Well Ahmadinijad sponsored the anti-holocaust seminar and threatened to wipe Israel off the map. He didn't threaten to wipe the US off the map. And he didn't have a conference attended by digruntled American Indians, so I think we can discern who he intends to use those weapons against. Sharon had a plan on the books to take out the Iranian facility before he lapsed into Coma. He said as much. So it looks like the threat is clear.
Another thought that keeps coming to mind is that Ahmadinijad was trying to bait Israel. I mean, to actually put together an anti-Holocaust conference while threatening Israel? His conduct was so outrageous it almost felt like he was trying to bail Israel into a first strike. I think your govenment recognized this and thats why Israel has not taken action and Iran now finds itself with two US Carriers parked off its coast instead. (The Stennis arrived yesterday).
so let's say he drops a few dirty bombs on israel. where does the fallout go? even if they accidently blow themselves up; where does the fallout go? as i remember; the fallout from the chernobyl accident circled the globe. do we let small children play with firecrackers until they get hurt? no; we take them away.
this whole situation threatens the middle east; europe and russia. there's no denying this. a simple accident would be a disaster. so why is the us concerned? because we have to clean up the bloody mess.
the Iranian leader is more than intelligent enough to know he would be bombed to hell
I'm starting to think this doesn't matter. If the core of your religion/belief system is that Israel must be destroyed, and if your religion/belief system says you go to heaven for destroying Israel, you don't care if your country is bombed to hell.
In fact, you welcome it.
It's the ultimate in martyrdom.
That's what makes a nuclear threat from Iran imminently more frightening than a Soviet nuclear threat.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
It blows my mind how so many of you think Iran is not a threat. This is very simple. The government there rules according to religion. Don't even try to say that the US or any other western country is comparable - becuase you just make yourself look stupid.
Here is one simple, yet revealing aspect of Iranian society. In Iran, if you are gay - you can be punished with death by hanging. Now - can you people seriously, serioulsy think about that for a second?
In American, people bitch about religous conservatives who won't allow gays to marry. No imagine if the religous right in our country wanted to lynch gays, because that is what you're dealing with in the Iranian government.
These are the values and morals the Iranian government is trying to impose on its people. As atrocioius as that may be, it would not warrant all of this international pressure on Iran. But now, Iran is playing a hand that will influence and expand these values around the region. That is a big time problem.
I'm sure we can all agree here on this board that nations that sanction hanging for homosexuals is not a good thing. The reason Iran wants a bomb is not to destroy Israel. They need it to preserve their regime. Consider it insurance. Nobody attacks a nation that has a nuke...
So basically, if they get a nuke - you can prolong the ammount of time on this earth before the belief that gays should be excecuted is no more.
It blows my mind how so many of you think Iran is not a threat. This is very simple. The government there rules according to religion. Don't even try to say that the US or any other western country is comparable - becuase you just make yourself look stupid.
Here is one simple, yet revealing aspect of Iranian society. In Iran, if you are gay - you can be punished with death by hanging. Now - can you people seriously, serioulsy think about that for a second?
In American, people bitch about religous conservatives who won't allow gays to marry. No imagine if the religous right in our country wanted to lynch gays, because that is what you're dealing with in the Iranian government.
These are the values and morals the Iranian government is trying to impose on its people. As atrocioius as that may be, it would not warrant all of this international pressure on Iran. But now, Iran is playing a hand that will influence and expand these values around the region. That is a big time problem.
I'm sure we can all agree here on this board that nations that sanction hanging for homosexuals is not a good thing. The reason Iran wants a bomb is not to destroy Israel. They need it to preserve their regime. Consider it insurance. Nobody attacks a nation that has a nuke...
So basically, if they get a nuke - you can prolong the ammount of time on this earth before the belief that gays should be excecuted is no more.
I don't agree with everything here, or the way it is presented... but there are some good ideas. I don't favoe military action unless it is the last, and I mean LAST resort. And even then, I wouldn't allow ground troops in - just stick to a naval blockade and air strikes.
This was written recently by Victor Davis Hanson...
We all know the Iranian M.O. — nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric, lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon.
If that were not enough, we now learn that Iran has been sending agents into Iraq to destroy the fledgling democracy and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to blow up Americans.
