.

x = 5 cm

an elephant in the way

Don't do his homework for him. He'll never learn.

I'll only help this one more time.

The presence of the elephant does not effect the physics experiment.

The elephant is depicted standing and facing away from the approach of the object, and would not see it coming and therefor would not react to it.

The ramp is stated to be frictionless and therefor the object going down it will make no noise to alert the elephant.

The presence of other obstructions such as an accumulation of elephant feces is not indicated.

The object will approach the elephant, pass between its hind legs, continue under the elephant and pass between its front legs and continue toward the target spring.

Other observations:

The ramp is stated to be frictionless, but the experiment would have to be conducted in a perfect vacuum in order to eliminate friction between the object and the atmosphere. The size and shape of the object would also have an effect on friction (drag). As such, friction from the atmosphere upon the object is presumed eliminated from the experiment.

Question 2b is a trick question.

It’s interesting how physics teachers, who are trying to teach students about real world science must use extra-scientific explanations such as “frictionless surfaces” in order to simplify the problem.

So, the elephant is trying to obstruct the solution, but is inconsequential to it.

this can only be a positive development:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=322472007

I agree, and it's about time. Maybe it took this long to soften up Iran's economy enough to make them willing to compromise, or maybe Bush was just a stubborn ass. Either way I expect this will improve our relations with their nation, perhaps permanently.

it's ironic that the standard US mantra re Syria & Iran is always "all options are on the table" - a phrase that is designed to raise the ominous specter of every dreadful weapon we have, but precludes good old-fashioned diplomacy.

We needed to have something Iran wanted in order for the talks to achieve anything. I think what they really want from us is our money for their oil, and China's money, too. In other words, we had no reason to engage them in diplomacy until we had something to offer them. Our government has no sense of irony at all. The threat of war was calculated, intended not for the headlines of Farsi or Arabic newspapers but of English ones.

Maybe that is what YOU think, you can believe whatever you want - but that is NOT FACT, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

ALL OPTIONS means exactly that, and DOES NOT preclude diplomacy.

Diplomacy ALWAYS comes first, it is the first option - and that is what is being used now. The U.N. sanctions against Iran are part of that diplomatic process and did not get in place only due to the U.S. vote for them. The vote was UNANIMOUS.

like in iraq?

What good is all this "diplomacy" shit when countries don't abide by their signed agreements.




Oh right, it's to give the brainless liberal traitors another reason to condemn the U.S.

the only traitors are the ones who still support a government that is clearly sending them down the drain

I don't suppose you're talking about the government running your country and supporting your worthless parasitical existance.


But you think you can see clearly what's 10,000 miles away instead. And you think people living much more prosperous lives than you are somehow going down the drain.


Ahh if it makes you feel better.



.

Bleach your hair, get down to 70 lbs by vomiting after every meal and schedule your sex reassignment surgery! Your transformation into Anne Coulter is almost complete.

Your envy of only one Anne Coulter is bad enough. With two who knows what'd become of you.

The only thing the USA should be doing on the negotiating table is listening to them, keeping tabs on them and secretly preparing to topple the regime. Because that`s exactly what they`re doing.

Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.

However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

More..

Bush authorizes group formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind to be bankrolled & armed by CIA for covert regime change

Recent revelations illustrating the fact that the U.S. government is using a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 to carry out bombings in Iran undermines the entire war on terror as a monumental hoax that is being exploited purely to realize a geopolitical agenda.

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."

"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported yesterday.

Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror.

The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad's government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.

The U.S. government is arming and directing a Sunni Al-Qaeda group to carry out bombings in Iran and yet Bush has the temerity to grandstand during his Rose Garden speech last week and wave the Al-Qaeda bogeyman to strike the fear of God into American citizens.

"As to al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are. That's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks. They're willing to kill the innocent to achieve their objectives, and they will fight us. And the fundamental question is, will we fight them? I have made the decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terror is to fight them," Bush said on Thursday.


Bush's definition of fighting Al-Qaeda is apparently to lend them all the funds, weapons and tactical know how they need to carry out attacks against innocent civilians in Iran, and let us not forget that America's allies the British have also been caught training insurgents in Iraq to carry out hi-tech bombings that are later blamed on Iran - just as the SAS worked with U.S. special forces to train the KLA in Kosovo, which was also an Al-Qaeda chapter having been financed directly by Bin Laden himself.

But in the world of newspeak and the lowest common denominator propaganda that cloaks the real agenda of the "war on terror", anyone who rises up against occupation, be it a kid who throws a rock in Baghdad or a car bombing on behalf of an increasingly Shiite-led insurgency, the natural enemies of the Sunni "Al-Qaeda," are terrorists and are Al-Qaeda members.

A cruel irony exists whereby anyone and everyone who opposes military occupation is smeared as an Al-Qaeda terrorist and yet the only real Al-Qaeda terrorists are being bankrolled, armed and directed by the CIA itself, with Bush's explicit approval.

Since President Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni & Shiite Muslims until two months before the invasion of Iraq and the incoming chairman of a congressional intelligence committee said Al Qaeda prominently came from the Shia branch of Islam, we can't hold out much hope for Joe Public and this is why the simplest propaganda is always the most effective.

They're the bad guys, we're the good guys - black and white with no shades of gray.

In reality, Al-Qaeda only exists within intelligence circles coordinated by the highest echelons of the U.S. government, and is being used yet again as a tool for destabilization in nations targeted for regime change by the Neo-Cons.

-----------------------------------------------------

Jundullah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.

Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the government is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.

It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

After a bombing inside Iran in March, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.

