Iran and it nuclear weapons program

[ChuckDaTruck]

Well, Iran is developing a Nuclear weapons program as I'm sure many of you know.

My question is what do you guys think? Is the world prepared for another U.S. led war against another nation?

Give your thoughts. Right now, I think we're jumping the gun with all the saber rattling we're doing.

But here are some mistakes we've made there:

America botched the leaking of true Russian designs for a nuclear warhead trigger device that had embedded in it some flaws which America hoped might lead Iran's nuclear program down a frustrating and incorrect path. The Russian defector the U.S. used to transmit these plans to the Iranian delegation to the IAEA actually informed the Iranians that there were mistakes in the blueprints.

Secondly, in an episode that is hardly believable but still rings true, a CIA headquarters officer accidentally sent an electronic communication to ALL of our human assets in Iran, those working for the CIA and those collaborating, in a manner such that someone on the other end could discern who all the others in the network were.

Iran has subsequently "rolled up" our network and shut down America's eyes and ears inside Iran.

Add to this the Valerie Plame affair -- in which it has been reported that she too was working to gain intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. Of course, that operation has been spiked.

And does anyone remember that it was Ahmed Chalabi's team who informed Iran that the U.S. had broken its codes. It was the Iraqi National Congress's intel chief who turned out to be an Iranian spy. Chalabi's operation worked out of Douglas Feith's legal office before Feith moved into DoD. And Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress's lawyer was former CIA Director R. James Woolsey.

This is from Steve Clemons at the Washington note.

Article can be found here: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001333.php

Good insights and fair points. I personally don't support going to war with Iran. Afterall, it will take AT LEAST 3-5 years for Iran to develop a nuclear program with the progress they've made so far, so there is no immediate rush. That said, I do think pressure should be applied, unlike Mr. Clemons. Not as overt as the President wants to, but subtle, quiet pressure.

[Taure]

I would say that Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but another war just isn't economically viable at this time. Then again, I'm not american, so I shouldn't really say.

Edit: the only way that a war could happen is if the UN agreed.

[Giovanni]

Personally I was one of the people saying "Invade Iran or North Korea, NOT Iraq" in 2003...

I still continue to hold that opinion, althought now I am a bit more reluctant about it. I still believe however that continuing this policy of appeasement will be harmful to the international community in the long run.

At the moment however I believe that any further action in that region would be seen as the United States attempting to restart the Crusades by many radical muslims and would give even more recruiting material to Al Qaeda and Co. Further destabilizing the region.

However at the moment we ARE perfectly positioned for a war with Iran considering the number of bases we have in Iraq, at least militarily. Socio-politically this would probably be a total mess.

I'm still for a war with Iran, but I don't think I would want to fight in it. I like my life, and I like my limbs (thank you very much).

Can't we just blow their country up?

[ChuckDaTruck]

In 2003, I supported invading Iran as at that point there was a reformist movement occuring (since quashed) and they had Nuclear ambitions as well.

[Giovanni]

I still say we blow their country up.

It might not be pretty.

It might piss off the world.

It might look like the act of a nation desperate to avoid conventional warfare...


But it will send a loud and clear message to China and North Korea:

"We are through with your shit. Either get in line, or get dead."

[ip82]

Tactically, US would have to attack Iran very soon, least they finish their bomb design and start production. Of course, the question is how much would taking over Iran help with that - I bet they would find the way to move the whole operation elsewhere if they see that US is posing to attack. Then, instead of a nuclear bomb contained in a region, you'll have a buch of fanatics completing it in some garage in Africa or Sybir and planning a retaliation.

Morally, US doesn't have any right to request from Iran to stop building nuclear weapons, if they themselves refuse to dispose of their own bombs. If US citizens have right to be protected by nuclear barganing chip, why would citizens of Iran be deprived of that protection, regardless of what we think of them and their fanatism?

Of course, morall doesn't have nothing to do with politics, so I expect an invasion in the next 6 months or so...

[Giovanni]

Technically, the USA has no right to tell Iran what weapons it can and cannot have.

The issue here is, the belief on this side of the Atlantic is that Iran wants them for offensive rather than defensive purposes.

Also, basement nukes have a history of failur (see Nazi Germany). Whereas nukes produced under safe laboratory conditions don't.

