Iran Admits Secret Uranium Enrichment and Ahmadinejad Warns Obama

Some in Left and Right Blogtopia are making all the wrong points about this today. This isn't about inheriting "Bush's mess" or "Obama's weakness". This is about a rogue nation who's leaders will do what they want when they want no matter what anyone says. Israel will most definitely feel threatened by this and I can see air strikes all in Netanyahu's head. This is one tough call for President Obama. Israel will not just sit and watch. Telling Netanyahu to just chill won't work. And agreeing with Israel on Iranian air strikes threatens to ignite a terrible Middle East war.

Ultimately, Iran is at fault here for stirring all this up. How can you destroy this facility without igniting a Middle East war?

First, take a page out of Nixon's playbook---establish "plausible deniability" for knowing about the Israeli stike ahead of time.

Second, let's see if the UN is worth the membership dues we pay to it.

The UN will only take serious action if it feels that Israel is days from bombing Iran, and even then, what action can they really take? More sanctions? That hasn't been effective with NK.

OK, if you wish to shoot down my answers, post up yours for evaluation.

Here's your sides chance to show us the wisdom of your ways........we're ready for you to take the ball on this one and show us what you got.

Israel may be within days of bombing Iran.

I just hope Obama got enough Russian support on Iran in exchange for nixing the missile shield, otherwise I see this going down with an Israeli air strike. Iran has threatened Israel with annilation enough, I couldn't fault the Israelis.

I'd be on the lookout for the Israelis building up troop strength on the Syrian border, if they attack Iran they will either be ready for reprisals from Syria or they will hit it as well.

Wow, someone finally started a thread on this issue rather than another one about Sarah Palin or Joe Wilson (but not yet about the terrorist plots that recently have been foiled). [whew]

"Israel may be within days of bombing Iran."

Well, Obama's preparing to erect theater missile defenses in ways that would defeat Iranian attacks in the Persian Gulf and against Iran's neighbors (in exchange for scrapping the Czech-Polish missile defense system) could be viewed in this light, as well.

Posturing (weakly) in the UN may just be giving Iran a chance it won't take to change its ways soon.

Israel would be truly stupid to start a war with Iran, and vice versa. But either way, we should just keep out of it. Face it folks, we cannot keep countries from acquiring nuclear technology. Our best strategy would be to reduce our need for Middle East resources and let it become China and Russia's problem.

What is the moonphase tonight?----I agree-------@@we should just keep out of it.@@

The left does not wish us to be the world's meddling policeman and as far as the right is concerned, we're afraid to play the role without enough toughness anyway to be effective.

Let's make the left happy by not meddling as the US and make the right happy by proving once and for all to see, the UN is a dysfunctional waste of time, money and quality upper East Side property.

There is no such thing as the US "staying out of it". If Israel bombs Iran, which they will, we will be instantly linked to the attack...whether is be true or not. We have backed Isreal with military funding, equipment, and training. And I would guess that we helped them build their nuclear program.

The world can keep countries from building nuclear bombs....acquiring the technology no, but building them, yes.

I do not agree. That logic did not work in WWII, nor will it work here. Hitler had the same mentality. You see it every generation or two.

Oil is ultimately a national security issue. I agree with you on that.
But "environmentalism" will not prevent Iran nuking Israel or the United States, or from selling those nukes to would-be terrorist organizations.

Truth be told.... China and Russia don't give a rat's butt about Israel.

I agree with the "plausible deniability" statement above - with a twist:

The best way to handle it is to covertly nuke the processing area and blame it on faulty Iranian nuclear engineering.

Tee hee.


Regardless how you feel about Israel (I'm personally not their biggest fan).....
Ahmadinijad must be taken down. He's too much like Hitler to be ignored.
Just ask FDR what ignoring a man like that gets you (or your allies).

Poland didn't have thermonuclear weapons...

The right, unfortunately, continues to show the world exactly why any threatened nation MUST have the bomb. But get a grip. Some of Iran's nuclear facilities are IN Tehran. I really hope Israel is not stupid enough to bomb young Iranian students, but if they are stupid enough and do such a stupid thing, I hope the US condemns them as the rest of the world surely will.

As for Hitler, come on. Iran has not overrun a single sovereign nation, nor do I think they can or will. It certainly will not be Israel. You guys can live in fear of Iran if you want, or resort to saber rattling. I am not concerned at all. Iran has plenty of problems of its own and certainly lacks the resources and the military to invade Poland, Turkey or Israel.

