We need war to destruct us from all this financial problems
Let unite against a common enemy lets work towards liberation of Iran
Let buy war bonds

Contrapoint - the candidates - some comments on Western Forces preparing or considering attacking Iran:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-chafee/iran-policy-foolhardy-and_b_103796.html
Lincoln Chaffe-

"Are we going to attack Iran?"

The question comes up frequently whenever I appear before a group these days, to talk about current events, or my book, Against The Tide. Concern about the Bush/Cheney people launching a third war in the Greater Middle East can only be heightened now that the International Atomic Energy Agency has said Iran's nuclear program may be aimed less at energy generation and more at military use.

Last September, the Senate asked the White House to declare the Iranian armed forces a "terrorist" organization. The vote was 76 to 22, much like the 77-to-23 vote that authorized the war in Iraq.

Senator Clinton, of course, voted to put the terrorist label on Iran. (Eight months ago the New York Times said it was evidence that the inevitable Democratic nominee "has already shifted from primary mode... to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right."

his opinion:

If the will of the voters has been frustrated, that's bad enough. Does Washington now need to compound it by attacking Iran?

It would be a terrible mistake for politicians of both parties to point to the IAEA report and declare that an international body has confirmed our worst fears and the Persian Gulf is ripe for another military "solution."

how about Presidential candidate Obama?

Barack Obama on Iran

Just two months ago in May 2008, Obama said “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny, they don’t pose a serious threat to us.” That position caused an international firestorm among our allies in Europe and contributed to Obama’s reputation as naive on foreign policy.

Fast forward to July 23 2008. In a flip-flop Obama said that Iran poses a grave threat to world peace and United States security.

“A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I will take no options off the table” in dealing with Iran.

Despite adopting the Bush policy, Obama’s website still reads “When I am this party’s nominee, my opponent will not be able to say … that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.”

How about  VP Candidate Sarah Palin on ABC news September 12, 2008 ?

In an interview with Charles Gibson for ABC News, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin outlined her stance on Iran. Palin said that nuclear weapons under the control of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be "extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe." She also asserted the U.S. should pursue sanctions against Iran and cannot back-off. If Israel were to strike Iran militarily, Palin believes the U.S. should not second-guess Israel. Below are the excerpts on Iran from the interview transcript.

Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who's right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we're talking about Israel, we're talking about Ahmadinejad's comment about Israel being the "stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth," that's atrocious. That's unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

comment:  interesting. Palin has talons.

Medclinician

Iran gives full powers to hard-line Guards in Gulf

September 16, 2008

Iranian and U.S. boats had a series of confrontations in the narrow Gulf last winter. At the time, high-ranking U.S. naval officials said they had long coordinated ship movements easily with Iran's navy in the Gulf, but had found Revolutionary Guards-manned boats to be more confrontational.

China urges Iran's cooperation with nuclear agency

Tuesday, 16 September 2008

China urges Iran's cooperation with nuclear agency" BEIJING (Reuters) - China urged Iran on Tuesday to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog but distanced itself from calls for sanctions following a report that said Tehran was stalling scrutiny of its nuclear activities. After the report from the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Monday, London and Washington swiftly raised the prospect of fresh sanctions to press Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and cooperate more with inspectors looking into claims Tehran is developing means to build nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the claims, blamed the IAEA for the impasse and said its nuclear program is for peaceful energy. "We hope that Iran and the IAEA continue cooperating to resolve the unsettled issues as early as possible," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu told a news conference. "Tensions are not the way to solve these problems." As a big oil customer of Iran and veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, China has become a focus of diplomatic efforts to overcome the long-running standoff. China has backed past Security Council resolutions imposing limited sanctions on Iran, but Beijing has been reluctant to consider steps that would threaten energy and economic ties with Tehran. Iran is China's third biggest supplier of imported crude oil, well behind Saudi Arabia and Angola. (Reporting by Chris Buckley; Editing by Nick Macfie and David Fox)

US: Iran courting new sanctions with IAEA stalemate

Monday, 15 September 2008

White House warned Iran Monday that it faced possible new sanctions after the UN atomic watchdog reported it had been unable to make much progress in investigating Tehran's suspect nuclear program.

