I think I've made it clear in other threads that I am strongly opposed to any kind of military strike on Iran. A couple of nights ago Fresh Air had an intriguing interview with Seymour Hersh (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7618708) on the subject of Iran. Hersh is the man who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and was one of the first people to expose the Abu Graib scandal. He's been around and knows how to delve deep. In this recent interview Hersh makes some harsh claims, many of which are (by his own admission) unverifiable at this point. Among them is a claim that Cheney strongly believes that it is only a matter of time before Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and when they do they intend to use Hezbollah agents in the USA to detonate a bomb here.

For the sake of discussion let's take this claim at face value. What if Cheney is right? A nuclear attack within the United States is surely something we need to prevent, and it's the job of the President to try to prevent such catastrophes. Speaking for myself, I would say that if Cheney were correct and Iran actually plans to hit us, that's justification for a pre-emptive strike.

The problem, of course, is credibility. I don't think anyone can deny that the Bush administration lacks credibility right now with Congress and the American people. Some of you may argue that we are wrong to mistrust the President, but it's a plain fact that many of us do.

So... what can Cheney and the Bush administration do to convince us that a strike is necessary? Again speaking for myself, after the Iraq debacle it's going to take a lot more than "Trust me" from Bush. I don't need all of the top-secret intel laid out in public. I think if the Bush administration could convince Russ Feingold, I'd be on board.

How about you? What's your threshold? What would get you on board with a strike on Iran?

Most people put missile and nuke together. If a nation such as NK or Iran mean to do us harm with a nuke weapon, it won't arrive on the nose of a missile. Having a missile that has sufficient range to reach a target doesn't mean that it will hit the target. The technology these countries have is not that good. You would have to fire multiple missiles to ensure you hit your target. Lets say they fire a missile at NYC and it hits Montreal instead. Not the intended target, not the intended results. If you give a weapon to a terrorist group with a network established, it could be brought into the country and detonated by some zealots whose last act will be to ensure the right target is destroyed. IMO, for an attack to be justified against Iran, you would need proof that bombs are being constructed with the intention of proliferation. Then Israel would bomb them back to the stone age before we could.

So much of what Cheney in particular says is not based on actual fact, but rather on a theoretical risk that could be true. The issue for Cheney's credibility is that he constantly merges the two.. alluding to unsubstantiated theoretical risks as actual ones, conveniently for seemingly polical posturing and gains. That was about 80%-90% of the rationale for the war in Iraq. The problem there turned out to be that almost none of the theoretical risks actually panned out, as much of the intelligence going in suggested. Remember the "mushroom cloud" reference?

What could W et al. do to convince us that the risk of an Iranian nuke delivered by Hezbollah is real? For me, it would take them catching a Hezbolah guy with a nuke in the trunk of his car. Short of that, I wouldn't believe anything Cheney in particular would say about something being an actual threat. For those who will take Cheney at his word, I suppose the question for you is why is it not irresponsible to not be bombing Iran and NK NOW based on what Cheney is already saying?

How about you? What's your threshold? What would get you on board with a strike on Iran?

I'm with Bill.

Most people put missile and nuke together. If a nation such as NK or Iran mean to do us harm with a nuke weapon, it won't arrive on the nose of a missile.Agreed. Missile strikes aren't what concern me, although I don't think it's out of the question for NK to lob a nuke at Seoul.

Actually, if missiles make me a *little* uncomfortable it is because I am in Oregon. I figure, if Kim Jong Il decides to launch a nuke at Seattle or San Francisco there's a fair chance that he'll miss and hit Corvallis instead :idea:

Your notion about Israel is probably spot-on. Although even then, I'm not sure that the world community would trust Israel enough on this matter. You probably need to convince even Germany that Iran is a problem.

I think I've made it clear in other threads that I am strongly opposed to any kind of military strike on Iran. A couple of nights ago Fresh Air had an intriguing interview with Seymour Hersh (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7618708) on the subject of Iran. Hersh is the man who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and was one of the first people to expose the Abu Graib scandal. He's been around and knows how to delve deep. In this recent interview Hersh makes some harsh claims, many of which are (by his own admission) unverifiable at this point. Among them is a claim that Cheney strongly believes that it is only a matter of time before Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and when they do they intend to use Hezbollah agents in the USA to detonate a bomb here.

