Regarding Iran's Nuclear Program

[oberliner]

Poll question: Regarding Iran's Nuclear Program

Which of these statements do you most agree with?

[Sir Jeffrey]

1. No evidence to the contrary of option 1...

regardless of what our elected representatives say. After the Iraq debacle every thinking American should be asking where the evidence is.

[spag68]

2. Iran

If we are so worried about Iran, why don't we build them a giant solar array in some part of the empty part of The country. This is really a win-win because we would learn from the project, and second, they wouldn't have any reason for nuclear power. It sure would be cheaper then global annihilation.

[oberliner]

3. Can we set one up here too?

How much power do they generate?

[cynatnite]

4. I really don't know what to believe about Iran...

Thanks to bush and his cronies I can't trust what they say. The tragedy is many would take Iran's possible threat more seriously were it not for their lies about Iraq.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. My big question is a little different

"What do we REALLY know about the Iranian nuclear program?"

What we know is probably inaccurate; and any information that the Liar-In-Chief has, will NOT be reported on any time soon. Fact is that we know exactly what Team Bush wants us to know. I strongly suspect that Bush is lying to everybody: Congress, the UK, Israel, and all the other players. It's almost as if these geopoliticians are playing a game of high-stakes poker, and WE are the chips.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is similar to Bush -- a fanatic, hard-line, right-wing religious tyrant whose behavior is only held in check by his vanity.

How do I know what to agree with if I can't trust the information I'm being given? This has become an intolerable problem, having a President who makes lying a part of his domestic and international policy. We are constantly in a quandary similar to the one the Congress found itself in with regard to the Iraq War Resolution. If they don't act soon to cut the maniac off at the knees, the next two years could be ... interesting.

--p!

[doublethink]

6. 'Target Iran' by Scott Ritter ......

was probably pushed to publishing before it could have been better edited (those who have read it will understand) ..... but I do believe 'time' was of the essence to get it out there. Anyway my conclusions on this subject are not only based on that particular book. PNAC's agenda .... AIPAC, MEK, on and on and on and on ..... a lot of 'interests' are coming together at this point and place in time ..... to push this 'war with Iran' forward.

An educated guess on my part would say no ..... Iran does not need, nor are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, not just because of their Shiite religious beliefs against it, but because of the realization that yes the USA's 10,000 + nuclear warheads would make them a desolate wilderness in an instant. The IAEA has only proven Iran to be developing LOW GRADE URANIUM which they have the right to do under the NPT ..... which (the low grade uranium) is not capable of using in a nuclear bomb. The Bush Administration is attempting to push Iran into 'proving a negative' just as they did with Iraq. No WMD's were found so Iraq 'must be hiding them' ....... no proof of Iran enriching uranium to the degree so to use in a bomb ... so 'they must be hiding their nuclear bomb program' ... yea right. All the information is out there beyond the 'sound bite propaganda' leading us to WW3 ...... keep your gas-tanks filled. It's gonna get expensive in more ways than one. Peace.

note: if Iran does get a 'weapon' they will just buy it on the open market. But some rogue element won't do that, or use it unless pushed. Government sponsored or not IMHO. Peace.

note 2: maybe we should talk to Iran, Bush says millitary action is a last resort, but refuses to 'talk' so where does that leave us? Fucked? PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE ..... Keep the faith ..... ;)

[RoyGBiv]

7. I need another option ...

... something like, Iran's current program is directed toward developing nuclear power to meet the needs of its attempt to expand its economy and offset the future shortage of fossil fuels, but just as with every other nation that has developed this technology, the temptation to modify the program in the future towards weapons development will likely be nearly irresistible, especially in the face of belligerent competition from colonial powers and oil thirsty countries like the United States competing for depleting world resources. The international community should take measures to lessen the global hunger for oil and provide incentives for all developing nations to seek alternative energy sources, including nuclear, while at the same time reducing the perceived need for weaponry.

In other words, anyone who thinks Iran's long-term goals are entirely peaceful is delusional. We have absolutely no reason to expect them to act in any way dissimilar to the ways other countries have acted and quite a few reasons to see their perceived need to develop weapons that make certain world powers think twice about trying to force a military confrontation. That doesn't mean Bush or his cronies are right about how to deal with the problem or potential problem. It means we should start yesterday seeking solutions to the emerging energy crisis before it blows itself up to proportions that cannot be controlled.

[bananas]

9. And it can be turned to weapons use in the future

At any time in the future, they can decide they want to develop weapons.

