Well yeah...

The war starts AFTER they've made their first nuke. But at that point it's too late.

Why is it we are so smug that we think we can bomb other countries into oblivion and claim that the countries we bomb are the instigators. Actions speak louder than words! We in our short time as a nation have bombed over 60 countries. Lately we have been instigating problems with Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. It appears we are the common denominator when it comes to killing and displacing millions of innocent men, women, and children. This is not okay and this should be a huge waving red flag for all of us to take notice of.

Since the Russian war in 1828, Iran has never attacked another country. Since 1830, when Venezuela seceded from Gran Colombia they haven’t attacked another country. We on the other hand have attacked to name a few:

Libya, Iran, Nicaragua, Haiti, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Honduras, Chile, Congo, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Angola, Columbia, Peru, Panama, Yemen, Pakistan, Grenada, Mexico, etc..

Trust,

If Iran storms our Embassy killing our citizens then they have attacked another country. After the last election in Iran which was a complete sham the people protested and the green party was slaughtered.

Venezuela is funding the FARC who are bombing Colombian citizens plus the government there has restricted most human rights.

In Syria they are killing thousands of their own people everyday and nobody is doing anything to stop this madman.

I guess you do not care if the government of a country kills thousands of its own citizens because it does not affect your life, how sad.

Isolationist, I doubt it, as a fellow blogger so eloquently stated, "America, land of the free (that's debatable) dictator to the rest of the world".

And you think we are the one's who are ethically and morally in the right position to tell the world what is right for them, after all we are 310 million out of 7 billion who share this planet.

Why is it other countries feel like they have to defend their territory? Could it be that they know we have no problem invading their sovereignty just as we have done to countless other countries. Since World War II, 90% of the casualties of war are unarmed civilians. 1/3 of them children. Our victims have done nothing to us. From Palestine to Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia to wherever our next target may be, their murders are not collateral damage, they are the nature of modern warfare. They don't hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because every day we are funding and committing crimes against humanity. The so-called "war on terror" is a cover for our military aggression to gain control of the resources of western Asia.

This is sending the poor of this country to kill the poor of those Muslim countries. This is trading blood for oil. This is genocide, and to most of the world, we are the terrorists. In these times, remaining silent on our responsibility to the world and its future is criminal. And in light of our complicity in the supreme crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ongoing violations of the U.N. Charter in International Law, how dare any American criticize the actions of legitimate resistance to illegal occupation.

Face it we're Imperialists pure and simple. The elite look down on all of us as expendable chattel.

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" Henry Kissinger

I’m not asking you to hate war but to love peace. War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

I find it very interesting that US intelligence analysts are trying to guess what Israel, our stauch "ally", is planning. We can't just ask them and trust them to tell us the truth.

But over and over the truth surfaces --- Israel does not share intelligence with the US, but is a major user of intelklkigence produced by the US. A pretty sweet deal.

A short note saying, "You attack Iran and you can kiss the aid that props up your country goodbye." would certainly have the effect of making the situation more predictable. The idea of a nuclear-armed Israel attacking a pre-nuclear-armed Iran to prevent their acquiaition of weaponbs that Israel already has stinks from an ethical and moral standpoint. And, really, when we've lost everything except ethics and morals, we have lost nothing. But when we lose our ethics and morals we lose everything.

Right on trust

@TrustVerify,

Good posts. Well thought out. I would add the example of 9/11 as an example of American Imperialist thinking: A group of Saudi nationals (ell except 1) , directed by a Saudi national (bin Laden), 100% funded by money from sources in Saudi Arabia blow up the Twin Towers. In retaliation, we invade Iraq???

WTF Who had that bright idea? The US was so big and powerful that it had some sort of inate right to strike out at anyone they chose with absolutely zero rationale? This is, in fact and point of law, mass murder and a well-defined crime against humanity.

I feel very sorry for anyone who cannot see that a Muslim life is just as valuable as a Caucasian-American life. And that any worthwhile God would value the soul of an honest agnostic as much, if not more, that some highly indoctrinated true believer. If you can't see beyond your own life, your box is so incredibly tiny that I reall grieve for your loss of humanity.