Lunatic state-run media keep boasting that Iran will kidnap American soldiers, shut down the Straits of Hormuz, send out global jihadists and raise the price of oil.
Most international observers agree on two things about this loony theocracy that promises to take the world down with it: We should not yet bomb Iran, and it should not get the bomb. Yet the former forbearance could well ensure the latter reality.
What, then, should the United States do other than keep offering meaningless platitudes about "dialogue" and "talking"?
Imagine that Iran is a hardboiled egg with a thin shell. We should tap it lightly wherever we can — until tiny fissures join and shatter the shell.
We can begin to do this by pushing international accords and doggedly ratcheting up the weak United Nations sanctions. Even if they don't do much to Iran in any significant way, the resolutions seem to enrage Ahmadinejad. And when he rages at the United Nations, he only loses further support, especially in the Third World.
We should start another fissure by prodding the European Union, presently Iran's chief trading partner, to be more vocal and resolute in pressuring Iran. The so-called EU3 — Britain, France and Germany — failed completely to stop Iran's nuclear proliferation. But out of that setback came a growing realization among Europeans that a nuclear-tipped missile from theocratic Iran could soon hit Europe just as easily as it could Israel. Now Europeans should adopt a complete trade embargo to prevent Iranian access to precision machinery and high technology otherwise unobtainable from mischievous Russia and China.
Americans should continue to support Iranian dissidents. We need not encourage dissidents to go into the street, where they could be shot. Instead we can offer them media help and access to the West. Americans can highlight the plight of women, minorities and liberals in Iran — just the groups that so appeal to the elite Western left.
And we should announce in advance that we don't want any bases in Iran, that we don't want its oil, and that we won't send American infantry there. That would preempt the tired charges of imperialism and colonialism.
The United States also must stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing Iran wants is a democratic and prosperous Middle East surrounding its borders. The televised sight of Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Lebanese and Turks voting and speaking freely could galvanize Iranian popular opinion that in time might overwhelm the mullahs.
At the same time, we need to remind the Gulf monarchies that a nuclear Shiite theocracy is far more dangerous to them than either the United States or Israel — and that America's efforts to contain Iran depend on their own to rein in Wahhabis in Iraq.
We should say nothing much about the presence of two or three U.S. carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean. Iran will soon grasp on its own that the build-up of such forces might presage air strikes that the United States excels in — and not more ground fighting that the American public apparently won't any longer stomach.
We must continue to make clear that Israel is a sovereign nation with a perfect right to protect itself. Sixty years after the Holocaust, no Israeli prime minister will sit still idly while seventh-century theocrats grandstand about wiping out Israel.
Let's also keep our distance and moderate our rhetoric. There's no reason to frighten average Iranians — who may share our antipathy to their country's regime — or to make therapeutic pleas to talk with those leaders in bunkers whom we know are our enemies.
Finally, and most importantly, Americans must conserve energy, gasify coal, diversify fuels, drill more petroleum and invent new energy sources. Only that can collapse the world price of petroleum.
When oil is priced at $60 a barrel, Ahmadinejad is a charismatic Third World benefactor who throws cash to every thug who wants a roadside bomb or shouldered-fired missile — and has plenty of money to buy Pakistani, North Korean or Russian nuclear components. But when oil is $30 a barrel, Ahmadinejad will be despised by his own masses, who will become enraged as state-subsidized food and gas skyrocket, and scarce Iranian petrodollars are wasted on Hezbollah and Hamas.
None of these taps alone will fracture Iran and stop it from going nuclear. But all of them together might well crack Ahmadinejad's thin shell before he gets the bomb.
It blows my mind how so many of you think Iran is not a threat. This is very simple. The government there rules according to religion. Don't even try to say that the US or any other western country is comparable - becuase you just make yourself look stupid.
Here is one simple, yet revealing aspect of Iranian society. In Iran, if you are gay - you can be punished with death by hanging. Now - can you people seriously, serioulsy think about that for a second?
In American, people bitch about religous conservatives who won't allow gays to marry. No imagine if the religous right in our country wanted to lynch gays, because that is what you're dealing with in the Iranian government.
