digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Fear-Monger Woolsey Claims Iran Could Have Nuclear Bomb In ‘A Few Months’

thinkprogress.org — Woolsey is doing nothing more than fearmongering when he says Iran could have a nuclear bomb in “a few months.” In fact, his assertion of an impending nuclear weapon in Iran is contradicted by experts on nuclear weapons, including the CIA.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hawkeye17, on 10/10/2007, -11/+27This man is a disgrace and couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.
    • OneHine, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8The Decider values political and ideological loyalty, not truth. Woolsey has no incentive whatsoever to act honorably.
    • elvenseven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5***** America is ruined so bad.
    • insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah .. what do you expect. . .he's American.
  • rappermas, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7Alright! I know where this goes! Time to get my huntin' rifle and kill me some Arabs!
    • CRASSPUNXTEXHTV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Iranians aren't arabs. there're persian/ Aryan.

      I know you were being sarcastic, I was just saying that so other would know.
    • Flytrap, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Actually the Iranians would like the opportunity to join you on that Arab hunt.
      They have a few issues that they would like to deal with their southern neighbours
    • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2they have the same genome as the rest of us in this world of ours , except our bombs make bigger bangs !
  • zenlunatic, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Ron Paul makes a good point though: We had escalated conflict with the Soviets for years, when both sides had enough WMD's to end all life on Earth, but neither side used their WMDs. So, assuming they're telling the truth, why does one nuke in a third world nation make a difference?
    • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -22/+5I am quite sure you wont be saying that if some islamic nutjob sneaks it into your city and kill a few million....people like you are ***** idiots. A product of a broken education system!!
    • commnode, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I think the perceived problem is that in the US vs Soviet cold war thing was mutual assured destruction. Two well established powers both held the keys to the others (and everyone else's) destruction. Both the Soviets were really interested in expanding their power influence, not so much with destroying the other.

      If a third world nation picks up a nuke, they are a lot more likely to use it. Even on it's worst day the US and the Soviets were far more rational and controlled that a third world theocracy. The 'rogue' element, state or terrorist group, isn't interested or concerned about an all out slugging match. They just want fear and death for their enemy.

      That said, I'm only mildly concerned with Iran achieving the bomb for a couple of reasons:
      1) It's purely propaganda for them. Islamic theocracy has a history of sucking in tech and advancement, and Iran is out to prove that they've got what it takes. To the world, but mostly to it's own people and the rest of the Islamic community. Same reason they nab British sailors and jam them on TV every few years.
      2) It will be a single stage device. i.e. fission, not fusion. Bad, but no where close to the heavy things Russia and the US have in thier silos.
      3) They don't have a delivery system. This helps out the US mostly. Getting a warhead to the other side of the global in a missile is tricky business. ICBMs don't come in kits.
      • sinaura, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Mutual assured destruction"......no f*cking wonder why other countries want nukes for themselves; if you were in a neighborhood where everyone had a shotgun and all you had was a whiffle bat, wouldn't you want one of those bad boys too? Sure, you can call this country or that country a "rogue/terrorist" state who shouldn't be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but they can come right back and say that about the US. Nukes are the bane of humanity.
        • commnode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1First of all, the situation is more like two guys at the end of the street have 10,000 shotguns and everyone else has whiffle bats.

          So if you are in charge of the neighbor hood with overwhelming control, you own the quick-e-mart, the gas station, the utilities, and the shotgun store (for good measure). DO you want to hand out shotguns to everyone, so everyone has the possibility for massive destruction. Sure it's fair, but is it safer?
      • wootup, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Do you have any evidence that the Iranian government is trying to make a nuclear bomb? Last I checked, they were building a reactor for nuclear power - as is the right of any nation. In spite of the propaganda from the American government, nobody has provided a shred of evidence to prove that Iran has some kind of secret Manhattan project-type program.

        I, for one, learned my lesson from the Iraq War's WMD propaganda: DEMAND EVIDENCE.
        • commnode, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Uh, I didn't claim they were. I was trying to explain the politics, possibilities, and concerns of the matter. And I like evidence as much as the next guy, maybe more.

