One mistake we should not make again is to think you can go to war with a nations leadership. A war with Iran is a war with Iran.

You did consider that Russia would launch its entire battery of Nuclear missiles at the US... Should this attack ever be carried out right???

And from what I have read, China is looking for any excuse to attack the USA.

Magnum,

Niether China nor Russia will wish to commit suicide to protect the mullahs.

Kahn,

Yes, you can...and it works every time it is tried against a despotic regime.

No one knows the mind of the leadership of nations. They may think its an acceptiable risk to go to war.

Who knows?

I say the risk in an attack on Iran is much too great to find out.

so if some hypothetical country were to decide that the US was a threat to international security you would accept it if they starting bombing US cities?
Look - nobody would be happy with Iran having nuclear weapons. However, its utterly ridiculous to assume that we have the right to decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't. By what right do we decide that India can have nuclear weapons and Iran can't.
Most telling is that we do nothing for North Korea. If Iran actually posed a threat then we wouldn't be talking about this - just as you never hear of Bush drawing up plans to attack North Korea. Why? Because he is a bully who only attacks people where there is an overwhelming disparity in force.

I wonder Mark - would you accept it if another country decided to bomb the US because they decided we shouldn't have nuclear weapons?

Mark,

How long are we going to have to put up with the stupidity of liberalkblackT77? Every time, he/she/it (circle one) completely misses the point of your post.

I thought there was none stupider than BarneyG--how wrong I was.

liberalDumbass, you need to do some research on non-proliferation and who decides who gets to do what with nukes. You just can't let every radical country in the world nuc-up.

And how dare you compare the most benevolent, most compassionate country in the history of the world to tyrants. You treasonous asshat, you deserve to be strung up. Hell, you're already strung out.

Disclaimer: When I stated that liberalDumbass deserved to be "strung up," I was in no way, shape, or form threatening to do it myself. I am a peace-lovin', libgressive-hatin' hillbilly who loves his God, his guns, his wife, his daughter, his dogs, and his wife's cat.

Magnum's been ingesting the strong 'shrooms, eh?

Mark - sorry, but not if the people are properly indoctrinated. Germany, Japan, North Korea, China, North Viet Nam are all good examples of this.

During the war with Iraq waves of idiot Iranians rushed minefields to clear the way.

And LiberalT, did you even read Marks orgininal post?

Look - nobody would be happy with Iran having nuclear weapons. However, its utterly ridiculous to assume that we have the right to decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't. - kblock

"We" are not the only ones who are deciding that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. In fact, your lead in sentence admits as much. The entire world community is in lock step agreement that Iran should not possess such weaponry.

...just as you never hear of Bush drawing up plans to attack North Korea. Why? Because he is a bully who only attacks people where there is an overwhelming disparity in force. - kblock

There is not a country on this planet, with the exception of maybe China, that can equal our strength. So you're assertion here is just more of your BDS syndrome. The reason we will be very cautious on our approach to NK is because they already have nukes and you can thank the Clintons for that.

I wonder Mark - would you accept it if another country decided to bomb the US because they decided we shouldn't have nuclear weapons? - kblock

I can't speak for Mark, but I have a feeling you would be delighted.

I wonder Mark - would you accept it if another country decided to bomb the US because they decided we shouldn't have nuclear weapons?

Posted by: liberalT at September 2, 2007 08:29 PM

liberalT, Mark would never accept that idea; because in the eyes of the strident war supporters, the U.S. is always the good guy. It doesn't matter who they decide to attack; they will claim to be liberators, protecting the rights of the oppressed and eliminating the bad guys. We all know that's a load of cr** but that is what they try to sell and guess what, people still buy it. Go figure.

I'll say it again; the United States of America poses the greatest threat to world peace today.

Ted,

I still entertain hopes that LiberalT will eventually get at least something through that thick, liberal skull of his...

LiberalT,

Any country? No, but what we're discussing here is a conflict between the democratic republic of the United States of America, and the Islamo-fascist tyranny which unjustly (and entirely illegitimately) governs Iran. The Iranian government doesn't have the moral right to issue a parking ticket, let alone deploy nuclear weapons.

You might want to try living in the real world - not the leftwing fantasy world your parent's built for you.

kahn,

I'm not so sure of that - when the goons squads will head back to your village and mop up your whole family, it makes you rather brave at the front. As for our wars with Germany and Japan, we never tried in any serious way to separate the people from their regimes.

I'll say it again; the United States of America poses the greatest threat to world peace today.

I'll say it again--nobody cares what one moronic, drug-infested Canadian dumbass thinks.

