Iran and 9/11 Investigations

[BoredShirtless]

I find it very amusing that the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in combat (against a civilian population no less) is going around and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with our foreign policy must have their finger on the nuclear trigger.

For me, that attitude is fucking scary. Seriously, who knows the gates of hell would open with just one fundie; the right kind of fundie [created in the War on Terror] to transport a nuke from a former soviet country into a US city....not good, could be only a matter of time.

[The Kernel]

Oh yes, because using them to bring about the end of World War for minimal casualties is of course the same as using them to bully others or perhaps even *gasp* terrorism.

Which is exactly my point numbnuts, nukes have NEVER BEEN USED as anything but a foreign policy tool by anyone except the United States. And btw, there's a big difference between limiting nuclear proliferation and attacking any country that tries to develop them who has a foreign policy view that is contrary to our own.

[The Kernel]

I find it very amusing that the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in combat (against a civilian population no less) is going around and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with our foreign policy must have their finger on the nuclear trigger.

For me, that attitude is fucking scary. Seriously, who knows the gates of hell would open with just one fundie; the right kind of fundie [created in the War on Terror] to transport a nuke from a former soviet country into a US city....not good, could be only a matter of time.

Indeed, I'd say that the War on Terror has actually made such an attack FAR more likely.

[Joe]

That may have flown with me during the Clinton days but I am so disenfranchised with the current administration that I simply cannot get behind a preemptive attack against a nation that is not openly hostile to the United States. If I were in Iran's position and Bush had just attacked my neighbor without cause AND was looking for a reason to attack me too, I might consider developing nukes as a deterrent as well. Shit, it works for North Korea now doesn't it?

I don't give a shit about the fact that Iran thinks it needs nukes to defend itself from the evil imperialist U.S. and neither should you; it's not in our interests for Iran to have nukes. Fuck, it isn't in ANYONE's interest, least of all the majority of the Iranians who are mighty displeased with the fact that the fundies who run their government have pissed away so much of Iran's wealth on funding terrorism and WMD development.

There also the fact that the Iranian government may be very unstable, given the widespread discontent in Iran. It's a bad idea to introduce nukes into a country with that kind of environment.

Besides, a fullscale invasion of Iran wouldn't be necessary to get rid of their nukes, anyway. A couple Tomahawks would set them back years.

Besides, even if you completely discount the fact that having a nuke isn't the same as having a long-range delivery system for it, Iran simply isn't suicidal enough to launch a nuke at anyone. If you think otherwise, perhaps you'd like to show some evidence of it?

They don't need to use them for them to be effective. They could potentially allow Iran to become the hegemon of the Middle East, which would be, once again, in no one's interests but the fundies who run the Iranian government. Or they could provoke a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. Or any other alternative that is less desirable than Iran not having nuclear weapons at all.

And that is a direct link to a nation bent on self-destruction? Please.

For fuck's sake, just because they aren't going to use them doesn't mean they should fucking have them! Nuclear weapons are bad for the balance of power and and is in our interests to prevent unreliable nations from acquiring them.

[Crown]

I wonder how things would be if they truly were gunning for the states...the type of gunning they'd unleash after having been nuked, that is. Don't make the mistake of assuming Iran hasn't got surprises up its sleeve, or the ability to effectively retaliate if nuked.

There you go again, with your 'nuke' strawman ... do I have to ask you to point out where I discussed nukes?

But I said earlier "under todays circumstances", and put in italics that all bets are off if Iran gave the world a real reason to go after it.

Where in our exchange did you say so?

Are you an idiot? Iran and Iraq are completely different cases, don't be stupid.

No shit, figured that out by yourself? Did the different spelling clue you in or something? How about backing up the 'unlogical' claim moron.

Don't be a chicken. Own up to the fact that when someone writes "flatten" without any conditions, then that's EXACTLY what a person reading would infer.

Tell me how you got 'invade' from 'flatten' and then we'll talk moron.

Pathetic attempt to score points of some other dialogue noted...and laughed at. What is this, high school?

The actual rebuttle there was ... ? Well clearly you still are. Let me quote you;

We know the international community couldn't constrain the US in invading Iraq, but flattening Iran is another story. One which you might like to shed some light as to how it would work?

You asked me to shed light, I did, I pointed out that I wasn't talking nuclear (as you were asuming) but 'flattening' their ability to threaten the US by stricking at their infrastructure. This not in line with what ever little fantasies were roaming around in your head at the time, you started acting like a cunt.

I find it the height of halarity that an idiot who infered 'invade' from 'flatten' can suddenly come back an tell me off that 'flatten' can only mean nukes.

You really are an idiot. I was asking questions you tool, not stating conclusions which required proof.

You were using opened questions, and appeals to ignorance to make an arguement. I pointed it out. The question or issue here isn't whether or not Iran would be a harder ground war or invasion or occupation than Iraq, that is obvious it would be.

The point of this discussion is whether or not this Administration considers the use of premeptive strikes to be right of the US. Which there is an entire plethora of evidence confirming that they do.

Do you require that tattooed onto the back of your eyelid or something?

Strawman. Did I say the CIA holds exclusive rights to the responsiblity? Nope.

No you cast doubts on the CIA's inability to actually fullfill it's job in providing intelligence by using the Iraq intelligence fiasco as an example. My pointing out to you that the fiasco can be rested squarely on the Administrations shoulders as the CIA's isn't a fucking 'Strawman' you moron, it is a rebuttle.

But the possibility is still there. And so you have to weight the risks up against the rewards....which are?

