Democrats: Nuclear Iran unacceptable

[democratic]

Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position.

The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran.

He also said that the use of force against Teheran remained an option.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Warren Stupidity]

1. What is unacceptable is nuking Iran. nt.

[Poll_Blind]

32. Amen, man! AMEN! n/t

PB

[VegasWolf]

2. These Democrats start playing war games and they will be out on their asses

come next election!

[krispos42]

4. I think the Dems should start talking with Iran now

Screw the state department and Bush. Reid, Feingold, Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton, Obama, Ellison, Dodd, and Pelosi, are all candidates, together or seperately. Meet with the Iranian UN ambassasor, and every night hold a press conference detailing how the talks of the day went.

If the Iranians want to talk and dialogue, then it will come out on national media. If they are determined to nuke somebody, well, that will come out as well.

[phusion]

5. What a great example that would be...

The democrats could talk(!) directly to Iran and resolve this diplomatically. What a slap in the face this would be to the all the warhawks.

I think it's a great idea to at least try to put some real effort into resolving this face-to-face instead of with bombs.

[krispos42]

7. I threw the question up in GD:P. Let's see what happens n/t

[krispos42]

3. Yeah, well then I guess we'd better start talking and making nice, huh?

It is far, far cheaper for us and the rest of the world if we talk and swallow some pride rather than trying a military solution to this problem.

Besides, Iran is a soveign nation. The only way to stop a soveign nation from doing what it wants is through diplomacy, assassination and/or blackmail, supporting rebel, opposition, or insurgent factions, economic sanctions, or overt or covert military action on a large or small scale.

I doubt out ability to sucessfully to anything on the list that would be effective except for diplomacy. But the people doing the diplomacy have to believe in it from the top to the bottom. We could send over diplomats that meet the criteria, but nobody believes that the upper echelons of the Bush Administration would want it or support it. We could pull out overt or covert military action easily, but that would be like dumping gasoline on a road flare.

[indepat]

6. If the freakin' Dems go around scared they'll shit their pants if labeled soft

on any issue, then the 'pukes will have won and this once-Republic will have lost all semblance of sanity, hope and reason.

[Monkeyman]

8. This I know I will get hit on

Iran with a nuke is unacceptable. But I do believe Countries with nukes is just as unacceptable I want my children never to have to face a world that can blow itself up 10 times over

[daleo]

9. A nuclear U.S.S.R. was unacceptable

A nuclear Red China was unacceptable.
A nuclear India was unacceptable.
A nuclear Pakistan was unacceptable.
A nuclear North Korea was unacceptable.

Sometimes you just have to accept the unacceptable.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. a nuclear US is unacceptable. nt.

[emald]

54. here here. I am in complete agreement

all countries INCLUDING the UNITED STATES should be nuclear free. Really, there is only one earth, one human race. Screw it up and it's gone, forever. As though no human ever existed would be the extreme end of the argument but certainly life as we know it would end with any sort of two way nuclear exchange. These things need to go on the waste heap of history.

[Megahurtz]

70. That's what I'm thinking too.

Why the fuck is it okay for the U.S. to be Nuclear and not anyone else????

[hogwyld]

81. I second that!

As the only nation to actually use the damn things, and in view of our strategy of world domination, we should be the only country without nukes. It sure would lead us to a more "humble" foreign policy dontcha think?

[bdamomma]

86. exactly. maybe we should be an example and disarm ours

now there's an idea!! instead of stockpiling them.

[cigsandcoffee]

10. I hope there is a nonviolent way to prevent their nuclear ambitions.

I can understand why it's diplomatically important to say that force has not been ruled out, but I think using it would be a disaster.

[Tom Joad]

21. I hope there is a nonviolent way to end Nuclear Weapons in the US,

and france
china,
India,
Israel,
Pakistan
Great Britain

Iran does not possess nuclear weapons.

[cigsandcoffee]

27. They don't now, but they are trying.

I thought it was pretty much universally accepted that Iran having nukes is not such a great thing. You appear to be saying that it's not something other countries of the world should concern themselves with.

