So you’re saying the Republican party is hyping up a threat without regarding the facts? That’s all their capable of doing. They can’t construct an honest argument or conduct meaningful diplomacy because their perverted ideology prevents them from being able to do it.
Western nuclear analysts said yesterday that Tehran lacked the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions, even as a senior Iranian official said Iran would defy international pressure and rapidly expand its ability to enrich uranium for fuel.
The official, Muhammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran’s atomic energy organization, said Iran would push quickly to put 54,000 centrifuges on line a vast increase from the 164 they said Tuesday that they had used to enrich uranium to levels that could fuel a nuclear reactor.
Still, nuclear analysts called the claims exaggerated. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020.
This is too important of an issue - both to America and the world, to be left in the hands of the inept George Bush and his cronies. If nobody stands up, people will die unnecessarily and there will be blood on everyone’s hands. Again.
Related
Cultists Reject Outside Information
Jerome Corsi’s “Obama Nation”: Like Clockwork, Swift Boating Begins
John Edwards: War Hawk?
How close to producing a nuke does Iran have to be in order for you to consider military action appropriate?
How far away from producing a nuke does Iran have to be in order for you to consider actual diplomacy?
“How close to producing a nuke does Iran have to be in order for you to consider military action appropriate?”
And there it is in all it’s glory, the anihilating rhetoric of pre-emptive war.
OK, peed’.
Let’s just suppose we bomb the heck out of whatever Iranian nuclear facilities we think we can find.
What do you think happens next?
Do the Iranians say, “Oh well, no sense in trying again. We give up.”
Or do they say, “Hey, these religious extremist guys running our country are to blame for this. Let’s overthrow ‘em!”
Help us out here. Just what is the fantasy that comes after the boom-boom?
Iran could have a bomb in 16 days? Attack now.
Iran could have a bomb in 16 weeks? Attack now.
Iran could have a bomb in 16 months? Attack now.
Iraq could have a bomb in 16 years? Attack now.
Pre-emptive war is pre-ordained war.
midderpidge: Maybe Carter should have started 30 years ago, when he was strolling around the Rose garden, while Iran held our people hostage for 444 days.
“Bush alienated Iran” Hah!
That means diplomacy takes longer Farris, maybe Bush should have started 5 years ago before he alienated Iran with his axis of evil crap.
This is IRAN we’re talking about, not Sweden.
The sad reality is that both the Iranians and the Bush Administration have a vested interest in exaggerating the progress of their nuclear program.
Once again, airstrikes won’t end the Iranian nuclear threat; they’ll only push it down the road. The only way to end the nuclear program is through negotiation, yet conservatives want to take the carrots “off the table.” Until conservatives get serious about solving this issue, people will continue to view them as manipulative liars when it comes to national security. Just some free advice, fellas.
Yes, up until now Iran has been so open to diplomatic gestures. It’s like they’ll give in to our demands if we just ask nicely.
Then we’ll all gather round the campfire and hum “I’d like to teach the World to sing”…
“This is IRAN we re talking about, not Sweden.”
So then your answer is a simple, “No diplomacy.”
What about North Korea? Shall be bomb them too? I hear Syria is nice this time of year.
They know how to work the Bush Administration, that’s for sure: declare you’ll have a bomb in 15 days, say some scary stuff about Israel, then watch as the Bush administration bases it’s entire national security policy towards you on your RHETORIC ALONE.
“but don t pretend he wasn t diplomatic, especially with Iran.”
Carter was so successful at diplomacy with the Iranians that he ended up negotiating with Saddam Hussein, through the Saudis, to attack to Iran.
Well, we can’t now because we dicked around with them until … oops, they’ve got a nuke. Once you get one, all the rules change. Thank you, Carter and Allbright!!!
Our stance when it comes to Iran should be informed by the mistake we made in letting NK cowboy up.
Also curious that none of the namby pamby leftists can actually answer the question I posed&
Ok.
I dunno, couple of days, maybe? When we see them putting the decals on it?
Again, how did bush screw up UN diplomacy?
maybe diplomacy doesn’t work with a country run by a guy who believes that nuclear warfare is going to get him into heaven?