These are the values and morals the Iranian government is trying to impose on its people. As atrocioius as that may be, it would not warrant all of this international pressure on Iran. But now, Iran is playing a hand that will influence and expand these values around the region. That is a big time problem.
I'm sure we can all agree here on this board that nations that sanction hanging for homosexuals is not a good thing. The reason Iran wants a bomb is not to destroy Israel. They need it to preserve their regime. Consider it insurance. Nobody attacks a nation that has a nuke...
So basically, if they get a nuke - you can prolong the ammount of time on this earth before the belief that gays should be excecuted is no more.
the gov't of Iran, as bad as it is, is about as much a threat to the world as Iraq was, which is to say almost none. The US on the other hand....
but you are right in way. they are trying to protect themselves, if indeed they are pursuing WMD's. But they are only doing so to protect themselves from a very powerful and dangerous superpower that has been involved in the region's affairs for over 60 years.
And there isn't much we can do about Iran, being Americans. The US gov't is something we can affect, and also much more dangerous to the world, and so we should be focussing our attention it anyway.
It blows my mind how so many of you think Iran is not a threat. This is very simple. The government there rules according to religion. Don't even try to say that the US or any other western country is comparable - becuase you just make yourself look stupid.
Here is one simple, yet revealing aspect of Iranian society. In Iran, if you are gay - you can be punished with death by hanging. Now - can you people seriously, serioulsy think about that for a second?
In American, people bitch about religous conservatives who won't allow gays to marry. No imagine if the religous right in our country wanted to lynch gays, because that is what you're dealing with in the Iranian government.
These are the values and morals the Iranian government is trying to impose on its people. As atrocioius as that may be, it would not warrant all of this international pressure on Iran. But now, Iran is playing a hand that will influence and expand these values around the region. That is a big time problem.
I'm sure we can all agree here on this board that nations that sanction hanging for homosexuals is not a good thing. The reason Iran wants a bomb is not to destroy Israel. They need it to preserve their regime. Consider it insurance. Nobody attacks a nation that has a nuke...
So basically, if they get a nuke - you can prolong the ammount of time on this earth before the belief that gays should be excecuted is no more.
The United States has done some really horrible things too. very much comparable to Iran today. The answer can not be to ignore or attack them. The answer is learn together with them.
We should not think we are better because 50 or so years have passed since we hung, tortured, sold and enslaved people becuase they were black.
the gov't of Iran, as bad as it is, is about as much a threat to the world as Iraq was, which is to say almost none. The US on the other hand....
but you are right in way. they are trying to protect themselves, if indeed they are pursuing WMD's. But they are only doing so to protect themselves from a very powerful and dangerous superpower that has been involved in the region's affairs for over 60 years.
And there isn't much we can do about Iran, being Americans. The US gov't is something we can affect, and also much more dangerous to the world, and so we should be focussing our attention it anyway.
A country that teaches its children that America is "The Great Satan" while also brain-washing them that homosexuals should be hung is indeed a threat my friend.
The United States has done some really horrible things too. very much comparable to Iran today. The answer can not be to ignore or attack them. The answer is learn together with them.
We should not think we are better because 50 or so years have passed since we hung, tortured, sold and enslaved people becuase they were black.
We should be able to relate and help.
Can't you see they want a bomb so they don't have to "learn" with us. They want a bomb to ensure nobody fucks with their way of life....
A country that teaches its children that America is "The Great Satan" while also brain-washing them that homosexuals should be hung is indeed a threat my friend.
A country that brainwashes its citizens into thinking a foreign dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11 was indeed responsible for the attacks, and then invades, killing over 500,000 innocent people, is a far bigger threat. And since you and I can do jack about Iran, i think the US should be our concern....
Can't you see they want a bomb so they don't have to "learn" with us. They want a bomb to ensure nobody fucks with their way of life....
Iran's search for WMD's, if they are indeed pursing that, is a direct result of aggressive US foreign policy. To antagonize them now would only strengthen that argument.
Can't you see they want a bomb so they don't have to "learn" with us. They want a bomb to ensure nobody fucks with their way of life....
No I don't see exactly that.
It can not hurt to have talks - to do something together... one never knows.
I believe they are people - like us.. just travelled a different path.. but people like us - with all the good and all the bad.. and the best solution comes from understanding each other.
