http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_7

Sound familiar?

Bush will no doubt "explore every diplomatic option" before invading, and leave the next administration with a full blown major middle east war to deal with.

Right now I'm thinking it's about 60/40 Bush invades.

WMD's!
Freeing MILLIONS from torture rooms!
Democracy!!!!!!!

Sounds a lot like Iraq???

Andy, what do you think he should do?

DJ..
What do YOU think he should do???
BOMB the living crap out of them like Iraq? Kill thousands of INNOCENT women and children???
Sounds a lot like Iraq??
You going over to fight?

"Andy, what do you think he should do?"

Create a 10 mile wide zone along the Iraq Iran border and occupy it with troops redeployed from Baghdad.

Create a 10 mile wide zone along the Iraq Syrian border and occupy it with troops redeployed from the rest of Iraq, with the balance of troops sent to Afghanistan.

Let the Sunni's and the Shihites kill each other ... eventually they will both run out of munitions since the secure borders will prevent them from re-arming.

Then ... start talking about helping them rebuild.

I'll say it;

With an all volunteer military, if we invaded Iran, we'd lose. It would leave us weaker and more vulnerable too.

With a Draft, people would go apeshit and never support any reason to invade Iran.

THIS is where Bush has blown it. There was a day that he could have convinced us. Not anymore.

Let ANOTHER country step up to the plate for once. Heck, let's get a real coalition and let them handle it ALL.

Part of the 'problem' is that the US cares more about the citizens of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan than most in the Muslim world.

Terrorists are killing innocent kids and blowing up civilians.

We fight with one hand behind our back in order to avoid killing one innocent while the bad guys are murdering all they can.

It's frustrating. Sure, we could nuke Iran before they get the bomb...a la Hiroshima..but then we'd be seen by some as no better than they are. So what's the answer?

Democrats: Rather than re-hash the criticism of our administration's policies...what's YOUR plan to prevent Iran from nuking its neighbors? That's one of the big questions right now.

Herb

Surgical strike.....take out the problem and just the problem and leave. Hit and Run. Search and Destroy. Some Stealth bombers ought to do it just fine. One mission....no more nuke factories!

nope, not gonna let bush off the hook. we LEAVE iraq NOW. Elect a new prez in 08 and address the iraq-iran problem at that time. If Iran nukes iraq in the mean time, it'll just be too bad. It might keep another bonehead prez from pulling another bogus war.

"what's YOUR plan to prevent Iran from nuking its neighbors?"

I'm not convinced that they WOULD nuke their neighbors. So if it's such a pressing issue, then why don't those neighbors say anything about it?

"Elect a new prez in 08 and address the iraq-iran problem at that time."

You don't have that luxury. There's no China here, as in N. Korea, to keep Iran in check.

Try again.

Herb

Also, I believe that the rest of the world is just waiting for Bush to get out of office. They want " A new direction " just as much as we do.

I blame Rick Emerson, personally.

"You don't have that luxury."

I disagree. I'l eat all the radioactive crow ther is and really mean it if I am wrong. But just because Bush wants to find something to do, doesn't make it a priority for me - yet. I'm not buying the " UH-OH - You'd better have a plan and NOW " fear tactic anymore.

Then listen to the Europeans. They are afraid of the nuke threat from Iran. If they're not, then they really are on the appeasement train, and that one ain't being sung by Cat Stevens...or come to think of it, given his political direction, maybe it is.

Herb

Yeah? OK. The Europeans. What is their plan again?

I know what to do....let's elect Hillary and send her to negotiate in the Middle East and China were they have so much respect for women. That ought to about sink this country in the world's eye's! At least maybe they can get her to cover her ugly mug with a veil!

I would accept what Ronald Reagan would have done. He would have made a sabre-rattling speech or two, sent in the diplomats, and James Baker would have threatened and cajoled our way to getting people to simmer down over there. Without starting a war. Without shedding American blood for a bad cause.

What's the neo-CONer plan??? SURGE??? That's it?? 20,000 - 30,000 troops??

