Regarding Iran

[betsy]

I was too young to remember the crisis involving Cuba when apparently Americans prepared for the worse and even had make-shift bunkers.

I recall though, the anxiety felt during the time of the Soviet Union and the anticipation of a nuclear war.

But I do worry about Iran. I think the concern now is far much greater than any of those fears that were felt before.

What should be the new government's stance on this matter?

[Argus]

I was too young to remember the crisis involving Cuba when apparently Americans prepared for the worse and even had make-shift bunkers.

I recall though, the anxiety felt during the time of the Soviet Union and the anticipation of a nuclear war.

But I do worry about Iran. I think the concern now is far much greater than any of those fears that were felt before.

What should be the new government's stance on this matter?

Cheer on the Israelis when the blow the crap out of Iran's reactors.

[Shady]

Cheer on the Israelis when they blow the crap out of Iran's reactors

Exactly. Although, I'd also like it to be the Israelis, Americans, British, European, Russian and Chinese. I'd like to see the whole Mullah hierarchy be cleaned out, as well as that psycho Ahmadinejad.

[geoffrey]

We should lead a uni-lateral invasion of Iran, and claim their nation for ourselves.

Canada always needed a place in the sun.

[betsy]

I definitely agree to all of the above!

And it better be soon...don't give them the chance to hit first. I'm all for pre-emptive strike on this one!

[fixer1]

I do not believe Canada should be making any moves to be friendly to Iran, but not because of the Nuclear programs. It is going to be totally impossible to stop countries like Iran from pursuing nuclear energy and from that it is not a big step to making the Bomb. Hell Canada's Candu reactors are the easierst of all the reactors to enriching the materials to make weapons, and we have sold these to China and many other countries. Yes Iran may well find the key to producing the bomb, and they may well stockpile the materials. But while that may well be disconcerting to many, it will be more so to Iran itself. Should any bomb made from their material ever be used on any foreign country, it would mean the complete and total decimation of Iran itself, from retaliation of the rest of the world. While everyone seems so very afraid that these people will use the bomb if they are allowed to make it, but we forget that once that race was achieved, every country was then sobered to the fact that this weapon while being mighty and strong, also means if ever used, that there country would be gone forever. In other words, you wield a mighty weapon that can cause fear, but you know if it is ever used that you and all the people in your land will die, as sure as the winds will come.

The nuclear genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago. In the Colleges and universities the studends of Chemistry and Biochemistry are taught the same knowledge that if misused can and will produce a bomb. In the case of Biochemistry the very insecticidal agents are nothing other then watered down nerve agents that are part of biological warfare. Since this knowledge is taught in our higher learning facilityies because it does have other uses, it should then not came as any surprise that other countries will have the same knowledge. The world is going to have to learn that Knowledge is something that should be sharted, and build alliances on that. Instead of coveted and threats used against those who would seek such knowledge. We as humans are always seeking more knowledge daily, and even those hidden pieces of knowledge will come out in the light of open day sooner or later. If we make it so they must learn it all on their own, then we will have no say in how it is used.

Bombing and attacking the facilities, will only make any retialation back against these countries justified. It is not the way to go about this and the truth be told, it is the attackers then who will be responsible for what maybe the second use of the bomb, in the history of the world.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Think about this way, why wouldn't Iran seek nuclear weapons ? Afghanistan didn't have them, now they're little more than a protectorate of the US. Iraq didn't have any nuclear weapons (or any WMD for that matter) and they were invaded. I think Iran believes the only way it can assure itself an independent existence is with nuclear weapons. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

[geoffrey]

Think about this way, why wouldn't Iran seek nuclear weapons ? Afghanistan didn't have them, now they're little more than a protectorate of the US. Iraq didn't have any nuclear weapons (or any WMD for that matter) and they were invaded. I think Iran believes the only way it can assure itself an independent existence is with nuclear weapons. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

You might have a point LOC. With nukes in Iran, would the US invade? Probably not.

[Multirec]

Any country that states that Isreal should be wiped off of the map, shouldn't have nuclear weapons IMO.

[gerryhatrick]

I definitely agree to all of the above!

And it better be soon...don't give them the chance to hit first. I'm all for pre-emptive strike on this one!

Have you got some indication that they are developing nukes?

And you do know that homosexuals are put to death in Iran, don't you?

[betsy]

I definitely agree to all of the above!

And it better be soon...don't give them the chance to hit first. I'm all for pre-emptive strike on this one!

Have you got some indication that they are developing nukes?

And you do know that homosexuals are put to death in Iran, don't you?

So what's homosexuals got to do with this topic?

[Shady]

So what's homosexuals got to do with this topic?

Absolutely nothing, but he's gotta work in all the usual liberal talking points somehow.

[Argus]

Think about this way, why wouldn't Iran seek nuclear weapons ? Afghanistan didn't have them, now they're little more than a protectorate of the US. Iraq didn't have any nuclear weapons (or any WMD for that matter) and they were invaded. I think Iran believes the only way it can assure itself an independent existence is with nuclear weapons. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

I don't care what the reasons are for Iran to get nukes. The question is why should WE oppose or support them in their quest for nukes. The answer, of course, is that they're nuts, and we don't let screwballs play around with nuclear weapons if we can possibly avoid it.

