Amid the debate about a Senate nonbinding resolution on the troop “surge” in Iraq, there’s growing speculation in the media about whether the United States is heading toward armed confrontation with Iran. Is President Bush determined to take out Iran’s nuclear program on his watch?
“War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq,” argues James Fallows in the Atlantic. Stopping this debacle is far more important, he argues, than the debate over a surge in Iraq — and Congress has more leverage in this case to make a difference.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
125 Comments
Bush is so damn sure about this role, these wars. He’s going to start WW3 so that we have no choice but to ALL defend ourselves from the fight he started.
POliticalmom – the thing is – your choice of candidate for 2008, has made some pretty strong war talk against Iran, herself. More so even than Bush. And didn’t you say you LIKED her because she was ‘hawkish?’
Iran is suppling and promoting a growing segment of the insurgency in Iraq. Numerous attacks have shown that the bombs used against American soldiers and Iraqi military and civilians are coming from Iran. In a sense, wouldn’t you say that makes Iran ALREADY starting a war with us?
A troop surge now in Iraq, may save us from a war in Iran later. We are already fighting Iran as they come over the border – persons and weapons. And the fight was initiated by them.
No GS, the IRAQ war was begun by US, not them.
Granted, PM – WE started the war in Iraq – but Iran has chosen to send their operatives AND their weapons to cause chaos in Iraq. We didn’t invade Iran – so, in a sense, THEY are starting this particular skirmish.
But Hillary strongly stated that we needed to consider military means to keep Iran from obtaining nukes.
How far can/should we go in that aspect?
Should we just ignore the fact that Iran is breaching their signed non-proliferation treaty?
If we (or the rest of the world) just turn a blind eye when a treaty that we put SO much time and negotiation into – is broken – why negotiate anymore at all?
Do negotiations mean so little these days?
I guess treaties are worth no more than the paper they are written on.
Most of the weapons that Iran is channeling into Iraq, are actually made in North Korea, Russia and China — so using your logic we should declare war on them too?
Iran is playing much the same game we played in Afghanistan when the Russians were there. That we played in Vietnam with the Chinese, though Kennedy was bound by a mutual aid pact that was signed at the end of WWII to help a co-signer to that pact.
Only in Iraq it is Iran that we are in a contest with instead of a Communist country.Much like China and the Russians, if there is a direct attack the war will turn to something that could drain this country and involve far more then the outcome of Iraq.In a open war with Iran, 20,000 more troops would mean nothing! As I pointed out before, Iran is not Iraq they really would go all out and every man, woman and child will be the enemy If we are to attack their land.
Much like with Russia and China, it is in our best interest to find a better way to handle them. The country was at its best in WWII, we were attacked and had being right on our side. Fighting two countries that had open aggression against not just another country but many countries. Iran not only has a fear of Israel but a grudge against them, they were attacked by Israel. But because of Israel having the “bomb” escaped without any real retaliation.
Bush for the most part has lost this country with Iraq, I do not see the country having the same pulling together and willingness to sacrifice as it did in WWII. Not when we are picking the enemy instead of the enemy picking us. There are still quite a few moderates in Iran, if we would attack they would be almost impossible to find afterwards.
If one were to look at the war in Iraq as a war we never should have started, then Iran’s entry into supplying Iran insurgents should be discounted as a normal course of the war.
Pakistan is by far a part of this war. Do we invade them? The main question, as I see it, is who DON’T we invade?
Get out of Iraq; let them fight it out as they have been for centuries. This is not something we can do anything about.
The only threat from Iran is to Israeli barbaric expansion. Hillary wants to make it safe for Israel to keep expanding throughout the Middle East without being retaliated against, but most Americans are afraid to say that because of being labeled the “much-feared” “anti-Semitic.”
The Jews actually proposed a resolution in the UN which says that “any criticism against Israel is automatically “anti-Semitism”
The Jews wish to stifle debate about the Holocaust and their murderous activities in Iraq and the Middle East.
Using that UN proposal as fact, they were able to attack and devastate Lebanon while murdering Palestinians daily with impunity.
Neither Bush nor Rice raised a finger to stop the carnage in Lebanon or Palestine, as both have already sold their souls to the ruling-class {Zionists} in Israel.
A little counter point to gee sherri’s neocon shilling of this point:
“Iran has chosen to send their operatives AND their weapons to cause chaos in Iraq. We didn’t invade Iran – so, in a sense, THEY are starting this particular skirmish.”
The link is to an article about why bushco’s efforts to pin iraq on iran are just so much “hogwash” as dead eye dick would say.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12433
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11529379/
Hillary is kissing up to Israel. For the first time, I agree with anti- Semite Ed. I will go further: Hillary will support Israel if Israel takes out Irans Nukes, is my guess. At the very least, Hillary will not do anything harsh against Israel in the even Israel goes that far. This is a far cry from the Hillary that hugged Arafat, is it not?
Israel has already tested “bunker buster” bombs in Lebanon. Some analysts have said that these would need to be dropped first, then a low level nuke droped into the crater that would take out the Iranian nukes.
No, this would not be a great thing, it will cause world wide problems. However, Israel will be targeting weapons, while the Iranian President makes clear that he wants to kill the Jewish people!
By the way, Bill Clinton was ALSO at war with Iraq, Bill Clinton simply did not invade Iraq with ground troops.Saddam Hussein STARTED the war with the United States, back when Saddam invaded Kuwait, and then, again, when Saddam ignored international law and UN Resolutions repeatedly.
History will determine whether George W. Bush was right to invade Iraq with ground troops and remove Saddam. Current opinion means nothing. The people grew tired in WW2 and wanted it over. That is part of the reason Truman dropped the bomb. (By the way, Hitler never attacked the United States, did he? Yes, Germany declared war on the US right after Pearl Harbor, but words dont mean anything, do they? Iran has promised to destroy Israel, but we cant go to war over words can we?) Back to the fatigue of the American people, we also grew tired of the war in Korea, but managed to hold South Korea. Eisenhower lost some seats in Congress over Korea, didnt he? In Vietnam, we never lost a battle, but lost the political fight in Washington. We look worse, in the eyes of history, for leaving our friends to die than we do for trying to help the cause of freedom in the first place.
