quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I don't know that it is appalling ignorance on anyone elses part.

Ron

Please, tell me what it is then. I really want to understand and be tolerant. And don't say differences of opinion. It's not like we are discussing the merits of more vs. less lube.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Read up on the subject, and avoid knee-jerk reactions?

quote:



Yet, if an attack on Iran is among "options ... on the table," who put it there? Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran? And when was it granted? And are all options also "on the table" if North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons?

What makes these questions other than academic is that Bush is putting in place military assets that will enable him to order and effect the rapid nuclear castration of Iran. But scarcely a peep of protest has been heard from our congressional leadership.

quote:



But whatever motive he has, Bush is putting in place forces to enable him to order an all-out attack on Iran's navy, air force, and anti-aircraft, anti-ship and land-based missiles – and all its known nuclear facilities.

Now, as there is no indication Iran is preparing any attack on U.S. forces or facilities, or the homeland, such a U.S. attack would be the first strike in a preventive war – like the ones Japan executed at Port Arthur in 1904 and Pearl Harbor in 1941. Only Bush could claim Iran had been repeatedly warned of what he would do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

He lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq in 2003; he's trying to pull the same trick over Iran today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

... Uncle Sam's record of invading under false pretenses in order to steal another country's natural resource.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

This thread I know is going to test the very limits of my ability to remain polite and considerate in the face of such appalling ignorance. Am I the only one who sees the inherent dangers in allowing a country ruled by a theocracy whose only ideolgy is death to the infidels to have nuclear weapons?

How many authors plagerized this amongst themselves in your vast and insightful readings?  Seems to be a scootch and a half or so short of depth and breadth, in my view.

Seems to me we should be seeing some sort of imbriglio down at the patent office vis a vis this rampant disregard for footnoting amongst the illiterati.

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Used much Iraq oil lately? I guess that's why the cost of gas is so low nowadays?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:



Yet, if an attack on Iran is among "options ... on the table," who put it there? Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran? And when was it granted? And are all options also "on the table" if North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons?

What makes these questions other than academic is that Bush is putting in place military assets that will enable him to order and effect the rapid nuclear castration of Iran. But scarcely a peep of protest has been heard from our congressional leadership.

This, by Pat Buchanan himself!

And there's more.

quote:



But whatever motive he has, Bush is putting in place forces to enable him to order an all-out attack on Iran's navy, air force, and anti-aircraft, anti-ship and land-based missiles – and all its known nuclear facilities.

Now, as there is no indication Iran is preparing any attack on U.S. forces or facilities, or the homeland, such a U.S. attack would be the first strike in a preventive war – like the ones Japan executed at Port Arthur in 1904 and Pearl Harbor in 1941. Only Bush could claim Iran had been repeatedly warned of what he would do.

This article is barely one year old.

Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran?

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised  ... (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

uhh ... and you quote Pat Buchanan because .... ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

"If Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon at some point in time, the world is going to say, what happened to them in 2007? How come they couldn't see the impending danger? What caused them not to understand that a country that once had a weapons program could reconstitute the weapons program? How come they couldn't see that the important first step in developing a weapon is the capacity to be able to enrich uranium? How come they didn't know that with that capacity, that knowledge could be passed on to a covert program? What blinded them to the realities of the world? "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103739264407641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Why not? He's a Republican, like Bush. I think it's interesting that Buchanan disagrees with Bush so radically. Additionally, his political credentials are more credible than Bush, in my opinion. (Note that in no way do I usually agree with Buchanan.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

It's interesting you take refuge behind the Constitution of the United States as if it was the be all and end all of the president's foreign policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

As for the rest, I don't see where Bush has shown that he has ever had a penchant for negotiations

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I'm interested in your view over the nuclear conundrum in Iran, not over whether you were in the school debating society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


I think the most likely result of Iran's continued attempts to gain hegemony in the area is a glass parking lot.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Only a few weeks ago, Bush came just short of declaring war on Iran. Let's not forget his rhetoric about Iran being a 'rogue state'. He lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq in 2003; he's trying to pull the same trick over Iran today.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/bush.iran/index.html

According to recent figures, Iran is the fourth producer and exporter of crude oil.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm

Understandably, Iran is feeling rather threatened by Uncle Sam's record of invading under false pretenses in order to steal another country's natural resource. Don't you think it's rather normal Iran should wish to protect itself against America's aggressive foreign policy???

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

"If Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon at some point in time, the world is going to say, what happened to them in 2007? How come they couldn't see the impending danger? What caused them not to understand that a country that once had a weapons program could reconstitute the weapons program? How come they couldn't see that the important first step in developing a weapon is the capacity to be able to enrich uranium? How come they didn't know that with that capacity, that knowledge could be passed on to a covert program? What blinded them to the realities of the world? "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103739264407641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Orion,

In the event they do turn up armed to the bollocks with nuclear weapons, I'm not convinced the world would say, "how come we couldn't see the impending danger?"

Some of us in the world (I'd estimate the majority, but have no figures to support) have a different view to some on this board. Some of us would say, "well, we've got them, so fair's fair".

On a related note, the only country in the world that has used them is the United States. For many of us outside of the United States, this tells a story.

Now, I appreciate people will be saying "us?, the United States?, leaders of the free world!? (as I've seen on here), but many of us believe the United States is the most dangerous country on the planet, by virtue of size, economic strength (the aforementioned are not a problem in their own right), and the last vital ingredient - the lack of informed opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

He lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq in 2003; he's trying to pull the same trick over Iran today.

You know the difference between "intentional misleading" versus "mistaken belief"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

... Uncle Sam's record of invading under false pretenses in order to steal another country's natural resource.

Used much Iraq oil lately? I guess that's why the cost of gas is so low nowadays?

Firm