 

Just a note here: It appears that it is a possibility that for political reasons there may be a multi-national attack upon Iran. Russian's recent cryptic statements appear more posturing than seriously threatening. Russia may not intervene if several countries unite in stopping Iran's nuclear weapon development.

The classic theme here is that the Bush administrations have always fared well, at least initially with the clash of war in the Middle East where after years of allegedly being stalked by these secret highly organized terrorists, we finally stuck it to them, and the public could have the rush of adrenaline as we bombed and invaded another country.

It was said that Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar armies  faltered as they took over world because the countries thrived on the pulse beat of war, of spoil, of making and selling weapons, as effective or useful as the Pharaohs who enslaved the masses building pyramids and huge effigies to themselves. These served no useful purpose, as war is self serving and creating jobs and prosperity by creating weapons to kill each other with.  We can live without war and conflict to fuel our economies. We must use intelligence and resourcefulness as other competing nations have and do. And most of all someone must touch the third rail of social security, dying economy, abortion, stem cells, and finally someone must allow doctors and scientists to develop cures for diseases and release them which have existed for decades instead of feeding the drug and medical industry which has a choke hold on the American public. Such a hold that no elected leader at the highest levels dares to challenge or instigate social and economic change without being buried by mud slinging, who had sex with who in the oval office, or what scandal can be dug up, or any means possible to strip us of our most talented and brilliant leaders.

What are we offered on our plate now to lead our country in the midst of the most crucial period where economics is a thousand times more important than terrorists. Where the savage beating of a country war weary and economically exhausted wants real issues addressed and real problems solved. Just as Martin Luther King stood and said "I have a dream", so now we are driven not by hope and pride in our country. We march to the beat of fear and depression. We once were the most medically advanced nation, now 1/3 of us are in chronic pain. The research for life extension is almost non existent . There is no real desire for us to live longer.

So, once again, we may see a war started so that the 'warlike' politicians can bean beat the "weak and inexperienced" who talk of peace and moderation. Would they start a war just to win an election? Do the oil companies raise the gas prices in summer when everyone is on the road on vacation because oil costs more to produce? No, when you look at the gas pump and it reads in the stratosphere, and you cannot figure out how you will afford to get to work, and have to put aside that drive across several states to see your relatives. They do it not because it is right or really serves any purpose at all.

Would thousands of people have to die so that the U.S. and Britain could beat the drums of war and thus ensure their election. They do it because they can.

This thread will not last forever. And that is because not too long off at 3 a.m. as I read the engines and tapes I will see it - and post it. The Western forces have attacked Iran.

Medclinician 

Jerusalem Post - Current

Rather than pushing Iran into a corner, Russia's position, Stegniy said, was designed to keep Iran at the negotiating table, and to keep the Intentional Atomic Energy Agency inside Iran.

Stegniy, who said Russia disputed Israel's estimate that Iran could go nuclear as early as the end of next year, said he believed the situation in Iran "is still under control, and will get out of control when the IAEA leaves the country."

According to the Russian ambassador, the world's media is using Russia and China as "scapegoats" with regards to Iran.

"We will do our utmost to keep Ahmadinejad from having a nuclear weapon. It is the consensus aim. We may differ on the means, but we are united on strategy."

Stegniy, who took over as ambassador in the fall, also addressed another issue of contention with Israel: Russia's contacts with Hamas.

The rationale behind this contact, which he said was only with Hamas's political wing, was to try and contain the organization, he maintained.

Stegniy said that while Moscow appreciated Israel's position of not talking with Hamas, Russia viewed it as part of its "regional responsibility" to speak to rogue states and organizations in an effort to contain them.

Again drawing on his experience in Libya, Stegniy drew a parallel between talking to Hamas now, and talking to Gaddafi then.

"I took relaxation medicines before I met Gaddafi," he said.

"We don't enjoy it, but see it as part of our responsibility. Someone has to speak to rogue states, that is why we are speaking to Hamas."