It's not what Iran knows that will cause WWIII, it's what Bush doesn't know.

I'd actually feel safer in a world where Iran had nukes and the US didn't.

The US actually used them. Twice. 'nuff said.

I guess it's impossible to fight this tide of misinformation, since I seem to be the only person in the world who cares enough to read the NIE document, rather than keep repeating the incomplete information the media is Xeroxing over and over and over.

The NIE states clearly that while Iran appears to have stopped active construction of a bomb in 2003, they have been and still are pursuing the components and technology for just such a bomb.

It also states that the reason that Iran stopped actively trying to build a bomb in 2003 is probably because of a more aggressive world stance against them.

Hey, but who needs truth - we've got cartoons to write. Hilarious. A voting electorate defined by one-panel cartoons.

"The US actually used them. Twice. 'nuff said."

Certainly not 'nuff read? You should read more, perhaps discover why we used those bombs. You know, to stop a nation that was hell-bent on a suicide campaign to avoid ever having to surrender after attempting to take over the world as part of an Axis union. An Axis union which, in addition to its many other heinous actions, was also trying to build the very same weapon.

Gee, if only I could write a one-panel cartoon about that.

Calligraph, I appreciate your taking the time and your willingness to read the whole NIE report. But doing so doesn't mean that you're the only one with a considered opinion here. I wouldn't dismiss Iran's danger, but the truth is different than we had been led to believe it was, the misinformation similar to what we were fed about Iraq. No question that we need to continue putting pressure on that nut job, but the other valid point is that our nut job has been spoiling for a war with Iran under either false or misinformed pretenses.

As for the US use of nukes and whether or not that was justified . . . your summation of your view on that argument is, since it comes without qualifier, the equivalent of a cartoon. Many books have been written about that decision from both sides of the conflict. Even if all the points are granted to the side that claims our use of the bombs was justified, it does not change the fact that dropping those bombs was a horrific attack on civilian targets (and I know civilians were as ready to fight an invader as those in uniform). I choose to believe that that conflict could have been handled better. The ghastliness of war consists, in part, of the fact that such regrettable actions seem warranted, even inescapable, at the time, and come to be justified by some as if the act were anything but regrettable. I'm not a Pollyanna. But I think we need to acknowledge the complexity of such acts, whether we think that they were justified or not.

So far as the current situation is concerned, I'm glad this report came out before Bush did another rash thing, and that it puts the emphasis on diplomacy rather than a military solution, at least for the moment.

Gee, if only I could write a one-panel cartoon about that.

How can you be so clever, and yet... so dumb?

BushCo: "Iran is eeevil. We should bomb them."

Smart People: "The situation is nothing like that, if anything it is much more complex. Bush is wrong. Bombing another country because we feel skittish is a bad idea."

Callgirl: "The situation is nothing like that, if anything it is much more complex. Bush is right. Bombing another country because we feel skittish is a great idea."

It's very "1984" when people invoke information indicating to the contrary of their worldview in order to justify it.

It's not even like the Bomb Iran thing strongly polarizes against the Democrats either; they think bombing countries as Solution #1 is a sexy idea too. It makes their tiny, tiny balls feel bigger (Hillary included).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7127404.stm

A nice step towards 'nuff read. There's a ton of articles there in addition to this on the NIE report and how people are responding to it/what it means/what it says. That last one is pretty big.

And please, come on. These metaphors are just gonna piss people off:

People who are correct: I agree with the poster!

People who disagree with the poster and bone pencil sharpeners: Dur...

Calligraph, I appreciate your taking the time and your willingness to read the whole NIE report. But doing so doesn't mean that you're the only one with a considered opinion here.

I'm more than willing to listen to other opinions; my response was to the cartoon specifically, and to the reaction in general to one widely misrepresented statement from the report.

I wouldn't dismiss Iran's danger, but the truth is different than we had been led to believe it was, the misinformation similar to what we were fed about Iraq

The truth was certainly overstated, much like Iraq, but the response to overstating a false assertion of guilt is not to overstate innocence. Iran is not innocent, and the very same report repeatedly states that fact over and over and over.

As for the US use of nukes and whether or not that was justified . . . your summation of your view on that argument is, since it comes without qualifier, the equivalent of a cartoon

While I do apologize for not writing an entire treatise on the state of affairs that led up to the deployment of nuclear weapons in WWII, my admonishment to the poster was to 'read more about it'. I am encouraging him to learn more about the issue, rather than dismiss it as "the US used nukes, 'nuff said".

So far as the current situation is concerned, I'm glad this report came out before Bush did another rash thing

Certainly I am as well, but I also think Bush's ability to do a 'rash thing' is horribly overstated. Similar intelligence estimates state with virtual certainty that Bush's ability to do pretty much anything ended around 2004.

In the real world, people aren't likely to negotiate with you if they don't feel they have anything to gain, or if they feel there will be no retribution for not doing so. Certainly the world as a whole has demonstrated that they don't really care if any nation violates UN mandates. The US has pretty clearly illustrated that it does. Which is why we are the chief saber-rattler.

I'd actually feel safer in a world where Iran had nukes and the US didn't.

That's not funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/06/culture-of-lie-ii-loathsome-lies-in.html

http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2007/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-end-war-myth.html

Why Did Truman and Stimson Drop The Bomb?

http://www.ccmep.org/2004articles/general/080404counterpunch.htm

'oh shut up': This is not news to me. I am well aware that the necessity of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings was contrived at best. I am also aware that "we" are not really the "good guys". There never were any good guys... just victims.

To further my "not funny" comment: We should only feel safer if neither the US or Iran had nukes. I do not believe it overly cynical, however, to believe that this is an unlikely eventuality.

