not their problems. Our fears are not their fears.

I wonder what discussions must take place before the issue of cleaning up our government is discussed (perhaps debate?).

Shall we banter about the crooked dealings and ill-conceived ideas, or shall we talk of revolution?

We The People must take it upon ourselves to make the change happen. It is clear that there is a misaligned US government attempting a coup of its own.

Take to the streets and take back what is ours...

Am I just old fashioned or is the power to declare war still vested in Congress? For the Executive to launch a preemptive strike against any country isn't there something called the War Powers Act which only permits such a thing in the event we are first attacked? Can a Constitutional scholar out there lay out the legal basis for such a thing ever happening? Have we lost all control over the executive and, if we have, that is the first thing which has to be corrected before it is too late.

Two points: First, Dan Peterson is IMO quite right about Iran's Euro oil bourse, which really does pose a massive threat to the US dollar. It's no coincidence that the Treasury Dept has just now stopped publishing M3. They know a collapse is coming soon and they're doing their best to hide it.

The collapse, when it comes, will be vastly worse because of the Bush millionaire's tax cuts, and the deficit spending on a bloated military and a self-defeating war in Iraq.

But while this is true, it's far from certain that the oil bourse is the White House's motive.

After all, the people running this administration know little about such matters. Dick Cheney, the top dog himself, famously said to Paul O'Neill: "Ronald Reagan proved that budget deficits don't matter."

I believe they're still just operating under the old PNAC global domination plan. They're simply too stupid to know when they're beaten.

My second point just echoes Mill_of_Mn: in 1944, despite a vast two-year bombing campaign that targeted not only industrial plant, but also the homes, lives and morale of workers, Albert Speer managed to INCREASE German arms production dramatically.

He did it partly by moving factories underground, something the Iranians have a head start in doing.

And a nuclear weapons program is much more self-contained and immune to attacks on transport infrastructure than a large conventional weapons industry.

Placing faith in precision guided weapons means placing faith in US intelligence targeting. Considering their performance on Iraqi WMD, which was notoriously "East, West, and South of Baghdad", according to Rummy the Dummy, that would seem a bit rash.

And a final warning to those Americans who believe the US possesses weapons capable of destroying deeply buried targets: Yes you do, but they are all multi-megaton nukes. There is no surgical bunker-buster in the US inventory capable of penetrating more than about 20 feet. It is simply a myth.

Attacking Iran's weapons production will turn a country with a low-level secretive program into a mobilised nation with a war economy devoted to one goal - build those nukes.

Oh, one more thing. Iran's best missile currently has a range of 2000km. It may seem clever to some Americans to attack countries in no position to hurt them, but it's not very considerate of those who are in range. It's reminiscent of the same cowardly attitude that says let Al Qaeda murder Iraqis "so we don't have to fight them here."

A lot of allies are getting sick of this attitude. It also reminds us how Republicans love to boast that America has seen no terrorist attacks since the invasion of Iraq. They never mention that their two biggest allies in that war, Britain and Spain, both have.

Even assuming Iran is close to acquiring nukes, they are much farther from acquiring a delivery system capable of reaching the US. Moreover, the Iranian leadership (which doesn't include Ahmadinejad; he can't even appoint his own cabinet ministers) almost certainly would never give away the crown jewels of its arsenal to anyone. So Iranian nukes are no real threat to us.

Iran's nukes would serve only 2 purposes: deter a US attack, and neutralize Israel's nuclear threat. The first is of some real concern to the US; the second is of no concern. Perhaps Israel might be more ammendable to making peace with the Palestinians if they didn't hold the only nuclear card in the region. Right now, the Israeli gov't acts with impunity. This only hurts US strategic interests. Once Iran gets nukes, a US President could finally have an excuse to force Israel to the peace table for real talks, or real disarmanent talks with a view to a nuclear-free region.

I'm not a fundamentalist, Armaggedonist, apocalyptic, rapture-awaiting pseudo-Christian, nor am I ethnically bound to Israel or any other foreign power. So a nuclear Iran doesn't worry me that much.

We have start acting on what's good for the US, not what's good for Israel. Once we do, the issue becomes much clearer.

In regards to statement by Mill_of_Mn.