If the leader of Canda and half of their population wanted to wipe America off the place of the planet, you better believe we'd be bombing their nuclear plants...no matter who is living around or above them.

With the extremely complex power structures in Iran, would we ever really know who controlled their nuclear arsenal? What would happen if the liberal kiddies tried another revolution? Would the mullahs say, "Screw it, we are losing power. Might as well nuke Israel while we can."?

Pakistan is bad enough, lets not allow Iran to get into the mix.

The timing with Obama's move to leave Af-Pak couldn't be more perfect. It is a deliberate taunt.
Stay on the track you're on Obama. Don't waiver. They're testing you. And you know who I'm talking about..

The US doesn't have to be the world cop. Let another country handle them, sanction them etc. It's like a game of chess...you have to THINK alot..[hint hint]

Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler. Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler. Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler. Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler. Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler. Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler.

Look, I've said it every other way I can. This is all that's left to me.

Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler. Only Hitler was like Hitler.

Plus, Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler.

Oh, did I say that already?

"The timing with Obama's move to leave Af-Pak "

I must have missed that anouncement. We're pulling out of Afghanistan? I had no idea.

Anyway, so far Obama is doing the right thing with Iran.

Ahmadinejad is not like Hitler.

True, Ahmadinejad has only threatened to exterminate the Jews, at least the ones in Israel.

The "Best" of Ahmadinejad

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

"The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

Huh, sounds kinda like the stuff the extreme hawks in the US have said about Iran since 1980 when Reagan agreed to trade them weapons for hostages. I wonder if Ahmadinejad negotiates with terrorists as well??
Who do I remember singing "bomb Iran, bomb, bomb, Iran" Oh yea a guy I almost voted for once and decided to avoid partially because of his comedy stylings.

His comments mean nothing, the nukes need to go though.

I don't really care what Ahmadinejad says, or that his propaganda has made some Iranian citizens fear and hate us. Indeed, OUR propaganda, including that repeated in this thread, is designed to make us fear and hate them. Well, I don't. Khrushchev said he would bury us. He had a whole lot more resources than Iran EVER will. In fact, with Iranian oil production already on the decline, they better tend to their own knitting. I know a lot of people in America are easily led, and some are really scared. I'm not scared. Iran does not have the resources to take us down and anyone who seriously believes they do, or will, should seek help with their fear problem. Someone wants to start another war. Someone wants to precipitate the "end times." The truth is, the scenario that everyone seems so worked up about is very far down on the list of actual threats to us.

Ironically, many of those who live in terror of Iranian nukes favor building more nukes here, and implementing a system that would put hundreds of tons of nuclear waste on the highways and rail lines. THAT is a more serious risk of accidental radiation exposure than the fantasy that Iran will build reactors, get an ICBM and launch it at us. And if it's nuclear terrorism you fear, as JeffersonDavis seems to, do yourself a favor and watch "Dirty Bomb" on PBS. The LEAST likely risk of nuclear terrorism involves a NEW producer of radioactive materials. There are many tons of it in this country, poorly guarded. Consider your local hospital. How many machine gun toting bad guys do you figure it would take to march in there and take all their therapeutic isotopes? Hint, the rent-a-cop at the front door wouldn't be much of a deterrent. Now forget the whole "bomb" part. If a baggie of Cesium dust was dropped into the wind in DC or Manhattan, the real estate there would be worthless, practically forever. The economic devastation would crush our economy.

Now I'm not trying to scare you, because obviously you are already frightened enough. I'm trying to encourage a more realistic risk assessment. It is certainly not lack of access to nuclear materials that prevents such a scenario, and being afraid that in a decade Iran could make plutonium to use against us is very much like worrying about being hit by an asteroid while you're smoking a cigarette. We need to get real about life's risks and stop destroying our economy and sending our kids off to die out of fear of the unlikely or impossible.

Does anyone think it would take an ICBM to reach us? Does anyone NOT know that literally tons of illicit drugs enter this country each year? So the fear scenario being painted here is that by spending billions and years Iran could create a nuclear tipped ICBM to launch at us. The reality is that nuclear materials already exist in ample supply and it is easy to smuggle tons of contraband into the US. And anyway, there isn't even any need to smuggle anything in. It's already here.

I like where Obama is on this. He has learned from his last encounter...

Asked about the prospect of using military force to stop Iran from getting the bomb, Obama said, "With respect to the military, I've always said that we do not rule out any options when it comes to U.S. security interests, but I will also re-emphasize that my preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic fashion. It's up to the Iranians to respond."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking Friday on CNN's "State of the Union," said it would be a mistake to rule out military action, but he also said there was still room to pursue diplomacy.

