I’m no expert on where Iran is as far as how “peaceful” their nuclear program is. I’ve noticed on the lefty blogs how they are calling the President a fear monger for saying it’s a dangerous situation. The only thing I have a problem with is if it’s really a peaceful program, why is it all set up 100 feet underground, possibly far enough down to foil “bunker buster” bombs? Am I mistaken in that the program is located that far underground, and as usual, can’t the lefties try to use some kind of logic and figure out what is hidden may not be a good thing? Just asking…

adamsmith on February 26, 2008 at 9:37 AM

we will see how “peaceful” Iran’s nuke program is when Tel Aviv goes up in a mushroom cloud.

…nothing else need be said.

uhh??? Are you on your way to a drum circle?

Wait a few months, issue another report saying theres something the Dems hate, watch them call it garbage, say IAEA is a tool of Bush, all lies.

Watch the Flip Flop dance happen.

Those of you who remember the movie Dr. Strangelove may appreciate the revised title of the NIE Report.

Second, if the reports are correct, the vast majority of people don’t like their government and are pro-US.

SteveMG on February 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM

This is true. Iran was my main focus in school, and their civilian population is one of the most pro-western of any in the region. Pro-western obviously is a relative term. I haven’t kept up on Iranian news in the past year and a half, so things could be different now.

IMAO I think military action above and beyond specific strikes on military facilities and blocking fuel shipments into the country would have a negative impact. I wouldn’t mind some spook stuff that I’ll never hear about, though.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 25, 2008 at 8:29 PM

I would think that the extension of higher troop levels could mean that. Or maybe Al Sadr’s extension of his truce for only another 6 months will allow him to gather his strength until late summer when he plans to ratchet up violence in time for the US elections. Or maybe …

It’s just too easy to read into things when looking at events from a distance as we do. I do, however, take everything I read about our actions in the middle east with a grain of salt. I like to think the NIE report was an intentional ploy to allow the US to downplay a leading role in pushing a hard line against Iran–let Britian/France be the bad guys this time around. Then again, maybe our intelligence agencies are just dumb.

Guess what: They’re going to get the bomb anyway because no one on our side has the nerve to stop them.

Pretty much. Hopefully in 5 years we’ll be better prepared to deal with them than we are right now. It probobly won’t matter than either, though.

Coming soon: A third round of fang-less sanctions

And soon after that WWIV. IMO we are watching the beginnings.
Obama will be our Chamberlain.

I believe him – or something.

If you’re Khamenei, what would you do — give up your nukes or broker a deal and try to build the bomb secretly?

Choice B.

Everything to gain, nothing to lose, nobody to stop you.

What do I win?

Thank you common sense. Share some with Limey.

Take it easy Limrik. All that I’m saying is that IF Bush decides to take action, it would probably be advantageous to have them flanked. They may not want to go all the way to Tehran. They may just want to incapacitate their ability to strike targets within an x amount of range. That’s all. Deep breath.

We would need 5 times the number of troops you quoted and even that wouldn’t be enough to take the country.

Well, I don’t know of anyone who says we should invade. Any serious person.

The idea, it seems to me, is to take out their nuclear weapons program. And we’ll need troops in the area to limit any countermoves. Not to go into the country.

Second, if the reports are correct, the vast majority of people don’t like their government and are pro-US.

Caveat being that was what he heard, to a lesser extent, about Iraq.

And complicating things even further is that despite the populace’s dislike for their government, a strike would probably fuel nationalistic sentiments against us.

Boy, you have to be nuts to want to be president. Impossible job.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM

First of all Iran isn’t Iraq. Think of Colorado. You know the Rockies. Now put 4 times the population of Iraq in it.
We would need 5 times the number of troops you quoted and even that wouldn’t be enough to take the country.

As for Mav handling it….how? How do you stop Israel from going poof. Or doesn’t it matter if they hit Zion as long as we are not touched?

Mav can handle it.

BUT,I perfer instead of the white piece of paper of peace,
that the answer is a little more robust,like the time the
Germans asked for the American officer to surrender in the
town in which they were surrounded.The American officer sent
his reply “NUTS”!

And somehow,that should be the message for Iran!

Will the World keep sitting on its hands,While Iran keeps
up with its “Death to Satan”–America, or “little Satan”
Israel and keeps on with their weapon program,from a
Country that embrasses,and celebrates SUICIDE,—NUTS!