WHAT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? SPECIAL? DEFFICIENT?

This Administration has an already proven track record of first strike policy. Taking away Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons by bombing in (like Serbia) is a situation that the US is well equipted to do, and not one fucking person/state/nation can stop them from doing it.

FOR THE TERMANALLY RETARTED; I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS THE WISEST THING TO DO, ONLY THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS THE MOST LIKELY TO DO SO, AND DO THIS, THAN ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION IN THE PAST OR ON THE HORIZON!

You little cum stoole.

[The Kernel]

I don't give a shit about the fact that Iran thinks it needs nukes to defend itself from the evil imperialist U.S. and neither should you; it's not in our interests for Iran to have nukes. Fuck, it isn't in ANYONE's interest, least of all the majority of the Iranians who are mighty displeased with the fact that the fundies who run their government have pissed away so much of Iran's wealth on funding terrorism and WMD development.

Iran is hardly the most likely nation to use nukes once it aquires them. That honor currently goes to the nations of Pakistan and India, but oh I forgot, they are more supportive of our Imperialist foreign policy aren't they?

There also the fact that the Iranian government may be very unstable, given the widespread discontent in Iran. It's a bad idea to introduce nukes into a country with that kind of environment.

They have a rapidly changing political culture and secular movement. That does not mean they are going to break out in an Africa-style civil war anytime soon.

Besides, a fullscale invasion of Iran wouldn't be necessary to get rid of their nukes, anyway. A couple Tomahawks would set them back years.

Gee, that sounds like a great idea. Let's alienate ourselves even more by attacking a soverign nation without any cause whatsoever. Let's also add more fuel to the religious government in Iran by showing the people first hand that the US will attack a nation without any provocation. All to get rid of a handful of potential nukes which the Iranians would never use because they know quite well that their country would be turned into a giant glass pancake if they ever did.

Yeah, great plan there chief.

They don't need to use them for them to be effective. They could potentially allow Iran to become the hegemon of the Middle East, which would be, once again, in no one's interests but the fundies who run the Iranian government. Or they could provoke a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. Or any other alternative that is less desirable than Iran not having nuclear weapons at all.

What, you mean kind of like how the United States uses our nuclear arsenal?

In any case, if Bush really wants to get rid of Iran's nukes, there are other ways to go about it. An official promise to never violate Iran's soveriegnty if they give up their nuclear program would be a nice start. But oh, I forgot, you can't negotiate with terrorists.

For fuck's sake, just because they aren't going to use them doesn't mean they should fucking have them! Nuclear weapons are bad for the balance of power and and is in our interests to prevent unreliable nations from acquiring them.

Unreliable according to whom? Like I said, we are the only nation to ever use nukes and we are also the last remaining Imperialist nation. To make matters worse, our leadership is about two steps away from being a fundie theocracy especially on the international scene. Who is more unreliable here?

[BoredShirtless]

I don't give a shit about the fact that Iran thinks it needs nukes to defend itself from the evil imperialist U.S. and neither should you; it's not in our interests for Iran to have nukes.

So because it isn't in your interests, bomb them? Once again that's the type of mentality which makes them want to develop them in the first place. Why don't you try sitting the hell down and open talks with them? Trade with them; host their sporting teams; be nice for a fucking change.

Fuck, it isn't in ANYONE's interest, least of all the majority of the Iranians who are mighty displeased with the fact that the fundies who run their government have pissed away so much of Iran's wealth on funding terrorism and WMD development.

Prove it. Iranians are pissed because the government rules too tightly, not because it has a defense budget or because it funds terrorism [prove it].

There also the fact that the Iranian government may be very unstable, given the widespread discontent in Iran. It's a bad idea to introduce nukes into a country with that kind of environment.

But it's a bad idea to "prove" the fundies right about the evil US by bombing them, don't you think? If you'd just sit down and wait it out, Iran will slowly become more secular. Yeah, and also be nice.

Besides, a fullscale invasion of Iran wouldn't be necessary to get rid of their nukes, anyway. A couple Tomahawks would set them back years.

Where are they? And what happens if you hit a pile of asprin instead?

Besides, even if you completely discount the fact that having a nuke isn't the same as having a long-range delivery system for it, Iran simply isn't suicidal enough to launch a nuke at anyone. If you think otherwise, perhaps you'd like to show some evidence of it?

They don't need to use them for them to be effective. They could potentially allow Iran to become the hegemon of the Middle East,

Hello? Sharon is on the phone and he's pissed that you're ignoring him.

which would be, once again, in no one's interests but the fundies who run the Iranian government. Or they could provoke a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. Or any other alternative that is less desirable than Iran not having nuclear weapons at all.

It's a catch 22, but what can they do? Not have them, and risk getting invaded? Or have them, and thereby keep the US at bay?

And that is a direct link to a nation bent on self-destruction? Please.

For fuck's sake, just because they aren't going to use them doesn't mean they should fucking have them! Nuclear weapons are bad for the balance of power and and is in our interests to prevent unreliable nations from acquiring them.

As long as that balance is tipped to the US, huh.

[Joe]

Prove both those assertions please. And even if Iran does fund terrorism and meddles in Iraq....so? The US did that to Iran once, yet never nuked it too.

