ask yourself a simple question...are the weapons made to protect us going to kill us?

While I strongly disagree with almost every action, or lack thereof, of the Bush administration, I must say that I think any military action taken outside of US borders, should never include the deployment of ground troops. Ten million foreign lives are not worth the life of one American troop. Therefore, I think the President's consideration of using WMD's is a step in the righ direction.

This is the 21st century, and it's high time that we started fighting in a manner that utilizes our technology. I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons because of the devastation that their usage would bring to the environment.

I propose that we develop highly contagious, environmentally friendly, airborne, biological weapons that carry a 100% mortality rate, which would kill only humans. Nevermind archaic international laws.

If we were to eliminate one enemy nation, such as Iran, there would be few others who would oppose us.

I believe that it is high time for EVERY American troop currently in Iraq to come home. Such weapons as those previously mentioned, could be put to good use in such a scourge on the face of our world as Iraq. The problems of insurgents, and the constant clashing of the Sunis,Shiite, and Kurds could easily be annihilated without us losing any more of our own.

ATLANTABURNING

My first real job was as a Munitions specialist in the Air Force. Most of what we had in the Ammunition area (Bomb Dump) were weapons of mass destruction, but they were conventional munitions with a well defined area of mass destruction.
When you talk about Nuclear, Chemical, and biological weapons, you are talking about weapons Of UNCONTROLLED mass destrution. They do not have a well defined areas of mass destruction.
Nuclear Weapons are well defined with respect to the explosion and radiation that follows, but depending on the wind, radioactive fallout can travel for thousands of miles. This is how nuclear winter can begin. This is the problem of an attack on Iran's active nuclear power plants. The Chernobyl nuclear accident spewed radioactive fallout all over the world for a very long time until it was finally contained.
Biological agents are contagious diseases which can be from transmitted by personal contacts. These agents can really come back and bite the country that uses them. Not a useful weapon!
Chemical weapons are also carried by the wind, but agents that attack the lungs lose their effectiveness over distance. Nerve agents are designed to attach and attack through the skin. This tendency to attach to objects limits their range. But they are uncontrolled in the sense of not having a well defined area of mass destruction.
However, unlike Nuclear and Biological weapons, chemical weapons were widely used tactically in World War I. But, as a weapon it is more trouble than it is worth. Military people like the certainty of well defined areas of mass destruction, and prefer conventional high explosives.
Nuclear weapons are doomsday weapons. Their only strategic use is as a deterrent. Once they are used, the door is opened for retaliation. You will see serious attacks on American interest all over the world and in the United States. Israel will also catch hell because the U.S. is seen as her agent in the Middle East.

One other point worth mentioning here Arkin: Bush used precisely this same stratefy in his infamous rhetoric involving the "Axis of Evil". Promptly following that address, both North Korea and Iran began stepping up their efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Notably, Bush's ardent sycophants on the talk radio circuit also took the message and began their own agenda of crowing about who was next in line after Iraq. Others within the neoconservative intelligentsia--Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and the late Michael Kelly (killed in Iraq)--were fairly aquiver with near adulation at the "New Churchill", George W. Bush.

Not once did it ever occur to them the real message that our illustrious leader was giving off to the world: Time to "lock-and-load and saddle up". Not once did it occur to them that the real message we were sending was nothing more than the solid reinforcement of the worst fears that the Islamic world had of a crusading, warlike America with an agenda that involved making Israel the model for that part of the world. And not once did it occur to them just how badly this messge would be received by our friends in the rest of the world.

I see your point here Arkin. The calculated ambiguity that you spoke of is designed to provoke fear in the heart of would be madmen who might consider the development of a nuclear capability. But, in practice the strategy--which includes a sort of "keep-em-guessin'" rhetoric--ends up promoting an opposite reaction: an urgent move toward the development of nuclear wepons to defend one against an attack.

That has been the problem with Bush--and with other conservatives--all along. They tend to reject the notion that these people are behaving in entirely rational and predictable ways. They are behaving in precisely the same manner we behaved at the outset of WWII when we found ourselves threated with an enemy who had already demonstrated a willingness to use overwhelming, aggressive, military force to achieve its aims.