USS Enterprise Joins Fleet Near Iran
 

The USS Enterprise CVN 65-Big E Strike Group, the US Navy’s largest air carrier, will join the USS Stennis and the USS Nimitz carriers, building up the largest sea, air, marine concentration the United States has ever deployed opposite Iran. This goes towards making good on the assurances of four carriers US Vice President Dick Cheney offered the Gulf and Middle East nations during his May tour of the region. Washington is considering deploying the fourth US carrier for the region in the Red Sea opposite Saudi Arabian western coast to secure the three US carriers in the Gulf from the rear as well as the Gulf of Aqaba and Suez Canal.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=44396

If the US or Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, can Iran strike back at Israel with weapons of mass destruction? This is obviously a vital question to answer before deciding whether to use the "military option." Unfortunately, there is no one conclusive answer.

Yiftah Shapir, an expert on missile warfare at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies (formerly the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies), a leading strategic think tank, says Iran might well be able to retaliate with chemical weapons - meaning poison gas or liquid loaded onto missiles.

However, he continues, chemically-armed missiles aren't much more destructive than conventionally-armed ones, so the damage would be comparable to the surprisingly little harm caused by Iraqi Scuds in the 1991 Gulf War. As for the worst-case scenario - an Iranian retaliation with biological weapons, such as bubonic plague or anthrax, or nerve gas - it's highly unlikely that Iran has or will have the ability to successfully fire missiles with such warheads, Shapir says.

Ephraim Kam, an expert on Iran at the same institute, doesn't think Iran can retaliate against Israel with either chemical or biological weapons - for now. However, he thinks it could have the ability to do so in another three or four years.

For yet a third opinion, Dany Shoham, an expert on chemical and biological weapons at Bar-Ilan University's BESA Center, another leading strategic think tank, says Iran "in all likelihood" now has the capability to launch missiles armed with either chemical or biological warheads. To neutralize that threat, the US or Israel would have to first take out Iran's biological warheads or missile launchers before hitting its nuclear facilities. Failing that, Israel's Arrow or Patriot anti-missile batteries would have to knock out Iran's missiles en route.

But if Iran decided to strike back at Israel with its worst weapons - missiles armed with plague, anthrax, nerve gas or other catastrophic substances - and Israel failed to wipe them out on the ground or in the air, the effect of even one of those missiles landing, says Shoham, would be "bad." Asked what he means by "bad," he declines to elaborate, saying, "I don't want to terrify the readers."

THE LACK OF consensus on Iran's strategic profile goes beyond the question of what sort of WMD it has or doesn't have. Among experts, there are several points of contention on the sorts of issues that need to be understood before Israel or the US reaches a decision on their most worrisome political dilemma - what to do about Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

A lot has been written and said about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and about the possibility of bombing its nuclear facilities out of existence. Much less, however, has been written and said about the dangers of such a preemptive strike. However, this is starting to change.

On the eve of his trip to the US to meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the beginning of June, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, a former chief of General Staff and defense minister, gave an interview to Yediot Aharonot in which he warned of the possible "destructive consequences" of a US attack on Iran. "An American attack, Mofaz tells close associates, is liable to set the entire Middle East ablaze and cause incalculable damage to Israel's population, and even to European countries," Yediot said.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Mofaz warned: "The potential for a regional escalation as a result of [a preemptive] attack is great. Iran sees Israel as a target and has ballistic missiles that can reach every European capital. If it responds, then Hizbullah will respond and maybe Syria, and we don't even know how Hamas will respond." (At the same time, though, Mofaz did not rule out the military option against Iran's nuclear facilities.)

This month, The New York Times reported that the weight of opinion influencing US President George W. Bush now leans against a preemptive strike in the event that diplomacy fails, because the risks are seen as prohibitive. This is the stance taken by the State Department and the Pentagon, the Times reported, while only Vice President Dick Cheney, among Bush's closest circle, still favors a last-option attack on Iran's facilities - and his influence is on the wane.

There is an endless array of questions that have to be asked and judgments that have to be made before a decision is taken on whether to launch a preemptive attack on Iran. This article is concerned only with the question of the possible cost in human lives of such an attack. It breaks this question down into four parts, taken chronologically from the point of impact of the preemptive strike: 1) How many Iranian civilians would die or be wounded? 2) What weapons does Iran have for a retaliatory strike against Israel? 3) How would Iran decide to respond, and how damaging could it be to Israelis? 4) How effective would Israel's protective measures - the Arrow and Patriot anti-missile batteries, home security rooms and gas masks - prove against such an attack?

Not only do experts disagree on the answers to some of these questions, their answers often are hedged with uncertainty because there are so many unknowns. For example, Iran's decision on which weapons to use in retaliation might depend on the extent of civilian casualties it suffered in the preemptive attack.

The views expressed by Shapir, Kam and Shoham (other strategic analysts declined to be interviewed) make it clear that the question of what to do about Iran cannot be answered strictly "from the gut." It is too complex for either a Patton or Gandhi approach. When the moment of decision finally arrives, the possible human cost of a preemptive strike will have to be weighed against the possible human cost of a nuclear-armed Iran. Again, because so much attention has been given to the latter issue, this article deals only with the former one.

IRANIAN CASUALTIES

Only Shoham would offer an estimate of Iranian civilian casualties in a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities: "From dozens to thousands," he says, depending on how much radioactive leakage was caused.