[Tom Joad]

30. Directly opposite what i said, and opposite reality.

First, unlike the other nations i listed, Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

Second i said this
I hope there is a nonviolent way to end Nuclear Weapons in the US,

Russia
United Kingdom
France
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea
Israel

I do not find nukes acceptable anywhere. each of these nuclear weapons arsenals are a threat to me and those i care about. If iran does develop nuclear weapons in the next decade (it will probably take that long), it would also be a threat. We must end all nuclear weapons possession everywhere. Allowing some nations to have nuclear weapons, to proliferate nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

Congress should start with the United States, and end start calling for total worldwide nuclear disarmament.

It should uphold US law, and not give military aid to countries that are not part of the NPT, and possess nuclear weapons... like Israel.

[cigsandcoffee]

34. That's very idealistic.

The US doing away with its nukes would give China (for one) a devastating strategic advantage. Do you really think China would respond to any diplomatic pressure by disposing of its nukes? We'd essentially make our nation militarily powerless against them.

The UK and France use their own nukes as a deterrent for all of Western Europe as a balance against China, Russia, and even the United States.

India, Pakistan, and Israel show us the very reason for halting proliferation, and especially in marginal countries like Iran.

I guess I'm not understanding you. Are you suggesting we need to disarm ourselves and the other countries you mention before we can deter Iran?

[Tom Joad]

38. No, but we must show that we are serious about nuclear proliferation

and about the goal of disarmament, which may be idealistic, but that is part of the non-proliferation treaty the US signed. We can start by working to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone.

Continuing the present course and pretending it will not lead to catastorphe is also rather wishful thinking.

[WritersBlock]

40. Has Israel signed the NPT yet? Or India?

Didn't * recently promise to share nuclear technology with India? Doesn't Israel have nukes?

Maybe I'm reading this list of signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty incorrectly, in which case I'll happily await correction, but I don't see either country listed.

What I do see listed, however, is "Iran-Islamic Republic of."


From the IAEA site: (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull462/treaty_nukes_3.html)

Non-Nuclear-Weapon States
Afgahanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra-Principality of, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo-Dem. Rep. of the, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Rep. of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran-Islamic Republic of, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea-Republic of, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Dem. Rep., Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali-Republic of, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia-Federated States of, Moldova-Republic of, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau-Republic of, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the, Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav, Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen-Republic of, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Nuclear Weapon States
United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, United States of America, Russian Federation, China, France

Maybe it's just me, but it seems a little strange that the drums of war are beating against Iran, a signatory to the treaty, yet there's a distinct silence about Israel's apparent lack of participation in the treaty and our sharing of nuclear technology with another non-participatory state, India.

:shrug:

[hogwyld]

82. I see the DPRK is a signatory as well

But that sure didn't stop them from getting their nukes! The only reason people (countries) want nukes is to deter this theoligical empire from expanding.

[w4rma]

33. Iran's government keeps saying that there is. According to them, we need to talk to them first. (nt)

[cigsandcoffee]

35. The UN just established sanctions.

This happened after an awful lot of failed diplomatic efforts from Europe and the International body. If they won't listen to France, Britain and Russia why would they listen to the United States?

[w4rma]

37. I need to research what was being asked of who and how much pressure the warmongerers were applying

to the other countries and the UN to sanction Iran. Also, I need to research how much oil prices and oil supply had on the decision.

[Roland99]

12. But a nuclear Pakistan, India, Britain, Russia, Israel, NK, US, etc. is ok.

Fight Terrorism

Stop Being Afraid

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Which Democrats ever said that a nuclear NK was ok?

:shrug:

[Contrite]

56. Or a nuclear China?

Or a nuclear France?

What a dirty double-standard this all is.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wcross]

14. Israel will handle their own national security.

We will see nukes flying in the middle east if Iran develops a reliable nuke. With all the threats made towards Israel by Iran, would it be in their best interest to allow Iran to complete a bomb?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wcross]

20. I didn't say it was right.

I was just making an observation. Israel will not allow Iran to have a nuke. End of story.