This is what happens when foreign policy is highjacked by a group of ideologues possessed of a worldview that sneers at the value of back door diplomacy and sees all negotiation as Neville Chamberlainesque.

Hey Arkin - sleeping in this week?
Y

and find out how much human being is in you versus fraud........

archimedes/robert

right?

and the Bin Ladens have never been to Crawford right?

And you don't own any oil stock in Standard right?

.

don't like having your boys outed?

too bad.

what's pertinent,

is your lack of discussion.

"Oh that's right, can't dream up anything creative about our current Pres so we're reduced to dreaming up conspiracy theories about his father, must be pill day at the asylum."

right,

like I made all of that up.

it's a matter of public record.

and we both know the boy aint smart enough to run the white house...

that's why he keeps old fools like you around...shame on you.

you're a villian out of an old fashioned movie...

apparently you can't read, I don't dream, I see, and any fool that is willing can see too...you'd better pray they don't connect you to it.

.

it is not unreasonable to conclude the usa
would invade iraq for it's oil,the control
of it being global for other strategic and
economic reasons...saddam was not playing
ball with american interests and being on
top of iraq militarily gives oil control
regardless if the pumps and pipelines are
working or not...control of what is in the
ground being the goal...not current usage.
the politics of regime change and being the
unseen hand behind any new iraqi regime
being nice side affects to american long
term regional interests...saddam being a
creature we had lost control of and iran
being acute to our sense of payback time
for past scores yet to be settled...
since the end of ww2 we very much picked
up where the brit's imperial designs left
off...with the world economy so closely
tied to oil pumping/supply control and it's
twin,the global monetary system that the
american dollar largely underpins there
should be little question about motives
for our current posture in middle eastern
oil supply control...the forces that push
the american involvement in ME affairs are
not small...from the israeli near strangle
hold on the post 1967 palestinian equasion
to the not often understood background of
our ties to saudia arabia we are there to
play...whether that play is fair is open
to some long discussions...the american
military is a costly setup to maintain and
is not carelessly inserted unless some very
real goals are being sought...many places
in the world quailify for better leaders
or more equitable governments...that list
is easy enough to compile...however iraq
which does not have much to covet other
than oil/water has been drawn into longterm
american "national" interest since 1980
over and over...indeed it may well be seen
that iraq had to be under american sway in
order to mount a thrust into iran...oil is
the big kitty being played for...china and
india and emerging oil hungry countries all
over the globe are playing longterm for oil
and the usa likely is not going to leave
the stage it has dominated for control of
oil resources and the use thereof for more
than half a century...yes...oil is central
to how this will play out...talk of using
atomic weapons raises the alarm levels but
considering the forces behind the quest to
be in the drivers seat on global energy
control this only underlines the stakes at
play...the current jitters in energy and
monetary markets being harmonics of this...

There is way too much propagandizing going on here.....
"The civility of it's 'moral' majority prevents any real discussion for fear of knowing madness with the media being it's hooker in guise. And the mindless supporters of hate and dissolution quick on his heels wanting to osculate the mumblings of their own madness like a bloated delegate high on their own lust."

Oh that's right, can't dream up anything creative about our current Pres so we're reduced to dreaming up conspiracy theories about his father, must be pill day at the asylum. Honestly, when will the trolls realize that correlation (and especially not coincidence) don't make causality. Until you can PROVE your delusions they will remain just that. I don't understand why there is no moderator for this blog/board to police the trolls and spammers who post here. It would go a long way toward fostering intelligent and rational debate, not the conspiracy mongering and Bush/Israel/America bashing that seems to be so prevalent.

Much of the current media coverage in the US about the 'Iran conflict' has concentrated solely on the US' and Iran's positions/statements/reactions versus other individual's/nation's concerns and reactions to the situation.

The excerpts to follow address some Arab/Middle Eastern individual's responses to the crisis and are directed toward the responders here who highlighted the sheer stupidity of the US threatening to use (or using) nuclear weapons in Iran, ambiguously, or otherwise. The article also addresses a few of the possible consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons; possible consequences that have already been predicted here by some responders. If this article is at all factual, I am left to wonder how it is that responders here, and individuals in the Arab world/ME, can predict obvious consequences, while the BA seemingly can not.