Iran has a population of 70 million, and several of its major nuclear facilities are located in or near major cities. The installations are heavily protected, with some of them underground and covered by dozens of meters of concrete, while others are in unknown sites. It is considered impossible to wipe out all of the facilities, but it may be possible to cripple a number of critical sites and set back Iran's nuclear ambitions by some years. Kam says at least three or four facilities would need to be hit to do an effective job, while Shoham puts the maximum number of necessary targets at 15.

Such a mission would require an onslaught of bombs and missiles. The Sunday Times has reported that the IAF is training to drop bunker-busting "mini-nukes" on Iran's installations because they are so heavily fortified. The German magazine Focus has quoted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert saying it would require "10 days and 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles," a statement he has denied making.

Shoham says the number of civilian casualties would depend on whether the bombed-out facilities were radioactive and how much radiation resulted. Asked if radiation were a likely consequence of a preemptive attack, he replies, "The answer is more likely yes than no." He adds that as time passes, the likelihood of radiation, and the amount that would be released, goes up. "Without radiation, there would be dozens of dead and injured," he says, noting that the missiles can be targeted "very precisely." But he adds: "If there is a lot of radioactive leakage, the number of casualties could reach into the thousands, at the maximum."

IRANIAN CAPABILITY

Iran has missiles - the Shihab-3 - with more than enough range to hit Israel. However, according to the three experts interviewed, it doesn't have that many, only "dozens" or "several dozen" or "about 50" of them, at least for now.

There is no question that Iran has chemical and biological agents that can cause "mass destruction." However, chemical agents present a much lower threat than biological weapons. The worst chemical attack in history took place over a few days in 1988, when Saddam Hussein launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja, which was pro-Iranian in the Iran-Iraq war. As many as 5,000 people died or suffered terrible injuries. Yet Shapir says a heavy attack with conventional missiles on a village such as Halabja would likely have caused just as many casualties as the poison gas. "The Red Army, for instance, never considered chemical weapons to be any more damaging than conventional weapons," he adds.

But biological weapons, which carry live viruses, are a different story. While they have been used a few times on a very small scale - most recently in the post-9/11 anthrax letters to East Coast news media and politicians that killed five people - they have never been loaded on a missile or otherwise aimed at a large population. Rudolph Giuliani's stated fear - that someone would climb to the top of the Empire State Building and sprinkle biological agents into the air - hasn't materialized. Such an act, or an attack on a major city with a missile with a warhead carrying anthrax, plague, VX or another biological agent, could - if the bomb exploded "successfully" - kill millions.

The first question, then, is whether Iran has the capability of fashioning its biological agents into a warhead that can be attached to a Shihab-3 missile. Shoham is convinced it now has that capability. Kam thinks it doesn't, but may in three to four years. Shapir pretty much rules out the possibility of this ever happening, arguing that biological weapons are too much of a question mark to seriously interest military planners in Iran or anywhere else.

But supposing that Iran could fire a biologically-armed missile at Israel, the second question is whether it would do its intended damage on impact. Shapir says that since such a missile has never been fired, it's impossible to say. "A biological weapon is made up of living material - you don't know if it would survive on a [superheated] missile. If it did survive and explode on impact, you don't know how far it might spread - whether it might eventually come back at the user's own country as well. Generals don't like to use weapons they can't control," he says.

IRANIAN RETALIATION

Since Shapir discounts the possibility of a biological counterstrike and considers the remainder of Iran's arsenal to be no more threatening than Saddam's Scuds, he is not overly worried by Shihab-3 missiles. "I think the bigger threat is from terror attacks. They'll blow up Israeli embassies all over the world; they'll blow up Jewish targets all over the world. They've already shown they can do it. We can expect a lot of Argentinas," he says, referring to the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center that killed 85 people, in which Iran and Hizbullah were implicated.

Kam says Iran's response would be greater than the Iraqi Scuds, but still "not very dramatic, not enough to decide the battle." He is figuring on Iran's use of conventional ballistic missiles with large warheads, "so there might be high casualties." Otherwise, he basically takes the same view as Shapir, forecasting attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets abroad, which are harder to protect.

So in both Shapir's and Kam's view, Iran will simply hit back as hard as it can with conventional missiles and proxy terror, which is all it has for now. For Shoham, however, the question of retaliation is extremely iffy because in his view, Iran has the capability of firing chemical or biological weapons right now, so it has a much broader range of responses to choose from - and much greater potential consequences to consider.

If Iran retaliates with WMD against Israel, it is knowingly putting its own survival in grave, immediate danger because of America's far superior WMD arsenal, which includes nuclear weapons. Yet Shoham holds that not only is such a move a possibility, it is an "appreciably" greater possibility than the one that preoccupies so many Israelis - that Iran, after it developed nuclear weapons, would initiate a nuclear attack on Israel even at the cost of its own survival. He reasons that Iran would be much more liable to choose mutually assured destruction after being attacked by Israel or the US than before.

Shoham divides Iran's possible responses into "maximal" and "submaximal," with submaximal probably meaning Iranian and Syrian ballistic missile attacks combined with Hizbullah and Hamas terror attacks. "The impact on Israel from this would certainly not be negligible," he says.

As for the maximal response - firing chemical and biological missiles - Shoham says, "If you refer only to the pronouncements of [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, then it's clear Iran will decide to retaliate at the maximal level, but he's not the only decision-maker." The likelihood, he says, is that an Iranian counterattack would be proportional to the destructiveness of the US and/or Israeli strike.