Iran is the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world and has been for years. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know this, but here you go:

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Iran’s record against al-Qaida remains mixed. After the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, some al-Qaida members fled to Iran where they have found virtual safehaven. Iranian officials have acknowledged that Tehran detained al-Qaida operatives during 2003, including senior members. Iran’s publicized presentation of a list to the United Nations of deportees, however, was accompanied by a refusal to publicly identify senior members in Iranian custody on the grounds of “security.” Iran has resisted calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for further interrogation and trial.

During 2003, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity, both rhetorically and operationally. Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Palestinian resistance operations, and President Khatami reiterated Iran’s support for the “wronged people of Palestine” and their struggles. Matching this rhetoric with action, Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist groups -- notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command -- with funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. Iran hosted a conference in August 2003 on the Palestinian intifadah, at which an Iranian official suggested that the continued success of the Palestinian resistance depended on suicide operations.

Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq aimed at securing Tehran’s perceived interests there, some of which ran counter to those of the Coalition. Iran has indicated support for the Iraqi Governing Council and promised to help Iraqi reconstruction.

Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, individuals with ties to the Revolutionary Guard may have attempted to infiltrate southern Iraq, and elements of the Iranian Government have helped members of Ansar al-Islam transit and find safehaven in Iran. In a Friday Prayers sermon in Tehran in May, Guardian Council member Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati publicly encouraged Iraqis to follow the Palestinian model and participate in suicide operations against Coalition forces.

Iran is a party to five of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism.

As for trying to upset our efforts in Iraq, don't you remember Chalabi?

[The Kernel]

*snip*

And I suppose you totally missed his point about how the United States armed Iraq to the teeth for its war against Iran?

[Col. Crackpot]

*snip*

And I suppose you totally missed his point about how the United States armed Iraq to the teeth for its war against Iran?

Twenty years ago. So? At the time the secular regime in Iraq looked a hell of a lot more reasonable than the relgious loonies that stormed and burned down our embassy held dozens of hostages for years. Also, If you can find me a pair of glasses that will let me view current events with the benefit of hindsight, let me know. You can make a fortune selling them.

[Joe]

Iran is hardly the most likely nation to use nukes once it aquires them. That honor currently goes to the nations of Pakistan and India, but oh I forgot, they are more supportive of our Imperialist foreign policy aren't they?

THEY ALREADY HAVE NUKES AND THERE'S NOT A FUCKING THING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. That DOESN'T mean we shouldn't prevent Iran from getting them.

They have a rapidly changing political culture and secular movement. That does not mean they are going to break out in an Africa-style civil war anytime soon.

Nor does it mean the country is stable. It makes me shiver to think of what one of those crazy fundies falling from power who has access to nukes could do, or who he could give it to.

Gee, that sounds like a great idea. Let's alienate ourselves even more by attacking a soverign nation without any cause whatsoever. Let's also add more fuel to the religious government in Iran by showing the people first hand that the US will attack a nation without any provocation. All to get rid of a handful of potential nukes which the Iranians would never use because they know quite well that their country would be turned into a giant glass pancake if they ever did.

We do have cause; they're a state sponsor of terrorism who've tried to upset our efforts not only in Iraq but also to bring about peace in Israel and Palestine. And if preventing an unreliable country that can't be trusted from getting nukes pisses people off, that's their fucking problem.

Speaking of Israel, the Israelis might do it on their own accord and take care of the job for us.

What, you mean kind of like how the United States uses our nuclear arsenal?

Yes, exactly like that. That wouldn't be good for us, or for anyone. An Iranian hegemony over the Middle East would lead to Iranian country of the Middle East's oil reserves, which could be disastrous for the global economy.

In any case, if Bush really wants to get rid of Iran's nukes, there are other ways to go about it. An official promise to never violate Iran's soveriegnty if they give up their nuclear program would be a nice start. But oh, I forgot, you can't negotiate with terrorists.

That would be nice, but it won't work. The Iranians aren't afraid of words.

Unreliable according to whom? Like I said, we are the only nation to ever use nukes and we are also the last remaining Imperialist nation. To make matters worse, our leadership is about two steps away from being a fundie theocracy especially on the international scene. Who is more unreliable here?

I was under the assumption that being a totalitarian, terror-funding theocracy that is possibly on the way to a potentially violent revolution was enough to earn the label "unreliable," but maybe I'm being too hasty.

Why are you so enthusiastic about the idea of the Iranians getting nukes, anyway? Do you seriously believe that a nuclear Iran will be good for ANYONE save a handful of ayatollahs? Do you seriously believe that if we can prevent Iran from getting the nukes at an acceptable cost, we should abstain from that course of action?

[Joe]

OK, I'm going to the gym for an hour or two, but I do intend to reply to BS's post and whatever Kernel posts, so later.

[The Kernel]

Twenty years ago. So? At the time the secular regime in Iraq looked a hell of a lot more reasonable than the relgious loonies that stormed and burned down our embassy held dozens of hostages for years. Also, If you can find me a pair of glasses that will let me view current events with the benefit of hindsight, let me know. You can make a fortune selling them.

So Iran is worried about a repeat of history moron. Or does the fact that a stable Iraq under the US's thumb being a threat to Iran totally pass you by? After all, why attack Iran ourselves when the Iraqis would be more than willing to do it for us with US weapons and military advisors?

And btw, Saddam's most viscious work was prior to our relationship with him so we can't say that he's a vile dictator today as a reason for overthrowing him while we turned a blind eye to his atrocities during the 80's.

[The Kernel]

THEY ALREADY HAVE NUKES AND THERE'S NOT A FUCKING THING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. That DOESN'T mean we shouldn't prevent Iran from getting them.