The BA's 'message' has been received by individuals in the ME/Arab world and the BA has apparently failed, once again, to 'win hearts and minds'. However, the threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran can not be recanted. IMHO, the damage has already been done.

Many Arabs favor nuclear Iran
...

Some Arabs, mainly outside the Gulf, are positively enthusiastic about Iran's program, even if it acquires nuclear weapons, if only because it would be a poke in the eye or a counterweight to Israel and the United States.

Others, especially in countries closest to Iran, are wary of any threat to the status quo and the instability it might bring.

Most in the Arab world see the U.S. and European campaign against Iran as hypocritical, while Israel refuses to allow international nuclear inspections and is thought to have some 200 nuclear warheads.

"I want the whole region free of all nuclear weapons but if the West continues its double-standard approach on this issue then Iran has the right (to have them)," said Abdel-Rahman Za'za', a 29-year-old Lebanese engineer.

"This could provide some balance against Israel and help the Palestinians in their negotiations. We have to take our rights because they are not going to be given to us," he added.

The Muslim Brotherhood ... "That would create a kind of equilibrium between the two sides -- the Arab and Islamic side on one side and Israel on the other," said deputy Brotherhood leader Mohamed Habib.

Arab League chief Amr Moussa said on Tuesday policies toward nuclear programs in the region needed thorough review.

"These policies which are based on double standards will blow up and escalate this issue and this escalation will not include only Iran and Israel," he said. The Arab League represents 22 Arab governments, from Morocco to the Gulf.
Iran says it has no intention of making nuclear bombs and wants enriched uranium only to generate electricity. The United States says it does not believe it.

Analysts said they detected a surprising level of sympathy and support for Iran in the region.

WOUNDED DIGNITY

"It's amazing how encouraging people are of the whole thing. Some think the Iranians are on the way to acquiring it (nuclear weapons capability) and are quite excited," said Hesham Kassem, editor of the independent Cairo newspaper Al Masry Al Youm.

"There doesn't seem to be any awareness that it might be a calamity," added Kassem, who said he personally was afraid of an arms race bringing in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.

Mohamed el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a Cairo think tank, said: "People are very very warm about it (Iran's nuclear program)."

"Anyone who challenges the United States will find a great deal of support. That's a very profitable enterprise in public opinion terms," he added.

"Even if it takes an arms race, people don't mind. What we have here is wounded dignity and revulsion about the lack of fairness and double standards."

Most Arab governments have called for a peaceful solution to the confrontation with Iran, in the hope that diplomacy will enable it to develop nuclear energy under U.N. supervision.

If they speak about nuclear weapons, they say the whole Middle East should be nuclear-free, implicitly including Israel. U.S. officials say they can only deal with Israel's nuclear activities after a comprehensive Middle East peace.
Analysts in the Gulf raised special concerns. "Gulf states are legitimately concerned about Iran joining the nuclear club," said Abdel-Khaleq Abdullah, a professor of political science in the United Arab Emirates.

"The possibility of a fourth Gulf war is just beyond our ability to manage. We don't want it. It will just make life miserable and hell," he added.

Saudi analyst Dawoud al-Sharayan said an Iranian nuclear bomb could give the United States a pretext to maintain its military forces in the Gulf and add to the tension.

Saudi Arabia would then have the right to think about having its own nuclear weapon, he added.

(Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_arabs
_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AjmzHkftaXWIUB9tf5_CFs1n.3QA;_ylu=
X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)

Selected phrases/quotes from article :

counterweight to Israel and the United States

hypocritical

West continues its double-standard approach

balance against Israel ... help the Palestinians

equilibrium

policies ... will blow up and escalate this issue and this escalation will not include only Iran and Israel

Analysts ... detected a surprising level of sympathy and support for Iran in the region - (Are these the same analysts that were "surprised" by Hamas' victory?)

There doesn't seem to be any awareness that it might be a calamity

People are very very warm about it (Iran's nuclear program)

Anyone who challenges the United States will find a great deal of support

What we have here is wounded dignity and revulsion about the lack of fairness and double standards

Most Arab governments have called for a peaceful solution to the confrontation with Iran

they (Arab governments) say the whole Middle East should be nuclear-free

U.S. officials say they can only deal with Israel's nuclear activities after a comprehensive Middle East peace

Gulf states are legitimately concerned about Iran joining the nuclear club

The possibility of a fourth Gulf war is just beyond our ability to manage. We don't want it. It will just make life miserable and hell

an Iranian nuclear bomb could give the United States a pretext to maintain its military forces in the Gulf and add to the tension.

