Right, no WMD were found. Pretty silly, huh?


Saddam Hussein failed to prove that he did not have them before the war
started. The Iranians are now engaging in supicious activity, they should take
heed of what happened to Saddam.

Saddam probably though that by looking supicious, as if he had something to
hide and that he perhaps did have WMD, that the US would be deterred from
attacking and it wasn't rather just the opposite. By looking suspicious, Saddam
Hussein gave the US a reason to invade. Perhaps Iran is following the same path
to folly.
An energy rich country suddenly becomes interested in nuclear energy for
"peaceful purposes" and rejects monitors to see to it that the enriched uranium
doesn't find its way into nuclear bombs. Iran is simply giving us reason to
attack us, and the chants of "Death to America" don't help to pursuade us that
Iran's intentions are peaceful.
What should we do about a country that repeatedly declares itself to be our
enemy, yet claims to be developing nuclear technology for only "peaceful
purposes"?

If Iran wants to be our enemy, fine then lets invade them and get it over with.
I see no reason to wait for Iran to build its nuclear weapons to attack us
with, do you? Its funny that democrats would defend a country that made Jimmy
Carter a one-term President. It seems many Democrats are animated by
ill-feelings toward George Bush, yet cannot muster a similar animosity toward a
country that caused a Democrat to be defeated by a Republican for president.
Because of Iran's illegal hostage taking, Jimmy Carter was defeated by Ronald
Reagan and that set the stage for 12 years of Republican occupation of the
White House. Yet here comes their big change to avenge the Carter
Administration's defeat, yet they don't take it. Why not?

So you think we should attack Iran now?


Would it be better to attack Iran when it actually has nuclear weapons?

If George S. Patton had his way, there would have been no Cold War, because
someone would have gotten rid of the USSR before they had a chance to build
atomic bombs and threaten us and the World with mutual annihilation, yet the
Democrats instead seem to relish cold wars, they seem to want to follow one
cold war with another, the French too seem eager for this. Now is our
opportunity to rid the world of a future nuclear threat before it comes into
being, why should we pass up this opportunity to make the World a safer place
for our children? Would you rather have a nuclear superpower ploting Islamic
Revolution around the World while hiding behind a nuclear arsenal? How do you
know that Iran would be deterred by our own nuclear arsenal if they have one of
their own? It is dangerous to assume that Iranians and other Muslims
necessarily think like us. If they did think like us, the 9/11 attack would not
have happened.

This is "Dr. Strangelove" and you remind me a little too much of the mad
colonel.

Eric

Not so mad, because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons now. Once it does get
nuclear weapons there may be no means of preventing Iran from attacking us with
them. We can only retaliate after they attack us, we can't stop all their
missiles from reaching us, and besides, nukes can be delived by other means.
The best thing to do is to make sure they don't have them in the first place.
We don't have alot of time for negotiation and diplomacy. We should tell them
stop or else, if they don't, we then invade their country and replace their
government. the alternative is waiting for the Iranians to attack us, then we
can kill millions of Iranians with our own nuclear missiles. Would you prefer
this second option?

Tom