What are you talking about Frank? Carter was the most diplomatic president in my lifetime (I was alive for about 9 months of his presidency…). You think the release of those hostages 20 minutes after Reagan’s address is a coincidence? Or do you think it was Iran pissing in it’s pants for fear of Reagan? Oh, wait, that’s right, the Reagan administration was responsible for selling Iran millions of dollars worth of arms. I forgot. Makes you wonder a bit more about the October Surprise…
How can you even think about Carter as a man that didn’t practice diplomacy. You can call him a pussy if you want (a charge I would also defend him against, but at least I can see the point of view there), but don’t pretend he wasn’t diplomatic, especially with Iran.
Carter blew it in Iran by supporting the Shah way past his time. Ok. Bush soured things by publicly declaring Iran an enemy of humanity. He wanted to talk tough for politics here and by doing so undermined diplomacy abroad. His whole policy is we’re tough, we talk - you listen. Is it any wonder Iran wants nukes? It can’t hope to win a war with the US militarily, but Bush’s North Korea policy clearly shows nuclear powers are left alone.
What is your excuse for UN diplomacy not working , how about the IAEA…
Just curious.
Also curious that none of the namby pamby leftists can actually answer the question I posed…
“maybe diplomacy doesn t work with a country run by a guy who believes that nuclear warfare is going to get him into heaven?”
Good point, but are you sure you want to be talking about Bush that way in public?
Nonetheless, there are some who will continue to try to get through to Mr. Bush.
miked: My point exactly. Carter could have exercized any number of options besides crashing a helicopter in the desert, then counting the days.
But he didn’t. Midderpidge believes he supported the Shah “way past his time,” implying that the sooner we had turned Iran into a sharia run theocracy, the better. That’s exactly why terrorists have been salivating at the idea of attacking the USA ever since. They got their wish on 9/11/2001.
Shall we set ourselves for more, by kissing more ass? That’s sure to impress Allah - blinded maniacs.
Bush soured things by publicly declaring Iran an enemy of humanity.
Please tell me what fine state of diplomatic relationship was upset.
“It can t hope to win a war with the US militarily.”
Why in the world would it even be considering such a thing?
Because they were offended by Bush’s calling them “evil”?
DAMMIT! Beaten to the punch.
The leftists believe the mullahs in Iran are the same President Bush a guy that like about 80% of the rest of america believes in God.
Scary BDS, just scary.
Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday that Iran won’t back away from uranium enrichment and said the world must treat Iran as a nuclear power.
“We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger.”
“We won’t hold talks with anyone about the right of the Iranian nation (to enrich uranium).”
“Today, our situation has changed completely. We are a nuclear country and speak to others from the position of a nuclear country,”
Did you figure that out all by yourself?
“How close to producing a nuke does Iran have to be in order for you to consider military action appropriate?”
How about anywhere?
“The leftists believe the mullahs in Iran are the same President Bush a guy that like about 80% of the rest of america believes in God.”
It’s called a joke.
And I wonder, are there people who really believe, as it often seems, that the heliocopter crashing in the desert was Carter’s plan all along?
And we all know that had something similar happened right now, Pedro and Frank would be attacking the Liberal media for blaming it on Bush - whether or not anyone actually, in the event, did.
Sure Iran could have a nuke within 16 days…if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of centrifuges at its Natanz plant. The italics straight from the linked article. Funny how nobody here seemed to have noticed that.
On Wednesday, Iran’s deputy nuclear chief said his country intends to increase production at Natanz to the facility’s full capacity of 54,000 centrifuges. So Iran has stated an intention to take a particular action, and that action will result in them being able to acquire a nuke within 16 days. What action do we take and when?
Helicopters crash all the time. At one point it seemed that helicopters were a bigger threat to troops than the insurgents. I don’t see the “liberal-biased MSM” blaming bush for that anywhere, do you? Why is Carter blamed for a helicopter crash?
Duros…
Where do you get the three week figure?
This also sounds like a reasonable response:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/reframing-the-iran-debate_b_19041.html
You know why Iran is pissed? Because we propped up the Shah, who was a pyschotic dictator. That’s how Khomeni got anti-western sentiment built up, which is how he got into power, which is why the students took the hostages in the first place.
I love how the answer seems to be that these people hate us and are bent on destruction. Let’s bomb them until they embrace peace and democracy. And we should kill abortion doctors because murder is wrong.
We don’t got to show you no stinkin’ results!
They can install and have operational 54,000 centrifuges in less than 3 weeks? Damn. That is, if nothing else, very efficient.
Maybe they could help us with rebuilding New Orleans. They could have it done by Easter.
