This admin. will attack Iran unless this congress can pull back on the choke chain hard enough. We shall see if the D's have it in them--I hope so.

Historically and now, Democrats don't seem any less inclined to engage in war than Republicans. Indeed, Obama talked just recently of going into Pakistan. Let's see, then, we want to pull out of Iraq and go into Pakistan instead.

Right now the U.S. military is said to be too stretched to engage Iran directly in conflict. Maybe the longer we stay in Iraq the longer the military is too stretched to engage in new conflicts.

Imperialism probably isn't the preference of a majority of Americans but maybe for its politicians. Pacifism isn't the answer either as I learned rudely growing up in the public school system. Bullies and defending oneself is part of humanity. So, where do we strike the balance? America's current positions are probably too far towards imperialism in my opinion.

Iran invasion - lynchpin to impeachment??

Golly gosh, I'm thinking that it's just a better idea to let that freakshow have its nukes.

"Golly gosh, I'm thinking that it's just a better idea to let that freakshow have its nukes."

Is Iran with a handful of nukes scarier than the Soviets with thousands of warheads were?

"Is Iran with a handful of nukes scarier than the Soviets with thousands of warheads were?"

Yes. Religious fanatics seeking the glory of martyrdom is scarier than secular communists who fear death.

"Mutual Assured Destruction" as deterrence won't work with a nuclear armed Iran.

That said, we don't need to start bombing and invading Iran to keep them from developing Nukes.

Muslims hate our naked women, our nasty rap videos, our drunks, drug addicts and our way of life in the west. They will not stop. It is not our foreign-policy it is our godless way of life.

Muslims hate our naked women, our nasty rap videos, our drunks, drug addicts and our way of life in the west. They will not stop."

Yeah, but I never thought Lon Mabon would stop either, and he had practically the same objections. :-)

Seriously, though, even if I grant that they have the motivation to destroy us (which I think is largely a load of crap, but never mind that for now) they just don't have the capability to do so. A hundred nuclear warheads in Iranian hands would be less threat to us- way less - than the Chinese pose to us right now.

Oh, and if you think it's not our foreign policy that made Iranians mad at us, you might want to read this.

it's not our foreign policy ....
Alan that was 40 years ago, It is our way of life, they dont want their daughthers and wifes to be whores, like 3/4 of hollywood.

"Alan that was 40 years ago"

Well, more like 54, but okay. On the other hand, we're apparently still mad about what the Ayatollah's fan club did 28 years ago, and what the Cubans did 48 years go. (Not to mention that we still seem a bit cross about that thing the Japanese did 66 years ago, despite giving 'em a whuppin' over it.)

I'm a little confused on the mandatory deadline for forgiveness. Does that just apply to other people?

A basic tenent of Islam is that all people on earth must either be converted to Islam, or destroyed. It's in the Koran hundreds of times.

That's why the possibilty of an Islamic state like Iran getting nuclear weapon capability is so dangerous to everyone on earth.

It's because of their religious beliefs, primarily, that they want to kill us non-Muslims (in addition to themselves--Martyrdom is a glorious achievement to Muslims).

US foreign policy certainly adds fuel to that fire, as badly as Dittoheads like Todd and Megan want to deny it.

I don't think rap videos or Hollywood fuel Islamic hatred of the US nearly as much as our occupation and desecration of Iraq, or Dick Cheney's impotent sabre-rattling toward Iran.

But mainly, the hatred is fueled by irrational, insane, violently powerful religious faith, I think.

So . . . what about Pakistan? How come they haven't nuked us infidels yet?

"A basic tenent of Islam is that all people on earth must either be converted to Islam, or destroyed. It's in the Koran hundreds of times."

People claiming to be Christians have been trying to wipe out other religions, all over the planet, for hundreds of years. They have often had the apparatus of state power behind them, and in many cases they were preceeded by devastating waves of introduced disease. (Not to mention the athiest states, like the Soviets, trying to wipe out all religions internally.)

None of these efforts have succeeded.

So I don't really care how many times the Koran says to wipe out all infidels... they can't do it. Not because they're inept, but because the evidence suggests that it can't be done.

That said, that's also a fundamentalist interpretation that doesn't seem to be shared by moderate Muslims.

"That's why the possibilty of an Islamic state like Iran getting nuclear weapon capability is so dangerous to everyone on earth."

You mean like Pakistan, that's had nukes for nine years now?

"But mainly, the hatred is fueled by irrational, insane, violently powerful religious faith, I think."

Don't worry, they should be out of the White House in 17 months. :-)

Seek a secular answer, and you shall find it.

