Tehran did not accelerate its nuclear efforts until they saw how we whacked Iraq but spared Kim Jong of North Korea. We included them in the axis of evil, after they had helped us intercept jihadists fleeing Afgahnistan. It looked we were spoiling for a fight, itching to "kick posterior". In their mind, the difference was simple: Pyongyang had nuclear power, Sadam did not. We picked on the weak. Then they figured, may be if they armed up, we'll let them be. Despicable as the regime is, remember this. Iran has never attacked anyone in its history.

Yes we need to let Tehran know it cannot and will not acquire the "bomb". In exchange, Tehran needs to know it is not going to be attacked again by any of our proxies in the region as Sadam did in the 80s.

despicable than others in the region that we support or have supported? Iraq's, until we stopped supporting it; Pakistan's, under Musharraf; Egypt's; Saudi Arabia's?

Long live the Empire!

Pyongyang had nuclear power, Sadam did not.

that is horsehit and you know it. saddam had a nasty habit of invading his neighbors if you hadn't noticed ya friggen moron. n korea hasn't in 60 years.

you have a psychological disorder called confabulation. look it up.

If invading your neighbors is a crime, what do we call invading nations on the other side of the world?

If invading your neighbors is a crime, what do we call invading nations on the other side of the world?

depends on if the UN sanctions it or not. ooops. the UN gave the go ahead because general powell convinced them. jesus h christ do you have memory problems?

No doubt Iran has a rational self defense interest in obtaining nukes.

But this is just plain wrong: "Iran has never attacked anyone in its history."

Oh yes they have. Hezbollah is a virtual division of the Revolutionary Guard, trained, funded, weaponized, abetted, protected, encouraged and directed by Tehran. Hezbollah is to Tehran what the Contras were to Reagan's White House. Hamas too is almost as closely linked to Tehran as Hezbollah.

These groups - although they buy the goodwill of the local populations - are fundamentally terror organizations devoted to the annihilation of Israel. Why? What about the existence of Israel does Iran hate so much to devote so much of its energy to attempting to destroy it? Why does it allow itself to be at odds with so much of the world by demanding that Israel be "wiped off the map" and all that? What did Israel ever do to Iran?

My point is that although indeed their nuclear arms would be used to protect themselves, they are an aggressive power. They would also likely use nukes a shield behind which to hide as they send out their terror armies with impunity.

Iran is not just an object being buffeted by forces. It too has its own agendas like any other country and we should not do their PR work by claiming they are simply peace-loving victims.

To say Iran never attacked anyone is stupidity of the worst sort.

Hezbollah IS Iran- besides attacking Israel from Lebanon, they have engineered scores of terrorists attacks all over the planet, including bombings of Jewish community centers in Latin America that murdered dozens of children.

Iran has used the military and intelligence intelligence wings of its government to interfere with government and the conflicts in other nations.

That is reprehensible! Any nation that does that should have all nuclear capabilities taken away!

(oops I better shut up. Some of my home electricity comes from nuclear power plants)

Everyone,

Bsharp believes he is taking a brave stand against Hypocrisy in all its forms, by, in response to an objective statement that Iran has used its military intelligence services and proxy armies agressively, to point out that the United States has done so also.

You see, in Bsharp's world, for someone to point out misdeeds of one nation requires us to assume the speaker believes his nation is perfect. Because it is apparently impossible to criticize someone else and be aware of one's own imperfections at the same time.

Hope that helps.

*EarlyBird is available every Friday for Bsharp translations.*

Okay Early Bird, speak about the mistakes of your own nation. I dare ya.

But no, you'd rather point out the same mistakes in other nations and use them as a justfication for war. How you can scream bloody murder about others doing something when you are doing the same exact thing is beyond me. What are you a Televangelist or Eliot Spitzer or something?

As if I have ever displayed an inability for self-reflection and national self-criticism. As if a person can not criticize something outside himself without being conscious of his own imperfections. But here goes:

I believe the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is a disgrace. I think Abu Graib and Bush's torture regime is a permanent stain on our honor and deeply wrong and shameful. The treatment of the American Indian was genocide. I could go on about America's sins.

At the same time, I also believe that Al Queda is an evil organization and a threat, and I want the US to destroy them not because America is even close to perfect, but because it is profoundly better than Al Queda, and because well, I don't want my city poisoned for decades by a jihadists' dirty bomb.

So there you go.

Now I dare you now, Bsharp, to actually set out a position that you really believe in and open it to reasoned crticism and challenge. And really debate it, without automatically taking the lazy and cowardly road of writing off the challenger as some kind of "'Murca Right er Wrong!", trailer park Neanderthal, knuckle-dragging, dimwit.

Come on. Give us something to respect.

should have all nuclear capabilities taken away!" Hasn't the US been doing "that" for years?

Long live the Empire!

Irving, it is very disingenuous of you to pretend the UN sanctions mean anything to you. You don't cite the UN on Isreal, do you? You are usually much more honest than that.

Actually, Iran or Persia did carry out some attacks a couple of millenia ago, but supporting Hezbollah is hardly equivalent to Iran attacking someone. Of course, if you also say that by arming Iran, Reagan attacked Iraq, and by arming Iraq and assisting with Saddam's poison gas attacks he attacked Iran, then yes, you can make that argument. But the larger point that was being made was that Iran is and has been a notably non-aggressive nation. We have missed so many opportunities to create mutually beneficial ties with Iran that it is sometimes difficult to tell who is more at fault. Certainly Khamenei is a terrible ruler, but worse than the Shah? And we are the ones who toppled a democracy to install him. And while Iran has supported some bad guys, it is important to try to see their point of view. The creation of Israel was a morally suspect bit of aggression by western powers. While it is too late to change that and Israel certainly should have its security, it is simplistic not to recognize the imperialism and the racism that were the basis of its creation. The brutality against the Palistinians, even when stupidly provoked by Hamas and others, is horrendous - more innocent Palestinians are slaughtered by Israel than the reverse, by orders of magnitude. Jews suffered horrifically and there is no excuse for continuing attacks against Israeli civilians; but there is no excuse either for ignoring the continuing atrocities against Palestinian civilians. Until both sides can honestly see the other's points of view, atrocities will continue. We must hope that leaders like Obama and Richard Lugar will be able to reach understanding with Muslims like AbdulKarim Soroush and others and finally end the violence.

I think you are mixing up countries. Saddam was the ruler of Iraq, not Iran. Tehran is the capital of Iran, not Iraq. The original commenter was quite correct. Iran has been, for at least 2000 years, a non-aggressive power. Also, I suggest a more respectful tone. Anger combined with factual error can make one look silly.