You bolded something that the writer more than likely just made up and threw in the article to add drama. Just so you know.

Any response to the rest of the article?

That's the line that should have been bolded.

What's the problem with the way things are now? Didn't Bush talk about decreasing reliance on Middle East oil in his State of the Union address?

Don't tell me you took that seriously.

I think it's all drama.




This is stated like the military is planning to do it tommorrow, when I suspect, if true, it's safe to say that it's planning in general....like the military has plans for contingency in South America, or Scandanavia, or Mongolia...




In other news,

An undisclosed informant close to Hillary Clinton camp has confirmed that people close to Hillary say she will nuke Texas if elected to office. Scary stuff, eh?

Literally tommorow? I doubt it. But this is a big topic. Don't try and dismiss it as some contingency plan akin to South America.


:rolleyes:

So I'll assume you have nothing to say about the article?

I think it's just noise - people trying to use the press to stir up public opinion one way or the other. I don't think this administration has a move in terms of Iran, unless things start blowing up. They're painted in a corner.

The next administration will have a lot more room to move, whether it's a Dem or Republican one.

There is nothing there. No meat. Supposition, pretense, logical leaps. That article has it all. Well every thing except a shred of evidence or credibility.

Dutch's piece on Hillary had nearly as much credibility as your article.

This has the tone of some liberal's rampant rambling about how screwed up the administration is.

Yeah, you're right. It was silly of me to think that we would unilaterally invade a country without provocation.


So you think the Admin. has done a good job? I guess I know at least one person in the 36%, then.

Everything said in that article might very well be true. But without evidence, it's not a good article or something to be taken seriously. If you want something with a little more meat with regards to whether we are planning an attack, skip the unnamed sources and start looking at things like http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006341654.asp

How is that more meat? Is that what is actually going on? It looks like just a list of things that WOULD suggest an imminent attack.

Fool me once...shame on, shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again.

What exactly are you comparing it to?

Just a list of clues to know if we are really preparing to invade Iran. To be fair, the article in question from the New York Post doesn't allude to whether there will be a full-scale build up in the coming months, any more diplomacy, or if Bush is planning to 'Pearl Harbor' their asses.

If Bush was planning a surprise nuclear strike (just to piss off the voters of course), he wouldn't make a big fuss about it before hand. That's were articles like the one in the New York Post (EDIT: New Yorker?) is so valuable, you see. It can read the mind of the Bush Admin and piss off the voters without Bush ever having to implement globalthermonuclear war.

What I find funny though is Glengoyne's complete disregard of the media. It's like he sucked up completely the GOP propaganda about the liberal media:
The article was written by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh. A lot of what Hersh says is backed up by other accounts. For example in Forward Magazine, former deputy director at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Wayne White, is quoted as saying:
Poliferation expert Joseph Cirincione wrote in Foreign Policy Magazine:
So you could say that the administration is insane. You could also say that they are leaking tough talk to the media to scare Iran. But to say that it doesn't have "a shred of evidence or credibility" is not in touch with reality.

Wasn't Seymour Hersh the guy who 'discovered' that it was actually the US, not Saddam Hussein, who nerve gassed the Kurds?

No. An Army War College report came to the conclusion that the gas used was Iranian gas, saying that it could have been the Iranians that did it, but that has nothing to do with Hersh.

Seymour Hersh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

Quote:

Criticisms Many of his most shocking "scoops" in recent years have come at public speaking events, rather than in print, though Hersh caused a small scandal regarding his credibility when he admitted in an interview with a New York Magazine writer Chris Suellentrop, "Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people...I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say."[11] Specifically, one of Hersh's dramatic allegations made during a speaking engagement in July 2004, during the height of the Abu Ghraib scandal, was later amended by Hersh. He alleged that American troops sexually assaulted young boys: "basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has. They’re in total terror it’s going to come out.”[12] In a subsequent interview with New York Magazine, Hersh admitted, "I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly...it wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs. And I just realized then, the power of—and so you have to try and be more careful."[13] In his book, Chain of Command, he wrote that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract interpreter at Abu Ghraib, during which a woman took pictures.

WTF? Get that man another Pulitzer quick, he's starting to make shit up!

OMG HE PROTECTS HIS SOURCES!!!!!!!1!! PWN3D!!!

Good catch Dutch. :rolleyes:

Ummm.. .If you read that whole story, that's about much more than protecting his source if you read the Abu Gharib example.

