Mullahs and common sense - isn`t that an oxymoron?

Hi Brian,
"Two questions remain: Will the mullahs wise up? And, will air strikes cause a larger war to break out?
Time will tell, but lets pray for a bit of common sense on the part of the mullahs."

Just hoping you could inform everybody of what specific international laws or agreements that Iran is currently in violation of? I would really appreciate your insight on this.

Based on your answer, could you also tell us if you believe that any Western country would accept the demands that are currently being placed on Iran, or would a country only cave in to the demands at the expense of losing honour and respect in the eyes of its people?

Thanks
Neil

I really don't think we can do much beyond air strikes, if it comes to that. I don't think it'll come to that; the will of the American people has been shaped by the PR efforts of the MSM and the donks in Washington.

If the Dems regain Congress, all efforts to bring stability to the Middle East will have been in vain...

keefer - yes... I think the MSM has in fact paralyzed us. BUT... I've been wrong before.

The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

They can't be that darn secret if they are announced in a British newspaper. Maybe this is just an MI5 exercise in "delivering the message" rather than doing anything productive.

"Common sense", dictates that the US, immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran. Peace

While you're at it, pray for a little common sense for the other side too.

You nutbags believe anything. Hey did you hear that The Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?

If Americans don't back this debacle in Iraq, how in the name of satan, do you think they will back attacking Iran? You goofs should turn off FOX(Fake)News and say off drugs!

HAHAHAHAHHA! Attack Iran....we can't even control Iraq! B4B is just hilarious!

Ahhhh.... mr. or ms. "It's Imperialism".... if you happen to look at the title of this post, you'll see a "?" at the end... thus implying we don't necessarily know it's validity. Hence, we don't automatically "believe anything" as you so eloquently contend.

well miss John, what a total waste of print, because America is in no position to attack anybody.

Name caller, who says the most powerful country in the world is in NO position to attack anybody. Smart edumacation that boy has got huh? I take it back...maybe he's a Mullah!! Hey Imperialism, there is a missile on ship#4 with the name Mullah the Nutbag on it...so don't go confusing us with nutbags.

Since Iran is twice as large as Iraq, and SS Rice admitted to thousands of tactical mistakes (always blame the military) does that mean tens of thousands mistakes (blame the military) in Iran?

Neil,

If Iran is, indeed, developing nuclear weapons, then they are in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty - which was registered as ratified by Iran in 1970, and which the successor theocratic regime has never given any hint that they are withdrawing from (as an aside, because Russia and China seem to be helping Iran in this, they would also be in violation of the treaty...so much for the worth of international treaties). Iran is also signatory of the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty of 1996 - so they can't even test a nuclear weapon, if they do build it.

As it is, I don't a tuppeny damn about whether the Iranian government is in accordance with or violation of any particular treaty - as an illegitimate goverment (ie, one not ruled by the consent of the government - bogus elections notwithstanding), the government of Iran doesn't have the right to so much as issue a parking ticket, let alone come into possession of the most powerful weapons humans have ever devised.

In the end, it is up to the free world to grant or refuse permission for the current Iranian government to have nuclear weapons - the only thing which would change this state of affairs is the mullahs voluntarily surrendering their power and restoring the sovereignty of the Iranian people...who would then, most likely, eschew nuclear weapons.

Given the terrorist nature of the Iranian regime, we'd be worse than stupid if we didn't prevent the mullahs from obtaining a nuke. It would be criminal negligence on our part, even worse than that in the 1990's which allowed North Korea to build its nuclear force.

Barney,

Perhaps - but we'd still win.

Yes, I'll agree that the Democrats, liberals, and MSM and have somewhat hampered our ability to deal effectively with threats to America's security from around the world. I hardly consider that to be any "accomplishment" or anything I would acknowledge or brag about, though. Contrary to what the liberals may believe, it is the strong who ultimately survive, not the weak. That applies to countries, societies, civilizations as well as individuals.

Don't underestimate President Bush.

The Democratic leadership and strategists did so twice and lost the presidency. Saddam Hussein did so and lost his dictatorship, and may well lose his life. France and Russia did so and they provided bad council to Saddam.

Let Iran nuke or attack American city, Israeli, or our allies, and see what President Bush does. Let Iran destroy one of our billion dollar aircraft carriers and the thousands of our soldiers on it, and see what President Bush does. Let Iran continue to build up their nuclear and missile capability and see what President Bush or Israel does.

And for those liberals who would like to see Iran strike back so they can say I told you so, you are assuming there will be enough left of Iran with which to strike back!!!

Don't underestimate President Bush... especially Iran!

Barney,

Perhaps - but we'd still win.
Posted by: Mark Noonan

So I am glad that you agree that this administration blames the military each time something goes wrong due to their lack of competency.

Don't you think the USA should sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treay before we lecture countries who have signed it, Mark? Peace

Steve,

RE: "Don't you think the USA should sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty before we lecture countries who have signed it?"

Absolutely not!

Do you think that by weakening the United States other countries will follow our example and not develop nuclear weapons? Do you think that if we are unable to stand up to countries who want to destroy us, they won't do it? If it weren't for the U.S., who else is going balance Russia, China, and the other nuclear nations, some of which could be taken over by a fanatical leader at any time? Negotiating from weakness is a sure recipe for failure and disaster. It's thinking like that which will eventually result in America's decline and downfall.

