Comments on: Next Stop: Iran?

By: Shaman

Shaman — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:48:46 +0000

Yes. Our president will work toward attacking Iran next.

Because President Bush never fails to pursue the next MOST WRONG-HEADED, MOST COCKEYED plans regardless of the situation. Attacking Iran fits this methodology.

Witness the latest “blame Iraq – blame al-maliki – blame the Iraqis” soon to be followed by “blame the Iranians”

Our president will never blame himself. My blame goes to John Kerry for losing what should have been the easiest victory in history over an idiot president.

By: Tom B

Tom B — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:34:18 +0000

Interesting that so much attention is being paid to Iran…. Consider this. There is a nation which already has nuclear weapons. It is riddled with fundamentalist Muslims. It harbors large numbers of terrorists in its villages and cities. It has a history of selling nuclear weapons technology on the black market. It is run by a military dictator. He has come close to assassination several times, and this nation cannot be considered stable in any manner. This nation has threatened one neighbor with nuclear attack at least once in its history, and came very near having a nuclear exchange! No, not a hypothetical nation. It is Pakistan. And yet NO ONE in Washington issues frightening warnings about this threat…. Curious… Very, very curious.

By: nbowling

nbowling — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:25:04 +0000

Iran is a nation state acting in its own best interest. If Iran occupied Mexico and we did not have agent provocateurs or saboteurs working against them we’d be insane.

rc21: Protecting themselves is one thing but threatening hyperbole is actually contributing to instability. If the US wants to station troops on the Iranian border to stop incursions I am all for it. If the US wants to capture and deport Iranian agents working within Iraq I am all for it.

These are two smart and limited things the administration could do. But placing a carrier group is just a provocative grandstanding and is more likely to lead to deepening hostility than useful discourse.

By: rc21

rc21 — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:55:54 +0000

Potter, I’m all for talking to Iran. The sooner the better. As I stated earlier I am also not in favor of invading Iran. But as long as we have troops in Iraq, they should be able to protect themselves against those who are trying to kill them.

What some people seem to be advocating is the death of Americans.

We can hunt those who seek to kill us,while at the same time negotiating with their leaders.

By: Potter

Potter — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:49:54 +0000

RC21 “If Iran is sending in fighters to kill Americans and spread violence,I would only think it logical for US forces to try and stop such actions from continuing.How could any American have a problem with this?”

Escalation will kill more Americans as well as other human beings. We are talking about escalation of war, not pinpoint action to clean out a few.

The calculation here is that not talking to Iran will kill more people than talking to Iran. George Bush’s personal pride, stubbornness, fixing the legacy he lies that he is not interested in, is more important than American lives or any lives.

If you listened to the show the sane suggestion was made that we evolve our reaction to Iran as we did to China. We cannot pull this kind of stuff with China.

By: joneden

joneden — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:25:10 +0000

Prior to the Iraq, there was a trifecta favoring a war with Iran: radical in charge, a position on our regime change list, and Iran’s refusing to stand down on Uranium enrichment.

Now the probability of war with Iran is favored by a double trifecta: the preceding plus their interfering with our Iraq project, a US president who needs a wider war to shield his Iraq failure, and Iran being the grande beneficiary to that failure.

As I look at the carrier USS Stennis, as it steams by my house later this morning on its way out into the Pacific, I will know that I am likely looking at (unfortunate) history in the making.

I will close with the beautiful and tragic prose of former senior NSC staffer Roger Morris:

“… I sat across from the angry deflecting bravado of another military unable to admit defeat, impotence and its own ample share in the common disaster, officers who became mentors of our puerile power point generals of Mesopotamia. After I resigned from the White House over the invasion of Cambodia, I saw another universe of careerism, of craven equivocation in a Democratic opposition ever cowed by Republican chauvinism. I sat then across from maimed Vietnam veterans come to Capitol Hill to scream and murmur for peace, their bodies shaking in rage yet legs and arms strangely still, frozen in paralysis. Iraq is not Vietnam. Not just in the far wider geo-political ruin, but in sheer blind repetition of behavior expecting a different result, a mark of madness in nations as in individuals, it is worse….”

http://www.counterpunch.com/morris01152007.html

By: awright

awright — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:51:09 +0000

I don’t recall your guests mentioning that, despite the claims of “defense” that the U.S. will use, it WILL be a violation of international law to attack Iran, not to mention its criminal insanity.

Bush will not talk to Iran because he wants “regime change” in Iran and wants to control Iranian oil.

By: rc21

rc21 — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:14:52 +0000

Well Oliver, If one enjoys, or is indifferent to seeing Americans killed then there are plenty of reasons.

Usually when one is at war it is best to try and kill the people who are trying to kill you.

By: iglic

iglic — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:05:57 +0000

Just a few questions I thought of as I listened to the show. Which country is the next middle east power house if Iran were to fall? Would Saudi Arabia or Egypt be the next big player? Could the administration think if we reduce Irans power through war can we still maintain a positive relationship with the power house?

By: UtahOwl

UtahOwl — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:40:37 +0000

Is anyone as cynical as I am…I think a 4th reason why Bush/Cheney would start a 3rd front in the region is to shift the blame. As in, “The Evil Iranians are the Reason that our righteous war in Iraq is going so badly.”

After all, if God is on your side, then if you’re having a big problem, look for the Devil…