Today the Homeland, tomorrow the world….

This is classical addict pattern behavior (Bush is an addict, and at best a dry drunk). When addictive behavior causes a mess the solution is to redouble it again and again, until total collapse. This hapenned to the Third Reich and is bound to happen to Bush’s Fourth Reich. Like Bush, Hitler was an addict. They both were nutz and heard voices in their head. They were both admired by irrational psychotic crowds.

Hitler staged the Reichstag Fire and the Bush Crime Family staged 9-11. Hitler passed Enabling Laws, the Patriot Act of Nazi Germany. Then followed secret detentions and prisons like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, “rendering” etc.

Afghanistan and Iraq=Austria, Czechos…

Don’t worry, Halliburton’s got ya covered! Leave the financial responsibilty to the tax-suckers, preferrably ones still in diapers or not yet born whenever possible.

In America, the current leader actually IS mad (nutz), the people, on the whole, are not (only 33% approve of Bush, who stole two elections, while 18% approve of Cheney, the drunk puppetmaster behind the porcelain throne…and dropping like a rock, pronounced Iraq). The suicide-bombers are a vocal minority in this country. Most people would not like to die for Bush’s meaningless rhetoric and the voices in his head, although 18-33% are willing to send other people to die for it, even though a clear majority of those actually in line to die now want out.

Unfortunately psycho-dubai-ya and his Crime Family don’t care what anyone but their gang wants. If one invasion fails and the lies behind it are exposed they’ll just use the same big lies to conjure anotha

Well, Captain, hate to tell ya but you and your team are going down big time!

A nice, fat, juicy, centrally located target will not stand up against a diffuse enemy that’s “everywhere and nowhere”. Instead of worrying about Iran you should be worried about the nameless, faceless – let’s call it the X factor – of one billion plus (and that’s just the Muslims – as if they are the only ones you’ve pissed off) regimeless – who do you attack? They can nuke your command center, but they don’t have one for you to nuke.

Can they get nukes? Heck yeah. Materials and know-how are readily available from the ex-USSR, with several Muslim nations, many out of work scientists, porous contiguous borders to the Mideast nations with a tradition of Bakshish (bribes) along those borders.

Add the porous US coastline and border, ex-Spetsnatz, and your “intelligence” seems pretty dumb….

But if I were king …

Furthermore, should we trust any President with the authority to start wars against non-belligerent states?

I think not.

I think before attacking any country there should be a post-war plan. A plan that provides help for the attacked country, its people and the financial responsibility of both countries.

If having big government spending on another country is unlibertarian then stop talking about nuking other countries.

There is no absolute safety without absolute control. Dying with total freedom may be better than dying in sudo-safety.

However, an Iran with Nukes looks much more threatening to the average man. “Death To America” is just a campaign promise–something that can be broken in the face of pragmatism. And the simple fact is, if Iran has nukes, AND Iran behaves aggressively toward us, Iran is likely to end up with MORE nukes in their country than they bargained for.

I’m pretty sure that even if their current leader actually IS mad, their people, on the whole, are not. The suicide-bombers are a vocal minority in that country. Most people would not like to die for meaningless rhetoric, Muslim or otherwise.

The real question behind your question is: Is the US a threat to Iran? And if so, should Iran “take out” the US.

The current Iranian regime may believe the US to be a threat. And they may intend to “take us out.” If that is the case, then they better be prepared for a beating. And if intelligence suggests this to be the case, then by all means the US should strike first.

Criminals consider armed potential victims to be a threat. And they have no qualms with a first strike. If such a criminal crosses my path, I will shoot first.

What you’re trying to get at with your question, I believe, is that Iran has legitimate beefs with the US. I recognize this. But the second they point a gun to the US’s head, then I believe the US has the responsibility to disarm and destroy if necessary.

Maybe you think the US has its guns pointed at others heads. Maybe you’re right. But that is a different discussion. I’m a member of Team America, and if it came to it, I hope the US plays to win

Is the US a threat to other countries? If so, should we be “taken out”?

Force should always be a last resort. But sometimes a dispute will come to blows. I believe that Iran (even with a nuclear weapon) can be contained. But if I were president, and intelligence crossed my desk that suggested Iran was selling suitcase bombs to terrorists, then I wouldn’t hesitate to strike first.

If there is evidence of a real threat to American citizens, then take out the threat. Is Iran a real threat right now? I don’t know. Is a nuclear Iran a real threat? Again, I don’t know. I’d be more worried about what will happen in Pakistan in the event of a coup.

Since Iran’s president chants “death to america” daily, do you think he wouldn’t use a Nuke aganist us .. wake up

I mean, if every country in the world had the rights that we claim to have, well we would’ve been attacked dozens of times over.

rational does not guide him, intuition and feeling do. it’s a beautiful mindset because you are virtually never, ever wrong. evididence is merely a talking point, facts are moot unless they support your belief.

Much different.

Iran isn’t exactly bringing nukes to our house.