Hmm...sounds like truthiness is in play here. In other words, *lies.

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by Spiff.

Goddamn, why do we wonder why people hate us? We can't go around attacking every country that *might* be developing nukes. Do we really want to be the next Nazis that badly?

We could wait until a major American city is nuked before increasing sanctions and using sterner language condemning iran.

Or we can follow the examples set by Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman and Reagan and break out the big stick.

The world isn't fearing crazy Americans like it should. Fear = respect = staying #1.

The fact is, it's hard to tell the foreigners who are posting here and have a different perspective. So Americans should keep that in mind.

No doubt I'll get some BS for assuming this is an American website. Probably valid...I have no basis for making that assumption. Therefore, the "we" references could be totally ambiguous or incorrect.

"Fear = respect = staying #1."

That sounds like Nazi shit. Did the mushroom not teach you about karma ?

QM, that's the *reason* we're hated in the first place. Your solution is the cause. It's a positive feedback system! Attacking more countries makes more generations of people growing up hating Americans. So unless we want to conquer the whole freaking world, no amounts of attacking other countries will make us safe. Guerrilla warfare will always exist. The world is a big scary place. Deal with it!

Jesus Christ! Iran isn't going to nuke an American city. Why would they? What strategic value would an attack on the United states have? Iran and her allies would be removed from the earth in an instant if a nuke detonated in the US. If this lunacy succeeds all hell will break loose, there'll be oil shortages, economic collapse and the prospect of a world war involving nuclear weapons. Anyway nobody pays any attention to the facts anymore. I know Mr Quantammushrrom won't read this but here's a debunking of the media hype. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18699.htm

hehe, staying #1. it is important to remember that other countries and human beings have no right to be #1. I am not even sure if Iranians are proper homo sapiens. So yeah, they should operate in the #99-#107 area where that kind of people belongs. stay there and not wish for anything better for themselves. that's a right reserved for us.

When Bush is involved, it is all about oil. Does Iran have oil that the Bush gang wants? There's your answer.

Hrrm, seems like most of them just want sensationalist headlines, and should really be more responsible in how they are reporting this.

Except for Fox of course, who seem to really be trying to convince their viewers that a war with Iran is the best course of action for the US. God damn that bloody Rupert Murdoch.

I wonder what the Bush administration's new buzzword for this campaign will be (they will of course do what they want, regardless of condemnation). "Weapons Of Mass Destruction", "Global Terrorism", "Al Qaeida", "Axis Of Evil". Bush's supporters need phrases like these they can fling about. I really hope the new one will be better, those were rather cheesy and sounded like they came from an action movie.

Iran likes to sell oil for euros, which undermines the US$ as the world reserve currency. This tough talk is all about the US trying to control the economy of the world with the only thing at which we are still #1...state sponsored terror.

Being #1 in what exactly? Education? Health? Economic? Basketball? Last I checked, U.S.A wasn't #1 in most things (military power maybe?). There's no such things has being the "best". The American government should stop acting like an attention seeking child, waving its big military dick whenever it can, and should start acting responsibly like an grown up country.

Oil? Oil is not good enough anymore. They will never recoup their financial lost with oil, even if the war ends tomorrow. That's just bad business if you're in it for oil.

One theory explaining the invasion of Iraq was that Sadam was going to sell his oil in Euros. Note that all Saudi oil is traded in dollars.

and the penny continues to drop.

Hope we Won't get fooled again

Here is a link to a great article about the real people in the white house and the UN who almost made open negotiations with Iran possible, until they were shut down. By the Bush administration. For the sole reason that they wanted to go to war with Iran years ago.

http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

Do you remember that before WWII nobody was going to do anything because they were afraid and lazy, do you?

War... war never changes.

One also must keep in mind that the NeoCons who currently run our govt are inextricably linked to the pro-Israel Lobby, and it is their intent to ensure that no one on the Middle East block is nearly as powerful as Israel... this also, was a large reason for the invasion of Iraq, as Israel was still pretty sore about all those SCUDs Saddam sent their way during the first Gulf War... combine their petitioning with that of Chalabi's 'Iraqi National Congress', and our thirst for all that delicious oil and BAM! Instant War!

And too, with Iran, there is that whole thing about them turning on our puppet dictator, storming our embassy, taking people hostages, telling us to fuck off, etc etc... if there is one thing 'America' can't stand is a nation that won't comply with its agenda.

Before the Iranians turned on the Shah they had a very popular democratically elected leader named Mossadeq. In 1953 he was overthrown by coup - US/UK punishment for nationalizing Iranian oil, which the British and British Petroleum (BP) saw as their property. The coup was partly orchestrated by the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt, a CIA stooge. It's not likely the Iranians have forgotten their history.

Very true Qualm. It's also sad to note that only a minority of Americans even know what their history is when it comes to foreign relations.

why is everyone worried about iranian nukes and nobody is talking about pakistani nukes?

Looris, about Hitler, you're being too simplistic. The failure of appeasement does not prove the necessity of smashing up Iran. What it does prove is that if you piss a country off, one of their citizens will go mental and lead the rest on a clusterfuck mission for revenge. This is a vicious circle, the only way to stop the madness is to stop the madness.

i'll take the risk of peace over the guarantees of war any day.

