This is the MAIN reason why we need to take care of Iran NOW!!!!
KAFinBOOM!!!!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20560698/

"Iran claims reaching goal of 3,000 centrifuges"

But how many Democrats agree that Iran is a threat, and of those that do, will it be the same ineffectual 'let the UN try to fix it' response?

Herb

Iran is a threat to whom?

Between the Lying Liar in the White House and the "ineffectual" UN, the CLEAR choice is the UN for at least the next 16 months.

Actually, I always thought we should have taken them both out at the same time. Kind of a 2 for 1 special. It would have saved on shipping costs.

As far as shipping goes the package is already there.

Wait...forget that. Just go in with the Stealth's and bomb the living shit out of every known military and nuclear target and then go home for dinner!

Tomorrow's news....Iran now claims to have 3 centrifuges!

Wonder when the yellow cake from Niger will show up????
Iran first then Saudi Arabia!

Nah. We are trying to get Isreal to go after Syria then we can join up with our allies. No way we can invade with bad intel again and get away with it!

Okay... Syria then Iran then Saudi Arabia. We've taken out tons of other leaders and placed the one's we thought would serve our best interests. I say do it again... And again.... And again.....

Iran is a threat to whom? Please don't say " everybody."

Everybody. It would be easier to say who they are not a threat too. Come to think about it, I guess there isn't anybody on that list.

OK.

Will you list some countires that Iran is not a threat to?

That you even ask the question is cause for alarm.

It's kind of like hypothesizing who may or may not be in danger when a convicted criminal walks around the neighborhood with a rifle. Except here, we're talking nuclear weapons, so the neighborhood is greatly enlarged.

And on a totally different level that might get the democrats worked up: Since the left is so worried about global warming, even if you're not concerned about democratic nations like Israel...why not at least hand wring about the thermonuclear effects of Iran's bombs?

Enough with the games regarding rogue nations like Iran who develop nukes. We take 'em down hard and fast.

Herb

>>>"Will you list some countires that Iran is not a threat to?"

I believe I stated that there are no countries to list. Can you think of any?

I do not believe that The United States is threatened by Iran.

I believe some of our allies in the region are. I believe that they should be making THEIR plans to deal with that and see how we fit in those plans. Not how they fit into OUR plans. There are plenty of nations in the area that have the resources to deal with Iran. We do NOT NEED to take a lead on it however.

So, The United States. There's one.

Chickenjuggler, if you wanna hand over a major share of the world's oil supplies to a terrorist nation, you're in the minority.

Herb

Doesn't this mean we can be honest about the oil issue?

Doesn't it also mean we are being very foolish right now, hosing this thing up and not being able to admit that and make changes that might actually get it done?

I'm sure nobody wants to get caught up in an oil crisis. That's a big part of why many of us want change now, before we are really broke ass, military weak, and global reputation too diminished to help us when we need it.

If it's all about the oil, we then should act like it's all about the oil, make our deals, execute properly, don't cut corners on cost, etc...

That isn't happening, and it's a problem.

Edit: If we end up being big enough asses, maybe it's in the best interests of others to see us knocked down a peg or two. Think about it.

"Chickenjuggler, if you wanna hand over a major share of the world's oil supplies to a terrorist nation, you're in the minority."

I do not want that. But the threat that Iran, if left unattacked by The United States, will gain a " major " ( please define that, Herb. Like, tell me how much they have now vs. how much they'd have if The United States doesn't attack? ) share of the world's oil supplies is not realistic to me. Therefore, I am not convinced that they are a threat.

But let's say they did get a " major " share by The United States not attacking Iran;

From whom would they get a " major " share of the world's oil supplies? Which country would give it to them by The United States not attacking?

So how, specifically, would we be affected by Iran controlling more oil than they do now? Would we pay more for oil? How much more? Do you think that all other oil producing nations would let them dictate the entire market?

Please, take this ALL the way out to the end for me.

(reading with interest --forget my post)

Oh, and before I forget;

#1. I understand very little about how the oil market ACTUALLY works. So I should be allowed to ask those of you who can see the future so clearly to answer all my simple questions.

