NYT: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

[DRUNK]

Would you agree that we should choose our battles more carefully, then? Considering that it appears that Iraq posed little or no threat to US security and yet we are up to our ears militarily in their country?

Absolutely. I agree. We should not have touched Iraq. We should of immediately went after Iran. Then we wouldn't be having these problems. Saddam wasn't an immediate problem. We knew Saddam. We were buddies with Saddam. We knew he wasn't insane and we knew he wasn't stupid. But remember, Saddam was getting old, and eventually Saddam would die. What happens then? I think that's one of the big reasons we went there.

[JimmyPage1977]

Absolutely. I agree. We should not have touched Iraq. We should of immediately went after Iran. Then we wouldn't be having these problems. Saddam wasn't an immediate problem. We knew Saddam. We were buddies with Saddam. We knew he wasn't insane and we knew he wasn't stupid. But remember, Saddam was getting old, and eventually Saddam would die. What happens then? I think that's one of the big reasons we went there.

I agree.

[Hermit]

Ok. Well I guess you live with the fact that you feel other countries are justified in attacking your own country. I bet you won't feel like that when shit hits the fan.

No one is justified in attacking the US.

That you have to resort to twisting my words and countering an argument I never made, suggests to me you can't argue the point I actually made.

What I said was that other countries could use as a justification for attacking America the same logic you're using to justify a preemptive attack on Iran. From that you conclude "you feel other countries are justified in attacking your own country"? C'mon DRUNKard,.. is that really best you could do in response to my point?

My point.. if you're discerning enough to recognize it.. is that your logic is totally bogus (perhaps even "insane", eh? ). My point is that your logic is NOT a sound justification for attacking another nation.. let alone preemptively attacking another nation. And my point is that its a logic that could just as easily be used as a justification for other nations to attack America as it is being used by you as a justification for a preemeptive attack on Iran.

Get it?

Iran's own parliament was screaming, on the parliament floor, "death to America!!!!!". So, a country's elected officials, who some might assume would the best and brightest of the country, is screaming shit like that in the moderan world? Insanity. Or when the leader of your country denies the Holocaust existed, and wishes to wipe a country off the map (Israel). Or when Iran is helping arm and train people that are killing us soldiers.

Iran is a ticking time bomb. And if it's not dealt with, we are going to be dealing with some serious issues.

Iranian bombastic rhetoric is a justification for preemptive attack on Iran?

Iranian denial of the holocaust is justification for preemptive attack on Iran?

puh-lease.

You said "look at Iran's insane behavior". I asked you to cite an example of something Iran has actually "done" that is more insane than anything George Bush has done. I didn't ask what they've "said". So then,.. can you cite any examples of Iran's "insane behavior" that is any more insane (or dangerous) (or threatening to other nations) than the behavior of George Bush?

"Iran is helping arm and train people that are killing us soldiers", you say. First of all, there's nothing "insane" about that [i don't suppose you consider it "insane" that the US was training and arming Iraqi soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war, eh?]; and secondly, how is that a justification for a preemptive attack on Iran due to concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions?

I don't think you respect their religious fanaticism.

I appreciate the threat posed by radical Islamic religious fanaticism.

And I respect the Constitution enough to know that no threat is worth sacrificing

our civil liberties over; and no threat is worth abandoning our principles over.

During the Cold War, Russia had nukes armed and aimed at America. We lived under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, and yet even under that threat America did not resort to preemptive attacks on other nations, nor did our presidents resort to undermining our Constitution by infringing on our civil liberties.

I don't think you respect the US Constitution.

I think you're so scared that you're being ruled by fear rather than reason.

Viva La Constitution!

[Hermit]

Absolutely. I agree. We should not have touched Iraq. We should of immediately went after Iran. Then we wouldn't be having these problems. Saddam wasn't an immediate problem. We knew Saddam. We were buddies with Saddam. We knew he wasn't insane and we knew he wasn't stupid. But remember, Saddam was getting old, and eventually Saddam would die. What happens then? I think that's one of the big reasons we went there.

you are insane, DRUNK.

..or maybe you're inebriated, INSANE.

