Are we threatening to go to war with Iran? All I've heard from the administration is denials. At least when we went into Iraq, they were up front. They said if Iraq didn't do A, B, and C, we would go military. But with Iran, while they have naturally and logically said all options are on the table, they have denied any intention at this time to invade.
Dave G. | 06.29.07 - 3:08 pm | #

We've only had a lot of talk from conservatives on how we ought to bomb Iran, and under a conservative executive such ideas may carry weight. But we shouldn't confuse commentators with administrators.

Histor
Histor | Homepage | 06.29.07 - 3:33 pm | #

That'll be bad news for Glenn Beck and others who claim Iran is 1929 Germany and about to cause a world war.

And poor Rudy G, and Duncan Hunter, it appears Iran will fall apart before they can attack it using nukes - as they promised to do on the CNN Pubbie Debate.

And all the wasted anger and angst publicly expressed by John Bolton and Joe Liebermann who have called for us to attack Iran...

After we got rid of Saddam/Hitler and Iraq/Germany, who were such a threat to us, Iran seemed the next best thing..and now this.

I blame this on Iran. It is because of their own insane economic system and incompetence that they are depriving us of another Hitler/Germany to fear.

Incompetent boobs.

If we can't bomb Iran now, who can we bomb, and when can we bomb them?

Chavez/Hitler and Venezuela?Germany?

This is getting ridiculous. I am glad Bomber Harris is not alive to experience this.
I'm not Spartacus | 06.29.07 - 4:27 pm | #

And poor Rudy G, and Duncan Hunter, it appears Iran will fall apart before they can attack it using nukes - as they promised to do on the CNN Pubbie Debate.

As much as I oppose Rudy Giuliani, I don't think that's entirely fair to him. Unlike Duncan Hunter, he didn't say he would pre-emptively use nukes under any circumstances, he just refused to take the option off the table. Which is pretty much what everyone who subscribes to the "announcing that you won't do something just makes you look weaker" school of foreign policy. As far as I'm concerned, Giuliani's response was meaningless political posturing (both for the primary and on the international stage) which a great many in our country have engaged in before and a great many will engage in again. Duncan Hunter's statement OTOH (i.e., that he would use tactical nukes if it were necessary to stop Iran's nuclear program) showed him to be a confirmed nutter who should never be allowed anywhere near the Button.
Publius | Homepage | 06.29.07 - 5:14 pm | #

Iran's collapse is signalled strongly by its prostituting its women.
kentuckyliz | Homepage | 06.29.07 - 11:06 pm | #

For all those hoping the Iranian govt. will somehow magically come to its senses and realize the error of its ways... don't hold your breath.

They will continue to march towards a nuclear weapon and the US and/or Israel will be forced to do something to stop them. And if not the US, the Israelis will. If you think for one moment that the Israelis will allow Mr. "Wipe Israel Off The Map" to continue building a nuke, you're crazy.

I'm not advocating. Just predicting.

Things will get much worse before they get better.
Insomniac | 06.30.07 - 8:50 am | #

"For all those hoping the Iranian govt. will somehow magically come to its senses and realize the error of its ways... don't hold your breath. "

Wrong thread. Here we are hoping the people of Iran, through actions not unknown to them in the past, will topple their current government of their own initiative, rendering the threat posed by Achmedinejad (sp?) isn't in a position to frighten any nation, even Israel..

I think you were wanting the shroom-eating hippies down the hall.
Franklin Jennings | 06.30.07 - 2:05 pm | #

"...ensuring Achmedinejad isn't in a position to frighten any nation, even Israel."

OR

"rendering the threat posed by Achmedinejad (sp?) pretty much moot."

Pick one, either is fine. I don't know how I let two possible sentences meld together into a single illegible one.
Franklin Jennings | 06.30.07 - 2:07 pm | #

Lets all understand that this talk of Ahmadinejad theatening to wipe out Israel is bogus pro- Israeli agitprop. http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ ...c.html#comments
Dave K | 06.30.07 - 8:08 pm | #

A question for those who oppose going to war with Iran:

Would it be wrong to fund/arm a popular revolt against the current government?
Adolfo Rodriguez | 07.01.07 - 7:19 am | #

Let's all also understand that cotton candy contains no sugar, and that the horns of unicorns are the only suitable universal remotes for properly appointed home theaters.
Franklin Jennings | 07.01.07 - 1:56 pm | #

Franklin,
I hope you are just being sarcastic and not really swallowing the propaganda! Did you think Saddam the latest incarnation of Hitler, and a threat to the USA? It is Israel that has the nukes and could wipe out Iran! So why would Ahmadinejad threaten to wipe out Israel when he has no means to do so? And he's not the decision maker anyway!
Dave K | 07.01.07 - 4:57 pm | #

So why would Ahmadinejad threaten to wipe out Israel when he has no means to do so?