I read through it. As one of the people that originally broke the Abu Ghraib scandal, he got inundated with stories from people. Those that he could verify independently, he put into print. Some of those that he could not, he put into his speeches. All of his print articles (which include what was printed here earlier today) are fact-checked by a respectable publisher, and nothing that he has written has (to my knowledge) come under fire for being made up or for being a lie by him.

Couple of things. I didn't realize that Seymour Hersh wrote this piece. Also I never once attacked the journalistic quality or integrity of the article. I simply pointed out that there was nothing there except "secret sources", "hearsay", "inuendo", and "characterizations of the President's state of mind made entirely by the author". When I read an article, I evaluate the contents. When I read statements that make what I would consider to be extraordinary claims, I look to see if they are backed up. In this article, there is nothing. I't's like the author makes this outlandish statements, and then says "Trust me".

Knowing now that Seymour Hersh was the author, makes my characterization of the article as "some liberal's rampant rambling about just how screwed up the administration is." (I missed the just earlier.) seem actually more apt. Seymour Hersh is an outspoken critic of the administration, and has made unfounded outlandish claims in his articles previously. Mostly more of the same. Assumptions and conclusions, all his own. He draws conclusions from his research, and essentially attributes those "divined motives" to those he is writing about. The conclusions he draws, sometimes require great leaps between the evidence and the conclusion. In short Seymour Hersh has lost some credibility since his "Mai Lai" stories. He did break the Abu Gharaib story, but I'm starting to wonder if he hasn't gotten carried away with the outrage that story brought about in all of us. I say this because he has also reported that we're already attacking Iran, and didn't he also report something about an outlandish FBI crackdown on indecency? I'm not sure about the last bit, but I am sure that Hersh's credibility is headed the wrong way on the Journalistic flag-pole.

I see Hersh as a guy who regularly steps outside the bounds of journalistic reporting, and strays into loosely crafted fiction. I think pieces like the one linked above are pretty good evidence that Seymour Hersh is a rambling liberal ranting about just how screwed up the administration is.

EDIT: Oh yeah. You guys criticize me for drinking the GOP Kool-aid, yet you completely buy into the tripe in that article. My criticisms of the article are real and valid. Any unbiased evalutaion would draw the same conclusion. This isn't about protecting sources, it goes way beyond that.

Just because it is a speech doesn't mean he should feel free to spew out ridiculous non-truths, even if some rat told it to him. The fact that he did reflects on him as a journalist.

If I am reading the article correctly, that bolded part is a quote of someone. So are you insinuating that the author made up the quote?

Yes, so if a reporter wants to actually read the list and start checking things out that can actually be corroborated by something else, I'll be interested in hearing what they say. Secondhand opinions of other peoples thoughts coming from unnamed sources are as worthless as the paper they are printed on. Like I said in my first post, everything said might be 100% correct, but with nothing verifiable, it's useless. As it was, I believe this thread was more about whether it'd be a good idea to attack Iran, not whether we are likely to do so. Those are two completely different discussions - even if President Bush comes out tomorrow and says we are bombing Iran in 10 minutes it would have no bearing on the first issue anyway.

Link of an example?

Glen, I posted quotes from several other authors in several other magazines that support the original article. You seem to be using your mind reading powers to decide there is nothing to what these people are saying (you cite no sources). I fail to see how that makes your criticisms 'real and valid'. You disagree with the quotes, so you call them empty and uncredible. Like it or not, this piece was fact-checked and published by a respected news outlet. I agree that the anonymous nature of it means you have to be somewhat wary of it. But to just dismiss it is dangerous, because these are serious foreign policy matters. To just dismiss it now is especially dumb because this whole play was already acted out with regard to Iraq.

Seymour Hersh also wrote a bizarre article a few months ago accusing the US of 'fixing' the Iraqi elections.

You seem to think that if the Bush administration was set on attacking Iran, that that would mean that they are preparing to do it this week. They have almost three years to do that. Looking for those signs would be trying to close the barn door after after the cows have already left (or whatever the saying is, I'm not a farmer). They are signs that an attack is imminent. It's more important to nip it in the bud right now.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050725fa_fact
Read the whole article, it's good. And fact checked by a reputable publisher. This is what journalism is, just because the facts are anti-Bush doesn't make the facts biased.

In other words:

I disagree with this administration because I think they're going to do something I disagree with.

Huh? Isn't that a perfectly valid reason to disagree with them?