"The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time," Gates said, adding that the U.S. believes Iran could have a nuclear weapons within one to three years. "And the only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened."

Basically not ruling out military action, yet stating that they understand that military action is not the solution.

Agreed shannonlee, I don't have major problems with Obama's approach to Iran thus far.

While I agree that a bombing campaign could be imminent, I disagree on the signals. There will not be a public callup or anything of that sort. It will be quiet. If anything, this attack will come following a somewhat quiet moment, not at the most obvious time. Military necessity dictates that Israel not advertise this attack; Iran, even w/o S-300s, is far from defenseless...... but I'll still put my money on the IAF any day...

Actually, if memory serves, it was the French that helped Israel build their nuclear capacity. Most Americans forget that from 1948 to about 1971 the USA kept Israel at arms length, or further. After Truman supported Jewish independence, the USA basically followed the State Dept.'s Arabist policy for years, so we'd never have helped build the reactor near Dimona back in the '60s or thereabouts.

Neither had Hitler, until he did. I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just pointing out that up to the point Hitler took Austria, or attacked Poland, he hadn't 'invaded' anyone. Then there is the Saddam issue: he was the 'power behind the throne' in Iraq thru much of the 70s. Under his aegis Iraq blossomed, and then he took over. For a little while Iraq still remained a fertile country with a very high standard of living... and then he invaded Iran, and then Kuwait.

But well before Hitler and Saddam invaded anyone they were already oppressors at home. So yes, just because one is not an invader doesn't mean that they aren't a humanitarian threat to their own people. Hitler was, Saddam was, and Ahmadeapoopy most certainly is. I'd also argue that lack of capacity to do more harm doesn't in any way change the operating motives of the group or country in question. Case in point: a serial killer in jail--in theory w/o opportunity and means to kill--is still a serial killer.

All of this said, I understand your point. The Hitler tag gets tossed around liberally. Still, to call Iran an aggressive, fascist, extremist country with potential genocidal intentions is about accurate as far as I'm concerned, and that sounds pretty damned Hitlerian to me, so perhaps in this case the shoe might fit a bit better than it may seem at first.

Well, I'll let my reply above speak for itself. I don't entirely disagree with you, but neither do I agree. I think Ahmadeadoody is a genocidal-maniac in training, to put it succinctly, and I'd like to see him and his ilk stopped before they truly 'blossom.'

True, American extremists do say those things. But are you aware that in Iraq there is a national holiday to rally against the USA and Israel? Imagine if Columbus Day was 'Down with Iran Day'! You can't, can you? And no, not just the rallies that took place during the Iranian hostage crisis... I mean right now, three decades later. How many Americans would bother?

This year, the anti-Satan rally (we're the big Satan, Israel is the little Satan) finally backfired and led to anti-govt protests, but until this point this has been a well-attended, thriving event every single year.

Listen, extremism is extremism, even if it is American. Unlike some people, I agree with you that that sort of talk shouldn't be 'acceptable' for one group and not another. But that is precisely my point. Living in the West, or the USA, or wherever, you're familiar with all of the things that are said about Iran--as they say, "familiarity breeds contempt"--and depending on your point of view it can seem as though the balance doesn't look good for those around you, but that is only if you don't look carefully at both sides. If you do, IMO, it will be much more difficult to equate Iranian statements with American ones...... and this is coming from someone still somewhat sympathetic to the ideas cultural relativism.

These are some really good points; well-thought-out and things people should be considering. My main concern with your line of thinking, however, is that it runs the risk of being what I sometimes call 'absolutist.' What I mean is that it requires absolute concepts so that nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, drugs, etc. are tied into infrastructure and so on and, hence, we're left with a system of choices that is very realistic, and utterly paralyzed by both complexity and fragility. Yes, all of these things are linked, and they are linked in the ways in which you describe them, but perhaps it is okay to disassemble some of these fragments in order to both understand the societal systems under consideration, and potentially find solutions. This is akin to taking systems in a car: yes, a car requires all of its components, but sometimes one can just work on the trasmission and improve it, or the cooling system, etc. This work can then be applied to the larger project, the car.

What I'm saying is that, yes, there are other threats besides Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Would you like one more? Or one less? If Iran acquires these weapons, they can literally 'give' them to other countries. So while it may seem as though an Iranian ICBM hitting the USA is a tiny possibility for you, one of these nukes in Cuba or Venezuela is a different story.