Herb said>>>>
Terrorists are killing innocent kids and blowing up civilians.

So DUHbya and Co. are Terrorists then?? Look how many WOMEN and CHILDREN are being killed everyday in Iraq???

Seeing that today was the deadliest day in iraq in months for both americans and iraqis one wonders when exactly were these new troops to arrive?

If it's being run by DUHbya and Co. probably in 2008 just before the election....

Trixter, lately I think you and Skeptical should trade names.

Herb

Thanks!
Your best comment EVER on this board

Hilarious!

And I completely agree.

You know, I'm not really worried about Iran having nukes and blowing up Iraq. I'm worried about them having nukes and blowing up some city in the US. Not the Iranian government per se, but the wackos that they support.

Anybody see 24 last week and this week?

Anybody naive enough to believe that it couldn't happen?

I have never watched "24". I've seen a few promos. It's all garbage to me.

If 9/11 could happen, be wary of anyone who says something as weird couldn't happen.

Herb

Chris, I had never watched it before mid summer last year and thought the same thing. I started watching the reruns on CH-6 on Saturday and Sunday night on the recommendation of some of the guys from my Church that I go 4-wheeling with.

I started watching it and it's actually a good program. It's suspenseful although a little far fetched at times, you know, the hero never dies kind of thing, but overall a good watch.

The question of the day may be: Does Iran have the capacity to launch a rocket armed with nuclear weapons and hit a side of a barn 500 ft away? Not easily done you know.

(The Chinese did impress me with their satellite target shooting last week.)

"The question of the day."

Correct. Perhaps not today, nor tomorrow. But within a few months or a few years...

And all the Iranians need is help from the Chinese or a rogue former-Soviet state. The Iranians have lots of oil money.

Herb

Yeah, the Chinese want to sell arms to Iran so Iranians can nuke the USA, the largest buyer of Chinese goods. Besides, China has the biggest "side of a barn" in the area.

Rogue states don't have large nuclear weapons lifting capacities and we are on the other side of the planet. I think we can wait 2 years for the next prez.

Ok. We'll wait two years so another Clinton can declassify missile secrets and sell them to the Chinese...again.

Then, Sandy Burglar can stuff secret documents and attempt to steal and stuff them in his socks to cover the Clinton tracks...again.

Herb

I don't think that Iran having a missile with a nuclear warhead is what we need to be worried about. Sure, that would be bad if they had one, but what I think poses a more imminent danger would be a smaller "portable" type device that a terrorist could detonate in a heavily populated area.

We've got those right now!

Call them bombs, and you mix them with pathogens. Depending on where you choose to release the stuff, it might be really portable! These means come with a bonus too, in that the infrastructure remains intact, with only minor cleaning and repair to continue to serve those who remain.

Gimme 10 minutes and I'll give you 10 horrors that high-school students could pull off, given they were willing to die for it. Ask around, others can too. It's not as hard as we want to think it is.

Getting into it with Iran won't change that. The bottom line on that score is this:

Anyone interested in engaging us in an act of terror has the means to do so. Security is not an absolute thing. So, we either live in fear, or we do not. I choose not, and seek to cultivate alliances with like minded people.

You've really gotta consider the net gain / loss of these kinds of actions. The unjust war in Iraq has left us weak and broke, plus it's created an entire generation of people highly likely to be America haters. Extra bonus: all of the insurgent fighting has left them trained and with contacts to the right folks to do some real damage.

Ugly.

So we fight an unjust war that breaks us, while it adds to the list of potential enemies. Nice.

Now, about that cultivating part. The morbid part of my post above is clear support for any sane nation to be scared about terror. Only together can these terror aware nations actually have any real power.

This means, preserving their laws, keeping the confidence of the people and uniting against terror as a tactic or idea. Together they are capable of very powerful responses on all fronts, not just military.

We had this right after 9/11. Bush hosed it up with the unjust Iraq war we find ourselves stuck in today.

He tossed away a chance to unify a very high percentage of the world against terror. Quite possibly our best shot at marginalizing the problem for good, and he just pissed it away.