"And you'll probably get a jump-start from buddies who just don't like the US approach to bomb-diplomacy - maybe Pakistan, maybe India, certainly North Korea and i don't believe anyone has a clue about how long it'll take Iran to become nuclear, but it will happen - whether it ties our US undies in a knot or not we have no influence, no say, no credibility - and the west needs Iran's oil, bottom line, so no santion routine will have any effect in reality"
Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | Mar 9, 2006 6:31:04 PM | Permalink

You forgot about China and Vietnam and all of South America and the rich communists in the old USSR who would love to stick it to Bush and the U.S. after the way Bush has Nuclear bullied everyone else in the World.

Basically thats about 70% of the World who would help Iran.

Yes everyone is afraid of the big bad Bush.

And let us not forget the 80% of the Citizens of the U.S.A. who actually want G.W. Bush and his Gang of Nazi's Impeached.

And the majority of Canadian Citizens as well.

Impeachment or Revolt by Proud and Disgusted Citizens of the U.S.A.

They seem to be the only two options left.

I would like to see ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, BBC, CBBC, I Network, Pax, CNN and the Washington Post to a Poll on this.

As to;
"Posted by: Jim
"p.s. It does not take a bomb's worth of UF6 to be dangerous... a few ounces of powder would be enough."

Now what is that supposed to mean?! A few ounces of toxic UF6 might be dangerous, yes - if you spend enough time in the same room with this gas.
It takes tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to get enough highly enriched uranium that is weapons-usable. And it will take kilograms of HEU to make an even crude nuclear explosive device. By now, Iranians haven't yet managed to get their enrichment process working, so yes, they are years away from a bomb."

These substances are primarily mined in the Northwest Territories of Canada and the chance that Canada will sell or supply these things to anyone other then the U.S.A. is non existent.

As to;
"You should read James Fallows' Atlantic Monthly piece on the Pentagon's war game simulation of an Iran attack. If we knock out their nuclear sites, then they shut off their own oil, Iraq's oil going out the Shatt al Arab, and the Saudi, Kuwaiti and UAE oil going out the Straits of Hormuz. Result - world depression.

The alternative is a full-fledged invasion of Iran. But if we can't pacify 27 million Iraqis in a desert, we certainly can't pacify 70 million Iranians in a much larger country with much more difficult terrain.

Bottom line: we have no military option to go after Iran. And they know it.
Posted by: H-man | Mar 9, 2006 5:42:07 PM | Permalink"

And there is absolutely NO Justifiable Cause as that Iran has not attacked the U.S.A.

But then again neither did Iraq and or Afghanistan.

The Problem lies with President George Walker Bush and his Nazi Gang.

They are All Greedy Blood Thirsty War Mongers Hell Bent on Consuming and Controlling the World just like Hitler and Gangues Kahn.

Our only option is to Impeach President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra R-MI.,W.V. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrener R-WI., Senate Intelligence Comittee Chairman Pat Roberts R-KS. and having them ALL IMPEACHED for High Treason and Aiding the foriegn Terrorists who have attack the U.S.A. and for War Crimes Against Humanity.
Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

Any pre-emptive attack on Iran would make thing worse for the US

There's little chance that their facilities are vulnerable from the air - if they've paid any attention to US tactics at all - there's a good chance that their facilities are scattered and underground

If we did attack, and we destroyed some equipment and people - what would you do if you were Iran's leadership?

You'd redouble your efforts to get a nuclear capability so those nasty westerns couldn't attack you with impunity, yes?

You'll do it with western oil money, which will flow like crazy as disruptions in Iran will cause oil prices to soar

And you'll probably get a jump-start from buddies who just don't like the US approach to bomb-diplomacy - maybe Pakistan, maybe India, certainly North Korea

and i don't believe anyone has a clue about how long it'll take Iran to become nuclear, but it will happen - whether it ties our US undies in a knot or not

we have no influence, no say, no credibility - and the west needs Iran's oil, bottom line, so no santion routine will have any effect in reality

i wish the Cheneys and Boltons of the world would shut up, or at least strap on a gun and walk patrol in Baghdad for a while before they do any more sabre-rattling, using blood they personally won't sacrifice

As to Posted by: April;
"My 11 year old daughter said pretty much what one of the posters did, We are all people why does everyone talk about Iran Iraq France Isreal as if they are only countries, people live there real people with real lives and real worries real families! Collateral Damage is another word for killing of innocent people during bombing or war, these people in Iraq and Iran are not collateral damage they are humans. A good majority of the world would love to see Bush go they think he is nuts and a bully, yet they are not funding coos and threatening to kill us.

