It's time to move into Iran

[MACDRIVE]

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/world/middleeast/11diplo.html?ref=middleeast)



By HELENE COOPER and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: January 11, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 — In promising to stop Iran from meddling in Iraq, President Bush returned Wednesday night to a strategy of confrontation in dealing with Tehran, casting aside what had been a limited flirtation with a more diplomatic approach toward it.

Multimedia
Video
Bush’s Address: Excerpt 1
Excerpt 2 | Excerpt 3
Democratic Response: Excerpts
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage »
Related
Transcript of President Bush’s Address to Nation on U.S. Policy in Iraq (January 11, 2007)
Mr. Bush accused Iran of providing material support for attacks on American troops and vowed to respond. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces,” he said in his speech. “We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Mr. Bush said the United States would send another aircraft carrier and its supporting ships to the Persian Gulf. Administration officials said the battle group would be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran, a response to the growing concern that Iran is building up its own missile capacity and naval power, with the goal of military dominance in the gulf.

Mr. Bush also announced the deployment of Patriot missiles to protect America’s gulf allies. A battery of such missiles is already in Qatar, having been moved there several months ago.

The more combative talk reflects increased frustration in the administration with Iran, which American officials blame for part of the rising death toll in Iraq.

Military officials in Baghdad say they have documented a gradual rise in the number of sophisticated roadside bombs using “shaped charges” — a type of weapon that commanders believe is imported from Iran. According to military statistics, 78 coalition troops were killed and 243 were wounded by these bombs between September and December of last year, compared with 53 killed by the bombs in the previous nine months.

American officials have provided members of Congress information to support the claim that Iran is helping to orchestrate attacks on Americans in Iraq, but the administration has not made that information public.

The American officials say that the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds force trains inside Iran and then dispatches operatives into Iraq, using contacts with Iraqi Shiite militias to attack American troops.

“They’re training to kill coalition forces,” said one senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Their comments about wanting to see a stable Iraq are belied by this type of activity.”

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told Congress late last year that while he was originally skeptical of reports of Iranian operations inside Iraq, he now had the “zeal of a convert” on the matter.

One American official who recently returned from a trip to Baghdad said American commanders in Iraq believed that Iran was using its vast political influence to press Shiite politicians not to forge any long-term agreements with Sunnis.

“We caught them with their finger in the cookie jar last month,” a senior administration official said, referring to the arrest of five Iranians in Iraq whom the Americans accused of running guns and planning sectarian attacks. The Iranians were eventually released by Iraqi authorities.

American officials maintain that the latest moves should not be seen as preparations for a military strike against Iran. But they also said that Mr. Bush’s top deputies, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, had decided that, barring some major conciliatory move from Tehran, American moves to engage Iran had run their course.

The United States has grown frustrated with what one administration official described as the “molasseslike” pace of diplomatic efforts at the United Nations to impose broad sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

The Security Council passed a resolution on Dec. 23 with sanctions intended to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but the United States and some European nations contend is for the purpose of creating nuclear arms. The measure bars the trade of goods or technology related to Iran’s nuclear program.

But American officials acknowledge that the resolution is too weak to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program and are seeking to increase economic and psychological pressure on Iran. The United States is pressing governments and financial institutions in Europe, Japan and China to cut some of their financial ties with Iran.

For instance, during talks in Washington last week between Ms. Rice and visiting Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi of China, American officials urged Beijing to abandon a proposal for a $16 billion natural gas deal for the China National Offshore Oil Corporation to develop Iran’s North Pars gas field, American officials said. The Chinese assured the United States that a decision was not imminent, American officials said.

Mr. Bush is expected to seek to apply pressure to other countries to limit their dealings with Iran in the coming month. American officials are hoping that the economic pressure will also persuade Iran not to actively oppose the new Bush strategy in Iraq.



I'm thinking that by Bush appointing Admiral Fallon to be the new commander of Central Command, and floating a carrier strike force over in the persian gulf, is a little too much just to be a coincedence.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Yeah, that would be a good move now that they have control over Iraq...