It also doesn't mean we should attack them for developing something that tons of more unstable nations have.

Nor does it mean the country is stable. It makes me shiver to think of what one of those crazy fundies falling from power who has access to nukes could do, or who he could give it to.

Which is exactly the attitude George W. would like you to have I imagine. You know what makes me shiver? The thought of what Sharon might do if he decides that turning the rest of the Middle East into glass is something that the US wouldn't attack him over.

We do have cause; they're a state sponsor of terrorism who've tried to upset our efforts not only in Iraq but also to bring about peace in Israel and Palestine. And if preventing an unreliable country that can't be trusted from getting nukes pisses people off, that's their fucking problem.

And they have cause to want to disrupt our efforts in the Middle East given that we have openly supported their enemies militarily. Who is the bigger threat to whom?

Speaking of Israel, the Israelis might do it on their own accord and take care of the job for us.

Only a fucking idiot talks about the deaths of millions of innocent people so casually.

The War on Terror--bringing organized racism together in a way not seen since the formation of the KKK.

Yes, exactly like that. That wouldn't be good for us, or for anyone. An Iranian hegemony over the Middle East would lead to Iranian country of the Middle East's oil reserves, which could be disastrous for the global economy.

And that gives us cause to attack them preemptively? The fear that they MIGHT become as irresponsible as we are?

That would be nice, but it won't work. The Iranians aren't afraid of words.

What a wonderful unsupported assertion you have there.

I was under the assumption that being a totalitarian, terror-funding theocracy that is possibly on the way to a potentially violent revolution was enough to earn the label "unreliable," but maybe I'm being too hasty.

Is it worse than an Imperialistic, bible-thumping warmongerers?

Why are you so enthusiastic about the idea of the Iranians getting nukes, anyway? Do you seriously believe that a nuclear Iran will be good for ANYONE save a handful of ayatollahs? Do you seriously believe that if we can prevent Iran from getting the nukes at an acceptable cost, we should abstain from that course of action?

I'm not enthusiastic about Iran getting nukes, I simply don't think its cause for violating their soveriegnty, especially given the current political climate we find ourselves in. If we could convince the UN Security Council to take action, then I might be inclined to change my mind, but I will not support another unilateral act of agression by the United States against the Middle East.

[BoredShirtless]

I wonder how things would be if they truly were gunning for the states...the type of gunning they'd unleash after having been nuked, that is. Don't make the mistake of assuming Iran hasn't got surprises up its sleeve, or the ability to effectively retaliate if nuked.

There you go again, with your 'nuke' strawman ... do I have to ask you to point out where I discussed nukes?

Idiot. You earlier wrote "flatten", which obviously means either nuking the joint or carpet bombing it [which I also wrote].

But I said earlier "under todays circumstances", and put in italics that all bets are off if Iran gave the world a real reason to go after it.

Where in our exchange did you say so?

Second page you lazy ass.

Are you an idiot? Iran and Iraq are completely different cases, don't be stupid.

No shit, figured that out by yourself? Did the different spelling clue you in or something?

Ha ha what wit.

How about backing up the 'unlogical' claim moron.

They are different cases imbecile, you can't shift the results from case A to case B. And yes, you later added a proviso to paraphrase "the probability is such and such"...yeah good one. The crux of your logic is this; the US acted irrationally before, so it will do so again. Well does that prove Iran would also be invaded? Nope, it doesn't. So what's this probability you spoke of? Define it.

Don't be a chicken. Own up to the fact that when someone writes "flatten" without any conditions, then that's EXACTLY what a person reading would infer.

Tell me how you got 'invade' from 'flatten' and then we'll talk moron.

You poor little baby. That's right, hang on to my unrelated mistake as if that somehow excuses your own.

Pathetic attempt to score points of some other dialogue noted...and laughed at. What is this, high school?

The actual rebuttle there was ... ? Well clearly you still are. Let me quote you;

We know the international community couldn't constrain the US in invading Iraq, but flattening Iran is another story. One which you might like to shed some light as to how it would work?

You asked me to shed light, I did, I pointed out that I wasn't talking nuclear (as you were asuming) but 'flattening' their ability to threaten the US by stricking at their infrastructure. This not in line with what ever little fantasies were roaming around in your head at the time, you started acting like a cunt.

The fantasies in my head were formed having read your fucking words dipshit. I'm not to blame for your inability to communicate properly.

I find it the height of halarity that an idiot who infered 'invade' from 'flatten' can suddenly come back an tell me off that 'flatten' can only mean nukes.

Ok dickhead, it's time for school. When you only write "flatten" with the only reference being the country, then you are saying "to flatten the country". I've got no drama with you backpedling, don't be such a sooky baby.

You really are an idiot. I was asking questions you tool, not stating conclusions which required proof.

You were using opened questions, and appeals to ignorance to make an arguement.

List those appeals to ignorance.

The point of this discussion is whether or not this Administration considers the use of premeptive strikes to be right of the US. Which there is an entire plethora of evidence confirming that they do.

Wrong. We already know the Bush Admin can use preemptive strikes. The real [not your version] point of this discussion is WOULD THEY against Iran?

Do you require that tattooed onto the back of your eyelid or something?

More of that stunning wit. I'm very impressed.

Strawman. Did I say the CIA holds exclusive rights to the responsiblity? Nope.

No you cast doubts on the CIA's inability to actually fullfill it's job in providing intelligence by using the Iraq intelligence fiasco as an example. My pointing out to you that the fiasco can be rested squarely on the Administrations shoulders as the CIA's isn't a fucking 'Strawman' you moron, it is a rebuttle.