          Of course, since you didn't even read my comment, that would explain you're yelling.
    • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Because both the US and Russia were secular societies. Notice I said "were".
  • lndmn01, on 10/10/2007, -20/+8It's easy to call it fear mongering until Iran destroys Israel, just like they have said, on multiple occasions, they want to do.
    • CRASSPUNXTEXHTV, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13No the Prez said he things the STATE of Israel shouldn't exist, meaning the government not the people. He Also said the Palestine and Israel need to work out a PEACEFUL SOLUTION.
      IF you listen to one thing he said you have to listen to all he says.

      Btw, I hate the Iranian government as much more than anyone else, but i do believe in the truth.
    • DontGiveADamn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And how is that is our problem?
    • Tzombo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He never said that, that's just more spin. What he actually said was that he hoped the state of Israel would disappear in time, just like ayatollah Khomeini said the USSR would.
      On the other hand the Israelis (who DO have nukes) HAVE threatened to destroy Iran.
    • hempydave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My wife does speak "Farsi" and I read Cantonese fairly well now.
      The interpreter's are lying about what is said.
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13I sure hope America doesn't make the same mistake of trusting these nuts and their claims of nuclear weapons... yet AGAIN... -_-
    America is too easy to scare... And I'd hope this excuse doesn't work, after what we learned from Iran...
  • Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Want to know a foolproof way to prevent Iranian agents from harming American soldiers? Withdraw all American troops from Iraq. That sounds a lot easier and cheaper than starting another pre-emptive, pointless, and probably illegal war.
    • OneHine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Trying to keep soldiers safe instead of wanting them to waste their lives in a pointless war? Why do you hate our troops?

      /neo-con
    • BeatnikDude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The NeoCon politicians and in the Pentagon are complete strategic POSERS.
      The US troops and capabilities have been put into a very vulnerable position, being over-deployed Iraq (there is no obvious benefit to the US deploying in Iraq, which is lawless w/ the US responsible) right next-door to Iran. All while the administration is constantly confrontational and pushing a story that Iran is already attacking our troops everyday. The administration would like nothing more than Iran to really take a swipe at our military assets, then the NeoCons would get what they want, the US to be attacked. Then they think they can follow on with more of what they want; oppression at home and more war against others.
  • PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Now wait a minute here. Who are we supposed to believe on this story? The ex head of the CIA who nobody trusts, or the CIA who nobody trusts?

    I sure as hell don't think we want to trust any Iranian timetable because they've got no reason to be truthful. Even if they think by telling the world they're 5-10 years off from a bomb, that timetable deceleration wouldn't stop an invasion anyway, so what's the point there?
    • Mardala, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The point? The point is to stop this administration from starting another illegal war for their own justification. We've got battalions next to Iran, we have this anti-Iranian fear mongering going on with this neo-con pundits and they will yet again make a strike at what little intelligence the people in America seem to have, in order to strike Iran. If we really want to see WW3 then keep buying into these smucks arguments and lies. Air strike my ass. This would make the middle east explode. There would be a draft and the US economy would suffer. Not only that, Russia and China are kind of on precarious terms with the US. China siding more with Russia. Stop and think about how China holds the US by it's nuts since we owe them sooo much freakin money. They already threatened they would dump US currency. China doesn't need us or Walmart to survive. Now why did I bring in China and Russia? well someone has to take sides in cases of war and I think the world is sick of the US at this point and going so far as attacking Iran, who is clearly not a threat, would escalate this distrust of the US and further divide the world.

      That is my prediction if we attack Iran and these nutjobs we have in office don't seem to really give a *****. I mean Cheney is not in touch with reality. Bush is on another planet.
    • kooft, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@PopcorDave: Who do we trust? You're right, the CIA proved unreliable on Iraqi intelligence and with the primary means of intelligence into Iran having been obliterated (Valerie Plame's outing and the conspicuous revelation during a party in Baghdad that the US had broken Iran's encryption which prompted Iran to make some changes) our options are slim and none. Or maybe we should just defer to the judgment of the IAEA, considering they were spot on about Iraq's nuclear program. Now there's an idea.
      • PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2While I understand what you're saying, my point was that Think Progress doesn't believe Woolsey and is relying on their disbelief by what the CIA is saying now. I was questioning why they believe them now and not before. Doesn't make much sense unless they're falling in to the trap of believing people they didn't believe before since they're saying something they want to hear.
  • Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Terror fear terror fear.. terror fear..