...oh, wait... :rolleyes:

[Queso]

Pretty transparent scare tactic designed to get Congress to provide the extra funding Bush wants.

Does Bush honestly think the USA is the only country allowed to have an agenda? Countries do this all the time, even the USA.

[clevin]

eventually, US will leave, and iran and syria would still be there, so, how on earth does he think Iraq will not be with iran finally?

[princealfie]

I can't wait to c us takeover over the whole world... oops, wasn't that the last bits of the Roman Empire back in the good ole days? :eek:

[Dont Hurt Me]

I can't wait to c us takeover over the whole world... oops, wasn't that the last bits of the Roman Empire back in the good ole days? :eek:
when you say "us" I take it your referring to the corporations?

[skunk]

I can't wait to c us takeover over the whole world... oops, wasn't that the last bits of the Roman Empire back in the good ole days? :eek:Please explain what you are actually trying to say.

[solvs]

Please explain what you are actually trying to say.

I'm assuming, based on previous comments, that he means we're about to fall just like the Roman Empire did.

[skunk]

I'm assuming, based on previous comments, that he means we're about to fall just like the Roman Empire did.Well, he's certainly no Gibbon.

[Thomas Veil]

I'm so happy we're planning to engage in battle in three different Middle East countries. :rolleyes: :mad:

If this were any other guy in the President's office, I might actually buy the explanation that we have to go to yet another country to cut off the supply line to the terrorists. But then, if this were any other guy, we wouldn't be involved in this disaster at all, of course.

[MacBoobsPro]

I dont like the shape of Japan.

ATTACK!!!!

[Queso]

I dont like the shape of Japan.

ATTACK!!!!
I think more countries should be shaped like the first letter of their name. Makes them easier to find on a map. :)

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I'm so happy we're planning to engage in battle in three different Middle East countries. :rolleyes: :mad:
Yeah, but on the other hand, if they attack Iran, too. All the engaging lands will be connected, and when you play Risk, that is always an advantage...

:rolleyes:

[Queso]

Yeah, but on the other hand, if they attack Iran, too. All the engaging lands will be connected, and when you play Risk, that is always an advantage...

:rolleyes:
Something tells me Buckaroo was more George's thing :p

[Dont Hurt Me]

So we have Iran incursions into Iraq and supplying shaped charges for roadside bombs and a Nuclear Weapons program. I also imagine that Iran would love to try some of those new missiles that fly underwater and Bush has moved a Carrier group into the region and then we heard about the Chineese sub that was following a carrier group and they had no clue it was there. None. Iran & China are doing Oil deals. Then Iran has Kilo class subs and its new missile, what better way to embarass the US then by sinking a carrier?

[Thomas Veil]

I think more countries should be shaped like the first letter of their name. Makes them easier to find on a map. :)Wouldn't it just be easier to change the name of the countries to match the shape?

For example, Jitaly.

[Stella]

Wow. Does the U.S really want a wider conflict?

the u.s goes into Iran and the Middle East will become even more unstable, with countries siding with Iran and of course, including terrorists.

[solvs]

Well, he's certainly no Gibbon.
Would that be this guy:

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/History/Portraits/gibbon.jpg

Or this one?

http://www.cotswoldwildlifepark.co.uk/images/lar_gibbon_sm.jpg

Does the U.S really want a wider conflict?
The ~70% minority of us don't, but the ~30% majority that thinks Bush was either put into power by God or the stock market still thinks he has a shot to win this. Or at least, hopes he can. Of course, there's faith, and there's being completely oblivious to how bad things are.

Even a small majority of our own troops are against it, as are a majority of the Generals, but GW is going to do what he wants regardless of what anyone else says in a vain and desperate attempt to save what's left of his legacy.

[Queso]

Wouldn't it just be easier to change the name of the countries to match the shape?

For example, Jitaly.
Iortugal is another one. Croatia sort of has it right already :)

[MACDRIVE]

Iran Mania (http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=48900&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs)



Monday, January 15, 2007


IranMania.com

US keeps pressure on Iran over Iraq meddling

Monday, January 15, 2007 - ©2005 IranMania.com

LONDON, January 15 (IranMania) - US Vice President Dick Cheney warned Iran's hardline President to "keep their folks at home" after US forces detained a group of Iranians on suspicion of trying to disrupt efforts to stabilize Iraq, AFP reported.