[The Stranger]

57. Doesn't sound like much of an "observation," especially with the "end of story" part.

[Wcross]

65. You are as clear as mud with that statement stranger.

It would be insane for Israel to allow Iran to have a nuke. Israel will take it out before it is a threat. To do otherwise would endanger the entire country.
I really don't understand the point of your post. If you would like to clarify or otherwise tell me how Israel will react to an Iranian nuke, please feel free. Otherwise I say again, end of story. Iran will never have an operational nuke.

[hogwyld]

83. Uh, not end of story. you are forgetting one big roadblock...

Do you really think China and Russia, Iran's 2 biggest trade partners, are just going to sit on the sidelines? Iran's going to get it's nukes, and who knows, there may be actual peace in the middle east as they practice the M.A.D. doctrine.

[Megahurtz]

71. Lol funny but cute picture! n/t

[Infinite Hope]

15. "Democrats: Nuclear Iran unacceptable"

We worked hard for the new democratIC congress to rubber stamp bush on Iran?!
:sarcasm:

[donkeyotay]

77. "Unacceptable." The new thing we all know. Always a buzzword/phrase

like when boosh had to rush into Iraq he was "losing patience," which always sounded like he was going to throw a temper tantrum.

So, WHY is it unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, assuming that that is indeed what they are doing? Why? Because Ahmadinajad quoted someone saying that Israel should be wiped off the map? Assuming that Ahmadinajad could get a weapon and wanted to use it on Israel, that assumes that no one else has any say in Iran, and that the Iranian people would go along with it even knowing that they would be annihilated. So we have to believe that the Iranians are so crazed with their hatred of Israel that they would see their own world, their own children destroyed. I'm having a hard time accepting that. There's a lot of ifs between "unacceptable" and the unacceptable reality of expecting America to continue to self-destruct for some yet-to-be-explained victory. If noone seems to know what victory in Iraq is, I sure don't want the same people having to explain that they can't find it in WWIII either.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. Hoyer also said: "the new Democratic Congress will encourage contact with Syria and Iran"

"The new Democratic Congress will encourage contact with Syria and Iran, the US House of Representatives' incoming majority leader said, outlining an agenda that differs radically from the Bush administration's on domestic and foreign policy.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881971023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

While I'm not sure exactly what it means, I thought it was worth mentioning again.

[Jcrowley]

17. How things change

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3060229

[ckramer]

19. Democrats --> don't be silly

War means death.

[Monkeyman]

22. Yes it does Now and Before

War means death for everyone

[SayWhatYo]

36. Haven't you ever heard of respawning?

[Tom Joad]

23. Pro-war democrats is not acceptable.

[ckramer]

25. Remember their names. Vote them down next time

Pro-war democrats = abusing their new found power.

That's not why they were elected to Congress in November.

[BeHereNow]

26. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Makes you wonder, eh?

BHN

[PFunk]

28. It's crap like this is the reason why I'm still an independent.

This is one thing that the dems (and everone else) will have to accept that MAD will come to the mid-east. For no matter what Isreal and/or the US does or say. One way or another IRAN WILL HAVE NUKES. Either homegrown or brought (probally either from China or Russia). Infact Isreal is probally the reason why Iran does want nukes. If you were in their shoes wouldn't you? Let's hope that Iran has a more sane leader up and running when it does.

[Tom Joad]

31. I think we can prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons if we

ever choose to work fairly with all the nations, and really come down for nuclear disarmament. But if we keep protecting Israel from the consequences of introducing nuclear weapons in the middle east, and its aggression toward neighboring countries, of course it will be very hard to prevent more nations from getting nuclear weapons for themselves.

[brentspeak]

76. Why is Israel probably the reason why Iran wants nukes?

One of Israel's main concerns about Iran is that Iran wants nuclear weapons. If I were in Iran's shoes, I wouldn't sponsor Islamic terrorism.