The prospect of wacko mullahs in Iran setting off nukes in Tel Aviv, and the Israelis retaliating by nuking most of the middle east, is simply too horrible for us to care one way or another about the likes of international law or the sanctity of borders. If the Iranians won't stop they should be stopped.

[tml12]

Think about this way, why wouldn't Iran seek nuclear weapons ? Afghanistan didn't have them, now they're little more than a protectorate of the US. Iraq didn't have any nuclear weapons (or any WMD for that matter) and they were invaded. I think Iran believes the only way it can assure itself an independent existence is with nuclear weapons. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

I don't care what the reasons are for Iran to get nukes. The question is why should WE oppose or support them in their quest for nukes. The answer, of course, is that they're nuts, and we don't let screwballs play around with nuclear weapons if we can possibly avoid it.

The prospect of wacko mullahs in Iran setting off nukes in Tel Aviv, and the Israelis retaliating by nukeing most of hte middle east, is simply too horrible for us to care one way or another about the likes of international law or the sanctity of borders. If the Iranians won't stop they should be stopped.

Completely agreed.

[geoffrey]

Well now that we all agree that Iran needs to be stopped...

Who the hell has the troops or the political mandate to invade a country that would have a very organized resistance.

This isn't Iraq, this is a real deal highly trained and well equipped army. The casulties would be in the tens of thousands on our side. While I see this as neccessary....

The bleeding-heart Liberals will be in opposition once Canada's army reaches a few hundred dead.

This could be an undoing of Harper if he commits alot of troops to such an invasion and it turns out very poorly for Canada over there.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Well now that we all agree that Iran needs to be stopped...

Who the hell has the troops or the political mandate to invade a country that would have a very organized resistance.

This isn't Iraq, this is a real deal highly trained and well equipped army. The casulties would be in the tens of thousands on our side. While I see this as neccessary....

The bleeding-heart Liberals will be in opposition once Canada's army reaches a few hundred dead.

This could be an undoing of Harper if he commits alot of troops to such an invasion and it turns out very poorly for Canada over there.

What's with the invading frenzy. Tell me again why we need to invade Iran ?

Who should we be invading; Iran, who can be years if not a decade away from having a usable nuke or the Russians who are helping the Iranians with the development of it's nukes? Hell, we invaded Afghanistan because they were helping terrorists, why not Russia.

[geoffrey]

Well now that we all agree that Iran needs to be stopped...

Who the hell has the troops or the political mandate to invade a country that would have a very organized resistance.

This isn't Iraq, this is a real deal highly trained and well equipped army. The casulties would be in the tens of thousands on our side. While I see this as neccessary....

The bleeding-heart Liberals will be in opposition once Canada's army reaches a few hundred dead.

This could be an undoing of Harper if he commits alot of troops to such an invasion and it turns out very poorly for Canada over there.

What's with the invading frenzy. Tell me again why we need to invade Iran ?

Who should we be invading; Iran, who can be years if not a decade away from having a usable nuke or the Russians who are helping the Iranians with the development of it's nukes? Hell, we invaded Afghanistan because they were helping terrorists, why not Russia.

That's ridiculous. Iran openly supports the destruction of Israel and openly states they want to have a secret enrichment program. I can put one and one together.

Lets stop them while we can. If they get nukes, and then we decide to invade, the death toll will be in the 10's or 20's of millions as Israel and Iran start nuking back and forth. Not something I want to see.

[betsy]

Excerpts from an article by Mark Steyn.

"But, if I were President Ahmadinejad or the wackier ayatollahs, I'd be mulling over the kid glove treatment from the EU and figuring: Wow, if this is the respect we get before the nukes are fully operational, imagine how they'll be treating us this time next year. Incidentally, the assumption in the European press that the nuclear payload won't be ready to fly for three or four years is laughably optimistic.

So any Western strategy that takes time is in the regime's favor. After all, President Ahmaggedonouttahere's formative experience was his participation in the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. I believe it was Andrei Gromyko who remarked that, if the students had pulled the same stunt at the Soviet embassy, Tehran would be a crater by lunchtime.

Does he mean it? Well, every risk has to be weighed against the certainty that Iran would use its nuclear capacity in the same way it already uses its other assets: by supporting terror groups that operate against its enemies. In that sense, whether or not America's at war with Iran, Iran's already at war with America."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn22.html

[betsy]

Bush is pre-occupied with Iraq right now, and with the heavy grumbling from Americans, had to tippy-toe around this.

I seriusly think that we'll wake up one morning and find out that Israel finally did Iraq in.

[betsy]

Bush is pre-occupied with Iraq right now, and with the heavy grumbling from Americans, had to tippy-toe around this.

I seriusly think that we'll wake up one morning and find out that Israel finally did Iraq in.

I mean, Iran.