Disclaimer: Just because CO, axass, and Canuckgay are Canadian dumbasses, I am in no way, shape, or form insinuating that all Canadians are dumbasses. I've known plenty of Canadians who weren't dumbasses, Canadians who live in the real world, free of drugs, and free of hatred for America.

I hope I made myself clear; if you're Canadian, and you took offense to what I wrote, then you must be one of those Canadian dumbasses...

CO,

You did pick up on that part of my post where I state my preference for non-violent means, right?

Ted,

CO only thinks like that because he feels that "peace" is a state where US guns are silent...to him, there was peace in Iraq prior to our liberation of the country, you see?

I'll say it again; the United States of America poses the greatest threat to world peace today. - CO

Peace is a relative concept to CO. Peace is when bad things are happening to other people and doesn't directly affect CO. It's the "head-in-sand" world view that liberals subscribe to.

Incidentally, I find your view of the US very interesting CO, because if in fact we were the biggest threat to world peace, why wouldn't we just invade and take over your pathetic country. It would take all of a day and half. In fact, the Rhode Island National Guard could accomplish it on their own.

If we leave them alone, there is a very good chance we will see regime change in the next five years. The mullahs are not that popular and there are a lot of younger people ready for change. If we attack them we risk setting the whole Middle East on fire. We have 160,000 troops in a country surrounded by 12,000,000 Shites. Let's hope we can resolve this peacefully.

There is nothing wrong with drawing up plans to strike Iran. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to. But so long as details like these are being blabbed to conservative audiences, there is likely little more than posturing going on. I would hope the mullahs are listening but religious delusion can be powerful. They may well believe Allah will save them from the infidels, or at least reward them with paradise for resisting.

We do have a constitutional process for going to war in this country, and it involves convincing Congress (and hence the American people who will have to fight it) of the necessity for war. The Iraq war has set the bar that Bush must clear to get a declaration of war considerably higher, and that's exactly how most of us want it.

This notion that only Bush and a handful of committed idealogues truly understand the nature of the threat against us is simplistic nonsense. In a broad sense the threat includes the universe of potential responses to our attack, and a failure to understand and plan for consequences has been the major weakness of this administration.

Churchill famously noted that there is no force on earth as powerful as an America united against a threat to its survival. A president with favorable ratings in the thirties has a long way to go in securing that unity.

This notion that only Bush and a handful of committed idealogues truly understand the nature of the threat against us is simplistic nonsense. - thrower

There are many others that understand this threat including, but not limited to, Howard in Austrailia, Brown in England, Merkel in Germany, Zarkozy in France and Koizumi in Japan. Among Arab staes, UAE, Kuwait, Oman and Yemen also deeply understand the nature of this threat. Sadly though, many in the Democratic party have never fully understood, nor have they taken the time to study and familiarize themselves with this threat (with the sole exception of Joe Lieberman) as they are constantly posturing themselves according to the poll du jour.

because if in fact we were the biggest threat to world peace, why wouldn't we just invade and take over your pathetic country.

Posted by: neocon at September 2, 2007 09:31 PM

What would the excuse be, neocon? The United States has always had some sort of justification for invading other nations. We currently have a Conservative Prime Minister who worships at the alter of Bush so it wouldn't be prudent to overthrow his regime.

Why not wait until there is another one of those leftist liberals in power and then you can 'liberate' us from an oppressive despot.

CO,

You did pick up on that part of my post where I state my preference for non-violent means, right?

Posted by: Mark Noonan at September 2, 2007 09:15 PM

Yes, Mark, I did. Does this mean you having second thoughts about your war-mongering ways and are ready to embrace more conciliatory actions?

What would the excuse be, neocon? - CO

Are you kidding me CO? You can't think of why George "Oil" Bush wouldn't want to overtake Canada? We wouldn't need the Middle East if we owned Canada.

I have seen you post here that the only reason we're in Iraq is for their oil and then you want to know the reason why we would want Canada? C'mon CO, use your own deluded logic.

Yes, Mark, I did. Does this mean you having second thoughts about your war-mongering ways and are ready to embrace more conciliatory actions? - CO

CO, you run a close second to kblocks stupidity. Just remember; dependence and pacifism are not virtues.

Not good enough Neocon. These "leaders" need to get their countries behind them so we're not pulling the cart virtually alone. That is, in fact, what leadership is.

RE: "...even if we obtained pledges of increased production from OPEC and opened up our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the global energy markets might go into panic mode and push oil to $100 or more per barrel - and that could wreck the global economy..."

If we didn't have a bunch of Democrats (Liberals) blocking drilling in ANWR and off our coasts, we would already have the wells and petroleum we need for situations like this. If we want to increase our Strategic Petroleum Reserves, drill the wells, get them ready to pump, and keep them on standby, ready to "turn on the flow when we need it to go"!

