PARIS (Reuters) - Iran allocated $2.5 billion to obtain three nuclear warheads last year, an exiled opposition group said Thursday, without saying whether Iran had secured any of the warheads.
The group, which has given accurate information in the past on some of Iran's nuclear facilities, also said Iran was speeding up work on a reactor south of Tehran which could produce enough plutonium for an atomic bomb by 2007.

We may have to let Israel nuke Iran.
Created by redboy on 2/4/05 at 9:31 PM

The mullahs in Iran may soon have a hard decision to make. Their secret nuclear program is close to having a few weapons ready for them to use, but a young, homegrown progressive movement, inspired by recent events in Iraq, may force them into a doomsday situation.
 

These old dinosaurs have sworn to destroy Israel. If they were to come under attack from their own people, they have no flexibility or ability to see things from others' points of view. They're stone-age religious fanatics for crying out loud! If they are backed into a corner by secular forces during a civil war, why shouldn't they lob their nuclear weapons at Israel? They would get their 72 virgins if all hell breaks loose. What would restrain them from letting loose with all that they have?

We may have to let Israel take out their nuclear facilities with their own nuclear strikes. What makes this situation more difficult than the earlier strike by Israel is the fact that Iran's present-day nuclear facilities are spread around the country and many of them are in secret underground locations. Surgical strikes may not be possible.

Big plans must be in the making at this moment by U.S., Israeli and underground Iranian leaders. What is the solution?

Replies

Iranian scholars in the U.S. have confirmed that the mullahs now in power in Iran would use any weapons at their disposal on Israel as surely and with as little hesitation as Adolph Hitler or Osama bin Laden would use them against America. Why should religious fanatics with their backs agains the wall think twice?
By redboy on 2/4/05 at 9:55 PM

I am just wondering if the U.S. could give Iran the benefit of the doubt that they have a nuclear program for nuclear energy?

Also, who are the Iranian scholars in the U.S. to which you are referring? What article are you referrring to?
By phillip1776 on 2/4/05 at 11:26 PM

 

Not that I would want political or religious fanatics of any persuasion with nuclear capabilities!
By phillip1776 on 2/4/05 at 11:27 PM

 

I'm forced by, your previous statements, to believe that you are really serious here.

10 reasons why your sugestion is, Pardon my flame, IGNORANT

!. It fits into your sense of honor to contract someone else do the dirty business of deploying a neuclear weapon against our enemy?

2. It took the US with unlimited resources 50 years to develop a neuclear missle capable of striking a target on another continent. Iran has few developed economic resources. The many pressing social and cultural issues they have, prevent the expenditure of those resources on a neuclear weapons program.

3. Black market neuclear weapons would be much cheaper and both the US and Russia are reputed to have lost both neuclear weapons and/or materials.

4. War is an economic and social quicksand.

5. Large scale energy development is a necessity for Iranian economic development. Automobile useage is growing rapidly in the world and as yet auto's are powered by the swiftly dwindling and dirty oil resources.

6. The middle east is in a period of natural social advance.

7. The US seems to be in a period of socially regressive behavior. From here on lets just call it a tantrum.

8. If your son is having a tantrum do you:
A. Give him a gun
B. Tell him to take a time out.

9. People doing stupid things in cars kill more US citizens in a year than terrorists have in history. Do we forgive this stupidity as unintentional or maybe nuke them also.

10. AAAAAnd lets not forget who bombed the Oklahoma federal building.

Anyone want to add to the list?
By rogesgallery on 2/5/05 at 5:56 AM

 

Mr. Rogesgallery: I hope you are right about all the reasons you gave why Iran is not a threat. I did not write that we should encourage Israel to strike; If they see that option as being in their own security interest we couldn't stop them anyway.

The Iranian situation does not lend itself to the usual "Blame America First," Bush-bashing tactics one often sees from our leftists. In this instance you can hardly blame the U.S. for the developments in Iran, and unlike the Iraq case, Bush and Co. don't want an invasion/occupation.

To Phillip1776: I can't site an article for you about what Iranian experts say is the mullah's intent to use weapons if they get them. I've heard and read a number of different pundits express this view, so I assumed most others here had been exposed to it as well. I thought it was accepted as common knowledge. I'll stand corrected for throwing it out so easily--I'm not a journalist, I'm just interested in discussing this topic. I'd be glad if YOU could refer ME to Iranian experts who say otherwise.