We had been in a legal state of war with Iraq, prior to the removal of Saddam, for a very long time.
Tactics can be debated, tactics should be debated. However, lets not forget history or try to re-write history.
Saddam started the war.
Bush should be held responsible for the conduct of the war, for his decision to remove Saddam and for the security of the country. Bush did not start this war, however.
Judge Bush over how he played the cards he was dealt. That is fair. You libs are trying to stack the deck by rewriting history.———-
And, Pmom and others, the Democrats assume that a Dem will be the next President. The Dems dont want to deal with Iran.
The Dems want Bush to do it.
Failing that, the Dems want Israel to do it.
Unfortunately for the innocents caught in the middle, one way or the other, it will be done!
Truth be told, a ground war with Iran is not prudent. US Air Strikes against hostile nations (Libya for example) have never been considered an act of war by our own people. Therefore, there will be no “war” with Iran under the Bush regime.Truth be told, historians will recall the Bush Presidency as one that saved the free world. His success is measured and will continue to be by acts which do not happen.Liberal Democrats (note – not all Democrats) truth be told continually ask for examples of these acts against the US, though 2 skyscrapers missing from lower Manhattan, NYC, NY, USA are the prime example. Fear mongering it is called.Global warming anyone?
Correction Paul, the Dems feel we are in no position because of Bush to DEAL with Iran nor North Korea.
It’s because of Bush’s stint in Iraq that Iran is even being allowed INTO Iraq in the first place.
“Bring Em On”!
Truth do you realize you sound completely out of your mind? Almost like a religious zealot…truth be told truth be told truth be told…
It was AlQaida AlQaida AlQaida, none of whom came from Iran or Iraq…It was AlQaida AlQaida AlQaida, none of whom came from Iran or Iraq…It was AlQaida AlQaida AlQaida, none of whom came from Iran or Iraq…
Anyone catch the moronic posting “Bush lied to save America”? Bad reflection on Kansans in general.
Follow the money to the source. Check the sources policy objectives. Does the candidate that received the cash support objectives of the source?
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html
2004 Top Ten Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC FundsCompiled by Hugh GalfordHouse: Current CycleHoyer, Steny (D-MD) $37,500Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) 36,000Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 35,100Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 31,600Frost, Martin (D-TX) 31,300Cantor, Eric (R-VA) 23,750Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) 23,000DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 23,000Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 20,650Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) 20,650House: CareerBerkley, Shelley (D-NV) $201,455Frost, Martin (D-TX) 165,414Engel, Eliot (D-NY) 137,918Levin, Sander (D-MI) 113,727Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 109,738Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 107,250Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 92,275Evans, Lane (D-IL) 87,379Harman, Jane (D-CA) 86,271DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 81,050Senate: Current CycleSpecter, Arlen (R-PA) $80,350Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 73,000Murray, Patty (D-WA) 72,495Daschle, Tom (D-SD) 70,500Reid, Harry (D-NV) 64,999Bayh, Evan (D-IN) 56,500Bennett, Robert (R-UT) 55,750Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 55,000Brownback, Samuel (R-KS) 50,850Shelby, Richard (R-AL) 38,500Senate: CareerDaschle, Tom (D-SD) $533,635Specter, Arlen (R-PA) 461,973Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) 433,806Durbin, Richard (D-IL) 326,671Reid, Harry (D-NV) 318,801Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 255,562Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT) 227,758Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 223,794Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) 221,178Conrad, Kent (D-ND) 201,939—–
Truth be told, no differentiation should be made between the likes of Al Qaeda (Osama Bin Laden), Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.While ties to pacify the United Nations have not been made, please refer to the truth’s “if it walks like a duck” reference of 48 hours ago.
Truth be told, “The Truth” is an idiot.
I was first on this forum as far as I know to call it.
bush WILL attack Iran. Most likely he will do it before campaigning in earnest begins for the 08 elections.
And then depending on the American people?
Anything goes.
Myself I don’t feel a part of it anymore. Best thing I do is keep the military away from my kid.
I hate to admit it, but Vladmir Putin sent a strong message about the Bush administrations obstinate bullish foreign policy. “Either you are with us or you are against us” said GWB…well, it looks like they all are against us.Iran is nuts and NO ONE is standing up to help us. Why? I am too far removed to pose a credible explanation but I do believe the ignorance of Bush and Cheney has a lot to do with America’s fall from grace. I really think we need to impeach Bush, which will send a strong message across the world that the US Citizens value America as a country of leadership and compromise. Bush is such a loser.
Econ101, You are one stupid, thinks he knows it all, asshole.
You don’t know shit…
Using the measure of a presidency by what didn’t happen : Under Clinton we never had a 9/11; We didn’t invade a country on erroneous and fictitous reasons; we didn’t have a balloning national debt. Or can the what didn’t happen only be applied to the moron bush?
Truth be told, perhaps some of you should review Parade Magazine’s top 10 worst world dictators, found in today’s Wichita Eagle.How would you WE bloggers choose to “compromise” with the likes of these? Would it be to join in the outlaw religious freedom? Perhaps Homosexuality? Or Pre-marital sex? How about women’s rights?
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.htmlAugust 1, 2005 IssueCopyright © 2005 The American Conservative
Deep Background
In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
Full out war with Iran is impossible and would be a disaster as I have said before. But this does not rule out an air war..
Truth be told, I forgot the prediction that the links between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family will be brought up by a left leaning WE blogger within 3 posts rather than addressing the question.
Hey;
Didnt Clinton BOMB Iraq? But the lefties dont think Clinton was at war with Iraq?
Therefore, a valid point is being made here, by Andrew and others: Bush can bomb Iran and the public will be ok with that, wont they?
