ABC has a story that Iran has started a new project to mine uranium. If I was Iran I would be trying asap to build a bomb to avoid invasion by the US. Think of the lives that can be saved. N. Korea apparently has succeeded for now in reducing Bush to tough talk. Given the talk of a possible US blockade to starve N. Korea into submission their nukes might not protect them. I know some of you feel Iranians are not entitled by some high moral principle to have nukes like the US, Israel and others. Can't you sort of step outside your normal thinking and see how they might not see it that way? Right wing non-proliferation, nukes just for us and our buds, is not working. Iran
When was the last time that the US government endorsed the taking of a foreign embassy and holding hostages for over a year? When was the last time that a US President fired off a rifle at one of his Presidential appearances a la Saddam?
giddyyup, so we are entiled to invade them if they try to get nukes like the Us and Israel? Is the nukes for just our buds, the best way to prevent the spread of nukes?
When has their been talk of the US invading Iran? Since our culture no longer believes in the concept of a Holy War, maybe we should adopt the stance that none of these other nations develop nuclear capability. When was the last time that we launched or threatened to launch on some nation? I trust the US. I don't trust Iraq or Iran or North Korea. I guess I trust India and Pakistan because their bloodlust seems limited to each other. Can you imagine if we had that kind of relationshiip with Canada or Mexico?
It is becoming more apparent with each of his posts that glynch trusts governments such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea far more than his own. I respect those with opposing viewpoints if they use logic, reason, and facts to back up their opinions, but glynch's assertions are becoming less grounded in reality every day.
It is becoming more apparent with each of his posts that glynch trusts governments such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea far more than his own. Is name calling the limit of your repertoire? Poor guy. He has beliefs. Just can't explain or support them. It must be frustrating on a certain level.
I can't really explain or support why water is wet. I guess if I really tried to explain or support the obvious, it could become frustrating.
It is interesting. The U.S. determination to keep Iraq down has given rise to 2 countries and counting. You could easily consider this policy against Iraq a failure if N. Korea and Iran go nuclear. We would have replaced one nuclear regime with two nuclear regimes. But it's too late to turn back now. Full steam ahead. I'm not following this super close, but so Far I see the following... What do you gain? Liberated Iraq Additional stability in the Middle East Oil Opportunities one less nuclear threat in the Middle East Increased partnership with Great Britain Increased Military support and moral Duct Tape Sales rise What do you lose? N. Korea goes nuclear Iran goes nuclear Arab hatred for U.S. Grows Bigger deficit Sagging economy Troops and military lost France, Germany,
Glynch...you should consider becoming a human shield for the Iraqis...this way you can protect the government you so vehemently support. BTW...when didi Iran enter the picture?
Glynch - You just don't get it. It is not just the US and Israel that have nukes. Pakistan, India, France, Russia, and others have nukes. The US and our allies are trying to stop rouge nations in obtaining nukes. N. Korea has already proven they will sell weapons, (the Yemeni Scud incident). Sure, nukes are bad all around, but I would prefer someone like China or Russia to have them any day over Iraq or N. Korea.
glynch, Are you actually defending the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons? If not, what's your point?
People on the left don't have points, they just find fault with everything on the right without offering any solutions/
Pretty good list, but N Korea has likely already gone nuclear. Iran has been trying to go nuclear anyway, they're just speeding it up. Arab hatred for US will grow if: 1) Many Iraqi civilians die; 2) The US does not handle post-war Iraq well; 3) The US does not play an active role in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, first by pressuring Israel to halt settlement construction. Deficit and economy: the global economy would take a major and prolonged bashing if Saddam had nukes in the ME Germany will not be lost, their basis for this is not just to thwart the US. France...is no loss. They desired to stop being an ally to the US many years ago, IMHO.
Actually, nukes only for our allies is the perfect way to go. We should burn Iraq off the planet IMO.