ISRAELI DEFENSES

The only experience Israel has with protective measures against missiles came in the 1991 Gulf War when it fired the computerized, supposedly spot-on Patriots at Saddam's 39 incoming Scuds. Unfortunately, very few of the Scuds were destroyed. In a 1992 congressional investigation into the effectiveness of the Patriots against the Scuds, MIT Prof. Theodore Postol testified that postwar studies "indicate that the Patriot's intercept rate could [have been] much lower than 10 percent, possibly even zero." But that was 16 years ago; presumably the Patriots have been improved since.

The front line of Israel's missile defense is now the Arrow system, which has been tested extensively but never used in battle. "Those responsible for the Arrow think it could work," says Kam. He and Shapir agree that the more Shihab-3 missiles the Iranians fire in a single volley, the harder it would be for the Arrow to take them out. "If the Iranians fire one a day, the Arrow could intercept all of them. If they fire their missiles all at once, some could get through," says Shapir, and Kam agrees.

The usefulness of Israelis' personal defensive measures - gas masks and sealed security rooms - has never been tested against an actual WMD attack because there has never been one here. Over the years, there have been a litany of problems with the gas masks, Shoham notes, while adding that these problems are solvable. Assuming the gas masks were in perfect working order and distributed to all Israelis in time, they could, theoretically, defend against a poison gas attack.

However, many biological agents such as anthrax and VX enter through the skin, so in such cases gas masks would be of no use. A privately-purchased protective suit could be effective, but outfitting all 7 million Israelis is not in the cards. And if anthrax, bubonic plague, botulism, nerve agents or the like were loosed among Israel's population, it's highly speculative whether, or for how long, people could survive wearing gas masks or even protective suits inside their sealed rooms.

BUT THE RISKS of preemption are only some of the issues that US and Israeli leaders are going to have to address if Iran does not abandon its nuclear project. I asked the three experts whether, when taking everything into account, they supported or opposed a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort, if diplomacy should fail. I got three different answers.

Shoham leans toward the military option. In his view, the danger from a nuclear Iran is "unbearable." He explains that a nuclear Iran would raise the tension in the Middle East and the West so high that it would set off a chain reaction of fear and aggression such that a nuclear war would become likely. Better, he says, to take the risks involved in preemption.

But Shoham reiterates that the consequences of a possible Iranian chemical or biological attack on Israel and/or American targets in the Gulf are so extraordinarily grave that they must be neutralized before a preemptive strike can be launched. Neutralizing the risk, he says, means taking out Iran's missile launchers or biological weapons, which means finding them, which means getting extremely good intelligence. It also means having dependable back-up protection, which means perfecting the Arrow. It's a huge challenge, but Shoham thinks it can be done, and since the threat of a nuclear Iran is, in his view, "unbearable," it must be done.

Shapir, however, leans against the military option. He says he's "very skeptical" about the possibility of destroying Iran's nuclear potential militarily, adding that even if a preemptive strike were successful, it wouldn't end the threat. Iran would step up its nuclear program and its reconstructed facilities would have to be bombed again and again.

Because Iran has such a strong incentive to develop nuclear weapons, Shapir assumes it will do so. Diplomacy and sanctions are likely to fail, he thinks, and then Israel and the West will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran. The good news is that living with a nuclear Iran is not only possible, he believes, but inevitable.

"The chance that Iran will launch a nuclear first strike is low," Shapir says, arguing that it is deterred by American nuclear might. Based on the 62-year history of the nuclear age, what will probably happen, he says, is that a "dialogue" will develop between Iran and its enemies - as it did between the US and the Soviet Union, and as it recently did between arch-enemies India and Pakistan. "Strategic logic is stronger than any ideology," he maintains.

Kam says there are too many unknowns for him to take a blanket position for or against a preemptive strike, explaining that it depends on the intelligence available at the moment of decision, which will only arrive if and when it becomes clear that diplomatic measures have failed. Since he believes Iran is still three or four years away from having the capability of retaliating against Israel with WMD-armed missiles, the risk to the home front is less critical to Kam than the risk that a preemptive attack would fail. And the risk of failure is higher, he says, if Israel does the job than if the US does it.

If the US were to pass on the military option, says Kam, Israel could only take on such an operation "if we have quite accurate intelligence on what sort of damage we could do to Iran's underground nuclear sites. If a preemptive attack could push their nuclear program back several years, that would be one thing. If an attack could only push it back one year, I'm not sure it would be worthwhile to take the risk."

So there we have it. On the supreme strategic dilemma of our time - whether to bomb Iran's nukes or not - the expert view is: Yes, no, I don't know. On the narrower, but still fateful question of how Iran would react to such a bombing, there is also ambiguity.

In making a decision on whether to choose the military option, a lesson may be drawn from the American decision to launch the war in Iraq. Instead of weighing the risks of invasion alongside those of leaving Saddam in power, the Bush administration concentrated almost solely on the latter - to bitter result. Iran now presents an even more dangerous dilemma; this time around, both of the risks - the risk of Iranian nuclear arms andthe risk of preempting them - have to be faced, then weighed in the balance before decision time arrives.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...le%2FPri nter

4 big copy & pastes from a moron too stupid to think for himself....wonder why nobody responds? If you weren't so stupid you'd know.

It's just a scrapbook thread of articles on the US/Israel and Iran... I don't really care if one responds or not

Nice article multi.
Some interesting points made.

What were they suckup?


Pretending you read it; how pathetic.

:BL: :BL: silly man

Scary isn't it?

very..
 

Fears of US attacks on Iran grow as media campaign heats up


At a press conference on Thursday, President Bush delivered an apparent threat against Iran, stating, "One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs, that kill Americans in Iraq."

Neither Bush nor the State Department would elaborate on the meaning of "consequences." However, McClatchy Newspapers reports that "the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy."