Saudi Arabia would then have the right to think about having its own nuclear weapon

__

Fine job, indeed.

First of all the administration is obfuscating its claim that it is working things out diplomatically. There is no diplomacy with Iran. The admin does not believe in negotiating with people it deems hostile, going against all definitions of diplomacy. They are doing the third person diplomacy and if that does not work then they will say that they gave Iran every option when in fact they never even talked to them.

Get ready, the war will be here by October. By law w has 60 days to wage a war without congressional approval and by then he will bully the congress to give him further war powers before the repub congress leaves. W's legacy will be the first 21st century president to use nuclear weapons. This is what we, the American people, get when fear drives our thinking and voting mentality. Good job Karl; who by the way will be putting that fear right back into us this year unless America comes to its senses.

"In a larger sense, George HW Bush's career coincides to a high degree with the US government's most shameful covert operations, scandals, and criminal foreign policies.

With his Yale pedigree and experience as an international businessman as the head of Zapata Petroleum Corporation, George Bush was an excellent candidate for intelligence work. After the Kennedy assassination, The Nation magazine reported that "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" had been involved in assessing the reaction in Florida to the president's death. The Nation went on to confirm through a source at the CIA that Bush Sr. had begun operating on behalf of the CIA by 1960 or 1961. It is possible that Bush's CIA involvement began even earlier, as his first job had been with Dresser Industries, a firm linked to CIA chief Allen Dulles and to Bush's father Prescott Bush, who had organized the position on behalf of his son. George HW Bush's clandestine activities in Latin America may have begun as early as 1954, when Zapata Petroleum began international operations with Zapata Offshore, the same year in which CIA director Allen Dulles embarked on his project to overthrow Guatemalan president Arbenz. In any event, by the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in early 1961, George Bush was likely part of the CIA and furthermore was a passionate critic of the new Castro regime. His uncle George Herbert Walker had had direct interests in Cuba due to his position as Director of the enterprise West Indies Sugar, which was nationalized by the Castro government in 1960.

The Bay of Pigs plan was hatched during the Eisenhower administration's last years, but was not undertaken until the first month's of Kennedy's presidency. An interesting exercise for a statistician would be to analyze the possibility of the following "coincidences" without the operational presence of one George HW Bush. The CIA operation in Cuba, run by CIA Director Allen Dulles, was code named "Operation Zapata". Secondly, the name of one of the ships used in the invasion force was the "Barbara J", Bush's wife's name. Another ship was christened the "Houston", Zapata Petroleum's base of operations. The invasion proved a fiasco, with about 1,200 of the 1,500 men in the US trained force being taken prisoner by Castro's army. An interesting legacy of the Bay of Pigs invasion is the connection to the Watergate scandal, as most of the Watergate "plumbers" were Bay of Pigs veterans such as Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Rolando Martinez, Felix Rodriguez and Virgilio Gonzalez."

blah blah blah...

look it up sheeple....

it's your effing country _punks_, act like it.

.

think you'll get a cut and you need to be quiet,

you don't rate.

.

"Fortunate Son" by J.H. Hatfield, "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips, "The Mafia, CIA and George Bush" by Pete Brewton, and "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush" by Webster Tarpley.

"As the world watched the military build up at the Kuwaiti border, Saddam called a meeting with then US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02)

thought you wanted to dance...

guess truth is one thing you don't want to face.

I can smell your fat burning....tallow..yellowish white...like maggots...rolling over...

Holy Roman Empire ideology disguised as

Christian "vamily falues"

imperialist PNAC virtues...

and the splendor of international _wealthy_ families making deals to destroy their countries to enrich themselves at the expense of their citizens....

Iran a problem?

Let Israel solve it.
.

why don't you include trailer trash birth rates?

to show your family statistics? plumpone.

all air,

no substance.

April Gillespie.

when intelligence fails, ridicule will serve you...

sheep.