[Dark Lord Rostam]

I still say we blow their country up.

It might not be pretty.

It might piss off the world.

It might look like the act of a nation desperate to avoid conventional warfare...


But it will send a loud and clear message to China and North Korea:

"We are through with your shit. Either get in line, or get dead."

I myself am an Iranian, now while I dont support going to war with Iran I don't mind fucking up North Korea or China at all.

When you said I still say we blow their country up, what is the point of practically annihalating a country when there are bigger fish to fry. You say in some of your posts that you don't like our Government because of how they act and how arrogant they are. Saying that just proved your point. You showed you yourself are arrogant and can be narrow mined just like our current administration. They, at the moment, don't pose a threat to us. This war will be a needless massacre if followed through. Also many of the Iranian's here are doctors and Lawyers, many buissnessman and help economically help us. Doing this will incite a powerful group of our country.

That's all I have to say about tis at the moment, I don't agree with Iran's actions but shouldn't needlessly kill them like Gio so eloquently suggested.

[Giovanni]

No, I do not like Iran because of the economic (read: oil blackmail) threat they pose to us. I do not like Iran because their government intends to use the nuclear device it builds. I do not like Iran, because I do not trust Iran.

As for why I said we should blow the country off the map? Simple, we don't have the conventional military strength necessary to invade without bring back the draft which our people will not tolerate.

Also, the next country the USA goes to war with needs to have an example made of it. There is no better way to say "Don't fuck with us" than to wipe out a nations existence. Would Iran not do the same to Israel if it had the chance, or the nuclear capability?

At the moment both China and North Korea are playing games with the United States. China is breaking trade/competition agreements left and right, and North Korea has nuclear weapons. If the USA makes a loud enough statement, they will fall in line.

Machiavelli once said that "It is better to be feared than to be loved if you cannot have both."

The United States is in a position where it quite plainly cannot have both; and unfortunately for Earth "Peace in our time" signalled the start of a 7 year campaign from hell, rather than a peaceful resolution to the worlds problems.

[Dark Lord Rostam]

Machiavelli once said that "It is better to be feared than to be loved if you cannot have both."

I happen to be reading Machiavelli at this very moment. You got that from either the Prince or the Art of War right?

No, I do not like Iran because of the economic (read: oil blackmail) threat they pose to us. I do not like Iran because their government intends to use the nuclear device it builds. I do not like Iran, because I do not trust Iran.

That, now make's more sense to me. Before when you did not justify it in your previous post's made you seem, in fear of staring another arguement I'll apologize now, racist.

Yes, Iran would most likely use there Nuclear weapons to attack Isreal, for reasons of religion and other's, but that's an arguement for another time.

I understand why attacing Iran would make the other countries, China and NK, fall in line, but Iran isn't even close to being done with its bombs. WHy attack when they do not even have a bomb. If you were to attack China or NK, you would stop one country, stop the other from doing anything and Stop Iran from going further into the Nuclear technology. That's what I meant by frying bigger fish. Take out one of them as they are one's able to do much of anything at the moment.

[ip82]

That tactic would never work, Gio.

Both of these contries (and Iran will soon join them) have nuclear weapons, same as US do. But they also have two advantages that US will never have - they don't give a shit about their citizens and they don't have international position to maintain.

You can level North Korea to the ground, and kill hunderd million Chinese people and nothing much will happen. However, if they manage to land just one nuclear bomb on, say, Washington or New York, US would fall into anarchy, nacional economy and oil trade would be ruined, dollar would plummet, it would drag Europe down with it and the whole world would end up in chaos.

That's why you can't just go out and nuke them, as long as they have "get out of annihilation free card", also called a suitcase-nuke. As long as they have that barganing chip, US will have to keep smiling and playing nice.

[ChuckDaTruck]

I don't think China is a nation that can so easily be cowed. If we did that to Iran, not only would we face the outrage of the international community, there is a good chance we could go to war with a whole slew of nations. Regardless of whether we like it or not China is a very powerful nation by virtue of the fact that 1/4 of the whole planet's population resides there.

However, Gio's right regarding the U.S.A's resources. We lack the means to invade Iraq without a draft. Heck, we have a back-door draft already going in Iraq. But obliterating Iran wouldn't work. If you think the Islamic world dislikes us now, could you imagine how they'd feel after that? It would create a whole generation of Muslims that would DESPISE the U.S. There would be searches at Movie theaters, malls, on buses, etc. Any place where 50 or more people gather.