A country that brainwashes its citizens into thinking a foreign dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11 was indeed responsible for the attacks, and then invades, killing over 500,000 innocent people, is a far bigger threat. And since you and I can do jack about Iran, i think the US should be our concern....
You guys keep making up your own stories about this.
Bush didn't relate Saddam to 9/11 saying he was responsible. Bush made the case that a rouge country that harbors terrorists "like Iraq did" is a threat to the world. He was and is 100% right about that.
It can not hurt to have talks - to do something together... one never knows.
I believe they are people - like us.. just travelled a different path.. but people like us - with all the good and all the bad.. and the best solution comes from understanding each other.
I think you don't understand a few things. One, I agree that they are just people like us - but only the massses of citizens - not the government.
But we aren't dealing with plain people, we are dealing with the government. We are dealing with a president who denies the holocaust andcalls for Israel to be "wiped off the map". We are dealing with a man who leaves no rooom for interpretation when it comes to his faith.
There is nothing to negotiate with these people... Kind of like Japanese soldiers in WWII who fought to the death instead of surrendering to preserve their beliefs.
You guys keep making up your own stories about this.
Bush didn't relate Saddam to 9/11 saying he was responsible. Bush made the case that a rouge country that harbors terrorists "like Iraq did" is a threat to the world. He was and is 100% right about that.
Actually something like 50% of americans polled pre invasion thought the terrorist were from Iraq and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, it was that bad. And we had Fox news puting Saddam's face over an image of the towers burning, and every program tying Saddam to Osama (in fact enemies). Its typical in the US, to get the public to march to the war drums, using patriotism and fear to get them behind any atrocity they can think up.
Iraq was no different. And not a threat. Even the countries bordering Iraq did not see them as a military threat, and they should be the ones most concerned, not us, across an ocean, with strongest miltary the world has ever seen... its rediculous when you look at it objectively.
so winston churchill in the 1930's was fear-mongering?
there was no shortage of people in the 20's and 30's who reacted to mein kampf the same way people on these boards react to the words of Iran's leaders. they have learned nothing from history.
Wait. You were the one who expressed the point that your quotes were not being addressed. I addressed them and now you are changing the subject? Let's get back to addressing your quotes. Please show me the imminent danger?
Maybe there is possible future threat. Maybe there is reason to keep our eyes open. Maybe there is plenty of reason to keep a level head and to continue assessing what is happening.
If you have evidence of imminent danger I would love to hear it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Actually something like 50% of americans polled pre invasion thought the terrorist were from Iraq and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, it was that bad. And we had Fox news puting Saddam's face over an image of the towers burning, and every program tying Saddam to Osama (in fact enemies). Its typical in the US, to get the public to march to the war drums, using patriotism and fear to get them behind any atrocity they can think up.
Iraq was no different. And not a threat. Even the countries bordering Iraq did not see them as a military threat, and they should be the ones most concerned, not us, across an ocean, with strongest miltary the world has ever seen... its rediculous when you look at it objectively.
Well then why don't you try looking at it objectively then.
1 - Who cares what percentage of Americans think about anything... I bet most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map, what does that prove?
2 - Nobody was concerned about Iraq's military, we were concerned about two things. We thought they had WMD's and just like Afghanistan, Iraq had large lawless expanses of land where terrorists could hide and plot against the US - and we had every reason to believe Saddam would be simpathetic to their cause.
Even the countries bordering Iraq did not see them as a military threat, and they should be the ones most concerned, not us, across an ocean, with strongest miltary the world has ever seen... its rediculous when you look at it objectively.
The fear was never that the Iraqi Air Force was going to fly over and drop a bomb on New York.
It was that Saddam was going to covertly slip weapons to a terrorist organization and say, "Have at it."
It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to envision Saddam giving a chemical or biological weapon to a terrorist and then having said terrorist detonate it in the middle of Times Square or what not.
To act like Saddam didn't want to harm the U.S., and wouldn't have jumped at a chance to hurt the US, is disingenuous.
I also realize this is the same debate we've been having for four years now, so I'll shut up now.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Well then why don't you try looking at it objectively then.
1 - Who cares what percentage of Americans think about anything... I bet most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map, what does that prove?