.

baaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaa baaaaaaa

.

you've answered not at all,

you have none.

thanks for your kind attention, loser.

next time bring your mother.

.

When do you realize that Islamic fanatics can't be reasoned with? When does it become apparent that the Iranians are saying exactly what they mean? Why didn't the world pay closer attention to "Mein Kampf"? Most reasonable people simply don't want to confront horror. If a person is a "progressive liberal", the real threat is from people who will kill you for your very existence. A lot of people make a big deal about the religious right here in the US, but, actually, in fact, democracy works fairly well here. When was the last time 50-100 people were found shot in a ditch here in the US? And please consider the idea that someone would actually kill you over a cartoon. Does this sound alarmist? What about the Spanish Civil War? When an Islamic Imam stands up and praises the idea of killing infidels, only a foolish person would ignore their desires. It seems that Western Civilization is in a death struggle with a seventh century horror that has arisen again. How can a progressive feminist stay silent in view of the chador? If sharia law came into effect, these feminist women would be literally stoned. The events of the coming years are certainly going to be interesting, to be sure, and western style democracy isn't assured of victory. I consider myself to be somewhat conservative, but I really have a live and let live philosophy, I'm bilingual, and I'm a student of history. Islam isn't a religion of peace, anymore than Chamberlain could offer "Peace in our time" after speaking to Hitler. Can you imagine how badly Chamberlain felt after being decieved so completely? The actual problem is a high Moslem birthrate, nearly non existant opportunities, and a religious institution (Islamic) that realizes that modern "corruption" would mean an end to their control over Islamic societies. So, it isn't wise to keep on whistling in the graveyard, because an ancient horror has been reawakened.

This is just one of the ways to keep oil prices astronomically high! Iran is about as much threat as any other third world country. What happened to Mutually Assured Destruction?? With Iran, it is TAD (Their Assured Destruction).

but i haven't had my kool aid today and my mom threatens to kick me out of the basment_nazi robot_

america is to blame for everything for all time_our fault_

CIA and G.H.W. Bush still controls the world through his_traitor_son

they are all crazy nazi-bots who will reek havok with their laser eye vision_scourge of the world_and protect their family at all costs

if you don't believe me you are ignorant.....

Jeb rules jupiter.....L. Ron Hubbard for supreme chancellor of the universe.....

acid is _great_.....better than nukes_._

Bush should go back to doing coke_good drug_not ruining the whole world_rabbits are evil_.......

OT:

Can the WaPo please sort comments in the way any decent blog does, i.e. in chronologic order?

It´s an insult to have read individual comments top-down, but the stream bottom-up.

How come everybody but Bush and the Israelis don't see that nuclear powers pushing people around, invading, taking their land (or the land of someone like them) leads almost everyone to think, "If we had nukes .. R-E-S-P-E-C-T!"

Arkin, your concept of using nukes is the path to insanity (if you're not already there).

Nothing good will come of this, and no amount of spin will change that basic fact.

To the person who posted that the lesson other countries should learn from this is "develop lots of nukes as fast as you can" - yes, that is what we effectively are telling other countries, by our actions, not our words.

Words are not going to change the facts on the ground. People see our actions and respond to them, not the lies we tell ourselves to justify our own insane actions.

we're perceived as out-of-control meglomaniacs,

because of what is going down now?

I don't want to take a hit because fauntleroy wants more cheese.

I didn't elect a friggin king, did you?

do work for the people or an administration traitor?

.

or are you just an administrative traitor...

hee hee hee...

./

allow the world to change from the possiblity of negotiatian

to _having_ to have a deterrent.

we're supposed to be moving out of this,

this is like pre-Kruschev thinking...

where you're dealing with people soooo primitive that you need to constantly threaten them to maintain peace....

what you're dealing with here is people

ssssssssoooooooooooo selfish,

that you need to destroy them,

and they're leading your country.

who cares about nuclear bombs if your country is actually a despotic third world country within 30 years,

because you're effin ambivalent

or is that effing ambi valent?

Conspiracies aside, the lesson is clear: no nukes in my country = risk of invasion by another country. Therefore, the solution is to stockpile nukes.

Rah Rah Rah, William. Rah Rah Rah.

