I agree with kingbee...Haliburton is evil. They worked with Iran, They would work with the devil if the money was good enough. They work for our own government and rip them off. And Dick "go f*** yourself" Cheney sits by and acts like "hey...it's not my fault".

Just for the record...I think i was a little pissed off last night when i wrote my last entry Muggaz. Prolly because of where i had been last night. You do make a good point, and didn't mean to come off as hard on you as it now seens in retrospect. I always enjoy your posts...But i do stand by my statement.

Recapping, Iran is a religious dictatorship, there is no peaceful reason for building the reactor, the US has tried unsuccessfully for over a decade to use peaceful channels to stop the development and Iran has issued a provocative statement. What then should we do?

unfortunately our involvement in iraq and, to a lesser extent, afghanistan, limits our options. attempting anything unilaterally (or with another coalition of the bullied and willing) would almost certainly result in a war zone that extended from iraq east to pakistan.  it seems unlikely the current administration could (or would consider) enlist enough international support to effectively squeeze iran into reversing its plans to become a nuclear power. maybe cheney can take a temporary sabbatical, allowing him to utilize halliburton's connections to influence their client? 

of course we have an ace in the hole (so to speak): there's one anti-missile interceptor online in alaska. just because 20 years of tests havent succeeded, maybe well get lucky.

dammit delete this please muggaz...this comment was engineered by boeing at a cost of 53 million dollars and it screwed up (naww it was just one of those damn duplicate posts LOL)

I think Iran is quite perceptive to push forward its plans for the development of nuclear weapons. If there's one thing US foreig policy has shown over the last hundred years, it's that only the threat of nuclear weapons will prevent the invasion of a enemy power. The only possible way that Iran can safeguard its future as a sovereign state is by becoming a nuclear power. I don't like it, but then again the US has done a lot to antagonise Iran in recent years, just as Iran did a lot to antagonise the US in the past. If the ayatollahs and moderates that rule Iran have any sense they will complete their nuclear program as soon as possible and conduct a nuclear test within the week to show the Israelis and the US they mean business. To do anything else is to invite the kind attentions of the US army within a few years.

As for striking preemptively, well, the US has suggested that such an action is legal, so really if the US can do it to spread democracy, then it's only just that Iran can do it to spread theocracy and oppression. Otherwise everyone in favour of preemption and US foreign policy is just a hypocrite.

Actually, Iran does have a legitimate reason for wanting peaceful nuclear energy. They are economically better off exporting their oil and natural gas than using it themselves. Still, I don't think their reactor is completely for peaceful purposes.

Anyone who thinks that George Bush and the US invented the pre-emtpive war hasn't read a history book. What about the 1948 Middle East war? Or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941? Or the German invasion of Poland in 1939?

If Israel shoots at Iran and Iran shoots back, Iran did not launch a pre-emptive strike.

Japanese attack on pearl harbor was not in any way a preemptive attack, but rather an antaginization, considering the US had no intent to enter the war. Also, we need to wait until attacked before launching an attack on Iran. They are probbably blowing steam, considering nobody in their right mind would start a war with the United States and all of our allies. In the event of such an attack, we would need to relocate all of our troops worldwide, and would probbably need to instate a draft. This would be unfortunate if it was a direct result of a bad descision by the United States government to attack Iran first. Further, Israel needs to be told that it will not be acceptable for them to launch an attack on Iran either. Iraq is an example of why we need to stick to wars where our allies were attacked or where it is in self defense. Also, just a comment, the German invasion of poland was not pre-emptive either, as germany did not believe that poland was a threat, but rather wanted it first to gain land and second for a military advantage.

Ok, the Poland invasion might be a bit of a stretch. How can you say Pearl Harbor was not preemptive though? The whole point in attacking the US Navy was that it was a potential threat to Japanese Pacific dominance.

Why would a war with Iran require a draft?

As someone who is sick of middle east conflict and who isn't American, I kinda hope that Iran tries something, too. I mean, it could be a really costly war, and I hate to see people suffering, but really terrible wars with tonnes of pain and loss tend to cause positive social upheaval. This at relatively no cost to Canadians like me (who don't care TOO much about the impact of a major war on the western econonmy). America is very powerful, and because of the arbitrary particulars of history, it has gained the Darwinian right to be able to throw its weight around at the slightest hint of its interests being threatened. By the same harsh logic, I think it might be time for the US to put its rights as Alpha male on the line and make some of its lower class citizenry suffer and suffer hard for it. Go War-That-Doesn't-Directly-Involve-Us-More-Socialist-Western-Countries!

Zod, I think that is a horrible thing to say. I refuse to even debate with you the merits of your discusion. How can you promote the slaying of innocent people through a war against the United States. How can you say I am all for a war that doesn't involve me? Canada depends... DEPENDS on the United States. Clearly an attack on the USA would be an attack on Canada, as canada no doubt would be drawn into the war. Madine- i misspoke, I meant that it could require a draft. Our military operations around the world are spread very thin right now because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanastan (or should I say non major combat operations). If Iran were to launch a major war against the United States, that would be very costly to the United States. We would need to move hundreds of thousands of troops to iran, and would need to secure the main land of the united states. Further, the entire middle east would errupt in chaos, posibly including saudi arabia. Nato and the UN would probably be involved in the war against Iran as well. Despite this, we must not pre-empt their pre-emptive strike, and we must make sure that Israel does not either as they could lead us into a war that we must not get involved in. It has clearly been indicated to us that we do not have support within the Middle East except from Israel. Iran knows that we possess WMD's but they know we won't use them. They also know that a war will be very costly to us. therefore, it is essentail that we do not in any way initiate this war or antagonize Iran.