If Democrats (Liberals) had stood strong and had not emboldened our enemies, undermined America, and weakened President Bush's ability to deal effectively with issues like Iran, North Korea, and Syria, the situation in Iran might not have reached this point. Now that it has, we can continue to sit and talk (as the nutty Democrats would do) while Iran develops its nuclear weapons, and wait for the mushrooms before we take action, or we can take preemptive action and really irritate Pelosi, Reid, and the Libs! In any case, Israel isn't going to sit back and wait to be nuked "first".

Barack Obama has already said would he would do. He would wine, dine, and "smoke the [dope] hallucinogenic peace pipe" with the Iranians (our enemy) while he attacks and invades Pakistan (our ally)! Of course, that will most probably destabilize the Pakistani government, permit Osama bin Laden to overthrow it, take control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and really make a mess of things!

On the positive side, if Russia wants to commit suicide and launch World War III to protect Iran, we won't have to worry about global warming!

Magnum,

RE: "...the risk in an attack on Iran is much too great to find out."

The risk from not taking action is even greater! Either way, you DIMocrats would blame Bush. If the strikes work, you'd say they weren't needed. If they don't you'd say, with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, you'd list the "mistakes" and hypothesize about what you would have done! Either way, it's a loss/loss for President Bush... so he might as well nuke 'em now!

liberalT, CO,

RE: "What would the excuse be, neocon?"

Oil, timber, ice, polar bears, and a friendly country where we can base our Anti-Missile Defense System!

(I see neocon beat me to the oil while I was typing!)

RE: "would you accept it if another country decided to bomb the US because they decided we shouldn't have nuclear weapons?"

Oh, but we do!

RE: "so if some hypothetical country were to decide that the US was a threat to international security you would accept it if they starting bombing US cities?"

That will be the last thing they ever do! ! ! ! !

AAR

Not good enough Neocon. These "leaders" need to get their countries behind them so we're not pulling the cart virtually alone. That is, in fact, what leadership is. - thrower

Oh c'mon thrower. We carried the day in WWII and we will carry the day now. That's what America is. We lead, the world follows.

Did you hear that CO?

Blow em up! No wait, Liberate them! No wait, blow em up! No wait, give them democracy!!!

1) The Iranian "Government" is not a big fan of the U.S.

2) China & Russia get a lot of oil from Iran.

3) The Iranian "People" are one of the strongest supporters of the U.S. in the Middle East. Yes, believe it or not it's not Saudi Arabia.

Funny how the one Country in the region we don't try and control their government actually has a positive view of us.

KA-BOOOOOOOM..... blow em up.

Missiles don't simply fall on the enemy... They slaughter innocents as well.

Like Mark, I agree that Iran should not possess Nuclear weapons. And, like Mark I agree we should try and thwart their attempt with non-violence.

Bombing Iran makes everyone angry.

Russia, China, and more importantly... The Iranian People. NOT their screwed up government. But the innocent masses that we want to rebel against their government.

It's hard to get a nation to rise up against their screwed up government when you're dropping bombs on them too.

Reverse the situation. Ask yourself what you would do?

Like some Americans, you can love your Country and hate your government. But all it takes is a whole lotta bombing to bring everyone together in mutual hatred.

This administration really needs to think this through... I know that's something that doesn't come easily for them, but maybe they're learned from past mistakes... if not, our children will suffer the consequences.

CO,

War mongering? Well, they called Winston Churchill a war monger, too...and that should make you think a bit, because no man was more committed to peace than he.

Mark,

Can you please show me definitive proof that Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons. As I'm sure you well know, by signing the NPT, countries are allowed to develop nuclear energy in exchange for not pursuing nuclear weapons. Therefore without proof that they are developing nuclear weapons, they are permitted to have civilian nuclear energy. The US was even selling Iran a nuclear reactor in the 1970's when our installed dictator of choice was still running the show.

Also as you know, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Contradicting US claims, the leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan say Iran is a good neighbor.

Let’s do some math. Iraq had no WMD and was invaded by the US. North Korea develops nuclear weapons and is getting what it wants. India and Pakistan, who signed the NPT, develop nuclear weapons and receive billions of dollars in aid. What message do you think is being sent?

Here's a riddle:　Name the last war started by Iran. The hostage crisis does not count as it was a reaction to US support of the Shah who killed and tortured people. We're against that remember. I'll be waiting for your reply. (Hint: use google)

I do praise your for not promoting the bomb now philosophy supported by so many Neocons, there may be hope for you yet.

Hey Teddy Krueger,

"And how dare you compare the most benevolent, most compassionate country in the history of the world to tyrants."