I don't have any pat solutions for this problem. Here's a thought: How about U.S and Israeli Special Forces working with progressive leaders in Iran conduct a lightning-fast coup, moving in quickly and killing or jailing the mullahs?
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 6:32 AM

 

//How about U.S and Israeli Special Forces working with progressive leaders in Iran conduct a lightning-fast coup, moving in quickly and killing or jailing the mullahs?//

All I can say to that sugestion is:

nonononononononononononononononono...

We (the US) should NOT, nor should Israel, take any military action against Iran. The sh$# storm that would cause in the Arab world would make what has been happening in Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. Things are starting to look up over there, lets not spill any more gasoline, or blood, right now. The Iranian people are not helpless nor are they un-intelagent. If reforms are to happen there, Please may they be non-violent. If we send soldiers in, we will be playing into al qaeda's(sp) hands. Let's not help them recrute any more killers, ok?
By SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at 7:43 AM

 

Okay SneakyPete--I'll hold off for a while if you say so. But if Israel feels threatened I can't make you any promises.
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 7:52 AM

 

I think one of the major reasons that Iran is doing this is, they feel surounded. Afgabistan on one side and Iraq on the other. They know the US doesn't like them (remember that "axis of evil" thing?) and they are doing the only thing that , they think, will save them from invasion from us.

Nothing like the thought of a mushroom cloud to give one pause to think.

In my opinion, we should have patience and let the diplomatic route have a chance.
By SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at 7:54 AM

 

Israel has a more immediate problem, the Palestinians. When and if they can resolve their differences, that will go a long way in calming down the hate and violence in the regon. And in getting democratic reforms going there. The various governments won't have the killing in Gaza and the West Bank to deflect the people of their countries from looking at the corruption in their leaders.

I think the key to the whole regon is to get Israel ant Palistine to stop killing each other.
By SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at 8:05 AM

 

Did I ever mention the fact that I suck at spelling?
By SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at 8:06 AM

 

I do too SP. My wife, little Miss Spelling Bee just looks down her nose and says, "Can't you just sound it out?" No, you can't. I can't really distinguish "intelligant" from "intelligint" from "intelligent" by just listening.

My theory is that the spelling part of my brain was taking up too much space and that the overdeveloped part that has to do with love, tolerance and compassion for all just pushed it aside. That's probably what happened to you too.
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 8:32 AM

 

Red: My sympathy's if any of these apply but are you crippled, hogtied, or hobbled? Why are you not in Iraq, either with the military or a private contractor?
By rogesgallery on 2/5/05 at 8:50 AM

 

This is an appalling thread.

If you can't distinguish "intelligant" from "intelligint" from "intelligent" by just listening, I seriously think you should get a lobotomy.
By Brit on 2/5/05 at 8:56 AM

 

If you google Mossedeq or Kermit Rossevelt you will find that the primary reason for misstrust of US policy in the Middle East is a coup orchestrated by the CIA that over threw a democratically elected government and reinstalled the Shah. The 30 years that followed were far worse for Iran than Saadams reign over Iraq
By rogesgallery on 2/5/05 at 9:04 AM

 

If someone doesn't talk some sense into the boy he's likely to go on a college campus shooting spree.
By rogesgallery on 2/5/05 at 9:11 AM

 

Oh great--so we can get back to the comfortable habit of "Blame America First." Is there any major problem in the world that can't eventually be traced by to evil old Amerika?

Brit: What a kind thing to say! I was sure that you thought I'd already had a lobotomy.
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 9:14 AM

 

Thanks, Rog. As you say, our involvement in the Middle East goes back decades - no need to blame just Republicans, there's plenty of self-serving imperialism to go around. No one there trusts westerners, and for solid reasons.