2 - Nobody was concerned about Iraq's military, we were concerned about two things. We thought they had WMD's and just like Afghanistan, Iraq had large lawless expanses of land where terrorists could hide and plot against the US - and we had every reason to believe Saddam would be simpathetic to their cause.
let's not forget saddam paid the families of the hijackers tying him to the incident.
The government there rules according to religion. Don't even try to say that the US or any other western country is comparable - becuase you just make yourself look stupid.
So what? Live and let live. Your not suggesting ethnocentrism, are you--expecting the world live by your values, are you?
Here is one simple, yet revealing aspect of Iranian society. In Iran, if you are gay - you can be punished with death by hanging. Now - can you people seriously, serioulsy think about that for a second?
Are you planning on moving to Iran?
In American, people bitch about religous conservatives who won't allow gays to marry. No imagine if the religous right in our country wanted to lynch gays, because that is what you're dealing with in the Iranian government.
These are the values and morals the Iranian government is trying to impose on its people.
It sounds like you are unable to get your mind around an entirely different way of life.
But now, Iran is playing a hand that will influence and expand these values around the region. That is a big time problem.
What? You don't like them for their lifestyle and you think we need to put a stop to that?
I'm sure we can all agree here on this board that nations that sanction hanging for homosexuals is not a good thing.
I probably disagree with the way most of the people on this board live their lives. And some people I believe think in ways that are potentially dangerous. What do you suggest I do?
The reason Iran wants a bomb is not to destroy Israel. They need it to preserve their regime. Consider it insurance. Nobody attacks a nation that has a nuke...
So basically, if they get a nuke - you can prolong the ammount of time on this earth before the belief that gays should be excecuted is no more.
Trying to get us to rally based on this ethocentric gay thing just does not wash with me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think you don't understand a few things. One, I agree that they are just people like us - but only the massses of citizens - not the government.
But we aren't dealing with plain people, we are dealing with the government. We are dealing with a president who denies the holocaust andcalls for Israel to be "wiped off the map". We are dealing with a man who leaves no rooom for interpretation when it comes to his faith.
There is nothing to negotiate with these people... Kind of like Japanese soldiers in WWII who fought to the death instead of surrendering to preserve their beliefs.
We should negotiate in good faith even if what you say is entirely true. Though I believe we can be an ally of absolutely anyone - and by doing so, as times marches on, we will come closer and closer together.
But even if that is impossible - our attempts to negotiate in good faith will bring other nations to our side - and the people of Iran may find a way toward new leadership.
If we continue to act as though our only plan is to eliminate Iran - we will get a war - and we will suffer badly from it.
We should negotiate in good faith even if what you say is entirely true. Though I believe we can be an ally of absolutely anyone - and by doing so, as times marches on, we will come closer and closer together.
But even if that is impossible - our attempts to negotiate in good faith will bring other nations to our side - and the people of Iran may find a way toward new leadership.
If we continue to act as though our only plan is to eliminate Iran - we will get a war - and we will suffer badly from it.
ever hear the phrase:
you can't reason with an unreasonable person.
read the article. he said he wouldn't negotiate. not one iota. so now we start no fly zones and blockades. then see if he wants to negotiate. if we wait until they have full nuclear availability; what do we have to negotiate with?
The Iranians are pushing limits precisely because they can ... The U.S. cannot afford to use military force at this time, so they are basically seeing what they can get away with. I personally find the country's politics and approach to religion absolutely loathesome, but I am willing to concede that Iran may very well be all bark and no bite. They'd be a pile of molten sand if they attacked Israel, even if they do manage to develop more chemical weapons, or nukes. We have to pay some attention to Iran, but maybe we shouldn't pay more attention than they deserve ... That president of theirs' seems to thrive on media attention.
ever hear the phrase:
you can't reason with an unreasonable person.
read the article. he said he wouldn't negotiate. not one iota. so now we start no fly zones and blockades. then see if he wants to negotiate. if we wait until they have full nuclear availability; what do we have to negotiate with?
He hasn't said he won't negotiate.. In fact he has repeatedly invited us to talk. He has only said that he won't halt his nuclear plans.