Trust,

So again you have no problem with 2 million people being slaughtered in Rwanda, mass starvation put on people in Somalia, the Government of China murdering thousands of its own people who dissent because it does not affect you.

Do you think there is no moral right for one country to try and stop another from having mass slaughter of its own citizens?

Many of these countries hate us because we did nothing to stop the savage killings, and rapes of their children and women.

TrustVerify...

"Isolationist, I doubt it, as a fellow blogger so eloquently stated, "America, land of the free (that's debatable) dictator to the rest of the world"." - You doubt it...why don't you know? Do your research did we enter either war at its onset? No.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

My god man...do some research. This was the first result of my crappy web search...there are millions more.

"And you think we are the ones who are ethically and morally in the right position to tell the world what is right for them, after all we are 310 million out of 7 billion who share this planet." - Ahhhh...okay, so because we are fewer...that automatically means we aren't right? Would you prefer they dictate to us? Seriously? Nice try at a linear extrapolation of fairness rooted solely in proportional numbers, sorry...but it doesn't work that way. Right is right and there hasn't been a country in history as fair to individual freedom as we have been. Are we perfect? No. But we are a hell of a lot closer to it than anyone else ever has been.

"The so-called "war on terror" is a cover for our military aggression to gain control of the resources of western Asia." - Please, enlighten us. Show us any articles that talk about the "war on terror" before WE WERE ATTACKED on 9-11. Didn't think so... Try again buddy. :)

"Face it we're Imperialists pure and simple." - When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

You dishonor the "chattle" that wore the uniform and served with honor and sacrifice with clearly untrue statements like that. You need to brush up on your definition of the word Imperialism and respect those that selflessly fight it on your behalf.

""Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" Henry Kissinger"" - I had no idea he said that. I really respected him as an intelligent Sec of State. However, if there is even an ounce of truth to that...I'd have to say the steam on my morning crap is work more than a 1,000 of his lives.

"I’m not asking you to hate war but to love peace. War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" - On this we can agree, but just like government itself...it is a necessary evil and should be used only as a last resort.

Jess,

To add to what you say about numbers, in WWII we killed many more Japanese and Germans than we had killed. Does that mean we were morally wrong to bomb these countries to bring an end to the war. I do not think so.

Chris,

We actually invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 because that is where the bases and training facilities were of the people who carried out the attacks

BTW... Didn't note my source for the Colin Powell remark before the timer expired but I have heard this over and over from multile sources so I jsut grabbed the first one I could find online. This is what I used...

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/powell-empires.htm

:)

@Jerry...

I have to agree. It was a travesty that we couldn't avoid war through diplomatic means. Sun Tzu indicated that if you go to war you have already lost. A true general can subdue his opponent without fighting. It's where the modern interpretation of 'soft power' comes from.

@Chris...

"We actually invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 because that is where the bases and training facilities were of the people who carried out the attacks" - True, but the ultimate decision to go there was due to the Taliban refusing to hand over Bin Laden. Had they done so, we would have never gone there.

That country will do nothing..even if attacked...their name is perfect for them..I-RAN

Jess,

Since you seem to be well read on this, didn't they offer Bin Laden to President Clinton and he refused the offer

Hey Jerry....

First of all, please allow me to apologize for my @ mistake as you were replying to @Chris. LOL...

No. Bin Laden was known to have supported the bombings of the USS Cole and the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Once tracked down to a training camp in Afghanistan he made an attempt to send a cruise missile in after him. However, it failed to kill him. He also had the option of sending a SEAL team in to get him, but rejected it for reasons I'm sure he and only a few others know about.

The explanation was that the decision was delayed too long between the time they found him and when they fired. In Clinton's defense, I'm sure there were mitigating circumstances on what caused the delay. I seriously doubt a sitting US pres would allow that to happen intentionally.