I don't know if there is an easy solution out of this, but I do know nothing needs to be done immediately.

we have 3-5 years at the earliest before Iran develops a functional Nuclear weapon. This summer is not the defining season. I'm aware of the new torpedos Iran has developed, and I know everyone's doing a lot of Saber rattling but I think that if the U.S. helped to create internal pressure to restrain and remove Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this would be the best solution. That and economic sanctions, hopefully that would be backed by the U.N.


P.S. Rostam, that quote is from "the Prince." Sun Tzu wrote "the Art of War"

[Dark Lord Rostam]

Sun Tzu did write the Art of War, but he also wrote his own version of Art of War that's why I used that as an example.
[/url]

[Giovanni]

Yes, Iran would most likely use there Nuclear weapons to attack Isreal, for reasons of religion and other's, but that's an arguement for another time.

I understand why attacing Iran would make the other countries, China and NK, fall in line, but Iran isn't even close to being done with its bombs. WHy attack when they do not even have a bomb.

In response, I answer with a question:

Why intervene before Hitler had amassed one of the largest most efficient armies Europe had ever seen?

[Dark Lord Rostam]

I'm not saying to not intervene but to attack either China or NK instead of Iran since they aren't even ready and won't have a chance to do anything offensively or defensively.

[Giovanni]

The USA doesn't have the man-power to fight a conventional war with more than 1 of those 3 at once with or without the draft.

Better eliminate the threat Iran poses now than when they actually have a nuke pointed at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, or some European capital.

[Dark Lord Rostam]

We dont have to have a "war" we can bomb the hell out of them as you offered with Iran, but not against China but NK and have SK hopefully try and help take the fight to them.

Going to do homework wont be able to type reply for like hour.

[sirius009]

call me insensitive but for all i care we can blow up the middle east and everyone can die, i really dont give a shit what happens to them..

[Dark Lord Rostam]

Well seems like Gio is right again. The Bush administration has made our country so screwed up and perversed our views so much that we have this Insensitive, yes I will call you it, person here saying they can all die and he ownt care. Well all the oil is there so if you want no car's for a few years and oh maybe Global catastrophe well then here you go. Lets see also Jerusalem is there so if you want the Christians, Jews and Muslims on our ass fucking slaughtering us that's what you'd get if you bombed everything there. Dude NOT COOL AT ALL. Next time you consider a post like that please do this first :headshot:

[Midknight]

Rot your link breaks the page fix it plz

[Dark Lord Rostam]

there its fixed. Sorry about that before :oops:

[Giovanni]

Well seems like Gio is right again.

Of course I am. I am never wrong :)

Thank you for recognizing that Rostam 8)

Bombing the hell out of someone with a giant assed army or nuke is war, no matter how you phrase it.

Killginny, I disagree with you about the Middle East. Thats racist. I'm saying blow Iran up because it poses a serious threat to us both economically and militarily. The other countries in the region however are minimal threats at best, because ak-47's and scud missles cannot fire across the Atlantic Ocean. They are not worthy of notice.

[Dark Lord Rostam]

'm saying blow Iran up because it poses a serious threat to us both economically and militarily

Even though that's should make me feel bad that my country should be bombed, I cant help feel proud that were a Threat to the USA....Is that wrong to feel proud?

[Midknight]

I'm not saying to not intervene but to attack either China or NK instead of Iran since they aren't even ready and won't have a chance to do anything offensively or defensively.

I'd wager because China and Korea don't have a history (AFAIK) of funding murderous fanatic terrorist fucking nutjobs?

State sponsored terrorisim in that region is insane high, developing a backpack nuke and slipping it to some other suicide bomber nutball to detonate in the air over NYC, or at touchdown in DC on a congress meeting day and blowing themselves up is totally possible (yet harder then using a conventional bomb on a roadside killing a buncha innocents) for fanatics.

[Zevrillion]

call me insensitive but for all i care we can blow up the middle east and everyone can die, i really dont give a shit what happens to them..

Bombing the hell out of someone with a giant assed army or nuke is war, no matter how you phrase it.

