Quote from le140:
America is waiting for an opportunity to go to war with Iran to destroy their nukes capabilities, whatever little that is there. A quick strike and victory war would show Obama as a capable leader and divert attention away from the lousy job he has done at home. This may win him the election. Iran, don't be so stupid to walk into this trap. But then again, they may be that dumb.
Somehow, I've seen this picture before.
Quote from rew:
Yes, Ron Paul did vote to go after Al Qaeda. And if George W. Bush had kept his eye on the prize rather than get distracted by Iraq, he could have nailed Bin Laden years before Obama did.
Quote from rew:
As for the argument that the Iranians are madmen who are willing to see their own country destroyed just to nuke The Great Satan, I'm not buying it. Anytime somebody wants to start a war they call the leaders of the country they want to attack crazy and madmen. The truth is that you don't get high up in a country's political establishment without having a strong survival instinct. Ahmadinijad has some extreme ideas but he's not suicidal.
Quote from Trader666:
Absolutely.
So just trust the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world when the stakes are so high? They've been helping out with IEDs to kill our people in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, so why not pass off a nuclear weapon or material for a bunch of dirty bombs?
Quote from Mav88:
what is so great about that?
Chomsky is a real turd, I really can't stand how universities shelter and feed these political losers. Communist anarchists like him are the lowest of the bottom feeders ideologically, they offer the world nothing in terms of useful thinking.
If you want an example of how repugnant people like him are, read about the Cultural Revolution.
Quote from cgroupman:
Given, Iran is a bad place. Their leader is a nut case. As far as being the largest state sponsor of terrorism sounds a bit like Saddam and his WMD's. Just because someone, especially the politicians, says something over and over doesn't make it gospel.
I am not defending Iran, I am just not sure that we should just make up reasons to attack them. Didn't work too well before, could be earth shattering this time.
c
Quote from Trader666:
I'm glad you brought up Iraq. Just because "Saddam and his WMD's" was a huge mistake it doesn't mean we can summarily dismiss every threat thereafter and assume it's also bogus. Iran and Iraq are separate issues.
Ron Paul's misrepresented the IAEA Report which concluded in part:
The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/2011/IAEA-Nov-2011-Report-Iran.pdf
So I think we should objectively assess it within the framework of the Powell Doctrine and if it meets all the tests for military action, put it up for a vote in Congress.
Quote from cgroupman:
I can agree with much of what you and Dr. Paul say in this regard. It's just worrisome when we are talking about a much more advacnced country than the Sunni/Shiite civil war in Iraq.
And, something else that bothers me is when they say, when speaking about missiles in Venezuela, they say these missiles could have nuclear warheads added to them. Well, all or almost all, missiles can have all sorts of devices added to them. Maybe a satellite, maybe a nuke. Missiles are just messengers, mostly bad of course, but no reason to always make for the worst possible case.
c
I was gonna ask him if he thinks Chomsky is wrong about his central argument, that the US is an imperial nation and its foreign policy is best understood, from a logic perspective, if one keeps that in mind.Quote from futurecurrents:
I can understand that you are an anti-intellectual, but even you may agree this is useful thinking
"It is the fundamental duty of the citizen to resist and to restrain the violence of the state. Those who choose to disregard this responsibility can justly be accused of complicity in war crimes, which is itself designated as âa crime under international lawâ in the principles of the Charter of Nuremberg."
Quote from Trader666:
Absolutely.
So just trust the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world when the stakes are so high? They've been helping out with IEDs to kill our people in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, so why not pass off a nuclear weapon or material for a bunch of dirty bombs?