I think Pete has a sound view of the diplomatic challenge. There was very good reason after the Holocaust to find a home for Jews and re-create the Nation of Israel. But the impact on the area chosen was bound to be painful. The Arabs didn't love Israelis, but WWII wasn't their doing. It was the Germans who had practiced genocide, but no one gave German land to the Jews.
As for Iran, their current experience has given them due cause to distrust us. There was the Axis of Evil thing, and Bush used strong language again in the State of the Union. Unfortunately, the whole region is now wary because Iraq has told them that we'll invade if we decide it's to our advantage. Rice has a huge job in front of her.
By gailkate on 2/5/05 at 9:20 AM

 

// I seriously think you should get a lobotomy.//

Brit...

No thanks.

Redboy.

Unfortunatly, the sins of America (Rogesgallery pointed one out) are now comming back to haunt us. With great power comes great responsability. In the past, in going for the quick fix, we haven't been all that responsable.
By SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at 9:24 AM

 

Sorry Pete if I did not make myself clear.

I was suggesting that redboy really needs to get a brain transplant.
By Brit on 2/5/05 at 9:26 AM

 

I know Brit... and it's becoming a bit of a bore.

If you don't like the guy, avoid him. The insults are getting old.
By SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at 9:29 AM

 

Where does Lawrence of Arabia fit into this picture? Doesn't British colonialism have something to do with all this? And what about the French?
By John "The Okie Swede on 2/5/05 at 9:31 AM

 

I remember Bill Clinton's series of "Apology Tours," around the globe. Everywhere he stopped, he would bite that lip and say he was so, so sorry for all the evil this old nation of ours had wrought upon the planet. That's such a liberal thing to do and so distasteful for patriotic Americans to watch. We even give the Anti-American U.N. a cozy place on our lap from which to berate us. Screw that.

Conservatives believe that America has done so much more good for the world than harm. We have given protection, the benefit of our research and technology, more foreign aid and charity than any other country. We have come to know that it is an exercise in futility to try to be popular among the nations of the world. Bush is leading in the proper way now. We go about our business without the self-imposed handicap of seeking love and approval. If countries like Iran don't love us, that's okay, but if they threaten us or our allies, they know there will be Hell to pay.
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 9:36 AM

 

oops...

after re-reading my post, I think I left the impression that tht US was the only one to blame for the ills of the regon. That's wrong. There's plenty of blame to go around. The short-sightedness of world leaders everywhere is what keeps getting us in trouble.

I can't remember where I saw this but if governments could take the view:"What would the last seven generations think and what effect would it have on the next seven generations" things might run a bit smoother in the world.
By SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at 9:42 AM

 

Remember what JFK said during the Cuban Missle Crisis?

He said (paraphrase), "An attack from Cuba on any nation in the Western Hemisphere will be viewed as an attack on the United States by the Soviet Union."

Now THAT's sticking up for your allies and your interests. Sort of like going "All In" in No Limit Texas Hold 'em.
By John "The Okie Swede on 2/5/05 at 9:43 AM

 

And what about the groups of "Arab" states that twice tried to destroy Israel and twice failed (resulting in doubling the size of Israel)? I'd say their own actions created a lot of the so-called "Palestinian" problem.
By John "The Okie Swede on 2/5/05 at 9:45 AM

 

//(resulting in doubling the size of Israel)//

That, of course, would have nothing to do with the so-called "Palestinian" problem.

There are two sides to every story. Why does our foreign policy only take one side? I know, power, politics, votes, but that is not the high ground and it has only led to an escalation of violence and misunderstanding.

If Israel is really poised to conduct a pre-emptive nuclear strike, it seems to me that along with Iran, the world should be beating Isreal back into its corner with sanctions and threats.
By juliastar on 2/5/05 at 10:36 AM

 

Agreed
By Brit on 2/5/05 at 10:41 AM

 

Especially now that it looks very likely the Iraq elections are going to favor the Shiites. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Americans are in for a shock," he [a shiite leader] said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."

