Keeping it simple: Iran is not a threat to the US

[The Straight Story]

They might well be to Israel of course, but they can hold their own and fight their own wars.

The US needs to worry about things here in our region more, like the day to day life and problems of it's citizens.

If someone is planning on attacking us, sure defend us. But all the money and manpower we have used in war would be better spent here at home, something we all know.

And so one must ask the most simple of questions - what threat is there? If it is terrorism, stop em before they get into our country - don't allow anyone we think is a problem access into our country. Secure our borders.

Iraq never attacked the US. Afghanistan - well that one is on the table when it comes to Osama and the Taliban. But other countries are more complicit (Saudi's and Pakistan).

If the big 4 were to get off their asses, they could work for peace - China, Russia, US, and Britan.

What is it about us humans that we don't want to work together?

Some might blame religion, but Russia and China don't seem to have that issue, and they still are not doing too much for world peace either.

We have a leadership vacuum in the world today - almost makes me think of the Christian prophecies about a multi headed beast. They share power, but each has a mind of it's own - but are all connected via greed and hate.

MOST people in the world I think want peace. But a few, those in power over the many, don't seem to want the same thing.

No wonder people believe in conspiracy theories.

[babylonsister]

1. Tell that to the supposed 'diplomats'.' Leadership vacuum' describes

our situation perfectly.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. I disagree

Iran has postured repeatedly about striking the great Satan (the US). Also not sure that having a fundie theocary with nuclear weapons is a good thing. Nukes can't kill just the neocons...

[oblivious]

3. I think that has always been in the context of 'striking back if attacked.'

Though I would appreciate any links that show otherwise.

[Robbien]

4. A whole bunch of whining going on about heads of state posturing

Big deal, the Iranian head of state is posturing it will hit the US interests (meaning Israel of course).

Israel's head of state is posturing it will nuke Iran off the map of the world.

We have bigger problems of our own than to meddle over their posturing fits.

[walldude]

5. Lol... you really think they would be crazy enough to nuke us?

I wouldn't be scared of Iran even if they had a nuke. It would take the 20 years for them to get enough nukes to even be a threat to us. Where as we have enough nukes to turn the entire middle east into a sheet of glass, and we have a leader crazy enough to do it. Who can blame them for wanting in on MAD.

[originalpckelly]

6. Um, you do know we have 2,000+ nukes, right?

There won't be an Iran if they even dare nuke us.

Israel has 200+ nukes. There won't be an Iran if Israel is touched either.

[Imagevision]

7. And as Rice says, we can't talk to these people (Iranians) until they abandon their Nuke programs

If I had to deal with a country with a president like bush, I wouldn't abandon nothing!!

I believe Bush has lied to the American people countless times, and he's lied to the world countless times, the MF. can't be trusted!!

[babylonsister]

8. Rice says 'we can't talk to these people' - some diplomat, which is

precisely why she's such an enormous failure.