Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Candidates see Iran nuclear threat »

Posted by: STONERS 1 year ago

7.8

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 11

Propped: 64

Comments: 43

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

U.S. presidential candidates agree Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons but at this point in the 2008 campaign, their prescriptions for preventing such an outcome are vague.

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 43

0%
STONERS1 year ago

"Allowing Iran, a radical theocracy that supports terrorism and openly threatens its neighbors, to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take," Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said in a letter to the Israel Project, a pro-Israel group that educates the public about Israel and advocates an end to investment in Iran.

Reply
8 Replies
- 0%
  rimbaud1 year ago
  
  We, and Iran's neighbors, have more to fear from a nuclear power plant accident (like Chernobyl) in Iran, than any nuclear bomb.
  Our objectives in the region, and Iran's, are not that far apart. We got rid of the Taliban for them (with their support) and we got rid of Saddam for them. They intercept AlQaeda on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. They offer rebuilding aid to Iraq (which we have begged the Europeans to do) and, until they made the grave mistake of provoking Israel, Hezbollah were on the right track of building an economic infrastructure in South Lebanon. The conflict is over who will have the greater residual influence in the region, and, in the long run, we will be better off if we ally with Iran: it will be a long time before we are trusted or liked in the region. (For one thing, if we ally with Iran, we can get hands-on their nuclear program and market safety technologies to them).
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    rimbaud1 year ago
    
    http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
    Reply
- 0%
  rimbaud1 year ago
  
  The only country that can use nukes without getting slammed by the USA, IS the USA (and OK, maybe Israel). Iran has enough problems... They have no intention of provoking the USA, or Israel, to war. The only reason they are so anxious to claim nuclear progress is they are under the delusion that it is what will prevent an attack by the USA, as they perceive it did for North Korea.
  Reply
- 0%
  rimbaud1 year ago
  
  You can bet Iran is involved in Iraq! They have a huge stake in the outcome of their close neighbor, not so long ago a proxy of the USA in a long war against them. The difference for us is, this time it's not our proxies who are getting killed, but our own. What? Have we really run out of friends? We could not find anyone else to do our fighting for us?
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5542019...
  Reply
- 0%
  rimbaud1 year ago
  
  The candidates are pandering, again! I'm voting for Ralph Nader!
  Reply
- 0%
  rimbaud1 year ago
  
  What we should be worried about is Iran's Human Rights record: such things as the sentence of death against two Iranian Kurdish journalists, the re-emergence of the sentence to death by stoning of adulterers, and the imprisonment of Iranian American scholars on a visit to ailing relatives in Iran. And the following:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/world/middlee...
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    rimbaud1 year ago
    
    ""According to the Supreme Court's earlier decision, the killers, who are members of the Basiji Force, volunteer vigilantes favored by the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, considered their victims morally corrupt and, according to Islamic teachings and Iran's Islamic penal code, their blood could therefore be shed...
    Iran's Islamic penal code, which is a parallel system to its civic code, says murder charges can be dropped if the accused can prove the killing was carried out because the victim was morally corrupt.
    This is true even if the killer identified the victim mistakenly as corrupt. In that case, the law requires 'blood money' to be paid to the family. Every year in Iran, a senior cleric determines the amount of blood money required in such cases. This year it is $40,000 if the victim is a Muslim man, and half that for a Muslim woman or a non-Muslim."
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      rimbaud1 year ago
      
      "The last victims, for example, were a young couple engaged to be married who the killers claimed were walking together in public."
      Reply
0%
jordan111 year ago

I can't get the article to scroll down. Is that all Obama said? I worry about things being taken out of context, & presented in a way that leaves only one conclusion.
Reply
16 Replies
- 0%
  Candida1 year ago
  
  He also acknowledged the importance of diplomacy.
  "During a televised debate on Monday, Obama stressed the need to engage the leaders of Iran, North Korea and other states Bush has kept at arms' length. He said he would meet them without preconditions during his first year as president."
  Reply
  15 Replies
  - 0%
    jimdoze1 year ago
    