Remember, no matter how many wars we fight, anyone really interested in doing some solid damage is going to have the means to do so.

Anyone.

As it stands right now, such an act has a very high payoff. Just look at the damage caused by 9/11. We are growing broke, our people vote in fear, our leaders exploit this to diminish our values and marginalize us as a nation, we abuse alliances to support pride and the list goes on and on and on.

The only reason to commit an act of terror is change period.

We have really changed (for the worse) since 9/11. Those guys got a HUGE BANG for the buck. Fricking huge. And we went into Iraq on top of it.

This is like smacking your little brother when you are pissed about something your sister did!

We need unity among nations on this issue. We could have had most of it in one fell swoop. We can still suck it up and get it, but it's gonna take a lot of work now. We may never get it, if we keep this crap up. That danger is as real as the stuff I just posted is.

Only then can we seriously work together to make terror essentially worthless. If an act happens, and nations conspire to address it, while keeping their values and people as safe as they can, the terrorist will be seen for what it is, not as more than it should be.

One more thing on security. It's not absolute, but it does depend on worth and that's the nut we've gotta crack right there.

If terrorism becomes not worth doing, then it won't be done period.

Looking at this mess, the dollars made and spent, and the general chaos, it's worth it for somebody, get what I mean?

As long as that worth exists, we are wasting our time and energy because somebody will exploit it. Count on it.

Missing, I'd have to respectfully disagree with two of your statements; The only reason to commit an act of terror is change period. and If terrorism becomes not worth doing, then it won't be done period.

The radical Islamic terrorists won't be happy until they kill all us "infidels". There is NO reasoning with them.

I don't want to, nor will I live in fear either. However, I am worried that it could and probably will happen again. I don't know when and I certainly hope and pray it doesn't but I have my doubts about DHS being able to stop it.

Our borders are wide open to infiltration. They need to be tightened up.

If the TSA really thinks that me taking my shoes off and dumping out my diet Coke is going to make air travel safe, then they are sadly mistaken.

I don't know what all the answers are, but whatever we do has to have some real teeth in it or its just window dressing.

And is that not change?

Semantics aside, the radicals can be marginalized. If they are marginalized, they won't have big numbers and that sharply reduces the threat.

And at that point, they are a lot easier to target with all kinds of brutal sanctions and military action.

Gotta pick our battles wisely, or the effort is wasted.

Where the effort is wasted, terror grows.

When you think through security issues, consider the potential actions available to suicide terrorists. We could make everybody fly naked, and still strong potential exists. Somebody could simply carry a pathogen on their person. Coupla nasty sneezes later and suddenly we have a huge problem. Pick something that gestates for 24 hours and we are cooked.

It comes down to worth. What will they get for it?

The extremists are capable of this stuff. Frankly, so is a mentally unstable person.

It could always happen, no matter our security efforts. This is not to say we should not make them strong, but we should not surrender our liberty in the process.

There is no point in that, as IT COULD ALWAYS HAPPEN.

Following the logic where the extremists won't rest, leads us down the known false path of simply killing them all.

Either they will rest, or they won't. If they will rest, that's a work problem, well addressed by the approach I outlined above.

(And approach we could have easily tried, BTW!)

If they won't rest, then we have dilemma in that ideas do not die with men. It's not possible to kill them all as there will always be a percentage of survivors willing to avenge their dead.

Getting back to IT CAN ALWAYS HAPPEN, what do we do then? Stay in a state of perpetual war? Keeps us busy, but IT STILL CAN ALWAYS HAPPEN.

As a race, we can come to grips with this. The alternative is not pretty.

If we reach a point where a terror strike does damage, but those that did it remain marginalized and likely do greater damage to themselves than they do with the terror, the question of worth then becomes an effective regulation of their behavior.

This will not be worth it. All efforts of ours, in this war on terror, must compound in such a way that they are moving us forward to the state of terror being not worth doing. Anyting else is a distraction. Might be theraputic, profitable, etc... but it does not address the problem for the longer term.