    The way tyrants rule is by fear.. If you cant see through this your blind..

    Do you really thing a country this small is going to bomb a country as big as the USA, with out knowing if it does we will launch more nukes at them than they could make in 20years.. they country would most likely not exist any longer.. it would be a big hole in the ground.

    Lets send a few nukes over to the country, that has hundreds of them.... well take out a few cities and flatten them.. Thats a Great idea!

    Even bush isnt that stupid...
    • Valnar300, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4don't "misunderestimate" that monkey in a suit, and yes I did just quote him to make a point.
  • hakkamacher, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Thing is, I was for doing something about this *before the last Iraq assault*. While all the bluster was coming out from Washington, the "unseen" news was their nuclear program going awry. Why they waited until now makes no sense at all, BUT... I'm sure they're building nuclear weapons, and I'm fairly sure they'll use them.

    Unfortunately for the U.S., King George II has basically crippled our military capacity with the Iraq boondoggle. We don't have the resources to go into Iran, it would be a disaster. They should let Israel bomb the site like in the old days and be done with it.

    • Tzombo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I have another idea, why don't we let Iran bomb Israel and be done with it.
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Heck, we've allowed Israel to bomb Lebanon - seems turn about is fair play..
  • ElectricMunk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15The heart of the problem is that we are kept in a constant state of "reaction" which leaves little time for calm reflection and critical thinking.

    That this is a deliberate assault on the psyche of the industrialized, capitalist world is no small wonder. The psychology of mass behavior, reaction to color, sound, imagery and intensity of repetion are all driving the public insane.

    Everything is a fight, constant argument. The fringe will always win when the middle either refuses to act or allow themselves to be drawn into the raging "debate" that is already there.

    Less-filling, tastes-great is trite as advertising. As social and international policy it is madness.

    Turn off your tv's, seek wisdom and discuss rationally. If you have a calm mind, engaging in reasoned discourse is easy. And backing out of an unreasonable argument is easier to accomplish.

    Good luck fellow humans, I wish you well =)
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The tide is changing thankfully. People aren't so quick to believe the ***** coming out of the corporate media anymore. There is hope!
  • AnotherCanadian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7every week, the documentary "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" becomes more and more dead on the money
  • Valnar300, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If they have 'em let them start it then retaliate just so we actually have a reason to respond, not political BS and lies.
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5can't let that happen, because then the US might actually have to negotiate diplomatically, rather than use its military might as a threat.
    • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If the U.S. invades you, you don't have WMD's.

      Case in point: Iraq.
  • knowyourrights, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I'm not an activist, and I'm not a cynic. I'm just a person who wants to oppose evil wherever it rears its feral head. There are a number of reasons Chief James Woolsey isn't telling us as to why he wants to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that his paroxysms have merged with gnosticism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both do the entire country a grave disservice. And both burn our fair cities to the ground. His apparatchiks are so ready to pull the levers of antagonism and oil the gears of phallocentrism that their effusions are laughable. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with unscrupulous Luddites in the near future.

    The picture I am presenting need not be confined to Woolsey's communications. It applies to everything he says and does. As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, Woolsey thinks that his army of nit-picky prophets of post-structuralism is looking out for our best interests. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.