    What good is diplomacy if you can't make it stick?
    "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Mao Zedong
    Reply
    14 Replies
    - 0%
      HannibalBarca1 year ago
      
      "One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic" J.Stalin. How many more stats are necessary to control the worlds oil
      Reply
      13 Replies
      - 0%
        jimdoze1 year ago
        
        Who needs to control it? It's available, from numerous sources, on the world oil markets. However, I would contend that if any one "nation" or islamic sect had control of a sufficient share of it to be in de facto control of the market, western nations would likely go through a period of severe economic dislocation. Severe economic dislocations are often catalysts for wars. Perhaps that's worth worrying about, wouldn't you say?
        Reply
        12 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca1 year ago
        
        But that is the whole point of Iraq isn't it. Control the oil and you control the world. China will soon rival USA for oil consuption and there is only so much. Now because the west is in this predicament it is okay to invade other countries for whatever reasons to sustain N.American lifestyles. Who really cares about stats anyway unless they are about the Yankees or Red Sox, the rest don't matter.
        Reply
        11 Replies
        
        0%
        jimdoze1 year ago
        
        There is a difference between controlling the oil yourself and not letting your sworn enemies control it. I grant you, it is a subtle difference, but a real one nonetheless.
        Let the North American, European, Far Eastern developed countries lifestyles fall where they may. However, I would contend that as those lifestyles erode, the call to arms by many, even of the staunchest of today's style peaceniks, would be too compelling for politicians to let lie. Again, therein lies the catalyst for war... war on a scale far, far more serious than you see today.
        Aside from what may happen politically in the so-called developed world, picture the dislocation of China being squeezed. In my mind, a very nasty spectacle looms.
        Reply
        10 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca1 year ago
        
        At the moment the main country pushing for war is USA, but the reason is for control of oil, most other reasons stated are smokescreens. In terms of cost it will bankrupt USA and China will emerge as the economic power, but if USA controls the oil with her military maybe a stalemate of some sort will happen. Now, the technology is available for alternative energy in the west but not so readily in China and this would also wean the west off oil, and it can be done without war. By todays standard the only winners are oil companies and the losers, the US tax payer
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        jimdoze1 year ago
        
        I would contend that stalemates are the preferred alternative in this regard.
        In re: technological alternatives, I agree that the western nations (U.S., Europe, Japan) have an edge. Currently France gets 75% of it's electrical power from nuclear fission, but would still feel an enormous disruption from vastly more expensive oil. I agree that emphasis should be placed on alternatives. However, avoidance of nuclear fission electrical generation is nonsensical. Coal has its issues. Try damming a river to generate power today. Solar and wind are great and should be promoted. (I love the sight of windmills... no joke). However, solar and wind don't, and are many decades from, generating industrial levels of power.
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca1 year ago
        
        In 1945 the Germans were able to develop the V-1, V-2 and now we have space vehicles travelling past Pluto.
        At the same time the first jets were introduced and look where we are today with them
        Yet in 1945 the German navy could keep a submarine submerged for 3 days on electrical power(batteries) and today we can't design a vehicle to travel over 500 miles on a battery? Something is not right
        The technology is there only it does not suit some ones interest to pursuit it.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        jimdoze1 year ago
        
        Hannibal, where do you think batteries get their power from? In the days of German subs, they re-charged from the diesels powering the subs while surfaced. Battery capacity is a very tiny element of overall energy independence. Batteries don't produce electricity by themselves and battery capacity does not, in and of itself, produce industrial levels of electrical energy. It only helps in its distribution. The energy has to be generated somewhere through industrial level generation facilities, i.e. coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro-electric, etc. Can we positively affect things at the margins by pushing Wind and Solar? Yes... and we should. However, that will still only be at the margins for a very long time.
        If the technology made sense economically, there is no question it would be pursued... that is "no question" unless you fall prey to the idea that there are "powerful interests ready to take you behind the woodshed if you do it."
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca1 year ago
        