One more point in fact, Democracy in the Middle East is in no way going to look like democracy here. I hope we are all learning that lesson through watching the Pals and the Iraqi's. But maybe not we arent real good at learning from history.

Posted by: April | Mar 9, 2006 5:09:20 PM | Permalink"

I suggested the following;
In regards to Iran and Nuclear Power.
And or their possability of Iran having Nuclear Weapons.
Iran does not have the Delivery Systems required to use any Nuclear Weapon against the U.S.A.
I think it to be only natural for the Iranians to want a weapon that they could use in seldefense.

After all President George Walker Bush has been Taughting and Spaughting off about Attacking Iran and everyone else that has oil and that he does not like for what ever reason.
Of course Iran and Korea and Vietnam all want NUKES.

Although I would like to point out a cheaper and safer way to put a stop to the War Munger by the name President George Walker Bush.
That is for Iran to spend it's Money to finance a group of American Citizens (Not politicians as that would be illegal) to campaign for and lobby for the Impeachment of President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence) today before it is to late.
I believe this would be legal and much safer way for all involved.
Unless that arrogant G.W. Bush decides to launch a few missles just for his own misguided pleasures.
The fact that President George Walker Bush is NOT STABLE enough to be President is also a damn good reason to have him removed from office.
Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan
Posted by: Sp4MP | Mar 8, 2006 4:03:30 PM | Permalink

"Iran's euro-denominated oil bourse to open in March: US Dollar Crisis on the Horizon"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CLA20060210&articleId=1937

This article is THE Rosetta stone for media interpretation about Iran.

"What about shooting down an Iranian Airliner while in Iranian Territorial waters?"
In case anyone doesn't know, Tehran Bob is referring to the shooting down of an Iran Air flight by the AEGIS cruiser USS Vincennes, which killed about 270 passengers.

The AEGIS radars are supposedly able to engage 200 aircraft simultaneously, but somehow in its first "fight" with just one aircraft on its screen, it was unable to identify a 747.

Just one of countless provocations against Iran, which was then busy defending itself against America's chemical hitman Saddam.

Imagine if the Iranians shot down an airliner full of Americans. The US would probably nuke Tehran.

But I don't wish to sound too anti-American, as I see the better sort are here today. To judge from the comments here, there is little appetite for this idiotic and evil attack President Cheney and Vice-President Rove are planning.

But then again, there was little public appetite among the Germans for an invasion of Poland in 1939.

Posted by: Jim
"p.s. It does not take a bomb's worth of UF6 to be dangerous... a few ounces of powder would be enough."

Now what is that supposed to mean?! A few ounces of toxic UF6 might be dangerous, yes - if you spend enough time in the same room with this gas.

It takes tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to get enough highly enriched uranium that is weapons-usable. And it will take kilograms of HEU to make an even crude nuclear explosive device. By now, Iranians haven't yet managed to get their enrichment process working, so yes, they are years away from a bomb.

As for a military action against Iran... The consequences will probably make the current mess in Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. The country has something that Iraq didn't have - unity. And whether or not Iranian people like the Expediency Council and the lunatic president that much, they surely won't like the US bombs dropping on them.

Can the US deal with a region much more destabilized than it already is? Can it afford getting yet more alienated from other countries in the world? Will it be able to deal with a new - and probably more fierce - upsurge of anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere? Americans should ask those questions - to themselves and the government.

Posted by: Jim
"p.s. It does not take a bomb's worth of UF6 to be dangerous... a few ounces of powder would be enough."

Now what is that supposed to mean?! A few ounces of toxic UF6 might be dangerous, yes - if you spend enough time in the same room with this gas.

It takes tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to get enough highly enriched uranium that is weapons-usable. And it will take kilograms of HEU to make an even crude nuclear explosive device. By now, Iranians haven't yet managed to get their enrichment process working, so yes, they are years away from a bomb.

As for a military action against Iran... The consequences will probably make the current mess in Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. The country has something that Iraq didn't have - unity. And whether or not Iranian people like the Expediency Council and the lunatic president that much, they surely won't like the US bombs dropping on them.