Oh woops, I thought you were straw manning my argument! Silly me! You came up with the above all by yourself! Imbecile, haven't you heard of the 9/11 Commission yet? They've just released a report which flies right in the face of your UNPROVEN assertion that all the blame rests on the Administration. Try again, moron.

But the possibility is still there. And so you have to weight the risks up against the rewards....which are?

WHAT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? SPECIAL? DEFFICIENT?

This Administration has an already proven track record of first strike policy.

Congratulations for wasting time and stating the obvious. Now, prove they would first strike Iran.

Taking away Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons by bombing in (like Serbia) is a situation that the US is well equipted to do, and not one fucking person/state/nation can stop them from doing it.

No shit you idiot. Christ you're just a big pile of...nothing. Instead of arguing for reasons "would they or should they?", you're simply stating obvious facts like the US has a first strike policy, or that they could bomb Iran....woop dee doo daa, news to me!

FOR THE TERMANALLY RETARTED; I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS THE WISEST THING TO DO, ONLY THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS THE MOST LIKELY TO DO SO, AND DO THIS, THAN ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION IN THE PAST OR ON THE HORIZON!

You little cum stoole.

What a waste of time. Either join in this discussion properly, or piss off.

[BoredShirtless]

I'm off to Zürich for the week, so I can't reply anymore. Anyway The Kernel is kicking all your asses anyway haha!

[Broomstick]

Don't pooh-pooh the idea that the current crew might try to invade Iran. Yeah, I do think that on some level Bush thinks this is a game of sorts - one he personally risks no blood or personal danger in. I don't think he cares about shedding other peoples' blood.

No way. They would never try it, because they couldn't hold her. As you said, not enough resources. The current admin seriously underestimated Iraq; they would not make the same mistake with Iran. Those Hawks were suffering from delusions of grandeur, but they are very much awake now, and they aren't stupid.

Yes, they ARE that stupid.

Bush's "conservative base" are a bunch of brain-damaged Jesus freaks suffering from severe cranio-rectal inversion who are looking forward to armageddon. They WANT a show-down conflict between the "saved" Christians and the Heathen Forces (i.e. everyone NOT their brand of Christian) Hence, the likes of Falwell saying after 9/11 that the ultimate responsibility for the attack on the US could be laid at the feet of gays and women working outside the home (maybe you missed that, huh?). Don't confuse them with the facts, OK?

Attorney General Ashcroft is not shy about admitting he "annoints" himself with olive oil whenever he gets appointed to a new job, takes on a new battle for Christ, etc. You know WHY he is working for Bush? Because he LOST the election for governor of Missouri - to a dead man. That's right - the people of Missouri voted a corpse into office over Ashcroft (No, there's not a stiff in the Missouri governor's mansion - I'm not even sure what the courts decided in that case but it sure as hell wasn't Ashcroft)

Here in the Chicago area he threatened to shut down a major medical center because they refused to release to him the complete medical records of every women who had had an abortion or miscarriage for three years - he even stated he was looking for evidence of partial birth abortions and planned to prosecute both doctors and women even those such procedures were completely legal at the time frame of the records in question! When local media broke the story he tried to have the editors of major newspapers and TV stations shut up through subpoenas and court orders. What a fucking tool.

Anyhow - Ashcroft is typical of these guys. Look at the hit they took over that ridiculous proposal to ammend the constitution - they don't fucking care they alienated half the Republican party through an infringement of States' Rights (regulation of marriage is SPECIFICALLY given to the States in the Constitution) and meddling in private affairs. It's not that most of the guys voting against that ammendment approved of gay marriage - I'm pretty sure most of them thought it was some sort of sick joke and don't approve - but they recognized that their lack of approval didn't justify writing this into law, much less the Constitution.

Add in all the bullshit over the pledge of allegience, harassment of innocents in the so-called "War on Terror", blatant corporate favoritism, gutting of environmental laws, tax cuts to the rich while veterans' benefits are cut, proposals to cancel a national election... Kerry out of the mainstream? These guys aren't even in the fucking river! But they don't care - it's their way or no way, they're appointed by God, and what the "little people" think doesn't matter as long as they're good cannon fodder and die when commanded to do so.

Is the current White House adminsitration STUPID enough to trump up false evidence and invade Iran?

You bet.

If they even thought they could get away with it they'd try it.

[Stormbringer]

We all know Ashcroft is a fundy, but would you care to provide a link to the newstories for all that? Because if the election part is any indication, you're none too reliable.

Because he LOST the election for governor of Missouri - to a dead man. That's right - the people of Missouri voted a corpse into office over Ashcroft (No, there's not a stiff in the Missouri governor's mansion - I'm not even sure what the courts decided in that case but it sure as hell wasn't Ashcroft)

A) It was Senate election

B) The normal course was followed and the Governor decided the appointee. And he made it clear that a vote for the dead guy would be counted as a vote for Dead Guy's wife.

So while it makes good copy, it's not exactly true. The people of Missouriknew exactly who they were voting for and she was very much alive. If you're going to Bush-bash at least get your facts straight.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Which is exactly my point numbnuts, nukes have NEVER BEEN USED as anything but a foreign policy tool by anyone except the United States. And btw, there's a big difference between limiting nuclear proliferation and attacking any country that tries to develop them who has a foreign policy view that is contrary to our own.

Give me a break. Knowing what we know now about Pakistan, would you not support active efforts to thwart their nuclear development, or is your problem-solving mentality consist of giving money to organizations to "stop proliferation."