Barney,

RE: "So I am glad that you agree that this administration blames the military each time something goes wrong due to their lack of competency."

What world are you living in? ...Unless you meant to say "the liberal Democrats and the MSM" blame the military if anything goes wrong.

Our military are doing an outstanding job, battling terrorists in Iraq who are trying to kill our troops... and the liberal Democrats at home who are encouraging the terrorists to keep killing our soldiers and Iraqi citizens... by providing hope to the terrorists that if they can just hold out a little longer and kill more American troops and Iraqis, the Democrats will succeed in their efforts convince Americans to raise the liberal's white and yellow flag and turn tail and run!!!

Do you recall which book Saddam had his troops read in preparation for the war? "Black Hawk Down." Why? Because they thought all American were weak willed liberals who would run for the hills like President Clinton did when our troops were killed in the Battle of Mogadishu! What Saddam failed to understand, though, was that President Bush is not a liberal.

Do you think Osama Bin Laden would have been so quick to destroy the World Trade Center or the Taliban allow him to operate from their country if he had known that President Bush was no Bill Clinton. The terrorists had been attacking American targets before then and only got their hands slapped by a few missiles. They underestimated President Bush, and continue to do so.

It's unfortunate for America that too many Americans don't live in the real world; they don't understand that running from terrorists will not stop future attacks; and they allow themselves to be manipulated by the Democrats into not fighting until the next strike occurs on America. Then they ask... Why we were attacked?

The liberal's answer... because the U.S. is too strong, too powerful, too rich, too successful and must be weakened to the level of other nations so they will respect and trust us!

The conservative's answer... because we appeared weak and ran in the past, and they believed we would do the same again.

AAR

Are we going down this path again? Playing to the U.N. while the President knows he's going to start another war? Who will fight this one? How many times will our volunteer army be forced into multiple deployments to fight Iran? If we win, how will we occupy yet another country when we can't do so in Iraq? Will we go alone if European and other nations don't see force as an option? Will we have to draft people to occupy Tehran?

This is insane.

Blarney.
Are you , are you??/ I don't know what you are?..deaf, dumb and blind..or all 3...it's depressing to contemplate.

"Common sense", dictates that the US, immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran. Peace

Really, Steve, I think you'd better stop copying Barney's writing; you'll never make it out of third grade with those writing skills. Her's another example:

Don't you think the USA should sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treay before we lecture countries who have signed it, Mark? Peace

Common sense dictates that noone here, other than Barney and ImperialWanker, pays any attention to anything Stevie-boy posts. Common sense dictates that we ignore Barney's and ImpWanker's blatherings as well; you can get the same redundant crap from any lib talk show, or the MSM.

Why do all you kooks hate America? Why not leave? Or why not jump in front of an SUV? You kooks are sickening; I'd spit in your face if I could. Peace...

Uhh, Folks,

I don't have a lot of time to comment right now - but I just wanted to point out that the United States has already signed the Non-Proliferation-Treaty, back in 1970. They have also violated it more than any other nation. They have also failed, along with the other four original nuclear powers, to live up to the articles of the agreement in which they committed to completely disarm. In fact, your president has virtually made the NPT of no force and effect. The only time your government brings up the NPT - is when they try to use it to serve their own purposes.

Please, please, please, try to find other sources of information other than the mainstream media: read books, read alternative news sites may I suggest www.informationclearinghouse.info, an excellent news wire, updated daily. Do it for a year or so. Compare their coverage to coverage of the MSM, if you still hold the same views, great. I'll bet you you won't. I used to hold the same views myself - no more!!!!

Neil,

This is your great site for real news? It has this headline:

Number Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America's War? As Many As 250,000

Slaughtered? That is a pretty strong term...if you believe the BS at that site, then you'll never lack for moonshine.

I think we should take a long look at the situation 'fore we go "shocking and aweing" anyone else:

1) It hasn't worked in Iraq
2) It wouldn't work in Iran
3) U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide

Now this is not me Ashole (keefer) the effete snob (phnxmed) liberal saying this, it is our crackerjack intelligence experts.

I pray we don't shock and awe Iran, but I've been disappointed misunderestimating Pres. Bush.

I'm tired and going to bed. What time zone are you in Mark? It's 1:30 here in Mountain time. Yawn.

12:28am here...and I'm off....but, Neil, you get this sort of illiterate nonsense at your site:

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians (not including certain of Iraq), reveals a compilitation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies.

You might want to try again.

Ash,

Actually, "shock and awe" worked just as it was supposed to...the Iraqi military, deprived of any command and control, simply disintegrated.

See ya tomorrow.

Actually Mark, that information is always posted as the header on the site. You have to scroll down in order to find the news that's posted on a daily basis. I don't buy the 250,000 number, I tend to lean toward the Lancet Report which put it at 100,000. Number could even be the unnoficial, official number of 37,000, wouldn't make a difference to me in the end. That's were the skill of critical thinking comes in, deciding what to believe, and what not to believe. They post a lot of stories directly from the newswire, such a Reuters, which are simply not published by the MSM, or, when they are published, are heavily redacted.