Can the US deal with a region much more destabilized than it already is? Can it afford getting yet more alienated from other countries in the world? Will it be able to deal with a new - and probably more fierce - upsurge of anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere? Americans should ask those questions - to themselves and the government.

You should read James Fallows' Atlantic Monthly piece on the Pentagon's wargame simulation of an Iran attack. If we knock out their nuclear sites, then they shut off their own oil, Iraq's oil going out the Shatt al Arab, and the Saudi, Kuwaiti and UAE oil going out the Straits of Hormuz. Result - world depression.

The alternative is a full-fledged invasion of Iran. But if we can't pacify 27 million Iraqis in a desert, we certainly can't pacify 70 million Iranians in a much larger country with much more difficult terrain.

Bottom line: we have no military option to go after Iran. And they know it.

you clueless dud...

they're being led by Cheyney, are mad?

he's "everything looks a _war_ " to me because

I've got a screwdriver, defense addiction..

that's the point, keep focused for gawds sake...

baby boomer puppet but not leader.

they're talking about the cost of the war over here:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/03/cost_of_war.html

they are just busy salting the media with the data points that they need to

make Iran appear to be a terrorist American hating country....

but I would suppose that if you're Muslim, you would hate what the current congress and administration are doing to their world....

but since they don't know how our world operates....they would focus the hatred at America....

let's send them our president in manacles and an orange jumpsuit as reparation, and ask their forgiveness....

I'm being humourous, but if it would take away the tension....I'd do it....

it's pretty cheap, cheaper than a few hundred thousand more deaths...

I'd say it's down right economical...

let's remind them that this is Bush's War, and we'll let him take it in the ass as our terms of settlement...

okay?

Washington AP Story
"Moderate Republicans propose to write SPY PROGRAM into LAW."

"After weeks of negotiations, Sen. Mike DeWine R-Ohio, said he will soon introduce the Terrorist Surveillance Act of with three other moderates who have helped shaped the debate on intelligence issues: Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina."

These people are NOT moderates. They are EXTREMISTS LEFTISTS and obviously Nazi's just like President George Walker Bush.

They Should ALL be IMPEACHED.

Even if they do manage to make the ILLEGAL SPY/SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM into a LAW in total CONTREVERSY to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, F.I.S.A. and the Patriot Act.
It does NOT NEGATE the CRIMES COMMITTED by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra R-MI.,W.V. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrener R-WI., Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts R-KS. for High Treason for Aiding the foreign Terrorists who have attack the U.S.A. and for War Crimes Against Humanity in the Middle East.
G.W. Bush and his Gang are obviously Nazi's.
Even the Chancellor of West Germany has said so.
It is TIME TODAY to IMPEACH the ENTIRE BUSH Nazi Gang.
Before they DESTROY the United States of America and its once creditable reputation as a HUMANE Country.
It seems every Country in the World looks at the United States of America as Blood Thirsty Racists War Mongers. Just like Gangues Kahn and Adolph Hitler.
I know I and everyone I know personally think that way about our United States of America government and so does everyone else I seem to run into and discuss this matter with.
The U.S.A. Declaration of Independence says it best as to what we have to do right now to save our Beloved United States of America from the Nazi's who are currently in control of it.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.:
"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King" ( Bush acts as if he were King,Tyrrant and Dictator of the U.S.A.)
"of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
"He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them."
"He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."
"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."
Are any of you people out there being shaken awake yet by how Bush is so eerily repeating the history by his actions that so closely resemble the Tyrants/Dictators Adolph Hitler and King George the 3rd and Gangues Kahn?
It is TIME TODAY to do as our forefathers said in the Declaration of Independence "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
It is Time Today to Impeach President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra R-MI., W.V. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrener R-WI., Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts R-KS. for High Treason for Aiding the foreign Terrorists who have attack the U.S.A. and for War Crimes Against Humanity in the Middle East.
Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

My 11 year old daughter said pretty much what one of the posters did, We are all people why does everyone talk about Iran Iraq France Isreal as if they are only countries, people live there real people with real lives and real worries real families! Collateral Damage is another word for killing of innocent people during bombing or war, these people in Iraq and Iran are not collateral damage they are humans. A good majority of the world would love to see Bush go they think he is nuts and a bully, yet they are not funding coos and threatening to kill us.