Ed, I dont claim to know it all. I do know how to provoke my opponents, however. Especially those whose over riding drive is to be perfect in every irrelevant fact.
My ego does not require me to be right all the time.
All I require of myself is that I frequently prove my opponents are wrong.
That I do enough of the time to justify my participation here.
There is no sport in proving you are wrong, however. Ed, you are only slightly smarter than JR, and far more of a bigot.
Iran would gladly give-up their nukes if Bush removed Israel’s teeth. Israel is the trouble-maker in the Middle East, none other.
At this point, with Israeli aggression rampant, Iran needs nukes as a deterrent against Israeli barbarism.
Put the Israelis back behind the Green-line, form a Palestinian State and a peace treaty with the Arabs would follow.
It’s called diplomacy.
Paul Rosell
Would you care for a referendum on just how you are thought of here? Ed is strident but his take has proven correct in the past.
When were you ever close to correct on …..anything prollie paul?
“My ego does not require me to be right all the time.”
Does your dignity tug at you the least to urge you to cease embarrassing yourself here?
Listen to Paul Rosell in full rant mode: “Clinton bombed Iraq! Saddam started the war!”
Yeah, Paul, that damn Saddam didn’t have the intelligence to quick whip up a batch of chemical weapons that he could give to the inspectors so he could be in compliance with Bush’s ultimatum that was otherwise impossible for Saddam . . .
SINCE HE HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and the entire basis of the invasion and occupation was BASED ON A PACK OF LIES.
JR
This is a very liberal blog.
Would you pay attention to an opinion poll amongst Fox News listeners, Limbaugh listeners, or in a room of Free Republic members?
I fully realize that I am not always 100% right. I dont have to be. I admit that I enjoy a good arguement. I also enjoy proving other people wrong, from time to time. Those who enjoy playing sports don’t expect to win all the time. Neither do those of us that enjoy a true arguement, on the merits.
You never get to the merits, JR. You are motivated by hate and envy and malice.
I usually ignore you, JR, because, as I told Ed, there isnt much sport in proving either of you wrong.
Ben has the courage to occassionally show up at Republican events and at forums where he knows he is in the minority. Ben also uses his real name here, something I would do if not for the threat possed by trolls. I dont care that you know who I am, I just dont want a Google search to find a false post claiming I support something outrageous, as has happened to me in the past.I have a business to run and a family to support.You have admitted your hatred, JR.You were my first suspect for malicious trolling, because you have motive. — But then, I realized that you just arent smart enough to pull it off!
Jeez, Paul, are your ‘roids acting up this morning?
George W. Bush would have to be bats*** crazy to invade or even attack Iran.
Thing is, there’s a lot of evidence that he is indeed bats*** crazy.
I assume that we are talking about another war, besides the one that started when the Iranians seized our embassy and kidnapped and killed our citizens, ignoring little formalities like diplomatic immunity, treaties, you know, minor things.
And no, Friedemann, everything that is said about the political situation in Israel is not anti-Semitic … just the excrement drooling down your chin every time you open your mouth. Do something constructive, Friedemann, move to Somolia and snuggle up with your Muslim fanatic pals. Maybe you’ll get caught in a crossfire, be a martyr, and get 72 very old wrinkled virgins.
Econ101, I am a soldier if you weren’t already informed. Speaking from experience and opinion but not on behalf of the military, we could easily smash the Iranian’s military into dust.But what would be the purpose of that?- A conservative would most likely say that the purpose would be to eliminate “a dangerous threat”.
But I ask you, what is SOOO dangerous about a military we can obliterate in less that a month? Puuhleease! The Iranians do not pose a military threat (PERIOD) .
So, as I said, Bush may still be considering a tactical strike targeting uranium enrichment sites and other facilities in Iran. You said “Bush can bomb Iran and the public will be ok with that, wont they?”
- The answer to that is clearly NO (doesn’t mean he won’t do it anyway).
You can tell that just by the blatant Democratic opposition to striking Iran (including resolutions to that effect) and the Republican hesitance to get behind that kind of action. No one trusts Bush anymore (worse approval rating that Nixon). His kind of foreign diplomacy is clearly flawed, so why should we trust him in this decision? The sad fact is that we cannot. He has no idea what the hell he is doing. I can testify to that personally.
Using the measure of a presidency by what didn’t happen : Under Clinton we never had a 9/11; We didn’t invade a country on erroneous and fictitous reasons; we didn’t have a balloning national debt.
Thats because BJ left all the problems for the next president. He just plugged his ears and went ‘la la la la”, while Monica was under the desk.
So far the U.S. has attacked an Iranian embassy, arrested an Iranian who was invited by the Iraqi government, and threatened war. What has Iran done to deserve this? They assisted in fighting Al-Quada, promoted the idea of diplomacy, and never took any aggressive actions against the U.S. Once again Bush wants to invade another nation that is no threat to us and has never attacked us. Of course the conservatives are all for it because it’s someone else who will do the fighting and dying. Conservatives are blood thirsty cowards, there’s no doubt about that.
“Econ101, I am a soldier if you weren’t already informed. Speaking from experience and opinion but not on behalf of the military, we could easily smash the Iranian’s military into dust.”
If allowed too.
The US and Iran have one thing in common. The President’s of each country are hated by their own populus.Why don’t we let these two sissy complex leaders fight it out with fists. I am so tired of Americans dying because a country and it’s own people hate each other internally.Since when does overthrowing a ruthless dictator lead to a happy ending. I guess te Iraqi’s haven’t a clue how lucky they are.I am with the cause to evacuate the country immediately.
Does anyone here think the preznit is NOT going to war with iran in the spring?
Once again Bush wants to invade another nation that is no threat to us and has never attacked us.
Lil Stinky (Imanutjob) has been threatening the U.S. and Israel for over a year now. I guess we can just wait until something devastating is done, and then respond.
