Me. I am. Iran. Not a threat. Sorry if what I'm saying often gets lost in what I'm saying.

Iran is not a threat. There. Bold-faced so everyone can see it.

On everything?
The insurgency will not work.
WMD's (since "your side" claimed their existance as well).
The Cold War.
NK negotiations should be bi-lateral.

Your side is correct revolves around one issue. Our side being correct revolves around several different ones.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

If our goal was regime change, yeah. I agree.

Regime change would not be necessary however. We could bomb them with impunity, and they could not do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing to stop us.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

In todays world any threat should be taken seriously so i would say yes

__________________
Feel the the wrath

"Evreyday above ground is a good day"-Scarface

Do you not agree with the Dept. of State who lists them as a State Sponsor of Terrorism?
Do you not think they instigate radical behavior?
Do you not think they provide material support to the Iraqi insurgency?
Do you think the groups Iran supports, Hamas and Hezbollah, are similarly a threat to no one?
Do you think, since they're not a threat, we should immediately end all sanctions, and resume normal relations?
Do you think Democrats such as Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden and others should change their position on Iran? (All four have said Iran poses a threat to the US.)

Insofar as Iran wishes to promote terrorism and radicalization of the Middle East, yes, I certainly hope we're viewed as a threat and an obstacle to achievement of that agenda.

Exactly!
(But we must remember it's a two way thing...)

How about this for evidence:
Bush (and his regime) have lied to us before, on several accounts.
Why should we believe him now? Hmm...

Is Iran a threat?
Maybe Yes & Maybe No

Is Iran a threat to the U.S.A?
Probably Not

My question is "What kind of threat?"

The most important issue, as far as I'm concerned, is to do things right.
If we get into another conflict without the general support of the world - NOT Right!
If we get into another conflict based on lies - NOT Right!

I honestly don't think that that is too much to ask from our government...

Fingers crossed for a diplomatic solution.
Peace.

__________________
I love Us All,
Ziggy
The Ziggy Articles

To those who are jumping up and down with excitement over the implications of this report, I'll point out that the NIE predictions haven't really changed since the last report was released in 2005.

The imprecision of these NIE reports is perhaps best illustrated by the two conflicting statements that were assessed with "high confidence":

2005:
2007:
Oops.

That is the point. I am not basing MY belief on Bush. If Bush declared tomorrow that Iran was not a threat, it would not change my opinion.

You people really have to get over that assumption. We arent robots programmed by Bush. The fact that I agree with Bush on this issue doesnt mean that Bush defines my views for me.




"Maybe yes" is sufficient reason to take the actions we are taking.



"Probably not" is your opinion. I dont agree with your opinion.



In effect then, you are subordinating our defense policy to "the world". We arent allowed to act in our defense unless "the world" aggress with us. That is unacceptable to me.


To this day no liberal has ever shown me an example of where Bush lied about anything. Not even once.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

The statements aren't exactly a valid comparison. One deals with an assessment of future intent, the other with the existence of an active program. The 2007 assessment that compares with 2005 is "but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

If these statements were from the same report, they would be conflicting indeed. Times change. I'm encouraged by what hints at a possible change in the final reports that emerge:

That was one major problem with the Iraq assessment and the Bush Administration - false and convenient assumptions. Does this signal a change to a more objective approach? Time will tell.

__________________
"You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington."

- Barack Obama, 8/28/08

Of course they are. If you disagree, maybe you should submit a complaint to the Director of National Intelligence and ask him to change the 2007 NIE, the comparison is made explicitly in that report.