The Guardian reported in July that Cheney has been continuing to press for military action against Iran. When Larry King asked Cheney in an interview on July 31, ""Would you make an overt move on Iran?" Cheney said with a grin, "For what reason?" He then added, "I'm not going to speculate about prospective operations."

Media campaign against Iran accelerates

The degree of responsibility than can be placed on Iran and the Shiite groups it supports for current attacks in Iraq is not clear. Until recently the US tended to blame most Iraqi violence on Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda. However, what McClatchy describes as a "growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq" appearing in US media is beginning to remind observers of the media campaign in 2002 that led up to the invasion of Iraq.
...More

Aww, are you scared? Poor baby. MommyMaggie will keep you safe if you put her back in charge.

In other words, "Look into my crystal ball: Bush is gonna bomb Iran." The media doesn't know what will happen so they automatically assume the worst. Is this not the definition of sensationalism? This sort of speculation wears on me quickly, but apparently other people love it 'cause the media keep spewing it forth. This is what happens when news becomes a form of entertainment.

After two strokes.She can't even dress herself anymore.
Plus her speech is impaired.Needs help at the toilet.
God doesn't pay debts in money.
I hope she lives for another twenty in that state.
What's Ronald Mc say "I'm loving it"

what a wonderful human being you are.

:beer:congratulations!:beer:

Now don't go calling him names like that;:no: you know it upsets him. ;(

You bet Daddy O
For what TBW did to some people in this country.
I hope she burns in hell.

Officials U.S. Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan(FOX)


Instead of going home, British troops headed to Iranian border:Report

Iranophobia hits Ground Zero
 

In the run-up to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's visit to the United Nations in New York next week, the Iran-bashing sentiment in the US media has escalated to new, unprecedented levels, with presidential hopefuls such as former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, adding fuel to the fire with their increasingly incendiary rhetoric against Iran.

Thus, whereas Romney has written to the UN requesting



Ahmadinejad's arrest on arriving on US soil, citing the Geneva Conventions, Giuliani has used his European tour to second the warmongering sentiment of French leaders, promising to set Iran back "five to 10 years" if it refuses to comply with demands that it suspend uranium-enrichment activities.

And as for the US media, in their seemingly stiff competition on who will win the Iran-bashing trophy, New York's Daily News was the winner, with its full-front-page photo of Ahmadinejad circled in red with the accompanying write-up that he should "go to hell" for daring to request a visit to the former site of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers in New York known as Ground Zero. [1] Another New York daily, Newsday, has been equally venomous, referring to Ahmadinejad as a "madman".

Such vicious, unbounded personal attacks on Iran's president recall earlier manifestations of US jingoism perpetrated against, among others, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and, during the Cold War, various Soviet and Eastern European leaders.

With such a long and rather unsavory tradition, the US media have once again fallen victim to an orchestration of "enemy image" that aims to vilify, intimidate, deface and demonize a Middle Eastern leader who, ironically, has been unusually forthcoming in his expressions of warm feelings toward the American people (though not the US government and its policies).

Never mind that Ahmadinejad has released a few Iranian-Americans who were suspected of instigating a "velvet revolution", or that he has broken the ice of diplomatic non-dialogue with the US by consenting to direct meetings between Iranian and US ambassadors in Iraq, or that he has made the most far-reaching Iranian cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to date.

None of this matters the least to frenzied pundits and politicians who want to cash in on the feverish anti-Iran mood in the US, whose government has done nothing to quell this Iranophobic frenzy and, instead, is fanning the flames by escalating accusations against Tehran.

The latest was the arrest of an Iranian "officer" by US forces at a hotel in Baghdad who is identified by Iraq's government as part of a trade delegation on an official visit. It remains to be seen whether the United States' allegations against this individual turn out to be correct or a tissue of disinformation timed with Ahmadinejad's New York visit.

Iranophobic US politicians and pundits have no doubt been heartened by the simultaneous attack on Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the UN's atomic watchdog agency, the IAEA, by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has in undiplomatic tone warned ElBaradei to "butt out of Iran diplomacy".

ElBaradei's bold anti-war language is, of course, behind all the recent attacks on him, which dates to 2002 when he was similarly vilified for opposing an invasion of Iraq. ElBaradei's other guilt is that he has dared to draw comparison between the anti-Iran war hype today and the pre-Iraq-invasion circumstance, when his agency's failure to find weapons of mass destruction was repudiated by most of the "respected" media pundits in the US, including those writing in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Sadly, history repeats itself, and the US media frenzy against Ahmadinejad, rooted in the US government's failures in Iraq and Iran's defiance of international pressures on the nuclear issue, will undoubtedly gear up to even higher levels once Ahmadinejad sets foot in New York. He has reportedly agreed to debate the president of Columbia University, and that too may become a casualty of the Iran-bashing campaign that succeeded in last year's cancellation of a similar event at Columbia.

What is disturbing about this tidal wave of Iran-bashing in the US is the cowardice of more moderate elements of the US media and politics to speak against the irrational tone of such attacks on Tehran, which many leading US politicians who helped draft the Iraq Study Group (ISG) Report have called on the US government to "engage" diplomatically.

Yet instead of speaking out against the opposite policy of "isolating" Iran by the White House, most of those politicians - with the sole exception of Lee Hamilton, a co-chairman of the ISG - have opted to stay silent.

But that does not make sense, given the United States' national interests and the fact that the onset of US-Iran dialogue on Iraq has been a positive development requiring a timely deepening, for example via next month's conference on Iraq and its neighbors in Turkey, where Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki will have an opportunity to discuss the issues dividing their two countries, which have a large pool of (non-zero-sum) shared interests in the region.