I'm glad you now, finally, recognize and acknowledge that Saddam wasn't an immediate problem (ie, Iraq was NOT a threat to the US). That sure wasn't your tune before you enlisted. You insisted Saddam was a threat and needed to be taken out.. for the survival of western civilization as we know it. What a crock of shit that was, eh? Where your logic regarding Iran breaks down into complete insanity is that even though Iran is no more of a threat to us today than Saddam was when Bush invaded Iraq, you'd repeat the mistake of preemptively invading a country that does not pose an immediate threat to us.

[Del Zeppnile]

No I don't support the notion of Iran having nukes. I don't think it is a "good idea".

However, in many ways I think Iran is, and was, a bigger threat than Iraq ever thought of being.

YOU THINK? Of course Iran has a been the bigger threat. Big enough of a threat in fact that for a long time we we willing to keep Saddam in power to help offset that threat. Iran has been the nation which has been exporting terrorism more than any other. Iran is the one with long term Shiite goals to dominate the other oil producing nations. And let's not forget that Iranians/Persians are not Arabs... they actually can fight.

The 'bright bulbs' wanted to go into Iran and 'impose democracy,' by force if necessary. They just thought we oughta do Iraq first.

I don't think there has ever been any plans of going into Iran the way we did in Iraq. It's just not a very good military idea. But I do believe that the CIA probably have some plan to topple the government from within.

Those bright lights are finally/still showing that they've actually been dim bulbs, and we have quite possibly made the world a much more dangerous place than it was 10 years ago.

You don't think it's always been a dangerous place? All I know is that we havn't had another 9/11 type attack in this country. Even though some groups have been trying.

I'd say those so called "dim bulbs" have done a good job of keeping us safe.

Somewhere in that NIE thingamy was the opinion/statement/something that Iran stopped its nuke efforts due to the sanctions against it. Great. That's what sanctions are for. Yet Dubya made it sound like we need to up the ante because Iran did what we wanted it to do.

Iran is playing a game. On one hand the sanctions have hurt thier economy and standard of living. And that puts pressure on their regime. But at the same time they are enriching uranium at a very high level. WHY?

[Teaforone]

WHO CARES

[Lake of Shadows]

YOU THINK? Of course Iran has a been the bigger threat. Big enough of a threat in fact that for a long time we we willing to keep Saddam in power to help offset that threat. Iran has been the nation which has been exporting terrorism more than any other. Iran is the one with long term Shiite goals to dominate the other oil producing nations. And let's not forget that Iranians/Persians are not Arabs... they actually can fight.

So... are we back to the notion that we went to war with Iraq due to a typo?

If Iran has been exporting terror more than any other nation, why the hell did we throw our military into Iraq? That's not the story we were handed a few years ago.

Yep, it was fine for us to help Saadam stay in power, give him weapons and stuff for making weapons, etc. but when we decided ... something... then all of a sudden he was bad and evil and must be stopped. So, we destabilize a relatively stable country that was not run by islamic extremists, and now we have... a big friggin' mess, a few thousand US soldiers dead, several tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, and we've accomplished what? Encouraging the import of Al Qaeda into Iraq? Pardon me if I don't list that as an accomplishment on my resume.

I

don't think there has ever been any plans of going into Iran the way we did in Iraq. It's just not a very good military idea. But I do believe that the CIA probably have some plan to topple the government from within.

Well, we had a guy in Iraq... that Chalabi fellow, we were apparently grooming one in... Jordan, I think, and I don't doubt we've been trying to groom one in Iran. For some reason we didn't want Chalabi messing with them though, so he was persona non gratis for a brief period of time.

Is it time for that ol' 'democracy by force' stuff?

Iran is playing a game. On one hand the sanctions have hurt thier economy and standard of living. And that puts pressure on their regime. But at the same time they are enriching uranium at a very high level. WHY?

Maybe we oughta do a modern-day version of the old cold war stuff. Let's give every country nukes. If anyone gets stupid enough to launch one at Israel, they'll be glow-in-the-dark dust within minutes. .

[wanna be drummer]

WHO CARES

Well ya see son, we care about Iran because we care about what happens to the world.

Now run along and find some goodies to eat and leave the talking to the rest of us