[amandabeech]

78. The Iranians consider Israel to be the enemy and vice versa.

Most nations will try to arm themselves with the same weapons as their adversaries and will build defenses as well. No country wants a weapons gap with its chief adversary any more than one wants a mineshaft gap.

The Iranians would lose face and masculinity in the Islamic community and the Middle East-South Asian neighborhood if they back down from Israel. They are not going to do it.

Middle Eastern Sunni states like Saudi Arabia may want nukes if Iran gets them. The Saudis may dislike Iranians even more than they dislike Israelis, and will not remain idle while the Iranians arm themselves with nukes.

I just don't see any way to stop the Iranians. Threats may slow them down, but it will not stop them.

[Zhade]

29. Thanks for aiding the likes of Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle...

...who is on the board of that fucking rightwing Likudnik rag.

ANOTHER WAR IS UNACCEPTABLE, Hoyer - period.

[OneBlueSky]

39. oh, god, don't tell me the Democrats are on board with this Iran thing . . .

if so, they are out of thier minds . . . if the nuclear Pandora's box is opened (either strategically OR tactically), the consequences for the people and the planet will be monumental and irreversible . . .

the UN, heads of state, scholars, celebrities, and everyday folks need to speak out loudly, clearly, and repeatedly . . .

"NO! You can NOT do this! You will be putting the entire planet and all its inhabitants at unconscionable risk, and we will NOT sit by and allow that to happen!" . . .

the international community must once again come together to control nuclear weapons, prevent their use, halt nuke commerce, and drastically reduce the stockpiles . . .

[rcdean]

41. We need a counter-argument; not just complaints. Here are a few points

It's important to raise counterpoints when people like Hoyer and other Israeli suck-ups join with the jingoists and red meat eaters to proclaim "A Nuclear Iraq Is Unacceptable!"

Implicit in their proclamation are the notions that
1) Ahmadinejad is nuts and unstable, and nukes in his hands are a hazard,
2) Iraq, under any leadership, will use nukes to threaten Israel,
3) if we (or the Israelis) wanted to, we could destroy their enrichment facilities,
4) under the Bush doctrine, if we or Israel strike first that is a legitimate pre-emptive attack.

There are many reasons why these points are bullshit, and we must begin to advance them. These responses are not well organized, but hopefully they're a start:

a) Ahmadinejad, under the Iranian system does not have control of the military,
b) Iran is a form of semi-democracy. True the council of high muckity-mucks has the final say. But elections do occur, and the outcomes matter. Witness the one two weeks ago that were a slap in the face to Ahmadinejad.
c) Crazy Ahmadinejad has plenty of opposition inside Iran. But the nuke program has near universal support. An invasion of any sort would radicalize the nation and make Ahmadinejad stronger.
d) Enrichment facilities are underground. They are impervious to destruction. Modern conventional weapons cannot penetrate deeply enough to damage them. Neither can nukes. This was detailed by Ben Phelan last April: Buried Truths; Debunking the nuclear “bunker buster”. There is no challenge to his assertions that I'm aware of.
e) The consequence of striking but not destroying these facilities would be an even more enraged Islamic world and a wounded Iran on the verge of having a nuke.
f) What earthly power gives us the right to determine who may and who may not have nuclear weapons?
g) When we say Iran is one of 3-parts of an "Axis of Evil" then invade another part right next door, don't Iranians have a right to be fearful and do what they can to protect their homeland from America? (Christ! I cringe when I write the words "protect their homeland from America". It is so sad that they are all too true!)
h) Human nature is such that nobody wants to destroy themselves. Hence all nation that go nuclear are forced by reality into a "MAD" mode. They know, like we know, that if they use a nuke on somebody else, they will suffer retaliation and perhaps annihilation. Iran will adopt the same kind of rational restraint when their nukes come on line.

[Zhade]

42. GREAT POINTS!

You should post this as a separate thread in GD.

Welcome to DU, too!