"Do you remember that before WWII nobody was going to do anything because they were afraid and lazy, do you?"

Just like they are too afraid and lazy to stand up to the American administration today.

The only people I see on here or anywhere else supporting this administration are the people with absolutely no knowledge of world history.

America loves to break out the big stick. Here are a few examples.

http://waronterror.videosift.com/video/US-terrorism-on-a-grand-scale

"Looris, about Hitler, you're being too simplistic. The failure of appeasement does not prove the necessity of smashing up Iran."

Uhm, I didn't say that, Mink

I just point that important thing out, and let everyone consider also this very important fact before drawing any conclusion.

@MINK, the reason the United States has no problem with Pakistan having nukes is that it does not share in any of the motivations or history of Iran, which, as I outlined above, keep the US from even considering their development of a domestic power program...

Namely, Pakistan, has never really posed a threat to Israel, either by denying its existence, or by funding Palestinian terrorist organizations in Lebanon... so therefore, the NeoCons and the Israel lobby are pretty much unconcerned with their activities. Also, as we've already been over in regards to Iran, the history of our relationship with Pakistan has been much less volatile and on the whole, we have been much less involved with Pakistan: never had a puppet regime in place there, nor had it overthrown, nor have the Pakistanis ever taken any of our diplomatic staff hostage or called us "The Great Satan"... and really, Pakistan is almost entirely removed from Middle Eastern ideological/historical conflict by virtue of its location, national identity and history... in fact, I believe the CIA has it grouped within its South Asian bureau. Also, unlike Iran, whenever we have asked something of Pakistan, be it the old regime, or the new one, they have almost always complied... they funneled money and arms to the mujahidin for us in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later, in 2001, when we needed their airspace and access to bases on the ground to support operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf rolled over and complied, becoming a surprise ally in the Bush Administration's 'War on Terror'... clearly, Pakistan is a much more cooperative state than Iran.

Also, everyone knows that if the Pakistanis are going to nuke anyone, its going to be India, but, even though India is also our ally, they are no where near as dependent upon our support for mere existence as is Israel. Also, its pretty apparent that even though both India and Pakistan are now nuclear, its highly unlikely that they are going to start a war with one another because a) India is so much bigger and wealthier, and in a conventional war Pakistan would pretty much be screwed... and b) the minute a Pakistani nuke was launched (which, they have yet to prove they can actually do- they have detonated them, but as for firing one at something, that is left to be proven), India would launch five right back, and arguably, Pakistan would be less likely to recover from such an incident as it lacks the economical fortitude, population, infrastructure and resources of India. In the meantime, international pressures from most of the industrialized first world nations (ie, America and the EU) on which India depends for much of its commerce, keep it in check from attacking Pakistan on a whim. So, it would appear that, in this case, the possession of nuclear weapons has successfully kept these two rivals at sort of a standoff, and the region on the whole has been more peaceful.

There is, however, considerable apprehension right now in the States about the current situation in Pakistan, as no one likes to hear the words 'nuclear' and 'unstable government' in the same sentence. I do think though, that seeing as how all major parties involved in the power struggle in Pakistan: Musharraf, Bhutto, and Sharif, are in close contact and by all appearances, past and present, friendly to US and EU concerns for overall stability in the region, whomever it is that gains control will likely continue to the toe the line in regards to nuclear discretion.

That, in short, is why no one cares that Pakistan has nukes and there is such a furor over Iran possible getting them.

As for you looris, I have no idea what it is you are trying to convey... please clarify if you would like to make a salient point.

While I agree with raven, it will be interesting to see how the long term situation for Pakistan changes in the eyes of the world, once the currentmess has somehow resolved itself.

Raven's post is a bit simplistic and totally ignores the fact that Pakistan is a key ally of the US - which in the last six years has sent over 10 Billion in aid to prop up the Musharraf regime - and while the US and India continue to court one another diplomatically, it's a serious error to overlook the strategic triangle that exists between Russia, China and India, which affords the latter a certain amount of leverage when it comes to the United States. Also, it cannot be ignored that the Musharraf regime was one of only three states to recognize the legitimacy of the Talibans in Afghanistan to whom he offered major support during his first two years in power.

"Also, unlike Iran, whenever we have asked something of Pakistan, be it the old regime, or the new one, they have almost always complied... they funneled money and arms to the mujahidin for us in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later, in 2001, when we needed their airspace and access to bases on the ground to support operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf rolled over and complied, becoming a surprise ally in the Bush Administration's 'War on Terror'... clearly, Pakistan is a much more cooperative state than Iran."

Was hardly "totally ignores the fact that Pakistan is a key ally of the US"

Aside from that, what "strategic triangle that exists between Russia, China and India" are you referring to. Genuine question.

.

Ok, Thylan. My aPLOPogies. I had to go to Sydney to rescue what turned out to be nothing. Strategic triangle.

This doesn't answer your question -- just use the search function here:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8791