    I've repeatedly pointed out to Woolsey that his convictions are colored and flavored to appeal to dirty polemics. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess I want to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of jingoism. But first, let me pose an abstract question. What exactly is the principle that rationalizes Woolsey's pertinacious sound bites? I mean, you can observe a definite bias in Woolsey's platitudes relating to the most bestial braggarts you'll ever see. That's just a fancy way of saying that Woolsey's practices are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? To answer that question, we need first to consider Woolsey's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, so (2) you and I are morally inferior to superstitious, pugnacious clods. Therefore, (3) Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs and thus, (4) his précis prevent smallpox. As you can see, Woolsey's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that we must work together to evaluate the tactics he has used against me. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to view the realms of parasitism and resistentialism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because Woolsey is completely versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Woolsey warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against negativism. But when Woolsey's safely surrounded by his bedfellows, he instructs them to interfere with the most important principles of democracy. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Woolsey's proxies are quick to point out that because Woolsey is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, he is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Woolsey is a victim of his own success -- a success that enables Woolsey to declare that we can stop Pyrrhonism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for unrestrained perjurers. The hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to tell you a little bit about Woolsey and his lethargic remonstrations.

    If you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will undeniably find that Woolsey should think twice before he decides to waste everyone else's time. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that I overheard one of Woolsey's cohorts say, "The Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to reinforce notions of positive self esteem. Having already explained that it is of paramount importance not to let Woolsey's slaves turn over our country to mudslinging fault-finders, let me now state that Woolsey doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Woolsey that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about his supercilious behavior, but about the way that he wants us to feel sorry for the maledicent franions who suborn the most jealous ne'er-do-wells you'll ever see to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood". I claim we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Woolsey's cronies don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat saturnine. With Woolsey's squibs hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, it makes sense that Woolsey will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let him impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs. At least putting up with another James Woolsey hissy fit is easier than convincing Woolsey's satraps that Woolsey motivates people to join his lynch mob by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Woolsey really wants to do is eavesdrop on all types of private conversations. That's why I find that some of Woolsey's choices of words in his insinuations would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "cruel" for "photodisintegration" and "stentorian" for "epididymodeferentectomy." Why don't more people complain when they see Woolsey harvest what others have sown? It's because Woolsey has mastered the art of tricking people with images and myths. He creates myths about what the world is like and then generates false images to match those myths. This proves to me, at least, that I will not play Woolsey's dishonest games and lower scholastic standards just like he does. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: From secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his apostles have always found a way to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens.

    On a more pedestrian level, I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Woolsey to annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Woolsey claims that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate. He has announced his intentions to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. While doing so may earn Woolsey a gold star from the mush-for-brains particularism crowd, his chums' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Many people aren't aware of how overbearing his musings are, so let's present a little breakdown. First off, there may be nothing we can do to prevent him from making good on his word to distort the facts. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by his dupes, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Woolsey.

    While you or I might find it natural to want to chastise Woolsey for not doing any research before spouting off while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear, whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may free people from the spell of ethnocentrism that Woolsey has cast over them and, as the alternative, the apolaustic and debauched dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Woolsey. Choose carefully, because Woolsey has two imperatives. The first is to condemn innocent people to death. The second imperative is to convince impressionable young people that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his deceitful, batty prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. You know what we'd have if everybody wanted to twist the teaching of history to suit his chthonic purposes? Total chaos.

    The pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to scuttle Woolsey's primitive attempts to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate? It is imperative that all of us in this community call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. This cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an appreciation of differences. Do you think I'm the only one who wants to make a genuine contribution to human society? I assure you, I am not. But whenever Woolsey announces that he answers to no one, his cheerleaders applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on Woolsey's noxious adages. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader.

    Woolsey's activities are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from his treatises. The only way to destroy his Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that every time Woolsey tells his compeers that his blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. His goal is to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. How illogical is that? How impetuous? How parasitic?

    Someone once said to me, "Woolsey has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. His ideologies are jujuism cloaked in the rhetoric of hidebound extremism. It is no more complicated than that.

    Does Woolsey do research before he reports things, or does he just guess and hope he's right? The reason I ask is that if I had to choose the most neurotic specimen from Woolsey's welter of barbaric gabble, it would have to be Woolsey's claim that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. It is certainly the height of ironies that when I hear him say that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash, I have to wonder about him. Is he utterly soulless? Is he simply being insipid? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? Apparently, even know-it-all Woolsey doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't matter much if he did, given that his put-downs will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. Whatever he claims to the contrary, if Woolsey's subordinates had even an ounce of integrity, they would avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. Let me end by appealing to our collective sense of humanity: Chief James Woolsey's goal is to bathe in splendor while the rest of us go to work in the mines.
    • SuperCujo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Hey, can you summarise that for me?