Killginny, I disagree with you about the Middle East. Thats racist. I'm saying blow Iran up because it poses a serious threat to us both economically and militarily. The other countries in the region however are minimal threats at best, because ak-47's and scud missles cannot fire across the Atlantic Ocean. They are not worthy of notice.

This is an international board so quit with the insensitive shit. We might have more members than just “Dark Lord Rostam” from Iran. And people in general don’t appreciate hearing there country should be incinerated.

You may just view it as a joke but I don't. Implying that murdering 70 million people because their government chooses to spend money on weapons instead building their infrastructure is not a joke.

Maybe the non-Americans should be more worried about US than Iran if you are that trigger-happy. ;)

[Giovanni]

First off, I was dead assed serious when I said incinerating a threat as a warning to everyone else is a legit option.

Just not an entire region.

Remove the threat. End of story.

It's not just their government, its a substantial number of the people to Zev.

-A Sleep Deprived Giovanni

Besides, if their government makes do distinction with their weapons/state sponsored terrorism, then I feel that we are under no international obligation to do the same.

[Evil Shnitzel]

I say not to start war with Iran but to eliminate their atomic weapons or other potential MD weapons. Like we did to Iraq in June 1981.

[LINKed up]

The last thing that America needs right now is to be occupying another country. If we do that, then I will just move to Canada or something, because the worst thing that we can do at the moment is play schoolyard bully.

[Giovanni]

The last thing that America needs right now is to be occupying another country. If we do that, then I will just move to Canada or something, because the worst thing that we can do at the moment is play schoolyard bully.

Its not about playing school yard bully, it is about protecting our interests, and the interests of our allies.

[UnholyWarlord]

Iran must be stopped. They, unlike the states, will use atomic weapons to wage war on the West. I support Giovanni on his stance, but not so much on the Atomic stirke agianst them.

[Giovanni]

And how else do you propose to resolve the situation without having a long conventional war?

Seriously, we wont be able to invade Iran with the army we have now, and even with a draft (which will be unpopular/political suicide, and therefore wont happen), the army would not be ready to fight a long conventional war.

So that leaves us with very few remaining options.

Reducing our enemies to a pile of radioactive slag would temporarily solve the problem, and allow us time to build our conventional army (and industry) back up to the way it was during World War II.

The USA is a Super Power, and it's about damn time we started acting like one.

[Violent Seas]

Iran is almost as sticky a situation as North Korea (and really most of the Middle Eastern nations as far as terrorism goes) at this point, with the exception of the fact that we really don't have political ties with North Korea,....and North Korea already has nukes.


I say War is really the only feasible option at this point; obviously, not a war with large numbers of soldiers and occupation, but something like what Israel did to the Iraqi plant in '81 - basically, targeting the places that need to be targeted (the nuclear plants, research facilities). Taking out 70 million people as "an example to other nations" ain't the best option.

[Giovanni]

Selective bombing doesn't work. It just pisses the other country off and makes them get better at hiding their shit.

[Evil Shnitzel]

Yeah? When did you see Iraq producing some real MD weapons (Not the Bush's lies) after 1981?
USA doesn't have reasources to attack right now and when she will attack all the islamic nations will be against her. Iran right now is the leader of all the muslims countries.

[Giovanni]

I wasn't referring to Iraq (and if you read my posts in other threads you would know that I am of the opinion that Iraq never had WMD's except the ones we gave them in the 80's to kill Iranians with).


And the fact that Iran IS the leader of the Muslim world is exactly why we cannot use selective bombing. If you attack the leader of a group you need to tak one of two paths.

#1. Kill them dead
#2. Neutralize them through diplomacy.

#2 is not an option under Bush, therefore #1 is the only remaining choice.

[madeyemoody]

And the fact that Iran IS the leader of the Muslim world is exactly why we cannot use selective bombing. If you attack the leader of a group you need to tak one of two paths.

#1. Kill them dead


It is of my opinion that choosing this path would create a similar parallel in the minds of others to the likes of the Crusades, thefore I would be in favor of political dealing (under a different president) creating a non- aggression pact. beats the mindless slaughter of millions

[Zevrillion]

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
David Friedman

[Taure]

You say that you would bomb Iran because you think that if they developed nuclear weapons then they wouldn't use them defensively but offensively.

