What is the most shocking about the Iranian bomb is that it is fully within the power of the American citizenry to prevent it. Unfortunately, we have craven leaders who are unwilling to ask sacrifice of the people, and perhaps an equally craven citizenry unwilling to take the steps.
Here is how.
Iran's entire economy is based on the high-price of oil, just like a number of other problematic regimes around the world. The US needs to phase in a $1.80 gas tax, 10 cents a month, over the next 18 months. The money from the tax will be gathered and distributed equally to all American citizens in a retirement account entirely under their control, independent of the government. This will therefore create a double incentive for people to conserve fuel.
The result of this program is the world price of oil, which functions based on forward looking predictions of supply and demand, will plummet. As a result the Iranian regime, which is currently only barely economically viable, will be unable to maintain its nuclear program. Likewise, authoritarian regimes from Russia to Venezuela will have to look inward since they will no longer have the petrol crutch.
It will never happen and no American politician will even ever propose it. Thus we are left in the unique position in history of a nation supplying the cash to our enemies so that they can pay for bombs and bullets.
MK, Only if you are so ignorant as to believe that the US is in Iraq because of the nefarious Jews instead of the reality, which is about oil, or you refuse to take bin Laden as his word that the reason for 9/11 was the US being in Arabia, or you think its OK to abandon one of America's most stead fast allies in Chamberlin like fashion, or.... oh never mind. MK, if ignorance is bliss you must be wallowing in Nirvana.
Well, HM, that is at the heart of the current idiocy of Greenspan dancing around his support of the gulf war. He thought we should invade, because SH was a threat to the oil supply, but at a price tag now more than trillion dollars, we could have put ourselves well on the way to being in a post-petrol economy.
The vast majority of the money that America spends on the Iraq and Afganistan campaigns goes to supporting our military and private American contractors. A relatively trivial amount is given to either Iraq or Afghanitan as direct foreign aid.
No here is the vile Zionazi country of Israel, pretending to be an advanced, industrialized nation, yet it recieves more foreign aid per capita than any other country in the world. Its kind of like someone on Welfare and Food Stamps acting like Paris Hilton.
You don't have to be so formal, you can just call me Dr. Pierson. Assuming I'm female is as accurate as the rest of your assumptions (which you also pass off as facts, without validating).
My point, which flew right by you, has nothing to do with the amount of foreign aid. It has to do with the fact that the $300 billion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan could be spent on the items you list.
I won't dignify the rest of your comments with a response. JAM has covered them in detail.
Someone from Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda all walk into a children's birthday party and blow themselves up murdering dozens of people including several Americans...
Wait a minute. That's not funny.
Wait a minute. I have another one.
Adam's thinks Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, whose goal is to "liberate" one piece of territory by murdering lots of folks, including Americans, often with attacks far afield from the Middle East are freedom fighters, but Al-Queda, whose goal is "liberate" another piece of territory by murdering lots of folks, including Americans, often with attacks far afield from the Middle East are terrorists.
(Plus Hamas and Hezbollah are freedom fighters, not terrorists like Al-Qaeda).
According to MKA's list of freedom fighters and terrorists.
Which differs markedly from the EU, US, etc which regard all three as terrorist organizations.
Hezbollah was responsible for blowing up the US military barracks in Lebanon, killing almost 300 Marines. Lucky thing they're not terrorists, who knows how many Marines might have died.
"This was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima (2,500 in one day) of World War II and the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the 243 killed on 31st January 1968 - the first day of the Tet offensive in the Vietnam war. The attack remains the deadliest post-World War II attack on Americans overseas. "
Keep calling me "Miss Pierson," it's exactly as accurate as everything else you write.
Firstly Hezbollah has never claimed responsibility for the Marine Barrack bombing, and Western governments only assume that it was Hezbollah with help from Iran. The lack of concrete evidence is why Reagan (at Casper Weinberger's insistence) never took drastic retaliatory action.
Secondly US and French forces were within Lebanese terrority during the bombing. Compare this with Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty which was in international waters.
Thirdly Hezbollah is not presently at war with the United States. Even if Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of 241 Americans, it was in 1983, the freaking past. Kind of like England, a country that has fought two wars with the United States and has killed thousands of Americans. But, just like Hezbollah England (United Kingdom) is not currently at war with America.
Miss Pierson, please do some research before you post your uninformative comments.
"Even if Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of 241 Americans, it was in 1983, the freaking past.
Compare this with Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty which was in international waters."
The Liberty incident occurred in 1967. 1967 is 16 freaking years earlier than 1983.
Israeli forces called off the attack when it was realized that they had made a mistake and offered to assist rescue operations. Hezbollah did not. Israel admitted it made a mistake. Hezbollah did not. Israel apologized and paid reparations. Hezbollah did not. Israelis don't chant "Death to America" at staged rallies. Hezbollah and its supporters do. Israel, like England (United Kingdom), is an ally of the United States. Hezbollah is not.
In debating terms mk adams, you offered a gift. How could one refuse. However your post is a red herring. If you have nothing to add to the topic at hand please refrain from offering your little escapades in non-logic.
Nuclear proliferation is a serious problem. I am continually amazed at how we as a species have so far avoided catastrophe. Now Putin has drawn a line in the sand with his Caspian Sea treaty. I had hoped we could have convinced Russia and China to put pressure on Iran to step away from their nuclear intentions. From the viewpoint of geopolitical stability solar power makes much more sense in Iran's climate and technological infrastructure. Iran is more interested in regional power/prestige and feels that it gets that from military development of long range missiles, nuclear weapons and a power challenge to the US and Israel.