Propaganda 101: find a distraction to domestic woes. My guess revolves around bankrupt management of the money supply (article by James Grant) that has served to generate feel good asset price inflation . . . as a mirror image of wage deflation.

Has a house in 2007 become more more than just a house in 1995 (or 1981) merely because the price level has gone up?

Talk of Iran is sufficiently engaging to distract from the Number One priority of capital gains tax cuts (return on capital as if some how it is distinct from taxes on wage labor by the masses) that reward NOT CAPITALIST enterprise but rewards sitting closest to the Federal Reserve.

The D's will need a distraction too, though it might be different it will be no less demanding of attention.

One strategy of a successful parasite is to make its host feel no pain while it is consumed. "Here -- take some Prozac for YOUR problem."

"The Iranian government is the only government around the world that speaks explicitly about the elimination of the state of Israel.

And please cite the source where you learned this, ("speaks explicitly about the elimination of the state of Israel.") The text of an 'explicit speech' would be nice.

"The Iranian government is the only government around the world that speaks explicitly about the elimination of the state of Israel."

Uh-huh. And this is relevant how, exactly? I mean, China has been talking about eliminating the state of Taiwan for decades now, but we're not talking about a pre-emptive strike on them, are we?

China has been talking about eliminating the state of Taiwan for decades now, but we're not talking about a pre-emptive strike on them, are we?

No, but I guarantee that if China made a move on Taiwan, the US would intervene, no matter who is in charge at the time...

Tenskwatana:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

Alan D:

Please note that I am totally against an invasion or bombing of Iran, as I was against invading and occupying Iraq.

However, we need not be dismissive of the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran in order to rebut the war-mongering-Fox-News-heads beating the war drums against Iran on this board.

Pakistan's having nuclear weapons is something to be very concerned about, especially if you are India. However, Musharraf is more moderate and diplomatically savvy than Ahmadinijad and has paid lip service to US interests, of course while harboring Bin Laden and helping fund the 9/11 hijackers.

If an Ahmadinijad-type extremist became president of Pakistan, boy would we have reason to worry.

And I agree that Bush's religious extremism is very worrisome as well, given that we have more nukes than anybody.

Again, we can prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons without invading or bombing, or threatening to do so. The goal should be preventing nuclear proliferation everywhere, but especially in Islamic states.

"A basic tenent of Islam is that all people on earth must either be converted to Islam, or destroyed. It's in the Koran hundreds of times."

A basic tenet if Judaism is slavery. it's in the Old Testament hundreds of times.

A basic tenet of Christianity is to love your neighbor as yourself. it's in the New Testament dozens of times.

so much for "basic tenets".

Yeah, Sam, I'm all for nonproliferation efforts. And I don't think the world will be a better place if Iran gets atomic bombs.

But as I've been contending in various places for a while now, we've got to keep this in perspective. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to us, but it would not be a very big threat to us. It could feasibly close down shipping in the Persian Gulf, or blow up our base at Diego Garcia, or nuke one of our allies in the region, but it could do none of these things without incurring a much more powerful reprisal. Iranian leaders may be fanatics, but they're no stupider than any other governing body.

With apologies to Geico: "Iranian leaders may be fanatics, but they're no stupider (more neandrathal) than any other governing body". Yeah, but they just developed larger clubs. I guess the world of international relations still comes down to might makes right. I see no evolution there. Why?

All the Pakistan Bu!!sh!! going around is bu!!sh!! lies; where true documented explanation appears in the (unauthorized) biography co-authored by Webster Tarpley, of George Hitler Worker Bush. The book is free at ( http:// ) Tarpley(dot)NET (slash) BushB (dot)HTM -- READ Chapter Eleven. For example, we US taxpayers built and gave Pakistan the nukes, as quid pro quo for their rolling over to the 'China, now!' dictates of Kissinger, GHWB, and thus, Nixon.

The honor and dignity of Israel's bogus modern version, is explained in a wealth of context, 50 years deep (up to 1948) HERE. READ the thick-LINKed scroll, down to Jack Philby, (aka Sheikh Abdullah), and see his manipulative supremacist propagandizing, which most people believing false history are victim of, still today. In the Philby material, two recommended LINKs for side-reading are 'Chaim Weizmann' and 'Saudi Arabia' (within Wikipedia); The latter especially, in consideration of relations today. Israel's modern placement was by US bribing King Ibn Saud to set that land for European monarchists to exile Jews to, and to clinch the deal, US placing oil-bearing lands (of no US ownership) in Saud's dominion and committing to support and defend it there, as 'Saudi Arabia,' in return for the King's specious signature agreeing to ARAMCO (a CIA 'front') getting exclusive access to the oil. Self-identified 'Israel supporters' today, take share in the dishonor and indignity of its being now.