I dont understand the nuclear scare. If country A nukes country B, then country A gets nuked by the UN (figuratively speaking). Everyone knows this. Who cares if they get the bomb, i dont, let them. Let them Nuke Isael, killing them and their allies next door. That just seals Irans fate, end of story. No country will ever nuke another, it just wont happen.

Yes. I was just trying to put it in a way that was clear.

Sure, why not?

I'm pretty sure that the economic sanctions the UN put on Iraq were the last bit of bite that dog had....they might still be able to bark, but until the UN is reformed, Iran isn't going to care less what it has to say.

The UN opposed military action in Iraq because it was a BAD IDEA. If Iran were to nuke Isreal, I think most of the world would be in favor of attacking Iran. The other way around, too.

Huh? I'm not sure which is weirder - your assertion that something (figuratively speaking like the) UN has the means to, let alone would, do anything or your casual disregard for the tens of millions of lives that would be lost in an actual nuclear exchange.

And as I tried to explain in my first post of the thread, it's not that Iran/the Mullahs are going to nuke Israel as soon as they get nukes. It's the revolution at the gates scenario - as long as the mullahs were being overthrown by their own population anyway, why wouldn't they nuke Israel and give some missiles to terrorist groups like Hezbollah? They've already lost everything in that scenario, why not kill a few million along with them?

Pure comedic gold. (Just to spell it out, I'm not saying here it was a good idea, just that anyone who thinks that anything at the UN, specifically on Iraq, was based on principled beliefs is a complete idiot.)

Ok i shouldnt have said UN, I didnt mean them literally. I meant, the retaliation on Country A would be sanctioned by the entire free world. What country would actually nuke another? I dont see any country no matter how freakish they are, would actually say, "Hey, lets nuke them so we all can die too" - it just doesnt seem plausible any country would ever destroy itself to destroy another.

You know, back when I was pro-war in March of 2003, I used to spin all kinds of crazy theories about why France, Germany, etc, didn't want to go to war. Everything from them being peaceniks to them in it for the oil-for-food scandals. Then after, there were no WMD's found and it was revealed what a sham the Powell presentation was, I grew up and realized that it was me that was wrong. I also realized that I should listen more to the people that said that the whole rationale was bunk, than the people that were spinning crazy theories. Some people still haven't reached that conclusion.

And here I am, a naive little boy thinking that countries vote in the UN based on their self-interest.

Self-interest dictates that you don't get involved in an Iraq type war. Because it is a BAD IDEA.

As for an example I'm not anywhere near the first to criticize Hersh's Journalistic "bent" with regard to uncited sources and inuendo. I'm sure any number of of Google searches on his name would yield some fodder for you. I'm not going to hunt for a link I think you will find credible.

As for your quotes. You have provided a better example of journalism than Hersh's article. I believe those guys actually said what they said, and you could editorialize about their comments to your heart's content. My response to what those guys said...
Well I think it would be irresponsible to NOT plan on striking targets in Iran, even if the effort goes wasted. It is better to have a plan, or rather several plans, ready, just in case it is necessary. Also I don't think it is necessarilly the Millitary's job to assess the ramifications of a millitary intervention. So I'm hopeful, dare I say, confident that someone else somewhere in the Government is acting as the voice of reason against attacking Iran.

Also my criticism of the Hersh piece isn't I disagree with it. It is that it doesn't live up to Journalistic standards.


This is tantamount to "My sister's cousin's friend says". It is quite a claim. Too bad it is so loosely cited that it can't really be given much weight in analysis.


This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. He is addressing Bush's state of mind. As if Seymour Hersh knows thing one about the President's private thoughts on this matter.
This is what I'm referring to where he takes certain liberties that I don't believe are typical in journalism. He has an opinion as to how bad this administration is, and he declare's the President's mindset on a topic using that opinion.

so you just can just believe what you want, that is written, and then say everything that doesnt jive with you is just made up?

I don't think you can deny that everybody does this to at least some extent. Whatever doesn't match your perception of the world is rejected as untrue. That's simple human nature.

You're not seeing the forrest for the trees. You're looking at individual cases and ignoring that dozens of people are saying basically the same thing. This is the same mistake that people made with regards to Iraq.

This is not at all analogous to the Iraq situation.

With Iraq, everybody knew the US was going to invade. Here, you have people worried that the US might be thinking about invading. There are many other critical differences between the two situations, not least the political situation in the US.

