 | | 
12-05-2007, 07:33 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,413
Rep Power: 57 | | | How to deal with Iran....now
There's really no point or substance to making bellicose proclamations about world war three, or threats about bombing the shit out of them. Belligerence isn't the way to go, now that Iran has demonstrated a fair bit of "semi-good" behaviour, with respect to stopping its nuclear weapons research, and cooperating to a good extent (if not perfect) with IAEA inspectors.
Bottom line: Cowboy diplomacy, and belligerent NeoCon warhawk chants will not bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.
A more tactful, yet strong diplomatic effort involving carrots and sticks is warranted. Which requires a president with half a brain, and a realistic sense of how the world works.
For example, Barak Obama strikes the correct tone, between belligerence and cooperation: Quote:
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that "changes in behavior" by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior." -- Barak Obama, November 7, 2007
|  |
Login to remove all ads
12-05-2007, 07:43 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 21,692
Rep Power: 366 | | | I'm starting to wonder what all of these Iran threads would look like merged since there seems ot be reason for new threads to say the same thing daily. Working on perpetuating the liberal myth, are you?
__________________ You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT  |
12-05-2007, 07:49 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,413
Rep Power: 57 | | | Why did you not consider it a problem until just now?
Recent Threads:
Iranian Pushes Nuclear Talks Back to Square 1
GunnyL
Iraq blast blamed on Iran-backed militants (Multi-page thread 1 2)
GunnyL
Bush says Iran remains a threat (Multi-page thread 1 2)
GunnyL
Iran's Revolutionary Guards patrol Persian Gulf
Nevadamedic
Shite Iraqis Condemn Iran For Violence
Kathianne
Iran cracks down on 'obscene' rap music
Shogun |
12-05-2007, 07:55 PM
| | Administrator | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 21,692
Rep Power: 366 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadCanDance  Why did you not consider it a problem until just now?
Recent Threads:
Iranian Pushes Nuclear Talks Back to Square 1
GunnyL
Iraq blast blamed on Iran-backed militants (Multi-page thread 1 2)
GunnyL
Bush says Iran remains a threat (Multi-page thread 1 2)
GunnyL
Iran's Revolutionary Guards patrol Persian Gulf
Nevadamedic
Shite Iraqis Condemn Iran For Violence
Kathianne
Iran cracks down on 'obscene' rap music
Shogun | What problem? 
I DO notice you seem to have left off of your little laundry list all the threads YOU started that say the same thing. 
__________________ You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT |
12-05-2007, 08:12 PM
| | Administrator | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 21,692
Rep Power: 366 | | | What I find intererst is this ...
You have created an enemy. I have seen ONE (count all of 'em) conservative on this board call for the immediate invasion/bombing of Iran. The rest express a desire to keep Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. I specifically have said almost exactly what you said in one of your threads ...
I prefer a peaceful, diplomatic solution, and am not advocating giving up on that at all.
That being the case, it isn't about Iran and the issue of nuclear weapons. It's about YOU ranting about Bush and "the rightwing warmongers" you have concocted for your little show. Anyone not agreeing with your poltitical rhetoric is automatically relegated to the aforemention "rightwing warmongers" group regardless actual belief.
So why the subterfuge? Just label your threads rants about Bush and accuse anyone of not agreeing with you of whatever. Seems like that would save you a LOT of time and effort.
__________________ You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT |
12-05-2007, 08:32 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,413
Rep Power: 57 | | | If Bush had bombed Iran the day before the NIE came out, which demonstrate that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, you know that nearly every republican on this board would have been in favor of it.
I would bet you any amount of money, that no republican here would have denounced bush's bombing of a phantom threat. You know that's true. |
12-05-2007, 08:42 PM
|  | Registered User | | Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 36,781
Rep Power: 233 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadCanDance There's really no point or substance to making bellicose proclamations about world war three, or threats about bombing the shit out of them. Belligerence isn't the way to go, now that Iran has demonstrated a fair bit of "semi-good" behaviour, with respect to stopping its nuclear weapons research, and cooperating to a good extent (if not perfect) with IAEA inspectors.
Bottom line: Cowboy diplomacy, and belligerent NeoCon warhawk chants will not bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.
A more tactful, yet strong diplomatic effort involving carrots and sticks is warranted. Which requires a president with half a brain, and a realistic sense of how the world works.
For example, Barak Obama strikes the correct tone, between belligerence and cooperation: | I've read your reasoning on why not to do certain things. What's missing is your suggestions of how to respond to the facts as they are.