Post above awaiting moderation. From the NY Times today, I believe:
“Still, nuclear analysts called the claims exaggerated. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020 &
The nuclear experts said Iran s claim yesterday that it would mass-produce 54,000 centrifuges echoed boasts that it made years ago. Even so, they noted, the Islamic state still lacked the parts and materials to make droves of the highly complex machines, which can spin uranium into fuel rich enough for use in nuclear reactors or atom bombs.”
“What action do we take and when?”
First you have to get real and not keep feeding the insane hype machine. From the NY Times:
“The official, Muhammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran’s atomic energy organization, said Iran would push quickly to put 54,000 centrifuges on line a vast increase from the 164 the Iranians said Tuesday that they had used to enrich uranium to levels that could fuel a nuclear reactor.
Still, nuclear analysts called the claims exaggerated. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020 …
The nuclear experts said Iran’s claim yesterday that it would mass-produce 54,000 centrifuges echoed boasts that it made years ago. Even so, they noted, the Islamic state still lacked the parts and materials to make droves of the highly complex machines, which can spin uranium into fuel rich enough for use in nuclear reactors or atom bombs.
It took Tehran 21 years of planning and 7 years of sporadic experiments, mostly in secret, to reach its current ability to link 164 spinning centrifuges in what nuclear experts call a cascade. Now, the analysts said, Tehran has to achieve not only consistent results around the clock for many months and years but even higher degrees of precision and mass production. It is as if Iran, having mastered a difficult musical instrument, now faces the challenge of making thousands of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1144901001-d2LJykVPxYSlgFSI0Sk++w&oref=slogin
Now here’s where the pre-emptive war rhetoric plays its role. In the mushbrained thinking of idiots like pedro it doesn’t matter if Iran could have a bomb in 20 days or 20 years, the response is exactly the same: Attack them now. That is neither sound policy or strategy, it’s simply madness.
That depends, scratch. What outcome do we want to achieve?
Several commenters here seem to have strong ideas about the best course of action, but they don’t ever talk about results.
…enough enriched uranium to supply…
As long as we’re correcting the record, let’s do it completely.
How soon before we hear the “don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” thing again? That was a good one.
That guy’s right: you can’t trust the word of either the Iranian regime or the Bush administration when it comes to their estimates of the threat. Both have strong incentives to exaggerate how close Iran is to having a bomb.
The facts are that Iran, like some other jingoistic leaders I can think of, likes to talk to tough, to pump up its image and rattle cages (and nerves). The facts, however, don’t back up their bluster. Neither do they support the fear mongering on the part of the Bush administration.
The message we sent to Iran when we invaded Iraq was that it better get nuclear weapons as fast as it can because, as per North Korea, we don’t invade countries with nuclear weapons. Because they are, indeed, so far away from actually developing weapons, Iran has realized that talk is cheap. It’s time to stop the dick waving and start seriously dealing with what’s driving the rhetoric and it isn’t just because “the Iranian leadership is crazy.”
Duros, the “16 days” is how long it would take to make enough enriched uranium after the centrifuges are installed, not how long it would take to install them.
16 days?
Less than 3 weeks?
Which is 21 days?
More than 14 days?
Which is 2 weeks?
Do you have a different calendar where you live?
5. The way to stop Iran, without causing more death, destruction and instability, is to remove the incentives for Iran to go nuclear, and negotiate.
***
change leaders in the White House,
junk the India deal,
dismantle the permanent bases,
clearly renounce neocon foreign policy aims.
[In other other words, turn over America to liberal Democrats]
We should do this for the Iranians, in exchange for which they will agree not to do something they shouldn’t be doing in the first place.
Oh yes, take a gander at Mr. Scher’s foreign policy credentials:
Bill Scher is the executive editor of LiberalOasis.com and a weekly contributor to Air America Radio’s evening program “The Majority Report.” His first book “Wait! Don’t Move To Canada!” will be published by Rodale in 2006.
I wonder if he’s related tp Seymour.
Sounds just like the way the Democrats did business with the Soviet Union from 1960 - 1980. And we all know well that worked out.
Frameone, I quoted an entire article from Liberal Oasis in another thread that was loaded with links and supporting material covering exactly what you link to at HuffingtonPost. DrPedro, Frank, Save Farris, et al just ignored it, as they will ignore your link and continue their devolution into mere trolls or the willfully stupid.
Frank_D, though, deserves some special attention:
miked: My point exactly. Carter could have exercized any number of options besides crashing a helicopter in the desert, then counting the days.
