Is Iran a Threat

[Savannah Progressive]

Poll question: Is Iran a Threat

Iran has announced it has succeeded in enriching Uranium to "commercial" quality needs, more than radioactive enough for a Dirty bomb or other Radiological device, but not refined enough for a nuclear weapon.

The question below, is Iran a Threat?

[SteppingRazor]

1. I picked option C...

I think it's very naive to say "Iran is not a threat." It's a country run by religious fundamentalists, and religious fundamentalists of any kind can be spectacularly dangerous. That said, I don't think Iran poses any threat to the U.S. at this time, or for the foreseeable future.

[bryant69]

2. I agree with this

Iran warrents watching - and I'm not keen on them getting the bomb - but does that justify immediate invasion? No!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pacalo]

9. I voted "B" but for the reasons you stated.

[endarkenment]

12. Iran has not been militarily aggressive in its entire modern history.

Including the 20 odd years of its theocracy. The worst that can be said against them is that they, like other muslim states in the region, have supported various palestinian groups that have engaged in acts labelled terrorist. Over the last 6 years or so Iran has done nothing much at all to cause the level of hate-rhetoric spewed in its direction, and certainly nothing to justify the carnage we are about to engage in.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Don't know.

But it certainly is a great distraction from the current clusterfuck known as Iraq.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. None of these options are really satisfactory

Iran is a potential threat at some undefined future time. They are not a threat now. There is no urgency in dealing with this matter and it would be best to wait until the dishonest and inept Mr. Bush leaves office before taking up the matter.

We should not allow Bush to muck this up.

[Renew Deal]

5. Iran is a threat.

They are not a direct threat to invade us, but they are threat in other ways. They control enough oil to make a mess out of our economy. They pro-actively try to counter us in the ME (Read Richard Clarke's first book). They have funded terrorism and are sympathetic to terrorists, especially in regards to Israel.

Iran is a threat, but we shouldn't nuke them. Priority 1 should be getting off of oil as much as possible. That would be the best way to weaken them.

[adriennui]

6. i picked option A

iraq was a zero threat,in fact the reason we bombed them was because we thought we could rout them and be out. iran was always more dangerous regarding funding to terrorists and religious fundamentalism.

[guinivere]

7. No, Iran is not a threat to us.

There is no reason to start something with Iran. Actually, there isn't a reason to start any crap with anyone right now.

[xchrom]

8. nope, not a threat to us.

[Radio_Guy]

10. Not a threat

Not one bit.

[BillZBubb]

11. A threat only in the mind of paranoids and the gullible.

What did Iran have to do with 9/11? How many Iranian terrorists attacks have occurred inside the United States? When was the last time Iran started a war with anybody? What would Iran hope to gain by attacking the United States? What would Iran lose if it did so?

[ShortnFiery]

13. Iran is not stupid ... it has a posturing "figurehead"

like us, I hope cooler heads are prevailing in The Pentagon. :scared:

[wuushew]

14. Iran and Amerika exist in an artificial state of conflict

caused by oil addiction and zionism

We must ask ourselves why should wars fought between countries that share no common borders, territorial claims or resources. Tomorrow is China going to declare war on Argentina?

Iran is not currently deploying warships off our coast nor overlying the heartland with reconnaissance aircraft. Unfortunately owning to our arrogance and hypocrisy we cannot say the same of ourselves.

Since no American citizen there enjoys the protection Amerikan law, why are we in the Middle East? Why are thousands of sailors and soldiers deployed in the Middle East where their deaths could serve as a trip wire to armed conflict?

The answer of course is oil. Politicians long ago decided that our society has an absolute right to a resource that we ourselves do not possess but to which we are vitally dependent. For all the talk of "free markets" we are quite reluctant to face the possibility of losing access to cheap petro chemical energy or paying premiums based on perceived risks to supply. We only got away with interfering for so long because the Cold War provided a believable bogey man against which we justified are own questionable acts.

Alternatives to oil exist but they are not being implemented because all alternatives are harder and more expensive to implement than black ooze. Sure you could have a sustainable ethanol or hydrogen but that would require real outlays and real sacrifice in the here and now. Comfortable industrial lifestyles could be maintained with far less than what we have now, though only through economic system vastly differently from the so called capitalist principles we now operate under. Given the entrenched interests of the wealthy elite against such a shift the opportunity to change current foreign policy appears slim.

Democracies, especially those as ignorant and redneckish as this one tend to vote for the utopian and false over the real but grim, especially when the far removed direct consequences do not effect any one you know or anyone who has power in our representational form of government.


Then of course is our support for Israel. I in no way understand why we consider the state of Israel an ally. Allies have traditionally been two or more countries that share a common foe. Perhaps a good example being the Soviet Union and United States which had antithetical forms forms of government but shared the same foe in Nazi Germany. Since we should not be at war with any one in the Middle East partnering with Israel can logically be demonstrated to be a foolish moves which hitches us to potential conflict. Also in the age of U.N. no country need to form special groups of allies since no nation acting in aggression is free from the theoretical condemnation and reprisal of the combined rest of the world.

If we declare Israel to be an ally on idealogical grounds how do we treat potential nuclear conflict between India, Pakistan or China? Is the case so clear that concepts of good and evil merely reduce to objective truths? I see no such clear black and white demarcation lines in world affairs. The older and wiser I get the more skeptical I become. We have only power to judge our selves not others.