Besides the fact that it will probably trigger World War 3

While I disagree that nuking them is the best idea, I agree with your post.

Using nuclear weapons against anyone is not a good idea period.

I agree. But Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear capabilty. Their nuclear facilities can be destroyed by using conentional weapons.

The other day when Condoleeza Rice was at Georgetown University speaking, someone asked the question of when are we going back into negotiations with Iran, and she said, ‘Talking with Iran is over with.’ I may be overreaching and underinformed, and I probably am, but to me that said, ‘I want a fight with Iran. I don’t want to sit down at the table, I would rather fight them and take Tehran so I can demonize them and get the UAEA and everyone else to go, “They’re bad, we’re good and we need to bring democracy to this place. And by the way, we’ll need a Halliburton pipeline and some software on those oil wells so no one but Halliburton can access them like they have in Iraq.”’

Another thing, and I don’t think at this point I’m speaking out of class, when I was in Afghanistan for the first time we met someone at the Baghram air base, and we said to this person, ‘Why are we here? Why are we in Afghanistan.’ The guy said, ‘Well, if you think it’s about democracy or whatever, it’s not true.’ And this is an Army guy. He said, ‘When you get home, learn everything you can about the Unocal pipeline, because that’s why we’re everywhere.’ My road manager and I said, duly noted, came back home, went back to the world, Googled Unocal, I started reading everything I could about it. He also said, ‘Look for us in the next two years-‘ and this is two years ago – ‘look for us to start moving into Pakistan and Iran.’ So when stuff happens now in the news I call my road manager and go, ‘Oooh! Oooh!’

The more you read and listen to guys like Thomas L Friedman, who a lot of people hate, and read these books by guys like Ahmed Rashid and Steve Coll, who wrote Ghost Wars, a Washington Post guy, and you see America’s relationship with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela – you see this whole thing is about that gas. And more and more if you follow the money you get to the heart of the Republicans, of the conservatives. Always. And to a certain extent Clinton. But really that’s their pulse, money and oil. So when you look at it through those goggles, Iraq nakedly shows itself out as a power grab, and basically getting good military positioning in that region to basically have Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia.

I say it becomes a kill box for our guys. If we get into it with Iran (this is just me talking out my ass again. I’m such the Monday morning quarterback, on my bed in the sea of Dorito crumbs. I ripped that off from Dennis Miller. Anybody from Fox News could reduce me to sashimi in one minute, I would leave with my tail betwixt my legs) – but I think that when you put American forces pushing into Iran – and I am not into Iran having nuclear capability – you put our guys in a Shia sandwich. You’ve got unfriendly Shia behind you in Iraq and you’ve got unfriendly Shia in front of you in Iran, and I think we’re already in a bad kill box. We’re surrounded by unfriendly people.

Oh, the irony.

Did anyone read that interview with Henry Rollins CHUD did a couple of weeks back? He raised a couple of interesting points... Such as these!

Besides the fact that it will probably trigger World War 3

Well, we are talking about tactical nukes, and not the kind that were used to bomb Hirosima and Nagasaki. I think the reason they want to use nuclear bunker busters is because ...

In any case, I don't think diplomacy will work with Iran. But has anyone even thought of using a potential regime-killer in Iran - actually dropping the economic embargoes against them?

Well, we are talking about tactical nukes, and not the kind that were used to bomb Hirosima and Nagasaki. I think the reason they want to use nuclear bunker busters is because of how deep and well-protected they believe underground bunkers in Iran to be. And that would make sense too - if Iran WAS developing a nuke (as everyone seems to believe they are), why wouldn't they hide well underground, out of reach of convential bunker busters?

In any case, I don't think diplomacy will work with Iran. But has anyone even thought of using a potential regime-killer in Iran - actually dropping the economic embargoes against them?

Erendis, it's not about appeasement or hoping they become "nice". It's about forcing the country come face to face with the "great Satan" they've been taught to fear.

“This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” a senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted as saying in an article by Seymour Hersh... A senior White House source said Bush and Cheney were determined not to bequeath the problem of a nuclear Iran to their successors. “It’s not in their nature,” he said.

But it is in their nature to bequeath the outcome of Iraq to "future Presidents." I think it odd that Seymour Hersh and the Times Online were given the same message at the same time. This strikes me as just another media blitz to get the low approval numbers and the leaky-leaky talk out of the headlines.

And I do not share the opinion of that senior unnamed Pentagon advisor that waging war will "change the power structure in Iran." One of the news shows (PBS?) did a report and found out that going nuclear --- power or weapons, it wasn't clear --- has become a sort of Iranian national pride in the people themselves. And the ruler (could never remember the name) was elected fair-and-square. You can't solve a hearts-and-minds issue by pulling down a statue.

The adminsitration is toying with the idea of NUKES. There's not a chance in hell they're going to entertain the idea of dropping the embargo in the hopes that this eventually leads to regime change.

And anyone who seriously proposed such a plan would almost certainly be labeled a traitor who is siding with the terrorists.

Besides the fact that it will probably trigger World War 3

First of all, not all NUKES are created equal.

Second, who says that I agree with the administration's policy on Iran?

And third, who exactly would label me a traitor?

Peak Oil will trigger that instead.

I'm sure the nuance of the various types of nuclear weapons we plan on bombing them with will play extremely well in the middle east. That ought to solve everything.

I'm not saying you do. On the contrary. I'm saying that the policy of lifting embargoes in the hopes that it will eventually lead to regime change is a non-starter in this administration. Ain't gonna happen.



The administration.