The partial totals so far show the Iraqi List headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite and onetime CIA protege, trailed far behind with only 18 percent of the votes, despite an aggressive television ad campaign waged with U.S. aid. A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime. More than a third of the alliance's vote came from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare well.
By gailkate on 2/5/05 at 11:05 AM

 

But C. Rice says we won't attack. Lets trust her on this.
By afan on 2/5/05 at 11:08 AM

 

Why would the U.S. take "the side" of the Palestinians, many of whom turned out on the streets cheering and celebrating after the 9-11 attacks? (This was even shown on the liberal media, so it wasn't just Limbaugesque propaganda). Somehow this just doesn't seem to be in our best interests. But maybe in Bizarro World it is.
By John "The Okie Swede on 2/5/05 at 11:24 AM

 

The Shiites who turned out to vote may be ready to try secular governance. They've lived under the lash of Saddam and have seen what the mullahs do next door in Iran. Not all Catholics agree with every edict from Rome--why should we assume that the Iraqis are too stupid to choose a better way for themselves?
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 11:43 AM

 

Israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time and has not used them on her enemies. Israel does not have a formal policy of bringing about the destruction of Iran--the reverse is not true. Israel has shown enormous restraint. I would not be for "beating them back into their corner" just so they could be slaughtered by a (another) sneak attack from the religeous fanatics in Iran. It is the Iranians that are out of line here. They are known supporters of international terrorism--they will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 12:09 PM

 

religious/rilidgius/relledgias/reeligius--I know it's there somewhere, just keep moving them vowels around.
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 12:11 PM

 

Hey, redboy! I'm not interested in entering this conversation of which I am so poorly informed so I am simply evaluating conversational style.

I'd like to tentatively echo Sneaks in support of your more readable discourse. Winks. anja
By anjanita-1 on 2/5/05 at 1:03 PM

 

//It is the Iranians that are out of line here. They are known supporters of international terrorism--//

Seems like I've heard this some place before in a run up to war. Facts to support an accusation so very dangerous in today's world, please.
By juliastar on 2/5/05 at 1:25 PM

 

Excerpts from the Christian Science Monitor:

Would Israel strike first at Iran?
Israel holds the preemptive wildcard, but experts doubt Osirak-style repeat.

By Joshua Mitnick | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

TEL AVIV – Moments before dispatching Israeli pilots to bomb Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June, 1981, army Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan is said to have depicted the importance of the mission in stark terms: "The alternative is our destruction.''
In ordering the lightning knockout, Israel served notice to its Middle Eastern foes that the Jewish state would act - even preemptively - to deprive them of a nuclear option.

Two decades later, the Osirak precedent endures. As the Bush administration steps up its rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of Israel following through on veiled threats to hit Iranian sites remains a wildcard.

But several Israeli experts say that the Osirak experience bears little relevance in the case of Iran and that the chances of a repeat strike are very low.
**********************
With National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warning last week that the US won't tolerate a nuclear Iran, Israel is much more likely to act in tandem with its most powerful ally rather than electing to go it alone, observers say.

"The circumstances are quite different,'' says Ephraim Kam, head of the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. "If Israel is going to take any move beyond the diplomatic move, there should be better understanding in the international arena that there is no way to stop the Iranians.''

Tehran admits it has sought so-called dual-use nuclear technology in order to generate electricity, but denies it aims to build nuclear weapons.

Repeat performance?

Even the very ability of Israel's military to repeat the decisive strike achieved at Osirak appears doubtful. While the Iraqi nuclear effort was concentrated at the Osirak plant, nuclear experts say the Iranians have dispersed their program at multiple sites, some of which are hidden underground.

***********************************
Even so, first-strike offensives have been an essential element of Israel's defensive doctrine for decades - the most famous instance being the Israeli Air Force's destruction of Egyptian air bases to open the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. That approach still influences the Israeli defense establishment.

With Israeli intelligence agencies estimating that Iran will acquire nuclear weaponry by 2007, defense officials on occasion drop hints of a first strike. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz (who was born in Iran) said in a December radio interview that Israel would try to minimize civilian casualties in such an attack.

Last week, Israeli army Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said in an interview with the daily newspaper Yediot Ahronot that Israel "can't rely on others'' in facing the threat from Iran.

Both countries have engaged in a cat-and-mouse game of missile tests in recent weeks. Iran has said it would strike at Israel with its ballistic missiles if Israel attacks its nuclear facilities.

"For Israel it's quite clear, that we're not going to wait for a threat to be realized,'' says Ephraim Inbar, head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. "For self-defense we have to act in a preemptive mode.''.............

