This Administration Is Beginning To Look Like Clinton's

[Annie]

:coffee3:
Isn't this what we did with North Korea?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear


AP: U.S. to give Iran nuclear technology

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 6, 11:01 AM ET

VIENNA, Austria - A package of incentives presented Tuesday to
Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium — a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.

The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.

The package was agreed on last week by the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia — the five veto-wielding members of the
U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, in a bid to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran.

 

[Mariner]

is beginning to look like Reagan's which, as you recall, supplied Iran with arms in order to create cash to fund the "freedom fighters" (or terrorists, depending your perspective) in Nicaragua--and also secretly negotiated with Iran to obtain release of the hostages, despite solemnly proclaiming that we don't negotiate with hostage-takers.

Clinton maintained a fairly hard line on Iran. I think it's good that 27 years of official policy is being reversed now. Basically, we have no choice. Sanctions won't stop Iran's nuclear program. Bombing won't work because the program's too well hidden. Short of a massive invasion, the only remaining choice is diplomacy.

Mariner.

 

[Annie]

is beginning to look like Reagan's which, as you recall, supplied Iran with arms in order to create cash to fund the "freedom fighters" (or terrorists, depending your perspective) in Nicaragua--and also secretly negotiated with Iran to obtain release of the hostages, despite solemnly proclaiming that we don't negotiate with hostage-takers.

Clinton maintained a fairly hard line on Iran. I think it's good that 27 years of official policy is being reversed now. Basically, we have no choice. Sanctions won't stop Iran's nuclear program. Bombing won't work because the program's too well hidden. Short of a massive invasion, the only remaining choice is diplomacy.

Mariner.

You were missing the analogy about nuclear information. Clinton=North Korea and China:Bush=Iran.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Yes, Kathianne, this is absolutely sickening. Washington has become a town of fools--both Republicans and Democrats. It's absolutely mind boggling why they can't see the folly of this latest "carrot." What nincompoops! I'll bet the mullahs are having quite a celebration in Tehren.

 

[Annie]

Yes, Kathianne, this is absolutely sickening. Washington has become a town of fools--both Republicans and Democrats. It's absolutely mind boggling why they can't see the folly of this latest "carrot." What nincompoops! I'll bet the mullahs are having quite a celebration in Tehren.

I grow more disgusted by the day. If GW one more time says, "We will enforce our borders. We must remember though, that we are a nation of immigrants..."
I'll puke.

Now trotting out the Gay Marriage Amendment is basically saying to the GOP base, 'You are so stupid, I'm going to divert this problem...' No Sale!

 

[Adam's Apple]

Now trotting out the Gay Marriage Amendment is basically saying to the GOP base, 'You are so stupid, I'm going to divert this problem...' No Sale!

Yes, this very definitely is a ploy to try to get conservative minds on something other than illegal immigration. I have a surprise for them--it's not going to work. They're going to have to deal with this illegal immigration mess to the people's satisfaction, whether they want to or not.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Getting back to the topic -- here's someone who agrees with your post completely, Kathianne. Really a great read to expose the folly of U.S. policy re Iran.

Is Bill Clinton Still President?
By Michael A. Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute
June 7, 2006

From time to time various wags have suggested that we send Bill Clinton to negotiate with the mullahs on our behalf. It turns out it isn’t necessary; we’ve just adopted his methods. Apparently those in charge of our Iran non-policy concluded that the appeasement of North Korea worked so well, we should do the same thing with Iran. I suppose it’s only a matter of time before Condi borrows one of Albright’s big hats, and goes to Tehran to dance with their dictator.

for full article:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24502,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

 

[Annie]

*Satire Alert*​

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2277

Iran May Stop Nuke-Making in Exchange for ICBMs
by Scott Ott

(2006-06-07) — In what may be a major breakthrough in stalled talks over Iran’s uranium enrichment program, the United States has reportedly offered to give long-range nuclear weapons to the Islamic Republic in exchange for assurances that it will soon stop production of nuclear material.

A State Department official, speaking on condition anonymity because the deal is not complete, said the United States would provide at least three dozen land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) tipped with multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV), as well as technical assistance and training to build the missile silos and bring them online before the end of 2008.