At the same time, President George W. Bush's top security adviser refused again to rule out military action against Iran due to its support for radical Islamists in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

Cheney said Iran was "fishing in troubled waters" in Iraq by aiding attacks on US forces and backing Shiite militia involved in sectarian violence against minority Sunnis that has pushed the country towards civil war.

Bush highlighted the Iranian role when he unveiled his new Iraq strategy last week, promising to "seek out and destroy" any networks feeding the violence in Iraq.

Bush also announced the United States was beefing up its naval presence around Iran and sending anti-missile systems to regional allies.

"I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we do not want (Iran) doing what they can to try to destabilize the situation inside Iraq," Cheney told the Fox network.

"We think it's very important that they keep their folks at home," Cheney said.

The vice president, the US administration's leading hawk, went on to describe the Iranian threat as "multi-dimensional", reaching beyond Iraq to menace US-allied moderates by supporting radical Islamist movements in Lebanon, the Palestinian areas and throughout the Middle East.

"They have begun to conduct themselves in ways that have created a great deal of tension throughout the region," he told the Fox network, adding that allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan were worried by Iranian support for Islamist radicals and Tehran's suspected efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

"If you look down the road a few years and speculate about the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran, astride the world's supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world, that's a serious prospect," he said, according to the report.

"It's important that not happen."

Cheney spoke as US forces in Iraq held five Iranians arrested in the north of the country late last week and accused of being linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

The raid the nabbed the five from an Iranian "interests" office in the city of Arbil, coming on the heels of Bush's warnings to Tehran and the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf heightened fears the administration was laying the groundwork for an attack on the Islamic Republic.

The White House and the Pentagon sought Friday to dispel the war concerns, which Bush spokesman Tony Snow described as "kind of a rumor, an urban legend that's going around".

"This notion that somehow what the president was announcing was a precursor to planned military action, a planned war against Iran, that's just not the case," Snow said.

But Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, then refused on Sunday to exclude the possibility of US troops entering Iran.

Hadley told interviewers in two television appearances that Washington would continue diplomatic efforts through the United Nations to convince Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, which the US and others fear is a cover for making nuclear weapons.

But asked if that meant invading Iran over its other activities was off the table, Hadley insisted "I didn't say that."

"What I'm saying is ... this is a problem. It needs to be dealt with. We intend to deal with it by interdicting and disrupting activities in Iraq, sponsored by Iran, that are putting our troops and Iraqis at risk," he said.

Democratic Congressman John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), who chairs the subcommittee that controls Pentagon spending, was emphatic that the president should not order US troops into Iran.

"The president does not have legal authority to go into Iran," he said. "There's no question in my mind about that. And he wouldn't have the capability of doing that even if he wanted to."

[Evangelion]

The Security Council passed a resolution on Dec. 23 with sanctions intended to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but the United States and some European nations contend is for the purpose of creating nuclear arms. The measure bars the trade of goods or technology related to Iran’s nuclear program.

Yeah, nukes in mid-east is a bad thing, and we should do everything we can to keep them out of there. Which is the reason we (as in: rest of the world) should invade Israel ASAP. According to experts, Israel has about 200 nuclear warheads. Obviously, we can't a menace like this to continue. I mean, if Iran is under a threat of invasion because they have a research program that might allow them to develop nuclear weapons sometime in the future, then surely a country that has large cache of nuclear weapons as we speak should be invaded and occupied ASAP? Then we have the case of Pakistan and India as well....

Or do we have double-standards at play here?

"I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we do not want (Iran) doing what they can to try to destabilize the situation inside Iraq," Cheney told the Fox network.

"We think it's very important that they keep their folks at home," Cheney said.

Is he trying to be funny or something? Iraq was relatively stable before USA got involved. Now it's a chaotic hell-hole. And who is USA telling Iran to "keep their folks at home", when USA has hauled their army to the opposite side of the globe?

