Skip to main content

View Diary: Mike Wallace - Drunk? Bush Hack? or Just Past His Prime [poll] (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  nuclear weapons... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brother Dave

    The Iranian president continuously lies about his support of Hezbollah and his nuclear weapon facilities

    Let's see: the NPT specifically ALLOWS uranium enrichment as well as other technical research.  There is no apparent evidence to date, according to the UN, that Iran has a weapons program.  You seem to assume there is one because...the Bush administration says there is?  What other assumptions have you swallowed from Bush?

    In my view, Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, if only to hold the US at bay - a government which has made clear threats against Iran, has a previous history in overthrowing Iran's democracy, and a recent history in waging unprovoked war against one of Iran's neighbors.  Further, Iran is now bordered on two sides by the military forces of that same government.

    •  US Policy towards (0+ / 0-)

      North Korea is all you need to look at to confirm your point.

      •  Or Iraq. (0+ / 0-)

        I used to be against nuclear proliferation, but given what we've done in Iraq I think the better thing would have been for Hussein to have developed nukes, and prevented this long-term fiasco.  The US seems to invade countries prior to their going nuclear, in order so that we can continue to control those countries.  That seems to be the distinction between Iraq & North Korea, and the reason we're pushing on Iran now and not on North Korea.  With the noted exception of the US, no such country (with an egomaniacal brutal dictator and a land mass to protect) is going to use those weapons except defensively.

        •  This is not the solution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brother Dave

          The solution is for the US to stop fighting preemptive wars.

          Nuclear proliferation just increases the likelihood of nuclear exchange that would kill millions of people.  And of course the more nuclear weapons there on the planet, the more likely a terrorist group could get its hands on one.

          "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

          by tmendoza on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 11:40:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  True, but the US needs to pluck the log (0+ / 0-)

            from its own eye first, and stop new weapons development, renewal of old weapons, modular systems testing of old weapons and nuclear "pits", using depleted uranium on the battlefield, and abrogating nuclear weapons treaties or the ABM.  Most importantly, we have fulfilled none of our draw-down obligations under the NPT, and all other countries know this.  No other nation should stop its own weapons development until the US becomes a responsible partner.

          •  Iraq was not a 'preemptive war'. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Julian

            Whatever the real motivation, that wasn't it - that was just legalistic jargon to justify it to the US public.  Oil, a military presence in the mideast after getting kicked out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11, and the arrogant scheme of "the pangs of a new mideast" are closer to the truth.

          •  for once (0+ / 0-)

            I agree with your comment completely.

    •  I agree with your assessment (0+ / 0-)

      The lesson of Iraq is simple:  Get nuclear weapons as fast as possible so the US can never attack you.  Iraq, the only axis of evil member, without a weapons program is the only club member that gets invaded.  Simple enough.

      Of course it would be disaster for world stability and peace for Iran to get the bomb.  It would greatly increase the possibility of a nuclear exchange.  And if we take Ahmad at his world, he (or his successors) might just supply the bomb to Hezbollah or some other group.

      So the US (and the world) should do whatever we can, short of military action, to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. We should give Iran security guarantees, we should give them free trade deals, whatever.  This might not work, but its worth an effort.  (Of course with the current president all of this is a pipe dream anyway).

      "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

      by tmendoza on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 11:30:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why would it be a disaster? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Julian

        I challenge your assumption on this.  Iran has no such history of instability, and is in fact one of the few stable democracies in the mideast - even though it might not be a form you or I might like, as it's closer to the religious democracy right-wing Christians would prefer.  When only one antagonistic power in a region has nukes, you can argue that it's an unstable situation, such as when India had them before Pakistan.  Right now, only Israel has them in the mideast, and has indicated a willingness to use them.  Iran is in a dangerous neighborhood, with 3 antagonistic nuclear powers within striking range of its territory.  And the most dangerous, aggressive, hostile nuclear power in the world, the US, has made threats against it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site