Mr. Appeaser,With all due respect to your Soldiering, George Bush feels the same way…but we haven’t been able to secure Iraq. Are we fooling ourselves to think the Iranians won’t unleash terrorism around the world in response to our aggression? These guys are sick puppies. We attack and then suddenly subways in Milan are exploding. And who will get the blame? USA. Why? Because we are too big and ignorant to know how to handle world issues.Impeach Bush.
I think Georgie has proven that he does not have the manners to be allowed to sit at the adult table.
He should immediately go back to the kids table until he has shown that he can behave like a grown up.
Unfortunately, Andrew, we wiped out Iraq’s military in a matter of days. Now that did us a hell of a lot of good didn’t it? Stay safe, son.
Hey, why is it that China, Russia, France, all sit back and let the threats happen and build. Because they want to see America fall from grace…and we’re about 6 inches from hitting the ground.
Thats because BJ left all the problems for the next president. He just plugged his ears and went ‘la la la la”, while Monica was under the desk.
Posted by: No appeasers
Okay, let’s assume your point, Right-wing Nut Job.
That means that H. W. Bush was responsible for the first attack on the WTC that occurred just a few WEEKS after “BJ” took office.
Also, you apparently have never had sex so let me clue you in: you can have sex, even an illicit affair (I assume), and still take care of business.
Hell, H. W. Bush had an illicit affair. So did Bob Dole.
Iran is GUILTY of these recent allegations… That, along with the Nuke BS, has put the US in a vice. What the hell can we do about it? Iran is indirectly killing Iraqis and Coaltion Forces in Iraq.The Iranians are really asking for it! But I want to know why. What do they get out of the US attacking them?
“And no, Friedemann, everything that is said about the political situation in Israel is not anti-Semitic … just the excrement drooling down your chin every time you open your mouth. Do something constructive, Friedemann, move to Somolia and snuggle up with your Muslim fanatic pals. Maybe you’ll get caught in a crossfire, be a martyr, and get 72 very old wrinkled virgins.”
rm6046 Stop banging your monkey or rm6046 right now, or call 911
Andrew–
Iran is in the cat-bird seat.
This is why H. W. Bush didn’t take out Saddam the first time around in ‘91–he didn’t want Iran running the country.
They are helping their Shi’a brethern take control of Iraq the way control is always taken in Middle Eastern countries (including Israel)–by the sword.
They know that we CAN’T attack: if we can’t control Iraq, how can we control Iraq AND Iran?
If blowing people to smithereens were the answer, we’d have won a long time ago.
The answer is to figure out how to minimize the horrible damage we’ve already done and come up with a workable plan to reconstruct Iraq.
That means getting out ASAP and passing control to a neutral coalition without a profit motive.
You’re babbling, Friedemann … as if that was something new and different.
Just trying to imitate you, rm6046, but I can’t get my IQ low enough…
Friedemann: I would engage in a battle of wits and intelligence with you, but I don’t pick on unarmed people. I just don’t understand why you’re so embarrassed to be a Nazi?
Whatever Capn, but WHY is Iran so determined to get into trouble? I just don’t get it. The Right seems to think Iran would nuke someone if they had the bomb. I ask what would be the purpose of that? There would be little left of Iran after something like that other than the oil fields of course… So logic tells me their nuke ambitions aren’t serious. But they are deliberately assisting in the killing of US soldiers among others. That has to have an effective response.
F’mann – where you spanked by a Rabbi when you were a child? Did you choke on a Hebrew National hot dog? Maybe you had issue with Charleton Hesston playing Ben – Hur?
Damn, I thought Santiago was an anti-semite. You make Ian look like Menachem Begin.
Shouldn’t GWBush have been included in this morning’s Parade Magazine’s top 10 worst world dictators list?
Good question, Andrew. They’re “jockeying” for something, but what? And seem to be doing a piss-poor job of it! As I have said before, Iraq should have been an “air war’, period. Iran should be the same thing, if we go there. But it just seems like a “lose-lose” deal for them. I don’t know.
Right on RM. Shoulda sent in some Rangers for Hussein, and bombed the rest of it. Hell, even though I am an Army man, I am not to proud to say that the Air Force won the war, and we just drove up and made sure.
“too proud”
rm6046
Did you ever figure out which one was your mother?
F’mann, did the doctor mess up your circumcision? Maybe, he nipped you in the bud, so to speak? Are you coming up a little short?
Work with me here, I am trying to figure out why you are such a hate mongering anti-semite.
Why is it, Ed, that you can hate people to this extent?
Get your meds adjusted, Ian Friedemann. Your Imam has sent you to a meth lab, not a doctor’s office. And, quit abusing your monkey … you’re supposed to be “cranking the organ”, not “grinding the monkey”.
Pmom: What prompted that, darlin’? I don’t think anyone’s upset with you … certainly not me. Am I missing something?
Troll monkey, RM. Trolling P Mom again.
Wanna take a bet on how long it will be before Nutz or Fleet “suddenly” shows up?
OK, I get it. Did you know, my friend, the “Evian” (the premiere bottled water) is “Naive” spelled backwards. Duh! :)
All you folks quivering in your boots, didn’t you read the real power in Iran is not the figurehead president(which is why he wasn’t one of the worst dictators), but the Alyatolla and the grand council.Bush’s Buddy the Saudi Prince did make the list though.We should have invaded the Sauds and taken over their oil, after all, they attacked us on 911.Another thing that didn’ happen under Bush: Didn’t get Ossama Dead or Alive.
Steve: Agreeing with you, the Saudi royal family are “equal opportunity bastards”. They screw us and 98% of their own people with the same malevolence. Were it not for us, they would still be humping their camels, roaming from sand dune to sand dune. And the theocracy in Iran does run the show. We ought to blast them back into the dark ages. But, not send wonderful young people, like Andrew, to get shot making sure we got everything. Just drop twice as many bombs to make sure. Or send Ian Friedemann in beforehand as a spotter, perhaps. Probably be the closest thing to a real job he’s ever had (or kept)& he could still claim his withered virgins.