For the sake of discussion let's take this claim at face value. What if Cheney is right? A nuclear attack within the United States is surely something we need to prevent, and it's the job of the President to try to prevent such catastrophes. Speaking for myself, I would say that if Cheney were correct and Iran actually plans to hit us, that's justification for a pre-emptive strike.

The problem, of course, is credibility. I don't think anyone can deny that the Bush administration lacks credibility right now with Congress and the American people. Some of you may argue that we are wrong to mistrust the President, but it's a plain fact that many of us do.

So... what can Cheney and the Bush administration do to convince us that a strike is necessary? Again speaking for myself, after the Iraq debacle it's going to take a lot more than "Trust me" from Bush. I don't need all of the top-secret intel laid out in public. I think if the Bush administration could convince Russ Feingold, I'd be on board.

How about you? What's your threshold? What would get you on board with a strike on Iran?

The credibility question is a good one with no good answer. The short one is that there is nothing the Adminstration could do that would change the way the polarized left sees them. What I would expect from the leadership of this country, whoever it might be, would be that they would evaluate the intel data and if they have conclusive proof, to act. It isn't all that important how many of us are on board, the decision should be made by the adminstration and the Joint Chiefs based on facts as they know them to be.

The credibility question is a good one with no good answer. The short one is that there is nothing the Adminstration could do that would change the way the polarized left sees them. What I would expect from the leadership of this country, whoever it might be, would be that they would evaluate the intel data and if they have conclusive proof, to act. It isn't all that important how many of us are on board, the decision should be made by the adminstration and the Joint Chiefs based on facts as they know them to be.



Snake, the operative word here is "facts". So far the Bush administration has been very short on facts and very long on fear and conjecture.

Snake, the operative word here is "facts". So far the Bush administration has been very short on facts and very long on fear and conjecture.

No they haven't. They have been very short on credibility. Every accusation is siezed upon as truth and every explanation is vehemently denied as lies. I'm not arguing that they should be loved and I don't think it is important that all of us trust them. I believe it is importand that they trust the information they receive and have the courage to act on it in the face of opposition to insure the safety of this country.

it is importand that they trust the information they receive and have the courage to act on it in the face of opposition to insure the safety of this country.
Now that's a novel idea. I have a 'family' attitude toward the actions of our country, no matter who the party in power bee. What I mean is, I support them because no one else will. How many parents, husbands, wives, support their significant other, right, wrong or indifferent?

Now that's a novel idea. I have a 'family' attitude toward the actions of our country, no matter who the party in power bee. What I mean is, I support them because no one else will. How many parents, husbands, wives, support their significant other, right, wrong or indifferent?


blind support is unpatriotic, and a tad ridiculous.

blind support is unpatriotic, and a tad ridiculous.

It isn't blind support, it is understanding reality. The urgency of the situation should dictate the action, not political consequences. It's like Bigbill, if he was OOD and thought his ship was under attack, he'd call the Captain if there were time but if a decision were required immediately, he'd pull the trigger and hope his career didn't go out the barrel with the projectile/missile or whatever. It's a judgement call and not important that you and I trust the Presidents judgement, in that moment, it is himself that has to trust it and the information he receives and the people who give it to him.

Dude (I hate saying that) it's called nationalism. Since when was it unpatriotic to be nationalistic? I know libs believe isn't not only wrong and immoral to be an American nationalist, but it should be illegal as well. Heck I think they'd actually call for the chair in such circumstances. Sort of akin to Naziism?

i had more to say, but my schedule demanded a one-liner.

what you're describing isn't blind support. in the heat of the moment, you have to trust the judgement of those we put in charge. steam is describing blind support. sticking by an administration that has had a very clear lack of honesty on more than one issue, and comparing it to standing by an unfaithful spouse, is kind of ridiculous. we're talking about the lives, the safety and the freedoms of millions of people here. if a president elect and his staff make decisions that aren't in the best interest of those they're sworn to serve, then why put all your support behind them? because it's your duty? that doesn't make sense.

What I would expect from the leadership of this country, whoever it might be, would be that they would evaluate the intel data and if they have conclusive proof, to act. It isn't all that important how many of us are on board, the decision should be made by the adminstration and the Joint Chiefs based on facts as they know them to be.In principle I would agree with you, however the President must consider the consequences of his actions. Suppose he orders a strike, and in the process of destroying the nuclear production facilities he also destroys evidence of justification. In the end it looks like another Sudan medicine factory bombing.

When Clinton bombed the medicine factory, maybe he prevented a bio/chem terrorist attack, and maybe he didn't. We'll never really know. But the criticism will continue.