Lastly, the US is arguably slightly less insane than Iran. At the very least, I can hope this statement becomes true at the end of 2008. Whereas Iran...

The NIE - Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

I recommend everyone read it from start to finish, including the introduction, so as to understand the background and language of the NIE.

Discuss

On an aside, the fact that any citizen anywhere can access documents like that at the click of a button... shows me a faint glimmer of hope.

Given what corporate interests want to do to the Internet, though, that glimmer is faint indeed. But I digress.

I'm just comparing resumes if 'safety and human preservation' were up for hire, that's all. Iran is the better of the these two evils.

Iran has not enticed any wars since the days of the Persian empire. The US within the last century? Too many.

I just don't see Iran in the same darkness as the rest of middle east regardless of their addiction to Islam.

I partially agree with iop, "I'd actually feel safer in a world where Iran had nukes and the US didn't."

At the very least, Iran should have nukes in this non-nukefree world. The U.S. has consistently violated the NNPT article 6 where it is supposed to work for total nuclear disarmament. Until that happens, a balance of power is necessary.

One cannot talk about Iran's potential nukes unless one includes Israel's real existing nukes.

If our President were truly concerned about the nefarious powers in the Middle East he would be moving America towards alternative energies. Instead, he has seen to it that oil prices have skyrocketed and the dollar has fallen 50% against the euro. The only good news out of this administration is that it only has one year left. How much more damage can they inflict on America in that time?

At the very least, Iran should have nukes in this non-nukefree world. The U.S. has consistently violated the NNPT article 6...

So in order to honor the NNPT, you're recommending more nukes?

On the other hand, I can't really bring myself to believe the world will be that much more doomed simply due to one more nutty leader getting his hands on the Really Big Fireworks.

However, the problem is, when Iran waves their shiny new missiles around, everyone else will grope their Big Red Buttons too, and we get yet another nuclear circle-jerk... another convention of "global leaders" rubbing each other's throbbing atomic erections to near-climax while their impotent subjects cower in fear, waiting for the explosion... the thick, hot "fallout"...

Frenetic, sometime a penis is just a penis, but the Bomb is The Bomb.

"Certainly the world as a whole has demonstrated that they don't really care if any nation violates UN mandates. The US has pretty clearly illustrated that it does."

Uhhhh, I just caught this statement. Since when does this administration respect anything the UN says? The US has clearly illustrated that it likes to US UN mandates when they serve their purposes, and only then.

The NIE concerning Iran is certainly good news, not only for it says - which Calligraph has, for once, fairly accurately summarized - but also that it was released at all. The great news is that Cheney and his lunatic faction have lost some control since the 2005 NIE was released. Most likely, we can thank the reality-based conservative, Bob Gates, and enjoy one big dividend of the 2006 election: the departure of Rumsfeld. Whatever faults Gates has and whatever skeletons are hanging in his closet - he's a damn sight better than Rumsfeld. He's also smarter - you won't find him or his staff bragging about this - rubbing Cheney's face in it gains him nothing.

...not only for what it says...

(sheesh...)

which Calligraph has, for once, fairly accurately summarized

He has?

"The NIE states clearly that while Iran appears to have stopped active construction of a bomb in 2003, they have been and still are pursuing the components and technology for just such a bomb."

This could just be a poorly worded sentence, but Callgirl almost says "they aren't building a nuclear bomb... this means, they are building a nuclear bomb".

It is more correct to say Iran is developing civilian nuclear technology, but not nuclear bombs; note that several countries have civilian nuclear reactors and no nukes (Canada, for one). Furthermore, Iran has every appearance of having stopped pursuing nukes since 2003; in other words, they haven't been a serious threat, and won't be for a number of years.

But what I think Callgirl means (correct me if I am wrong) is that he agrees with the current aggressive stance against Iran. In other words, in light of this new information, we should "stay the course".

Frenetic, I assumed that Calligraph was referring to the development of fissile materials via uranium enrichment:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran7dec07,1,6656317.story?coll=la-headlines-world&track=crosspromo

Euro leaders back Bush on Iran

German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Nicolas Sarkozy have backed US president George Bush's claim that Iran remains a threat.

At a joint press conference in Paris the pair said Tehran's alleged nuclear weapons development programme was a risk to global security, despite an intelligence report suggesting otherwise.

"Everyone is aware of the fact that the Iranian leadership wants a military nuclear program," Mr Sarkozy said yesterday.

"Notwithstanding the latest elements, everyone is fully conscious of the fact that there is a will among the Iranian leaders to obtain nuclear weapons."

Ms Merkel echoed his comments, saying "Iran continues to pose a danger" and urging further dialogue with Tehran on the issue.

But what I think Callgirl means (correct me if I am wrong) is that he agrees with the current aggressive stance against Iran. In other words, in light of this new information, we should "stay the course".

Well, I'll let him speak for himself. As for myself, I would think a tough negotiating stance is called for. That said, let's be realistic: Norman Podheretz's Hitlerization of the Iranians is ridiculous - there isn't any reason to assume that the Iranians are any more implacable than, say, Mao Tse-Tung or Joseph Stalin and the west dealt with them without starting a war. Furthermore, Iran (and the rest of the Muslim world are not nearly as powerful as either Soviet Russia or China. In the worst case, Iran gets the bomb – and that isn't good - but for any time the in forseeable future the US can totally deter any Iranian nuclear threat with its own. For that matter, Israel can do the same - Israel can basically devastate any adversary in the Muslim world in response to a nuclear attack.

Neoconservative hysterics about Iranians' irrationality are not supported by historical fact - even at their worst, they haven't behaved worse than many other nutjob nation states.

We don't want them to get nuclear weapons, but we don't have to get insane about a country with one quarter of our population, one-twentieth of our GDP (PPP), and with plenty nuclear-armed neighbors to worry about.