There are many parts to this problem (many potential threats), but this is a real and significant one, and it can be nipped in the bud.... so to speak.

can you source assertions like this? I don't think you can source this one, because to my knowledge Ahmadinejad has not threatened to exterminate the Jews, in Israel or elsewhere. And even if he had, he couldn't. If threatening to do something w/o the capacity to do it made someone as dangerous as Hitler, we'd have to invade every country on earth.

Leonidas, CITES? Links? Sources?

Still, to call Iran an aggressive, fascist, extremist country with potential genocidal intentions is about accurate as far as I'm concerned, and that sounds pretty damned Hitlerian to me, so perhaps in this case the shoe might fit a bit better than it may seem at first.

Aaron, that description would accurately fit at least one-third of the world's countries, and that may be conservative. It even fits *our* country at certain points in our history. You simply cannot go around building up hysteria about every regime in the world that is fascist, or aggressive, or extremist.

Reasonable point, but let me refute.

First of all, the point about this description fitting our country at certain point in our history. While I'm lukewarm about the degree to which I'd agree--I actually don't disagree but the argument has distinct limits--it is important to remember that if you are speaking about which nations are current threats, then historic actions are merely barometers. In other words, Germany WAS a fascist state, but it is not any longer; in fact, it has little apparent desire for expansion and rightly so as the world would come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks. So the fact that the USA, Germany, or anyone else may, or may not have acted like this does not detract from Iran's actions. However, this is, I think, the lesser of your two main points.

So secondly, that the world is populated by governments that share a like-minded (read: fanatical dictatorships that are both internally and externally dangerous) approach to the world with Iran. Granted. But as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. I'd argue that a yardstick of means, motive, and opportunity needs to be used when comparing these states.... or for that matter, all states. Compare: Iran, Sudan, Yemen.

Yemen is a wildly extreme country. The populace generally supports this extremism, and has for years. Yet Yemen has a relatively small population, no natural resources, and no money. In fact, if it weren't straddling the strategic route along the Red Sea (Aden), it would be a little heard of pit of despair.... instead of fairly well known pit. This means that any threat from Yemen can contained within the foreseeable future and with the means at our disposal (the Cole was a lucky shot anyway....).

Sudan is a genocidal regime. Period. Right now, however, they are dirt poor, have little technology, etc. (see Yemen above). Unlike Yemen, however, Sudan has oil, lots of it, and China has helped them tap it. This means that the Sudanese gov't. has probably bowed to international pressure about Darfur likely to buy time to develop oil fields, build wealth, and basically build a strong enough infrastructure to be dangerous. This will take years, but they'll be able to do it. So for now Sudan is more dangerous to its own people than the rest of the world.* This will change is a decade or so as they develop an oil-based economy, and begin to buy the technology that they could not develop themselves.

Then there is Iran. They are a threat right now. Iran can build its own main battle tanks; its own fighters; and they are working on a nuclear capacity. Now, let me be clear that the Iranian defense industry is badly spread to the point that its systems are too often built for quantity, not quality. On paper they seem wonderful, but there is little doubt that these indiginous tanks and planes would fare poorly against western equiv. And yet, this is still a major accomplishment.

So whereas all of the nations here share motive, only one truly has both means and opportunity as well, and that is Iran. Iran has its own weapons systems, its own domestic and international terrorist groups, etc. In the end, many regimes are extreme. Many others fascist. And still others are aggressive. But when you look closely, there are actually relatively few that share all of these traits, AND have the means to embark on some sort of escapade. If I'm wrong, then perhaps it is simple hysteria after all, but I genuinely do not believe that is the case.

----------
*-Where Sudan and Yemen show 'reach' in aiding terrorists, something the Sudanese excel at. Before the invasion of Iraq I argued for an invasion of Sudan, possibly to be precluded by an invasion of Somalia or Yemen. Iraq was/is a mess, whereas invading Sudan could hit the terrorists where it hurt..... Needless to say, this didn't happen, and so Sudan remains a distant future threat.

"But Mr Ahmadinejad rejected compromise: "There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world." Recalling the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, he said: "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

The Guardian, Thursday 27 October 2005



And by the way, Kat.
Ahmadenijad IS like Hitler. Ahmadenijad IS like Hitler. Ahmadenijad IS like Hitler. Ahmadenijad IS like Hitler. Ahmadenijad IS like Hitler.

