Comments on: Iran’s Big Stick

By: dirtbogger

dirtbogger — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:54:24 +0000

lando– not this document it shows that we were planning on going to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran long before 9-11 and we needed a new Pearl Harbor type event to get public support!—- On 9/11 we got that event!
It has been about controling the oil since day one.

By: Pat Hendrix

Pat Hendrix — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:20:10 +0000

Lando Calrissian,
$7.00 a gallon might be worth it, maybe, if we were assured of eradicating their capacity to create nukes. That’s not likely, unfortunately. If the Iranians are determined to “eat grass”, they will have a nuke. That’s a sad fact, but true. The only chance we have is to make the probability so painful that they decide it’s not in their best interest. Not sure that’s possible, but this might be our only chance. I know everyone is distubred that they launched medium-range missiles today, but the fact they did suggests they are ready to bargain – from a position of strength, but bargain nonetheless.

And the Mullahs do not want a fight. If they did, they could have had long before now. These fuckers are crazy – like a fox.

By: Liberty for Me

Liberty for Me — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:08:19 +0000

This is all bullshit…Just the feds looking to mske up reasons to keep warmongering.Just when the neocons were fsding…Here come the fake flag wavers and storys about our brave soldiers and ak the good they do

By: Laura Campbell

Laura Campbell — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:46:03 +0000

I wonder, too, what the US would do if we were being liberated by Iraq or Iran, and they were telling us to get rid of our nuclears.

Isn’t that like one’s neighbor owning a stockpile of firearms, then telling everyone else in the neighborhood they can’t own any because that 1 neighbor will provide all the protection needed for the area, knows best how to use the weapons, and will settle all disputes?

At the G20 summit, forgive me if I’m incorrect, China proposed only negotiations with Iran for dealing with the issue.

Talk, Obama, negotiate as you promised.

Furthermore, is nuclear energy in this country a better alternative than solar, wind, etc.? Nuclear accidents are hellacious, to say the least. Talk about environmental impact.

By: lando

lando — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:06:28 +0000

Nobody has ever attacked a nuclear power.

Yet.

Except suidal Islamic Jihadis.

By: lando

lando — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:26:37 +0000

DB,
A decade-old document rapidly loses relevance…

By: Crooner

Crooner — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:22:27 +0000

I’ve oftened wondered what the US response would be if we were the country being told we can’t have the nuclear weapons our enemies already have.

By: dirtbogger

dirtbogger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:00:29 +0000

Just more propaganda, this has bull shit written all over it. Everyone, just go read the PNAC document drawn up before 9-11.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

By: lando

lando — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:39:41 +0000

We’ve been engaged in a low level war with Iran since the Iranian Revolution. We lost nearly 250 marines due to Iranian suicide bombers in the 80′s and estimates of casualities suggest that Iranian manufactured munitions have killed over 2,000 + US soldiers and maimed many thousands more over the last five years.

The Iranians always out-think the US.

Pat,$7 a- gallon gas may very well be a small price to pay for inaction.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has already given Israel the green light to attack Iran.

By: Pat Hendrix

Pat Hendrix — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:33:22 +0000

Lots of moaning about lack of belligerence, but no solutions suggested.

Let’s look at the alternatives. We can continue to push the Chinese and Russians, the primary source of nuclear technology for Iran, to squeeze the Iranians through sanctions. The Iranians are brilliant and tough negotiators and this missile launch is their biggest chip yet. Given the precarious position of Mullahs, this might be an attempt to deflect attention at home to enemies abroad. Nevertheless, if they want a war with Israel and the United States today, they could have it. Thirty years and still no war. Yet trying to engage the Iranians in diplomacy is the sissy response at fits.

We could launch an airstrike against Iran. It worked against Iraq, but isn’t likely to work this instance. The Iranians learned to bury their facilities. So the airstrike would fail and we would get about $5.00-$7.00 gas. Not a good trade-off.

That leaves an invasion, not likely given our responsibilities elsewhere. So what’s left? A nuclear strike. Putting aside the moral hazards, an apocalyptic strike in the Near East would make running our economy impossible, sever our relationships with nearly every country in the world, and create a fear among nations that would ensure and increase, not decrease, their attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.

Which of these sounds like the best of many bad choices?