But he didn t. Midderpidge believes he supported the Shah way past his time, implying that the sooner we had turned Iran into a sharia run theocracy, the better. That s exactly why terrorists have been salivating at the idea of attacking the USA ever since. They got their wish on 9/11/2001.
Notice Frank never says what those other surefire options were. Was Reagan’s decision to negotiate with terrorists and trade arms for hostages the best move? Should that be our policy now? Appeasement (or as Frank put it “ass kissing”)? I especially love how he then sidesteps the fact that it was the U.S. that undermined democratic elections in Iran in the 50’s, installed the Shah, and then failed to recognize the need to address the growing radicalism there in the 70’s. Nope, Midderpidge is just a terrorist sympathizer, and well, naturally that’s what led to 9/11. Certainly our support for autocratic regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia, or the presence of U.S. military bases on what many muslims believe to be holy ground, had any bearing on 9/11. Oh, and Frank, the iranians have tried to deal with Bush several times since 9/11, and Bush has rebuffed then and labeled them part of the “axis of evil.” That’s how he has hurt relations. If you’re going to accuse someone of encouraging terrorism, Frank, at least try to raise one valid point.
So Iran has stated an intention to take a particular action, and that action will result in them being able to acquire a nuke within 16 days. What action do we take and when?
You can understand my confusion.
Excuse me Frank, Iran was a lost cause. The people of Iran turned on the Shah and the US helped keep him in power until the US was equal to the SHah in their hatred. Hence the storming of the embassy and the hostage situation.
There seems to be a lot of confusion here about the “Axis of Evil.” Perhaps I can straighten it out.
Contrary to progressive belief, the three nations in the Axis were evil before the term was coined. All were dictatorships that oppressed their own people and had documented ties to world terrorism.
They also shared a common and dangerous trait — all three (Saddam’s Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) had tangled with the United States and had come out “winners” - at least in their own view.
The upshot of this is that it made “negotiations” pointless because (a) we were dealing with nations run by evil men with no concept of the Western value of human life, and (b) they did not believe that the US was capable of defeating them or willing to act on its threats.
I’ll challenge anyone to name a conflict in which a powerful, evil entity that considered itself invinceable actually sat down at a negotiating table and willfully surrendered its power.
The use of military force to end the Hussein regime was a tragic but necessary act, because it showed Iran and North Korea that the US wasn’t bluffing any more. And it scared Libya into surrendering its nuclear and chemical weapons programs — programs whose advanced progress we didn’t even know existed.
What’s at stake now in Iran involves a religious nut leader who believes that if he provokes a war (and thus creates chaos and strife) he will hasten Judgement Day. He really doesn’t care if he wins or loses, because the ensuing strife is the fulfillment of his religious prophecies.
Armadinejad is a much more dangerous man with nukes than without them. Maybe the thought of everyone owning a part of the world’s nuclear arsenal seems just like good old fashinoned “fairness” to some. It doesn’t to me.
“If nobody stands up, people will die unnecessarily and there will be blood on everyone s hands. Again.”
I’m sure that in 1939, many Europeans wished they had stood up earlier, too. They didn’t, and 20,000,000 died because of it.
Anyway, Mike’s comment makes it quite clear that the beginning, middle, and end for contemporary conservative policymaking is ideology, not facts, not reality. In this case, it’s led to conservatives hamstringing any diplomatic efforts because they’re ideologically opposed to offering any carrots, only sticks, as inducements in the negotiations. “OMG THAT’S TOTALLY APPEEEEESMENT!!!” they howl.
And yet, their alternative proposal is to literally let U.S. foreign policy be held hostage to the rhetoric — THE RHETORIC — coming out of Teheran. It is truly terrifying how fucking divorced from reality conservatives are these days. Bombing cannot offer a guarantee against Teheran’s nuclear ambitions; only diplomacy can. So why cripple it from the outset, Cons? Because that’s all your worn-out, discredited ideology will allow you to do. And so Bush will choose the option that is least likely to solve the problem. The adults may be back in charge, but they’re all panicking fucking idiots.
“I ll challenge anyone to name a conflict in which a powerful, evil entity that considered itself invinceable actually sat down at a negotiating table and willfully surrendered its power.”
SALT I and II, START, the test ban treaty, the list goes ever on. Conservatives have a *profoundly retarded* belief that neogtiations never work with evil regimes, and that we should therefore only ever use war as the solution to them. Nuclear deterrence, containment, and negotiation works just as well today against Teheran as it did against Moscow.