[betsy]

Another excerpt:

Iran got tough – Blair just crumpled

By Mark Steyn

(Filed: 06/07/2004)

“Likewise, Jack Straw. The Foreign Secretary goes to Teheran the way other Labour grandees go to Tuscany. He's got a Rolodex full of A-list imams. When in the Islamic Republic, he does that "peace and blessings be upon his name" parenthesis whenever he mentions the Prophet Mohammed, just to show he's cool with Islam, not like certain arrogant redneck cowboys we could mention. And where did all the ayatollah outreach get him? "We have diplomatic relations with Iran, we work hard on those relationships and sometimes the relationships are complicated," he twittered, "but I'm in no doubt that our policy of engagement with the Government of Iran… is the best approach."

The only tough talk came from an unnamed official, briefing correspondents on the Iranian ambassador's summons to the Foreign Office for a diplomatic dressing down: "It was very much a one-way conversation," the FCO wallah assured the gentlemen of the press.

Do you think that's true? Or do you think it more likely that it was, in fact, a two-way conversation with lots of cajoling and pleading on the British part and reminders that London and Teheran are supposed to be friends?

Washington's position is clear: Iran is a charter member of the axis of evil. (Well, it's clear-ish: State Department types are prone to Jack Straw moments.) But London opted for "engagement" on the usual grounds that if you pretend these fellows are respectable they're more likely to behave respectably. In return, Britain's boys got hijacked and taken on a classic Rogue State bender. And the version being broadcast throughout the Muslim world is that Teheran swatted the infidel and got away with it.

We Bush warmongers have grown fond of Mr Blair: often, he's a better salesman for American policy than the President. But in the Shatt al-Arab incident for once he was on his own, and Britain's Number One seed was unable to return a single volley. Iran is emboldened, and that's bad news for everyone else.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...7/06/do0602.xml

[speaker]

Ahh well. if Mark Steyn said it then... 'nuff said. bleeding heart liberal pinko media at it again.

[Hicksey]

Cheer on the Israelis when they blow the crap out of Iran's reactors

Exactly. Although, I'd also like it to be the Israelis, Americans, British, European, Russian and Chinese. I'd like to see the whole Mullah hierarchy be cleaned out, as well as that psycho Ahmadinejad.

Whether the French, Chinese and Russians decide to participate or not depends on whether they have large oil contracts with Iran. Or whether large parts of the Iranian national debt are held by those three. If they weren't so entangled with Saddam, they would have been aside the Americans in Iraq.

[Hicksey]

Ahh well. if Mark Steyn said it then... 'nuff said. bleeding heart liberal pinko media at it again.

LOL! But I thought the words 'pinko' and 'commie' went hand in hand.

So I think it should have went something like this:

Ahh well. if Mark Steyn said it then... 'nuff said. bleeding heart liberal pinko commie media at it again.

But nevertheless, well said.

[Insom Elvis]

Well now that we all agree that Iran needs to be stopped...

Who the hell has the troops or the political mandate to invade a country that would have a very organized resistance.

This isn't Iraq, this is a real deal highly trained and well equipped army. The casulties would be in the tens of thousands on our side. While I see this as neccessary....

The bleeding-heart Liberals will be in opposition once Canada's army reaches a few hundred dead.

This could be an undoing of Harper if he commits alot of troops to such an invasion and it turns out very poorly for Canada over there.

You won't have to worry, America has the strength to invade Iran and this is what concerns me. If it were back in the WWII days, no problem, we win. But these days, we have to bring along our imbeded television crews to feed the media their life energy and if we so much as give a splinter to an enemy soldier dressed as a civilian, our asses are grass. I see it going something like this: Iran purchases enriched uranium from the Soviets. They make some power plants and wouldn't you guess this stuff makes great bombs too! Knowing they can have that kind of power, even if only to protect themselves from an assault, they make the bombs quietly while the U.N. take 12 years to come to a decision ( again ) and now we have another nuclear threat to deal with. So America invades, with smaller forces from the U.K., Canada, Japan, etc. backing them up. We cant bomb, that kills people. Wer cant assassinate, that's illegal. We can't wipe our asses with toilet paper containing arabic print because thats racist. We're screwed. After a few thousand deaths to our brave marines and a few more terrorists hit the U.S., we withdraw, leaving the Iranian people to govern Iran, and now we have one more country determined they can beat us and far fewer soldiers to defend us. Noone wants my suggestion at this pint but I'll slip one in here anyways. Leave them alone. Theyre not hurting anyone. Ifg they launch their one nuke, they can't hit anyone but maybe Israel that's of alliance to us. If they hit Israel theyre gone, like they never existed. Otherwise, we can introduce different, efficient ways to produce electricity that wouldn't counter as bombs. I really fear a war with Iran, they are a capable society, much more structured than Iraq, and if we attack them we might have to fend off Syria at the same time, as well as dealing with the current forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. If any of you have access to a map of the middle east, note the nice straight line these countries create, include pakistan whom we've had words with over the travel of terrorists and you'll see what we may be dealing with soon here.