In light of the US media's reports on Rice's preference for diplomacy, as opposed to warfare, with Iran, which has been seconded by President George W Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, it is indeed surprising that the US Department of State has not weighed in on the issue of Ahmadinejad's request to lay a wreath at Ground Zero.

Sure, such a gesture provides a "photo op", as claimed by some New York City officials, but then again it is a small yet concrete step by Iran to reinforce and bolster its anti-terrorist image, given its steady cooperation with the anti-terrorist committee at the UN Security Council, and the US government is dreadfully wrong not to seek such visible signs of Iran's commitment.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II22Ak01.html

Thanks multi.
Good to hear the other point of view.

:beer:
both points of view were covered pretty well with that guys intro, I thought

Again the desperate fanatics are crawling out of the woodwork everywhere screaming blue murder at the insult this person was able to give his side of the story... and not have people influenced by their media manipulation..

Now they even want to stop funding to Columbia Uni because he spoke there..

the media over here is even covering this one..
as awlays one sided...

what is it, with this idiot ?

Stop Lieberman From SNEAKING An Iran War Declaration Through The Senate
http://www.usalone.com/no_iran_war_declaration.php

THE PEOPLE CUT THE HEART OUT OF THE LIEBERMAN-KYL AMENDMENT

:AP:



:dhorse:


US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran

The American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

An air warfare conference in Washington last week was told how American air chiefs have helped to co-ordinate intelligence-sharing with Gulf Arab nations and organise combined exercises designed to make it easier to fight together.

Gen Michael Mosley, the US Air Force chief of staff, used the conference to seek closer links with allies whose support America might need if President George W Bush chooses to bomb Iran.

Pentagon air chiefs have helped set up an air warfare centre in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where Gulf nations are training their fighter pilots and America has big bases. It is modelled on the US Air Force warfare centre at Nellis air force base in Nevada.

Jordan and the UAE have both taken part in combined exercises designed to make sure their air forces can fly, and fight, together and with American jets.

The conference was long-planned to discuss developments in air warfare technology, but the question of possible hostilities involving Iran was discussed.

Bruce Lemkin, the American air force deputy under-secretary for international affairs, said: "We need friends and partners with the capabilities to take care of their own security and stability in their regions and, through the relationship, the inter-operability and the will to join us in coalitions when appropriate…

"On its most basic level, it's about flying together, operating together and training together so, if we have to, we can fight together."
more..

small victory it seems.. This whole thing shines some very bad light on the Democrats...
:pirc:
Yesterday, Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton (NY), Chuck Schumer (NY), Bob Menendez (NJ), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Ben Cardin (MD) all voted in favor of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment." This piece of legislation actually encourages the practitioner of cowboy diplomacy, George W. Bush, to be even more belligerent in his foreign policy. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed by a vote of 76 to 22. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden voted against it, and Barack Obama missed the vote.

The amendment states: "The United State should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."

Kyl-Lieberman is the first step in providing Congressional legitimacy for military action against Iran. The 76 to 22 vote, which also had the support of Majority Leader Harry Reid, codifies U.S. Iran policy and comes very close to sounding like a declaration of war. Designating a four decades old military branch of a sovereign state a "foreign terrorist organization" is an extreme step that is only necessary or useful if there are plans "on the table" to do something about it.

The U.S. troops in Iraq are not considered "foreign." The U.S. calls those Iraqis who are resisting occupation "terrorists." Now a segment of the Iranian armed forces is being labeled a terrorist organization. Such a step is tantamount to a foreign government designating the U.S. Marines a "foreign terrorist organization."

The Democratic Senate is playing right into the hands of those neo-cons and crazies who think a military strike against Iran will improve the situation in the Middle East. On the contrary, it will magnify the current disaster in Iraq tenfold.

If the Senate and the Neo-Cons convince Bush to strike Iran they will be sparking a real war with a nation that can fight back. With its 70 million people, high literacy rate, key geographic location, level of economic development, and its control of a significant share of the world's oil production, Iran is a nation that could cause quite a stir if Bush is dim-witted enough to go down that terrible road.

I can envision a scenario where the United States launches a sustained set of air raids against most of the infrastructure of Iran, specifically targeting the "nuclear facilities" that are widely dispersed throughout the country. The Democrats in Congress will be jumping through hoops like well-trained circus dogs as they vote for resolutions and give speeches validating the aggression. And then we're off to the races in another illegal war against a nation that has not attacked us.


...More

I disagree with this last statement of the article. I think they know full well what they are doing. And they will make even more money, and consolidate even more power. They aren't stupid people. They just have a different opinion on how the world should work. An opinion that all but ignores the suffering of millions of people, but an opinion none the less. I call them ass holes. Some people call them heroic leaders.

The rest of us just call them politicians.

Brits find Iranian bombs crossing into Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wafghan104.xml

And it confirms my view that British politicians are too cowardly to retaliate; letting their own soldiers needlessly die so they can keep the support of propaganda indoctrinated idiot voters and cling to their jobs like pathetic power junkies, no better than degenerate drug addicts, while sacrificing every bit of principle and honor in their descent into the political muck.