      Or does 'Woolsey is a knob' just about cover it?
    • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Jesus, lose the florid language and state your case simply. This is digg, FCS, not Oxford.
    • lkms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0didn't read it but probably it's generated by the complaint generator , I don't recall the url though sorry
  • Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sure glad we don't have to worry about Iran.
  • origclubsoda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Since Russia is providing them the parts and technology, you shouldn't scofff....
    • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's interesting, isn't it... all the rhetoric against Iran- not a peep against Putin- who is building
      the nuclear power plants for them. Reminds me of how France was boycotted, but not a peep
      against Germany- who stood shoulder to shoulder with Chirac opposing the US.
      • kooft, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, but have you ever tried to come up with a patriotic name for sauerkraut?
        • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The propaganda during WW1 called it "liberty cabbage." Seriously.
          • kooft, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow. It's always shocking to find out something you're joking about is/was true. Thanks for the info.
    • lkms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0power plant != teh bomb
  • MadN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3These fearsome weapons can be deployed in less than 45 minutes.
    Duck and cover.
    We must fight them over there, to stop them over here.
    "Poland attacked us, really"
    /Sarcasm
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8They claimed saddam had weapons too.... anyone ever find those things?
  • eviscero, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Sounds like the liberals during the late 90s.
  • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What brand of magic mushrooms is he using ?
  • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The shame is... the concerns of Iran may very well be true but because of the lies regarding Iraq, people
    are going to be skeptical of this administrations claims. What makes it more legit however, is that the Europeans
    are expressing the same concerns. As much as I'm against this war, it pisses me off how the Iranian Govt. is involved.
    And it would be silly to suggest they are not involved in the civil war.
    • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4WE ARE INVOLVED WITH THE CIVIL WAR!

      We just funded the ***** Sunni militias.
    • Tzombo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0No, it would be silly to believe they are involved in this civil war without any evidence (I'll say it again: just SAYING and then repeating it over and over is not providing evidence) when every bit of logic points to the fact that the Iranians have nothing to gain by supporting an insurgency that consists of anti-Iranian Shi'ite-hating Sunnis on the one hand and nationalist Shi'ites who distrust Iran against a pro-Iranian Iraqi government.
    • BeatnikDude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1[citation needed]
      My understanding is that there are more Saudi fighters and material support coming into Iraq than Iranian.
  • fancypantscz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No one ever mentions this (which is absurd) but perhaps Iran is pursuing Nukes so that it can assure mutual destruction of Israel. Meaning it is more a defensive rather than an offensive tactic.

    Even with a nuke, Iran poses little to no direct threat to the US despite what the broadcast TV propaganda machine would have you assume. They would pose a direct threat to American 'interests' in the Middle East, namely, Israeli military domination of the Middle East, the current balance of power, and stability in general. I think it is clear, given the result of the Iraq invasion, that we would do much more to undermine those interests with a unilateral invasion of Iran than continued international negotiations and economic pressure.

    The way I see it is that Iran's economy is heading for the *****. Ahmadinejad will not survive the next round of elections as a result. Of course Khamenei will remain and so it is our job along with the rest of the international community to convince him and the people of Iran that they have more to lose in their pursuit of Nukes then it would gain by having them. That is a pretty tough sell when nations with nukes keep threatening him with attack.

    Honestly, I think we should also be concerned with the implosion of Pakistan. The so called 'war on terror' has done a lot to destabilize that country. They will have elections there soon and we should fear the election of an Islamic national party because it seems to me that Pakistan could easily turn into another Iran, only they would already have nukes. It makes sense to me that a unilateral invasion of Iran would lend credibility to Islamic national parties everywhere who assert that all Muslims are under direct threat and subjugation by USA and the 'west'.