No actually I'm saying that Rexallsc was going overboard on this topic because he bought into the unsubstantianted rhetoric in the Hersh article.

I believe what the article and the other sources are saying about the US preparing plans for millitary strikes in Iran. That much of the article I buy. Note: I don't think this should honestly be a surprise to anyone either..it would be a description of "business as usual".

The extraneous garbage, that isn't being reported elsewhere, is that Bush is hungry for war in Iran, that he is actively wanting to deal with Iran millitarilly, that the diplomatic pursuits are essentially a sham. The part of the article that inflames partisans like Rex and you. That is what I had trouble with.

What wingnuts like you don't seem to understand is that this same chatter of 'war at all costs' is coming from multiple sources, and it's exactly the same type of thing that was happening with Iraq. You're treating it like an isolated incident from Hersh.

Don't rewrite history. All the talk prior to the invasion was 'inspectors' and 'diplomatic solution' and 'war is the last option'. We now know that was all bullshit.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH IRAN. The groundwork is being laid now.

Exactly.

How long was there talk of 'inspectors' and 'diplomatic solutions' and 'war is the lost option' with regards Iraq?

If that is the exact same thing is happening with Iran, wouldn't that put war as a last resort in about the year 2025?

If you are suggesting that war with Iran is a foregone conclusion and that it will happen under the Bush administration, isn't it then you that is actually trying to re-write history for your own incendiary views of world politics?

I couldn't be more satisfied that my position on this specific topic is a sound one. Just knowing that the two of you agree with each other, and hold this opinion that is on the "fringe" of reality, is enough for me.

From August '02 - March '03. That's about 8 months.


Starting our tally from this month, try November of this year...

Ooh, personal attack! Rawr! Hiss!

February of 1991 through August of 2002 has already been stricken during the re-write.

Am I taking crazy pills? Saying that they will do the same exact thing with Iran that they did with Iraq is "fringe of reality" position? Have you taken a time machine from 2002 to today, or have you been in a coma for 4 years? I mean really, this is like you saying that Bill Clinton might have another affair, and I call you out of touch with reality.

What ever happened to the French/German diplomacy effort? Did they give up? They were taking the lead with regards to Iran, the last I heard. Also, I understand the UN sent Iran a strongly worded letter. Not sure if these efforts are winning the hearts and minds of the Iranian leadership.

Nobody was talking about war as any sort of option until August of 2002. So the answer to your question is about 8 months. We've already skipped the 1991-2002 phase with respect to Iran...

That's not true. It was discussed, publicly, by people in charge, pretty much every year between 1991 and 2002. I should know, I was one of the soldiers who kept getting on a plane. It's not my fault that you all decided to forget that.

The timeline is where you guys jump the proverbial shark. We screwed around with Iraq for years before enough was enough. Remember the "no-fly zones"? Remember that little thing called the Gulf War? That was the genesis of the invasion in 2003.

The parallels with Iraq break down because the President hasn't said "Boo" about millitary intervention in Iran(only going so far as to say it wasn't ruled out as an option), while he freaking campaigned on intevention in Iraq. Iraq was a long time coming. Any action we take in Iran will be on the same timeline. Attacking Iran right now, ISN'T in our best interests. That fact should be obvious to everyone. The only thing that could change that reality, is if Iran is somehow much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than the IAEA and other sources believe.

I disagree. The media has skipped it. Not the US goverment.

I'm angry because they've co-opted the term "Freedom Day." I thought I had a copyright on that one. Well, I'm sure I didn't. But I hate it being associated with that mess in Iraq.

Nuking Iran would be a mistake, assuming a certain casualty rate. Bombing their nuclear plants, however, seems to be becoming closer and closer to a necessity. Their leadership has made it crystal clear that they would use nuclear weapons to eliminate Israel, whether it's directly or through their friends in the Palestinian region.

If we don't do it, Israel will. And many more people will die in the long run if that happens. The trick here is to do this with the support of Europe. That's going to take a level of diplomacy that Bush lacks. Hence Iraq in the first place.

Could you be a little more specific here? I follow politics and foreign affairs as much as the next guy (more than most), and I'm quite certain there was never a serious public dialogue about invading Iraq during the Clinton administration (or the post-Gulf War George H.W. Bush administration). We dropped a few bombs on them once, and that was a pretty controversial move in itself. I think I might have noticed if there was a bunch of war talk going around. There was a little more Iraq buzz after George W. was elected, but again, nothing that anyone got excited over until August, 2002. The level of discussion in the government, press, and public about Iran right now is at about the same level it was at during late summer of 2002. I guess I'd like you to be a little bit more specific about when, during that 1991-2002 period the nation was seriously considering invading Iraq. ...because otherwise I might tend to think that you're full of mularkey, and I wouldn't want to do that.