One more point in fact, Democracy in the Middle East is in no way going to look like democracy here. I hope we are all learning that lesson through watching the Pals and the Iraqi's. But maybe not we arent real good at learning from history.

HUH? Che, stick to the subject.

Jake, Good points.

This administration disposed of a great opportunity to "turn around" Iran, when it undermined the Khatami administration. We should have opened dialogue and encouraged the moderate majority. But Cheney and his neo-Cons couldn't resist doing the victory lap on Iran, and feeling invincible, cut the legs out from under the Iranian moderates.

Now where we are is a consequence of their stupidity.

And realistically where is this rhetoric going to get us. It will silence the moderates in Iran, and give the upper hand to the extremist. I assume, Cheney and his cronies understand this, and are trying hard to paint us and them into a strategic "corner" so that we will have to both come out slugging.

I fear we have all gone mad, not "MADD". Where are Nixon and Kissenger when we need them. For that matter, where are Bush I, Baker, and Scowcroft. Or any sane person who didn't cheat their way out of 19th Century Balance of Power Class at Yale.

Really and truly, God Save America!

You are absolutely out of your mind. There is no justification for a preemptive war. We fought limited wars in Korea and Vietnam to avoid a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union and China repectively. We successfully avoided a nuclear World War with the Soviet Union through the doctrines of mutually assured destruction and deterance. The Soviet Union eventually collapsed. The world would be a cinder now if the Neoconservative Bush Administration had been in charge at the time. After going through ten years of the Cold War in the Air Force and the Army, I am not impressed by any of these small Middle Eastern Countries having nuclear weapons. If deterance worked with the Soviet Union, it will certainly work with them.
We can only pray that the world will survive being lead by baby boomer Presidents of the United States. They haven't got a clue.

I am an Iranian American who lived beneath Iraqi MiG's bombing Tehran and who has also lived in the Midwest for almost 18 years. It is amazing that no one is even considering the BEST OPTION to make this "nuclear threat" go away: A scaling down of threats, an exchange of culture and art, mutual trade. Do you people even know why the students attacked the US embassy? Because it was the CIA and MIS who staged operation Ajax in 1953 (The overthrow of the Msadeq's democratic government of Iran and reinstating their favorite dictator) It was the CIA who trained the Shah's SAVAK (Shah's cruel torture Gestapo) It was Mr. Carter who gave the Shah protection after the people of the country kicked that blood-thirty monster out (Oh wait, isn't that the definition of democracy?) Instead of embracing the newly budding democracy (before it became a religious dictatorship) the Carter administration chose to back their favorite dictator (You can imagine how un-true the cries of spreading "democracy" ring with the people of Iran). It was the US who turned a blind eye when Sadam was using chemical weapons on Iranian civilians ( Rummy's famous pic with buddy, Saddam). What about shooting down an Iranian Airliner while in Iranian Territorial waters? No apologies and the captain got a medal for bravely killing civilians. I highly suggest you find Dan Rather's report on the subject and read it. Not a single apology. Einstein said "You cannot prepare for and try to prevent a war at the same time" I love the people of this country, my country, America, and it breaks my heart to see how the government is allowed to lie, deceive and manufacture fear to propagate its greedy agenda for the super rich. And by the way, no one in Iran cares about Israel and the "president" is mocked for being stupid and apocalyptic ...Sound familiar?

From Police Magazine 3-09-2006

Law enforcement keeps antiterror tools, gets new curbs under Patriot Act renewal

WASHINGTON (AP) - Law enforcement officials get to keep their antiterror tools, but with some new curbs, under the USA Patriot Act renewal passed by the House in a cliffhanger vote.

The 280-138 vote Tuesday evening passed by just two votes more than needed under House rules requiring a two-thirds majority for legislation handled on an expedited basis.

The vote ended a monthslong battle over how to balance privacy rights against the need to defeat potential terrorists - a political struggle in which President Bush was forced to accept new restraints on law enforcement investigations.

Bush was expected to sign the legislation before 16 major provisions of the law, which was passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, expire Friday.