I am not in favor of any more aggressive tactics to armed confrontation by any country’s leadership including our own country.I am not so quick to forget that our leaders in this country are of a “REPRESENTATIVE ELECTED GOVERNMENT.”The lot of you on the WE Blog should keep that in remembrance instead of blowing hot air and should be writing and directing your concerns to your representatives.If you do write be sure to remind them that they are a “REPRESENTATIVE ELECTED GOVERNMENT for the AMERICAN PEOPLE” and ask them “WHO” and “WHAT” are they representing?Are they actually representing the AMERICAN PEOPLE as a whole or are they representing a SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP?I myself do not feel that they are representing me, I am not interested in having a war with Iran.
You scared em off WS. Yep, gotta love my troll.
Gotcha
And I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how we can fire a guided missile, from 400 clicks away, and drop it down the chimney to explode on the fourth floor — and we can’t find Osama? Come on, folks? I was born at night, but not last night. “He’s hiding in caves?” Fine, hit them all! He’s in Pakistan, and until we cut off the money to Musharef (sp?), we’ll never get him — because Musharef is the bookies — collecting the “vig” from both sides — doesn’t give a rat’s ass which team wins!
Yeah, Friedemann, you really are a sick F**K.
Wiseman: Are you contented with Roberts, Brownback and Tihart speaking for your family? Hell, we might as well elect Friedemann, Santiago, Phelps and Kline …
I’ll explain it to you rm6046, it’s called human intelligence.
Al Quaeda is the ultimate in the good old boys club.
Not only do you have to speak Arabic, but you must be invited into the group and once you are in the group you are only privy to certain situations and locations.
On top of all of this you have people you either afraid of Al Quaeda, or agree with them or don’t like outsiders period.
What this means is that you have to be able to penetrate all these human intelligence layers that can change their method on a daily or even an hourly basis in order to get a sighting or even a hint of a sighting.
If I were to take you and planted you in the middle of Los Angeles and asked some British to find you, they would have great difficulty. And if you kept moving ever so often it would be almost impossible.
To infiltrate the Al Quaeda group would be like asking a British speaking Caucasian to infiltrate the Crips or Bloods without arising suspicion.
JM: Thank you. I understand the concept of “individual cell division”, with no one cell being aware of the activities or members of the cell before or behind them. It makes very good sense, from an intelligence viewpoint. But, I still think Osama is being protected by Musharef, and we’re paying him “big bucks” to do it. And he’s laughing all the way to Switzerland. Not that I really care, as I think Osama is virtually powerless, at this point. Bur if we’re going to succeed, in the short term view of this mess, it’s basically come down to “Kill ‘em all, and let Allah sort them out!” I don’t like it, but it beats the shit out out of our young men and women, like Andrew, getting blown to bits.
Andrew–
Why do you think the Iranians are so much different than we are?
Imagine if a bunch of Arabs had invaded and occupied Canada.
Would we just stand around and say, “my, my, isn’t that a shame?”
I think we’d see an attack on our English-speaking cousins to the north as something very important to OUR existence.
Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine?
That’s when the United States abrogated to itself the domination of the Western Hemisphere.
But we expect Iran to ignore the conflaguration on its doorstep without getting involved in any way.
Some of us predicted that this would happen. We weren’t all that brilliant or anything. We just thought that people tend to act the same way given the same reasons . . .
Is that a statement or a comment? Remember, you said it, I didn’t. For what it’s worth: If you think you could plant a Jewish senior citizen semi-retired professional among the Bloods and/or the Crips unrecognized, Uncle Sam needs you, son!
The bottom line is very simple: Bush created a foreign relations nightmare in Iraq.
Even the most diehard Bushie has to admit that nothing good is going to come of this.
Iraq is a disaster.
Iran thinks they need nukes to protect themselves from the US and Israel.
Saudi Arabia thinks that they need to protect the Sunni’s in Iraq.
Pakistan is protecting al Qaeda on the Afghani – Paki border.
The Taliban is retaking Afghanistan.
3,100 American men and women are dead.
Two thirds of a trillion dollars has been borrowed from the Chinese.
And all of this is because George W Bush had a boner for Saddam Hussein.
What would Gore do?
WSC: I agree with everything you said, EXCEPT: The Saudi’s don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone except the Royal Saudi Family.
Just a thought here: Ian=Fleettwood=Friedemann=AreUCrazy =PMom Troll=Sick Emaculated MotherF**ker=Waste of our Time, who couldn’t buy a piece of Ass in a Womens’ Prison with a Handfull of Pardons.
Oh look Ed’s back with his Jews are out to destroy the World no wait there taking over the World wait they secretly run the US or is it the Banks. Ed got a call on line 2 Ian needs jerked off or is David Duke’s salad needing tossed I don’t know.
Oh look Ed’s back with his Jews are out to destroy the World no wait there taking over the World wait they secretly run the US or is it the Banks. Ed got a call on line 2 Ian needs jerked off or is David Duke’s salad needing tossed I don’t know.
Well, you are probably right about the Saudi’s, RM, but they do have a boatload of money and could easily hire a bunch of Egyptians or Somali’s to fight for them.
I do see the Saudi’s trying to elevate their position with the Islamic/Arab community. They have allowed Americans to build permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, so they have some PR probs with the rest of the Arab world. Look for the Saudi’s to make some moves to become more of a player in the ME.
I am only twenty-five percent Jewish, so I get a smaller cut of the world-dominating Jewish action.
I wait every day at the mailbox to get my check, but it never comes. They must have misplaced my address in that great big Jewish World Computer.
25% Jewish? Is being Jew an ethnicity or a religion?
LOL. We pay big bucks for the base, just as we did at Subic Bay. But they still kicked our asses out, and they’re still getting the money! I don’t think a “Jewish Banker” put that deal together!
And, for what it’s worth, my check should be 4X yours, but I’m afraid it has gotten lost in the mail also. :)
Joe: Both, actually. But there are people of Hebrew heritage, who do not practice the faith.