[Joe]

It also doesn't mean we should attack them for developing something that tons of more unstable nations have.

Your logic sucks. You're saying that since several unstable nations already have nukes, the U.S. should allow OTHER unstable nations to have nukes and perpetuate the problem. That's like saying "well, I got one of my testicles bitten off by a rabid squirrel, so I might as well allow the other testicle to be bit off by a different rabid squirrel." Or better yet, "well, the Soviets are bad and they murder their people too, so we shouldn't go after Adolf Hitler."

Which is exactly the attitude George W. would like you to have I imagine. You know what makes me shiver? The thought of what Sharon might do if he decides that turning the rest of the Middle East into glass is something that the US wouldn't attack him over.

That only proves my point. Israel should not have been allowed to have nukes; they got them without our approval or knowledge, probably by spying on us, but once they had them, there wasn't a goddamn thing we could have done about it. The situation you have described is only an example of what happens when you allow high-risk nations to get ahold of nuclear weaponry. Israel's nukes are destabilizing and bad for the region, but the solution to that problem is NOT to allow a nation that is much higher risk to get ahold of the things.

And they have cause to want to disrupt our efforts in the Middle East given that we have openly supported their enemies militarily. Who is the bigger threat to whom?

I don't fucking care if you think they have "cause"; they're a state sponsor of terrorism, they've been hostile to us for years, and their security interests are not a factor in the equation when formulating American foreign policy. If we could have stopped the Soviets (and no, I am not saying Iran is a thread on the level of the USSR) from getting the bomb permanently in 1945, would the correct course of action have been to say "well, they do have a right to defend themselves, even if it completely contradicts our national interest to allow them to do so with nuclear arms"? Foreign policy isn't about being fair.

Only a fucking idiot talks about the deaths of millions of innocent people so casually.

The War on Terror--bringing organized racism together in a way not seen since the formation of the KKK.

I was talking about the Israelis taking out the Iranian nuclear facility - which they may in fact do on their own - and I don't see how you could have gotten the impression that I was talking about glassing the entire fucking country.

And that gives us cause to attack them preemptively? The fear that they MIGHT become as irresponsible as we are?

I don't know, maybe the idea of one entity controlling all the Middle East's oil? Christ, you were bitching about OPEC a couple weeks ago, you know what I'm talking about.

What a wonderful unsupported assertion you have there.

Hey, it's the truth, the IAEA has expressed concern over Iran's nuclear program and they've pretty much been ignored. I'm all for diplomacy if it will work and we don't have to give the Iranians everything they want, but I am not optimistic.

Is it worse than an Imperialistic, bible-thumping warmongerers?

I don't know, chief, is there any chance of the U.S. handing over nuclear arms or experts who can build the things to terrorists?

And the U.S. is NOT a totalitarian theocracy, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

I'm not enthusiastic about Iran getting nukes, I simply don't think its cause for violating their soveriegnty, especially given the current political climate we find ourselves in. If we could convince the UN Security Council to take action, then I might be inclined to change my mind, but I will not support another unilateral act of agression by the United States against the Middle East.

I have a question for you; if we could have prevented Pakistan from getting nuclear technology years ago and therefore prevented Dr. Khan from disseminating said technology to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Libya, would you have refused on this same basis?

[Joe]

So because it isn't in your interests, bomb them? Once again that's the type of mentality which makes them want to develop them in the first place. Why don't you try sitting the hell down and open talks with them? Trade with them; host their sporting teams; be nice for a fucking change.

Sorry, I see no reason for Iran's current behavior to be rewarded with kindness. They should clean their shit up on their own accord (and by they I mean the government, not the actual Iranians who are just as pissed off about the way their government acts).

Prove it. Iranians are pissed because the government rules too tightly, not because it has a defense budget or because it funds terrorism [prove it].

As for being angry about funding terrorism? Iran's young generation is secular-minded and progressive, and the Iranian government is funding religious terrorists who represent everything that they despise. It's not hard to deduce that this younger majority is unhappy with the actions of its government in this matter.

As for being angry about the government developing nuclear weapons:

by Karim Sadjadpour
The writer, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, is a visiting fellow at the American University of Beirut.

Do the people of Iran want the bomb? Iran's recent decision to allow for tighter inspection of its nuclear facilities -- which Iran says are for civilian purposes -- was hailed by Iranian and European officials as a diplomatic victory, while analysts and officials in Washington and Tel Aviv continue to be wary of Tehran's intentions. But despite the attention given to Iran's nuclear aspirations in recent months, one important question has scarcely been touched on: How do the Iranian people feel about having nuclear weapons?

Iranian officials have suggested that the country's nuclear program is an issue that resonates on the Iranian street and is a great source of national pride. But months of interviews I have done in Iran reveal a somewhat different picture. Whereas few Iranians are opposed to the development of a nuclear energy facility, most do not see it as a solution to their primary concerns: economic malaise and political and social repression. What's more, most of the Iranians surveyed said they oppose the pursuit of a nuclear weapons program because it runs counter to their desire for "peace and tranquility." Three reasons were commonly cited.

First, having experienced a devastating eight-year war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of their compatriots, Iranians are opposed to reliving war or violence. Many Iranians said the pursuit of nuclear weapons would lead the country down a path no one wanted to travel.