There are a lot of dead and tortured people around the world in South America, Asia and even Iraq that would disagree with this. These people suffered as a direct result from US Foreign policy. I would write you a full list of countries, but I don't have that kind of time.

NeoCon,

Shinzo Abe is now the Prime Minister of Japan. While many of the countries you listed have leaders who support the US, the people certainly do not. Most people around the world consider the US just as big a threat to world peace as Iran, if not more so.

How do I know this, because I deal with people from around the world on a daily basis. The people from many of the Allies hate us. I don't know how many times I have had to listen to Cannucks, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Irish, Japanese, Koreans, French, German, Chinese etc etc rant about the US. Many of these people now hate the US because of Bush's actions. Most are able to see the American people are good, but view this administration as morally bankrupt.

For those of you have been abroad and don't believe this to be true. When was the last time you traveled abroad? How far from the resort and/or military base did you go? After about 3 pints, the anti-Americanism really starts to come out.

"The reason we will be very cautious on our approach to NK is because they already have nukes and you can thank the Clintons for that." Neocon

I was unaware that Bill Clinton's term of office lasted until 2006 when North Korea started testing nuclear weapons. The truth of the matter is, when Clinton left office, there were not any nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, except maybe ours. Bush's 6 party talks failed and allowed North Korea to develop WMD. Then when they went back to the unilateral Clinton method in Berlin, image that, NK is back in talks to become nuclear free. Damn those Clintons and the functioning foreign policy. Damn those facts and the truth!

Peace, Gaijin

Walcrowe,

One of the saddest things about this whole mess with the mullahs is that, strategically, the United States and Iran are natural allies - our geo-political interests are identical (general peace in the area, free flow of trade through the Gulf, keep Russia and China out...); furthermore, I've met a few Iranians in my life and I've liked each of of them; they are the definition of ladies and gentlemen. Because some messianic lunatics are in charge in Tehran, Americans and Iranians might have to shed each other's blood?

This is the work of the Enemy, that is clear to me.

Be that as it may...

If there is even a 50/50 chance that Iran might obtain a nuclear weapon in the next three years, we will have to act within the next 12 months. Come what may, the mullahs must never have a nuclear weapon under their control - no price in blood and treasure will be higher than the total cost in blood and treasure if the mullahs get a nuke. As I've said, I prefer some sort of non-violent action - I want to make friends with the Iranian people once their tyrants are, God willing, overthrown. With us backing a friendly Iran, the peace of the Gulf region is certain - you'll note that the peace in the Gulf was broken just as soon as the government in Tehran wasn't allied with the United States. But if a non-violent means cannot be found to ensure that the mullahs are prevented from going nuclear, then we will have to resort to war.

Of course, you do go into your leftwing hyperbole about how an American bombing campaign will slaughter large numbers of non-combatant Iranians...won't happen that way at all. We know where most of Iran's military assets are, and most of them are conveniently located in range of carrier-borne aircraft and cruise missiles. We can severely degrade Iran's military capability without causing much, if any, civil losses.

Gaijin,

Ummm, nothing we did justified the mullahs taking our Embassy...nor has anything we've done justify the Iranian-backed terrorism which has cost the lives of so many Americans since 1979. So, the last time Iran started a war was November of 1979.

But that, of course, is entirely immaterial - what we are dealing with here is a government which hasn't the authority to do anything - without free and fair elections, the Iranian government is not legitimate and thus the United States is not bound to respect it at all. Morally, we are free to dispose of it whenever we feel it time to do so.

Furthermore, this illegitimate government is spending vast amounts of Iran's scarce fiscal resources in building nuclear power plants - in a nation which floats on oil, and thus has no need for a nuclear power plant. Either the mullahs are mind-bogglingly stupid, or they are using an alleged civil nuke program to mask a military nuclear weapons program. Given the mullah's track record of corruption, murder and lies, we must take the worst case scenario into consideration as we lay our plans.

If Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, Gaijin, they are playing a brain dead game of chicken with with Israel. They would be well advised to defuse this threat by permitting an independent inspection of their development facilities. If you think the Bush administration is unpredictable, imagine what is going on inside a country that lives under perpetual threat of annihilation.

In the absence of such verification, it is on our national interests to be able to neutralize Iran's military response capacity if there is to be any hope of containing the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iran.

I honestly think America is the least of Iran's worries at this point. Not only are we tied down in Iraq, the political winds have shifted here in a major way. If Bush acts unilaterally without a congressional declaration of war, he risks removal from office and criminal charges. If he gets this congress to back him, the odds are he has a good case.