After all, it took the team that tracked down Osama almost 9 years to find him after getting into Afghanistan. And for those about to jump on the anti-Bush wagon... Obama used the same Sec of Defense (Robert Gates) and the same CIA team that Bush used. Neither president had anything to do with it directly. That was 100% the hard work of the brave men/women that serve this country. The same "chattle" that TrustVerify so easily disparages with crappy Kissinger quotes.

Thanks

Saddam was about to make nukes or cut critical oil supplies. So it was Iraqi wars!

Now it is Iran's turn!

What about Paki nukes, which are on sale or can be stolen?

Have these dramas need to be directed by Saudis and Israel always?

Can there be no variations even in these dramas?

BINGO Chris!

It's amazing to me that there are still people who believe the USA has the moral high ground, we have really good propaganda here

That should settle any talk of war with Iran our own govt.admits they are not a threat. This is a relief we do not need any more war nonsense!

Mike,

I have to agree and disagree. Everyone thinks all wars are the same. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Just because a war in Iraq and Afghanistan was long and drawn out, that doesn't mean that one with Iran does. In Afghanistan, there was no single organized group to oppose the Taliban, just several fractured tribes. The same thing could be said about Iraq to an extent. However, the end game in both countries wasn't just regime change but also to locate key targets...Osama and WMD's. Each of those objectives required boots on the ground. We can argue the merits of each war, but that only serves to miss the point.

The endgame in Iran is to prevent the development of nukes. If you think a war will be long and drawn out now with Iran, wait until they are emboldened with nukes. Then it becomes impossible, and millions more will die in the fight as soon as they give one to Hezbollah or some other terrorist org they currently and openly support.

So the question is really one of which is the leser of 2 evils? A war now or a war later with nukes. It is a forgone conclusion that there will be one. Again, we could argue the merits of that statement too, but again...we would digress from the point.

A war with Iran needs not boots on the ground. It could be conducted solely from the air/sea.

1. We would need to blockade all shipping in/out of Iran. Saudi Arabia already said they would boost production of oil output to offset Iran. They are traditionally enemies with them anyway...the whole shia/sunni thing.
2. We continuouly bomb all strategic targets. Goverment/millitary only thus making them even more useless than they are now.
3. We blockade all land support as we are already on both sides of them...Afghanistan/Iraq.
4. We covertly arm the opposition movement within Iran...(which we failed to do in 2009)
5. We wait...a regime collapse happens within 18 months

The end game of distracting them from getting a nuke achieved. As it stands now and unless something changes, they will get a nuke. They are playing us for the fools we are. We need not look past North Korea for evidence of that.

You say...NK hasn't exported their nukes? Totally different story... NK has a master in China that has an interest in keeping the peace there. Not the case in Iran. Iran has money due to their oil industry. That is the strategic differentiator.

I say one more and final negotiation with them. Be blunt with this strategy and if it doesn't work....unleash Isreal...fight a proxy war through them and get it over with. The one thing that we should all agree on is that an Iranian nuke is not an option...and right now...they aren't too far from it. Just check with the IAEA on that.

Jess, that is by far the best military options and description I have read yet. Just to mention a few other things would be to use the airwings to first take out every possible port around Iran where they're smaller naval boats can launch and have them join the old Iranian Navy at the bottom of the ocean. Once Isreal is involved also the war will be quickly finished cause unlike this country they do not have to put up with all the bleeding heart liberals and political correctness of waging total war.

Thanks Striker...

Their Navy is feeble at best. They would last a week (with land based missile support)...and that is a generous estimate. The real trouble comes into play when Russia ups their anti-air/anti-sea weapons. Do we engage Russian vessels sending in those weapons? That's where it gets dangerous. World Wars have been started that way.

Military options MUST be the VERY LAST option. To recycle a post of mine from above...

"It was a travesty that we couldn't avoid war through diplomatic means. Sun Tzu indicated that if you go to war you have already lost. A true general can subdue his opponent without fighting. It's where the modern interpretation of 'soft power' comes from."

However, we have seen this game before and Iran is just following the PROVEN playbook North Korea used, so I'm afraid war is going to happen one way or the other. We might as well do it now, because the cost will be way too high later.