#2. I would like to address motive for The United States attacking Iran ( Oil ) soon. But not yet. ( My point in saying that is that Missing, as usual, is about 4 steps ahead of me. In a good way. But I want to get some facts into evidence before I feel comfortable in making too large of leaps from where I am just yet ).

Chickenjuggler, you're full of hypotheticals.

That's a problem when rather than take these threats seriously, we wait until the threat has grown exponentially.

Look no further than Saddam's ability to wreak havoc by invading the Kuwaiti oil fields. The left didn't want us to stop him, even then.

You ask plenty of reasonable questions, then admit you don't have the answers, then dismiss any possibility of serious problems with a wave of the hand because it simply isn't 'realistic.'

Stop giving evil the benefit of the doubt. You appear to trust terrorists more than the nations they attack.

Herb

Jab!
Use the term "we"!
Accuse!
Pound Ham Fist!
Insert the use of generic, non-specific blob noun known only to HerrB as "Evil"
Light fuse!
Run!

Ho-hum, just another inane post from Herrbocrite. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

P.S. Saddam is still dead.

Hey Herb, give Chicken his due here.

Taking it a step at a time is no bad thing. I didn't see any hand waving away, just a simple request to "tell me more.".

That's about as good as it gets. Asking that, means, "Hmmm... maybe there is something being missed here. Before coming to a position, it's a great idea to know what that is.

Frankly, I agree.

So...

"So how, specifically, would we be affected by Iran controlling more oil than they do now? Would we pay more for oil? How much more? Do you think that all other oil producing nations would let them dictate the entire market? "

This is what happens with you sometimes Herb, you get pressed for some logic and then cave. Labeling me friendly to terrorists because I ask you to show your work on getting to your answer. All the while you miss an opportunity to actually convince me that attacking Iran is needed now and by us. Because I was actaully a little nervous about your answers. I mean, I was open minded enough to start to feel like " OK, I'm opening myself up to what could obviously crash my own argument." But THAT WAS THE POINT!

I'm full of hypotheticals? Yes. Right. You see that? Good. And you are full of " it's an obvious truth." But you NEVER just SAY what that truth is or how you got there.

Just because you imply that there is obvious truth out there doesn't convince me that we should attack another country.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but I think I win this debate against you so far. You just won't answer any of my questions about how you got there. Because if you did, it would expose a lack of truth along the way and it would, as you say, slit your own throat.

That didn't take long.

Next.

And by the way, what I am doing is not presenting hypotheticals. It's asking questions about YOUR hypotheticals.

But you are still right, I do questions all kinds of scenarios. Given our current situation in Iraq that was a direct cause of not asking enogh questions or plotting out out enough hypotheticals, I feel very comfortable with beling labeled as " full of hypotheticals." And yes, I'm sure you'll call it hand-wringing. I call it a mistake not to think about it.

And admit it Herb, you love me more because of it. What would you rather have? Me starting out with a statement like " The entire Globe will rain chocolate pudding in 6 years! " and never show you how I got there? Or would you like me to show you how we get the chocolate rain in 6 years? Wouldn't a DISCUSSION be more helpful?

Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA

"I didn't see any hand waving away, just a simple request to "tell me more."

Asking questions is fine.

But it seems a tad indulgent when we're in a fight for our very lives. I sometimes do it myself in other ways, but such armchair postulating with this terrorist/war situation reminds me of arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's because right now it's a luxury we don't have and it goes no where. My main concern is that while we're navel gazing, our enemies want to take out our Navy.

Chickenjuggler, somethings don't need a lot of explaining, like 3,000 dead on 9/11 or the Spain train terror attacks. I think the basic difference between the democrats and republicans is that the democrats have a 1938 American mindset and the republicans have a 1941 American mindset. In 1938, we still had hopes for the league of nations, a precursor to the UN and we were pretty much a New Deal society under FDR.

And while he had the matches for years, Hitler really put the match to the fuse to touch off WWII in 1939 when he invaded Poland. Republicans see our current situation as Pearl Harbour revisited.

"And admit it Herb, you love me more because of it."

Ok, ya got me there. That's true.

Herb

"Asking questions is fine. But it seems a tad indulgent when we're in a fight for our very lives."

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm not kidding.