1953 - CIA OUSTS ELECTED IRANIAN
Prime Minister

1954 - CIA install Shah of Iran, who uses his secret police SAVAK to kill hundreds of thousands

1979 - Shah is overthrown, granted asylum to the USA. Iran asks he be returned to face trial. US refuses. Iran retaliates by taking over embassy.

1980 - Reagan works out a deal with Iran to delay release of hostages until his inauguration day.

1982 - US shoots down Iranian Passenger jet with 400 people on board.

1983-1986 - Ollie North sells Iran weapons, US sells chemical weapons to Iraq for use in their war against Iran.

2001-2006 - US Invades Afghanistan and Iraq, the country to the immediate east and west of Iran.

you're talking from both ends pussy.

.

REMEMBER the current fiasco/regime STARTED?

probably not, it was actually more than a few years ago.

key player:
Bush Sr. is the former head of CIA, Congressman before that, Vice President, then President...probably more than 30 years of his life making connections...


George H.W. Bush Sr.:
sent April Gillespie to Iraq, who with a nod and a wink told Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was an internal matter. I think Saddam was suckered into invading because the US needed a new enemy after the collapse of the soviet union....


Saddam invades Kuwait, we now have an official reason to be there....
looks like we'll establish a presence in Kuwait, we already have one in Saudi...our CIA trains them...CIA trained the 9/11 pilots.

Saudi Royals was given the rights to Saudi Arabia by the Brits after WWII, the Royals were put into power...

who owns the ports on US soil? the Brits...who's supporting us in Iraq?

Protecting the Kuwaiti's:
We go into Iraq with Stormin Norman....and kill a couple of 100 thousand Iraqis and

stop short of Bagdhad....you know why, WE'RE GOING BACK...that's why we stopped...


and now that we occupy, are embedded in Kuwait,
we put the country of Iraq in stasis with embargoes until we need it........or the world economy is shifting and things are ripe....China Pakistan, and India are emerging...

THEN, the family needed to intervene....in this case the international riche, which includes the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and the US Affluent that stand to make a bit of cash....mind you the Germans, English and French have their hands in this...but your buddy dubya, is the gawdfathers only visible son....unless you need the state militia called to keep Terry Schiavo from being unhooked...as a grandstanding event...


so we intervene on national television...bombs going off, constant coverage, city surrounded, surveillance on every living thing that's bigger than a booger..


and somehow, miracle of miracles, like the virgin mary turning up on your french toast:
Saddam escapes from Bagdhad with three tractor trailer loads of cash, $9 BILLION$ in CASH right? Anyone in dubyas extended family gotten riche lately?

the museums were emptied right? ha ha ha...that's rich.

as far as conspiracy goes,

there never was a CIA/NORIEGA/BUSH Sr. connection right? and the Chilean president wasn't asassinated in DC with full CIA knowledge, and where'd that white up George W. Bushes nose come from? Panama?

the thing of it is,
the United States suckered, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, so we could be the "heroes", and become military occupiers...to lead us to this point....


walking down the road with no impetus to replacing our dependence on oil, a non-renewable resource....because it's not to the benefit of the countries leaders

this has a lot to do with _families_ working together _not related by blood_, as well as politics that don't include you as a positive recipient of thier efforts, as well as...

helping you to understand that it isn't all cowboy hats and honesty leading you...

Saddam was deliberately mislead into attacking Kuwiat, by President George H.W. Bush, we indicated that we would look the other way if Saddam wanted to reacquire some land and oil wells that he thought the Kuwiatis had taken.....so we would have an excuse to extend our influence.

did we tell Saddam Hussein the truth?

no.

it wasn't to our advantage.

the bushes intimately understand the middle eastern tribe mentality, they have trbal mentality, they protect and work with their own....they use the government to get what they want for their tribe

ps. you're not included in their tribe....

morons in charge and morons voted them in...using demagoguery as a political tool needs to be exposed....predjudice as a tool.

you want a better country quit pandering to morons and pandering to hate.....

the point of it is, the bush family, is trying to bury some information that needs to be understood

the ultimate threat to this country is people that can write but can't think or see...or don't want you to.