Nevertheless, a lone Israeli strike reminiscent of 1981 seems less likely at a time when US forces are sitting in neighboring Iraq, ...

The Osirak strike generated a chorus of international condemnation that included US Secretary of State Alexander Haig and UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. But beyond a temporary halt in F-16 fighter jet shipments from the US, there was no lasting fallout.

Unlike 1981, the blame for such an attack today would not be limited to Israel. The US would be perceived in the Muslim world as being complicit - probably boosting the motivation of extremists to carry out terrorist attacks on Western targets.

"Certainly it would be seen as a continuation of what the Americans did in Iraq,'' says Bruce Maddy Weizman, a fellow at the Dayan Center for Middle East and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. "Israel and US are widely perceived to be acting in concert.''

For their part, Israeli officials argue that Iran's ambition is to use nuclear prominence to threaten Saudi Arabia, Europe, and US influence in the Gulf.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0818/p06s01-wome.htm l
By gailkate on 2/5/05 at 1:41 PM

 

On the Other hand.....

WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS
Israel 'ready'
to strike Iran
If Russia supplies Islamic state with rods for enriching uranium
Posted: July 18, 2004
6:15 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Israel has conducted military exercises for a pre-emptive strike against several of Iran's nuclear power facilities and is ready to attack if Russia supplies Iran with rods for enriching uranium, Israeli officials told reporters.

An Israeli defense source in Tel Aviv told the London Sunday Times, which first published the story, that "Israel will on no account permit Iranian reactors – especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help – to go critical."

The source was also quoted as saying that any strike on Iran's reactors would probably be carried out by long-range F-15I jets, flying over Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground.

Russia is expected to deliver the enriching rods, currently being stored at a Russian port, late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.

"If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail," the source said, "we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollah's nuclear aspirations in one go."

>>>>So what are we to believe? I think it was Joe who said get as much information as possible and try to be objective.
By gailkate on 2/5/05 at 1:50 PM

 

Ms. Anjanita: Thanks for your friendly note.

Ms. Gailkate: Thanks for posting the interesting articles. The bottom line still seems to be: Israel will do whatever she deems necessary for her self-defense, world opinion be damned. And if the Iranian facilities are spread around too much for regular-style tactical strikes, do you doubt that Israel would go nuclear if she feels seriously threatened?
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 3:27 PM

 

Albert Einstein said it best:

"There are two things which are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity."

and:

"I don't know how World War III will be fought, but I know how World War IV will be fought. With stones and clubs."

Cue the Armageddon Follies.
By Escalus on 2/5/05 at 4:05 PM

 

Wow! I just registered and came here. If I knew Garrison attracted such a bosterous crowd, I would have just tuned in Rush Limbauch (uggh!). I thought the website would be more mellow and understanding - like the show!

I did think it was funny that someone wrote that he didn't want any religious fanatics to have a nuke. Hello, W!
By snedzsr on 2/5/05 at 5:24 PM

 

Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Snedzsr. There are threads about wedding cakes, chocolate and musical instruments that might seem less jarring to you. I sympathize with your need to get away from right-wing types. They're not at all shy about speaking out these days. You had them in a box for so many decades. What could have gotten into them?
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 5:30 PM

 

Snedzsr, YOU are welcome here,

redboy is an interloper - a recent interloper - who really needs to get a new brain. He has been holding the platform for a little while and we allow him to hold forth on his right wing prejudicies now and again.

That's freedom of speech so don't be scared off.
By Brit on 2/5/05 at 5:49 PM

 

I strongly agree with Snedzsr that postings advocating violence against other societies don't really belong on a website obstensibly devoted to "A Prairie Home Companion."

Of course, I believe in free speech. But, do you think Bill O'Reilly, Flush Limpjaw or other Confederate commentators allow anyone to post items about lutefisk or Bertha's Kitty Boutique on their tightly-controlled propaganda organs?

"Redboy" (does that name mean you are also a Communist?) claims that the U.S. has helped the rest of the world more than it has harmed it through its overt and covert attempts to control the planet. Of course, slave-owners used to point out how much better off their slaves were because, in return for giving up all human liberties, they were allowed to "share" the slave-owners' hypocritical religion.
By kharrin on 2/5/05 at 5:52 PM

 

My dear kharrin: America is one big 'ol "Masta" now in your eyes. Well the Master just got its first black female Secretary of State, its first Hispanic Attorney General, and served as midwife at the birth of a brand new baby democracy. Who says we don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies?