Like I said, democrats are in 1938, albeit with a Neville Chamberlain mindset and republicans are in a 1941 mindset...December 8th, 1941, to be exact. FDR knew what he was doing when he declared war on Imperial Japan, which killed fewer people in Pearl Harbour than the nearly 3,000 innocents murdered by terrorists on 9/11.

Herb

"Asking questions is fine. But it seems a tad indulgent when we're in a fight for our very lives."

Well at least you have finally come out and just said it.

I understand. We really differ on that. So be it. And I say this with no sarcasm and lacking condecending tone; Thanks for the moment of clarity about yourself. It helps.

I'm all done here now.

No problem.

Conservatives would be responsive, I think, to different types of questions. Just not those that cause delay and provide the enemy with the time and morale to carry on their terror.

But that's only my opinion.

Herb

This is nuts!

So, fear means just throw thinking out the window and act?

I'm sorry, but I don't see that kind of crisis right now. Nobody else, that matters, does either.

If that were the case, solid justification for our current fuck ups would be easily found and difficult to refute.

Appreciate you just out and saying it.

But I gotta say Herb. You really need to ask yourself if the fear is being used to manipulate you.

I don't want to diminish the events at hand, but I really do want to apply some rational pressure to the idea, "we are fighting for our very lives"

That needs some support. It just isn't a given.

So, let's talk about that some. Is it really true? Why?

Leave them BE! You really think they are not gonna sell oil to us at a decent price? Think again. They don't sell oil they starve. The only thing we are doing right now is forcing our own Empirical values on a country that does not want them. They have been here for thousands of years and we rush in and want them to change in one year! Deluded....or on ludes if you think that this will stick after we eventually leave cause once we leave we most likely won't return given current public opinion! And once we leave a political/military coo will happen in short course and undo everything we put in place.

"..fear means just throw thinking out the window and act.."

No, that's not what I said.

"You really need to ask yourself if the fear is being used to manipulate you."

I could go there with you, except for one small detail...and it also happens to be the proof we're fighting for our very lives: We entered WWII after a smaller number of our innocents were slaughtered than in New York's Twin Towers. If that isn't a wake up call, I don't know what is. I don't need Tom Peterson banging on my TV to tell me that, even without a morning cup of coffee.

If WWII was worth fighting, it's justified that we fight this one every bit as hard.

Herb

Herb.....in WWII another country declared war on the US.....here we have a group of militant radicals hiding within a country of which that country never formally declared war on us. We targeted and eliminated the threats we could and as long as we were there toppled a despot and forced them to convert into a democratic government. Hmmmmm......Why don't we take their land like we did with the Indian nation's way back when? WE invaded back them, forced them to convert and killed them if they fought back, then took their land! Why don't just hang a US flag over there and just make it US territory? We have conquered them so we should keep the prize right?

Let's stay on track.

We were attacked. More innocent Americans were killed than anytime in recent history and it was a terrorist act.

We can take it seriously, punish the perpetrators and prevent it from happening again...or we either go the way of Rome and rot from within due to our own complacency, or fall from enemy attack.

Herb

We struck at what targets we could and then toppled a government. Who gave the US the right to interfere with the interrnal politics of another nation? Now be careful on your answer.

I'm there too.

Another way to consider that. I don't know anybody that does not take terror seriously. However, some perspective is in order. 50K people will die from tobacco this year. More will die in the next few months, from just driving, than died in 9/11.

In the bigger picture view then, risk is not significantly changed by terror at this moment in time. The threat of more of it is real however.

So, what we do, needs to impact terror right? If we are reducing our risk, that's a good thing. IMHO, it is the primary thing we need to do.

And if one buys into the "fighting for our lives bit" (which is reasonable), then assessing that risk becomes even more important, right?

So, let's take an analogy. I'm in my house and somebody engages in terror. Maybe they kill the family pet, or something. I get death threats and my perception of risk is really high. So I act to mitigate that risk, or eliminate the problem.

If my actions end up making more enemies, of the kind I'm worried about, isn't that like fighting fire with fire?

If my actions consume my ability to address the problem, without actualy addressing it, isn't that like denial essentially? I know I need to fight, but pick the wrong fight for whatever reason.

