Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama joins Brownback (yep, the nutjob) (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's no proof Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fran1, BalkanID, chesapeake

    and I don't see what divestment does other than piss off the Iranians more.

    -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

    by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:07:09 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Oh please (9+ / 0-)

      China and Russia have aided them in developing light and heavy water capabilities, and it would be in the mullahs' interests to develop a bomb as a big bargaining chip if they didn't have them already?

      More accurately, no one really knows Iran's capabilities right now, but it is clear that they are taking steps to acquire the requisite materials. Just because we can't get inspectors to verify it in there doesn't mean that they aren't doing something wrong or developing the capability to do so.

      Bush spent his political capital like a sailor on shore leave, and we all got an STD.

      by jkennerl on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:13:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So there is no evidence? (4+ / 0-)

        But if i was leading Iran, i would do almost anything to get nukes. that would be the only way to defend the country, the current military is way too weak. That is why some countries are making it clear that Iran can be nuked, they are too weak.

        "I have a dream" King Jr.

        "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

        by allmost liberal european on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:19:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Iran's military isn't weak. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snout

          Much stronger than Saddam's was.  Much larger, too.

          -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

          by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:29:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Quality vs. quantity (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jxg

            There is no modern air force, very limited number of modern tanks (and those are useless if there is no air cover)..

            A very weak army.

            "I have a dream" King Jr.

            "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

            by allmost liberal european on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:31:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, Iran is developing modern armored (0+ / 0-)

              vehicles of their own, they even have MiG-29s that they captured from Saddam, they have attack helicopters, they have modern equipment.  Only their old American equipment is in poor shape, but some of it they've fixed up with heavy modification.

              -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

              by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:35:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Heh (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jxg, jkennerl

                Couple Mig-29's is not going to be a threat. Attack helicopters are dead on arrival, if there is no air force to cover for them.

                Do you have any idea of the US air force capabilities?

                "I have a dream" King Jr.

                "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

                by allmost liberal european on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:36:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Haha (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  allmost liberal european

                  Yeah i don't think a country that can use lasers from space to blow up buildings is going to worry much about a couple MIGs. Just my guess...

                  Bush spent his political capital like a sailor on shore leave, and we all got an STD.

                  by jkennerl on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:42:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

                  I used to study tactics, strategy, hardware, and geopolitics, until domestic politics overwhelmed me a few years ago.
                  Iran has a relatively modern military (Mig-29s are fuckin sweet, and that's not all they've got).  Ours is being eroded in Iraq, and if we used airstrikes against Iran, they could use their ground forces to invade parts of Iraq.  We don't have enough bombs to use our overwhelming air capabilities to wipe out their ground forces.  Besides, there are enough Shia in the Gulf states (where our support sites and air bases are) to cause a regional war that could devastate us.  We have no military options with Iran.

                  -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

                  by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:43:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Then we use diplomacy and economic incentives (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Elvis meets Nixon

                    To DISCOURAGE acquiring nuclear technology for bombs.

                    Sounds like common sense to me.

                    Bush spent his political capital like a sailor on shore leave, and we all got an STD.

                    by jkennerl on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:45:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      inclusiveheart

                      Excpet that we have no proof that they have a weapons program.  We need reconciliation.  We need to talk to them.  But we shouldn't be antagonistic.  We need a lot more carrot, and a lot less stick.

                      -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

                      by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:47:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But what do you need? A polaroid? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dufffbeer

                        Ahmadinejad goes on Iranian TV say that Iran wants nuclear power and nuclear technology nearly once a week, they don't allow inspectors, and they want to wipe Israel off the map, as they assert over and over again.

                        Maybe there is proof, and it's classified. Did you consider that?

                        Bush spent his political capital like a sailor on shore leave, and we all got an STD.

                        by jkennerl on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:50:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes. But I don't consider him a threat, (0+ / 0-)

                          as I've already said.  No leader of a developing nation is stupid enough to use a nuke.  That would be enough for even France and Germany and half of the world to join us in attacking them in response.  I don't think he doesn't know that.  Do you really htink he's crazier or stupider than the leader of North Korea?

                          -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

                          by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:56:38 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  There is a totally different track here that (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          jkennerl

                          no one here in the US who wants to go to war with Iran talks about - that is that China and Russia are funding the Iranian nuclear program so that they can get their oil.  Lots of carrot there and little stick.  The Iranians are apparently more addicted to oil than we are and they are building nuclear plants as a partial substitute to their problem so that they can sell the oil for a high price on the open market.

                          What do you think BushCo's angle on that proposition would be?  Destroy the program so they can be the ones selling to a fuel starved China and to Russia.

                          I don't think Obama knows what he is doing at all here and it is frustrating.  Creating more economic need will only speed up Iran's nuclear program and creating more antagonism will only increase Iran's desire to take their energy program to a weapons program.  It is not a smart strategy - but that's no surprise - Brownback supports it.