Jess - Hey this sounds just like what the original neocons were thinking. The war will be a "cakewalk" We can just bomb the hell out of a country, killing thousands of people, because the Israelis "think" Iran "might" some day work on a nuclear weapons program.

To do that, Iran would first have to kick out the inspectors, so they could enrich their uranium to the 97% required for a nuclear weapon. What you propose is nothing short of war crimes. Iran has attacked no one.

Zionist warmongers like Ken Adelman and the Zionist Washington Post pushed the war in an editorial titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq.” Jewish supremacists Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz told you that Iraq would “Welcome us as liberators.” Iraq became the longest war in American history. Here is a report from USA Today: “Pentagon officials estimated for the first time Wednesday that up to 360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may have suffered traumatic brain injuries.” Now that’s not counting tens of thousands who have suffered maiming, amputations, or death in this war based on lies.

1984: Soon after West German engineers visit the unfinished Bushehr nuclear reactor, Jane's Defense Weekly quotes West German intelligence sources saying that Iran's production of a bomb "is entering its final stages." US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon'.

So there were in the 'final stages' of development 28 years ago.

'1992:'Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US"'.

And then three to five years away from a bomb in 1992.

'1995: The New York Times conveys the fears of senior US and Israeli officials that "Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought" – about five years away – and that Iran’s nuclear bomb is “at the top of the list” of dangers in the coming decade'.

And then five years away tops in 1995.

NOV 2005 :nternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of Iran's nuclear program since 2003 have revealed significant undeclared activities with potential application for nuclear weapons, including uranium enrichment facilities and plutonium separation efforts. Ever on the brink of being declared in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors access only when pressed. Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities in exchange for promises of assistance from Germany, France, and the UK (EU-3). Negotiations with the EU-3 are ongoing, although on August 1, 2005, Iran told the IAEA of its plans to resume uranium conversion, regardless of what the EU-3 offer. This report will be updated as needed.

So after years of crying wolf, we are still at it in 2012. Iran today still does not have either nukes or the ability to build a nuke. This sounds a lot like the build up to the war for Israel in Iraq.

This article is terrible news for Israel and the US, who have been trying to antagonize Iran enough, so that they would do something foolish. The only recourse Israel now has to get what it wants, is another Israeli false flag attack, such as the one they helped pull off on 9/11.

No more wars for Israel. They are parasites, terrorists and war criminals.

Jess, I agree with most of what you've said except for #3. We are no longer in Iraq. Plus Iraq is now being ruled by a Shiite majority who could very well become allies of Iran. Just something to think about.

One thing more. The current government in Iraq did something that was not allowed by Hussein: they allowed Iranian Pilgrims to enter the country to make pilgrimage to the Shia holy sites in Iraq. Maybe a sign of closer ties between the two nations? Time will only tell.

For a change let us mind our business at home.

We are neck deep into troubles with Pakistan, Afghanistan and a bankrupt economy.

Iraqi wars gave huge unemployment, bankrupt citizens due to housing collapse and penny pinching for sick, elderly and homeless.

The US under the direction of barbaric and beastly Sunni Saudi Arabia and Israel, is unnecessarily opening too fronts for battles in Syria, Iran and some more.

Now the slide for many in the US will be only downwards and faster!

For many, it will be from unemployment to streets. For those on streets even tent cities may not sufficient!

I have a better idea. Tell the "Palestinian" they can set up their state in Yemen or Somalia.

Or the Israelis could just give the Palestinians back the land that they stole and CONTINUE TO STEAL. Fact is that the Israelis have nuclear weapons and the Iranians do not. You have to ask yourself who is the real aggressor. The U.S. and its little brat continue to provoke Iran just as they have provoked Iraq, Egypt, and Syria in the past. I cannot wait until a country with enought military might whether it's Iran or Saudi Arabia smashes Benjamin Netanyahu and the rest of the Zionist douchebags.

Gosh, so Iranians aren't looking to start WWIII but some of the posters are all set to destroy Israel. So, guess the fact that most Muslim countries want to see Israel destroyed and have stated such many, many times is of no consequence? Nope, Israel is the problem. Israel provokes Iran how, exactly? Has Israel stated that they want Iran dead? Obliterated? Does the Torah demand Global Jihad as the Koran does? As to land theft, guess the anti-israeli's aren't students of history.