[IndianaGreen]

43. Another AIPAC whore beating the drums of war!

We are in Iraq because of the neocons at AEI and PNAC, the Christian Zionists, and the Israel Lobby. All three of them bear their share of responsibility for the catastrophe in Iraq, and all three of them are now beating the war drums for another misguided military adventure, this time in Iran.

I don't see the IDF dying in Iraq. I don't see the children of the neocons and Christian Zionists on patrol in Iraq. Why should the children of the working class, particularly those that are already serving in Iraq, put at tremendous risk by an attack on the Shia holy land that is Iran.

[NoodleyAppendage]

60. NOW. It becomes clear why Hoyer won over Murtha... (Links)

Murtha isn't up to his ass with AIPAC, thus he would have been a horrible choice for the warmongering shithouses that populate that lobbying effort.

Hoyer Addresses AIPAC Political Leadership Conference
http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/statements.cfm?pressReleaseID=406

The House Democratic Whip, Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) also expressed confidence in AIPAC. "I have worked with AIPAC for many years. They are a very successful, strong, and committed organization and do a tremendous job advocating for the important US-Israel relationship."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0901-05.htm

J

[IndianaGreen]

61. Nancy Pelosi supported Murtha

but Hoyer prevailed, the same Hoyer that strongly supported the war on Iraq.

[NoodleyAppendage]

62. Hoyer prevailed because AIPAC is a powerful lobby that you don't cross... n/t

J

[IndianaGreen]

64. AIPAC was only a factor, but not the primary factor

I think Hoyer had collected a lot of IOUs which he cashed in. Murtha was a long-shot to begin with, and I wish he had prevailed because of the war in Iraq. On social issues, Hoyer is well to the Left of Murtha.

[Behind the Aegis]

73. .

:eyes:

AIPAC - the "Karl Rove" of PACs...:eyes:

[Countdown_3_2_1]

44. Nuclear Iran: "Wipe Israel off the Map!"

No other aspiring nuclear power started its program promising a nuclear genocide.

I support any action Israel is forced to do when dealing with this threat from Iran.
The new Democrat leadership should do anything in its power to STOP Iran from getting nukes!

[Zhade]

47. Listen carefully: IRAN DOES NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Best estimates are that, IF they enrich for weaponry, they'll MAYBE have nukes 7-10 YEARS from now.

So stop already with the paranoid pimping for war.

[The Stranger]

58. Come back in six years, when everyone believes is the first time Iran would have a bomb.

The whole notion that they would launch weapons as soon as they have them is bigoted and part of the whole Neocon-created "Other."

If they were to ever obtain the bomb, they sure as shit wouldn't launch it -- even amidst the media blitz about Iran, that is plain to see.

If anything, it would create a balance of power based on mutually assured destruction, preventing either side from invading neighboring countries, and it has served the world through the Cold War and far more dangerous weapons than a single fission weapon Iran may have in six years.

Wake up.

[oblivious]

67. Iran has never promised to wipe Israel off the map.

[Ezlivin]

87. "I support any action Israel is forced to do"

And that's the exact problem: The US supports Israel regardless of what it does. As far as the US is concerned, Israel can do no wrong.

Even when they tried to sink one of our ships.

Would you have encouraged the US to launch a nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R. after Premier Nikita Khrushchev said "We will bury you" while addressing Western ambassadors in Moscow?

[VegasWolf]

45. A communist Vietnam is Unacceptable!! See how they all sound alike! nt

[ckramer]

48. Consider that the link is from the jpost

"Democrats" here really meant -- Joe Lieberman!

Hello Israelis ---- Joe is not a democrat anymore!

[IndianaGreen]

49. The editor of the Jerusalem Post is an American neocon

and Richard Perle sat on its publishing board when Conrad Black used to own it, before he was canned by Hollinger International.

[Lurking Dem]

52. So-and-so USED to be on the board

when someone ELSE owned the paper is hardly an argument.

[IndianaGreen]

53. Hollinger still owns the Jerusalem Post and it is run by American neocons

They spew the same crap one hears from the American Enterprise Institute.

[Lurking Dem]

68. So what does CanWest Global and

Mirkaei Tikshoret own?