I would suggest that those who would use thier governmental office for personal gain at the expense of the citizens lose thier citizenship, and be charged with treason and their properties confiscated....

intimidation as control shouldn't be tolerated....
read the bill of rights, the right to bear arms was specifically inserted into the Bill of Rights to prevent the United States from being taken over from within, which is what what is happening now....

that's the point, a dictatorship and a congress that takes advantage of citizens, doesn't deserve to serve....

tom delay: violated his oath of office twice and not a single member of congress has the oats to call him on it....cowards or fellow crooks?

are you one of those?

who needs to look for leaks when anyone with two eyes can see a pattern...of deceit and corruption.

Arkin, besides completely missing the larger picture, you leave out key facts from a misguided attempt to 'report' based on 'sources'.
What about the larger picture, which includes India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, South Africa, South America and Russia having and sustaining global nuclear technology? Not to mention the US military's perception that it needs to justify the huge spending in nuclear weapon based R&D.

The 'truth' is that this 'administration' needs public approval to use nuclear weapons in anything less than survival or risk losing their power.

The 'administration' is using propaganda to lull the masses into believing in the necessity for preemptive use and your failing attempts to support 'back-door' options by claiming that somehow they existed peacefully in some other time and place is testament to the fact that you truly are a puppet in disguise.

For you to actually report the damage of 'ambiguity' and then use it yourself in the weak claims that you make about prior instances where 'threats' supposedly existed is weak and damming.

Arkin, report something useful, with merit and for god's sake reclaim your soul by giving up the puppet routine.... or get off the line....

being in control of a resource doesn't mean you give anyone outside of the family a price break...

2nd largest reserves in the world, do think that's an economic blockbuster?

China and Pakistan emerging,

what's the price of oil in Europe right now?

You'd better think a little bit or at least show some understanding of the general principles of economics...

who are the original republicans and democrats and how were the parties determined?

what were the factions that existed at the time of the Original Declaration of Independence?

clueless?

answer this statement:

could bush pass a disco investigation to get a secret or top secret level clearance?

To my knowledge the use of any sort of nuclear weapons entails the,entirely unacceptable, risk of causing the "nuclear winter" scenario Carl Sagan and others warned about in 1983. Researchers posited ~5k megatons in their calculations but cautioned that as little as 200 megatons would suffice. Admittedly a tactical(does such a thing really exist?) would most likely yield a small fraction of that amount even, but the risk would be in legitimizing their use by other nations. The whole notion of their use is a slippery slope that threatens nothing less than the destruction of the human species.

All of the current administration's rhetoric on this topic can only be compared to a group of unsupervised 5 year olds playing with live hand grenades.

Hey, pal, I don't know what you're smokin, maybe some offekenoofee, whatever that is. Regardless you should quit and lay off the kool aid and maybe go out and get some sun, it would be good for you. Anyway, I'm not ignoring that some people think Bush is some kind of tyrannical monster, I'm dismissing it flatly. You may not like his decisions or policy but babbling on about conspiracies and whatnot is useless, especially since conspiracy theories are only credible in movies and are otherwise not even factual. If you don't believe me, simply observe the situation in Iraq, where oil production is far lower than pre-war levels and the oil infrastructure is in a shambles, not much of a conspiracy huh? Ask yourself, if the goal in Iraq was control of oil why do gas prices in the US keep going up, even to the point where Congress is starting to go after the oil companies? Also, why is it that oil production in Iraq is so low? Oil companies would benefit far more from having Iraq pumping at full capacity and thus having a monpoly on oil production, refining, and distribution there than they do from higher gas prices here. It is very simple logic and reasoning, no complicated conspiracy needed, just simple observation and rational explanation.

...

.
.
.

your president couldn't pass a DISCO interview,

with his background,

to get a clearance.

.

you're ignoring a potent fact.

you have a _leader_

or at least someone purported to be a leader,

that has _no_ _credibility_ posturing...

it matters less the reason, or the principles behind doing this or that,

than the fact that you have a child, with his finger on the button...

hell, you have a child that has taken us into an occupation of a foreign country to control oil interests

for his _family_

not for his effing country, if you think otherwise,

his brother Jeb has some land in Offekenoofee that he's willing to part with...