How is America bombing Iran with nukes offensively OK when you say that Iran shouldn't have them because they might use them offensively?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Iran should have nuclear weapons, but using your own to stop them isn't the right way to go about it.

As for Iran being the leader of the Muslim world, I belive that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, so that would be considered the leader.

[ghst.san]

The problem is, that Iran is a state which is governed by religion. There is no telling that they won't use WMS. It would be like the holy crusades, with the difference that whole nations could be simply whiped out in a few hours.

Thats the reason why I think that the Iran shouldnt get nuclear weapons. Their government is simply too "immature" to handle such power.

War might solve the problem, but if the USA realy wants to start a war than it would only be possible with the help of other nations. There is also the question of the aftermath. When we take a look at the Iraq then we can see, that it is very hard to reinstate a working government. This would be even more so since it seems that the population in Iran is backing up their government.

Economical sanctions are not realy an option since it wouln'd be effective. Sanctions would only harm the poor and change most cerntainly nothing. There is also the point that we are depandend on the oil from Iran.

Diplomacy seemed to have failed since the goverment in Iran seems to be unwillingly to give up their nuclear program. The nationes which might be able to influence the Iran (Russia and China) don't seem to be very interested in stoping the nuclear program of the Iran.



Sooooo war might be the only option but it also isn't a satisfactory solution since the Iran isn't militairy weak and there is no telling what the other muslime countries might do.

[Tobang]

The whole problem with this argument is that you’re a hypocrite until the unthinkable happens, then you’ve acted to late.

EDIT:

As much as you smaller nations hate to admit it, America is a super power and it has to look out for itself first and foremost.

I know exactly what you’re all thinking right now. ‘This is just another bigoted American who’s way to cocky.’

But you have to face the facts, America is the most powerful nation in the world right now, and to put it metaphorically…Don’t fuck with the big kid on the playground because if you do your liable to get burned.

Plus, I don’t see why all the Middle Eastern countries hate America so much. They most likely wouldn’t even be organized countries if it weren’t for us Americans and our dependency on oil. Well, it doesn’t really mater b/c I give it ten years before a new reliable source of energy is discovered and when that happens the middle east can finally wave good by to America, and its billions apon billions of dollars.

As for America making the middle east some radioactive crater…never going to happen…unless they use a nuke (or any other WMD) on us first. The thing Americans worry about most is there public image…it’s bad press to kill millions of people.

[Midknight]

Well, it doesn’t really mater b/c I give it ten years before a new reliable source of energy is discovered and when that happens the middle east can finally wave good by to America, and its billions apon billions of dollars.


Yeah I agree with that. It's all jihad this and evil infidel that... but if we were that evil don't take the fucking money, don't come to our country and hate, don't plot to murder us, don't kill our innocents ... just let them do their thing, and we do ours..

Unfortunatly, there's no such thing as an innocent to the fanatical twats, and Iran has a long history of supporting aforementional fanatical asshats. We can't ignore them getting nuclear weapons eventually, it's going to be a problem.

At this point in time however, I'm more worried about Saudi. Their princes and whatnot get free reign in the USA pretty much with the current corrupt administration's long love affair with oil. They may not finance publically terrorist cells like some other nations do, but with the rate they churn out terrorists and fanaticals, they're not much better. Saudi is a country that needs to be looked at, and wonder when, not if, they're going to stab us in the back

[ChuckDaTruck]

MIdknight said:
At this point in time however, I'm more worried about Saudi. Their princes and whatnot get free reign in the USA pretty much with the current corrupt administration's long love affair with oil. They may not finance publically terrorist cells like some other nations do, but with the rate they churn out terrorists and fanaticals, they're not much better. Saudi is a country that needs to be looked at, and wonder when, not if, they're going to stab us in the back

He's right. Saudi Arabia is a VERY conservative country that is run based STRICTLY on the Koran. The problem is that they also are INCREDIBLY wealthy, and own a lot of stocks in the U.S. financial sysytem. We also get most of our oil from them.

