"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," President Bush reports that he told world leaders regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations. A nuclear Iran would make the world a worse place. But might the president's words have carried more weight had he not previously offered ridiculous scare scenarios about Iraqi mushroom clouds over U.S. cities? Crying wolf has its consequences.

Duped by a Dope.

That is a theme this week, scare tactics, chicken littles, and crying wolf. And you have shown representatiopn of this from both sides of teh aisle. That in itself says something, and I don't like what it says about our political rulers and the portion of the public that supports them (and the media). Democracy lends itself naturally to demagoguery.

As for Iran, they have constantly made peaceful overtures towards us, and we continue to pretend that such things do not indicate an unwillingness on their part to attack or provoke us. As if all they are doing is trying to buy time until they can develop a nuclear arsenal and an air force and navy to deliver such weapons at us and our nuclear arsenal of close to 6000 warheads . . . heck we have over 400 in Europe alone!

They do not have a military capable of threatening us in any foreseeable future.

Sure we should discourage more members of the nuclear club, and sure we don't want terrorists to ever gain them but our policies and rhetoric really are detached from those actual policy goals. Just look at what goes on vis-a-vis Russia and Pakistan.

Obviously Iran is misunderstood. I think we should just give them nuclear weapons in a jesture of good faith.

Seriously, though, the rhetoric is scary. I think the fact that Bush is a "lame-duck" makes him even more dangerous.

Make that "gesture," or perhaps "jester."

If the sarcasm about giving Iran nukes is directed at me then you misunderstood my statement that "we should discourage more members of the nuclear club." I don't disagree w/ the policy goal of trying to keep Iran (or any other country) from gaining nuclear weapons. I find our current views on foreign policy restrained illogically, and Bush's rhetoric and the dismissal of diplomacy by all the major candidates imprudent.

Like you say, Bush's rhetoric is scary. The problem w/ not "walking softly BUT carrying a big stick" is that such rhetoric easily becomes an artificial constraint ( qua bluster ) on policy options and makes our government, in fact, more isolated diplomatically, and thus less capable of acheiving our goals.

I watched the video of this quote and Bush actually seems giddy, he is sorta smiling and even chuckled a bit, wtf?

So what does it mean logically?

Ok, I don't want WWIII so I should want Iran to not have the knowledge to build a nuke. But why would that cause WWIII?

either a) Iran would use that nuke(s) to start WWIII or b) the US would start WWIII in order to preemptively strike Iran if they had a nuke, or . . . . are there any more logical options? Maybe that Israel would start WWIII?

I will ignore that he sets the threshold so low as just that the "knowledge to make a nuke" would somehow cause WWII, not the actual ownership of a real nuclear arsenal and the means of delivering them at some given enemies (us/Israel) would cause it.

But how would the other scenarios play out?

So if Iran got one nuke (which is exceedingly difficult) would it launch it on Israel, when Israel would send 100 or more onto Iran totally decimating it, even before we throw a couple hundred more nukes on them? Is that how WWIII would begin and play out? B/c Iran and the entire ME is no Germany, and probably not even an Italy in terms of actual military might as we faced in WWII.

Or if the other option is that Iran having a nuke would mean we would preemptively launch WWIII, well then why? How is that equivalent to the Blitzkrieg flattening Poland, then Belgium and France (and even that didn't get us into a war w/ Germany)?

****And he doesn't even care where Bin Laden is!!!!!******

This is just surreal, the rhetoric is all so unhinged from reality.

It is true that this is all sounding very familiar and similar to the rational that Bush used to get us into Iraq.

So, do we invade another country because we “suspect” that if they develop nuclear weapons we “expect” for them to use them?

With the realization that they are one of the contributors in the export of terrorism, is that enough to justify another full scale invasion of Iran? Why else? Because they dress funny or we can't understand what they're saying or they stone gays, subjugate and oppress women and in general demonstrate bad behavior?

You're right; we've heard this shtick before and are now living with the results of the actions put into motion by our government’s rhetoric. So be it. But that should teach caution if there is a next time.

It's too late now, but the more I observe GW, the more I think he is truly nutz!!!

ASDF,

You know what is so demoralizing for me? That in your few questions posed regarding what would be grounds to invade Iran you have done more serious discussion and reflection on the topic than the main figures in both political parties. They are so enamored w/ holding power that even serious matters like war are just fodder for campaigning.

What Bush said should have been an occasion to ask just the sorts of questions you ask, but instead in the clip I watched of it Tim Russert comes in to talk about how using the phrase WWIII is meant to strike a note helping to define the way Republicans will campaign, (something like) "we are the party that takes serious Islamo-fascism and the threats we face, not the Democrats." So Bush says those things and all the MSM does is look at it for its purported political value in manipulating the public's view of the GOP presidential hopefuls!

The build-up to invade Iraq was a slow and long one, but it always seemed inevitable b/c any real argumentation from Congress was so notably lacking, and in the media as well. To see that same scenario being played out again is incredible and depressing.

Could we for once go into a war having demonstrated that we thought about it seriously before making such a fateful decision?

"They are so enamored w/ holding power that even serious matters like war are just fodder for campaigning".

You're right of course. But why let something as serious as a decision to go to war stand in the way of politics?

Historical circumstances gave Bush a pass the first time and, like it or not, our government and to a large extent the people allowed for invasion and war in Iraq. But, for Bush and the others to continue to use Iraq and now Iran as political props just shows (in my opinion) that these are people who don't take war or other matters concerning this nation seriously and ultimately it's about grabbing and holding power above all else.

i hope iran gets the bomb, then gives bin ladens sons a bomb, and then give hizbulala or what ever those cleaver raghead group names are the bomb. what a fun world its going to be! and i will sit back and laugh.