__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain |
12-05-2007, 08:42 PM
| | Administrator | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 21,692
Rep Power: 366 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadCanDance If Bush had bombed Iran the day before the NIE came out, which demonstrate that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, you know that nearly every republican on this board would have been in favor of it.
I would bet you any amount of money, that no republican here would have denounced bush's bombing of a phantom threat. You know that's true. | You stand corrected. IAEA stated that Iran DOES have a nuclear weapons program. Halting work on it merely means that.
You need to open your eyes up a bit more, bubba. There are plenty of conservatives who have repeatedly criticized Bush, myself being one of them.
How many times have I said I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq since 2003? How many time DO I have to say it before you lefties comprehend?
If Bush gave the order to bomb Iran today, I would not agree with it, and would in fact say so.
But returning to the how many times ... is there a set number of times one must rant. harp and villify before one convinces oneself they are right? Or can you just believe something and say it once?
__________________ You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT |
12-05-2007, 08:43 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 36,781
Rep Power: 233 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadCanDance If Bush had bombed Iran the day before the NIE came out, which demonstrate that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, you know that nearly every republican on this board would have been in favor of it.
I would bet you any amount of money, that no republican here would have denounced bush's bombing of a phantom threat. You know that's true. | Based on what? There was no suggestion that something like that was in the offing. Nice spin, or attempt.
__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain |
12-06-2007, 11:39 AM
|  | I used to be cool | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
Rep Power: 104 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathianne Based on what? There was no suggestion that something like that was in the offing. Nice spin, or attempt. | You don't think the administration and the military command (commanders who are cooperating with the status quo right now, anyway  ) have already planned out all contingencies for dealing with Iran? You don't think they've already drawn up airstrike plans, possible invasion and regime change plans?
They have said that military aggression is on the table, which would mean that they are ready and willing to implement it whenever they desire.
Saying that it's merely "on the table" is just a fancy way of making people feel at ease that it might NOT be used. The fact is, that military aggression towards ANY country is "on the table". Why should it not be? The US military has an established plan, which I'm sure is updated frequently, for dealing with every possible threat from every nation.
OF COURSE military aggression towards Iran is on the table. Military aggression towards CANADA is potentially on the table. What if Canada was involved in some type of attack against us? You never know...
The only difference, is that the idea of attacking Iran pre-emptively is kept alive in people's minds by constantly talking about it on the TV news, and the internet.
The Bush admin could have secretly bombed Natanz in Iran, and automatically 35-40% of Americans would have been OK with it, just because it was a republican operation.
I can't help but wonder if those 6 nukes that were "mistakenly" sent from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB were supposed to have been used on Iran, but people within refused to carry out the mission. It was a little strange that it happened to coincide with Israel's secret bombing operation in Syria.
For me, that's food for thought.
How can you blame people for suspecting the administration of desiring war? It's what the administration has been about since day 1.
Bush ran on a humble, non-interventionist, no nation-building foreign policy (i guess it wasn't called isolationism back then, huh?), and the day he took office there were already plans being made to deal with Iraq.
Why should anyone not suspect them of desiring a war with Iran?
__________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
-Ronald Reagan |
12-06-2007, 09:31 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,413
Rep Power: 57 | | Now that we are aware that the hyped-up fear mongering about Iran nuclear weapons activity is no longer operative, we can focus on sane and reality-based alternatives.
Iran is going to enrich uranium. We'll probably never stop that. In fact, they technically have a right under NPT to enrich uranium for civilian use.
Demanding that they stop enriching is going to end up in an endless impasse. For national soveriegnty and national pride reasons, they want to have their own domestic enrichment capacity. As do other civilian nuclear power nations, like Brazil have.
The question then is, not to stop them from enriching. But, to make sure they don't cross the "red line" - by enriching uranium to weapons grade capability. Which would require an ongoing, and intrusive IAEA inspection program. Quote: The Right Nuclear Red Line
By Gareth Evans
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29
By deflating so much of the hyperbole around the issue, the National Intelligence Estimate offers an opportunity to end the international stalemate with Tehran. Having just returned from a series of meetings with high-level Iranian officials, including their top nuclear negotiator, I think the outlines of a deal are clear.
Led by the United States and the European Union, with Russia and China cautiously supportive, the international community has until now been fixated on preventing Iran from acquiring any capacity to enrich uranium and thus to make nuclear fuel for civilian or military purposes. Iran argues that such a red line has no basis in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is unjustifiably discriminatory. Tehran continues to stare down the U.N. Security Council, shrugs off sanctions and refuses to negotiate any intrusive inspection regime that would enable it to be trusted when it denies having intentions to create nuclear weapons.