Not to put words in his mouth, but if a country faces an external threat, i.e. invasion, they are much more likely to be inclined to acquire WMD. In Iran's instance, they were working on a nuclear program anyway (prior to the ol' 'axis-of-evil' stmt) Also, Iran's problem of having WMDs (from the perspective of many countries) is that they have supported terrorist groups. The US and other nations in both the west and east have certainly helped many other nations develop/acquire weapons of various sorts, but a nation with rational leaders having a weapon is very different than a terrorist having a weapon.
It looks to me like Iran is next on the table for Bush. They're harboring Al-Qaeda and developing WMD. Or maybe it's not about Al-Qaeda and developing WMD. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11129507 Tenet's public testimony comes as the United States might be on the verge of war with Iraq, North Korea has threatened to resume its nuclear program, and Iran said it was poised to enrich uranium to fuel its nuclear energy program. "We see disturbing signs that al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq," Tenet said. "In addition we are concerned that al Qaeda continues to find refuge in the hinterlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan." Senators at the hearing were expected to ask Tenet why Iraq was considered a more imminent threat than North Korea and Iran -- what President George W. Bush calls the "axis of evil" -- and whether a U.S. invasion of Iraq would increase terrorist threats against the United States. Tenet said Iran is continuing to pursue development of a nuclear fuel cycle for civil and nuclear weapons purposes and that it is also moving toward self-sufficiency in its biological and chemical weapons programs. "Tehran is seeking to enlist foreign assistance in building entire production plants for commercial chemicals that would also be capable of producing nerve agents and their precursors," Tenet said.
******* it glynch i'm getting sick of reading this crap you say. you need to start doing some reading about government policy. the US has no plans of invading Iran...they never have had any. If you look at Iran today you would notice that there is a pretty good chance that there are going to be some major political changes within the next 5 to 10 years with the rise of a new more moderate Iranian population. The US government knows this. Additionally, the US is using its allies ties to Iran, specifically Japan, to try to pursuade them to stop this course of action when they have economic talks with the leaders. Christ man wake up and get out of your dream world where you think that all the US wants to do is take over everything and destroy everyone.
you should consider becoming a human shield for the Iraqis...this way you can protect the government you so vehemently support. Siggggggggggggh. NJRocket declares: If you reject this war this mean you support Iraq and Sadam Hussein. I guess the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Prince Charles, all of whom have spoken out against this war are all Sadam lovers who should go and be human shields.
You just don't get it do you? To you, it's all very black and white: we have them so it's fair for them to have them. The truth is the only people who we try prevent having nukes are people who we are afraid will actually use them (or supply them to people who will i.e. North Korea, Iraq and Iran). Of course we'd prefer to be the ONLY people with nukes. We'd be much safer that way. I trust Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Carter or Nixon or LBJ or Truman or any of those guys (faults that they may all have had) over Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il any day. It's not that those guys think differently from us or have differnt beliefs; it's because those guys are crazy insane! You simply cannot put them into the same catagory as other world leaders. Peace negotiations only work if both sides come to the table wanting to strike a compromise. Saddam clearly doesn't. He uses negotiations as a stalling tactic. Right now we disagree with the French and the Germans but we don't think those guys are crazy. They have their oil motovations and we have our security motovations but at least we understand where the other side is coming from (even if we don't agree). Also it's clear that the best outcome of this whole mess for many of you claiming to be on the side of "peace" would be for George Bush to fail. Not for a peaceful solution, not that everyone get along but that George Bush fails. If you hated all those people who bashed Clinton no matter what he did then just look in the mirror as you have become them. One more thing. I don't think any people on this board are actually "pro-war" at any cost (unlike some of the people who are for peace at any cost). Personally I would hate to see an all out war. But I do belive that we should act as if we are unwaveringly determed to go to war. To Saddam it has to look like we are hell-bent and will stop at nothing short of his removal for anything to get accomplished. So far has Saddam done anything out of good faith? No. He's only capulated what he has because he has had a gun put to his head. That was the crux of Colin Powell's argument today at the U.N. The resolution was about disarmerment. Not about slowly and grudgenly agreeing to small baby-steps because a gun was put to your head. We'll, until something works itself out, the U.S. has got to continue to put a gun to Saddam's head. Bush has been threatening war for over a year now. It doesn't seem to me that he's "rushing" into anything.