Iran is run by madmen so we can’t believe anything they say except when they say things we want to believe.
Hey, Bill, you want a history of Iran? Try this…
I was just making a comment, not writing an article for the World Book Encyclopedia of the Internet WikiPedia.
I’m still waiting to find out who it is that wants to bomb somebody…
Because negotiatin’ is hard. It’s hard work! Gotta come in on a Saturday and stuff.
Let’s assume that’s entirely correct.
A military invasion of Iran would have what effect on Iranian public support for that “religious nut leader”?
“The upshot of this is that it made negotiations pointless because (a) we were dealing with nations run by evil men with no concept of the Western value of human life”
You are talking about us here, right? The Western value of human life that allowed 1 million children to starve in a sanctions regime and started an unprovoked war that claimed probably 50,000 more (and counting). That “Western value of human life”?
See, the thing is that I know people from all over the world. They are no different than any American, in that they want to have a good life for their kids, to have sex once in awhile, and not to die in a brutal war. They also can be swayed (not unlike us) by emotional rhetoric and propoganda.
See, you fall into this trap that we are always the white hats and other peoples are always the black hats. Life isn’t that simple. All governments are wearing shades of grey. Sometimes our shade of grey is a little bit darker than our enemies. Usually it is not.
Is Iran run by extremists? Maybe. Is the US run by extremists? Maybe. Can there be some common ground where 100’s of thousands or millions of people won’t get incinerated? I would say there is about a 99.9% chance of this. But first you have to get beyond the “our penises are bigger” form of diplomacy (thanks George Carlin) and start finding common ground. Us little people appreciate that.
Leave the titanic battles of good v. evil for the WWE and comic books.
My point then, as now, Frank, is that the U.S. has a nasty history with Iran, and simply taking a miopic view of the hostage crisis from the 70’s does a disservice to a larger understanding of our strained relationship. It’s also rather insulting to Midderpidge and others to make the leap from the hostage crisis to 9/11, thereby not-so-subtley implying that Midderpidge and other pro-diplomacy-over-force types are terrorist enablers.
As for Mike’s assertions about evil, I guess Iraq, Iran, and North Korea stupidly forgot to makes themselves evil, but useful.
war time convenient evil
oil rich, k-street friendly evil
Look, Bill, I don’t need lessons from you on anything.
I don’t care how you connect the dots. People that are willing to blow themselves up over a pseudo - religious “cause” aren’t even martyrs — they’re nuts!
As that Muslim lady out west observed: The Jews have been persecuted for more than 2,000 years, but has an Israei strapped dynamite around himself, and blown up a disco, or a busload of innocent men, women and children?
Let’s not focus on the Iran hostagle debacle, if it will make you feel better. How about the Munich Olympocs 1972, WTC 1, the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole.
My feeling is that there are only a few Middle Eastern governments looking for a peaceful relationship with the USA, and Iran is not one of them.
Did I mention our cooperative pals in OPEC?
“People that are willing to blow themselves up over a pseudo - religious cause aren t even martyrs they re nuts!”
No more nuts than the Stalinists or the Nazis. And yet you in the pant-wetters’ brigade counsel panic and confusion and headless chickenism. Wipe the tears of terror out of your eyes and try to think straight for once. Marlon Brando should grab you weepy, frightened conservatives by the lapels and shout in your faces “YOU CAN ACT LIKE A MAN!”
Containment, sanctions, nuclear deterrent, and diplomacy. It was good enough to win the Cold War, and it’s good enough today, you mewling baby. Ike would be ashamed of you.
To be fair, Ike would probably like your indifference to civil rights, though.
Wink!;)
the US helped keep him in power until the US was equal to the Shah in their in their hatred. Hence* [emphasis added - fd] the storming of the embassy and the hostage situation.
* hence (hns) pronunciation adv. 1. For this reason; therefore
And you don’t think they’re nuts?
TomY: Are you really trotting out that “Conservatives are scaredy cats” routine? Really?
Well, forget about it…
It won’t work. It didn’t work with the “Are you so afraid of terrorists you’re willing to give up your comstitutional right to make a phone call without being wiretapped?” gambit, because you weren’t able to answer the question, “If you’re not afraid of terrorists, why are you afraid of the FBI?”
This time, it’s slightly different. No I’m so afraid of a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran, that I’m what? Willing to negotiate? No — that’s what you want to do.