[doublethink]

10. Ogga Booga Wooga Smogga !!!! Uh ...... so?

If you take the time to look into Iran or Persia's 'military aggression' historically, you will see a very passive nation when it comes to striking out beyond it's borders. Unlike the good old USA ... and a few other 'paranoid' imperialistic society's that have inhabited this planet. Now (in fun) go back and hide under the blankets okay.... ;) ..... Peace.

[bananas]

12. So you think proliferation is something to make fun of?

Go (in fun) and hide your head in the sand, okay?

[doublethink]

13. So I take it you are in favor of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran?

or any other nation that you 'suspect' (with no proof_ of them attempting to acquire nuclear weapons? Isn't that the same 'logic' that Bush used to get us into this Iraq quagmire? Just what are you trying to say? Tell me who's head is in the sand? :rofl: ....

on edit: appropriate screen-name .. bananas. :eyes: nothing personal. Peace. :hi:

[bananas]

17. No, I'm not.

I'm saying the choices in the poll over-simplify things.
"doublethink" is an appropriate name for you! :rofl:

[doublethink]

18. Common get your own jokes. n.t.

Peace. ;)

[doublethink]

15. Here's another one for you before you make any hasty decisions ....

to just 'go along' with what's being propagated out there against Iran ...

Today I felt pass over me
A breath of wind from the wings of madness.
~Charles Baudelaire

Peace, and all the best, in all due respect. Peace.

[scarletwoman]

8. All I can say is, if I were Iran, I would certainly want to develop a nuclear deterrent.

I mean, how else are you going to prevent rogue states led by crazed ideologues from bombing the shit out your country?

Look at India and Pakistan. Or China, for that matter. MAD isn't just for white guys, nuclear deterrence works for non-white people too.

sw

[TahitiNut]

20. India, China, Pakistan, and Israel all want OIL.

They all have nukes and they're close enough to make Iran rationally want deterrence. Add to that the fact that enough European powers also want OIL and are also close enough ... and it's not just the voracious appetite of the US for OIL they look at. Iran was an ally of the US until 1979 - and Iraq dealt with the USSR. Funny how things go to shit wherever the US installs autocrats.

[FrenchieCat]

11. The question is not so much what Iran is doing and why.....

the question is how do we handle it?

Do we threaten them some more, or do we attempt doing something other than what we have been doing for the last 6 years... Cowboy bravado? http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

There are "out of the box" thinkers out there who understand the delicacy and the complexity of the situation and what steps must be taken to "manage" the entire issue. There's never 100% guarantee about anything...but there is such a thing as the "best outcome" under the circumstance of us literally setting this Iran showdown up. It didn't have to be, and it still doesn't.

Here's an example of thoughtful commentary on this issue from one of our potential candidates...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3075947&mesg_id=3076604

I always say.....don't tell me what we know, tell us what we don't know.

[LSK]

14. If only Valery Plame were still on the case

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[originalpckelly]

16. War or even the use of military force is a power which is the most solemn power...

of a nation. It is far more solemn and serious than even a single criminal trial where the death penalty is involved. That means there ought to be a mighty high burden of proof when it comes to war, yet there is none our constitution about that, sadly.

War is only an option of self defense, whether from immediate or actualized danger to the lives of people in a country. War should not be thought of in any other way than standard self defense.

The vast majority of people in a country will agree that war is necessary, if it really is. They will also want to fight in it and join a military unit, because that's better than being a sitting duck.

Our whole system of war making is so very imperial in nature, it is sickening. The lives of real human beings can be, and are indeed as I write are being, used a political chess pieces. That's sick.

Unless there is an immediate or actualized danger to the lives of Americans from Iran, I support no military strikes on them. If we were to be attacked by Iran with nuclear weapons, we should not hesitate for a second to use nuclear weapons on them and eliminate Iran. This assured destruction of Iran will hopefully keep them from contemplating giving nukes to terrorists, which in their case is not likely. And if that's the threat by the way, Pakistan is far more threatening in that area, and that scenario where terrorists get their hands on nukes is far more real a threat when it comes to Pakistan, that we should be talking about Pakistan's nuclear program. I hear no talk of that.

I suspect that is because our government is being pressured by the right-wing extremely violent Likud party of Israel, as indeed the Israelis believe this is a threat to them. However, it should be noted that there are intelligent individuals on the left who do not have the courage to stand up and decry that war making mentality, because they would lose the support of the Israeli people with the siege mentality. There are a couple brave souls who speak up, and they should be deeply admired for that.

The left-wingers of Israel get called "wussies" just like we do, and they react on national security issues the way we do, which is to simply go along with the war making of the right, just to try and keep political points.

[Selatius]

19. I reject this poll in its current format.

There's no option remotely similar to "Not sure if they're developing a program for peaceful or malevolent purposes but that constructive dialogue should be left open."