I think a war with Iran with be a courageous move for the Bush administration, I do however think that George should only attempt this if he wins through in November. Britain and their allies America should have attacked Iran instead of Iraq, and then gone after those bloody Saudi Arabians.

I look forward to a noble conflict fought by brave British warriors, assisted by their somewhat slovenly American servant soldiers.

Absolutley Saudi Arabia is a country that we should not at all asosciate ourselves with. And you are right we should not have gone into Iraq, it was a horrible mistake. They had no weapons. But what if the same thing happens in Iran?

the Iranian government is not ruling out pre-emptive strikes on US and Israeli forces in the Middle East should they feel their Nuclear reactor at Bushehr under threat.

Why should it?

If you want peace, be prepared for war. If you wish to live quietly among your neighbours then, as Roosevelt said, walk softly and carry a big stick. Any Sovereign State (any) has the right to defend its existence by any means whatsoever. Any leader of a Sovereign State must as his first duty ensure that the State he leads is in a position to mount such a defense - and all and every means of such defense are properly his to use.

Including nukes, biological and chemical weapons, mortars, hand-grenades, semi-automatic rifles, mines of all descriptions, stones, sharp sticks and nail files.

If the ayatollahs and moderates that rule Iran have any sense they will complete their nuclear program as soon as possible and conduct a nuclear test within the week to show the Israelis and the US they mean business. To do anything else is to invite the kind attentions of the US army within a few years.

That would certainly prove illuminating. But I doubt the illumination would last long, since any political realist would immediately take note of it and take it is a warning light signifying that one of those who pose a threat to him was now a much bigger threat. And any political realist worth his salt would then exterminate that threat.

The balance of power in post WW2 consisted in the fact that two powers controlled weapons of monstrous destruction, that both would have used them if they deemed it necessary, and that each knew that the other was as willing to do so as itself. The fact that neither did so is the measure of the terror such weapons inspire.

There is only one such power left, and it ain't the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, that remaining power is not a political realist.

Personally, I would be happy to see the Israelis nuke the Iranians, or the Iranians nuke the Israelis, since this could only end the wretched stagnation of the problem of the Middle East. But I would much prefer to see the USA nuke both at once, along with Syria. If you're going to do a job at all then you may as well be thorough about it. Let them burn together. An abscess of human misery will have been lanced, an infected thorn in the side of the West have been removed, and a growing threat to the USA have been exterminated. It would also provide an object lesson in political expediency and the will to power for all those who might be inclined to bitch about it afterwards.

If they don't already exist I'm sure ultra-clean bombs producing minimal fallout and maximum destruction of human life could be produced, and we'd make money off the reconstruction afterwards.

As you can see, I have no issue with the notion of pre-emption as such. The right of Sovereign States to take whatsoever measures they deem necessary to ensure their defense from the importunities of other Sovereign States is undeniable and incontestable - and those who whine and bitch about the 'immorality' of this kind of political action have no understanding of that simple fact.

Political moralists, liberals, advocates of international 'law' and those generally who cite the UN and its laughable 'resolutions' as a means to regulate the intercourse of States, do not understand the term 'Sovereign' and its necessary entails. The UN is sovereign over nothing and its 'security council' no more than a star-chamber in which the most mighty over-awe those who are weaker than they. In the absence of a true and legitimate World-Sovereign (neither the USA, nor any of its immediate rivals, nor any institution of 'international law' such as the UN can be considered as such) the world exists in a state of perpetual war - which is not actual conflict but a period of time in which the potential for actual conflict, the willingness to engage in conflict, is widely known to all and feared by all.

And in the absence of such a Mortal God, the world is not much changed from the day in which these words were written:

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Of the Naturall Condition of Mankind as concerning their Felicity and Misery, 1651.

Hobbes was writing of the necessity for the proper establishment of Sovereign power within nation states. Certainly, the Sovereign State dominates all nations and all societies, and to that extent has promoted culture and industry worldwide. But no World-Sovereign exists, able to ensure peace between these States, and to that degree Hobbes's description of the life of man remains accurate and true. The life of man in many parts of the world, as a consequence of the rivalries of States, remains nasty, brutish, and short, and will do so for the foreseeable future, since no current world leader is realist enough to to take the steps necessary to effect change.

C'est la vie, c'est la guerre.

~~DivasRule~~

Well you've rightfully put me in my place for not being clear that my comment was meant to be a somewhat ironic response to Brad's "Bring it on" attitude. War is clearly not the solution to any problem with the possible exception of defending oneself from the oft mentioned "preemptive attack." The problem is that there are too many Arabs and Isrealis and Americans that believe this in principal only. Some of the most educated, rich and powerful countries in the world are currently engaged in a war of revenge that they haven't even thought about avoiding. YOU are the people in power in this world. If you don't like how things are going, make real change in the world and avoid the suffering of little people in your countries and in others. You can do this by either smashing all resistance to your idealogies or you can try a more reasoned and measured approach. And don't ask me what the solution is: you are mythologically creative and innovative, and I know you could come up with something good and make it stick, even if it doesn't please the elite of your nation. Meanwhile, living under your economic and military umbrella without being directly involved in any of your dirty work gives me little in the way of moral legs to stand on here, but does give me the benefit of a somewhat unbiased opinion. And my opinion right now is that the situation has been spiralling out of control at the behest of the rich and powerful since imperial British times (what is with us Anglo-Saxons anyways?). Honestly, I see no real solution, so forgive me if I can only be glad it won't be me or mine that suffer directly.

which one was hobbes again?   the lil kid or the tiger?