"The president looks forward to signing the bill," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

In a sign of uncertainty over the vote's outcome, the sponsor of the measure containing the new civil liberties, Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., crossed the Capitol to lobby representatives on the House floor during Tuesday's 15-minute vote.

Despite the wafer-thin margin of victory, Republicans declared victory as they sought to polish their national security credentials this midterm election year, trying to balance a troubled war in Iraq and revelations that Bush had authorized secret wiretapping without warrants.

"I'm glad it made it. Now it's behind us," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said after he voted for the renewal.

For some, congressional passage comes none too soon after a season of political combat that stalled the legislation and forced Congress to postpone the expiration date twice. Forced by a filibuster, Bush accepted new provisions that give people targeted in terrorism investigations stronger civil liberties protections. The Senate passed the reworked version overwhelmingly.

Republicans on Tuesday declared the legislative war won, saying the renewal of the act's 16 provisions will help law enforcement prevent terrorists from striking.

"This legislation is a win for law enforcement, the war on drugs, and for communities and families across America," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said in remarks prepared for Wednesday.

"Intense congressional and public scrutiny has not produced a single substantiated claim that the Patriot Act has been misused to violate Americans' civil liberties," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "Opponents of the legislation have relied upon exaggeration and hyperbole to distort a demonstrated record of accomplishment and success."

But the debate over the balance between a strong war against terrorists and civil liberties protections is far from over.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on the domestic wiretapping program. Additionally, Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chief author of the Patriot Act renewal, has introduced a new measure "to provide extra protections that better comport with my sensitivity of civil rights."

Despite its passage, the Patriot Act still has staunch congressional opponents who protested it by voting "no" even on the part of the legislation that would add new civil rights protections. During the Senate's final debate last week, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said he was voting "no" because the new protections for Americans were so modest they were almost meaningless.

Such objections echoed during the House debate Tuesday, where the measure was supported by 214 Republicans and 66 Democrats and opposed by 13 Republicans, 124 Democrats and one independent.

"I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it offers only a superficial reform that will have little if any impact on safeguarding our civil liberties," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

For now, Bush will be signing a package on which members of both chambers of Congress and the president can agree.

The legislation renews 16 expiring provisions of the original Patriot Act, including one that allows federal officials to obtain "tangible items" like business records, including those from libraries and bookstores, for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.

Other provisions would clarify that foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officers should share information obtained as part of a criminal investigation with counterparts in domestic law enforcement agencies.

Forced by Feingold's filibuster, Congress and the White House have agreed to new curbs on the Patriot Act's powers.

These restrictions would:

- Give recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.

- Eliminate a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by investigators.

- Clarify that most libraries are not subject to demands in those letters for information about suspected terrorists.

The legislation also takes aim at the distribution and use of methamphetamine by limiting the supply of a key ingredient found in everyday cold and allergy medicines.

Yet another provision is designed to strengthen port security by imposing strict punishments on crew members who impede or mislead law enforcement officers trying to board their ships.
-------------
Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

The fanatic now running Iran is the same guy who helped hold our people hostage during the administration of Jimmy Carter, possibly the most inneffective president the US has ever known. He sent the horribly wrong signal that we would do NOTHING if our people were attacked.We reap the consequences. China and Russia have had big problems with their Muslim minority. I find myself thinking they would gladly stand aside ( if not be grateful) if we decided to nuke the place. The muslims hate us to their bones, would gladly kill all of us if they could. Their general reaction to the Danish cartoons calls into question their ability to generate a rational response. We would certainly need to act if they actually get nukes of their own. Preemption is the only course of action.

I'd like to believe the US has the guts to preempt Iran in the manner detailed by Dyer, but every misstep undertaken by the administration in its war on terror thus far suggests that Dyer's piece is but a left-wing paranoid fantasy of what the US has in store for its enemies. The reality is probably far more prosaic: if the US does attack, it'll be only with conventional weapons, it'll be limited, and it will be largely ineffectual.

I'd like to see Arkin address the issue head-on: what's the chance we'd actually use even small nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran? What does it take for us to use those things??? We didn't do it in the aftermath of 9-11, when a couple of nukes would have ended the Tora Bora siege once and for all and brought bin Laden's career to an abrupt end. And we would have been morally justified in doing so: 9-11 was extraordinarily destructive, and an attack on high-value civilian economic targets (in addition to the Pentagon attack). Why we'd go nuclear now when we passed earlier just doesn't make sense: it may take nuclear weapons to dig out some of Iran's hardened targets, but the same was likely true in Afghanistan. I really suspect this talk is just nonsense, but I'd like to see the issue specifically addressed.