[Lurking Dem]

69. Everything I can find says

Hollinger sold the paper in 2004 to Mirkaei Tikshoret. CanWest was supposed to share 50% but the deal fell through and they subsequently lost in court to Mirkaei Tikshoret.

But Hollinger has not owned the JP since December of 2004.

[The Stranger]

59. Anyone and anything linked to Richard Perle is toxic, dangerous to peace and to

the planet.

[superconnected]

50. oh boy, welcome to the next iraq

[IndianaGreen]

51. U.S. or Israeli Attack on Iran Could Contaminate the Middle East

Millions will die in a nuclear mini-holocaust that will rival Hitler's in cruelty and longevity for it will be making new victims for decades after the last nuke exploded.

U.S. or Israeli Attack on Iran Could Contaminate the Middle East

By Sherwood Ross

If the U.S. or Israel attack Iranian nuclear power facilities "huge amounts of radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the people of Iran and surrounding countries," an eminent international authority on nuclear weapons warns.

"This fallout will induce cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these populations for years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of immense proportions," Dr. Helen Caldicott writes in her new book, "Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer," published by The New Press.

Dr. Caldicott said the Pentagon has met with its Israeli counterparts "to discuss the participation of Israel in plans to attack Iran" even though President Bush said "this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous."

Citing the accidental meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine in April, 1986, as an example of what can happen when radioactivity is released, she termed it a "medical catastrophe (that) will continue to plague much of Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine, and Europe for the rest of time." Between 5,000 and 10,000 people have died prematurely to date, she said.

Between 1986 and 2001, Belarus suffered 8,358 cases of thyroid cancer as a result of the Chernobyl meltdown, and most of the afflicted have had their thyroids surgically removed, leaving them dependent on thyroid medications for the rest of their lives, said Dr. Caldicott, a physician and anti-nuclear activist. She writes the areas of Europe, and its populations, afflicted by the Chernobyl accident will suffer from its impact "for thousands of years."

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4638/1/231/

[Contrite]

55. Attack On Iran Could Bring Devastation to Arab World

http://allafrica.com/stories/200701030563.html

[bdamomma]

85. and to us.

:scared:

[lvasconcellos]

63. I feel sick

After reading that. I had a bad feeling about Hoyer. The dems seem all too willing to prance down that neo-con pathway to hell if this is true. Read the article (above0 about Israel being ready to strike Iran and you'll really be angry. Since when is a country that never signed the NNPT and won't admit they even have a nuke feel free to bomb a country where in their last election the PEOPLE showed they are willing to stand up to their leader!! (Unlike the US) Folly and ruin!

[Contrite]

66. Me too

and I also had a "bad feeling" about Hoyer. He's been working at cross-purposes publicly against Pelosi and Murtha since '05.

By the way, Israel is now denying the British reports that they are planning to attack. :eyes:

I really think they are trying to bait the U.S. or at least make it seem so in order to help the U.S. justify attacking Iran.

[Megahurtz]

72. I never did like Hoyer.

When I first saw his face and realized Murtha wasn't in his position instead, I had a bad feeling.

[lovuian]

74. Theres major campaign of PR talking about invading Iran

for the next few months

Its going to be a really hard sell

[k_jerome]

75. amen. nt.

[junior college]

79. Diplomatic and economic sanctions won't work

and so that leaves us with two options: Military force or Mutual Assured Destruction.
I prefer the latter. Iranians aren't a bunch of black-turbaned fanatics. Sure, they
have some creepy clerics but they don't want to die anymore than we do. What other
option do we have? I would go so far as to lend them a hand for safety reasons.
They're not going to destroy Israel unless they also want to go up in a cloud of
smoke. I say we let them have the bomb. There is no other alternative besides
military action or MAD. Or is there? I don't think so.

[plant]

80. Leaves little wiggle room

Was a nuclear Pakistan "Unacceptable"?

[AtomicKitten]

84. A nuclear U.S is unacceptable with this administration at the switch.