        You missed my point, if we can go from a V-1 to past Pluto in 60 years there is no reason for any auto to be still running on Hydro-carbons. Right there, there is an enormous conservation of energy. In the 70's Nat. Geographic did an article on tidal energy, any nation with a sea coast has another renewable energy source. If Cal Tech and Nils Bohr Universities can start teleporting objects like Star Trek(Only not so sophisticated yet) then there is a very flimsy argument for as to why we are still stuck on oil
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        jimdoze1 year ago
        
        V-1s to planetary explorers is a great leap of ingenuity and engineering. I agree. But, it is a vastly different leap, with vastly different hurdles, to get where you (and I) think we should be as a nation. Tidal energy exploitation could be huge. However, can you imagine the decades of environmental impact statements and litigation that would take place before it could be implemented. And, keep in mind the NIMBY factor. As an example, look how vigorously the good folk of Nantucket Island fought the establishment of windmills off their shoreline.
        I would derive great satisfaction from a total wean of imported oil. For one thing, the exporters would find themselves economically right back in the stone age from whence they came. Could that be what you are hoping for?
        Reply
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca1 year ago
        
        Lost my first comment some how, Basically this conversation started about the control for oil. Remove a major reason for dependency on oil and you may remove a major factor for war
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        jimdoze1 year ago
        
        I whole-heartedly agree with you on that point. My point is that it is not simple as you might think. The idea that "we can send space vehicles to outer planets yet cannot solve this problem" sheds no real light on the issue. That is so much like what I heard in the 70s: "Well, we can send men to the moon, why can't we solve poverty?" In both cases, they are two different issues requiring different forms of effort. Although, I grant you, in the first case the fix is more likely found technologically than in the second.
        Here are two potential trade-offs to consider. Understanding that oil dependency carries with it a major risk factor for large scale war, would you be in favor of: 1. A massive effort to build nuclear (fission) reactors to supply energy to the grid?
        2. A massive effort (would need feds to begin) to develop tidal energy?
        To add to that, I would recommend that NIMBY impediments to windmills and solar collectors be cleared.
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca1 year ago
        
        I mainly believe that because of all our tech. advances in all aspects of science but not when it comes to the combustion engine then something has been holding it back. Now to start a project of any type of alternative energy in my mind is something that could have been done 40 years ago, so we are behind the times. Nuclear is the probably the most efficient all around but it has been around for ages and it scares people. Germany is building a massive windmill( Nat. Geographic 05)so it is feasible but it is not the answer. Tidal is one that is totally overlooked and there are some amazing tidal variations all over N.America, again too late to start but long ago it wasn't. Alberta, Canada is talking about going nuclear to develop the tar sands. Right now we are going through a heat wave and in the last 3 weeks we have made 4 new records of electrical use, had to buy from B.C. to get through. what about hydrogen? I don't know much about it
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        jimdoze1 year ago
        
        Hydrogen is four times as expensive to produce as gasoline when produced from its most affordable source, natural gas. Fuel cells are now ten times more expensive than internal combustion engines. The feds are funding efforts to mainstream this and bring down the costs.
        Without looking too closely, it would seem to make a lot of sense to use nuclear to develop the Athabasca tar sands.
        If the public clearly understood the relative risks of nuclear power, it would be pretty much a no-brainer. Furthermore, there are some notable environmentalists who are calling for it (Dr. James Lovelock).
        Reply
0%
aniokly1 year ago

That is what Democrats say now about Iran, while they are trying to get elected. But as they did with Iraq they will change their minds later. They cannot be trusted to follow through. They have no clue about National Security.
Reply
6 Replies
- 0%
  AmericanIdiot1 year ago
  
  ani - Bush is doing a great job on National Security, right? That's why we are fighting two wars simultaneously, without enough troops to win either one, and trying to start another two wars - Iran, Syria - without any troops to fight them with?
  Reply
  5 Replies
  - 0%
    cherev1 year ago
    
    You forgot the third war - the one Bush is really losing against the traitorous left and the media.
    Reply
    4 Replies
    - 0%
      HannibalBarca1 year ago
      
      That is not a war, it is a voice of reason which many can't recognize as they are blinded by fear and hate.
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - 0%
        cherev1 year ago
        
        Sure seems like a war to me. But if you're talking about being blinded by fear and hate, then you must be talking about the left which hates Bush and the "neocons" worse than anything else.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca1 year ago
        
        No I believe they hate the arrogance of the man who will not listen to advisers or take advice but just bulls ahead. Everyone makes mistakes but shrub makes them worse.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        cherev1 year ago
        
        You're entitled to believe whatever you want. I believe the hatred (of Republicans) started long before. Bush winning the election is when they really started them on him.
        Reply
0%
Raiderwall1 year ago

So far, Bush's bluster and bravado have Iran right on track to join the nuclear club.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  JoseMadre1 year ago
  
  They were planning on it irrespective of what Shrub did. The fact that Bush is "durr" doesn't negate the fact that Ahmadinejad is insane and is the biggest threat to peace in the world.
  Reply
0%
aniokly1 year ago

The President of the United States canno control what Ajmadinejad does. The time to deal with Iran was when the Killer Rabbits President gave them our Embasy
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  AmericanIdiot1 year ago
  
  There was an operation - its called Desert One. Read about it and get back to me.
  There was another opportunity to attack Iran, sometime around 2003-4, when US troops had defeated Iraqi military, Iraq was in chaos, and there was no real US mission in Iraq.
  We should have wheeled around and outflanked the Iranians in the south and the center, while the Kurds attacked in the north. Forces in Afghanistan to be held in reserve. Hell, I voted for Bush to do just that! I was certain that was Cheney's plan.
  But Bush never listens to his generals, and he can't manage to pull of maneuvers proven successful in Gaugamela, kadesh, Waterloo, etc... nooo, why bother reading military history when we have "smart bombs" and "shock and awe". Aniokly, it is time for you to realize, ALL MILITARY MEN HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR GEORGE W BUSH. Bushie doesn't scare anyone, he is too stupid to tie his shoelaces.
  Reply
0%
nikkibabe1 year ago

Israel has a right to protect itself from Lebanon where Hezbullah is threat. Agreed.
When their neighboring Iraq is invaded and occupied by US, why Iran should not be worried and protect itself?
By the way, Pakistan is the worst terrorist nation ruled by a shaky dictator threatened by Islamic barbarians. That is OK with US. .............
Can someone see some logic here?
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  jimdoze1 year ago
  
  Agreed that it ain't good, Nikki. Please spell out the alternatives as you see them... and give some idea as to what you see as the likely outcome(s) of letting the dictator fall to the "Islamic barbarians".
  Reply
0%
aniokly1 year ago

The President must be doing something right, my town has not been attacked in 6 years. Where do you live that there was an attack? You people make thousands of accusations and, your Democrats have 300 investigations going on, and still you prove nothing. After awhile no one listens. No one especially listens during a political campaign when they all lie about something.
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  rimbaud1 year ago
  
  The terrorists are not rich and powerful, like us. They try to get as much mileage as they can from a few dramatic acts of terror (that's what terrorism is). The reason there has not been "another 911" is we are doing a good job, all by ourselves, of extending the "mileage" from the first one. Which of them ever dreamed they would be elevated to the number-one feared enemy of the world's greatest military power? How can a handful of terrorists do so much damage to us, at so little cost to themselves? I guess thay know how to draw us in, eh? By creating a trillion dollar war against them, we have inflated their importance and amplified their effect. Iraq has become the jihadist battleground Afghanistan was during the Soviet occupation. It is the children of those we assembled to fight the Soviets who are fighting us, now. Iraq is AlQaeda's live terrorist training lab and world jihadi recruitment center.
  Reply
- 0%
  rimbaud1 year ago
  
  The impeachment of Clinton, which had the press and the Congress so engaged, was a yawner to the general public. They can recognize boring, obstructive, time-wasting political ploys.
  Reply
0%
getreal11 year ago

There is really nothing we can do about other countries taking nuclear power and having a weapon out of it. Other Countries feel threaten by the fact that we have it. Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries have it. I wish it had never been invented. For one thing nuclear energy has not made life more affordable for man-kind. The Creator can look down on Man-Kind and he won't have to look hard for the places to strike in order to destroy earth.
Reply