My paternal grandfather was closet ethnic Jew and a fulltime asshole. He converted to Christianity and was a practicing Lutheran for most of his (unfortunately) long life. He tried to portray himself as being of German extract. He was, in fact, a first generation American, born in Cleveland that tried to hide the fact that his father was a German Jew, born in Germany.
When people refer to Jews, they are normally referring to ethnic Jews.
Not all Jews practice the religion of Judea, nor are all that practice Judea ethnic Jews.
And vise-versa — converts, as it were.
I’m no hater.
I DO maintain that Zioinism should be opposed and not supported. The location of the state of Israel has caused America endless problems.
Jewish as an ethnicity??
Um, how?
They were run all over hell and gone. Am I to understand that they during their more than a thousand years remained intermarried only to each other?
That does not seem likely.
There won’t be any war with Iran. We don’t have the troops left to fight a war with the Virgin Islands much less a much larger country like Iran. That is why Iran makes sure the Shite fighters in Iraq stay armed- as long as we are tied up in Iraq, Iran knows we cannot do anything but saber rattle elsewhere. Secondly China – which has huge energy ties to Iran- would not sit that one out and since it is largely China that is financing the war in Iraq, it would be far less likely to underwrite such an effort elsewhere. So the bottom line is this- Bush will saber rattle but in the end, no way!
RM: They KNOW where Ben Laden is. Believe me Bush knows right where he is and, when he is no longer useful as a boogy man to scare American fools into blindly following Bush while he rapes and pillages the country, they will kill him just as they did Saddam when he was not longer useful to us against Iran. We have satellites in the sky that can read the serial numbers off a dollar bill on the ground at night in the rain so anybody that says they cannot find a 6′4″ Arab is a liar. We know where he is and probably what he had for breakfast this morning.
Is there really any credible evidence of Iranian involvement? Of course, there are Iranians in iraq – the two countries have diplomatic relations. As for the “evidence” produced; these are the same guys who gave us all that disinformation about Iraq – WMDs, Saddam/alQuada, etc. Sorr guys, their credibility is lacking.
Iran DOES have an interest in what happens in Iraq. They have been brutally attacked by Iraq in the past, with US backing. A mortal enemy of Iran IS now involved in Iraq – alQuada. In addition, a terrorist organization is now operating from iraq against Iran (Mujahadeen Qalk I think).
George Bush’s deliberate decision to destabalize the entire region is creating chaos for everyone. That will be the legacy his presidency will be known for.
Ed? Are you and CapnA the same person? How many names do you use?
AARRRGGGHHH! Ed, you suck. Climb back under your rock.
You know, sometimes you have things to say and I have even agreed with you about extremist Zionism. But that last comment sure as hell didn’t add anything but vitriol.
Hey Ed I know some of the newbies are giving you a hard road lately.
But that last and some of your other stuff here? Dial it back huh? You are better than that.
And for WS and rm and anybody else: Ed has been a part of this forum since the beginning. As I have said before, he is strident. But he is NOT a bigot or racist. Comparisons to Ian are unfair. You can hate what a group of people are doing without hating them personally.
“Truth be told, historians will recall the Bush Presidency as one that saved the free world. His success is measured and will continue to be by acts which do not happen”
Oh how that reminds me of what Churchill said at the signing of the armistice,‚”History will be kind to us as we are the ones writing it”.
LoL my house burnt to the ground, oh I found the defective extension cord that would have shorted out before it did and set the house on fire. But that does not distract from the fact that my house burnt to the ground if I had not found the cord.
You know if the criminal could have found a gun, a ride to the bank and a bag to put the money in. He could have robbed the bank. That makes him a bank robber, so he should be sent to prison!
If the plane had not kept flying it would have been a horror able crash killing all the passengers!
I could go on… But point made duh!
“But he is NOT a bigot or racist”
Sorry J R, but I thought you were better than this. F’mann is obviously a person that makes is personal judgments based on race, color or CREED.
An anti-semite is still a person that makes his judgments without consideration for the value of the human being.
I support the Palestinian homeland. I suuport ending the Israeli – Arab conflict by giving the Palestinians the same thing that was given to the Jews in 1948.
That, however, does not excuse the F’mann from his anti-semite attitudes.
Prejudice is still prejudice, regardless of the color.
Last time I checked, Iraq had about 26,000,000 people which is considerably less than California’s 36,000,000 or so.
HOWEVER, Iran has some 70,000,000 people, slightly less than 1/4 the U.S. population. Of course, presumably, we wouldn’t be sending our entire population over there to fight. Also I suspect at least 100,000 Iranians currently live, work, go to school in the U.S. They are a very smart industrious people.
As I have said here before, Chinese technicians are already at work in some African countries drilling oil, etc. This is only a hop, skip and jump to the Middle East.
My guess is war with Iran would quickly be followed by war with 1,300,000,000 Chinese. Mr. Bush better step back and examine this situation before jumping into the jaws of the giant 30 foot salt-water crocodile.
Is there any way that we can convince Bush to jump into the jaws of the crocodile while holding hands with Cheney and Rice?
WS.
Ed takes some time to get to know.
You know, you can actually make somebody into something they are not if you accuse them often enough.
Jwink
Right on the money you are. If bush attacks Iran it is basically “anything goes” all over the world. It would give China a GREAT excuse to move on Taiwan for a start.
And here I sit being pretty sure bush WILL attack Iran.
The Chinese have an acient curse: “May you live in interesting times.”
JWink,
Word. This “Administration” has evidently taken leave of its senses.
And make no mistake folks: they’re very much positioning themselves to precipitate some sort of ‘incident’ in the Persian Gulf. When that happens, or is made to happen, get ready for the ‘we interrupt this broadcast’ announcement from President Chen–sorry, President BUSH, saying that we’ve pre-emptorily attacked Iran.
And then get ready for all hell to break loose. Because if we do this, and attack Iran with no provocation, all bets are off with respect to a whole lot of things.
