these same old talking points are getting worn out,

This has nothing to do with Bush as much as you'd like to believe it does, and again with the oil. We got into Iraq to steal their oil now we go after Iran's next I assume it will be Russia and Venezuela, that's a lot of work with only a year left in office.

You are seem alright for a nuke in the hands of a mad man like Ajmahdinejad and fear Bush more, OK, I get your stand. You can't be serious about Pakistan being a greater concern or threat than Iran at the moment.

Again, with the crazy Bush. Funny how you single Bush out as being a president sending people to war, I thought they all did that (when we had war) I can't seem to rec...

these same old talking points are getting worn out,

This has nothing to do with Bush as much as you'd like to believe it does, and again with the oil. We got into Iraq to steal their oil now we go after Iran's next I assume it will be Russia and Venezuela, that's a lot of work with only a year left in office.

You are seem alright for a nuke in the hands of a mad man like Ajmahdinejad and fear Bush more, OK, I get your stand. You can't be serious about Pakistan being a greater concern or threat than Iran at the moment.

Again, with the crazy Bush. Funny how you single Bush out as being a president sending people to war, I thought they all did that (when we had war) I can't seem to recall any of them actually leading the men into battle.

Technically they don't lead them into war but if the elite classes of our society had to participate in this war it would be over in a heartbeat.

Yes I do fear Bush's irrationality. Ever reaction is a result to a catalyst. Ahmadinejad coming to power is a result of the invasion of Iraq.

The only thing keeping Pakistan stable is Musharaff. The tribal lands to the north of Pakistan area Taliban controlled. You would be better off to read the Newsweek article.

Excerpt: Today no other country on earth is arguably more dangerous than Pakistan. It has everything Osama bin Laden could ask for: political instability, a trusted network of radica...

Technically they don't lead them into war but if the elite classes of our society had to participate in this war it would be over in a heartbeat.

Yes I do fear Bush's irrationality. Ever reaction is a result to a catalyst. Ahmadinejad coming to power is a result of the invasion of Iraq.

The only thing keeping Pakistan stable is Musharaff. The tribal lands to the north of Pakistan area Taliban controlled. You would be better off to read the Newsweek article.

Excerpt: Today no other country on earth is arguably more dangerous than Pakistan. It has everything Osama bin Laden could ask for: political instability, a trusted network of radical Islamists, an abundance of angry young anti-Western recruits, secluded training areas, access to state-of-the-art electronic technology, regular air service to the West and security services that don't always do what they're supposed to do. Then there's the country's large and growing nuclear program. "If you were to look around the world for where Al Qaeda is going to find its bomb, it's right in their backyard," says Bruce Riedel, the former senior director for South Asia on the National Security Council.

I know what they'd do with them, I assume you do too, so why would you want Iran to obtain them, terrorists and Iran go together like bread & butter.

You don't want to strike Iran to seriously impede their developing a nuke. However you seem to believe a nuke in the hands of terrorists is bad, just what do you want to do?

The best gift to terrorists would be a nuke, either from Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran or N Korea. Eventually they most likely will get one, inactions now can get a hell of a lot of people killed if we don't stop Iran before they become nuclear, it will be harder afterwards.

Some simply believe in doing nothing but talk, but we are dealing with people who lie,...

I know what they'd do with them, I assume you do too, so why would you want Iran to obtain them, terrorists and Iran go together like bread & butter.

You don't want to strike Iran to seriously impede their developing a nuke. However you seem to believe a nuke in the hands of terrorists is bad, just what do you want to do?

The best gift to terrorists would be a nuke, either from Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran or N Korea. Eventually they most likely will get one, inactions now can get a hell of a lot of people killed if we don't stop Iran before they become nuclear, it will be harder afterwards.

Some simply believe in doing nothing but talk, but we are dealing with people who lie, they will tell you what you want to hear while they keep getting closer to the bomb. I'm less worried about Iran nuking another country, I'm more concerned with them providing one to terrorists.

Either we sit back and do nothing so as not to rile the Arabs and destabilize the Middle East but in doing so we allow Iran to aquire nukes they can provide to terrorists. That sounds like a catch-22 to me, either way they end up with nukes.