Mark,

If you want to use the Hostage Crisis as an act of war, one would think to be logically consistant, you would have to aknowldege the US fired the first shots when we overthrew their democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953. He thought he was going to Nationalize the oil industry and use it for the good of the people. We put an end to that crazy idea. Then, We brought to power the Shah. He murdered and killed people through the CIA trained Savak. Dont you think this played some role in why our embassy was stormed?

Being that they do not have free and fair elections, would you not have to consider our allies Pakistan (Nuclear Power) and Saudi Arabia (15 of the 19 Hijackers) as illegitimate as well? Why do we send these countries billions of dollars of arms instead of liberating them?

The Chinese do not have free and fair elections, are we going to take their nukes away from them and start having free and fair elections there?

You said yourself that they only have one refinery. Could it not be possible that they are trying to shrink their dependence on foreign gas?

An honest question: When the US overthrows, either itself or by proxy, a democratically elected leader and installs a tyrant that suits our needs at the time, is that not TERRORISM?

Would not the money being spent by the US within Iran to arm and promote groups against the government be considered Terrorism by the Iranians?

If not, please justify why.

"Given the mullah's track record of corruption, murder and lies, we must take the worst case scenario into consideration as we lay our plans."

This I will agree with you on. I believe we should work toward enforcing the NPT and reducing nuclear stockpiles around the world, including our own. At the same time, I think war should be a last resort. In the eyes of the world, the US has a heavy burden of proof in regards to a war with Iran because of the Iraq debacle. I'm glad that you are promoting other means of resolution other than bombing Iran now.　As I said before, there may be some hope for you yet.

Peace, Gaijin

P.S. To find the answer to the the Jeopardy question, you would have to go back nearly 300 years. Seems to be a relatively long period of peace to me.

Are you kidding me CO? You can't think of why George "Oil" Bush wouldn't want to overtake Canada? We wouldn't need the Middle East if we owned Canada.

Posted by: neocon at September 2, 2007 10:31 PM

Thank you, neocon, for having the honesty to admit that. Liberating and bringing democracy to an oppressed people is just a ruse to get at the oil and natural resources of a foreign country. Pure American greed.

The people from many of the Allies hate us. I don't know how many times I have had to listen to Cannucks, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Irish, Japanese, Koreans, French, German, Chinese etc etc rant about the US. Many of these people now hate the US because of Bush's actions. Most are able to see the American people are good, but view this administration as morally bankrupt.

Posted by: Gaijin at September 3, 2007 01:22 AM

It doesn't matter to them, Gaijin. I've been told time and time again that it brings a special joy to their hearts to know that American foreign policy is pissing off so many friends.

They don't give a damn about world opinion.

RE: "Bombing Iran makes everyone angry."

Nuking America, Israel, or our allies makes me angry!

Nuking America, Israel, or out allies will make most Americans angry -- except of course the Democrats who will be too busy trying to blame it on Bush, and worrying about the money it will take from their enslaving welfare and socialist programs!!!

It's much harder to deal with a country after they acquire nuclear weapons than before!

AAR

RE: "Many of these people now hate the US because of Bush's actions."

NO!

Any of those who may hate us do so because of the Democrats' incessant anti-American, anti-Bush hatred they have read, seen, and heard in the world media -- their own media -- for almost 7 years, as the Democrats' vicious propaganda and vile hatred for Bush and America is repeated verbatim by the world's press!

People around the world are only a mirror -- reflecting the image Democrats have created of America! ! ! ! !

AAR

RE: "They don't give a damn about world opinion."

That's exactly the way LIBERALS (DEMOCRATS) think and act -- with their TRAITOROUS words, actions, and deeds!

LIBERALS couldn't care less about America -- they are unpatriotic "children of the world" who owe and give their allegiance to the U.N., the Algorians, and their own white and yellow flag!!!

AAR

There are a lot of dead and tortured people around the world in South America, Asia and even Iraq that would disagree with this.

Well, Foreigner, that's because there are a lot of leftist media outlets, and leftist kooks like you around the world who feed them the same lying "American Imperialism" garbage that gets fed to people who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Of course, Gaigin, you are of the mindset that if we leave them alone, they'll fend for themselves. Very few, if any, of the third-world nations we helped liberate would've done so without our help, and had we not intervened, someone else would've. China runs the Panama Canal--did you know that? Thanks to your hero, Jimmuh Cahtuh.

It doesn't matter to them, Gaijin. I've been told time and time again that it brings a special joy to their hearts to know that American foreign policy is pissing off so many friends.

No, it brings a special joy to our hearts that we're pissing off leftist asshats such as you.

They don't give a damn about world opinion.