Two decades ago revolutionary euphoria was strong, and millions of young men volunteered to defend their country against an Iraqi onslaught. Today few Iranians have illusions about the realities of conflict. The argument that a nuclear weapon could help serve as a deterrent to ensure peace in Iran seemed incongruous to most. "If we want peace, why would we want a bomb?" asked a middle-aged Iranian woman, seemingly concurring with an influential Iranian diplomat who contends that a nuclear weapon "would not augment Iran's security but rather heighten its vulnerabilities."

Second, while a central premise of Iran's Islamic government from the time of its inception has been its steadfast opposition to the United States and Israel, for most Iranians no such nemeses exist. Iran's young populace -- more than two-thirds of the country is younger than 30 -- is among the most pro-American in the Middle East, and tend not to share the impassioned anti-Israel sentiment of their Arab neighbors. While the excitement generated on the Indian and Pakistani streets as a result of their nuclear detonations is commonly cited to show the correlation between nuclear weapons and national pride, such a reaction is best understood in the context of the rivalry between the two countries. The majority of Iranians surveyed claimed to have little desire to show off their military or nuclear prowess to anyone. "Whom would we attack?" asked a 31-year-old laborer, echoing a commonly heard sentiment in Tehran. "We don't want war with anyone."

Finally, many Iranians, youth in particular, are opposed to the Islamic republic's becoming a nuclear power because they believe it would further entrench the hard-liners in the government. "I fear that if these guys get the bomb they will be able to hold on to power for another 25 years," said a 30-year-old Iranian professional. "Nobody wants that." In particular some expressed a concern that a nuclear Iran would be immune to U.S. and European diplomatic pressure and could continue to repress popular demands for reform without fear of repercussion.

At the same time, most Iranians -- including harsh critics of the Islamic regime -- remain unconvinced by the allegations that their government is secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Many dismiss it as another bogeyman manufactured by the United States and Israel to further antagonize and isolate the Islamic regime. "I don't believe we're after a bomb," said a 25-year-old Tehran University student. "The U.S. is always looking for an excuse to harass these mullahs." A recently retired Iranian diplomat who said he is "strongly critical" of the Islamic government agreed with this assessment, saying Iran's nuclear program "is neither for defensive nor offensive purposes . . . It's only for energy purposes."

I draw two lessons from this. First, the European-brokered compromise on Iran's nuclear program, which appealed to reformists and pragmatists within the Iranian government, was also a victory of sorts for the Iranian people, who are eager to emerge from the political and economic isolation of the past two decades and are strongly in favor of increasing ties with the West. A blatant lack of cooperation with the international community would not have been well-received domestically.

Second, a more aggressive reaction by the international community -- a U.S. or Israeli attempt to strike Iran's nuclear facilities -- could well have the unintended consequence of antagonizing a highly nationalistic and largely pro-Western populace and convincing Iranians that a nuclear weapon is indeed in their national interests. Such a reaction would be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region, especially given Iran's key location between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Western and Israeli diplomats and analysts should know that the ability to solve the Iranian nuclear predicament diplomatically has broad implications for the future of democracy and nonproliferation in Iran and the rest of the Middle East. The goal is to bring the Iranian regime on the same page with the Iranian people. A non-diplomatic attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities could do precisely the opposite.

But it's a bad idea to "prove" the fundies right about the evil US by bombing them, don't you think? If you'd just sit down and wait it out, Iran will slowly become more secular. Yeah, and also be nice.

I agree that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities should be a last resort only when diplomacy has completely failed. I'm simply saying that option should not be completely ruled out in the not unlikely event that diplomacy fails.

Where are they? And what happens if you hit a pile of asprin instead?

They are in the early stages of development - it will take them years to be a bonafide member of the nuclear club. As for hitting a pile of aspirin - unlikely - we know exactly where they are and wouldn't be talking about bombing them if we didn't.

Hello? Sharon is on the phone and he's pissed that you're ignoring him.

Nice try, assclown - Israel's military resources are completely tied up with the Palestinians and they lack the ability to fight an aggressive war and hold on to any territory they occupy. Why do you think they so willingly got out of the Suez Canal? They can defend their country from anything the various Middle East countries can throw at them, except of course for WMD, but it is simply not possible for Israel to become the Middle Eastern hegemon, even with nukes.

It's a catch 22, but what can they do? Not have them, and risk getting invaded? Or have them, and thereby keep the US at bay?

I don't care and I still fail to understand why I'm supposed to care about the security interests of a hostile nation, nor why this should enter into consideration.

As long as that balance is tipped to the US, huh.

Actually, no; Israel's nukes arguably tipped the balance of power in the favor of the U.S. when they were acquired, but it is still a bad thing that they have them.

[Joe]

I was talking about the Israelis taking out the Iranian nuclear facility - which they may in fact do on their own - and I don't see how you could have gotten the impression that I was talking about glassing the entire fucking country.

Slighty correction here; I just remembered that Israel would have to have permission from the U.S. to do this for obvious reasons, so it would have to be a joint American-Israeli op if it was carried out.

[tharkûn]

Slighty correction here; I just remembered that Israel would have to have permission from the U.S. to do this for obvious reasons, so it would have to be a joint American-Israeli op if it was carried out.

No it wouldn't. In 1981 Begin bombed and drew condemenation from the entire world, including the US. Further Reagan halted arms shipments in response.

Israel might have consulted on some back channel to the highest levels, but claiming that it was a joint op is ludicrious.

While it is not 1981, the fact of the matter is Israel need not run it as a joint up. Conceivably they could act alone and let the peices fall where they may. Exactly what is the US needed for? Intelligence? Basing and strike capability are not major concerns. Aside from the diplomatic fallout what is the US needed for in such a strike?