There is much to talk about - much ground to break... there are many solutions to this problem that fall short of their not enriching uranium.
and even if we can not prevent their production of nuclear weapons - there are things we can work out to prevent their use -
We need to sit at the table and talk.. it makes no sence not to - expecially when all we do is assume the worst about them when we don't.
He hasn't said he won't negotiate.. In fact he has repeatedly invited us to talk. He has only said that he won't halt his nuclear plans.
There is much to talk about - much ground to break... there are many solutions to this problem that fall short of their not enriching uranium.
and even if we can not prevent their production of nuclear weapons - there are things we can work out to prevent their use -
We need to sit at the table and talk.. it makes no sence not to - expecially when all we do is assume the worst about them when we don't.
they've proven to be a hostile country. if they don't follow the rules they must be punished. or do we pick and choose who's allowed to break the rules?
Comments
I didn't say that .. I suggested that we negotiate with them.. there are things we want and things they want..
are we so angry and rigid that we prefer war.
tt seems courteous or cordial to consult with the neighbor of someone you plan to pummel with weapons of slightly less than "mass" destruction..
no?
I guess why wait till they become like us?
and since the united states clearly has not......
This makes too much sense, i doubt some of the people on this board will get it.
so let's say he drops a few dirty bombs on israel. where does the fallout go? even if they accidently blow themselves up; where does the fallout go? as i remember; the fallout from the chernobyl accident circled the globe. do we let small children play with firecrackers until they get hurt? no; we take them away.
this whole situation threatens the middle east; europe and russia. there's no denying this. a simple accident would be a disaster. so why is the us concerned? because we have to clean up the bloody mess.
I'm starting to think this doesn't matter. If the core of your religion/belief system is that Israel must be destroyed, and if your religion/belief system says you go to heaven for destroying Israel, you don't care if your country is bombed to hell.
In fact, you welcome it.
It's the ultimate in martyrdom.
That's what makes a nuclear threat from Iran imminently more frightening than a Soviet nuclear threat.
for the least they could possibly do
Why would Iran need nuclear energy, when they are sitting on all that oil?
for the least they could possibly do
Here is one simple, yet revealing aspect of Iranian society. In Iran, if you are gay - you can be punished with death by hanging. Now - can you people seriously, serioulsy think about that for a second?
In American, people bitch about religous conservatives who won't allow gays to marry. No imagine if the religous right in our country wanted to lynch gays, because that is what you're dealing with in the Iranian government.
These are the values and morals the Iranian government is trying to impose on its people. As atrocioius as that may be, it would not warrant all of this international pressure on Iran. But now, Iran is playing a hand that will influence and expand these values around the region. That is a big time problem.
I'm sure we can all agree here on this board that nations that sanction hanging for homosexuals is not a good thing. The reason Iran wants a bomb is not to destroy Israel. They need it to preserve their regime. Consider it insurance. Nobody attacks a nation that has a nuke...
So basically, if they get a nuke - you can prolong the ammount of time on this earth before the belief that gays should be excecuted is no more.
ok, what do you want to do about it....?
I don't agree with everything here, or the way it is presented... but there are some good ideas. I don't favoe military action unless it is the last, and I mean LAST resort. And even then, I wouldn't allow ground troops in - just stick to a naval blockade and air strikes.
This was written recently by Victor Davis Hanson...
We all know the Iranian M.O. — nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric, lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon.
If that were not enough, we now learn that Iran has been sending agents into Iraq to destroy the fledgling democracy and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to blow up Americans.
Lunatic state-run media keep boasting that Iran will kidnap American soldiers, shut down the Straits of Hormuz, send out global jihadists and raise the price of oil.
Most international observers agree on two things about this loony theocracy that promises to take the world down with it: We should not yet bomb Iran, and it should not get the bomb. Yet the former forbearance could well ensure the latter reality.
What, then, should the United States do other than keep offering meaningless platitudes about "dialogue" and "talking"?
Imagine that Iran is a hardboiled egg with a thin shell. We should tap it lightly wherever we can — until tiny fissures join and shatter the shell.
We can begin to do this by pushing international accords and doggedly ratcheting up the weak United Nations sanctions. Even if they don't do much to Iran in any significant way, the resolutions seem to enrage Ahmadinejad. And when he rages at the United Nations, he only loses further support, especially in the Third World.