Not Quite writes:
"If the U.S. truly cared about solving this matter in a way that would be effective in both cost and execution, it would fully support both external and internal forces that are trying to overthrow the government, much like what France did with the Ayatollah before the overthrow of the Shah."

Perhaps if the US (citizens) 'cared' about solving this matter, overthrow of the US government would be proposed.
I wonder what discussions must take place before the issue of cleaning up our government is discussed (perhaps debate?).

Shall we banter about the crooked dealings and ill-conceived ideas, or shall we talk of revolution?

We The People must take it upon ourselves to make the change happen. It is clear that there is a misaligned US government attempting a coup of its own.

Take to the streets and take back what is ours...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

I'm not sure "the American public has been convinced of the dire threat." Like some folks say, " fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

For that reason, a case against Iran will have to be even more "bullet-proof."

"Any attack on Iran should take out the clerics first, the Revolutionary Guards second and the military and naval forces third. If you want to end the threat posed by Islamist Terrorists you must address the mouthpieces"

Actually, you should really just take out the clerics and the revolutionary guards. Taking out the military and naval forces would be deja vu with respects to what we did in Iraq. Taking out their military and dismantling it actually made the situation worse over there and fueled the insurgency.

The existing Iranian military infrastructure is made up of young adults, ages 18-22, whom have very little choice but to join the military by law for two years. The majority of them actually hate the Islamic regime and would join in any revulsion, and at the very least, are indifferent to the current situations. They just do not have a leader to rally them.

If the U.S. truly cared about solving this matter in a way that would be effective in both cost and execution, it would fully support both external and internal forces that are trying to overthrow the government, much like what France did with the Ayatollah before the overthrow of the Shah.

Most Iranians will never forget the sight of an Air France plane landing in Iran with the former Ayatollah.

Let's just hope that the US and Israel are more interested in what is best for everyone and not what will make them look powerful.

What of the possibility that a series of missile attacks on military, non-oil, industrial targets and infrastructure and poor neighborhoods largely populated by supporters of the clerics in Iran, plus the threat that such attacks will be followed by more general missile attacks until the government is overthrown will trigger an overthrow of the Iranian government by anti-clerical forces?

I have to wonder if one of the reasons why Bush appears to blasse about his poll numbers is due to staying up late planning ways to attack Iran. I hope that this time they will give the UN a chance to do their jobs before preempting it.

"You are mistaken when you say they are VERY far away from having nukes."

Then the CIA and other intelligence agencies are mistaken, for they have recently doubled their estimate of the time it would take Iran to develop a bomb from five years to ten.

If the US does go in guns blazing in another illegal war, nobody will be able to pin it on CIA "intelligence failures" this time.
Ten years is the official CIA and DIA estimate. Unfortunately that isn't quick enough to save the GOP's ass in the midterms, thus the haste to "pre-empt".

Get ready to lose all your allies permanently, and see your economy flushed down the tube.

Once again we are treated to an amazing display of political toying with the security of this nation. I do not support our President on every issue, but I do support the USA doing whatever is needed to protect ourselves and our allies, including Israel. For a citizen or ally of the USA to take this issue and turn it into a political football, or worse, a chance to disagree with the President just to be in disagreement with him, is foolish and very dangerous.

You are mistaken when you say they are VERY far away from having nukes.

They are very close indeed. The US MUST attack Iran. There is no choice. They are not the ration imperialists that the Soviets were. They are Messianic nut jobs who can't wait to trigger Armageddon.

Wake up!

US is not going to strike Iran. Don't you get it! This whole scenario is propaganda, and the events happening are just part of the things that the "powers" use to hide the truth of the world they are shaping, from the masses. All this events are just "acting".

War in Iran is inevitable for one reason only: The midterm elections are on the horizon and there's nothing like a new war to rally voters to the party of the incumbent.

Mr. Arkin,

There is one word missing from your analysis:

Israel.

What about their national interests? Is it possible that they may choose to strike first? Is it possible that any strik