As Digby recounts, this has been in the works for quite awhile.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
It really is high time for the Democratic majority to take some preemptive action. And given Cheney’s novel theory that the Vice-Presidency is an office with its own power base that is neither fully subject to the Executive nor to the Legislative, the quicker, the better.
“Ed takes some time to get to know.”
Why would I want to get to know someone like Ed F’mann, J R?
Why would I want to get to know someone that accuses Jews of all the evils in the world?
Why would I want to get to know someone that views the entire world through an anti-semite lens?
Why would I want to get to know someone who would automatically hate me and my children if he knew my ethnic heritage?
Why would I want to get to know someone who has such hatred in his heart?
My sole judgement of others is based ONLY on the content of their character.
I do not believe that you or Ed F’mann can say the same.
JR
Just having fun riling the little brats on the blog.
The thing which they fail to understand is that they are what they accuse others of being. Some day, when they grow-up, I hope their lights will come on…
The sad part is that some will never see themselves as they are, never be able to reflect, never rid themselves of their demons.
“JR Just having fun riling the little brats on the blog.”
It looks like you have made yourself a new friend, J R.
JR and I have been “friends” from the beginning.
Wrong again.
Prefect score, squirt.
Well Ed, I am happy for you and J R. You’re a bit of an odd couple, but go for it. I never figured J R for an anit-semite, but whatever.
What is funny, Ed, is that J R seems like an intelligent individual while you are obviously intellectually challenged.
Who wudda thunk it, eh?
Wiseman: Are you contented with Roberts, Brownback and Tihart speaking for your family? Hell, we might as well elect Friedemann, Santiago, Phelps and Kline …Posted by: rm6046 | February 11, 2007 at 04:06 PM
Rm6046 ‚ÄìI am not contented with either of them, the answer is “NO” and I never said anything about being contented.What is it that is so hard for you to understand about basic representation that our elected officials are supposed to be doing?
Nonsense
“George Bush’s deliberate decision to destabalize the entire region is creating chaos for everyone. That will be the legacy his presidency will be known for.”
Yes, Ben, and the keyword in that is “deliberate.”
Can anyone else not see it? This was all plotted out long ago. Remember the Axis of Evil comment? Or are your memories too short? They set us ALL up for this, and they intended it carry it out, every last step, no matter what anybody said.
Bush said, “Bring it on!”, and you can bet that’s what every leader who feels the need will do.
Our allies in Iraq invasion were and have been next to nothing. The rest of the world knew what many of our military and intelligence leaders knew, and they told the president that invading Iraq was risky. But you don’t tell the team of Bush & Cheney that they can’t do something. Like belligerant children, they’ll do as they please.
Good luck, U.S.!
On the J R, Ed situation -
Ed and I long ago agreed to disagree. He is still wrong and I am right that the Hegemony he attributes to Israel Zionists actually comes from that group’s aping of U.S. policies – rather than the inherent evil nature of the Zionists themselves. So, maybe I am more of a traitor than Ed. So be it.
Ed has ideas worth considering sometimes; which is more than I can say for the likes of many (you know who you are) bloggers here.
Good night and good luck…
I’m way too tired to wade this deep in, but let’s just say that Ed is far more complicated than some of you newer folks have concluded.
He has some views that I find odd and disturbing, yet he has been consistently right on a number of things: the pathological, violent policies of Israeli Zionists; the bipartisan, almost religious devotion to AIPAC of Washington, the influence of same on the violent think-tank conservatives who control the Bush administration (think Project for a New American Century), and the ultimate destructiveness and futility of putting out the fire in Iraq with more kerosene.
I wish he was more sensible about his use of language (e.g “jew”, “jew gas”), and his previously posted views on the Holocaust seem to have come straight from Hamas. But he has also posted (it’s in the archives) that it is Zionists that draw his hatred, not jews in general.
Try getting that from Ian.
Can we get an Ed thread?
Good summary, Rage.
Ed also seems to be in his own little world.
He doesn’t respond until you get him steamed off, then he lets you have it with both barrels.
I called him on his “Jew gas” rhetoric telling him that it hurts his message and he bit my head off.
He seems to react the same to people who ridicule and write him off to people who read him and think about what he means to say.
Now, I just scroll past. AIPAC and Israel cause a lot of trouble in this old world, but it’s the will of the AMERICAN MAJORITY we have to concern ourselves with, not with what happens in other countries beyond our control.
Rage
I owe you an explanation of the reason I used the term “Jew-Gas”
When gasoline was hovering close to a dollar a gallon and crude was about 25 dollars a barrel, Bush went on channel 3 in Israel and threatened Iran with a nuclear strike.
Oil is traded on the open market and oil traders determine the price by bidding for contracts.
A nuclear strike on Iran would have sent the price of crude to 2 to 300 dollars a barrel and because the US economy is based on oil {Gasoline to plastics } and would have crashed.
Traders bid the price to 80 dollars a barrel until Bush got back of Channel 3 in Israel and took the nuclear option off of the table.
Since then Israel has threatened Iran with nuclear strikes but oil traders are holding the price up although they consider that to be probably an empty threat.
I tried to wake everybody up to the fact that the Middle East can not be turned into a nuclear shooting gallery, as even convention warfare is wreaking havoc on our economy.
3 dollar Jew-Gas has broken the Ford Motor Company, cost 600,000 jobs at GM, and our economy is still suffering despite what the Bush bunch says.
One thing about being strident: I do get everybody’s attention along with a lot of heat. The heat I can fade, losing America I won’t fade.
Why is it ok for folks on this blog to air their extreme homophobia, but not ok for Ed to spout his stuff?
Like Rage, I find things to agree with Ed about, but I dont have to agree with EVERYTHING he says. I am sure he feels the same about me.
But you christianists have no better track record with your posts about evil gay folks than Ed does about jew posting.
Just laughing at how big some of you see that speck in Ed’s eye while looking around the log in your own.
Go ahead and bash Ed while praising the homophobes. It doesnt make Ed anymore wrong, and it doesnt make the little ayatollah terry any more right!