And at that time, and inasmuch as Saudi Arabia entire is a CIA 'front,' then (post-1946) 'Saudi Arabia' coveted to take over Iran. And that story is widely read and often told -- see HERE and google-search like this, "Iran Mossadeq CIA 1954"

Modern Israel is a fraud. Iran only has defended an inherent right to oil of its land, against US invasions across 50-plus years.

Recently, (say, 2005), China paid $80 billion to Iran, contracting for oil delivery, and China is unlikely to let Iran default by being invaded. Which brings the discussion of understanding full circle, back around to US setting up its proxy/puppet Pakistan, which is a country China might like to 'acquire,' (at least neutralize, as buffer against India), and which (Pakistan) the US oil addicts may be about to double-cross, ('trade away' to China), to get unresisted invasion of Iran in the name of and behind the front of Saudi Arabia, ('owner' of the land Israel sits on).

Otherwise, NO, we are NOT going 'On to Iran.' Without China's allowance of it.

To see the 'global chessboard,' (of Zbigniew Brzezinski), we should open our eyes as wide as the world as old as the hills.

"That's why the possibilty of an Islamic state like Iran getting nuclear weapon capability is so dangerous to everyone on earth."

strangely, i'm more fearful of the country that has
a) *used nuclear weapons*
b) *recently and publicly discussed using them again* and
c)forbids other countries to have them (unless they buy them from us.)

imagine, if you will, living in a country far from here and knowing those three things.

eco:

Absolutely correct, the US is infinitely more of a menace to Iran than vice versa. The sabre rattling is insane and scary, as are the one-two "resignations" of Rove and Gonzo.

Another shoe is going to drop. Something horrible no one knows about yet is clearly happening with Cheney and Bush. Their nuking of Iran is a very real and worrisome possibility.

But I think you are a bit hasty to dismiss the potentially severe consequences of the nexus between faith-based eradication of infidels mandated by the Koran and all the loose nukes floating around.

Sorry, Judaism and Christianity do not have the same mandate. There is not moral equivalence in the tenets of the faiths, nor numerical equivalence in the prevalence of rabid fundamentalism therein.

There are a lot of unaccounted-for nukes floating around the world, which is a problem.

But you are right that the US's "accounted-for" nukes are a much bigger and more potentially severe problem at the moment, because Cheney and Bush are in control of them.

There are NOT "loose nukes" "floating around the world."
1.) Because these things are exotic, not some firecracker your cousin from Wyoming left you this summer. And not something in a rolling chest with flashing lights like TV programs thinking, in a James Bond fairytale or something.
2.) These things are like Cycle Oregon, or a touring rock band -- it takes a convoy of support personnel in a line of tractor-trailer rigs to move them anywhere. Maybe the 'box' fits in a 'suitcase,' only it weighs half-a-ton.
3.) Logistics, logistics, logistics.

(P.S. Valerie Plame's CIA group, Brewster-Jennings Associates, was tasked with tracking the 'nukes,' loose or otherwise, around the planet --- there is an inventory list of every. one. of them in existence; think: the Hope Diamond, a rare, unique thing -- and B-J,Assoc. found the trail of thief footprints lead up to the backdoor of The Fright House. That's when they 'outed' her and rolled up the intelligence operation. All this 4-years-old information is supplied in Wayne Madsen Report.)

Very similar handling logistics are necessary for the exotic germ- and bio-warfare WMD ingredients, only about 1000 times more stringent -- those 'nano-organisms' only exist in SuperLab, SuperSuperLab environments, some with a shelf-life of hours, up to a few days. This stuff is NOT some 'commodity' like cheese or soybeans. Fewer than a hundred people in the world can 'handle' the stuff, even understand it, and, trust me, the people who know, know who the hundred are, and where they are, and who they had breakfast with yesterday and what they ate, and the balance on their home mortgage, and how much gas is in their car's tank right now. Just go be one of those people, SuperLab Scientist, and live that life and you'll see ... hell, just go TRY to be one of those people, you ain't got it and you ain't got a clue.

GdDmn the massmind media for the lying fantasy fear they slosh in people's minds. Ignorance is like a vacuum chamber: anything gets sucked in and fills it.

And, about the bogus "eradication of infidels mandated by the Koran." Holy F'ing Judas Priest, get a GdDmn grip and turn off your F'ing TeleF'ingVision. Maybe start by actually reading the actual Qur'an. It says: Do unto others and as so is done to you; what goes around comes around; you are what you eat, you act as you think; be careful little eyes what you see. And: Desire is the root of all human suffering.