Lessee: I’m so afraid of nuclear weapons, I’d rather try containment than war — wait, no, that’s you guys again!
Wait, I’ve got it — I’m so afraid of nukes in the hands of Iranians, that I don’t want a war. We should try sanctions, instead (remember how well that worked with Iraq?) — but, that’s you’re idea, too!
Of course, we could always try diplom — never mind. That’s you’re idea, too!
So, let me see if I have this straight — you’re willing to kiss their asses in Macy’s window, but it’s the conservatives that are afraid, right?
Hehe
If Iran is to be held accountable for supporting terrorist groups, then shouldn’t the U.S. be held to the same standard? What about our support for the contras in Nicaragua who were notorious for indescriminately attacking civilians, murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners? Or were they “freedom fighters,” and not terrorists? I’m not trying to justify Iran’s actions in this regard, but it seems nobody’s hands are bloodless here.
Israel, too, has used it’s considerable military might to expand its borders and suppress Palestinian dissent. Sharon was known to have participated in and/or orchestrated multiple military attacks on civilians which are widely considered war crimes (the October 1953 “Unit 101″ massacre of 66 civilians in Jordanian West Bank village of Qibya, the September 1982 massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon, and the April 2002 Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) mass killings in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank, among others).
There’s plenty of blood and shame to go around. Given our recent forays into illegal invasions, torture, and other questionable tactics (anybody want to discuss the use of white phosphorous on Iraqi civilians, or the health problems arising from the use of depleted uranium ammunition), I would say we don’t exactly hold the high ground in the morality debate. At the very least, our perch has been lowered considerably.
Says TomY the “historian”: To be fair, Ike would probably like your indifference to civil rights, though.
Which Democrat ever had the balls to do this?
The only people around here that are indifferent to civil rights are you elitist liberals. You’re indifferent to everyone’s civil rights, except your own right to be supercillious, condescending, patronizing self - righteous pricks.
And I ain’t even winking…
Liberals leave all options on the table, then choose the one that is most likely to work. Conservatives choose the military option based on fear that nothing else can work. As I said above, and which you ignored in favor of making lame ad hominems: airstrikes won t end the Iranian nuclear threat; they ll only push it down the road. The only way to end the nuclear program is through negotiation, yet conservatives want to take the carrots off the table. Until conservatives get serious about solving this issue, people will continue to view them as manipulative liars when it comes to national security.
Tommy says
“Containment, sanctions, nuclear deterrent, and diplomacy. It was good enough to win the Cold War, and it s good enough today, you mewling baby. Ike would be ashamed of you.”
How do you contain them? They have a porous border on all sides, and fellow fundamentalists all over.
Sanctions? What are you going to sanction? Sanction like Iraq? Iran controls a huge chunk of oil and is capabale of sending the worlds economy into a tailspin.
Nuclear Deterrent? HA! Remember the old Police song about the “russians love their children too”? Well, fundy Islamist don’t. Haven’t you seen all the kids on arab tv offering themselves up for suicide bombing missions? How do you “deter” someone who believes that death takes you straight to heaven and 72 virgins? The russians were theoretically atheists, they needed to enjoy the one life they had!
Crap tom, I sure as hell hope the rest of the leftists aren’t as simple minded as you are.
Maybe we could just put daisies in their rifle barrels! Come on guys!
But, of course, the Iranian leadership is so craaaaaazy, they can’t figure this out. Or they don’t care if their country is destroyed along with all the people in it.
Right, Jay Tea?
Which Democrat ever had the balls to do this?
Wasn’t he upholding a Supreme Court ruling? How is that a partisan thing to do?
Israel will airstrike Iran long before they have a bomb anyway (with better intelligence), so what are getting so worked up about?
Maybe this guy.
1) it takes two to tango. Has Iran showed the slightest interest in backing away from their crazed psycho platform?
2) The logical outcome of doing nothing is Iran nukes Israel, most likely irradiating a bunch of Israel’s neighbors. Israel returns the favor, dumping a whole bunch of fallout all around the Persian Gulf. The only Americans directly affected by this will be those in Israel (but they’re all pawns of the Zionists and/or Jesus Freaks) and our military (who are the willing slaves of Halliburton, the warmongers, and the military-industrial complex), so it’s no big deal. Right?
I guess when you look at it in that light, sitting on your ass and doing nothing while talking big sounds real good. But hey, that seems to sum up most Democratic policies pretty well.
J.