Man, we are all so worried about Iranian nukes... yea, nukes are bad. But listen:

North Korea has the nukes, and the madman, and the delivery system. Iran had maybe one of the three (I can't classify Ahmadinejad as nuts at this time, but he is definitely shrewd and fanatically devoted to his countrys well being). Why isn't Bush clanging the bell as loudly about N. Korea? (hint: no oil)

The three major terrorists attacks in recent history (Oklahoma City, 9/11 and anthrax) were all executed with domestic weapons. There is ample capacity for destruction by using commonly available resources in our own country. Importing even a small nuclear device entails many risks to the terrorist (of getting caught due to the detectabiltiy of radioactive material, or the volatility of a crudely built bomb, or irradiating oneself while handling such a device). Plus it is much less complicated (less risk of failure) to crash a plane full of fuel, or ignite a truck full of fertilizer. Terrorists want each attack to have the highest chance of success (not be a "dud") because their attempts are spaced so far apart. Nuclear bombs are the hardest thing to create, deliver, and detonate successfully.

And remember folks, we are talking about TERRORISM. Look at the word. The goal is not to kill, but to TERRORIZE. Yes, 9/11 was a terrible loss of life and property, but if this is the measure of "winning" this war then look at the loss of life and property our invasion has wreaked on Iraq - heck, we are whuppin' their asses according to that metric. But they are not trying to war against us, they are trying to TERRORIZE us. If they set off a truck bomb at the Super Bowl and kill a couple hundred fans and perhaps a player or two, and disrupt a sacrosanct American event in the process - well, we will have been well terrorized. No nuclear bomb needed. We'll all be scared to death again like we were after 9/11, we'll stop flying, and we'll again start buying duct tape by the case.

They don't want to actually kill us all. That is too much effort or expense. They simply want us to think, that at any moment, they *could* kill us all*. That's the war they are fighting. And we are playing right into their hands.

And frankly, Bush is playing into their hands. As long as we "cannot feel safe" then the Terrorists are winning and we are losing. As long as there is any chance at all that a country like Iran might attack us with nuclear weapons, we are not safe and the terrorists are winning.

So, if we keep letting the terrorists define the terms of winning and losing - which is, "How safe do you feel, America?" - then we can never win, and the terrioists can never lose. If we are feeling terrorized, the terrorists are winning.

Fears of unrealistic and improbable nuclear attacks - the terrorist love that we are freaking out about such unlikely disasters. The terrorists don't care if they make us afraid of them, or we make ourselves afraid of them, as long as we are afraid of them. Because that fear gives them the power they are craving.



*Or, that any American, anywhere, could be a victim of a terrorist attack, which is in its own way even more disconcerting ("terrorizing").

Edselehr, the reason why President Bush isn't as concerned about N. Korea isn't the fact that they don't have any oil.

Think about it. When was the last time you heard about a N. Korean suicide bomber or a N. Korean hijacking an airplane and flying it into a building, etc?

That being said, having a nut case like Kim Jong Il having nukes is scary. I don't think he's crazy enough to launch one at the US, and I hope he's not nuts enough to launch one at any country, but judging by their test, our Military should have no problem shooting it down if one was headed our way.

I also disagree with your statement They don't want to kill us all. To the jihadists, we are infidels and they want us dead. If they happen to kill themselves in the process, so much the better, they believe. They've got 70 virgins waiting for them.

My guess is they all look like Janet Reno!!!

Ok, that's twice.

Can you supply more info to support the idea they do want to kill us all?

Skybill,

When they say "Death to the infidels!" are you actually taking that literally, and all inclusively?

Americans never gave much thought to terrorism until terrorists started attacking us on our soil. Now we are all worried about "terrorists" in a pretty generic way. Do we mean all terrorists everywhere, or just terrorists that threaten America and Americans? What about the terrorists in Darfur? In Rwanda? Be honest - our disdain for terrorism really only extends to terrorists that actually, physically threaten us Americans.