We should start another fissure by prodding the European Union, presently Iran's chief trading partner, to be more vocal and resolute in pressuring Iran. The so-called EU3 — Britain, France and Germany — failed completely to stop Iran's nuclear proliferation. But out of that setback came a growing realization among Europeans that a nuclear-tipped missile from theocratic Iran could soon hit Europe just as easily as it could Israel. Now Europeans should adopt a complete trade embargo to prevent Iranian access to precision machinery and high technology otherwise unobtainable from mischievous Russia and China.
Americans should continue to support Iranian dissidents. We need not encourage dissidents to go into the street, where they could be shot. Instead we can offer them media help and access to the West. Americans can highlight the plight of women, minorities and liberals in Iran — just the groups that so appeal to the elite Western left.
And we should announce in advance that we don't want any bases in Iran, that we don't want its oil, and that we won't send American infantry there. That would preempt the tired charges of imperialism and colonialism.
The United States also must stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing Iran wants is a democratic and prosperous Middle East surrounding its borders. The televised sight of Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Lebanese and Turks voting and speaking freely could galvanize Iranian popular opinion that in time might overwhelm the mullahs.
At the same time, we need to remind the Gulf monarchies that a nuclear Shiite theocracy is far more dangerous to them than either the United States or Israel — and that America's efforts to contain Iran depend on their own to rein in Wahhabis in Iraq.
We should say nothing much about the presence of two or three U.S. carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean. Iran will soon grasp on its own that the build-up of such forces might presage air strikes that the United States excels in — and not more ground fighting that the American public apparently won't any longer stomach.
We must continue to make clear that Israel is a sovereign nation with a perfect right to protect itself. Sixty years after the Holocaust, no Israeli prime minister will sit still idly while seventh-century theocrats grandstand about wiping out Israel.
Let's also keep our distance and moderate our rhetoric. There's no reason to frighten average Iranians — who may share our antipathy to their country's regime — or to make therapeutic pleas to talk with those leaders in bunkers whom we know are our enemies.
Finally, and most importantly, Americans must conserve energy, gasify coal, diversify fuels, drill more petroleum and invent new energy sources. Only that can collapse the world price of petroleum.
When oil is priced at $60 a barrel, Ahmadinejad is a charismatic Third World benefactor who throws cash to every thug who wants a roadside bomb or shouldered-fired missile — and has plenty of money to buy Pakistani, North Korean or Russian nuclear components. But when oil is $30 a barrel, Ahmadinejad will be despised by his own masses, who will become enraged as state-subsidized food and gas skyrocket, and scarce Iranian petrodollars are wasted on Hezbollah and Hamas.
None of these taps alone will fracture Iran and stop it from going nuclear. But all of them together might well crack Ahmadinejad's thin shell before he gets the bomb.
So let's start tapping.
the gov't of Iran, as bad as it is, is about as much a threat to the world as Iraq was, which is to say almost none. The US on the other hand....
but you are right in way. they are trying to protect themselves, if indeed they are pursuing WMD's. But they are only doing so to protect themselves from a very powerful and dangerous superpower that has been involved in the region's affairs for over 60 years.
And there isn't much we can do about Iran, being Americans. The US gov't is something we can affect, and also much more dangerous to the world, and so we should be focussing our attention it anyway.
The United States has done some really horrible things too. very much comparable to Iran today. The answer can not be to ignore or attack them. The answer is learn together with them.
We should not think we are better because 50 or so years have passed since we hung, tortured, sold and enslaved people becuase they were black.
We should be able to relate and help.
A country that teaches its children that America is "The Great Satan" while also brain-washing them that homosexuals should be hung is indeed a threat my friend.
Can't you see they want a bomb so they don't have to "learn" with us. They want a bomb to ensure nobody fucks with their way of life....
A country that brainwashes its citizens into thinking a foreign dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11 was indeed responsible for the attacks, and then invades, killing over 500,000 innocent people, is a far bigger threat. And since you and I can do jack about Iran, i think the US should be our concern....
Iran's search for WMD's, if they are indeed pursing that, is a direct result of aggressive US foreign policy. To antagonize them now would only strengthen that argument.