I think with Bush we are past the point of mere criticism. If he strikes Iran without proving to the American people and the world that it's the right thing to do, the repercussions are going to be severe. Imagine Europe and Asia putting up trade sanctions against us. Imagine foreign countries ejecting our military bases and refusing our ships at their ports. This I think would be the price of careless action by the Bush administration.

Again, it doesn't really matter if administration critics and foreign countries are right. All that matters is what they will do. If Bush is a responsible leader he *must* take all of this into consideration. He can't keep ignoring his allies or he will find that he has none.

You can look at it anyway you like. I am equally confident that liberals find fault with the US right, wrong or indifferent too. We are, after all, the Evil Empire. It's fashionable to bash the US.

I don't really understand the liberal mindset. They love to get photo ops with some of the most notorious dictators of our time, yet they call Bush a dictator and resent him for it. You would think they would want to cozy up with the biggest, baddest of them all instead of the small potato(e) :p types like Chavez :D

I believe it is importand that they trust the information they receive and have the courage to act on it in the face of opposition to insure the safety of this country.

This sounds more like decisiveness than credibility. W is nothing if not decisive - until he changes his mind, of course ("welcome to our neighborhood summit, Iran & Syria."). However, the OP's question related to W & his clan's credibility in convincing the American people that there was a credible threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, not whether W would launch all manner of pre-emptive attacks if he thought there MIGHT be a threat.

Having already decisively attacked Iraq over an erroneous fear of a potential threat, with public explanations that tossed in references to non-existent Al Qeada connections and shuttered weapons programs, W. Cheney Inc. have little credibility with many people when it comes to discerning actual national threats from imagined ones. They can and have blamed his intelligence services, or Saddam's double-dealing, or trucks in the night to Syria, but it's hard to see how W. Cheney Inc. have any capability or credibility in discerning potential threats when they were so dramatically and unequivocally wrong in Iraq.

<Cue bait and switch argument> Of course, the real reason we're in Iraq is to establish Democracy in the ME and to free the Iraqi people from a tyrant, so why do Libs keep harping on all the weapons stuff???

Dude (I hate saying that) it's called nationalism. Since when was it unpatriotic to be nationalistic? I know libs believe isn't not only wrong and immoral to be an American nationalist, but it should be illegal as well. Heck I think they'd actually call for the chair in such circumstances. Sort of akin to Naziism?

Steam, you out do yourself sometimes putting words into Libs mouths. I think I'll start a new reply to this nonsense.

Cons rape their neighbor's children, and they like to brag about it at the Tavern.

Isn't that what they say already?

Isn't that what they say already?

LOL. You got me there. The proverbial "they" is, afterall, the Right-wing rhetorical crutch and boogieman. It fits all purposes. And no, I don't know any "they" that says it. I said it.

Attribution. Give it a try.

"Blah blah blah liberals. Blah blah libby blah blah blah liberals blah blah."

Steam: Bump the record player, your needle is skipping again. You haven't gotten to the "Hillary" part yet :rolleyes:

Speaking of dictators ..........

How many parents, husbands, wives, support their significant other, right, wrong or indifferent?

If my wife/kid/family member were breaking the law, hurting others or etc... I would not support them. People, and that includes our government, must be held accountable for their actions if we are to survive as a society.

Dude (I hate saying that) it's called nationalism. Since when was it unpatriotic to be nationalistic? I know libs believe isn't not only wrong and immoral to be an American nationalist, but it should be illegal as well. Heck I think they'd actually call for the chair in such circumstances. Sort of akin to Naziism?

I've never heard any liberal that I know say that they hate America, and I know a lot of them.

You confuse yourself a lot methinks. Like confusing criticism with hatred, which isn't the same at all. That would be like me saying that you hated America when Clinton was President because I'm certain that you undoubtedly criticized him probably loud and often. Not anti American what you did, and not anti American the criticisms that we sometimes level at the Bush administration. In more cases than not, our criticisms have been proven out, time and again. And now, the rest of the country is catching up.

Iran should attack Amreeka
you'll profit and
be righteous (for once)

peace

I think I've made it clear in other threads that I am strongly opposed to any kind of military strike on Iran. A couple of nights ago Fresh Air had an intriguing interview with Seymour Hersh (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7618708) on the subject of Iran. Hersh is the man who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and was one of the first people to expose the Abu Graib scandal. He's been around and knows how to delve deep. In this recent interview Hersh makes some harsh claims, many of which are (by his own admission) unverifiable at this point. Among them is a claim that Cheney strongly believes that it is only a matter of time before Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and when they do they intend to use Hezbollah agents in the USA to detonate a bomb here.