Actually the Iranian hatred of the US is very close to American sentiments from the civil war, for good reason since they were the occupying power and since we supported the shah we through the cia were considered an occupying power. He is talking like Pat Robertson or other such extremists and it is worrisome because he has a nice sized military behind him but you have to keep this in context. This is a tiny and isolated nation now dealing with social unrest due to a flawed election. This is not a valid threat to our nation nor even really the region considering if they touch Israel their nation will almost simultaneously cease to exist either via destruction or coup. In fact the only chance Iran stands is if they could pull in Pakistan but I do not see how that could realistically happen short of the extremists taking over Pakistan which again is a very tall order. Then even if Pakistan were taken over by extremists you have the entire Shia Sunni thing to deal with and they hate each other more than they even hate us. Iran is surrounded by Sunni nations, this is why they are so very isolated. They are even culturally isolated from their neighbors. They are also reviled by the Saudi's that have all of the big money in the region and to keep power in the region they are forced to hold Iran down. All of this to say a dire situation this is not.

Its rogue state diplomacy and the script is pretty well known the only questions are the choices to be made but a leaders words to their people have to be taken with a grain of salt because speaking that way is what keeps his power base on his side. When people and the region flip out about this his supporters cry for more rhetoric(kinda like we do to our presidents) and he delivers making them love him even more. Iran is currently in early coup stage to top this all off and it is very possible that if done correctly the populace would do liberation dances upon invasion but then we invaded Iraq and smeared shit all over ourselves for the entire world to see so it is kinda hard for them to trust us now.

Tell me as a nation which would you find more threatening, a threat from Iran or a similar politically isolated nation or a threat from America or say a candidate running for president of America. With great power comes great responsibility and it sounds to me like you are holding them to a higher standard then you are holding the US too no less the rest of the world and I take issue with that.

Should they give up their nukes? Yes, and if necessary by strike but that strike had better not come from Israel or it will be on like donkey kong throughout the entire region. Obama is playing this right, he is dragging his heels and playin the nice guy card and backing Iran further into a corner, in my opinion within a few months to a year he will be able to strike the military sites and world opinion and US opinion will be on his side but that is just my guess since he tends to be a chess player.

They are primarily so anti US because they fear us and our nations ability to overthrow their chosen government but luckily Iran had a botched election and they are none to fond of their own government right now anyway. The difference between the US and Iran is the US has power, if it made such threats it would have to start backing them up and that is what happened in WWI and WWII a large nation went rogue with some companion nations. Small rogue states play by different rules. They do not have to worry about battling for regional power they instead concentrate on staying in power in their own nation and are notoriously defensive for that very reason, especially against the nation that funded and supported a man that replaced a democratically elected leader in a coup. Of course I also think if we are going to have a nuke free region Israel has to give them up to but ya know...
Either way that was in specific response to an argument made solely of quotations from a rogue state actor, this is basically like telling me that its news that apes eat bananas. It is also failing to acknowledge that we have similar problems with some of our elected leaders and have in the past as well and therefore comes off as childish so I enjoy putting things into context lest we forget that a threat from the US is probably scary shit to a nation the size and strength of the rogue states. Also if McCain would have one it also would have been exactly equivalent but hundreds of times more alarming to the world still he is still a very powerful man here and I am sure is likely used as a boogie man in some of their state run media.

You're most likely very correct that the US government wasn't actively involved with their nuclear program. That being said, I would still guess that parts of our government were involved...the unknown parts that were particularly active over that period of time.

"The left does not wish us to be the world's meddling policeman"

Except in Honduras, maybe. [snicker]

At any rate, if there is a war and it harms us in any way, then they once again will be the first and the loudest to hypocritically express anger and outrage and demand to know why didn't we Do Something?

This will be rendered more subtle by having a Dem rather than a Republican president, of course, and in this case, it may involve oil supply disruption and higher prices, so the sub-plot will involve blaming the Evil Oil Companies once more.

The script is years, decades old!

I'd have to look at the history again, I'm going from memory here so I might have details wrong. My recollection is that France and Israel colluded to begin a nuclear program inside of Israel (as a sidenote, France has colluded on at least a half dozen of these projects of which I am aware.... only G-d knows how many are still well kept secrets) and the French began to get antsy, so Mossad took the tech. they needed (much like the later Mirage/Nesher incident) and Israel finished. There might have been American involvement in the way of covert work, but I don't think so. Then again, how would I know..... :-)

Those are belligerent words, and they're from four years ago. It's appalling to me that so many people will take mere words, and spoken by someone who is only one man and doesn't even have the real power in Iran (the mullahs do, obviously), and with a factual context that neither he nor his country have the ability to attack either Israel or the U.S. with nuclear weapons and would be insane to do so even if they did, and conclude from that there is no possibility of compromise, and war is the only answer.

