Anyone else find it a little annoying that we've come to the point where we basically have to pay certain countries to behave? It's like they're extorting us. And how much benefit to do the people of North Korea get from our aid?

How much aid the people get is immaterial; the focus is how much security do we get for the price we pay.

We've been paying other countries to behave in certain ways for decades. How much money did we pay to keep the Shah in power to maintain our political and economic interests viable in that region. That money was used to brutalize and suppress his own people. We bankrolled dictatorships and never worried where our money went as long as the oil kept coming from the Middle East and bananas kept coming from Central America.

We lavishly dropped billions on Mubarak, essentially buying a measure of peace. Can anyone provide an itemization of how the funds were disbursed.

Iran is in a unique position, and presents a threat. If the threat is not real, we don't deal with it. If it is real, we have to evaluate it objectively. But our security isn't free. War is an awful, expensive alternative.

Is it annoying to pay certain countries to behave? You're damn right it is. But it's also annoying to pay for years of war, to pay to rebuild other countries after wars, to pay high energy prices as a result of instability. It's also annoying to see filled body bags coming stateside.

I don't remove war as an option if absolutely necessary and justified, but if every avenue of peace isn't exhausted before we enter into war, we have failed regardless of the outcome.

I was just listening to Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff about the President's AIPAC speech. Madonne! Some people are never satisfied. He is a perfect example of what is radical in people. He's insistent that the US apply sanctions that will paralyze Iran right now. Thank God that the Fox moderator countered some of his statements by quoting the President.

I was just listening to Netanyahu's former Chief of Staff about the President's AIPAC speech. Madonne! Some people are never satisfied. He is a perfect example of what is radical in people. He's insistent that the US apply sanctions that will paralyze Iran right now. Thank God that the Fox moderator countered some of his statements by quoting the President.

"Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. "

"If Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon."

Wait, Obama believes Iran has a nuclear program?

Why don't the Republican candidates just come out and state that upon election to the Presidency they will order US military forces to attack Iran?

Regardless of whether he does or not, the following is part of his AIPAC speech this morning:

" ... when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say."

"That includes all elements of American power.

I thought they have at the debates with their doomsday talk about Iran and nukes if they're not "stopped" or if "we survive"? What Mittens said today and which I posted above, he's been saying that for months.

Whether it'll work or not, notice how the President pre-emptively tied gas prices to flag waving. How Rovian of him.

Among the speakers was Liz Cheney, a former State Department official and daughter of George W. Bush's vice president. There was widespread applause for her attacks on Barack Obama including when she said the president is more interested in "containing Israel" by discouraging it from attacking Iran than blocking Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb. There was also applause when she said there was no president who had done more to "undermine and delegitimise" Israel. There were loud cheers when she predicted that the next Aipac conference will be held under a new US president.

True RR, but why won't they just come out and say it? Well, they know they'd lose votes over it. I guess they're smart enough to know that the last thing Americans want is another military action.

My worry is that once the Likudniks begin to realize Obama may not be defeated by the GOP at home, the current Israeli government would launch a war without warning to create a crisis to humiliate the president, rally end-times evangelicals to vote, send oil prices soaring, and force the US president to coopt a war he does not want and does not yet believe is necessary. If that helps the GOP nominee, so much the better.

Two things...

First, I think your comment that they are "neo-colonialists playing tough guy with people's lives" is based more on emotion than on reality.

Second, I'm not saying war is the answer right now. And I don't think anyone else is. I'm all for seeing if the sanctions, etc. does the job. But it's becoming more and more clear to me that you and some others here would only resort to military action against Iran once they had nuclear weapons AND used them. In other words, nothing short of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or a terrorist detonating a bomb in some U.S. or European city could happen before you'd finally say, "Well, OK, maybe we should deal with this."

Wait, Obama believes Iran has a nuclear program?

My worry is that once the Likudniks begin to realize Obama may not be defeated by the GOP at home, the current Israeli government would launch a war without warning to create a crisis to humiliate the president, rally end-times evangelicals to vote, send oil prices soaring, and force the US president to coopt a war he does not want and does not yet believe is necessary. If that helps the GOP nominee, so much the better.

Obviously they have a nuclear program, since Israel and MEK someone has been assassinating their scientists and sabotaging the program. The question is whether they have a nuclear weapons program, which to date the latest and greatest intelligence says no. And this is why those who want war are talking about stopping their capability to have a nuclear weapon at some time in the future instead of stopping their nuclear weapons program.

The most desirable outcome for all (starting with the Iranian people) would be a regime change. An attack on Iran would probably strengthen the regime by making Iranians instinctively rally behind their government. But that government shows no signs of softening its hard line stance. The opposition sat out the most recent election because they perceived (probably correctly) that the results were a foregone conclusion, and the regime threatened them not to contest the (foregone) results. Plus, the regime does not hesitate to brutally suppress dissent of any kind. So, the "winners" were Khamani and Ahmadinejan, the same two who have no incentive whatsoever to abandon their nuclear ambitions and their dictatorship.

I recall the Iranian protesters back in 2009 wanting some kind of international assistance. The protesters in Syria have been asking for it for a year now. They probably have different ideas on what kind of assistance they want but, if any of these people would rally around the same despots that have their boots on their necks, they deserve the situation they're in. It's why it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the Palestinians, since they voted Hamas into power.

I understand your point, but the Palestinians voted Hamas in cause Hamas were the only ones willing to go up against the Israeli aggression that the people are forced to go through on a daily basis. They were elected out of frustration with the lack of a viable peace solution to the problem.

John McCain Calls For U.S.-Led Airstrikes On Syria

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/john-mccain-syria-airstrike_n_1321700.html?ref=world