“We realized that the only way to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program was to eliminate the need,” said the unnamed State Department source. “We’re very hopeful that this carrot-without-stick approach will appeal to them.”

U.S. officials were encouraged when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not immediately reject the offer, but demanded face-to-face talks with U.S. President George Bush, and also required that Mr. Bush appear at the negotiations wearing pink fuzzy slippers.

The Bush administration is said to be studying the counter-proposal.

 

[Mariner]

Nobody appointed us kings of the world. If another sovereign nation is arming itself, and we don't like it--but lack the military power to stop it--then what choice do we have but to negotiate?

Many people here seem to have an exaggerated view of U.S. size and influence. We're 4% of the world's population, not 40! And we're not as popular as we used to be, due in part to the many bizarre choices this administration has made in its "War on Terror," from ignoring the Geneva Conventions to invading a different country than the one where our attackers originated.

Mariner.

 

[Annie]

Nobody appointed us kings of the world. If another sovereign nation is arming itself, and we don't like it--but lack the military power to stop it--then what choice do we have but to negotiate?

Many people here seem to have an exaggerated view of U.S. size and influence. We're 4% of the world's population, not 40! And we're not as popular as we used to be, due in part to the many bizarre choices this administration has made in its "War on Terror," from ignoring the Geneva Conventions to invading a different country than the one where our attackers originated.

Mariner.

We have the military power. The rest of the world might not like us using it. It gives us pause. Sometimes too much.

 

[dilloduck]

Nobody appointed us kings of the world. If another sovereign nation is arming itself, and we don't like it--but lack the military power to stop it--then what choice do we have but to negotiate?

Many people here seem to have an exaggerated view of U.S. size and influence. We're 4% of the world's population, not 40! And we're not as popular as we used to be, due in part to the many bizarre choices this administration has made in its "War on Terror," from ignoring the Geneva Conventions to invading a different country than the one where our attackers originated.

Mariner.

When was the last time you took a global poll of Americas' favorable/unfavorable ratings?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nobody appointed us kings of the world. If another sovereign nation is arming itself, and we don't like it--but lack the military power to stop it--then what choice do we have but to negotiate?

Many people here seem to have an exaggerated view of U.S. size and influence. We're 4% of the world's population, not 40! And we're not as popular as we used to be, due in part to the many bizarre choices this administration has made in its "War on Terror," from ignoring the Geneva Conventions to invading a different country than the one where our attackers originated.

Mariner.

Popularity? How high school. Are you fifteen?

 

[Annie]

We'll see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/10/world/middleeast/10tehran.html?th&emc=th

June 10, 2006
Iran Gets Deadline to Respond to Deal on Ending Enrichment
By HELENE COOPER and NAZILA FATHI

WASHINGTON, June 9 — Iran has less than three weeks to respond to the package of incentives offered by major powers in exchange for its suspending its enrichment of uranium, European diplomats and senior Bush administration officials said Friday.

The United States and Europe have set a deadline of June 29, when foreign ministers from the Group of 8 industrialized nations are scheduled to meet in Moscow. The deadline was not explicitly part of the package given to Iran earlier this week, but Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, conveyed it to Iranian officials in Tehran on Tuesday when he delivered the proposal, the diplomats said.

The deadline reflects concern among the United States, Britain and France that Iran continues to enrich uranium and develop its nuclear capability even as its leadership considers the package of incentives. "We know that time is not on our side," one European diplomat said.

On July 15, President Bush and the leaders of Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Italy are to gather in St. Petersburg for the Group of 8 summit meeting, where Iran is expected to be high on the agenda. European diplomats said back-and-forth between the major powers and Iran over the package could extend to the meeting, but that Iran was expected to make an initial response well before that. Diplomats and Bush administration officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the terms of the offer had not been released officially.