That's how I see this stuff happening. The whole "soft on terror" bit is just dishonest in that it marginalizes these kinds of questions, without adding any real value; namely, building support for a policy and administration that may well be doing us a whole lot more harm than good.

"Who gave the US the right to interfere with the interrnal politics of another nation?"

If you were to have asked FDR or Harry Truman, they would have likely responded 'We didn't want this war and we didn't start it, but we're going to finish it.' And do you actually believe that FDR or Mr. Truman would have hesitated to 'interfere' with other nations fighting against us by aiding our enemies?

Mr. Bush echoed a similar sentiment when he warned the terrorists that we would pursue them relentlessly. If anyone harbours terrorists, they can expect harsh consequences.

Herb

Terrorism is not even in my top 10 concerns for the US or the world. I think people on the right are being manipulated by fear, and if you look at the last 6 years since 9/11 happened, it's obvious that manipulation by fear does not produce positive results. If the US is rotting like Rome, it's not because of terrorism...

"If the US is rotting like Rome, it's not because of terrorism..."

Perhaps not.

And maybe we should simply shut out terrorism by defending US soil only. Fortress America. That means borders, my friends. And a dramatically different way of life.

Herb

That's crap!

We can do exactly what we did before all the fear manupulation. In fact, if we went back to our founding values, quit strong arming other nations for our own gain, or that of multi-national corporations, we would then be in a far better position to address terror directly.

We would also represent, once again, how things should be running. Our free society is the best their is, when it's not being exploited.

We changed the world with this stuff, now we cower in fear, surrendering it bit by bit.

Chaps my ass.

This whole gloom and doom, different way of life bit is nothing more than more of the same fear based thought, doing us a lot of harm.

I've written this many times before:

Either America means something or it does not. If we say we cannot have freedom, then we are proven wrong and our founding efforts were a waste of time. People cannot live free and get along.

Clearly, I'm not there.

So, then we are right then! Meaning, we can address terror without having to surrender our natural freedoms.

Which is it?

I totally see no justification for the latter. We've been through worse and remained free. We can get through where we are now and remain free as well.

If this is not true, then the terrorists have won.

We don't need a bunker mentality, reinforced with fear. We do need to remember who we are (Americans dammit!) and why it matters. (Freedom is a given, not a privilege)

We then work from there, just as we always have, changing the world to work our way, not surrendering core things because it's easier.

>>>"Terrorism is not even in my top 10 concerns for the US or the world."

Naivety is not becoming on you.

No it really isn't Deane.

Put that threat into perspective for us huh?

Compare and contrast to things that are killing people, here, every day.

Better, look at the actual damage done on 9/11. People dead, some buildings gone, some money blown.

Ok, that's bad, but is it really as bad as we've been told it is?

Or, is that a direct result of this administration leveraging the perception of danger, cultivating fear and engaging in exploitation?

There is a strong and growing case for the latter, particularly now as we see rats jumping the ship and information finally coming out.

"...we can address terror without having to surrender our natural freedoms."

So both FDR and Lincoln were wrong, then?

Herb

Naivety is not becoming on you either.

Well....we have surely shut out terrorism in Darfur because they never attacked us, but an ommission of action against terrorism on this level is simply amazing. To bad for them they don't export oil to the US! Over 400,000 dead and we just watch this on the evening news.......wait.....they don't air that news anymore......guess it's no good for the ratings......we need to see Britney and Paris instead. Just put on the ol' media blinders for the country and then everything is just hunky dory!

Yes.

We absolutely remain a free nation, period end of story. We die free, we do not live scared.

If we surrender these things, terror wins, we lose and a lot of change in the world, we worked hard for, ends up being for nothing.

Sorry, but that's American. I find it very difficult to even entertain the discussion! Are you guys just big ass pussies or what?

There is no discussion on this.

I'm hoping the next administration will take a harder look at Darfur. Horrible.

Maybe we should just send the girls on a trip! At least we would get some coverage right?

LMAO........send the dipsy twits over there along with their press entourage!

"We die free, we do not live scared."

Sounds great.

Two simple questions, then, with that approach in mind.

