This is also a strategy to get some attention! - Maybe he wants to remain a war-time president, just like FDR.

washingtonpost.com

IMO, this guy and his cabinet are totally nuts. But more viciously, the powers behind him, do want exactly that what he is doing.

Corporatism is Fascism!

Even bringing up WWIII is irresponsible fear mongering. Pakistan has nukes, North Korea has nukes, Russia has nukes, China has nukes.

But once Iran goes nuclear, we are at the doorstep of WWIII...

They continue to employ the same line of logic.. The last day of their terms in office will not come soon enough.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

So, do you think Iran having nuclear weapons will be a positive thing for the rest of the world?

Matt

__________________

I have previously substantiated that position with rational analysis.

I don't think that one can rationally substantiate the argument that Iran with a nuke would be substantially more dangerous than it is.

No, and I don't think Saddam was a nice guy either.

That doesn't mean that we should have taken him out via a mass conventional invasion.

Likewise, another rogue country having nuclear capability, does not necessitate an invasion, nor does it bring us closer to World War III. To say that is pure hyperbole.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

Care to justify that assertion with rational analysis?

Simple subjective opinions are never persuasive to anyone save the person who holds the same subjective opinion.

This is a good point. We've already witnessed several examples of rogue nations going nuke without the predicted negative consequences occuring.

Do you deny it?

I didn't see anywhere in that article where Bush threatened WWIII. He suggested that it could happen if Iran has nuclear weapons.

Frankly, I don't believe he's too far off base with such a comment...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

I seem to remember people freaking out at the idea of North Korea having nuclear technology. Well, the world didn't fall apart when they tested their hilariously underpowered atomic fire cracker.

I understand that the two situations are different, but it just goes to show that just because someone gains possession of the bomb, it doesn't necessarily change the dynamics of the world.

While the Iranian government appears to be a bit zany, I'm sure they're smart enough to realize that the unprovoked use of an atomic weapon by them would certainly be the end of their country as they know it.

I guess the only real fear would be if they allowed a nuclear device to fall into the hands of a shady terrorist organization thats hard to hold accountable. I'm not too aware of the possibility of that happening, though (I'd imagine with an extraordinarily limited nuclear arsenal and small amounts of nuclear material, they wouldn't be giving any out).

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

What? ok..

The world is not better off having Iran as a nuclear power because:

- It gives Iran more leverage in the world. They already have disproportionate influence because of the Iraq power vacuum.

- Iran has demonstrated ill intentions for Israel. Not a benevolent foreign policy.

- Iran would be the first theocracy to obtain nukes. So the element of launching "in the name of God" becomes an exponentially increased possibility. Launching in the name of God kind of negates the fear of mutually assured destruction...


I figure those are enough. It certainly doesn't mean that Iran is likely to attack the U.S., but it does have a net negative affect on the world.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

I wouldn't be so sure, particularly with their ongoing support of organizations that I'm sure would love to get their hands on the stuff.

__________________

No more or less than any other country having nuclear weapons is not a positive thing for the world. The ME will be nuclear at some point, as will most of Asia and latin america. Going to war to and becoming what you despise in response to this is not the answer. Given the inevitability of nuclear proliferation, the best course of action is to build closer ties, both economic and diplomatic, with those you may not like. The more isolated these nations become, the more likely your fears will come true.

The biggest danger to a nuclear armed Iran is not what Iran will do with these weapons, but how America will choose to respond to this reality.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Here is bush still prescribing to the Neocon agenda - Demonize Iran and gain political power through campaigning for Fear.

WWIII is more likely to be started by bush - If he spreads his domination further in the middle East with another unprovoked attack or even nuclear first strike as they are planning - the Soviets and China will intervene as the world peacekeepers.

WWIII implies mutually assured destruction to kick in - Iran couldn't lob a dirty bomb over their fence let alone destroy the world. bush to imply WWIII threat is as good as an invitation to the other super powers as a challenge to try to stop him.

The man is insane.

Godwin's theory is in question more and more every day this man is in power.

__________________

I don't think it will be a positive thing.

Matt

__________________

Maybe you could explain why Iran withholds their existing stockpile of chemical and bio weapons from Hamas and Hezbollah? Wy are they withholding their most sophisticated conventional weapons from Hamas and Hezbollah?

Iran does not share identical interests with her proxies, and Iran has no interest in seeing her weapons used against her state interests.

Besides, any nuclear explosion has a signature that can be traced back to its national origin. MAD still applies in this case.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown