HOW can Bush attack Iran?

[PDenton]

Under the Nuclear-Non-Proliferation treaty, every signatory country is entitled to nuclear technology, as long as they do not have a nuclear weapons program or sell material to make nuclear weapons to other countries. Iran is complying with nuclear weapons inspectors from the UN/IAEA, so HOW can Bush justify an attack on Iran? Nuclear power is their right, no matter who objects to it. I just am baffled that more people don't grasp that.

And what are the French thinking in supporting Bush? I'm just wondering, do they know something we don't? How is Ahmadinejad's decision to continue with their nuclear power program breaking any international law or agreement?

[Kagemusha]

1. What, you think that Bush's attacking or not attacking depends on that?

Quaint, and naive. Iran hasn't been proven to be breaking any international laws. Therefore, Bush would simply have to do it on the basis of a.. uh how does Rice put it.. bah, I don't care! They mean, a preventative first strike to counter a future threat, it doesn't have to be imminent, it just has to be certain in their minds. No one punished them for that for overthrowing Saddam so it's still valid legal doctrine as far as they're concerned. In terms of international law, it's 1930 all over again, might is right, and the US is the mightiest of all. It has NOTHING to do with the niceties of the law. It has everything to do with the power to break the law at will.

[Jonathan Pollard]

17. Bush can bomb for 60 days without congressional approval

According to the War Powers Act he can fight a war for 60 days without Congressional approval.

[killbotfactory]

2. It was illegal to attack Iraq, too

but we managed to do that.

The US has the power to violate any contract, treaty, law, or agreement we enter into without serious legal repercussions. Any nation or leader who calls us on this bullshit gets demonized in the media and ignored, ridiculed, or actively subverted by our government.

[PDenton]

4. Iraq was more grey though

Saddam was a dick and wanted to keep bluffing with Americans. Maybe the war wasn't fully justified but Saddam Hussein's attitude didn't help diffuse the situation. Also, the fact that the UN authorized weapons inspectors was enough of a pretext for war for the Neo-Conservatives and the UK.

In this case, Iran has a clear right to nuclear power and I'm confused why Bush and Sarkozy think otherwise. Iran has finally admitted IAEA weapons inspectors, so the issue should be closed unless the IAEA reports that Iran is not co-operating.

[killbotfactory]

6. Iraq had a right to not be attacked by a country it didn't threaten

We made a lot of accusations towards Iraq, proved none of them, and then invaded when the inspectors couldn't find the figmints of our imagination lying all over Iraq. What it comes down to is that the war was legal because we said it was.

[wuushew]

8. I don't know what you think Saddam was bluffing about

n/t

[PDenton]

21. he was bluffing

for years in the late 90's he wanted to mantain an image that he might have a WMD program. He believed that WMD could be a deterrent to a US attack.

[L. Coyote]

14. I see you buy the propaganda. Saddam said they did not have weapons, and it was true.

Unless, of course, they are still looking for the WMDs and will find them any day now.

Saddam was a dictator, but, did we invade Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, etc. when "our" dictators were in power?

Saddam's personality was not the issue. He was a political enemy of the USA.

[Jonathan Pollard]

18. We didnt' try regime change on Communist countries either

USSR definitely had WMDs and Khruschev threatened to "bury" us.

[L. Coyote]

19. Perhaps Saddams problem is that he did NOT have WMD!

[Grandrose]

3. Practice makes perfect!

I think Iraq was the test run!:grr:

[alfredo]

5. He is the law according to his court ministers. Sure we don't have

the troops to do it right. The Air Force wants in on the action. The ground troops have gotten all the glory and money. If you start seeing stories about deep bomb proof bunkers hiding nuke plants, assume they are building a case for nuclear weapons. I'm sure the Air Force thinks they can destroy the Iranian Army, government, and nuclear program using conventional and tactical nuclear weapons against hardened targets.

[Kelly Rupert]

7. With weapons. n/t

[zabet]

9. According to a secret executive order

he signed that basically says, 'Nyah nyah nyah, I'm the
president and I can play war when I want, where I want.
And you can't do anything about it.'

[dragonlady]

10. John Dean said today that an attack on Iran is not realistic

During an interview on Wisconsin Public Radio he was asked about this and said that his friends in the military say an attack would not realistically happen, that there would be a revolt at the Pentagon, because the military is just too weak.

You can listen online to the whole interview, which is very good. It's repeated at 10 pm CDT tonight (Friday) at http://wpr.org/, or download Kathleen Dunn's second hour interview from the Wcast part of the site (the latter requires becoming a member of WPR with a small donation, but the access is well worth it).

[PDenton]

12. I just want to know

what evidence does Bush have for going over the UN's head again? I want to see it. There is so, so much talk about war... but no evidence. Ahmadinejad and the IAEA both say they are clear and the case is closed, inspections are ongoing. What is Bush going to pull out of his ass to make people convinced that war is necessary or just? Because, if Bush goes to war with no GOOD evidence... I just think America will have descended down a really dark path. Pure tyrrany and evil.

Is it AIPAC controlling the strings? Does ISrael really control the US? I just don't get where Bush's brazen attitude comes from. Is somebody out there watching his back and orchestrating it all?

The sad truth... most Americans are so stupid they don't realize than Iran has a right to nuclear energy. I think Bush is counting on that ignorance to trump up the fear. Really, really sad. I tell my family and friends that debate this point "Iran has a right, under the treaties, to nuclear power", and it just doesn't sink in.

[dragonlady]

22. Evidence to attack Iran: same as for attacking Iraq

In other words, bogus. We have to hope that Bush's own words will prevail: "Fool me once, can't get fooled again."

Somewhere today (sorry, I don't know where) I read that the IAEA, which is monitoring Iran's nuclear technology, says they have the capability to enrich uranium to a little less than 4 percent, which isn't quite enough even for a peaceful nuclear plant. The amount for a bomb is more like 90. This is not a huge emergency by any means, so how about trying diplomacy for a change?

[kenny blankenship]

23. Bush will make some demand that Iran cannot possibly fulfill

for example "PROVE to me Iran, that you don't have underground invisible nuclear weapons labs that magically teleport themselves to the dark side of the Moon when international inspectors are nearby." And if Iran "refuses to" comply by his deadline he will say they have declared war on us.

To help things along he may first send the IAEA inspectors on wild goose chases deliberately wasting their time, then before they can dispel all the confusion he's caused he'll demand the IAEA inspectors cease and withdraw. "Iran refused to comply with the inspections regime...".

Like Dragonlady said, it will be the same way Bush attacked Iraq: he'll make wild assertions that cannot be refuted because they are fabricated from thin air, dismiss all offerings of evidence from 3rd party observers like the IAEA that there is no such threat, declare the deadline passed, then it's bombs away.

[killbotfactory]

13. The scary thing is I don't think Bush gives a shit about any of that

and thinks it's his divine mandate to initiate a war by hook or by crook.

[Jonathan Pollard]

20. Not necessarily divine. Some think he's a Satanist.

Our C in C is suspected of being a Satanist by some.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15453

[kenny blankenship]

11. The French Pres. Sarkozy got the top office thru exacerbating and profiting from tension w/ Muslims

He was the Interior Minister under Chirac which made him top-cop. The riots of Muslim immigrant youth in the suburbs of Paris in 2005 can be attributed to several causes--one cause often cited is the antagonism between the police and the Muslim community, which some observers say Sarkozy did nothing to stop and much to encourage. Sarkozy won the Presidency in part by promising more crackdowns on the situation with angry Muslim youth he helped to enflame. When he seeks violent confrontation with Muslim countries it is a continuation of the pattern that brought him to power in the first place. It would be a surprise, rather, if he did not seek these new levels of confrontation. Inevitably there will be more conflict in France if war breaks out and France takes up the role recently played by Britain as America's flunky in the war on Islam. Sarkozy must be thinking that the prospect of further cycles of tension and violence is good news for him.

[L. Coyote]

15. The US cannot attack IRAN and survive as a world power, and Bush knows it.

But, hey, if everyone is wiling to bow before the bogeyman of an Iran invasion, wonderful. It beats having them focused on the IRAQ situation, which is a total catastrophe, calamity, and disaster.

Whatever it takes to keep people from focusing on the problem ....IRAQ! Wake up people.

[Jonathan Pollard]

16. How will he attack? He'll bomb!

With a little help from the Beach Boys.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3851426890212250833