I can't say for sure, but I don't think Limbaugh or O'Reilly host a chat room like this. But if they did, do you think they would be afraid to mix it up with a bed-wetting weenie like you?
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 6:10 PM

 

Mr. Redboy:

I am a heterosexual male, I'd prefer that you not address me as your "dear."

Of course, right-wing radical ideologues such as Limpjaw and O'Lielly DO NOT offer any opportunity on their websites for any public disagreement with their hate-inspired pronouncements. Go ahead, check the websites of all the similar Confederate commentators for us, and report back here as to which ones allow for any dissenting opinions.

I'm sure it will be a very short list.
By kharrin on 2/5/05 at 6:31 PM

 

Oh I am laughing so much I can hardly see the screen! The thought that "redboy" was a communist is absolutely hilarious.

This perhaps illustrates the sadness of redboy in his choice of nickname.

kharrin: Redboy thinks communists should be shot on sight, but I can well understand your confusion if you had not read his rantings on other threads.

He does write rubbish on whatever thread he chooses so just ignore the prat.
By Brit on 2/5/05 at 6:43 PM

 

Mr. K.: I must insist that Limbaugh and O'Reilly could both send you running home crying to your mama. They are not afraid to debate and, in fact, join in battle every day on live radio and television. I haven't listened to Limbaugh for a while, but I do remember his policy of putting liberals who call in straight to the front of the line. I wouldn't do it if I were you.

I get the feeling that you think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly are some sort of standard bearers for us right-wingers to rally around. Maybe a few years ago, but not anymore. Conservatism is here in a big way and it transcends two little talking heads on tv. We actually come out in the open now and demand our rightful place. The days of unanswered ridicule and universal disdain of conservative values are dead and gone. Power to the People!
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 7:06 PM

 

And I admire the courage to demand one's rightful place over bed-wetting weenies.
By gailkate on 2/5/05 at 7:21 PM

 

Ok everybody...

Put down the pea shooters. Let's get back to the subject at hand. Will Israel nix Iranian nukes?

I still say no. The head of the IAEA, last I heard, urged the diplomatic route and I agree with him.
By SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at 7:29 PM

 

Gailkate: Ya gotta start somewhere!
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 7:35 PM

 

Ok, I'll try. If you go back to the first thread you started, you might see that I responded courteously. Read what you said. Read all of your threads and see the anger and hostility. You were about as easy to embrace as a cactus ( with flesh-eating propensities).
So a person gets wary.

But I really believe that we MUST think together and share our fears and strain our intellects for whatever wisdom we can manage. Not that any of us can really affect what happens in the world, but maybe in small ways we can. And if enough of us do, just maybe we can give our world a nudge.

There's a film that's used in business and may be familiar now to everyone (I retired 5 years ago). In the film, we're driving along a beautiful wooded road, all curves, dips and hills, and suddenly another car approaches from the opposite direction. The other driver leans out the window and screams, "PIG!"

Remember, we're the driver of the first car; we're enraged,"What kind of #%^!* is that? Who does he think he is, the miserable %#^*!" We accelerate into the upcoming curve, still furious, and see a huge boar right in our path.

We need to trust. We need to believe that we all mean well. G'nite, folks.
By gailkate on 2/5/05 at 8:18 PM

 

Good night Gailkate. I'll try to play more nicely tomorrow.
By redboy on 2/5/05 at 8:21 PM

