POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is not at all analogous to the Iraq situation.

With Iraq, everybody knew the US was going to invade.

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Exactly.

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.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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

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?

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

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

Ooh, personal attack! Rawr! Hiss!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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



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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

[Dutch]

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.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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...

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

[Solecismic]

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.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

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...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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...

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.

[BrianD]

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.

[BrianD]

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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.

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 (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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

So uhh...Israel, go for it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

Here is where we are on the timeline:

Jan. 29, 2002

In President George W. Bush's state of the union speech, he identifies Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as an "axis of evil." He vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

May 14, 2002

The UN Security Council revamps the sanctions against Iraq, now eleven years old, replacing them with "smart sanctions" meant to allow more civilian goods to enter the country while at the same time more effectively restricting military and dual-use equipment (military and civilian).

Jun. 2, 2002

President Bush publicly introduces the new defense doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. In some instances, the president asserts, the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one: "Our security will require all Americans…[to] be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

Sep. 12, 2002

President Bush addresses the UN, challenging the organization to swiftly enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. If not, Bush contends, the U.S. will have no choice but to act on its own against Iraq.

Oct. 11, 2002

Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq.

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

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Attacking Iran right now, ISN'T in our best interests. That fact should be obvious to everyone.

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

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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...

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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...

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.

[Glengoyne]

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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

[dawgfan]

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:

Originally Posted by Jack Straw

The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

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

* The United States was too late. Iran’s leaders had learned from what happened to Saddam Hussein in 1981, when Israeli F-16s destroyed a facility at Osirak where most of his nuclear projects were concentrated. Iran spread its research to at least a dozen sites—exactly how many, and where, the U.S. government could not be sure.

* The United States was too vulnerable. Iran, until now relatively restrained in using its influence among the Iraqi Shiites, “could make Iraq hell,” in the words of one of our experts, Kenneth Pollack, of the Brookings Institution. It could use its influence on the world’s oil markets to shock Western economies—most of all, that of the world’s largest oil importer, the United States.

* The plan was likely to backfire, in a grand-strategy sense. At best, it would slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years. But the cost of buying that time would likely be a redoubling of Iran’s determination to get a bomb—and an increase in its bitterness toward the United States.

[st.cronin]

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.

[BishopMVP]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

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

And from the WH press conf today:

QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, we're pursing a diplomatic solution by working with the international community. I assume you're referring to some of the media reports. Some of the media reports I've seen, which are based on anonymous outside advisors and former officials, appear to me to be based on people that do not know the administration's thinking. I think it is a lot of wild speculation. We are working with the international community, particularly the EU-3, to pursue a diplomatic solution to a serious and growing concern.

QUESTION: Does the President think that the American people would accept any kind of an attack on Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Now you're engaging in the wild speculation I just talked about. Look, those who are seeking to draw broad conclusions based on normal military contingency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about the administration's thinking. The international community is united in its concern about the regime obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, and that's why we are working with the international community to prevent that from happening. And we are seeking to resolve this in a diplomatic way.

QUESTION: Would the President consult with Congress before --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, I'm not going to engage in all this wild speculation. No President takes options off the table, but our focus is on working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: Scott, what does that mean, "normal military contingency planning"?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, if you want to talk to the Pentagon, you can talk to them about it further. I'm not going to get into discussing it further.

QUESTION: So you're basically just not denying that there's military planning relating to Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: This is hyped up reporting based on anonymous sources and a lot of wild speculation.

QUESTION: Well, why is it so wild --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Our focus is very clear. We are working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: But you also have left open the other possibility of military action.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I told you where our focus is, and I told you --

QUESTION: I know where your focus is.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: -- that no President takes options off the table. But our focus is on finding a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: But why would you even attack Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: How many more times I can tell you I'm not going to engage in all that wild speculation, Helen.

QUESTION: Exactly when does it start? (Laughter.)

[BishopMVP]

"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

Originally Posted by The Atlantic Monthly

* The United States was(is?) too vulnerable. Iran, until now relatively restrained in using its influence among the Iraqi Shiites, “could make Iraq hell,” in the words of one of our experts, Kenneth Pollack, of the Brookings Institution. It could use its influence on the world’s oil markets to shock Western economies—most of all, that of the world’s largest oil importer, the United States.

How is that different than what the crude oil market is doing and Iran is doing in Iraq?

* The plan was likely to backfire, in a grand-strategy sense. At best, it would slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years. But the cost of buying that time would likely be a redoubling of Iran’s determination to get a bomb—and an increase in its bitterness toward the United States.

If you accept that Iran already is determined to build a bomb, a few years setback would be rather significant. Which leaves

* The United States was too late. Iran’s leaders had learned from what happened to Saddam Hussein in 1981, when Israeli F-16s destroyed a facility at Osirak where most of his nuclear projects were concentrated. Iran spread its research to at least a dozen sites—exactly how many, and where, the U.S. government could not be sure.

And 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.

[Solecismic]

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).

[law90026]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If you accept that Iran already is determined to build a bomb, a few years setback would be rather significant.

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

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And you don't think the US has learned things since 1981?

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.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Shoot, even Bush has said attacking Iran would be a bad idea.

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

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by law90026

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by yabanci

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

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."

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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.

[st.cronin]

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

[st.cronin]

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?

t's amazing that when we're in a bilateral position, or kind of just negotiating one on one, somehow the world ends up turning the tables on us. And I'm not going to put my country in that position -- our country in that position. Also, I think it's more effective that the three of us -- the four of us work closely together.

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."

[st.cronin]

The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I know -- I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation, which is -- it's kind of a -- happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital.

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