Simple: to jack up the price of oil. Alternately, to provoke an attack by America or Israel and thus prop up the regime. Probably both.
Anonymous | 07.01.07 - 5:02 pm | #

Dude, you're gonna have a stroke soon.
Franklin Jennings | 07.01.07 - 6:36 pm | #

For those interested in some facts about hysterical reaction to Ahmadinejad's World Without Zionism address: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ noro...articleid=11025
Dave K | 07.01.07 - 8:38 pm | #

Which is pretty much what everyone who subscribes to the "announcing that you won't do something just makes you look weaker" school of foreign policy.

Publius. When pubbie-candidates are publicly talking about using Nukes against a weak nation like Iran and it goes largely uncommented upon that is a sign that all the pubbies are nutters - 'cept Ron Paul - and the media is not doing their job.

Iran's infrastructure is so whacked, chaotic, and in disrepair, that it has GAS lines, GAS rationing and it has to import almost one-half of its GAS. And folks are protesting and rioting.

And G-Hunter talk about nuking it?

They are flat out insane and sickening.

They are gonna have to find a better Hitler/Germany than Amadin/Iran
I'm not Spartacus | 07.02.07 - 8:42 am | #

It's obviously a great idea to let the Iranian people take care of the problem themselves. Suppose they are unwilling or unable to do so.

What's plan B?
Steve | 07.02.07 - 2:08 pm | #

Dave K.,

You are free to say that people are interpreting the speech falsely that Iran proposes to annihilate the Jewish residents of Israel.

But interpreting that speech as NOT calling for the destruction of the Israeli state is absurd.
Ed the Roman | 07.02.07 - 2:45 pm | #

To call for the end of a political regime is a far different thing than calling for genocide. The USA wants to see an end to Castro's regime in Cuba, Chavez in Venezuela, the Mullah's in Iran, etc. etc.etc. Has there ever been an international outcry to sanction the USA or kick it out of the UN for its wishes? What hypocrisy!
Dave K | 07.02.07 - 6:40 pm | #

A regime, a nationality, and a state are different things.

If a different set of Cubans ran Cuba, that would be a change of regime. Not the destruction of the Cuban state, and not genocide.

If the US were to be taken over by the illegal Mexicans and united to Mexico, that would be the destruction of the United States; similarly if the Israeli government were replaced by the Palestinian Authority, whether by bloodless means or not. Not genocide as long as the inhabitants aren't killed, although implicitly a change of regime.

If the Israeli Jews were driven into the sea, that would be genocide.

I shall speak little louder here. I did not say that Ahmedinejad called for genocide. I said that he called for the destruction of the Israeli state. And I said that denying that is absurd.
Ed the Roman | 07.03.07 - 6:55 pm | #

Ed ,
The point is Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have not called for a war on Israel. They believe Palestinians should be able to return to their homes and vote for their political leadership rather than being treated like second class citizens by a Zionist regime. Bush, with all his talk about democracy, should agree with Ahmadinejad on that one.
Dave K | 07.03.07 - 7:55 pm | #

No, they have merely called for it's eradication.

There are plenty of Israeli Arabs who vote in Israeli elections. They are the ones who stayed in the country in 47-48, and did not go to refugee camps from which thousands of attacks on Israel have been launched for sixty years.

I certainly agree that many of the grandfathers and grandmothers in the camps did not leave 48 Israel of their own free will; some were expelled by Israeli forces, some by Egyptian/Jordanian etc. But you're either saying that a large population with demonstrated hostility to the existence of Israel must be readmitted en masse, or you think there is a way to sort out who wants to drive the Jews into the sea and who just wants to go home. Which is is?
Ed the Roman | 07.05.07 - 10:17 am | #