(expletive deleted), Canadian --we care about what our allies think--Austraila, Poland, even your fine PM. We just don't give a damn about your opinion, because you're a leftist lemming who hates America.

Thank you, neocon, for having the honesty to admit that. Liberating and bringing democracy to an oppressed people is just a ruse to get at the oil and natural resources of a foreign country. Pure American greed.

No, thank you, Canadian Doper, for taking neo's point and twisting it to your liking. You learn well from your dear leaders...

Thank you, neocon, for having the honesty to admit that. Liberating and bringing democracy to an oppressed people is just a ruse to get at the oil and natural resources of a foreign country. Pure American greed. - CO

Liberals are the most gullible people on the planet, so easily led astray. No wonder they fall prey to dictators and tyrants. That was sarcasm CO, just FYI.

Gaijin,
You could easily be head of the propaganda machine for the Iranian Gov't. Like CO, you are useful pawn. Let's examine some of your brain dead statements:

Most people around the world consider the US just as big a threat to world peace as Iran, if not more so. - Gaijin

And so do you. So do many of wing nut far left. So does it surprise you that you are speaking with like minded drones? The far left agenda will only result in prolonging human misery around the globe, PERIOD. Weakness and Pacifism are not virtues.

After about 3 pints, the anti-Americanism really starts to come out. - Gaijin

This is the most laughable statement I think I have ever read. After three pints, most anything can come out from losers who hang out on a barstool.

I was unaware that Bill Clinton's term of office lasted until 2006 when North Korea started testing nuclear weapons. - Gaijin

When the Clinton administration announced the agreement in 1994, more than one person pointed out at the time that the assumption that the militantly Stalinist regime would abide by its terms was based on little more than blind faith.

In a statement issued Friday, David A. Keene, co-chairman of Americans for Missile Defense, declared, "The North Koreans’ persistent eschewing of weapons inspectors undoubtedly raised red flags,” but left-wingers in Congress and the Clinton administration "believed for years that they offered protection.”

Now they admit they have been secretly building a massive arms production program. Given their decades-long record of deceit, added Keene, "is anyone surprised that they couldn’t be trusted?”

1994: North Korea and U.S. sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.

Aug. 31, 1998: North Korea fires a multistage over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean, proving it can strike any part of Japan's territory.

Damn those facts. Gaijin, left wing propaganda are not normally facts, just FYI.

Our military might has worked so well creating stability in Afghanistan and Iraq, let's show Iran what we can do! Who cares if attacking Iran means uniting a population against us that actually LIKES us and would like to trade with us. Who cares that letting them focus on their OWN leaders as the source of their problems instead of us is far more likely to bring about regime change. Who cares that our military is stretched to breaking already, and our military families carrying the disproportionate load while we watch it all on teevee. (We'll need to start drawing down in Iraq in the spring because we can't sustain this all without a draft) What happened to conservatives that weren't out to be the world's policeman? America has gone crazy...

RE: "Our military might has worked so well..."

Our military have worked exceptionally well!

It's the Low-Life-Liberals who have undermined America our efforts to create stability.

Why would or should terrorists give up, stop their fighting, stop their violence, and stop their killing as long as THEY KNOW LIBERALS (Democrats) are working feverously to hand them victory and to defeat America!

What more could our enemies ask than to have their own representatives -- elected with the help of their own violence and killing -- representing and working for them in America's Congress!!!

AAR

jayhay,

Only the far left has gone crazy, of course it was a short trip. I am one of those military families and my nephews consider it an honor defending innocent civilians against dictators, while you watch on TV.

We've been waiting for decades thinking that the general populaces of third world countries would rise up and over throw the tyrants. Never happened. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of them went to their graves while America sat back and hoped. And that's what you still want to do because it allows you to continue to do NOTHING!!!

(We'll need to start drawing down in Iraq in the spring because we can't sustain this all without a draft) - jayhay

The Navy and Air Force are on the standby and Marine and Army recruits exceeded quotas. We are hardly stretched thin. That is only the hope of the far left.

You'll grow up one day......maybe.

jay-ho, you bring comic relief. Thanks for the laughs...

"One mistake we should not make again is to think you can go to war with a nations leadership. A war with Iran is a war with Iran."

Total war! That is what the right wing wanted in Iraq and they did not get it so now they plot thier chickenhawk strategy with an eye toward Iran.

That's right Kahn, slip that noose over your own neck. Thirteen loops, well done! Nice and snug? Good. Now jump off the chair!

There's the victory you will win if America attacks Iran and it will not be the Iranian people or the government you will need to be concerned with it will be the disruption of your precious flow of oil.

neocon: We've been waiting for decades thinking that the general populaces of third world countries would rise up and over throw the tyrants. Never happened.