    If you think the Iraq invasion was a blunder an invasion of Iran would be more of a blunder. Look at Israel's attack of Lebanon last year. They had nothing to win (save two kidnapped soldiers) and everything to lose. I argue we, much like Israel, have far more to lose by attacking Iran than we stand to gain.
    • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nukes serve two purposes... 1) Deterrent 2) Nations with competing interests will have to share power. The Saudis
      fear the Iranians as much as the Israelis do.
      • Tzombo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3True, but that does not mean the Iranians have no reason to fear the Israeli nukes. Or the Pakistani nukes for that matter.
        There can be very little doubt that the Iranians have every reason to be afraid: nukes to the west (Israel), nukes to the east (Pakistan), Americans to the south (Persian Gulf), west (Iraq) and east (Afghanistan).
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"If you think the Iraq invasion was a blunder an invasion of Iran would be more of a blunder."

      I'd say it's more like one long continuous blunder. The state is preparing the populace for a war with Iran and also a draft to support it. After that doesn't go as planned, the blunder will continue.
    • BeatnikDude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You mean it's complex? Iran is not a single minded blood hungry monster with the head of Ahmadinejad? It is possibly a country of diverse people, experiences, wants and leadership?
    • pegasusdba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"a unilateral invasion of Iran would lend credibility to Islamic national parties everywhere who assert that all Muslims are under direct threat and subjugation by USA and the 'west'."
      And wouldn't they be right to feel that way???
  • geronimo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Also a member of PNAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    The same organization telling us how Saddam Hussein was about to attack the USA.
    • funhouse1970, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1PROMOTED after his 'failures' on 9/11 - PNAC's sought after Pearl Harbor.

      Synthetic terror to provoke a peaceful nation into the 911 Wars - stay tuned more wars to come!
    • BeatnikDude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Think Tank = Partisan Propaganda Machine
  • samtronik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Americans listen up!! For the first time ever - I want to encourage you all to listen to what George W Bush has to say about this sort of thing:

    'There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: "Fool me once...” [pause] "... shame on...” [pause]
    "Shame on you...” [pause] "If fooled, you can't get fooled again." '
  • sodoh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is something I did a long time ago when they talked about certain plants making nuclear weapons (which they weren't).

    I ran google maps to have a view of the place that they were claiming they should nuke first. It was a nuclear powerstation just outside a city. If a nuke hit it then the people in the city would be screwed.
  • KingWrecked, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And don't tell me, then it'll only take them 45 minutes to prepare them for firing. Any of you doing Arabic studies at Uni had better hide your Dissertation or it might end up being used to justify World War 3.
  • bowens44, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Even if this were true (it isn't) , I would ask Mr. Woolsey, 'So what?'.
    Deterrence works. Thinking that any nation with one or two or even dozens of nukes would use them to attack the US is ridiculous.
    • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1they are more concerned with iran selling them to people that shouldnt have them.
  • coffee200am, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0708142013173859.htm

    The Prez of Iran is just an innocent victim of the USA....

    Iran-Afghanistan-Ahmadinejad
    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that rule of Islam on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings.

    "There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind," said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Afghan Sunni and Shiite ulama at Iranian Embassy in Kabul.

    President Ahmadinejad said nations are today distancing themselves from culture of materialism and selfishness and look for a new way for their prosperity, that is the path of Islam.

    He said that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is.

    "Nations today have no haven but religion," the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies' divisive plots.

    He said, "All of us have the duty to resist the enemy by closing our ranks."
    He said that the Iranian nation today feels more than ever the need to stand beside the Afghan nation.

    "The Islamic Republic of Iran has kindly received their Afghan brothers and will continue to do so in future. Minor issues will cannot affect Iran's policies on Afghanistan," he added.


    http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2007/08/15/iran-reporters.html

    The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.

    Iranian judges have arrested three journalists and issued a statement accusing them of publishing "lies" about the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Media rights group Reporters without Borders says blogger and journalist Soheil Assefi was arrested Aug. 4.

    Three journalists have been arrested for allegedly publishing false information about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Three journalists have been arrested for allegedly publishing false information about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
    (Saurabh Das/Associated Press)

    Masoud Bastani and Farshad Gorbanpour, both writers for the reform-minded internet publication Roozonline.com, were arrested on July 31.
  • nesibus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ok...who cares...and if they do make one then what?