"If we haven't heard anything from them" by June 29, "that would be a very bad sign and we'd start looking at the sticks," said one European diplomat, referring to a list of penalties the major powers have agreed to consider if Iran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment. Iran has insisted that it will not accept limits on its right under existing treaties to enrich uranium for peaceful uses, and on Friday its chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, repeated that pledge but said Tehran was ready to negotiate with Washington. "Iran can announce today officially and explicitly that it has no problem to negotiate with America," said Mr. Larijani in an interview with ISNA, the news agency. "I believe that America and Iran can serve their interests better if they talk to one another," he said, adding, "Maybe there were times that we could have taken bigger steps, but I cannot say that those steps could have had good consequences."

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Thursday that Iran resumed enriching uranium the same day Mr. Solana was in Tehran.

ISNA quoted an unnamed Iranian official on Friday confirming resumption of the activities. "Iran has started another stage of injecting hexafluoride gas into centrifuge machines," ISNA quoted him as saying.

"Iran is also pursuing a plan to have a 3,000-centrifuge cascade by the end of the current year," meaning by March 2007, the official said.

 

[Gunny]

is beginning to look like Reagan's which, as you recall, supplied Iran with arms in order to create cash to fund the "freedom fighters" (or terrorists, depending your perspective) in Nicaragua--and also secretly negotiated with Iran to obtain release of the hostages, despite solemnly proclaiming that we don't negotiate with hostage-takers.

Clinton maintained a fairly hard line on Iran. I think it's good that 27 years of official policy is being reversed now. Basically, we have no choice. Sanctions won't stop Iran's nuclear program. Bombing won't work because the program's too well hidden. Short of a massive invasion, the only remaining choice is diplomacy.

Mariner.

Your comparison smells....BAD. Trying to get hostages released by the available means and supporting democracy over totalitarianism are morally acceptable objectives.

Caving in to Islamic fundamentalist demands in the hope they will honor their word is just unrealistic bullshit, and WAY more comparable to Clinton's "let's pretend they aren't there unless absolutely forced to act" approach.

Diplomacy will fail. No matter what they promise, and what the ostriches of the world are willing to swallow, their WMD program won't even miss so much as a ripple, much less a beat.

 

[Gunny]

Nobody appointed us kings of the world. If another sovereign nation is arming itself, and we don't like it--but lack the military power to stop it--then what choice do we have but to negotiate?

Yeah. Much better to stick your head in the sand and pretend "the bad guys" don't exist. Problem with that idea is you leave your ass in the air to get shot off.

Many people here seem to have an exaggerated view of U.S. size and influence. We're 4% of the world's population, not 40! And we're not as popular as we used to be, due in part to the many bizarre choices this administration has made in its "War on Terror," from ignoring the Geneva Conventions to invading a different country than the one where our attackers originated.

Mariner.

And lefties such as yourself in your attempts to emasculate, downplay the importance of the US in the global community.

The US has not ignored the Geneva Conventions, and we have not invaded ANY country that did not need invading. Not even a good job attempting to blend retaliation against Afghanistanfor 9/11 with invading Iraq to take out Saddam. Two separate issues.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Nobody appointed us kings of the world. If another sovereign nation is arming itself, and we don't like it--but lack the military power to stop it--then what choice do we have but to negotiate?

Many people here seem to have an exaggerated view of U.S. size and influence. We're 4% of the world's population, not 40! And we're not as popular as we used to be, due in part to the many bizarre choices this administration has made in its "War on Terror," from ignoring the Geneva Conventions to invading a different country than the one where our attackers originated.

Mariner.

Why all the self-loathing? That's a lib trait I will never understand.

Why not try this for a change? You might like it.

 

[Mariner]

intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban were supporting Al Qaeda, so we were going after the correct enemy--unlike Iraq. Everyone here forgets that Saddam was our ally and was Cheney's business partner (after committing his worst atrocities). He was a useful scapegoat, and Bush had a deep need to undo his dad's perceived weakness in failing to unseat Saddam in the first Gulf War.

As for Reagan, if he wanted to help the Contras, he could have gone through Congress, i.e. followed the law, rather than skirting it. Ollie North should be in jail, not on the lecture circuit. Reagan, possibly, deserved impeachment for his role in the scandal--and GWBush should have been so tainted by it as to be unelectable. I'm not sure why we all let them go--mostly, it seemed, because North was so good on TV during the hearings, and Reagan was so lovably inept by the end of his presidency.