1) it takes two to tango. Has Iran showed the slightest interest in backing away from their crazed psycho platform?
Has the US? It’s the US that has threatened to make war on Iran, not the other way around. Iran has only threatened to retailiate against the US.
JT, what will you be doing to support the war effort, if not “sitting on your ass”? Warblogging?
BTW, it’s called “diplomacy”, not “sitting on your ass”.
making lame ad hominems?
And what do you call this?
To be fair, Ike would probably like your indifference to civil rights, though.
Does being liberal mean having short - or long - term memory?
All you liberals READ THIS!
OK, Frank. Read it.
Mr. Miller is an assistant professor of Economics. I’m not sure why that gives him any standing in the realm of international politics.
At any rate, his entire article relies on the premise that:
If the “mad mullahs”–a ridiculous and purposefully inflammatory term if there ever was one–are willing to sacrifice 70 percent of their population to kill an indeterminite number of Israelis, why do they need nuclear weapons to do it? Couldn’t they send them all over in a human wave, brandishing sticks and cast iron skillets and do the job just as well?
Miller is clumsily papering over the fatal flaw in his argument: that Iran wants a nuclear weapon to do what they already hold the capability to do.
“How do you contain them? They have a porous border on all sides, and fellow fundamentalists all over.”
The Soviet border was no less porous than the Iraqi border, and, in turn, the Iranian. They are a nation of Persian Shiites surrounded by people of different ethnicities and religions. Containment doesn’t mean border control anyway, you drooling dolt. Google it.
“Sanctions? What are you going to sanction? Sanction like Iraq? Iran controls a huge chunk of oil and is capabale of sending the worlds economy into a tailspin.”
The communist world was like a third of the earth’s population. Sanctions worked against them too. Provide evidence that santions against Iran would wreck the world’s economy in a way that sanctions against Iraq did not.
“Nuclear Deterrent: Well, fundy Islamist don t.” Communists believed the triumph of their ideology was inevitable. They were no less rational in this regard. And yet, it turns out that government leaders, regardless of ideology, all understand power. Moron.
Of course, if we drop bombs on them, they’ll respond by “opening the spigots” right?
Miller is clumsily papering over the fatal flaw in his argument: that Iran wants a nuclear weapon to do what they already hold the capability to do.
First of all, I am stunned that you consider Miller unqualified because he is a Professor of economics. Are you either a Professor of economics or of International Politics?
Well, let’s go on,assuming that you don’t have to be a zoologist to see the stripes on a zebra.
How does having the ability to “overrun the Israelis with sticks and iron skillets” (a feat you’re sure can be accomplished after years of study of Military History in general, and the Iranian military in particular? — and you questioned his credentials) obviate the desire for nuclear weaponry? Surely, while you were at the War College, you learned of the idea of coming to a battle “the fustest with the mostest”? One doesn’t go to a war with the minimum amount of equipment.
And the Iranians know, even if you don’t, that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), are people with whom you do not want to mess.
Finally, the term “Mad Mullahs” is an alliterative understatement.
I would have gone with the more picaresque, “Nervous as a long tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs,” or “Crazy as junebugs.”
Quaker, Iran’s leader has stated that he sees himself as the guy who will start the war that will bring about the next messiah (I’m tired and I don’t remember all the names). Besides, Allah will protect the truly holy from the evil Zionist bombs; the only ones who are in danger are the sinners.
Ahmenijihad or whatever his name is is pretty much everything the moonbats accuse Bush of being — the religious fanatic with a messiah/apocalypse fantasy. But to admit that would force the moonbats to admit they might’ve overhyped their case against Bush, and that’s something they just can’t do.
Besides, they have their single talking point — “Bush is bad, and everything he is for is bad, and everything bad is his fault.” To even attempt to look at issues on one’s own without finding a way to use it to make Bush bad is heresy.
J.
Ahmenijihad or whatever his name is is pretty much everything the moonbats accuse Bush of being the religious fanatic with a messiah/apocalypse fantasy. But to admit that would force the moonbats to admit they might ve overhyped their case against Bush, and that s something they just can t do.
Nah, that pretty much works for me, how ’bout you guys?
Yeah, that actually sounds spot on, except only 1 of those 2 is mired in a half-dozen scandals, has sagging poll numbers, and stands to lose control of Congress in the upcoming elections. Diplomacy be damned, it’s time to wag the dog!
Yet another voice saying what sane people fear, Bush is going to get us all killed.