 

shoot first, ask questions later..an all too common reaction although one that has quite well served many surviving species. It all comes down to survival of the fittest,as well as a pure reactionary deployment of whatever weapons are at the desposal naturally, or invented, when cornered.. use it! even if it is used reactionarily the law of nature ( I have personally witnessed a house cat awakened from a dead sleep, attack a folded newspaper that fell from the arm of a chair! non-retracted claws moving at a very high rate of speed) did the cat ponder the newspapers motives? no wayy It simply reacted as any of us would have. any of us with a will to live that is. So my point is. even if a reaction turns out to be a mistake, you cant blame the living thing for the very act of reacting. things die sometimes without the benefit of an explaination. example: a bear cub falls from a branch 12 feet from the ground...upon impact the cub squeals and emits a reverberating vocal outlet that would surely draw "moms" attention then ,in a rage mother bear wipes out the nearest living thing to her cub, be it a racoon, a coyote, or a camper ( who may have had a walkman on) and never knew for an instant that anything was wrong. life is given, life is taken away and in the end no explaination is needed. my point in summary being... Israel may one day have to react without thinking, as may the U.S. and before you respond giving me the third degree pause and ask youself..."have I ever in my life squashed a mosquito, out of pure reaction and instinct?? you are lying if you say no! and yes those pesky lil bugs carry a host of deadly diseases so you were well within your right to swatt first,and then find out what bit you. Hey .coulda been a spider (a freind!) but out of pure instinct ya killed em!
By cdc3794 on 2/6/05 at 2:29 AM

 

//"Israel may one day have to react without thinking''//

We are not dumb animals. Our own system of criminal law holds paranoid individuals responsible for shooting off firearms recklessly into the dark. "I would feel safer," does not, in sane times, entitle me to have another locked away. What if this debate were about the ethics of Iran launching a pre-emptive strike in reaction to all the talk about Israel's right or America's right to do so?
By juliastar on 2/6/05 at 7:49 AM

 

//"have I ever in my life squashed a mosquito, out of pure reaction and instinct??//

Yes, but, if I thought that swating that mosquito would cause the guy next to me to blow my head off, I would probably hesitate.
By SneakyPete on 2/6/05 at 12:18 PM

 

Poor Herbert Spencer. His most famous idea, "survival of the fittest," is not only generally misunderstood by most people and then usually misused to support a weak argument, but it's also usually credited to Charles Darwin.
Pity.
By qhperson on 2/6/05 at 1:35 PM

 

snedz, hey and welcome.

Pick and chose. We are not at all of one accord but when we play we do a pretty good job of it.

Go looking for some fun here or go back to the political forums. Doubt unless they are homogenous and a bit boring that you'll find a more diverse bunch of people working pretty well together.

Sit down and have a cup of coffee with us. anja
By anjanita-1 on 2/6/05 at 5:25 PM

 

And kharrin, if I'm a female hetero, may I call you Dear? ;-)

Keep trying with us. We don't do politics so well but there's a lot more stuff in the nature of PHC which we do very well. anja
By anjanita-1 on 2/6/05 at 5:32 PM

 

And when we do it well, we do it swell.
By Brit on 2/6/05 at 5:42 PM

 

Whatever Israel does in reaction to events in Iran will not be done without thinking.

Here's hoping that the Europeans who are in contact with Iran on the nuclear question will be able to persuade them that it is not necessary or advisable for them to develop nuclear weapons.
By joeW on 2/6/05 at 6:45 PM

 

Very sensible joeW.
By redboy on 2/6/05 at 7:15 PM

 

Dear Anjanita, thanks for the "Dear!"

Sorry I'm four days late in responding, but it was almost time for "News From Lake Wobegon" the last time I was Chatterboxing.

It looks like this thread died out shortly after I left. I would still like to hear Redboy respond as to which Confederate commentators allow any dissenting views to be posted on their websites.

His claim that they "debate" opponents on their tightly-scripted programs is, of course, laughable. Persons who have phoned Confederate radio shows, and taped the broadcasts, report that their responses to taunts from blow-hards like Limpjaw or O'Lielly "magically" never make it onto the air. Then, the host will smirk and mumble "oh, I guess you couldn't answer that!"
By kharrin on 2/10/05 at 12:04 AM

 http://prairiehome.forum.publicradio.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/04/2132221

Nuke Iran

November 11, 2003

It's stories like this that make me want to cuss and launch tactical nuclear weapons against people and/or countries that say crap like this: "Existence of Israel contrary to Iranian interests."Oh yeah, well SCREW YOU, Iran. No one frickin' asked. Of course the UN won't say jack crap about this, because who cares about Jews anyway? This f'in mess. I hate it.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.fringeblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.r188.pl/481