Econ101 it is you tht chooses to rewrite history. You state that after Pearl Harbor Hitler never attacked the USA. What do you call the half a million tons of shipping sent to the bottom of the Atlanic ocean off the American coast from January to June 1942. Tourists used to gather on Miami beach at night to watch torpedoed ships blazing on the horizon. The main reason Hiter declared war on the USA was so his U-boats could attack at will and not have to worry about American neutrality. Stick to economics and leave history to the pros.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00079.htm
A link explaining the “bogus” incidents bushco is using to beat the war drums against iran.
Same lies, second verse…
Josh Marshall does a nice job taking apart the mass distraction being peddled by the Cheney “Administration.” Assume that Iran IS to blame as the “Administration” says it is: what then?
***********************************www.talkingpointsmemo.com
February 12, 2007 — 11:05 AM
‘With all the intensifying intel bamboozlement about Iranian arms transfers to Iraqi insurgents, the essential question is still being ignored. Let me stipulate to my extreme skepticism about the administration’s new campaign of charges about Iranian arms transfers into Iraq — for specifics see this post and Juan Cole’s detailed discussion. But let’s consider the matter as though the stream of allegations were true.
Would it matter? Or to be more precise, what would be the answer to these three questions: 1) Would it tell us anything we don’t already know about the clerical regime in Iran? 2) Is the volume of arms sales a necessary or suffiicient cause of our predicament in Iraq? and 3) Would successful aggressive action against Iran materially improve our current situation in Iraq?
The answer to #1 seems clearly to be, no. We’ve announced publicly on numerous occasions that we’re hostile to the Iranian regime. And we occupy the countries to the east and the west. So it’s not surprising that the Iranians would try to make our work in Iraq more difficult. And the people most eager to expand the war into Iran — especially those folks — consider the Iranian regime a hostile, aggressive and threatening player in the region. So, on all counts, there are no surprises here.
Question #2 seems even easier to answer. No one believes that whatever small flow of Iranian roadside bomb parts there might be has caused the chaos in Iraq. It might have upped the kill rate for these nasty weapons by, say, 10%, thus throwing a bit more gas on the fire. But the fire is already raging out of control. If Iran is helping kill American soldiers that might be a grievance we note for payback at a point when we’re not otherwise occupied. But on the key point, it’s clear that Iranian help with IEDs wouldn’t be causing the problem. It would at best be aggravating the problem.
The answer to question #3, of course, flows immediately the answer to #2. Since it’s not causing the problem, ending it wouldn’t solve the problem. It wouldn’t even significantly help.
Assume the best possible outcome to the sort of action that the Vice President and his clique appear to be angling for. We attack Iran — either in crossborder raids or aerial bombing campaigns. The Iranians are duly chastened and stop all assistance, financial and military, to paramilitaries in Iraq. And this accomplishes? For our situation in Iraq, not much. We go from the IEDs of early 2007 back to the old style IEDs of 2006. In other words, for the outside chance of a temporary and marginal degradation of the quality of the IEDs used in Iraq we run all the risks of digging ourselves deeper into the current quagmire , getting still more American soldiers killed and further stoking anti-American animus in the region with the likely outcome of solidifying the regime in Tehran for decades to come. And after all that fun is done with we’re back to the same situation in Iraq that we can’t figure out a way to resolve today.
Hawk or dove, who denies that Iraq, solving the situation in Iraq is the singular issue of American foreign policy today. And who can honestly say that tangling with Iran helps us achieve that end in any meaningful way? Iran is a distraction. More specifically, this new Iran bogey is an effort to distract us or find a scapegoat for the administration’s failure in Iraq. And let’s not forget that the underlying charge is likely another fraud. ”
– Josh Marshall
“Can we get an Ed thread?”
And just WHAT exactly does that have to do with Anna Nicole Smith?
C’mon, CF, FOCUS! If you’re so easily distracted by trivialities, we’ll never know if Britney is a lesbian.
Yeah MonkeyHawk.
And Tiahrt was a big fan of term limits and signed the Contract ON America that pushed term limits.
But now? Selective memory. Promises unkept.
“We dont need no stinkin’ term limits when WE are in control”.The republican congress
ksfarmgrrl,
Indeed. And when the Democrats take the Presidency in ‘08, one should expect Republicans to be ALL ABOUT limiting the power of Executive.
Republicans: speaking power to truth.
. . .yet they seem not to grasp that the power they cede to a modern king can be used by their opponents. I guess the Third Reich will last 1000 years, and Rome will never fall, and . . .
According to The Guardian, the answer to are we going to war with Iran is “yes.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2010086,00.html
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: “I don’t know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran.”But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources’ assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. “Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place.”
He added: “We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous.”
CA
The Jerusalem Post is carrying the same Guardian story and of course they’re thrilled about the prospect of all-out war in the Middle East. Never mind that that will sink the American economy, as long as they keep expanding.
Congress has the power to stop this dangerous nonsense and they need to do it now.
Ed, agreed.
The fact is, the US is already involved in covert operations inside of Iran, probably intended to provoke an “incident” which the US can then use as a pretext for its attack plan.
That’s usually how they work it anyway.
The taking prisoners of diplomats out of their embassy is about what we’d expect and has come to pass.
Ed, agreed.
The fact is, the US is already involved in covert operations inside of Iran, probably intended to provoke an “incident” which the US can then use as a pretext for its attack plan.
That’s usually how they work it anyway.
The taking prisoners of diplomats out of their embassy is about what we’d expect and has come to pass.
Only Ed could say for sure, but I think he and I have the same thoughts on Israel. It is not about being Jewish it is the actions of the country. I have found quite a bit to admire them for in the past, but lately they have been acting like a Pit bull with a shotgun! Defending themselves is one thing but they stomp around like they are bullet proof since getting the “bomb”.
If they did not have the bomb, there would be a good chance others in the region would not be wanting it.Having it gives them a insurance policy, but not a license to throw around they weight outside their country.