"Hezbollah is a Shiite Islamic organization in Lebanon. Scholars differ as to when Hezbollah came to be a distinct entity. Some organizations list the official formation of the group as early as 1982  whereas Diaz and Newman maintain that Hezbollah remained an amalgamation of various violent Shi'a extremists until as late as 1985 . Another version states that it was formed by supporters of Sheikh Ragheb Harb, a leader of the southern Shiite resistance killed by Israel in 1984. REGARDLESS OF WHEN THE NAME CAME INTO OFFICIAL USE, A NUMBER OF SHIA GROUPS WERE SLOWLY ASSIMILATED INTO THE ORGANIZATION, SUCH AS ISLAMIC JIHAD, ORGANIZATION OF THE OPPRESSED ON EARTH AND THE REVOLUTIONARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION. These designations are considered to be synonymous with Hezbollah by the US, Israel and Canada."
another link making the same point:
The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident on October 23, 1983, during the Lebanese Civil War. Two truck bombs struck buildings in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, killing hundreds of servicemen, the majority being U.S. Marines. The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. "Islamic Jihad" took responsibility for the bombing BUT THAT ORGANIZATION IS THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN A NOM DE GUERRE FOR HEZBOLLAH receiving help from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The reason Reagan did not take action is not because he (or Weinberger) doubted Hezbollah's involvement. They did not take action solely because
"President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly BECAUSE OF HIS CONCERNS THAT IT WOULD HARM U.S. RELATIONS WITH OTHER ARAB NATIONS."
You might ALSO want to read up on Imad Mugniyah
whom the EU lists as "Senior Intelligence Officer of Hezbollah," and the mastermind behind the attack on the Marine Barracks.
He also has close ties to Al-Qaeda. So do you love him or hate him? Is he a terrorist or freedom fighter?
Imad Mugniyah is the current military commander of the terrorist group Hezbollah, overseeing an international organization which some American officials have dubbed "the A-team of terrorism." Far less well known than his compatriot and sometimes-partner Osama Bin Laden, Mugniyah is arguably more dangerous. Before the 9-11 attacks, Mugniyah was the prime focus of American anti-terror efforts, not Bin Laden.
So Hezbollah are still freedom fighters, not terrorists? And what about the ties to Al-Qaeda through Imad Mugniyah and others?
MKA says: "Hey better yet, maybe all Arabs and Persians should be forced to dispose of all technology; hey it will make Israel more secure if Arabs were riding around on camels and living in tents. "
Right! This is exactly what will happen after WWIII is over and 100,000,000 people are dead. This is the only solution to the Jihad Expansionism problem: keep'em under! Any society that will denounce Jihad ideology of slavery and conquest, help them grow, invite them into a family of enlightened nations. All the others, - just bomb every idustrial installation of theirs as soon as it is built. Let the Jihadist societies sustain themselves as they did in their glorious past of which they are so proud, the past of oppression, domination and mass murder. Except of course of their beloved "ghazzawat", the pillaging raids. That they won't be able to do so easily any more.
In other words, take the sword from them, they've proved beyond any doubt they will only use it for murder, enslavement and plunder.
<<The $300 billion a year we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant.>>
It's 300 billion we could invest in something that was... I don't know... actually worthwhile to the American people ? We might as well take that money and burn it to heat houses and at least we would be getting something more out of it then we are now squandering it in Iraq. I know you neo-cons think the US has some endless supply of money and that the 5,000 dollars a SECOND is no big deal (even though we are borrowing it from foreign countries like China!) but it actually is.
>>Hezbollah was responsible for blowing up the US military barracks in Lebanon, killing almost 300 Marines.>>
Blowing up a military target ISN'T terrorism*. If we simply listened to the advice of the founding fathers of this nation and minded our own business rather than trying to police the world we wouldn't have had troops there and none of them would be dead. The Lebanese people had every right to expel the foreign troops by force. I don't like seeing Marines die but I don't like seeing tyranny either so I can't blame them for that.
* Were the American revolutionaries who killed British soldiers "terrorists" ?
Simurgh - A mythical Iranian bird -omnipotent on condition that it do nothing. ... Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
The last thing Israel needs to do is open its kimono to Iranian intelligence. In all likelihood if Israel has any workable nuclear deterrent it is far less impressive than its enemies imagine due to its age.
Nuclear proliferation is a worse idea for an unstable regime such as Iran, and both the Saudis and the Egyptians have indicated that they would follow suit if the Iranians go ahead with their nuclear ambitions.
Well I have a great solution to the Israeli problem. Let's give the Palestinians their land back, rebuild their bulldozed homes, replant their olive groves, and restore some peace in the area. As for the Israelis, lets just move them to the US, since our government loves them so much. Now that is a win win situation I believe. At the same time we dilute the Mormon vote in Utah and correct an old mistake that has helped destabilize the middle east. And what the hell, while we are at we could apologize to Iran for destabilizing their government and the ousting of their Prime Minister (notice not Ayatollah or Shah) Mosadegh in the 1950s, and start some serious dialogue to correct the situation as it currently is, instead of all this rhetoric.
Ahem. The only problem I foresee with this plan is all the Israel loving bible thumpers complaining they are surrounded by all these jews. A little to close for comfort I would presume. :) Oh, that and, Israel would never comply. But oh well. Wishful thinking.
Better idea Rafifar - get the Arab States who convinced their fellow Arabs to leave so that the Jews could be exterminated make restitution and grant the Palestinians citizenship instead of keeping them in camps. Its only fair. (And while they are at it they should compensate the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands.)
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades" - General Azzam Pasha, head of the Arab League Forces, May 15, 1948
"I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" - Haj Amin Al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. 1948.