should we just let them get the bomb?

should we just let them get the bomb?

being the only country who ever killed people with a nuclear bomb, i'm at a loss for a justification for us to dictate who gets to have nuclear weapons.

the bald arrogance of supplying and supporting Israel's nuclear arsenal and supportng India's arsenal--yet acting as if *we* get to dictate the military migh of any country in the world--is stunning.

should we just let them get the bomb?

So, we have 2 choices, go to war with Iran, or let them get the bomb. That is amusing, even if it weren't coming from WMD boy.

Ecohuman... nice answer. Should we just let them get the bomb?. A real answer please.

Should we just let them get the bomb?. A real answer please.

"let them" assumes we control the country of Iran.

but Iran is a sovereign nation of over 70 million people with its own government.

so, "we" don't get to "let" or not let them do anything.

i wonder what you'd say if someone in Iran asked "should we just "let" America manufacture chemical weapons"?

Who the hell died and made us God. What would we do if France told us "no more war without UN approval." We would tell them to kiss off. Iran is a sovereign nation that has the right to do what it wants to do. If the international community deems their actions inappropriate, then the international community can take action.

It's too bad we have such horribly incompetent leadership at this point in world history. "Ha ha! Put a right-wing chimp in the White House. As long as he cuts my taxes, what difference does it make?" We're finding out.

Whatever.... We are the universal superpower in control of the world. We have been since WW2. Get over it.

We are the universal superpower in control of the world.

It's so, like, way over.

We are the universal superpower in control of the world. We have been since WW2. Get over it.

ah. that explains why things are so peaceful in Iraq.

GT, we're not even in control of the Baghdad, much less the world. We might have pretended to be the Big Country on Earth before Bush, but he showed just how feeble we are, or rather have become under him.

I have always wonder why Native Americans never thought to carve horizontal Totems.

Why not? It would have made their life so much easier and democratic.

You guys are so funny! The US controls the world. The US does what it pleases. You don't like it? Too bad......

I'm stuck on and sticking with seeing the FEARmongering as being the purpose of 'WARNING.' And actually taking action loses that FEAR threat, and gains the logistics headache of doing things.

This administration-by-threat could go on another year, to elections, trying to fend off IMPEACHment movement. (After the election, THEN start war and walk away, like daddyHerbert did ordering the invasion of Somalia, after Clinton won in Nov. 92 and before the Sinister one let go in Jan. 93 ... like leaving a live grenade on the Oval Office desk.)

A new (for me) holistic comprehension of Games of State, came in this recent speech (transcript). (Except for one paragraph listing 'phony-fear' examples, where some are real and do not belong in the list), the main ideas and the world view, or better yet: View of Human Nature, through the magnifying lens of Higgs's ideas, is MUCHLY Recommended Reading: How the State Leads People to Their Own Destruction, By Robert Higgs -- Schlarbaum Award Acceptance Speech, delivered on October 12, 2007

The state is the most destructive institution human beings have ever devised — ...

States, by their very nature, are perpetually at war — not always against foreign foes, of course, but always against their own subjects. The state's most fundamental purpose, the activity without which it cannot even exist, is robbery. The state gains its very sustenance from robbery, which it pretties up ideologically by giving it a different name (taxation) and by striving to sanctify its intrinsic crime as permissible and socially necessary. State propaganda, statist ideologies, and long-established routine combine to convince many people that they have a legitimate obligation, even a moral duty to pay taxes to the state that rules their society.

They fall into such erroneous moral reasoning because they are told incessantly that the tribute they fork over is actually a kind of price paid for essential services received, and that in the case of certain services, such as protection from foreign and domestic aggressors against their rights to life, liberty, and property, only the government can provide the service effectively. They are not permitted to test this claim by resorting to competing suppliers of law, order, and security, however, because the government enforces a monopoly over the production and distribution of its alleged "services" and brings violence to bear against would-be competitors. In so doing, it reveals the fraud at the heart of its impudent claims and gives sufficient proof that it is not a genuine protector, but a mere protection racket.

All governments are, as they must be, oligarchies: only a relatively small number of people have substantial effective discretion to make critical decisions about how the state's power will be brought to bear ....