1. How do we prevent another 9/11
2. What is our response when attacked, like 9/11

Herb

1.) Pull Bush's our government's heads out of their asses!
2.) Full blown retaliation, go in bomb the shit out of them and go home for dinner! Job Done! Treat it like a confirmed bachelor does on a one night stand. Move in, penetrate, score, and then get the hell out before you have to meet the parents!

Some of you brave guys sound like Harry Truman (the one in Washington State), who refused to move from near Mt. St. Helens, saying it would never get him. He's now lying under about half a mile of mud.

I met him in person many, many times.....have you? Hey spent his whole life there and knew there was a threat to "Himself" by staying but he died in the place he loved and and spent his whole life at. Cranky old man but he was kind of cool in his own way. Awnry as all get out. Yes...If I was him at that time and in the situation I would have done the same, but I don't see the relivance to this Deane. I don't think we should wait to be buried but instead am in favor of any pre-emptive strikes to take out terror targets whenever and wherever they are. But I am not in favor of toppling governments and engaging in an internal political battle within another country that we will never win! Let them govern themselves and if they start to arm themselves take out the military targets with precision strikes from the air....we don't need ground pounders over there for that!

Nice one Deane.

(I'm gonna work up something for that. It's just too good. You get a cookie.)

For now, I'll just say this. As with most comparisons of this kind, there is more to it than simple ignorance.

Two questions....

You do know, these have been asked and answered here MANY times don't you Herb?

Trying to decide if I value the therapy...

Dark has a nice start on it

Deane and Herb, I'm far from naive. And I'll tell ya what: I've got more years left on this earth than both of you combined, so I have more at stake as compared to you two.

9/11 could have been prevented with better airport security. That's all it would have taken. Future 9/11's will be prevented because we know better. Sure, there's always the chance someone will set off a bomb on a train or something, but realistically your chances of being involved in something like that are nil.

I'm more concerned with things like crime, poverty, infrasructure, pollution and destruction of our environment, the economy, energy/oil and how we will get it in the future, healthcare, over-population, illegal immigration, taxes, national debt, and our freedom to privacy. When I wake up in the morning, terrorism falls behind all of those concerns for me personally.

No, 911 could not have been prevented with a little better security. All they had were little box knifes, if there was tighter security, they could have used a broken bottle, pen or other sharp object and got the same result.

Very good security could have stopped it, but its unralistic to think airline passengers, with what was known at that time, would be put through that.

We have pretty good security at US prisons, and they still get contraband through. Germany POW camps had excellent security, and contraband got in.

With today's post 9/11 standards, do you really think any of the hijackers would have been sucessful?

I say for certainty that if today's airline security standards were in place, not one of those 4 jets would have been hijacked and there would not have been a 9/11. One of the biggest blunders of the Bush Administrtaion, after Iraq of course, is that they didn't push to increase airline security after it was known that flying planes into buildings was a viable and very destructive tactic.

>>>"With today's post 9/11 standards, do you really think any of the hijackers would have been sucessful?"


I agree. The Bush administrations anti-terrorists efforts have been pretty successful.

>>>"And I'll tell ya what: I've got more years left on this earth than both of you combined,"

Herb is only twelve, but comes off mature for his age.

Attitudes have changed, prior to 911, a hijacker was pretty much left alone, until the plane was on the ground, passengers were told, just keep your sweats, and dont do anything to make the situation worse.

As to security, a few months ago, my sister took a .25 through airport security, she had forgotten it was in the bottom of her purse, my thought was, girl, if you ever need that, how you gonna get to it?

If someone wanted to get a weapon through airport security, there are several ways, use a non metal weapon, there are several knifes on hte market, and at least 2 handguns, that airport sensors won't pick up.

I think the current administration, has greatly increased airport security, but all security fields have holes.

"The Bush administrations anti-terrorists efforts have been pretty successful."

If you disregard 9/11 happening on their watch after they were warned that terrorists wanted to fly planes into buildings, I suppose there's some truth to that since no more hijackings have occurred since. Too bad it took 9/11 for Bush to pay attention.

2 points, if you had tried to increase airport security prior to 911 to what you have today, there would have been riots. people wouldnt have put up with it.

the other if you read the PDB, it all pointed to an attack overseas, and some of the info was withheld to the FBI, because of reuling by the prior administration.