On the one hand you're against negotiating with Iran now. On the other, you think Reagan was right to do so to get American hostages released... doesn't compute. If Carter had negotiated, he'd have won release of the hostages, and gotten re-elected. Instead, he took the moral road, and lost.

GunnyL, why are you so sure that diplomacy won't work? After all, sanctions and diplomacy worked in Iraq, as we now know too well. (And don't start telling me the WMD's were moved; Steven Hadley, Bush's National Security Adviser admitted "we were wrong" about Saddam having WMD's last November. Case closed.)

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

an attempt to fight the arrogance that comes automatically to so many Americans. Maybe it's easier if, like me, you didn't grow up here, to not see the U.S. as the center of the world. From a more global perspective, America has significant pluses and minuses. Addressing the minuses is a form of loving America, not hating it--it's wanting to make us better than we've been.

Bush himself seems to have learned some lessons in arrogance recently, publicly regretting his early cowboy stance and language. He's become a better, less one-dimensional, leader in the past few months, finally seeking some compromises (immigration), giving up on some former goals (banning gay marriage), and showing new flexibility (negotiating with Iran).

Mariner.

 

[Gunny]

intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban were supporting Al Qaeda, so we were going after the correct enemy--unlike Iraq. Everyone here forgets that Saddam was our ally and was Cheney's business partner (after committing his worst atrocities). He was a useful scapegoat, and Bush had a deep need to undo his dad's perceived weakness in failing to unseat Saddam in the first Gulf War.

Saddam was NOT our ally. He was supported under the table in his war with Iran using the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle.

The only failing of Bush I was not tattooing on the foreheads of every lib the reasons for not taking out Saddam in the first Gulf War, reasons broadcast all over the media, but completely forgotten by the left since.

Bush had to agree only to removing Saddam from Kuwait in order to gain Arab support, unrestricted use of Arab airspace, Turkish airspace, and an airfield in Saudi Arabia. Any other version of events from you lefties is pure revisionism/fantasy.

As for Reagan, if he wanted to help the Contras, he could have gone through Congress, i.e. followed the law, rather than skirting it. Ollie North should be in jail, not on the lecture circuit. Reagan, possibly, deserved impeachment for his role in the scandal--and GWBush should have been so tainted by it as to be unelectable. I'm not sure why we all let them go--mostly, it seemed, because North was so good on TV during the hearings, and Reagan was so lovably inept by the end of his presidency.

You have evidence the rest of the world didn't get PROVING Reagan's or Bush I's roles in Iran-Contra? Didn't think so.

On the one hand you're against negotiating with Iran now. On the other, you think Reagan was right to do so to get American hostages released... doesn't compute. If Carter had negotiated, he'd have won release of the hostages, and gotten re-elected. Instead, he took the moral road, and lost.

GunnyL, why are you so sure that diplomacy won't work? After all, sanctions and diplomacy worked in Iraq, as we now know too well. (And don't start telling me the WMD's were moved; Steven Hadley, Bush's National Security Adviser admitted "we were wrong" about Saddam having WMD's last November. Case closed.)

Mariner.

I don't care WHAT Steven Hadley said. I recognize an attempt to just shut the left the Hell up (which will never, EVER happen) when I see it. Just sit there and pretend most of the world and even you libs believed he still posessed WMDs. The fact is Saddam posessed WMDs and he USED WMDs ... the CIA even refined his WMDs when Iraq was at war with Iran. Then there is the fact he acted like he was hiding something. Guess that idiot's game backfired, huh? In light of the evidence at the time, only an incompetent fool would assume he did not posess them still.

I guess you're just missing the point of Islamic fundamentalism. Their idea of negotiation is "us dead." Any pretended negtiation between now and that goal, will be simply a matter of buying time.

And had the incompetent fool Carter reacted immediately with force in 1979, the whole problem probably wouldn't exist today. EVERY TIME one of you ostrich, diplomacy advocates wants to do nothing but blow hot air on a situation, someone ends up taking it up the butt later.

Well, no thanks.