To the person suggesting that Texas be given away...guess they have had a really bad love affair go bad in Texas or else they live in a very small and narrow world.

Isreal stole the land from the Palestinians plain and simple.

Israel was given the land by the British who conquered it in WW I from the Ottoman Empire. There were no countries in that part of the world then except for Egypt. The countries in the Middle East we all formed from the 20's on yet you only criticize Israel for stealing land, why not Jordan (1946) or Lebanon (1943) which was the home of many Palestinians. Israel was voted a country by the UN in 1948 and accepted it, Palestine refused the vote and walked out. How is that for plain and simple

@Hdgator, who is the real aggressor? Israel has nukes, this is true. They have threatened to use them, this is true. Have they used them? Have they actively been attacking Iranian facilities? Have they actively destroyed Palestinian facilities that weren't on land that belongs to Israel? And the biggest question of all, who gave Israel that land? You can word your response any way you choose, but the ultimate answer remains, Israel started nothing. And if the Palestinians or Iranians intentions were as pure as the media makes them out to be, then peace talks should be more than on the table, they should have happened and been done with. Now I won't deny Israel has done a lot to delay, yes even deny, such talks, but ultimately Ahmadinejad and others that are like-minded with him have done far more to delay or deny any talks that don't result in the complete dissolution of Israel and the extermination of any who remain that are not Muslim.

Jerry. It doesn't matter who conquered it and gave it to who. It was and has been their land since birth. They helped the west fight back against Ottoman rule and this is how they were repaid.

Gary - Israel would not want to move to Texas. They would lose much of their 3.1 billion in free aid , which they receive each and every year, without the pain of actually paying Federal Taxes, which the people of Texas have to pay each year.

They would also lose the loan guarantees and free military hardware.

Oh wait, they are represented by AIPAC and are Gods chosen people, our politicians would give them everything they want for free, just like they do now. They are supposed to be allies, but they have never fought along side our troops in their entire history. In fact, quite the opposite, our great Israeli allies killed 34 sailors and wounded 172, when they attacked the USS liberty.

In this Iran drama as in earlier Iraqi dramas villains are Saudi Arabia and Israel and their agents inside the US and other places.

Since 2003, future traders, rating agencies, Wall Street and oil companies and their lobbyists transferred, five trillion dollars from oil importing countries to oil exporting nations.

Now watch out for oil prices jumping to the sky!

Can there be a more ridiculous sitution: we can go to moon and many talk about precisions in wars (how to do pin point bombings and so on), but there can be no substitute for oil?

The UN gave the land to Israel. Previously for 1000 years it was part of Turkey.

When Israel was attacked, it won more and more land which is perfectly OK under international LAW. When a country is attacked and it gains land, it is there land forever uner international law.

The only criminals are the Pals who were paid for the land, then try to take it back at gunpoint.

PS the jews were invited to move there by the Muslim rulers as the Muslim population had dropped 50%.

Funny, they made the desert bloom, something the Pals have never been able to do.

Hey Roger, read this and learn something, before spouting off again.

“In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel’s military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces. “Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation,” ed. Lockman and Beinin.

World opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza.

“Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel’s occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel’s action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a ‘serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.’ “ John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

Furthermore Roger, it was Israel that started the 1967 war.

Sorry, Ralph but you need to go reread rather than attempt to rewrite, history. As to world opinion, please note how many Arab and Muslim nations sit on the UN council and then look at the human rights records for those countries. Syria ring a bell? Libya? China?

Ralph H is 100% factual and correct. Mygirl1 you just can not handle the truth as painful as it maybe for you.

Justice: You need to read and research more. Your information is seriously flawed which is why your support of Ralph is so sad, two biases don't make facts.

http://sixdaywar.co.uk/

When reason and facts leave an argument as in your case mygirl1, this can only mean that your either a paid blogger or your so blinded in your bias that you can not tell truth from fiction. Maybe you should change your name to "mypaidisraeligirl$" at least you'll be honest about it.