I am not sure, but I believe, if we are at war at the time of an presidential election, the election can be postponed. If this in fact is true, it wouldn't surprise me one bit this administration would do anything to remain in power. Can anyone verify the above possibility.

You guys are so funny! The US controls the world. The US does what it pleases. You don't like it? Too bad......

ah. that explains the 2,000+ American troops dead in Iraq.

According to Cheney, Iran is “the world’s most active sponsor of state terrorism".

Right behind the United States of America.

Iraq death toll, US troops: 3,829, wounded 27,000+
These are cold, hard facts we should not understate.

First the rapture..is this now? Than Armageddon.
It so nice to have an evangelistic crhistian leader willing to sacrifice us for his religious fantasy's.

"Letting" Iran get the bomb would be far less dangerous to the US and the world in general than trying to stop them with a military strike. It would be, after all, suicidal and therefore extremely unlikely for Iran to use nuclear weapons against any country that already possesses them. A US attack against Iran, on the other hand, would provoke a range of violent reactions that are easily foreseeable (to all but the deluded and immoral Bush team) and highly probable.

Here's what Chris Hedges, longtime NY Times reporter on Middle East affairs and various wars, has to say about the consequences of a US bombing campaign against Iran:

"An attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East. The loss of Iranian oil, coupled with Silkworm missile attacks by Iran on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, could send oil soaring to well over $110 a barrel. The effect on the domestic and world economy will be devastating, very possibly triggering a huge, global depression. The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey will turn in rage on us and our dwindling allies. We will see a combination of increased terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and the widespread sabotage of oil production in the Gulf. Iraq, as bad as it looks now, will become a death pit for American troops as Shiites and Sunnis, for the first time, unite against their foreign occupiers.

"The country, however, that will pay the biggest price will be Israel. And the sad irony is that those planning this war think of themselves as allies of the Jewish state. A conflagration of this magnitude could see Israel drawn back in Lebanon and sucked into a regional war, one that would over time spell the final chapter in the Zionist experiment in the Middle East. The Israelis aptly call their nuclear program “the Samson option.” The Biblical Samson ripped down the pillars of the temple and killed everyone around him, along with himself."

The nuclear issue with respect to Iran is totally yesterday. The US acknowledges at this point that Iran is years away from having a nuclear bomb. That's no longer the stated reason for the planned attack. It's that they foment terrorism and are responsible for all the problems that we (mostly officially deny we) are having in Iraq. The chilling reality is this: having taken the Sunnis from power in Iraq, we have left that country in a position where, when we leave, it's pretty much certain to be aligned with or taken over by the Shiite Persians. We can't let that happen, so regime change in Iran is pretty much the only alternative. What could be warmer and cozier than a nice bombing in the holiday season?

"The chilling reality is this: having taken the Sunnis from power in Iraq, we have left that country in a position where, when we leave, it's pretty much certain to be aligned with or taken over by the Shiite Persians. We can't let that happen . . ."

Why is Shiite dominance of Iraq a "chilling reality"? And why can't we, in your opinion, let that happen?

(Maybe you were being sarcastic with those statements. I hope you were.)

Maybe you were being sarcastic with those statements

Poor choice of pronouns, Richard. I was purporting to speak for our unspeakable administration, so I suppose it amounts to sarcasm. I think the Bush/Cheney trainwreck finds itself painted into a corner on this issue, and it scares the stuffing out of me.

Thanks for clearing that up, Allan. I agree with you--and my stuffing is also scared out of me.

Where are the congressional Democrats with a pre-emptive, binding resolution along the lines of: "the Executive Branch is not authorized by Congress to take military action of any kind against Iran"? Not that the passage of such a law would necessarily stop our current imperial presidency, but at least it would put the issue in starker terms and raise the stakes for Republicans who currently support Bush/Cheney.

Tenske? After all that doom and gloom you guys were posting in advance of the fictitious dirty bomb scare...Kind of surprised you're not -- ahem -- all tied up.

Given they didn't get you all waterboarded up in advance of the TopOff exercise. Has the tin-foil hat society rescheduled the End Times yet? I saw a black helo yesterday: I'm sure that Koin 6 logo is just cover. MSM and all that.

Perhaps the revolution will be pay-per-view?