[Joe]

There's the small matter of the fact that Israeli planes would have to fly over the airspace of a country currently occupied by the United States in such a strike. Which means the U.S. would have to OK it in advance.

[Crown]

Idiot. You earlier wrote "flatten", which obviously means either nuking the joint or carpet bombing it [which I also wrote].

Or 'invade' apparently .. You are such a dumb ass. You asked me to clarrify, I did, you accused me of 'backpedelling', I called bullshit, and here we are.

Second page you lazy ass.

Quote if for me you lazy ass. This is becoming a patern in this thread where you refuse to back up your claims.

They are different cases imbecile, you can't shift the results from case A to case B. And yes, you later added a proviso to paraphrase "the probability is such and such"...yeah good one. The crux of your logic is this; the US acted irrationally before, so it will do so again. Well does that prove Iran would also be invaded? Nope, it doesn't. So what's this probability you spoke of? Define it.

Your unability to understand the basic is simply outstanding. Your little red herring about 'invade' hasn't gone unnoticed either jack ass.

The issue is whether or not the US has the ability to 'flatten' Iran (as I put it and latter clarified my laguage for you because you specificially asked me to), and whether or not Iran or anyone else can stop them. The answer is yes and no respectively.

As to the policy or ideology of 'first strike' or 'pre-emptive' strike, not only is the rhetoric there but it is fucking verifiable with past actions.

Since we both agree that the US cannot invade nor occupy Iran since the US's military forces are spread too thin, the option of premptive strike is a very fucking real possibility should the current Administration see them as a threat based on past evidence of their methods.

You screaming 'they're different! They're different!' is a nice excercise in the hypothetical, but the past data lend more support to my conclusion than yours. Ergo, join the fucking dots.

You poor little baby. That's right, hang on to my unrelated mistake as if that somehow excuses your own.

What mistake you dipshit? You got 'invade' from flatten, I point this out to you, then you automatically switch to nuke all by your lonesome (without any kind of direction from me), and when I say; no I meant like this. You accuse me of 'backpeddeling'.

Sometimes I wonder how you manage to function.

The fantasies in my head were formed having read your fucking words dipshit. I'm not to blame for your inability to communicate properly.

I corrected you the first fucking time rather than ask for my definition (since your reading and comprehension skills are fucking lacking) you made another assumption. I corrected you again and SPELT. IT. OUT. FOR. YOU.

And then you accuse me of 'backpeddeling' and refuse to even accept the clarrified, crystal clear explanation given to you.

Are you fucking special?

Ok dickhead, it's time for school. When you only write "flatten" with the only reference being the country, then you are saying "to flatten the country". I've got no drama with you backpedling, don't be such a sooky baby.

And yet, somehow you managed to get invade ... (sounds like we've covered this before)

List those appeals to ignorance.

Are you fucking serious? Sure, why not;

Does it have the bomb too? Who knows? Should the US risk nuclear retaliation based on the "they don't have the means to deliver it" of the CIA, even after all those CIA fuck ups?

Your entire arguement consisted of 'we don't really know if they have it or not' and 'we don't really know if they can deliver it if they had it' and 'the CIA are st00pid' ...

I linked you to the the fucking definition of an Argumentum ad ignorantiam. I will now quote if for you since you seem to stupid or lazy to read it yourself;

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

You are using unkowns to justify an arguement, that is the fucking defenition of an 'argument from ignorance'. My God.

Wrong. We already know the Bush Admin can use preemptive strikes. The real [not your version] point of this discussion is WOULD THEY against Iran?

Given the long and well documented rhetoric AND action of not only this Administration, but others as well, the answer is; yes. (or since there are no absolutes in future gazing, most likely). Any other interpretation simply goes against the documented evidence. Get it?

No you cast doubts on the CIA's inability to actually fullfill it's job in providing intelligence by using the Iraq intelligence fiasco as an example. My pointing out to you that the fiasco can be rested squarely on the Administrations shoulders as the CIA's isn't a fucking 'Strawman' you moron, it is a rebuttle.

Oh woops, I thought you were straw manning my argument! Silly me! You came up with the above all by yourself! Imbecile, haven't you heard of the 9/11 Commission yet? They've just released a report which flies right in the face of your UNPROVEN assertion that all the blame rests on the Administration. Try again, moron.

The above (bolded) should have read; My pointing out to you that the fiasco can be rested squarely on the Administrations shoulders as (much as) the CIA's isn't ...

It was 3am in the morning, you can tell that the sentance its self doesn't make much sence without the omitted words as it does with them, whether you believe me or if you think I am 'backpeddeling' is up to you.

Congratulations for wasting time and stating the obvious. Now, prove they would first strike Iran.

No shit you idiot. Christ you're just a big pile of...nothing. Instead of arguing for reasons "would they or should they?", you're simply stating obvious facts like the US has a first strike policy, or that they could bomb Iran....woop dee doo daa, news to me!

And your stunning reasoning for them somehow to be restrained from bombing Iran is where, exactly

I have past fucking evidence of actions DEMONSTRATING premptive and first strikes, you have to show me how this is off the table moron, the burden of proof rests with you.

What a waste of time. Either join in this discussion properly, or piss off.

When your reading and comprehension skills finally catch up with your delusional ego of your own ability to reason you might get away with a statement like that, as it is you only come off looking like one giant ass. Fuck being able to read would be a fucking improvement for you.