Tsk, guess you don't have a clue as to history. It is painfully apparent. I gave a post chronicling the time line and the reasons behind the Six Day War, it is you who only want to hate on Israel. Perhaps you actually want to see Israel destroyed, it would fit into your extremist views.

That's right, we must not let another country have a nuclear weapon because they might use it on another country. You would have to be a real hypocrite and ethically and morally bankrupt to do that, right? Thank God we've never done that!

If Iran obtained nuclear weapons, then why is so much effort being expended to keep them from developing nuclear weapons? I think everyone should be interested in that.

Don't forget Mike S. that Israel killed Iranian nuclear scientists in cold blood. Tell me how that's ok but it's not ok for Iran to retaliate. STOP sending $7 MILLION in U.S. taxpayer money on a daily basis to prop up Israel's military

Not necessarily. I wouldn't be at all surprized if Iran put the word out to eliminate any of their scientists thinking of defecting or showing doubt about the program, and then blaming it on either Israel or the MEK. Iran always denies responsibility and blames its mischief on others.

The story actually this week is that it was an Iranian dissident group that is funded and trained by the Israelis sort of what they do with Hamas and Hezbollah

Mike, those attacks in India and Georgia, were most likely perpetrated by the same terrorist group that has been assassinating Iranian scientists. The group of terrorists is a part of Israel's proxy war on Iran.

Notice they attempted to use sticky bombs from motorcycles, which is the same method the MEK used against the Iranian scientists. Those attacks were another Israeli false flag attack, disguised to make Israel appear as the would be victim.

And there are thousands of cases where someone thought they weren't going to get attacked, and then they didn't. So all you really have left is fear-mongering.

Are you willing to take that chance? A nuclear equipped Iran is a nightmare for the world.

@Geronimous, I am sorry, I don't usually post comments or replies on MSNBC boards, but your complete lack of knowledge surrounding history and current events mixed in with a fundamental lack of what the facts on the ground are, have made me do otherwise.

The situation with Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler Pre-World War II is nothing like the situation with the U.S. and Iran today. Chamberlain sought a diplomatic, if not naive route, of "appeasement"; by giving into the demands of Hitler to try to prevent a prolonged and protracted war. After Hitler annexed the Sudetenland’s of Czechoslovakia, which Chamberlain agreed to only if Hitler agreed to not make anymore territorial land claims, Hitler simply believed his opponents to be weak, soft, and lacking the wherewithal to fight another war with Germany. His exact words were "Who in the world is going to want to go to war over Danzig" (Danzig is a port city in Poland that Hitler used as a pretext for war because it was German Pre-WWI).

Today’s situation is far removed from the circumstances of Pre-WWII Europe over 70 plus years ago. Today the U.S. and international community are, for the most part, united in applying so much pressure on Iran that it makes even the possibility of obtaining Nuclear Weapons so "undesirable" that they will not do so. On the other hand, we are talking about an irrational, authoritarian regime, that may very well bring the world to war because they feel it necessary to possess nuclear weapons, whether for perceived "protection", a "deterrent" to a pre-emptive attack by anyone, or simply to use as a threat to stay in power and cement the control of their regime within their own country.

Iran also does not posses missiles capable yet of reaching the continental United States. And they won't have the capable to strike the United States on our soil with any WMDs for some time to come. Not only is it incredibly hard for a country like Iran to produce a reliable, efficient, accurate, and over all affordable long range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs). They would also have to complete the processes of making these WMDs, which is years down the road, before they are in a position to actually test one. They are even further away from creating a weapon compact enough to be fitted into a domestically produced ICBM. Not to mention if they couldn't put each and every one of those components together, they would never be a credible nuclear threat to the U.S.A. They would also have to produce such missiles in vast quantities to have any realistic impact, that the International Community Led by the U.S. would surely launch a pre-emptive attack, if not war, to dismantle any and all weapons programs, terror networks and funding, as well as cementing a permanent regime change.

