I watched Charles Gibson tell us tonight that Iran was our nemesis. Iran is not my nemesis nor is it most Amercans' perceptions that Iran is our nemesis. So, the question is, why does ABC News choose to portray Iran in this manner? More strongly, why do they choose to portray Iran, Iraq and Syria as up to no good since they are choosing to meet in an attempt to improve the situation in Iraq? For decades Israel has identified these three countries as their enemies, most recently in the white paper, A Clean Break. Why do Charles Gibson's bosses at ABC News choose to beat the war drums? Why do they want the American people to think we must go to war with Iran? I really want to know.

Iran is our nemesis, like it or not. The reason is that the word Nemesis means "One who is hostile to or opposes the purposes or interests of another". Iran proves they are hostile, or opposes, the US by their involvement in Iraq and other things they have said or done.

beating war drums? C'mon.

I have partly addressed this issue on another post: here read this: http://forums.go.com/abcnews/International/thread?threadID=482427 And again here: http://forums.go.com/abcnews/International/thread?threadID=479643&byThread=false ...and do you research next time before making unfounded accusations against ABC I will address this again latter.

Further gitanacv or is it GI,Vacant (GeneralIndustrial (GI))? I assume this...according to your handle...real estate speculator huh? Well anyway, I would like to point out that Iran is not only our nemesis, but that of the entire free world. When it comes to terror, and terror's sponsor, Iran is at the top of the list. When it comes to threats against the U.S., we take it serious. Here look: VIENNA, Austria Mar 8, 2006 (AP)? Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program. "The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," Iran said a statement meant for delivery at the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board meeting in Vienna on Iran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll." http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1699387 Now, there is so much more going on here...I do not have enough time to write everything down (do your own research. I'll help, Google: "Iran threatens America" I ask the questions...Do we take these or any threats serious, or ignore it? What action if any should we take? Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a divine mission read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html Considering his aggressive radicalism in context with the potential convergence of nuclear opportunity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be the most dangerous foreign leader we have faced. He must be seen and analyzed as more than just ?potentially? irrational, as his religious beliefs must be clearly and thoroughly understood. His openly stated desires to ?wipe Israel off the map? and ?pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam? open the possibility that, with the power of nuclear weaponry at hand, he could unthinkably forsake the well-being of his own nation. In order to serve a ?greater purpose?, he may be capable of creating a situation so cataclysmic that it would usher in the 12th Imam, thereby, potentially in his mind, saving the world and restoring Islam." http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/understanding-ahmadinejad/ Nemesis?...oh yeah!

How many times are you gonna regurgitate "wipe off the map" and "12th Imam"? Is that all the evidence necessary to build up a case against Iran? Once again, the only thing Iran has done is flap their lip. Words are cheap. Until you have something more concrete, I can't see why people should support this absurdity that Iran is a nemesis. Many people argue that Iraq was a mistake, but blabber about how the job needs to get done. Well how about we don't make a mistake with Iran this time.

How many times are you going to bleather on about how Iraq was a mistake. Many people think it was not a mistake, even some who thinks mistakes happened or certain things were done wrong don't always agree that iraq was a mistake. Maybe you ought to talk about how we don't make the mistake with Iran of allowing them to get into the position of having a nuclear weapon so that we don't have to figure out ways to destroy what we allowed them to have. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Your ounce of prevention, crosses the line of sovereignty. One which applies to Argentina but not Iran. And you wonder why some foreign leaders have harsh words to say about the U.S. If Iran does acquire a nuclear weapon, what would prevent the U.S. from acting then? How is that too late? Or do you believe that the second they possess one they will know exactly what to do with it? Or do you believe they will use it as a means to threaten foreign allies of Israel when they "wipe it off the map"? Or do you think they will use it to "wipe Israel"? Iran will have the globe to answer to if it commits such a stupid act. Iran is not stupid. How about something more concrete before jumping the gun? With Iraq it was some bullshit about WMDs that mysteriously dissappeared. And now Iran is evil because they pursue Nuclear power, which might, could, maybe, presumably, allegedly, remotely mean nuclear weapons? Stop and analyze. We were fed this spponful before, and it worked. Why? Because fear is a powerful tool to convince the masses that action should be taken. Masses who want to feel safe and live in some sort of ridiculous utopia where man won't hurt man. The technology exists and the spread of it is inevitable. Nobel was heartbroken having learned his legacy was creating a devastating weapon and not a powerful tool.

The technology exists and the spread of it is inevitable. Nobel was heartbroken having learned his legacy was creating a devastating weapon and not a powerful tool. =========================== Just becuase a technology exists, doesn't mean everyone should have it Zero! Perhaps some day the threat and use of nuclear bombs will be obsolete?but until that day comes, we must give due diligence to defense against such threats. Sometimes defense takes on a more proactive roll?some call it ?aggressive militarism? while others call it ?a strong offence is the best defense?. There are more deadly weapons than Nukes being developed?I wish it were not so. Madness!! If I told you that there is enough energy in a single glass of water to boil all the oceans of the world several times over, would you believe me? Let?s hope the world gets its act together and soon? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/anti_hydrogen_020918.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon

The U.S. Air Force is quietly spending millions of dollars investigating ways to use a radical power source ... ...It almost defies belief, the amount of explosive force available in a speck of antimatter -- even a speck that is too small to see. For example: One millionth of a gram of positrons contain as much energy as 37.8 kilograms (83 pounds) of TNT, according to Edwards' March speech. A simple calculation, then, shows that about 50-millionths of a gram could generate a blast equal to the explosion (roughly 4,000 pounds of TNT, according to the FBI) at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. NOT exactly public knowledge... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

one more link on it http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/antimatter_spaceship.html

When it comes to non-proliferation there is no such thing as "Jumping the Gun". Your comments make me wonder if you give children matches to play with because.. after all.. they want them. Interesting viewpoint, it lack wisdom and intelligence, but it is interesting never-the-less. I've already analyzed it, Iran should not have nukes. The country is unstable and it seems so are some of it's leaders.

You are mixing Non-Proliferation with disarmament. I refuse to do that because they are two separate and distinct issues.

Once again, the only thing Iran has done is flap their lip. Words are cheap. Until you have something more concrete, I can't see why people should support this absurdity that Iran is a nemesis. ------------------------------------------------------------ They openly support, train and fund terrorist organizations like Hamas. They then send these troops into our allied countries like Israel. In addition to terrorism they also are pursuing Nuclear power which would give them a seat at the world political table. Much like every other country in the world their political moves are often based on what benefits them (peace talks about Iraq) and not what is actually being addressed.

No Iran connection to 911 has been made. No Iraq connection to 911 has been made. If Iran looks anxious to get Iraq, it is only by the actions of Bush that they even have the chance, as Saddam was their enemy. Israel can defend itself, with nukes as well if Iran gets them too. Pakistan has nukes, and I would not call them stable (since Osama and Al Zawahiri currently reside there). As for nuclear technology and high tech weapons, Iran is only as capable as Russia and China choose to make them. Everything Iran has comes from them. They only use Iran to tweak the west, as they use NK also. It is a game to them albeit a high stakes game.