On the contrary, it happens all the time. Unfortunately, the end result (sometimes after a period of relative democracy intervening) is too often to replace one tyrant with another. But there are exceptions: Argentina, South Africa, Angola, Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, Nicaraqua, Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Serbia... to name a few.

Sure, sometimes they need some help. But isn't that the point with respect to Iran?

By the way, please explain to me how Bush's current tact with respect to North Korea is qualitatively different than Clinton's was. Certainly there are differences in detail, but to trash one and applaud the other strikes me as a bit disingenuous, given the facts.

Certainly there are differences in detail, but to trash one and applaud the other strikes me as a bit disingenuous, given the facts. - ricorun

First of all, I have not applauded Bushs approach to NK, nor have I trashed Clintons. I merely point out to the lefties that the Clinton admin. was naive to think that Kim Jung would abide by their agreements. NK had nuke aspirations the entire time and hoodwinked the Clintons. That is what the left fails to understand.

Certainly there exist examples of successful civilian uprising against brutal regimes but many of them did require an impetus, as you acknowledged. The middle east however, is a completely different animal in this respect considering the ferocity of Islamic extremists and this day and age of portable WMDs, of which they would love to possess and use.

"For those of you have been abroad and don't believe this to be true. When was the last time you traveled abroad? How far from the resort and/or military base did you go? After about 3 pints, the anti-Americanism really starts to come out." by Gaijin.

You're an idiot and don't know what you are talking about. I have lived and worked in Asia and more specifically in Japan, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan and Singapore for over 22 years. These have all been senior positions that dealt with business leaders, politicians and common everyday folk also. The majority of people and I've spoken to 1,000s have a very good view of the USA in addition to their desire to travel and live there. Yes, some may not like George Bush's present policy in Iraq but most don't even have a clue as to what's going on outside of their own little world. Ask the majority of middle to upper class people in Asia about news from or about Iraq and you get a blank stare, however if you ask them about today's NASDAQ and Dow Jones averages they will rip off numbers that will make your head swim. Most Asians are more concerned with their own livelihood and how America's policies (War, Deficit, Interest Rates etc.) affect their bank accounts than anything. If you are in a circle of friends that bitches America out and watches Youtube all day then consider your source of information bro.

Another point is that if you visit any large city in Asia with an US Embassy/Consulate you will find droves upon droves of people filing immigration forms and waiting for interview. You won't find that at any other Embassy of any other country in the entire world.

You're obviously biased, clueless and/or just ill informed. Maybe all of the above.

You call yourself Gaijin, which tells a little story in itself. Gaijin (outsider) is the derogatory form of polite word Gaikokujin (Foreigner)in Japanese. This must be from either people calling you Gaijin out of disrespect or from your own self-loathing. And in either case, I suspect it has nothing to do with you being an Amerikajin (American).

Finally, sorry but I didn't catch where you said you are from. American? If so, I doubt it, because from my experience most Americans dont use the word "pint" when they are talking about beer...thats more of an Aussie/Brit term than anything. Again, your bias is showing loud and clear dude.

neocon,
If our troops aren't stretched, then why has the army cut down the time between tours and extended tours in Iraq from 12 months to 18?

neocon: I merely point out to the lefties that the Clinton admin. was naive to think that Kim Jung would abide by their agreements. NK had nuke aspirations the entire time and hoodwinked the Clintons. That is what the left fails to understand.

Then I take it you assume the same will happen to Bush, right? If not, why not?

The middle east however, is a completely different animal in this respect considering the ferocity of Islamic extremists and this day and age of portable WMDs, of which they would love to possess and use.

I understand the ferocity part. But what do you mean by a "different animal"? Do you mean that they're fueled by religion as opposed to some other ideology? What, exactly, do you mean? If you explain more fully, perhaps I could give you a better answer. But on the face of it, I don't think religious extremism is materially different than ideological extremism. That's one thing. Second, extremist "ideologies" generally occur in response to something. And unless you understand what it is you can't effectively defeat it. It's the old "know thine enemy" thing. Third, different extremist groups have different agendas. Sometimes if different groups perceive a common enemy, they will band together. But that doesn't mean they have a common underlying agenda. And thus, under the proper conditions, there is ground to drive wedges between them. Fourth, extremists rarely have the backing of the majority of the population. And when they do, (a) it's usually only for a period of time, and (b) it usually occurs in response to something -- typically, a perceived threat from the outside. For example, it could be effectively argued that if WWII didn't happen the USSR would have collapsed at least a couple of decades before it did.