You may disagree with me and that is fine, but please use facts and knowledge to make an argument instead of brash statements based off of pure emotions and misinformation. Thanks, JD.

Him,

You say the world is united but China and Russia are against the sanctions and continue to do business with Iran. Russia sells them a large amount of military weapons and China continues to buy oil from them.

The bigger danger is that if Iran obtains weapons then Saudi Arabia will have no choice followed by country after country and do we want a world with so many unstable countries in possession of these horrific monsters.

Dear JD, with all due respect, you cite some historical facts, which I know them as well, but you seem to miss the whole lesson of that world painfully history.

@him2004 Iran has missiles (Scuds) capable of hitting Tel Aviv right now, do they not? That's enough of a threat to be credible. Iran is capable of creating a nuclear warhead, and could create one within a year--if allowed to! Not years down the road. So what if they won't have ICBMs for years down the road? They will have the nuclear tipped warheads to attack any of their neighbors, i.e. Israel, Saudis, even Turkey, within a year.

So what you've said about Hitler is that he thought the allies would never challenge him--doesn't that sound familiar? You said the Iranians were an "irrational, authoritarian regime". Wouldn't that also describe the 3rd Reich? Also,it's different because Austria welcomed Hitler's troops, and so did the german speaking people of the sudentenland. That made it less desireable for the world to get involved in a world war until after Hitler invaded Poland.

You talk about what Iran doesn't possess...what about what they have now and will possess in a year if they are allowed to continue on the path they are going? You don't consider that a significant threat? They would, and can be a credible nuclear threat to the world.

I'm not worried so much about ICBMs as I am about non-traditional kinds of nuclear attacks. Iran could build a bomb that could fit in a truck or shipping container (I doubt that they will have the miniaturization capabilities to produce a true "suitcase nuke" anytime soon). Then all they'd have to do is drive/ship it anywhere they want.

@Scubasteve: and you're right to be worried.

Iran has Shahab missiles with a range of 1,500 miles and about 12 Russian-made scud missiles, 2000 tanks, hundreds of helicopters, 300 combat aircraft and 3 submarines. They have 540,000 active soldiers and 350,000 reserves, estimated plus 120,000 Revolutionary Guards.

It does give one pause.

That's nothing more than 19th century isolationist talk, outdated and obsolete. We can no longer afford to stand by the sidelines and let history take its course. A pre-emptive strike is very much an option here, still on the table, as Obama put it. In fact at this point it's irrelevant whether Iran strikes first or not. We can't afford to wait and do nothing while Iran. The sanctions are a temporary band-aid while we galvanize support from our allies for the inevitable. No one said Iran would be a "cake walk", and btw, who said Afghanistan or Iraq were? Both wars dragged on and Afghanistan has been virtually a stalemate. Iran is much more of a threat to world peace and stability than Iran ever was. The wait until attacked foreign policy is weak and will result in a much higher toll in american and Iranian lives. A pre-emptive strike targets only military installations, whereas rendering the Persian Empire "into dust"....well, Iran is a nation of 70 million people!

The issue at hand is preventing Iran from acquiring nukes...how else are we going to accomplish that if sanctions don't work?

Yes, Isreal is not a friend of the USA. Just look up the USS Liberty

Matt,

As opposed to the country that attacked our Embassy and held our citizens hostage for 444 days.

Matt,

Took you up on your offer.

Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty.

What we have here is an early attempt at false flag operations, look that up.

Matt

Did they kill anyone ? These were supposedly our enemies did a lot less damage than our so called friends!!

Yes they did. 34 people were killed and 172 injured. The Liberty was a US intelligence collection ship and after it was strafed with cannon, and iron and napalm bombs were dropped on it, 5 torpedos were launched from Israeli PT boats. Four of them missed and the one that hit blew a 40 foot hole in the ship right where the intelligence gathering crew was located killing 25 people.

Was this an honest mistake or deliberate attack? There are legitimate arguements on both sides.

Jerry - read this - We started the garbage with Iran.