                    •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                      I have heard Edwards talk about how he'd help provide them with nuclear energy in exchange for a halt to their weapons program.

                  •  The US does not have enough bombs? (0+ / 0-)

                    Nukes, hello?

                    "I have a dream" King Jr.

                    "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

                    by allmost liberal european on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:48:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We should use nukes? (0+ / 0-)

                      Now that's crazy.

                      -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

                      by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:50:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  and lot of people are crazy (0+ / 0-)

                        All options are on the table, also nukes. Ask any major dem politician.

                        Impeachment is not on the tabble :)

                        "I have a dream" King Jr.

                        "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

                        by allmost liberal european on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:51:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  But a first strike? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          dufffbeer

                          Tactical on the battlefield?  Against their cities?  Against their nuclear sites?  What?  I don't see how any of it could be justified.  Our use of nukes would also bring international condemnation.  We have the right weapons to take out their sites without nukes, but it would bring a horrile retaliation with conventional weapons.  Our problem is that our military is being destroyed by the occupation, and our use of bombs is already stretching the limits of supply.  We don't have a military option.

                          -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

                          by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 03:02:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, what do you mean? (0+ / 0-)

                      Are you saying the US should use nukes against Iran? They have the conventional ordinance to do the job, I suspect.

                      Bush spent his political capital like a sailor on shore leave, and we all got an STD.

                      by jkennerl on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:52:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  but Iran does have (0+ / 0-)

                  lots and lots of various ranged missles and could really stir some shit up if they ever needed to launch them....not to mention ultimate control of the Straits...

      •  It isn't clear what they are doing. (4+ / 0-)

        From what we know, they aren't doing anything beyond what would be necessary for nuclear power to generate electricity.  I seem to remember our government trying to help Iran develop nuclear power in the 70s.  I understand that we should be careful with Iran, and be cautious about them, but ther'es no reason to be an alarmist.  We have no proof of anything.  Not even drawings of mobile labs.

        -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

        by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:23:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is what the senator doing alarmist? (0+ / 0-)

          They could do this just for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, which, gasp! They already do!

          Iran is a serious threat, nukes or no. But with nukes, they might be a nightmare with no attractive solutions.

          Bush spent his political capital like a sailor on shore leave, and we all got an STD.

          by jkennerl on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:25:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  WOULDN'T it be in the mullahs' interest, sorry n/ (0+ / 0-)

      t

      Bush spent his political capital like a sailor on shore leave, and we all got an STD.

      by jkennerl on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:16:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WOW (5+ / 0-)

      The leader of Iran has told you so 100 times...Do you really believe that he's going to use all that energy for peaceful purpose??..A man that has already warned Israel that they should be bombed???..Boy o boy, i'm a liberal, but i'm a realistic liberal, not a guy that will defend assholes like amahnenejad because it might lead to war.

      •  I'm not defending him. (0+ / 0-)

        I just don't believe he's stupid enough to condemn his own country to utter destruction.  Even if he is developing weapons, I don't think he's stupid enough to use them.

        Bill Maher has said that we can't let Islamic naitons get nukes because immediately Israel would be bombed.  He seems to forget that Pakistan has had them for years.  Pakistan has been one of the leading sponsors of terrorism.  Yet no nuclear terrorist attacks.

        -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

        by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:53:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pkistan (0+ / 0-)

          Pakistan is a democratic country where their president was elected by their people, or at least more democratic then Iran..In Iran, the Mullahs makes all the decisions and the Mullahs hates Israel...You can't compare pakistan with iran...Pakistan doesn't have the huge hatred that country like iran,syria have toward Israel...I've never heard a pakistan leader suggesting that Israel should be wipe off the map, never!

          •  Uh, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            inclusiveheart

            Iran has legitmate elections.  The religious leaders only get involved when the liberals go too far for their liking.  Pakistan isn't a legitimate democracy anymore, and there are many reports of threats to General Musharraf, which could make their govenrment fall apart and allow their weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists.  Pakistan has been perhaps among the top three sponsors of terrorism.  Their intelligence service has many connections with terorist organizations.

            And what about Israel?  You really think Ahmadinejad is crazy or stupid enough to nuke Israel?

            -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

            by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 03:10:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Mullahs in Iran (0+ / 0-)

              The Mullahs runs the show in Iran..I hope you're aware of that...Amahnenejad is just their mouthpiece....At least,musharaf calls the shot in pakistant, and althought they have some rugged fraction in the goverment, it's nothing like Iran which have strong ties with amas and many other terrorist groups in the middle east....

              Iran hate for Israel is huge in compare to pakistan..I don't even think they have beef with Israel.

              Iran is the most dangerous state on the planet..I just can't see how you can disagree with that...Even the russian and the chinnese stated so.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site