Ultimately I find it incredibly hard to believe that the administration is seriously contemplating military action against Iran, but it is somewhat worrisome all the same...

Agreed. Preemptive nuclear strikes really shouldn't be an option, and it would be nice to have a broad coalition to take military action in Iran. I also agree that Bush may not have the diplomatic moxie to make this happen, although it would be nice if the global community would see past that and recognize the unique threat that a nuclear Iran presents.

Bolded the key part of your post. Clinton seriously contemplated using the military to effect regime change in Iraq, many times. We had already gone to war with Iraq once, and the vast majority of our guns in that region were pointed at them during that entire period (end of GW1 to GW2). This isn't a secret. It's just that, pre-9/11, nobody was really paying attention.

And we dropped a few bombs on them MORE than once.

During the Bush - Kerry election, I hard a number of recordings of Kerry speaking to Congress about what steps should be taken before and leading up to going to war with Iraq if they didn't comply with UN resolutions. I don't remember hearing these speeches during the time of the Clinton administration, but they were all over the radio during the last election.

dola,

Anyone expecting to see some kind of sabotage on the Iranian nuclear facilities to cause some kind of meltdown? Maybe not the psychological devistation of dropping a nuke, but less chance of political fallout.

Well of course. It isn't like they have the technology to build one of those safely. The barbarians are probably using pre-Chernobyl tech. A Yugo would be more reliable.

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Brian. You know, I've always wondered what 'dirty tricks' we might do. It wouldn't surprise me (1) bird-flu strain, after we've stocked up on Tami-flu of course :eek: (2) sabotage their stock market and cause an economic depression or (3) equiping dissidents and encouraging a car bomb during a parlimentary meeting.

In all seriousness, Iran is a definite threat, the region is a mess. I would hate to be the next President.

So uhh...Israel, go for it.

Here is where we are on the timeline:

Any of it sound familiar? I'd say we are right about at August/September 2002.


Attacking Iraq in 2003 WASN'T in our best interests. That should have been obvious to everyone.


Check out the Cunning Realist's ongoing "Personal Intelligence Agency" series here.

He is a conservative blogger, and his PIA series tracks "whenever a pundit, blogger, journalist or anyone intimates, implies or flat-out states that Iran will have the ability to build a nuclear weapon in X amount of time---usually weeks or months, if the current trend in unfounded speculation and unbridled hysteria continues". He has many examples. In other words, the groundwork is being laid to 'change that reality' as we speak.

No, no similarities to Iraq at all...

That's incorrect. The threat of force was always there if Saddam acted up, but invasion was never, never seriously contemplated by those high in the decision making process.

And it wasn't 9/11 that made people pay attention, it was the bully pulpit.

I'd say you are years off on your timeline. You are skipping the last half of Clinton's presidency when regime change in Iraq became the objective. It isn't like the defense department back then was looking into planting daisies to demark the No-Fly zone.

I'd debate with you for some time about the invasion of Iraq being in the best interests of this country. I think that at the time something needed to be done. This country took action. At the time I agreed with the decision, and I don't think it is reasonable to go back and play Monday morning Quarterback now.

So No No similarities with Iraq...No.

I will go check out your link though...mainly because I'm not sure I follow your logic in linking it.

Dola,

Okay NOW I follow your logic.

I honestly believe that we're going to need awfully damning intel to proceed against Iran. The biggest problem I have with Bush's preemption doctrine is the dependence on Intelligence, and the failings that the Iraq WMD fiasco brought to light.

Well, 'invasion' isn't being seriously suggested in the situation with Iran either. What is being suggested is exactly what we DID with Iraq: tactical air strikes.

Now, I'm with you in respect to it being a bad idea, but I don't think it's remotely a possibility.

Genius has it's limitations. Stupidity Is not thus handicapped.

Regime change has also been the official position against Cuba, but we aren't seriously considering invasion.

Regarding the original question posed in this thread, Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw doesn't seem to think attacking Iran is a good idea:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...P_US_Iran.html

Another great article talking about why attacking Iran is a bad move. They did a war game with Pentagon and intelligence people and found out that it was a bad move for the US to even attack Iran because:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran

Shoot, even Bush has said attacking Iran would be a bad idea. The only people who think it's remotely possible are those trying to whip up anti-Bush sentiment.