Failure to act and try to prevent Iran's ambitions will most likely lead to a catastrophic event much worse than 9/11.

No one knows what they would do with them. Why wouldn't Islamic Pakistan not already have used their nuclear weapons?

There are currently 13 Arab countries who have stated that they want to develop nuclear energy programs. Are you going to attack the whole Islamic world. Are you even aware that the largest Islamic country, Indonesia, has a population not very much smaller than our own.

If your worried about someone acquiring a nuclear weapon and then using in a ship container or briefcase then the country you need to be worried about is Pakistan. Obviously you didn't read the article I linked in my previous comment.

Continuing to bomb, invade, steal territory, and basically treat Arabs an...

No one knows what they would do with them. Why wouldn't Islamic Pakistan not already have used their nuclear weapons?

There are currently 13 Arab countries who have stated that they want to develop nuclear energy programs. Are you going to attack the whole Islamic world. Are you even aware that the largest Islamic country, Indonesia, has a population not very much smaller than our own.

If your worried about someone acquiring a nuclear weapon and then using in a ship container or briefcase then the country you need to be worried about is Pakistan. Obviously you didn't read the article I linked in my previous comment.

Continuing to bomb, invade, steal territory, and basically treat Arabs and Muslims as subhumans is what is going to drive them to warfare. In fact that is what has driven them to jihad.

Our own Generals have stated that we treat the Middle East as a bunch of gas stations for our own use and pleasure. You haven't done much studying of the history of the region.

Al Qaeda would love America to attack Iran. It would,
recruit millions to their cause, just as attacking Iraq did.

Almost guarantee them the possession of nuclear weapons, either donated by sympathizers in Pakistan or Nth Korea, maybe elsewhere, or by destabilizing Pakistan, leaving it open to takeover by radicals.

Radicalize some Muslims in America. You don't want more enemies in your own backyard.

Make some of your allies disown you.

Destroy your economy.

Possibly destroy your army, Iran is not like Iraq, they will fight to the death with modern effective weapons.

Leave you standing alone against most of the world.

Not to mention the reaction from Russia.

All this...

Al Qaeda would love America to attack Iran. It would,
recruit millions to their cause, just as attacking Iraq did.

Almost guarantee them the possession of nuclear weapons, either donated by sympathizers in Pakistan or Nth Korea, maybe elsewhere, or by destabilizing Pakistan, leaving it open to takeover by radicals.

Radicalize some Muslims in America. You don't want more enemies in your own backyard.

Make some of your allies disown you.

Destroy your economy.

Possibly destroy your army, Iran is not like Iraq, they will fight to the death with modern effective weapons.

Leave you standing alone against most of the world.

Not to mention the reaction from Russia.

All this and more to achieve what?

It's quite possible that Iran will never get nuclear weapons if you leave them alone, better yet, make friends.

I am scared of Chinese nuclear weapons.

I am scared of French nuclear weapons.

I am scared of Russian nuclear weapons.

I am scared of British nuclear weapons.

I am scared of US-American nuclear weapons.

I am scared of Indian nuclear weapons.

I am scared of Israeli nuclear weapons.

I am scared of Pakistani nuclear weapons.

I am scared of North-Korean nuclear weapons.

I would be scared of German nuclear weapons.

I would be scared of Danish nuclear weapons.

I would be scared of Tongan nuclear weapons.

I would be scared of Vatican nuclear weapons.

By signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, opened for signature in...

read more»

I am scared of Chinese nuclear weapons.

I am scared of French nuclear weapons.

I am scared of Russian nuclear weapons.

I am scared of British nuclear weapons.

I am scared of US-American nuclear weapons.

I am scared of Indian nuclear weapons.

I am scared of Israeli nuclear weapons.

I am scared of Pakistani nuclear weapons.

I am scared of North-Korean nuclear weapons.

I would be scared of German nuclear weapons.

I would be scared of Danish nuclear weapons.

I would be scared of Tongan nuclear weapons.

I would be scared of Vatican nuclear weapons.

By signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, opened for signature in 1968, 189 states committed themselves to

non-proliferation (not to transfer nuclear weapons and not in any way to assist or encourage a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons and, respectively, to receive or manufacture nuclear weapons or to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons),

disarmament (!!!!!!!!!!!!!), and

peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Germany has generally refrained from using its advanced technology to outfit its own armed forces with weapons of mass destruction, and it is of its substantial interest that all other contractual partners fulfill their commitments equally. But just this is what they don't do. Instead of contractually disarming their nuclear weapons, they develop new ones, modernize their arsenals, their launcher systems, missiles, airforce, and submarine boats, and thus they arouse greediness of other states.
Why should we be active against Iran, not exactly knowing whether and to what extent it infringed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while we keep mum about contractual partners who are defaulting. Question mark.

(See the interview, given to Der Spiegel by Helmut Schmidt, former German Chancellor.)

Could Iran redefine Euro-American relations?

As European officials express concern about the fact that the Bush administration's designation of Iranian agencies and firms as supporters of terrorism could block relations with Tehran for years to come, President Vladimir Putin's description of these new U.S. sanctions, as America "running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand," seems appropriate and worrisome.

The problem is that Europe has been enchanted by America's spread of dollar-democracy and through it has become America's closest 'ally.' Europe's formal political figures no longer represent the voice of the people but the interests of the ruling elites, al...

Could Iran redefine Euro-American relations?

As European officials express concern about the fact that the Bush administration's designation of Iranian agencies and firms as supporters of terrorism could block relations with Tehran for years to come, President Vladimir Putin's description of these new U.S. sanctions, as America "running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand," seems appropriate and worrisome.

The problem is that Europe has been enchanted by America's spread of dollar-democracy and through it has become America's closest 'ally.' Europe's formal political figures no longer represent the voice of the people but the interests of the ruling elites, all of whom are currently courteous to the American Empire. [...]

Meanwhile in America, the US Air Force has just asked Congress for $88m to equip B2 stealth bombers with racks strong enough carry Big Blu bombs, referred to as 'the Mother of All Bombs,' and the US military is building a forward base in Iraq called Combat Outpost Shocker, just five miles from the Iranian border. [...]

As all this is taking place, European governments are exchanging the baton of support and deference to America's ways towards Iran through many representative meetings, but ultimately Europe is always moving in block following the direction 'implied' by the US 'Decider.'
[...]
Although at this juncture in human history, it is important for European people to remain respectful of American people, as Europeans we can no longer afford to be unconditional allies to America's global adventures. Sadly the world's current political arena resembles a playground in a school. America politically moves around the globe like the big bully. [...]

Pablo Ouziel
(Emphasis by me, R.)

Does World War III loom large?

If the US and Russia continue a course of mutual belligerency -- albeit gloved -- the road to Armageddon will be short.

The West must understand that Russia newly flushed with energy wealth is no longer an underdog but a major world player. Russia, in its turn, must quit sending its bombers to tease Western countries. The US should come to terms with the fact it's no longer the only policeman on the block.

People are generally given to shrugging off mentions of a third world war. This is mainly because the next one could be mankind's last. Those who sprinkle their speeches or articles with dire warnings of a massive nuclear conflagration are of...

Does World War III loom large?

If the US and Russia continue a course of mutual belligerency -- albeit gloved -- the road to Armageddon will be short.

The West must understand that Russia newly flushed with energy wealth is no longer an underdog but a major world player. Russia, in its turn, must quit sending its bombers to tease Western countries. The US should come to terms with the fact it's no longer the only policeman on the block.

People are generally given to shrugging off mentions of a third world war. This is mainly because the next one could be mankind's last. Those who sprinkle their speeches or articles with dire warnings of a massive nuclear conflagration are often written off as scaremongers. Those who lived through the horrors of World War II and later witnessed the battered planet coming together to draft the Geneva Conventions and form the United Nations had hope that we had truly learned our lesson. Never again!

Linda S. Heard

I guess you know where it is but you've never been there obviously. Why don't you expand your world and take a visit. You will find a whole city of over 1 million people who think like I do.

Nice how a family values voter like yourself is having to resort to name calling. Your minister would obviously be proud of you.

I don't dismiss that events in Iran of are concern I just don't agree with the Republicans handling of the situation. The neocons are lying once again about the level of development that they are at. Just like Iraq but there are still sheep who will blindly follow.