1) The British and the US in 1943 created Iraq as a country whose borders were set up to insure conflict in the area. For Iran, this meant that a large Shiite community became part of a Sunni-ruled Iraq. Since Iran is the only majority Shiia country in the world, this was seen as a specific slap in the face.

2) For three years the US and Britain forced brutal and repressive Soviet rule on Iran. The Russians finally left in 1946 after having virtually looted the country. From 1947-1951 the country floundered around with a chronically unstable constitutional monarchy half-heartedly supported by the US and Britain who were only interested in oil concessions.

3) Until 1953, there was a series of military coups and counter-coups with the CIA actively involved in one side or another for every one.

4) The the US, with Britain's blessing, installed the Shah and a brutal and repressive autocracy backed up by the Mossda-trained SAVAK. The people were brutalized and slaughtered by the thousands, but the US got half of all the oil revenue, so they were very happy with the Shah.

5) In the Iraq-Iran War, the US supplied Iraq with military equipment and more importantly to the Iranians, the training and equipment to make mustard gas and binary nerve gas (tabun) which was used against the Iranians. We backed and supplied the very same Saddam that we later hung.

6) The embassy hostage situation came about because Iran wanted the Shah sent back to Iran to stand trial for crimes against his own people. The US refused, protected him abroad, and finally brought him the the US for permanent residency when he was found to have cancer. This really outraged the Iranian people since only the US and British governments among major governments actually supported the idea of not returning the Shah to Iran.

7) As a candidate, Reagan agents (including Rumsfeld) made promises of military spare parts and other aid to Iran if they would hold the hostages until after the election. You would think this would have made the Iranians like us at least a little. But instead they decided that there were no conditions in which American politicians could be trusted because Reagan was so willing to sell out his country and support two groups against his country was supposedly opposed --- Iran and the Contras. They kept citing the Persian version of "there is no honor among thieves" as why they never trust American politicians.

8) Then there have been the embargos, the constant bickering, the feckless backing of Israel against everyone, and most importantly the continuous double standard of saying that it is okay for Israel, a warlike country who has fought constantly with its neighbors, to have nukes, but to say that Iranians, who have never attacked a neighbor, cannot have them. No person with more than a 3rd grade intellect sees this as anything except dangerous arrogance on the part of the US.

The US refused, protected him abroad, and finally brought him the the US for permanent residency when he was found to have cancer.

False, he was never given sanctuary in the US. He was allowed in, relunctantly, for medical treatment only. He went first to Panama, then his old friend Sadaat gave him sanctuary in Egypt where he died. He received only medical care in the US. This is what wikipedia says about the Shah's exile:

During his second exile, the Shah traveled from country to country seeking what he hoped would be temporary residence. First he flew to Assuan, Egypt, where he received a warm and gracious welcome from President Anwar El-Sadat. He later lived in Morocco as a guest of King Hassan II, as well as in theBahamas, and in Cuernavaca in Mexico near Mexico City, as a guest of José López Portillo. He suffered from gallstones that would require prompt surgery. He was offered treatment in Switzerland, but insisted on treatment in the United States.

On 22 October 1979, at the request of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger,^[61] President Jimmy Carterreluctantly allowed the Shah into the United States to undergo surgical treatment at the New York–Weill Cornell Medical Hospital. While in Cornell Medical Center, Shah used the name "David D. Newsom" as his temporary code name, without Newsom's knowledge.

The Shah was taken later by U.S. Air Force jet to Kelly Air Force Base in Texas and from there to Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base.^[62] It was anticipated that his stay in the U.S. would be short; however, surgical complications ensued, which required six weeks of confinement in the hospital before he recovered. His prolonged stay in the U.S. was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement in Iran, which still resented the United States' overthrow of Prime Minister Mosaddeq and the years of support for the Shah's rule. The Iranian government demanded his return to Iran, but he stayed in the hospital.

The Shah left the US 15 Dec. 1979 after medical treatment and lived for a short while on the Isle Contadora in Panama before leaving for Egypt, where he died in 1980. So we "forced Soviet rule" on the iranians for several years? Never heard that one before, since the Soviets were our sworn enemy after the post WW 2 period.