A right wing UK newspaper.
Good source of balanced news.
Credible?
Albed seems to think so.
For example.
Gordon Brown does not need to call an election till 2010.
But the right wing press have been telling the story for weeks that he's ahead in the polls and would win easy.
So he is deciding if to call an election.
No doubt at all that he would win.
That's of course till the Tory conference and baby David pulls the lead back.But it makes no difference,Gordon Brown and the labour party would still win.The key is the margin.
If it's a small margin 20,30 seats the press will say his authority as leader is in question.A bigger win gives him that power.Of course now Gordon is indecisive.
But at no time has he said he's even thinking about it's all just press speculation.
It's all part of a continuing attack on Gordon Brown this credible source is running.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...4/npoll104.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../05/dl0501.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../05/do0501.xml

Getting the idea now.

Now to your story,please find another source with this story.Because I have trouble believing anything in a well known Tory rag.

In fact a list of you credible sources would be nice.
You seem to be dodging doing that for some reason.

I thinks I must be physic.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...50140120071008

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...64885720071008

"reuters"
Credible source??
Not sure?still waiting for the list.

From the same source.

"War on terror seen fuelling al Qaeda"

"the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements,"

"Going to war with Iran", he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

"Oxford Research Group"
Credible??


http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...37906320071008

The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know

Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.

In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

"The hard-liners are upping the pressure on the State Department," says Leverett. "They're basically saying, 'You've been trying to engage Iran for more than a year now and what do you have to show for it? They keep building more centrifuges, they're sending this IED stuff over into Iraq that's killing American soldiers, the human-rights internal political situation has gotten more repressive -- what the hell do you have to show for this engagement strategy?' "

But the engagement strategy was never serious and was designed to fail, they say. Over the last year, Rice has begun saying she would talk to "anybody, anywhere, anytime," but not to the Iranians unless they stopped enriching uranium first. That's not a serious approach to diplomacy, Mann says. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies. That's how wars are averted. You work up to the big things. And when U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had his much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad this spring, he didn't even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.

The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

"The U.S. has designated any number of states over the years as state sponsors of terrorism," says Leverett. "But here for the first time the U.S. is saying that part of a government is itself a terrorist organization."

This is what Leverett and Mann fear will happen: The diplomatic effort in the United Nations will fail when it becomes clear that Russia's and China's geopolitical ambitions will not accommodate the inconvenience of energy sanctions against Iran. Without any meaningful incentive from the U.S. to be friendly, Iran will keep meddling in Iraq and installing nuclear centrifuges. This will trigger a response from the hard-liners in the White House, who feel that it is their moral duty to deal with Iran before the Democrats take over American foreign policy. "If you get all those elements coming together, say in the first half of '08," says Leverett, "what is this president going to do? I think there is a serious risk he would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider target zone."

This would result in a dramatic increase in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, attacks by proxy forces like Hezbollah, and an unknown reaction from the wobbly states of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where millions admire Iran's resistance to the Great Satan. "As disastrous as Iraq has been," says Mann, "an attack on Iran could engulf America in a war with the entire Muslim world."

Mann and Leverett believe that none of this had to be.

Flynt Lawrence Leverett grew up in Fort Worth and went to Texas Christian University. He spent the first nine years of his government career as a CIA analyst specializing in the Middle East. He voted for George Bush in 2000. On the day the assassins of Al Qaeda flew two hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center, Colin Powell summoned him to help plan the response. Five months later, Leverett landed a plum post on the National Security Council. When Condoleezza Rice discussed the Middle East with President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, Leverett was the man standing behind her taking notes and whispering in her ear.

Today, he sits on the back deck of a house tucked into the curve of a leafy suburban street in McLean, Virginia, a forty-nine-year-old white American man wearing khakis and a white dress shirt and wire-rimmed glasses. Mann sits next to him, also wearing khakis. She's thirty-nine but looks much younger, with straight brown hair and a tomboy's open face. The polish on her toenails is pink. If you saw her around McLean, you wouldn't hesitate:

Soccer mom. Classic soccer mom.

But with degrees from Brandeis and Harvard Law and stints at Tel Aviv University and the powerful Israeli lobby known as AIPAC, she has even better right-wing credentials than her husband.

As they talk, eating grapes out of a bowl, lawn mowers hum and birds chirp. The floor is littered with toy trucks and rubber animals left behind by the youngest of their four children. But the tranquillity is misleading. When Mann and Leverett went public with the inside story behind the impending disaster with Iran, the White House dismissed them. Then it imposed prior restraint on them, an extraordinary episode of government censorship. Finally, it threatened them.

Now they are afraid of the White House, and watching what they say. But still, they feel they have to speak out.

Like so many things these days, this story began on the morning of September 11, 2001. On Forty-fifth Street in Manhattan, Mann had just been evacuated from the offices of the U.S. mission to the United Nations and was walking home to her apartment on Thirty-eighth Street -- walking south, toward the giant plume of smoke. When her cell phone rang, she picked it up immediately because her sister worked at the World Trade Center and she was frantic for word. But it wasn't her sister, it was a senior Iranian diplomat. To protect him from reprisals from the Iranian government, she doesn't want to name him, but she describes him as a cultured man in his fifties with salt-and-pepper hair. Since early spring, they had been meeting secretly in a small conference room at the UN.

"Are you all right?" he asked.

Yes, she said, she was fine.

The attack was a terrible tragedy, he said, doubtless the work of Al Qaeda.

"I hope that we can still work together," he said.
http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

Been away for the week(nice break in the sun)
I come back and find Albed still can't come up with a list of credible sources for us all to study.
Why is that?
Maybe it's because he's more interested in name calling than debate.Or even a exchange of views based on agreed principles.
Or maybe he's only interested in one point of view his own.
Or maybe a combination of all three.

Israeli Foreign Minister Livni changes Israeli position on Iran: "Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel"

Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.

Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.