No I don't see exactly that.
It can not hurt to have talks - to do something together... one never knows.
I believe they are people - like us.. just travelled a different path.. but people like us - with all the good and all the bad.. and the best solution comes from understanding each other.
You guys keep making up your own stories about this.
Bush didn't relate Saddam to 9/11 saying he was responsible. Bush made the case that a rouge country that harbors terrorists "like Iraq did" is a threat to the world. He was and is 100% right about that.
I think you don't understand a few things. One, I agree that they are just people like us - but only the massses of citizens - not the government.
But we aren't dealing with plain people, we are dealing with the government. We are dealing with a president who denies the holocaust andcalls for Israel to be "wiped off the map". We are dealing with a man who leaves no rooom for interpretation when it comes to his faith.
There is nothing to negotiate with these people... Kind of like Japanese soldiers in WWII who fought to the death instead of surrendering to preserve their beliefs.
Actually something like 50% of americans polled pre invasion thought the terrorist were from Iraq and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, it was that bad. And we had Fox news puting Saddam's face over an image of the towers burning, and every program tying Saddam to Osama (in fact enemies). Its typical in the US, to get the public to march to the war drums, using patriotism and fear to get them behind any atrocity they can think up.
Iraq was no different. And not a threat. Even the countries bordering Iraq did not see them as a military threat, and they should be the ones most concerned, not us, across an ocean, with strongest miltary the world has ever seen... its rediculous when you look at it objectively.
Maybe there is possible future threat. Maybe there is reason to keep our eyes open. Maybe there is plenty of reason to keep a level head and to continue assessing what is happening.
If you have evidence of imminent danger I would love to hear it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well then why don't you try looking at it objectively then.
1 - Who cares what percentage of Americans think about anything... I bet most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map, what does that prove?
2 - Nobody was concerned about Iraq's military, we were concerned about two things. We thought they had WMD's and just like Afghanistan, Iraq had large lawless expanses of land where terrorists could hide and plot against the US - and we had every reason to believe Saddam would be simpathetic to their cause.
The fear was never that the Iraqi Air Force was going to fly over and drop a bomb on New York.
It was that Saddam was going to covertly slip weapons to a terrorist organization and say, "Have at it."
It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to envision Saddam giving a chemical or biological weapon to a terrorist and then having said terrorist detonate it in the middle of Times Square or what not.
To act like Saddam didn't want to harm the U.S., and wouldn't have jumped at a chance to hurt the US, is disingenuous.
I also realize this is the same debate we've been having for four years now, so I'll shut up now.
for the least they could possibly do
let's not forget saddam paid the families of the hijackers tying him to the incident.
Are you planning on moving to Iran?
It sounds like you are unable to get your mind around an entirely different way of life.
What? You don't like them for their lifestyle and you think we need to put a stop to that?
I probably disagree with the way most of the people on this board live their lives. And some people I believe think in ways that are potentially dangerous. What do you suggest I do?
Trying to get us to rally based on this ethocentric gay thing just does not wash with me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We should negotiate in good faith even if what you say is entirely true. Though I believe we can be an ally of absolutely anyone - and by doing so, as times marches on, we will come closer and closer together.
But even if that is impossible - our attempts to negotiate in good faith will bring other nations to our side - and the people of Iran may find a way toward new leadership.
If we continue to act as though our only plan is to eliminate Iran - we will get a war - and we will suffer badly from it.
ever hear the phrase:
you can't reason with an unreasonable person.
read the article. he said he wouldn't negotiate. not one iota. so now we start no fly zones and blockades. then see if he wants to negotiate. if we wait until they have full nuclear availability; what do we have to negotiate with?
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
He hasn't said he won't negotiate.. In fact he has repeatedly invited us to talk. He has only said that he won't halt his nuclear plans.
There is much to talk about - much ground to break... there are many solutions to this problem that fall short of their not enriching uranium.
and even if we can not prevent their production of nuclear weapons - there are things we can work out to prevent their use -
We need to sit at the table and talk.. it makes no sence not to - expecially when all we do is assume the worst about them when we don't.
they've proven to be a hostile country. if they don't follow the rules they must be punished. or do we pick and choose who's allowed to break the rules?