I think Bill makes a very good point in that our own and other countries' ambiguous nuclear policies only result in heightening the tensions between nuclear and even non-nuclear nations. He is also absolutely right that the very existence of nuclear weapons makes non-nuclear countries at least think about acquiring them as a security measure. However I would argue that it is also this ambiguity that has led to the non-use of these weapons since Nagasaki. Not knowing for sure what a nuclear-armed state will do makes countries think twice before choosing which course of action to take. It is the reason we set up the hotline with the Soviets, which is still open and should always remain so. It is also the reason we should, if we haven't already, set up something similar with China, India, and Pakistan. I agree that ambiguity makes diplomacy very difficult and that honesty from both sides would be fantastic, but it is not realistic at all and I would even argue that our ambigous nuclear policy could have a positive effect on negotiations with Iran. We will actually have to negotiate with Iran though, not simply make demands. This will mean making a commitment to do what is necessary to at least try to slow proliferation, even if that means helping out countries we hate. It seems that we will eventually have to choose between two evils, nuclear weapons and proliferation or supporting horrible regimes like Iran and N. Korea. Not an easy choice but one which I think is inevitable.

There is absolute certainty that in a military conflict, Iran will lose decisively and probably within a week. China may agree to US intervention, but the price would be high. Quite possibly concessions will have to be made with respect to Taiwan. The Russians could be bought off by allowing Putin free reign to deal with dissidents at home and with the former soviet republics.

The big problem is what happens following Iran's military defeat. I suspect you will see the beginning of a nuclear arms race of epic proportions with countries racing to develop or buy themselves into the nuclear club. Let's not ignore South America where there are many who have similar fear of intervention.

Is it not enough for the U.S. to be the only country to date to have used nuclear weapons against another country (non-nuclear mind you?)? But to have this current government contemplating nuclear weapon use against another non nuclear country is the very reason every country is seeking nuclear weapons. Think about it, you don't hear the U.S. threatening North Corea ,India, China, Pakistan, Russia, Israel or any of the European countries who possessed nuclear weapons. Do you?

.

.

.

you r credibility is at risk.

this moron, your president,

is setting the tone for how your country is perceived in the world........

his solution to Katrina,

photo op.

his solution to fading popularity of the Iraq

effing occupation,

gomer Bin Laden tapes,

moussaoui trial, 9/11 tapes,

now

find another enemy to parade, Iran.

all of this dog and pony show, so he can have more of what he doesn't own....

control of oil markets and world economy for his class........

he is dictator, your country has been stolen in a Project for a NewAmericanCentury.org/elitist coup...

you're not in control of your government or your country...you've been overthrown...and congress has helped.

check out who's in charge:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

.

I'm still waiting for someone to enlighten me as to whether Bush still has his post-911 blank cheque from Congress to start any war he sees fit.

Does he need a new authorisation or does the old one still count? Does anyone know? Does Bush or Congress know?

it really doesn't matter what the president says

because he's perceived as a liar,

as a way of being.

how can you or WE sanction this pissant ruling the most powerful nation on earth

_with_

nuclear capability,

when given his background

in the real world he couldn't hold a clearance,

much less direct a nuclear strike.......

alfred e. neumann....monkey boy in charge?

even darth cheyney is more trustable, at least you know what he'd do..

whatever Nixon would,

kissinger is playing in here somewhere...

bomb cambodia without warning anyone?

Mike Deal,
I would prefer more of a back-door approach for the implicit threat of nukes similar to the 1991 Gulf War.
Bush acts and looks weak refusing to take it off the table.
Who knows what Cheney is thinking . . .

I suspect that one of the principal motivations in failing to declare no first use with respect to Iran is to convince the Iranians that any retaliation or escalation, e.g., closing the straights or setting loose the Shia militias in Iraq, would invite a nuclear response that even the majority of the mullahs would fear. Afterall, many of them are just as self-serving as our own conservative preachers.

Thank you for your thoughts - doesn't make me rest any easier especially since the administration would do something horrific like a nuclear strike.
Doesn't anyone see the problem of a nuclear strike on nuclear facilities? Um - isn't that really bad for the environment (sarcasm) as well as the obvious nuclear response by Russia and China.

The policy will obviously never be amended by the Bush administration and our unclear policy furthers the fact we are a dangerous nation.