The article also reveals for the first time a document Livni prepared and sent to Olmert a few months after the Second Lebanon War proposing a new division of labor between the two. "Enclosed is a proposal for work procedures between us, with the aim of providing an answer to Israel's strategic needs and facilitating early planning and the formulation of coordinated Israeli positions ... within the framework of cooperative relations, full transparency and continuous mutual updates," wrote Livni. ...more

Will Crazy Cheney Get his War with Iran?

Dick Cheney’s craziness used to influence foreign policy.

Now it is foreign policy.

He may have lost his buddy in belligerence, Rummy. He may have tapped out the military in Iraq. He may not be able to persuade Congress so easily anymore — except for Hillary — to issue warlike resolutions. He can’t cow Condi into supporting his bullying as he once did, and Bob Gates is doing his best to instill some common sense.

Besides, Cheney is running out of time to wreak global havoc; he’s working for a president who is spending his waning days on the job trying to prevent children from getting health insurance.

But the vice president may have hit on a devious tactic used by his old boss Richard Nixon.

President Nixon and Henry Kissinger liked to use madness as a method. In 1969, Nixon told Kissinger to caution the Soviet ambassador that Nixon was “out of control” on Indochina, and could do something drastic.

Three months earlier, as Anthony Summers wrote in “The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon,” “Kissinger had sent that very same message by proxy when he instructed Len Garment, about to leave on a trip to Moscow, to give the Soviets ‘the impression that Nixon is somewhat “crazy” — immensely intelligent, well organized and experienced to be sure, but at moments of stress or personal challenge unpredictable and capable of the bloodiest brutality.’ Garment carried out the mission, telling a senior Brezhnev adviser that Nixon was ‘a dramatically disjointed personality ... more than a little paranoid ... when necessary, a cold-hearted butcher.’ ” All of which, his aides later reflected, was kind of true.

Cheney seems to enjoy giving the impression that he is loony enough to pull off an attack on Iran before leaving office — even if he has to do it alone, like Slim Pickens riding the bomb down in “Dr. Strangelove” to the sentimental tune of “We’ll Meet Again.” He has even begun referring to his nickname, Darth Vader, noting that it “is one of the nicer things I’ve been called recently.” ...more

Some facts instead of copy and paste opinions.
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/...9wEGClYkys0NUE

You should try forming your own opinions multi instead of copying and pasting everyone elses, though that would just show everyone how warped and irrational you really are. But your writing skills are so poor you can hardly convey something anyway, though your thoughts are probably a little difficult to convey to rational people. Ah forget it.




One of my opinions is that the U.S. should start fighting terrorism with terrorism. Iran's annual "Death to the U.S." rally would be an excellant target and I bet Iran would drastically improve it's behaviour after a little brutality on it's own people.

Spoken like a true (grammar) nazi brown shirt..
fuck you dickhead , I wil express myself in anyway I choose..
you can bitch all you like. It seems to be the only thing you can do on this forum ,
complain ,whinge, complain some more and then,
bait people with personal insults...
rinse
repeat

You go back to defending your hated President and don't you go worring about my little scrapbook of articles on Iran.. but thanks for the contribution !

Ooh, are you going to copy and past my "contribution" now?


Did you ever consider that you are really contributing nothing yourself when all you do is copy and paste other people's thoughts?

It must give you a good feeling to mouth words you could never compose yourself but it doesn't really justify your existance when you're no more than a parrot squawking things you can't understand.

Do you ever wish you had a functioning mind to think with multi?

Ever regret damaging your brain so badly with drug abuse?

Too late now. You should've thought about that before you made yourself stupid.

haha.. stupid is your repetitive broken record responses... never very well thought out and always the same.

really now.. get a grip
reacting thus to my noticeably superior intellect does nothing but make you look like a poor fool cowering in fear.
:BL:

:sus:

:C13:

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep it that way, and they want the U.S. to help.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target. Her claim last week that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world" is simply too much of a stretch.


To gauge someone's reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice's credibility suffers in comparison with Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Basing his judgment on the findings of IAEA inspectors in Iran, ElBaradei reports that there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program there.

If this sounds familiar, it is in fact déjà vu. ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert, "I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong."

Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, U.S. intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, but, alas, in vain. Burned by the bogus "proof" adduced for Iraq -- the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes -- the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related "evidence." Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?" There is a simpler answer.

Cat out of the bag

The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel. Heavy on the chutzpah, he then served gratuitous notice on Washington that countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude, "come January '09, they have it their own way."

Meridor stressed that "very little time" remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so? Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now.

Truth be told, every other year since 1995 U.S. intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years. It has become downright embarrassing -- like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called "neoconservatives" like James Woolsey, who in August publicly warned that the United States may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt Tehran's nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey, self-described "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs," put it this way: "I'm afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [the Iranians] could have the bomb."

The day before Ambassador Meridor's unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush's apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud before they leave office. That is why the Israeli ambassador says there is "very little time" -- less than 15 months.

Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976. Westinghouse and General Electric successfully lobbied for approval to sell the Shah for $6.4 billion the kind of nuclear facilities that Iran is now building, but the deal fell through when the Shah was ousted in 1979.

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly, and Israel's current leaders are pressing for the United States to obliterate Iran's fledgling nuclear program.

Anyone aware of Iran's ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney and Bush in the past. And the real rationale is reminiscent of the one revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of Condoleezza Rice, former member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On Oct. 10, 2002, Zelikow said this to a crowd at the University of Virginia:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is -- it's the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name ... the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."...Continued

Good Article, Multi. :D