So now, which infidels do you think the radical fundimentalists are referring to in their "death to infidels" chant? You got it - the ones that are threatening them and their way of life. Now granted, the super fringe wacko fundimentalists see every non-fundamentalist everywhere as a threat. But the average blue collar fundamentalist terrorist only wants to kill infidels that make it hard for him to lead his fundamentalist life. The American fashion magazines - the multinationals that extract resources and wealth from their country - the McDonalds that disrupt traditional customs - etc. These are the things the fundimentalists want to kill.

Do they want to see every man, woman, and child in America dead? C'mon now. To make them that cold and bloodthirsty is to demonize - in fact, animalize - them in a way reminiscent of monkey-faced "Japs" or the gorilla-faced "krauts" in the WWII propaganda posters. 9/11 was a big, dramatic, terrible, horrible, terrorist attack. Much destruction and death needed to happen for their TERRORIST goals to be achieved. They were not trying to kill as many people as possible (though killing was clearly a goal) - again, a plane crashed into a full NFL stadium is much more effective in that regard. They were destroying a symbol of Western wealth and power (the WTC) and trying to assert power through terrorism.

Is it your fear that *every* American could be killed by a terrorist attack, or that *any* American could be killed by a terrorist attack? Doesn't the former have just as much effect on your psyche as the latter? Hey, that's all the terrorist wants.

Missing, Let me first say that by "they" I mean the radical Muslims. Not all Muslims are radicals any more than any other group is either all good or all bad. In fact, the below web site even mentions that some of the Muslims are questioning the terrorist ideas.

This site mentions an al Qaeda website that gives some of their ideas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,11447,756638,00.html

However, I refer to one of the other threads that basically says "take what you read with a grain of salt" in so many words.

I'll try and find more info, but I'm going to call it a night for now.

Edselehr, My main concern is for the terrorists that will inflict damage here in America. Could they actually kill all Americans, not likely.

Secondarily, I'm also concerned about the terrorists that inflict damage in other countries too.

I don't think we'll ever wipe terrorism off the face of the earth. All we can do is quash (that's a 50 cent word) as much of it as we can, here and abroad.

"Edselehr, My main concern is for the terrorists that will inflict damage here in America. Could they actually kill all Americans, not likely."

We are not discussion their ability, but their desire and efforts. It sounds like you still believe that they want to kill us all. Except for a microscopic wacky fringe, I don't believe the average Al Quaeda member wants to see all Americans dead. They want to see the end of American hegemony in the world - they want to see Islamic fundamentalism more widely spread throughout the world - they want to be the theocratic authority in a country with real worldwide influence - they would love a return to the Islamic empires of a thousand years ago, when Europe was a inarticulate backwater, and Asia (the Arab world and China) was the center of religion, culture and technology. This is the root of fundamentalist thought - to return things to the way they used to be.

If America stands in the way of that, they are the enemy and must be eliminated. If America would get out of the way and get out of their region of the world, the fundamentalists would probably be very happy. We would still be infidels, but on the other side of the world and not a threat to their ambitions.

Of course, this fundamentalist dream is folly. The western world has rooted itself in the present and future of this planet, and the fundamentalists will be better off once they realize this. Slowly, I think some are. But it is not the nature of fundamentalism to recongnize the realities of the world easily. That goes for bin Laden, and that also goes for Pat Robertson.

Let's just wait for another neo-CONer to sell thousands and thousands of pounds of VX and mustard gas to an EVIL DICKtator so he can kill THOUSANDS of people that don't agree with him.

And the hits just keep on comin' ....

"A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington's way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_7

What really takes the cake is the way Congress will applaud Bush tonight for essentially getting nothing done domestically in 6 years except maybe for making it more advantageous to be very wealthy.

And across the oceans, all we are doing is losing lives and spending billions (not hyperbole mind you) of dollars (which incidentally doesn't come from taxes paid by the wealthiest corporations or individuals) and making enemies.

State Of The Union

Throw Bush out ASAP. What! Two years MORE ... oy

" You can't make this stuff up! "

But Bush and Co. do everyday!
I'm thinking that Rove could write for SNL and help them out of their slump.....