Locks on the cockpits would have stopped 9/11 and would have caused no controversy.

Before 911, almost no one had gotten hurt in a hijacking. And you really think the door would have stayed locked, if they'd started cutting up a crew member or passenger?

"Herb is only twelve, but comes off mature for his age."

You're too kind, Deane. Flattery will get you everywhere.

Herb

Don't you two have a date later in some toilet stall?

Keep your ham fists to yourself.
Conservatives can Kum-Bah-Yah with the best of them.

Herb

Maybe you two can 'talk' Hummers. Invite Okie, he's a 'Deliverance' kind of guy. You can fist each other while singing kum-bye-yah till the cows come home.

troll sez: "1. How do we prevent another 9/11"

Actually capturing the ACTUAL terrorist ringleader who ACTUALLY caused 9/11 (like bin laden) instead of giving up and going after an IMAGINARY one (like saddam).

Had he done that, Bush would be a world hero and solidly in charge of a permanent Republican Majority.

Now, we're faced with handing the Presidency over to another Clinton, this time with presidential powers unfettered with Constitutional restrictions. Thanks a lot George!

Bin who?

"Attitudes have changed, prior to 911, a hijacker was pretty much left alone, until the plane was on the ground, passengers were told, just keep your sweats, and dont do anything to make the situation worse."

Nwokie's correct. The 9/11 hijackers exploited a mentality about hijackers that is forever gone. Even with all of the security measures at the gate we see today, they would have still been able to pull it off because the idea of such "suicide hijackers" was not generally accepted.

However, if the onboard measures had been in place (secure cockpit doors, increased air marshal patrols) I think the 9/11 hijackers would have failed. Nail clipper checks at the gate I think are basically useless for stopping potential hijackers - they can always find a way around it.

(Once I got on board to find a small jack knife in my carry-on that I had forgotten about - security comletely missed it.)

Airport security is only window dressing.

If those whacko’s wanted to blow up a plane they are going to. No matter how many National Guard troops are stationed at the airport with their M-16's.

Suicide hijacking has already been done. Next time they'll shoot the plane out of the air with a shoulder fired missile or something.

What really pisses me off is that the TSA and airport security is simply reactionary and not proactive.

I can't take my bottle of diet coke on the plane unless I pay extortion type prices and buy it after the security check point, but on one of my flight a while back there was this old lady knitting who knows what with knitting needles that had to be 12" to 14" long.

I can see it now:

"ALRIGHT. NOBODY MOVE. I'VE GOT A BOTTLE OF DIET COKE AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO USE IT!"

I travel a lot for my job and given the choice of going through all the hassle the way security is now and having no security check point and just getting on the plane, I'll take my chances on the latter.

Skybill - I wouldn't blame the TSA folks. They are only following directives handed down from some pencil-pusher in DC who controls every action of every TSA employee in every airport in the U S of A. They are only doing what they are told, and the rules are constantly being changed/tweaked on them, with really no way to convey the changes to the traveling public. The job title and description basically makes TSA a reactionary group anyways. Prevent certain items from going through, and confiscate any of those items that people DO try to get through.

Those of us behind security that work there have to deal with it too. I run a restaurant, yet I cannot have a single sharp-point knife or any cutting/stabbing instrument in my restaurant. I tell ya, it sucks cutting onions and tomatoes with what constitutes a butter knife, but we work with what we have to.

What about the war on American poverty, American illiteracy, American Homeless! These are wars we can win and should win! Why not put in the same effort to those that we do for our precious dinosaur juice? Riddle me that Batman!

Brian, I don't actually blame the folks at the airport. Most of them are fairly pleasant to deal with and they are just doing their job, although a very few of them are real asses.

It's the process as a whole.

The example you gave is a perfect example of how screwed up the system is. I'm fairly sure that your employees had to go through a security check before they were issued badges. It's stupid that you can't have the tools you need to do your work.

I wonder if they confiscate the maintenance workers tools before they go thru security. That would be classic!

Anyway, I know you deal with it every day and I only deal with it when I travel, but it gets old. They have taken all the fun out of traveling. I'd almost prefer to drive rather than put up with their stupidity.