    They can't fly it over here in a bomber....(even if they could we would blast them out of the sky in seconds)
    They can't launch a missle with a warhead over here....(same as above)
    They can't sneak it in and use it cause the material is all traceable back to the origin....(we would nuke them off the map, they make one little bomb to have their entire history erased from the earth?)

    So...if they have little man syndrome...and need bigger balls...whatever.
  • peleken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yea it's probably just fear mongering. Like back when the said North Korea is only a few months a way from having Nuclear weapons. and before that they said Pakistan is only a few months away. Oh ... wait....
  • Stryker412, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Damn him and the IOA will they stop at nothing?
  • amoro99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm not sure they would fire it willy nilly. I'm certain the Taliban would. We should probably pay attention to them, but if Musharref is overthrown in Pakistan then the whole thing changes.

    We should offer to buy Pakistan's nukes and treat Iran with more respect. We've played nice with crazier ones in the past.
    • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"We should offer to buy Pakistan's nukes and treat Iran with more respect."

      I don't understand. Where is the profit for Halliburton in that?
  • p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What is really sad, is that WHEN one of these terrorist countries gets its hands on a nuke, whatever Republican is in office
    will be blamed.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, considering that "whatever Republican is in office" went off and invaded the wrong country...
  • jimski1961, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I hate to say this, but nothing is going to happen to Iran until after Iran nukes America or Israel. Then the tin foil hat crowd will blame Bush and the conservatives for doing nothing. Why does Iran need a nuke plant when they are sitting on all that oil?
    • Trutholder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gee i don't know. its because they are running out of oil. and in 20 more years they want to be self reliant.
      Open a book and read, before you make any more stupid comments.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How do you walk outside with that much fear hanging around you? Do you also feel the same about Pakistans Nukes? They have more ties to known terrorists than Iran does - where is your concern over India also have Nukes - which was sold to the world as needed to offset Pakistan Nukes....M.A.D and all that..Makes sense right?

      So why do you have a problem with Israeli's Nukes being offest with potentially an Iranian Nukes?
      • NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2With regard to Iran feeling that it needs nukes to establish M.A.D. between itself and Israel, I find a big flaw in that argument. Israel has had nukes for decades, and has had the ability to strike Iran with one for much of that time. Iran still doesn't have an nukes as far as we know. If Israel was going to nuke Iran, it could have done so at any time for the past several decades. It could have (and might have had reason to) when it bombed Iran's first reactor during the 80's. Could have, but didn't. In other words, so long as Iran leaves Israel alone, then based on track record there doesn't seem to be much need for Iran to need a nucelar deterent to Israel. On the other hand, if Iran is planning on doing things that may provoke a nuclear response from Israel without an Iranian nuclear deterent, then Iran does in fact need nukes. And anything Iran might be planning on that would provoke a nuclear response from Israel would seem to be a generally bad thing for the United States. So I think that a non-nuclear Iran is better all-around - it will keep the Iranians from doing anything too provocative, which is certainly in Israel and the US interest.
    • funhouse1970, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Get it right dude. The "tin foil hat" crowd will say that the rogue network in our own military that did 911 did this one too.

      Inside job. Synthetic Terror is REAL. Learn your history. Operation Northwoods. GLADIO in Italy. etc etc.
  • lostmyleggins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2can't they just buy one from North Korea and nuclear bomb in a few weeks
  • kolobcreek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1At first when I read the title I was like "Fear Monger" They must be talking about Al Gore. But Al Gore never said he was going to wipe Israel off the map. Maybe a nuclear defiant government headed by a religious dictator and a crazy president that attends meetings about how the holocaust didn't happen is something you should consider worrying about.

    But that's just me. I get a little nervous when the president of a country who just nationalized the entire country of Venezuala becomes best friends with the a president of a middle eastern country that has been accused of being directly involved in terrorism and the kidnapping of several hundred US Citizens.
  • jpmulli, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The US better start a draft and get some troops in there before it is too late.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.