For the sake of discussion let's take this claim at face value. What if Cheney is right? A nuclear attack within the United States is surely something we need to prevent, and it's the job of the President to try to prevent such catastrophes. Speaking for myself, I would say that if Cheney were correct and Iran actually plans to hit us, that's justification for a pre-emptive strike.

The problem, of course, is credibility. I don't think anyone can deny that the Bush administration lacks credibility right now with Congress and the American people. Some of you may argue that we are wrong to mistrust the President, but it's a plain fact that many of us do.

So... what can Cheney and the Bush administration do to convince us that a strike is necessary? Again speaking for myself, after the Iraq debacle it's going to take a lot more than "Trust me" from Bush. I don't need all of the top-secret intel laid out in public. I think if the Bush administration could convince Russ Feingold, I'd be on board.

How about you? What's your threshold? What would get you on board with a strike on Iran?

I think for the most part, a lot of the posturing coming from Iran is just that. Posturing. Just like Iraq did before we invaded, and like they did back in Gulf War 1. Lots of posturing, lots of talk, not much in the way of action. Iran would be completely and utterly foolish to set off any kind of bomb or device inside the US. I think that they have fiery rhetoric, but they wouldn't overtly attack the US, because of the fallout that would happen because of it. They know, and they have seen, what could happen to them should they bomb something inside of the United States. This would only motivate folks in the US to join up to go and destroy Iran. Iran knows that they would be destroyed in short order if they actually attacked the US. This is why they won't do it, ever. Our military, and our country would be too strong for them to take on as a country. They just won't do it. They talk a good game, but when it comes right down to it, they're not stupid, not at all.

Our current administration wants to frighten people into believing that indeed, Iran would attack us. So then they can justify the 3rd Bush war. They have tried this before, and it worked. I'm not so certain that it would work again.

I think for the most part, a lot of the posturing coming from Iran is just that. Posturing. Just like Iraq did before we invaded, and like they did back in Gulf War 1. Lots of posturing, lots of talk, not much in the way of action. Iran would be completely and utterly foolish to set off any kind of bomb or device inside the US. I think that they have fiery rhetoric, but they wouldn't overtly attack the US, because of the fallout that would happen because of it. They know, and they have seen, what could happen to them should they bomb something inside of the United States. This would only motivate folks in the US to join up to go and destroy Iran. Iran knows that they would be destroyed in short order if they actually attacked the US. This is why they won't do it, ever. Our military, and our country would be too strong for them to take on as a country. They just won't do it. They talk a good game, but when it comes right down to it, they're not stupid, not at all.

Our current administration wants to frighten people into believing that indeed, Iran would attack us. So then they can justify the 3rd Bush war. They have tried this before, and it worked. I'm not so certain that it would work again.


Like I said before, I want to see proof of weapons production and proliferation. The whole Iranian uranium enrichment program is suspicious. The Russians will sell them fuel needed to run power plant reactors and take possession of the expended fuel. The Russians have more enrichment capability than pretty much the rest of the world combined. Without those pesky environmental laws, we could too. The fact that the Iranians want to have their own enrichment facilities is what causes all the angst in the region. They make confusing claims about using it for peaceful applications but at the same time talk about their sovereign right to enrich. If they bought fuel from the Russians and ran their power plants, I don't think the world would be so apprehensive. Russia wants to be a trading partner with their near neighbor, they don't need the oil, Russia could pass up the middle east with the right distribution and transportation system in place. I still say let him rattle his sword, the middle east will grow tired of him and the Arab League will wisper in the Ayatolla's ear..

Steam, you out do yourself sometimes putting words into Libs mouths. I think I'll start a new reply to this nonsense.

Cons rape their neighbor's children, and they like to brag about it at the Tavern.

I thought neo-conservative priests did that...

I could see Iran attacking Israel long before they would ever hit the U.S.
with porous borders and plenty of allies in the region, it would be a hell of a lot easier to move a nuclear device into Israel than it would be across the Atlantic.

of course it would have to strategically placed as to not endanger the shared Hebrew and Muslim religious shrines dispersed across Israel....

needless to say, that alone would be justification for a U.S. strike...which, combined with whatever power Israel had left would basically remove Iran from the map..

so the question is...is Iran that dumb?