 

nuke iran 7767.5 % nuclear iran.com54.3 % nuke iran now 43.5 % iran neuclear32.6 % lets nuke iran21.7 % nukeiran.com21.7 % let s nuke iran21.7 % www.nukeiran.com21.7 % isreal iran21.7 % nuke iran .com10.8 % israel/iran neuclear10.8 % sp 4 iran.com10.8 % israel ready to nuke iran10.8 % nuke iran to the stone age10.8 % www.phc in iran.com10.8 % we need to nuke iraq10.8 % iran nuke10.8 % israel may nuke iran10.8 % israel ready to use nukes on iran10.8 % iran isreal10.8 % neuclear missle10.8 % what happens if we nuke tehran?10.8 % why america should nuke iran10.8 % us won t nuke iran

nuke iran7767.5 % nuclear iran.com54.3 % nuke iran now43.5 % iran neuclear32.6 % lets nuke iran21.7 % nukeiran.com21.7 % let s nuke iran21.7 % www.nukeiran.com21.7 % isreal iran21.7 % nuke iran .com10.8 % israel/iran neuclear10.8 % sp 4 iran.com10.8 % israel ready to nuke iran10.8 % nuke iran to the stone age10.8 % www.phc in iran.com10.8 % we need to nuke iraq10.8 % iran nuke10.8 % israel may nuke iran10.8 % israel ready to use nukes on iran10.8 % iran isreal10.8 % neuclear missle10.8 % what happens if we nuke tehran?10.8 % why america should nuke iran10.8 % us won t nuke iran

nuke iran 13475.7 % nuke iran now73.9 % lets nuke iran31.6 % lets nuke tehran21.1 % neuclear weapons21.1 % nukeiran.com21.1 % iran isreal21.1 % rush limbauch21.1 % lets bomb iran.com10.5 % iran neuclear10.5 % it looks like i am entering gaza before you attack iraq10.5 % isreal reaction to iran10.5 % why dont iran and israel get along10.5 % should isreal nuke iran10.5 % iran upcoming surgical-strikes10.5 % who should we nuke next10.5 % nuke iran?10.5 % iran neuclear program10.5 % reactions to iranian threats 10.5 % nuke for iran10.5 % iranian neuclear issue10.5 % neuclear funny facts10.5 % neuclear weapons of crap10.5 % we should nuke iran 10.5 % iran neuclear news10.5 % missile iran.com10.5 % afgabistan10.5 % can we just go ahead and nuke iran?10.5 % most powerful neuclear power10.5 % reasons why iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons 10.5 % who should we nuke next?

nuke iran228.5 % juliastar114.2 % nukeiran114.2 % neuclear missle in action114.2 % iran neuclear sites114.2 % john the okie swede

nuke iran2470.5 % nukeiran25.8 % anjanita12.9 % juliastar12.9 % www. fun iran.com12.9 % rogesgallery12.9 % lets nuke iran12.9 % webtv12.9 % gailkate juliastar12.9 % www.nukeiran.com

nuke iran5684.8 % us threaten nuke11.5 % nuke arabs 11.5 % anjanita - 111.5 % iran neuclear11.5 % mossedeq11.5 % bin laden neuclear terrorism11.5 % nukeiran.com11.5 % neuclear weapons11.5 % let s nuke iran11.5 % can we nuke

nuke iran3368.7 % nukeiran36.2 % will we nuke them back?24.1 % nuke iran first24.1 % neuclear weapons24.1 % nuke iran now12 % why israel is allowed neuclear weapons12 % nonononononononononononononononono12 % rogesgallery12 % nuke iran please12 % iran threaten to nuke israel

nuke iran1456 % www.saadams.com28 % wwii redboy14 % mossedeq14 % chances of neuclear war14 % with in how many days iran might make neuclear weapon14 % nukeiran.com14 % iran goes nuke?14 % neuclear missle14 % www.fringeblog.com14 % afgabistan

nuke iran535.7 % nuke iran now17.1 % nukeiran17.1 % iran s neuclear17.1 % invade iran.com17.1 % iran s neuclear weapons programs17.1 % auto s in paris during wwii 17.1 % nukeiran.com17.1 % israel nuke iran17.1 % www.iran.com