With respect, in my view, *that* attitude is insane. Totally insane. And dangerous. I'm not saying *you* are dangerous, JD, just to be clear. I'm saying the attitude you embrace, which you did not originate but which is in the atmosphere all around you, is dangerous. And insane. And it worries me that ordinary Americans will actually believe this stuff and support a leader who acts on it. Of course we don't have a leader who will act in insane and dangerous ways anymore, so that's at least a comfort.

Iran has self-interests, just like the U.S. does, and to suggest that Iranian leaders would attempt to attack, with nuclear weapons, two nations that could wipe out Iran a thousand times over between them is to suggest that Iran's leaders are psychotic and/or clinically insane. And they are not. They are merely tyrannical, brutal, and extreme. These are bad things, but they do not mean Iran is not aware of its own self-interest.

Even Hitler, by the way, was concerned with world opinion when it came to the Final Solution. He tested the waters in various ways to see what the world's reaction would be before he exterminated six million Jews, and the world in effect told him, "Whatever. We don't really like the Jews all that much, either. Certainly not enough to save them." If even Hitler understood the concept of self-interest, and was vulnerable to world opinion throughout the 1930s, and even at the start of the war, then why would Iran not be?

As far as your repetition in reverse, I can't stop you from believing or saying that Ahmadinejad is like Hitler, and I wouldn't even if I could because I believe in free speech even when it's vile and uninformed. I would just ask you, though: How much do you know about the Holocaust? What have you read about it? Do you have any Holocaust survivors in your family, or know any? I know that being Jewish is not a guarantee of being in possession of common sense on this subject (i.e., Joe Lieberman, who compared Iran to Nazi Germany), but it does tend to help, and in the absence of personal experience, research and self-education is a good thing. I would really like to know, when you say that Ahmadinejad is like Hitler, whether you truly understand what you're saying.

Just want to let you know that I appreciate your comments and debate tone.

Thank you very much, that sort of feedback is always nice to hear. I just discovered this site and like it very much; it reminds me of the political site that I ran a few years back. There are so many sites populated with ideologues, something I learned wasn't for me when I started my PhD many years ago. I prefer a forum where people of many different views can debate with civility.

I partially agree with you, Kat. Any "all or none" mentality is is dangerous.
However, Iran has been our enemy since the Islamic Revolution and the institution of the Ayahtollas.

The Ayahtollas stated goal is the implementation of a world-wide Islamic State or Caleph. (like Hitler's view of Naziism). And they act (with front-man Amahdenijad) with that purpose. They see us as the biggest hindrence in the realization of that goal.

They are undertaking this task two ways:
Slowly through cultural assimliation is the one that goes "unnoticed". Infiltration of western societies presents an opportunity to change attitudes toward the embrace of Islam in more liberal populations and governments. This is becoming evident to European governments now, and is also happening here in the US, but at a slower pace.
The second, and more blatant way of instituting world-wide Islam, is by the demonization of Israel. This gives them the opportunity to become the martyr in the eyes of other peaceable Muslims. Their championship of Palestine (although galliant) is a front for this purpose.

Again. Hitler used those same tactics. So I do, indeed, understand what I'm saying.

By that logic, JD, the United States is a dangerous enemy. The U.S. wants global dominance and has been far more successful at spreading American culture to far parts of the world. The world is far more at risk of being culturally assimilated by us than the reverse. I know you see that as a benign thing, but the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree -- not in least part because of the death and destruction that accompanies our attempts to achieve global dominance.

Also, all you'd have to do is change the references to Iran or Islam or caliphate to the Soviet Union and Communism for your statements to be identical to the anti-Communist ideology/hysteria that consumed this nation for over 40 years. And there was very little, if any, truth to that, either.

Not to mention the fact that Hitler actually did *not* have any plans or ambitions to "change attitudes" in the rest of the world or spread Nazism world-wide. That's simply not true. That's not what Hitler wanted to do, and it's not what he did. You have no clue what he did -- or at least, if you do, you have not let on by anything you've written here.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have not read even one book about the Holocaust or about Hitler and Nazi Germany. You need to correct that if you're going to make pronouncements about who and what Hitler was and compare current regimes we don't like to the Third Reich.