You could probably point out the occasional exception to each of those points. But I can't think of too many instances where all of them, or even most of them, are violated at any given point in time. Perhaps the best counter-example is North Korea. But even there I wonder how long that regime would stand if a concerted effort was made to rouse the rabble. But the USA couldn't foment it alone. China, more than any other single country, holds the key there. But they aren't inclined to do so because they know that if they do, the North Koreans will align themselves with the South Koreans. And I think the last thing China wants is a unified Korea.

In the case of Iran, I don't think people appreciate how close they were to a meaningful change in government prior to our invasion of Iraq. I think that's one of the least appreciated consequences of our action there. Nonetheless, the discontent among the Iranian populace is growing again, because their economic problems continue to grow worse. If Bush could properly harness international pressure against them, I think the discontent could grow quickly and dramatically. But that, of course, would require a more intense, more focused diplomatic effort. And unfortunately, in-fighting between factions within the Bush administration continue to make such a focus hard to come by. I think that remains the big problem.

Pardon me for saying so, but there seems to be an implicit assumption among the far right that diplomacy should not even be attempted because it will almost always fail, and thus military intervention is the best route to take. Nonetheless, when things go wrong in a military intervention the common excuse is "even the best laid plans don't survive first contact with the enemy". No argument from me there. My argument is with the dissociation between the willingness to excuse any mistake, any set-back, any "hoodwinking" on the part of the "enemy" during a military intervention -- and the lack of willingness to acknowledge that the same sort of difficulties bedevil diplomatic processes as well. The fact is, both are susceptible to same sorts of set-backs. It's just that diplomacy is almost always cheaper -- however you calculate the cost.

Two points that haven't been made about Iran.
First. The average age in Iran is 25. That means most of the population wasn't alive during the 1970s during the embassy takeover and the war with Iraq. This is a young population looking for change.

Second. There have been several articles in the last year suggesting that Iran is running out of oil. If that is true, perhaps their claim that they are trying to develop nuclear reactors rather than bombs is also true.

Casper,

Funny thing is, in my business I actually get to see the deployment orders...the norm before was 545 days...now it is 400, and sometimes as low as 179 days...

Mark: Funny thing is, in my business I actually get to see the deployment orders...the norm before was 545 days...now it is 400, and sometimes as low as 179 days...

The norm before what? In what branch of service? And to what extent does "combat zone" figure into the mix? I'm guessing you're comparing several species of apples with several species of oranges in order to make them all smell like roses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059112/

"WASHINGTON - Beginning immediately, all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve 15-month tours — three months longer than the usual standard, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

It was the latest move by the Pentagon to cope with the strains of fighting two wars simultaneously and maintaining a higher troop level in Iraq as part of President Bush’s revised strategy for stabilizing Baghdad."

If that's the case Mark, why would Robert Gates make the above statement in April?

Casper, Gates' proclamation applies only to the Army. The Marines, to this point, are still serving 6 mo tours -- more or less. The AF and Navy, by and large, don't qualify under the "war zone" definition, although exceptions exist -- and to my understanding they are rotated out accordingly. The fact of the matter is, the Army guys are taking the brunt of it. But I willingly stand to be corrected.

Sorry... I preempted my last post before I was done... the other level(s) of "apples" and "oranges" has to do with reserves and National Guard. All of these "apples" and "oranges" have unique issues, and unique pressures placed upon them. Because of that, beware of any simple plattitude suggesting that "everything's great" or on the other hand, "it's irretrievably f@@k'd up".

Rico,
Thanks for the correction. I have a tendency to focus more on the army because that's where my family and friends have served.

I've been mostly staying out of this discussion. Two things:
1. I believe that the war with Iran shows that a winning war with Iran MUST mean the defeat of Iran as a nation. Only with total defeat could we expect a real peace.

2. The Army and Marine Corps is pretty busy. Well, a big part of the Marine Corps is. Half the Marine Corps is Air Wing, and the fighter bomber part isn't all that busy. Did you know they often fly from navy Carriers. The Navy isn't all that busy either and neither is the Air Force.

So - if this supposed plan is to completely destroy Irans military capability. Then, maybe its a good plan. But I also think it needs to be strong enough to defeat their capability to wage war. Factories, telecommunications. All from afar. But it can't stop until they ASK to surrender. Unconditional Surrender.

Not getting unconditional surrender in World War one led to World War two. In Korea, we are technically still at war. But it worked to end the Civil War and it Worked to settle World War Two. Note how NOT getting it worked in Iraq.

I want peace. But if its to be war, it needs to be no holds barred let us win war. Anything less, and I won't support it.

oops item one I meant war with Iraq shows...

If that is true, perhaps their claim that they are trying to develop nuclear reactors rather than bombs is also true.

Yeah, Casper, perhaps. Worked with NK, right?