There is only one 'religion' -- in ALL History -- which brainwashes 'missionaries' and underwrites to infiltrate them into lands where they were never invited, and instructs them to 'convince and convert' the sovereign culture alive in those lands from whatever they now believe -- don't ask, don't learn -- into the enforced 'religion' and belief 'structure' the 'missionaries' impose, which is basically that the 'missionaries' can middleman and broker and intercess (for a 10% cut) between you, paean, and your innate conscience. And, Big CLUE: that one violence-given militaristic 'religion' is NOT Mohammedanism.

"Sorry, Judaism and Christianity do not have the same mandate."

i'd say it depends on who you ask. and, you're interpreting the Qu'uran as a radical would, but interpreting Judaism and Christianity as a moderate would. not a meaningful comparison for this topic.

"There is not moral equivalence in the tenets of the faiths"

there absolutely is--depending on how you interpret the religious texts. and that's the problem. to call a faction wrong or extreme, you have to first say "i know the correct interpretation of your religious beliefs."

"nor numerical equivalence in the prevalence of rabid fundamentalism therein."

prove that. how many "fundamentalists" are there in each religion?

Muslims outnumber Christians, yet the majority of wars currently being waged across the globe are funded and/or instigated by Christian-centric and secular societies and groups--not Muslim.

in short--nukes bad. killing bad. and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SouXzbTO578

Ecohuman:
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/14muslimconflicts.html

Tens:

Thank you for the thought-provoking, if histrionic, response. Do you have any cites for your theory that there aren't really "loose nukes floating around" following the disintegration of the USSR, and absolutely every last one is accounted for? All I can find is mainstream media cites, like PBS and ABC. You may well be right that it's all a bunch of fear-mongering propoganda, but what's your alternative source?

Also, please note that just because there's fear-mongering doesn't mean there aren't radical faith-driven jihadists trying to get nukes/dirty bombs, etc. (Yes I know, non-Muslim McVeigh types too). The technology exists; they can develop it if they try hard enough. (Yes, I know the US has most of the technology and weapons, and keeps track of the Anthrax, etc.)

As for your Koran link, try simple searching "destroy" on there. Islam is a violent and intolerant faith. Yes, I know Christianity and Judaism are violent and intolerant too. But they are not Suicide Bombing and Beheading and 9/11-ing. (Yes, I know US and Isreal are bombing and nuclear-threatening and using chemical weapons, etc.)

BTW, your swear words do not further your arguments, but Kudos for the Judas Priest reference (Halford is my god).

Eco:

The correct interpretation is exactly what's written on the page. Moderates of any religion who selectively believe only the parts of their sacred texts they like to be "the word of God" are just enabling the extremists.

Todd:

You make a decent point, although I think Christians have more capability for causing destruction than Muslims. But can't you find a better, more primary source than transcribed Michael Savage radio rants?

Todd:

er, Michael Savage? good grief. and it's telling in the key facts (and 300+conflicts) it leaves out.

and casting Afghanistan as a Muslim-centric war? that's a good one.

The correct interpretation is exactly what's written on the page.

that's the textbook description of an extremist/fundamentalist view. well done.

"that's the textbook description of an extremist/fundamentalist view. well done."

Thank you.

Again, a "moderate" who selectively "interprets" some of the unambiguous language in his sacred text to be the word of God, and some not, is not really "moderate" at all: he is validating the extremist who believes it ALL to be the word of God.

Either it is the word of God, or it is not. If you're going to profess belief that ANY of it is the word of God, the logical conclusion is that ALL of it is the word of God. "Moderates" enable extremists.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070829/wl_nm/russia_ingushetia_dc

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm

Either it is the word of God, or it is not. If you're going to profess belief that ANY of it is the word of God, the logical conclusion is that ALL of it is the word of God."

that's not logical at all. but then again, fundamentalism's not about logic or reason.

saying moderates "enable extremists" is like saying accountants "enable overspending." it's nonsensical.

Comparing religion to accounting is like comparing a Ouija board to a calculator.

No religious faith, whether "moderate" or "fundamentalist," is about logic or reason. The idea of a supreme being who created the universe and gave us instructions in a holy text is nonsensical. "Moderates" who profess half belief in such silliness are just legitimizing the "fundamentalists" who swallow it whole cloth, and who would otherwise be ostracized as the delusional schizophrenic cultists they are.

And that is all the more I will say as we have strayed rather far from the thread topic of US attacking Iran.

Thank you for the interesting discussion, ecohuman.

Sam,

i like your style. ditto.