Condoleeza Rice couldn't make a deal with anyone to save her life. Plus I would like you to acknowledge that Ah...

I guess you know where it is but you've never been there obviously. Why don't you expand your world and take a visit. You will find a whole city of over 1 million people who think like I do.

Nice how a family values voter like yourself is having to resort to name calling. Your minister would obviously be proud of you.

I don't dismiss that events in Iran of are concern I just don't agree with the Republicans handling of the situation. The neocons are lying once again about the level of development that they are at. Just like Iraq but there are still sheep who will blindly follow.

Condoleeza Rice couldn't make a deal with anyone to save her life. Plus I would like you to acknowledge that Ahmadinejad was brought to power as a result of Iranians reactions to Bush's invasion of Iraq.

After 7 years of Bush Europeans have a higher opinion of Hugo Chavez and Putin than they do our president. Good job W.

Who is the bigger threat? That's a crap to debate.

Update the following song (Pink Floyd, 1983) and see whether the tide is turning, y'all Sylvesters.

The Fletcher Memorial Home
(Roger Waters, The Final Cut)

Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere
And build them a home, a little place of their own.
The Fletcher Memorial
Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings.

And they can appear to themselves every day
On closed circuit T.V.
To make sure they're still real.
It's the only connection they feel.

"Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, Reagan and Haig,
Mr. Begin and friend, Mrs. Thatcher, and Paisley,
"Hello Maggie!"
Mr. Brezhnev and party.
"Who's the bald chap?"
The ghost...

Who is the bigger threat? That's a crap to debate.

Update the following song (Pink Floyd, 1983) and see whether the tide is turning, y'all Sylvesters.

The Fletcher Memorial Home
(Roger Waters, The Final Cut)

Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere
And build them a home, a little place of their own.
The Fletcher Memorial
Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings.

And they can appear to themselves every day
On closed circuit T.V.
To make sure they're still real.
It's the only connection they feel.

"Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, Reagan and Haig,
Mr. Begin and friend, Mrs. Thatcher, and Paisley,
"Hello Maggie!"
Mr. Brezhnev and party.
"Who's the bald chap?"
The ghost of McCarthy,
The memories of Nixon.
"Goodbye!"
And now, adding color, a group of anonymous latin-
American Meat packing glitterati.

Did they expect us to treat them with any respect?
They can polish their medals and sharpen their
Smiles, and amuse themselves playing games for awhile.
Boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead.
Safe in the permanent gaze of a cold glass eye
With their favorite toys
They'll be good girls and boys
In the Fletcher Memorial Home for colonial
Wasters of life and limb.

Is everyone in?
Are you having a nice time?
Now the final solution can be applied.

Video

Russia vs. America: Is Another Arms Race Afoot?
During the Cold War years we learned that successful arms control agreements with the Soviet Union were those that codified parity, or at least a mutually acceptable status quo. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) in 1991, a much diminished Russia saw all its WTO allies and three former Soviet republics join NATO, making parity harder to achieve. But there are still compelling reasons to shape agreements that satisfy all parties.

During the 1990s, under Boris Yeltsin, Russia strove to be represented as an equal to the United States in arms control diplomacy and in negotiations concernin...

Russia vs. America: Is Another Arms Race Afoot?
During the Cold War years we learned that successful arms control agreements with the Soviet Union were those that codified parity, or at least a mutually acceptable status quo. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) in 1991, a much diminished Russia saw all its WTO allies and three former Soviet republics join NATO, making parity harder to achieve. But there are still compelling reasons to shape agreements that satisfy all parties.

During the 1990s, under Boris Yeltsin, Russia strove to be represented as an equal to the United States in arms control diplomacy and in negotiations concerning the future of former Yugoslavia. President Bill Clinton tried to meet Yeltsin's concerns, but there has been little constructive cooperation on arms control between George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. Indeed, since 2000, Bush has been hostile to any kind of multilateral diplomacy. He began his presidency with a new generation of ballistic missile defenses (BMD) and withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, an agreement that had stabilized U.S.-Soviet relations for two decades.

Jane M. O. Sharp, MIT Center for International Studies