The international community is entitled to stay nervous, given Iran's long history of undeclared activity and the many disturbing and provocative statements of its president. But all the signs are -- and I heard nothing to the contrary in Tehran -- that Iran will simply not budge on its "right to enrich." That means an indefinite continuation of the standoff, with minimal Iranian cooperation on regional issues of immense concern -- including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the role of Hamas and Hezbollah -- and minimal confidence internationally in Iran's ultimate nuclear intentions.
The new intelligence assessment gives us the chance to break out of this impasse. What the international community really wants is for Iran to never produce nuclear weapons. The red line that matters is the one at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, between civilian and military capability. If Iran's neighbors, including Israel, and the wider world could be confident that that line would hold, it would not matter whether Iran was capable of producing its own nuclear fuel.
That line will hold if we can get Iran to accept a highly intrusive monitoring, verification and inspection regime that goes well beyond basic Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards, which already apply, and includes both the optional additional inspection measures available under that treaty as well as tough further measures. Iran would also need to build confidence by agreeing to stretch out over time the development of its enrichment capability and to have any industrial-scale activity conducted not by Iran alone but by an international consortium.
Although Iran will hold out for as much as it can get and for as long as it can, it is capable of being persuaded. This will require a mixture of incentives (including the lifting of sanctions and the normalization of relations with the United States) and disincentives (the threat of further sanctions and worse, if it crosses the military-program red line). But negotiations won't go anywhere if the United States and European Union continue to insist on zero enrichment.
In Iran two weeks ago, I heard nothing from anyone, in or out of government, to suggest that any member of the current power elite thought the benefits of a nuclear weapons program -- including for deterrence or asserting regional authority -- could possibly outweigh the costs. There was an acute awareness of the military, economic and further reputational risks that the country would run if it moved even a toe in that direction.
Unconditional negotiations aimed at achieving "delayed limited enrichment with maximum safeguards" rather than the failed policy of "zero enrichment" can produce a win-win outcome. Such negotiations won't be easy to start or conclude, given the parties' long-held public positions. But if the objective is to ensure that Iran won't backslide and be newly tempted to go down the nuclear weapons road, this is the only way to go.
Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia, is president of theInternational Crisis Group.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule | |
12-08-2007, 02:06 PM
| | Administrator | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 21,692
Rep Power: 366 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadCanDance Now that we are aware that the hyped-up fear mongering about Iran nuclear weapons activity is no longer operative, we can focus on sane and reality-based alternatives.
Iran is going to enrich uranium. We'll probably never stop that. In fact, they technically have a right under NPT to enrich uranium for civilian use.
Demanding that they stop enriching is going to end up in an endless impasse. For national soveriegnty and national pride reasons, they want to have their own domestic enrichment capacity. As do other civilian nuclear power nations, like Brazil have.
The question then is, not to stop them from enriching. But, to make sure they don't cross the "red line" - by enriching uranium to weapons grade capability. Which would require an ongoing, and intrusive IAEA inspection program. |
The only hyped-up fearmongering I've seen are your claims that it's happening.
I see no evidence that proves or dispproves anything. Just opinions.
Moving beyond that, just how do you propose to monitor a program that will surely be kept secret and hidden? Crystal ball?
__________________ You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT |
12-08-2007, 02:24 PM
|  | Registered User | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,974
Rep Power: 72 | | | Whether we like it or not, I am getting nearer and nearer to the opinion that we will have to obliterate one or more of these muslim lunatic nations before they get the fucking message through their obviously thick, ignorant fucking skulls.
__________________
It's good to be the King. |
12-08-2007, 04:51 PM
|  | Registered User | | Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 876
Rep Power: 3 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by roomy Whether we like it or not, I am getting nearer and nearer to the opinion that we will have to obliterate one or more of these muslim lunatic nations before they get the fucking message through their obviously thick, ignorant fucking skulls. | OH OBVIOUSLY!. if we can't PROVE a threat, we just assume one. RIGHT???
__________________
BUSH-BASHER entoto and proud to be. |
12-08-2007, 05:41 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,413
Rep Power: 57 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by roomy Whether we like it or not, I am getting nearer and nearer to the opinion that we will have to obliterate one or more of these muslim lunatic nations before they get the fucking message through their obviously thick, ignorant fucking skulls. | Fascinating.
I've spent a week getting lectured by bush voters, that conservatives aren''t been pounding the war drums, but I keep running across posts like this. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | | |
|