[Violent Seas]

[quote]
At this point in time however, I'm more worried about Saudi. Their princes and whatnot get free reign in the USA pretty much with the current corrupt administration's long love affair with oil. They may not finance publically terrorist cells like some other nations do, but with the rate they churn out terrorists and fanaticals, they're not much better. Saudi is a country that needs to be looked at, and wonder when, not if, they're going to stab us in the back



we have a history of supporting corrupt governments for our own benefit....*cough*Reza Pahlavi*cough*


i agree with that; however, Bush named three countries that were part of the "Axis of Evil," and therefore he's basically forced himself to (or manipulated government policy pretty fucking well to get what he wanted, whichever u prefer) only focus on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

[Midknight]

Aye Chuck, Saudi's control quite alot of stock and influential buisnesses over here. It's almost scary the amount of trouble they could cause as the leader of a muslim jihad against the US. It wouldn't be a few idiots trying to figure out how to get ahold of a backpack nuke anymore, they'd toss around billions and get ICBM's or smuggle in several nasty ones into the ports or on private chartered jets

[Randeemy]

To be honest, what country would actually start a nuclear war. America, nor any country for that matter, can dictate what goes on in other countries. I find it bizarre that they thing they can.

Let them have there weapons, they wont use them. Using them would be the stupidist thing any nation could do. Becuase then America would just blitz them into a nuclear winter...

[andiais]

When the U.S decommison their nukes, and good old blightly get out of Bush's arse, then they can tell other nations not to build nukes. However, the killing of innocents, and going to war should be the last resort, or it should be anyway. That it doesnt seem to be for the Bush government is sad. Bringing another nation to it's knees is nothing to be proud of.

[ChuckDaTruck]

Becuase then America would just blitz them into a nuclear winter...

And what if they don't care? Mahmoud Ahmenijad has already STATED that he would not rule out attacking others. Your assumption works on the priniciple that Nukes would be used responsibly and the nations that acquire them are all reasonable. Governments change. What if the government is overthrown and extremists come to power with the intention of causing harm?


And like it or not, America is the most powerful nation on Earth. The global economy is HEAVILY influenced by the U.S. and its decisions. This makes the U.S. exceptionally powerful, and it uses that power to advance its own agenda. Politicians aren't asking themselves whether its "right" or "wrong" how the U.S. uses its power. They are asking, "What's in America's best interest." And if they can be helpful along the way, they are not opposed to it.

[Elfonrum]

This whole issue is a grenade in a handbasket made of grenade pins. Where did the "metaphorical" rest of the grenades go. The whole issue is skewed with racial hate and intolorance. The basics are, let Iran have their WMD's and let China have their Communist government. There is nothing America can do about it, and nothing they should. Because lets face it, America shouldn't be the worlds bitch. It's got the most technologically and physically powerful army in the world. Allies in every nation. Operatives spread around the globe. Backing from the U.N. More treaties and alliances with more countries than they could print on paper. North Korea can not afford to go to war. It would be realistic suicide for their whole political and militaristic institution. They would be replaced by people who are nothing more than fancy Bush Puppets. China. China has the military strength, maybe, to take on the U.S. alone. But not with the amount of allies they have. Lets see, theres Canada, and then most of Europe, then the few stable countries in Africa. China can't do it. America wouldn't need to threaten nuclear attack. They would just aim their bombs in China's general direction and say sit down and shut the fuck up or well kill you all in much politer terms. The actual issue here is that America isn't getting what it wants. And so Bush's Government is throwing a hissy fit. It's all sickening, as America's got the most WMD's in the world, because they like being the bully. They like the fact that people are afraid of them. It gives them securities they wouldn't have otherwise. As to something that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Could America win a war or 3 consecutive wars against Iran, North Korea, and China respectively. The answer is yes, they could. The U.N. and most of the world, cannot see America fall. It would be the beginning of another Great Depression, on a world wide scale. Also, the U.N. can't afford to see a communist government come out of a war, having won it, to pave the way for themselves as the next worldly powerful country. Will there be a war with Iran, no, Iraq, we got that answer, North Korea, possibly because American governments can't seem to keep their military hands to themselves, China, no, almost absolutly, definatly not. Of course, considering this is all coming from a Canadian perspective, I could be completely wrong. But maybe i'm right. Everyone just needs to step back, and look at the big picture. There's more involved in this conflict than just the U.S. and Iran. It expands on both sides of the issue. Thats all I have to say.

[Midknight]

Whoa @ the text block of doom O.o