Turn Iran Into A Glass Landscape

Nuclear war with Iran too costly for Americans, Iranians - Opinion

----------

"But now it seems Americans can't even remember 2003 as the Bush administration is threatening to attack Iran. Iran has a much stronger military than Iraq, which had been devastated by a decade of sanctions. If the United States were to attack Iran, it is likely the results will be similar to what's happening in Iraq."

-I don't see how we would be safer if we didn't attack Iran. A military that's "stronger", compared to Iraq, should not be a deterrent when it comes to protecting America. Their military is obsolete compared to the America's. The capital of Iran, Tehran, has been a sanctuary for terrorist activities for years. You can try these links for proof: Hope for Iran, Iran is the Root of Islamic Terrorism, Iran, Not So Far Away, Impeach Bush?, Iranian Nuclear Program: Will Israel Save Us?, Iran's Final Solution Plan, Iran's Jihad Against Civilization Continues,Iran's Mystical Menace: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Death To America, An Open Letter On Revolution in Iran, Bush's Cold War on Terrorism, Dealing with Terrorism, Death to "Diplomacy" with Iran , Death to Dictators in Iran, Death to Theocracy: America Must Act Now to Bring Down Iran's Regime, Defusing Iraq's Ticking Timebomb, Iran's Summer of Discontent, Iraq: The Wrong War, Militant Islam Reaches America, Our Gift to Iran, Pacifists and Professors of Oppression, President Bush's Deadly Iranian Concession, Reducto Ad Totalitarianism, Religious Terrorism vs. Free Speech, Serious or Suicidal: The Intelligentsia's Approval of the Iranian Nuclear Program, The "Rights" of Dictators, The Pre-9/11 Secretary of State, The Real Revolutionaries, The Road to Victory Goes Through Tehran, Time to Fight the Real War, U.N. Security Council's Toothless Statement on Iran's Nuclear Program, U.S. Must Stop Iran from Developing Nuclear Weapons, U.S. Policy Towards Iran: 25 Years Of Denial, Why "Diplomacy" with Iran Had to Fail, and finally, Why Iran Sneers. There's my proof; where's yours?

"There's nothing "tactical" about a weapon of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons kill innocent people indiscriminately. Two years ago, I completed a pilgrimage to the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to see the destruction the "leaders" of my country wreaked on the people of those two beautiful cities. It's impossible for me to conceive that with all Americans know about the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of victims in August 1945, there are still people in the United States of Amnesia who would consider ever using nuclear weapons. If the option of nuclear war is unleashed, innocent Iranians will die."

-There's nothing tactical about using nuclear weapons? How about a tactic (that you might find absurd) of destroying the terroristic state of Iran before it launches a nuclear missle at the U.S. Sounds pretty tactical to me. "Nuclear weapons kill innocent people indiscriminately." This is a secondary issue. The people of Iran should have stepped up and defeated their government before it endangered a country like America. I am not for killing innocent people, but why should I pay (i.e. America attacked by nuclear weapons) for people that didn't take action over their own government? You might through out the point that "They don't have the ability to"; but last time I checked history, the founding fathers took over a global super-power with nothing more than a handfull of firearms and primitive weapons, such as pitchforks. I, as an American, will not pay for another individual refusing to take action in regulating their own government.

"And there would be consequences for other countries, as well. Iran has 40,000 trained suicide bombers who are prepared to strike at American and British targets if attacked, according to the Sunday Times of London. Attacking Iran will make Westerners less safe."

-Im going to have to see some proof on those numbers. I know, I know...I always ask for it, Im sorry. But Sleeper cells?! In America?! Who would have thought?! Do you seriously think that they are only going to strike if Iran gets attacked, like it's their only motivation to strike America?

"Iran is seeking or threatening to build nuclear weapons for two reasons. Examining those reasons will put the world community into a better position to ensure Iran does not become a nuclear power. One reason is that Iran may fear a U.S. invasion and occupation similar to that of its neighbor, Iraq. Iraq was invaded because it did not have the ability to fight back. Iran sees obtaining a nuclear weapon as a deterrent against invasion by the United States."

-Iraq was invaded because it didn't have the ability to fight back? A possible justification for the invasion may some how be linked to having a dictator who has, in the past, killed innocent people. If you are you concerned with innocent people dying in Iran, then why do you turn a cold shoulder at the genocide Iraqi President Saddam Hussein orchestrated on March 16th, 1988 in the Kurdish town of Halabja, killing an excess of over 5,000 people? Are the Iranian's lives' worth more than Iraqi's in your eyes? To keep the ball rolling, what do you propose that we have to do to stop Iran from constructing nuclear weapons? "Examining those reasons will put the world community into a better position to ensure Iran does not become a nuclear power." That sentence makes it very clear that you don't want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons either. Basing my portion off of what I just quoted from you, what should America do? Should we try to sit down with a man who hates the U.S., sponsors terrorism, threatens genocide, pursues nuclear weapons, denies the existence of the holocaust, and executes homosexuals and try to casually talk about things over lunch?

"The second reason is that Iran's regional neighbor, Israel, is already in possession of nuclear weapons. Iran and Israel have been waging a war of words recently, with speculation that Israel may launch an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran sees obtaining nuclear weapons as a way to counter the regional nuclear power of Israel."

-Israel has proven in the past to be a responsible nation. When Iran grows up maybe they will see, without restriction, nuclear weapons.

"The goal of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is the eventual eradication of all nuclear weapons. A good place to start is the volatile Middle East. It is likely Iran will abandon all talk of obtaining a nuclear weapon if there is a complete nuclear ban throughout the Middle East. Therefore, Israel, which already has the region's most dominant conventional military arsenal, should do its part by dismantling its nuclear cache and opening its facilities to full inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency."

-All nuclear weapons? That is absolutely ridiculous. Whether you want to believe it or not, weapons are not only a means of agression. They can protect as well. Nuclear weapons are no exception to this rule. Period.

"Invading a country that has not attacked and poses no imminent threat is illegal under international law and the U.N. charter. The United States should not attack Iran; the Bush administration already has enough blood on its hands. There are diplomatic resolutions to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. Let's hope the war criminals in Washington come to their senses before getting the United States into another futile quagmire in the Middle East that breeds even more terrorism."

-"Poses no imminent threat" -- if you've read even one of the links that I provided in the first section of this post, you can be aware that statement is completely bogus. "The United States should not attack Iran; the Bush administration already has enough blood on its hands." By saving a country from a mass-murderer? How much more "blood" would be on the Bush administrations hands if they ignored Iran until they actually struck the U.S.? If by protecting innocent people, you mean "War criminals", then I guess you're right, but you don't mean that so you are wrong. I'm not sure how you would make "diplomatic resolutions" with a psychopathic man such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; but I'll be listening whenever you get it written up, be sure to contact me.