For people interested in military technology,
hxxp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dshtw.htm is probably what we'd be using if we went the airstrike route, not nuclear weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/....ap/index.html

And from the WH press conf today:

"War is the extension of politics by other means"

It would seem the ideal diplomatic position for the US would be if Iran feared we would attack but everyone back in the US knew we wouldn't go in. In this case, it would seem the opposite view is closer to reality - Iran doesn't fear invasion and people back in the US are up in arms about the possibility.

As for How is that different than what the crude oil market is doing and Iran is doing in Iraq?If you accept that Iran already is determined to build a bomb, a few years setback would be rather significant. Which leavesAnd you don't think the US has learned things since 1981? Again, hxxp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dshtw.htm The bigger problem is I'm sure they're under mosques and schools and populated areas.

We can pretend the problem doesn't exist, and hope we're not the target at some point down the line. That seems to be the European stance.

This isn't a 2006 threat. It isn't a 2007 threat and it probably means nothing in 2008. But nuclear weapons in the hands of a government that has made the statement that all the people in a certain country deserve to die is a huge problem that will ultimately, if unchecked, lead to millions of deaths.

It's a shame that the massive mishandling of the Hussein/Iraq situation means that any attempts on our government's part to lead this discussion is met with mistrust. I don't blame them. Bush has earned our mistrust.

That does not mean it isn't of vital importance to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran. And to do anything humanly possible, even if it means turning Alaska into a sea of oil derricks, to eliminate our foreign dependence on oil (obviously, finding alternative sources of energy would be a nicer solution).

On a relatively separate sidenote, why would a country want to screw up its own environment just to be completely self-dependent? Wouldn't that be akin to missing the forest for the trees? Taken a step further, isn't it selfish to even suggest that, considering the ramifications such a drastic step might cause to the global economy?

I know you're not advocating it but I thought it raised an interesting point as to where the line should be drawn between self-sufficiency and the environment.

Cost/benefit. The costs far outweight the benefits of a few years' setback.

The problem, which the Iraq WMD's/Sudan aspirin factory made obvious, is that we don't know where the hell the nuclear research stuff is.

Do you have a quote or are you just making things up again?

Any solution must take into account that other nations should not be dependent on importing oil, either.

We know, at some point, that OPEC is going to shut everyone off. It's a miracle that hasn't happened over shorter periods already. And when Iran does decide to use its nuclear weapons, the stability of the global economy is dependent on whether or not we can do without OPEC oil.

I think the first step is to fully fund groups trying to create alternative energy sources. Maybe to the point where the entire country is encouraged to take part, on the scope of the Manhattan project.

Ideally, all passenger cars should use fuels we can produce here within ten years. Next, we should convert home heating systems.

This is by far the single greatest threat to world peace. If we are to avoid nuclear war in our lifetimes, we must evaporate funding for these crazy people and we must find a way to keep them from destroying the world while we're in the process of eliminating their financial power.

According to the news today, Iran's announcement is that they've successfully enriched uranium.

Me, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it's OK for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons but not Iran.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Sa...nationworld&s=

Responding to audience questions after a speech, Bush said that "the doctrine of prevention" remains the key in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

"It doesn't mean force, necessarily," said Bush, who has not ruled out military action. "In this case, it means diplomacy."

Your original statement was "Shoot, even Bush has said attacking Iran would be a bad idea." And you think what you just linked to supports your statement?

He specifically says diplomacy is the better option than attacking! How else am I supposed to read it?

I don't know, but your interpretation is totally different from the text. He says force isn't necessarily ruled out, but they are pursuing diplomacy at the present time. NOWHERE does he say anything resembling "attacking Iran would be a bad idea."

How about: "In this case, at this time, diplomacy is the better option."

He doesn't say anything about military intervention being a bad idea.

Well now you all are parsing my words just way too finely.

The president as said that regarding Iran diplomacy is the preferred strategy. Feel free to assume that means Iran is about to be nuked.

Note to self: do not take st. cronin at his word. He really means something else entirely.

Note also your own willingness to put the reporter's spin in Bush's mouth. Perhaps it would have been easier to understand had I simply quoted the President?



I don't know how else you can read that other than "we are not going to attack Iran. The world won't let us."

The full quote which the reporter abbreviated ... his meaning may be clearer here.