Hey USA: Please don't destabilize rest of the world: Keep your folks at home, mmmmkay?

[solvs]

Hey USA: Please don't destabilize rest of the world: Keep your folks at home, mmmmkay?

We're trying. Our leaders aren't listening. Sorry in advance if we destroy you. If it makes you feel any better, those of us paying attention enough to care will write some angry letters. When we get some time.

[YS2003]

I hope this whole situation in the Middle East will end the era of Pax Americana. I think it is time for a change. If GWB is nuts enough (I think he could do another excursion to Iran by making up any reason as he has already demonstrated his extreme competency in doing so before the current Iraq war), this could happen before the end of his term.

[Dont Hurt Me]

George has now told the troops to kill any Iranians in Iraq and treat them as Al-Queda:eek: Its just a matter of time. I wonder if they will bring back the draft for this one or just use an Air Campaign.
I must wonder though if George has ever thought about controling the border? For some reason BushCo dont seem to understand border control at all. He's doing as good as job on the Iraq/Iran border as he is on the U.S./Mexican Border. Amazing.

[Desertrat]

Go into Iran? What with? Bluster is all well and good, if you can back it up. If we need a "surge" in Iraq to control Baghdad and maybe the border with Iran, with what would we "go in"?

Besides, Iran has enough internal troubles. Too much money spent on nukes and Hezbollah, and not enough on other civilian infrastructure. Inflation is a problem, particularly with food prices. Apparently, a fair percentage of the people are a bit fed up with all the saber-rattling.

'Rat

[MACDRIVE]

Go into Iran? What with? Bluster is all well and good, if you can back it up. If we need a "surge" in Iraq to control Baghdad and maybe the border with Iran, with what would we "go in"?


You brought up an interesting point. I think there is going to be a draft; only because there are conflicts developing faster than the military can attract people to join the service in order to fight in these conflicts.

Here's something everyone will probably disagree with: but I think the pentagon or some other secret government agency, is secretly developing the world's first artificial soldier. In what form it will take, I don't know. The reason why I think this is because I think the government is, and will in the future, have an increasingly more difficult time in finding qualified young people to fill the ranks.

[zimv20]

there are conflicts developing
nice use of the passive voice.

[skunk]

Here's something everyone will probably disagree with: but I think the pentagon or some other secret government agency, is secretly developing the world's first artificial soldier. In what form it will take, I don't know.Nice use of complete bollocks.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Nice use of complete bollocks.Thats not so , we allready are testing and using aircraft with no pilots so in essence its allready happened. Plus they are working towards aircraft with Artificial intellegence. We are moving towards our tech will fight your tech.

[skunk]

Plus they are working towards aircraft with Artificial intellegence. We are moving towards our tech will fight your tech.Shades of Terminator/Matrix. This is good?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Shades of Terminator/Matrix. This is good?

war is never good.

[Queso]

war is never good.
I think skunk is more worried about the US Army, for all the best intentions, accidentally making some science fiction nightmares a step closer to reality. Mind you, killing off the entire human race is the best thing that can happen to the planet right now, so let's hope they hurry up the development somewhat :cool:

[Desertrat]

"Mind you, killing off the entire human race is the best thing that can happen to the planet right now..."

Sez who? What are the criteria? :D Don' matter; I ain't leavin', and so far I've been pretty hard to kill.

The problems we face are not gonna be solved by high-tech anything. High-tech stuff doesn't create friendships and understanding, when you're talking about Iraq, e.g. Another issue--and more of a political problem--is that even if we bail out of Iraq, the Jihadist crowd isn't gonna quit hating us or happifying themselves by killing us.

I don't mind military R&D money, but I don't see the need to do more than actually make "one offs" of the newest toys. The know-how is what's important. Who are we likely to fight, that we really need the super whiz-bang stuff?

At the same time, we have to recognize that we can't go back in time and undo processes that were set in motions by the decisions of "back then". Some problems need to be solved in the here and now, regardless of why or how they arose.

Damfino. One thing for sure is that I don't seem to be alone in not knowing how to clean up the overall mess we're in...

'Rat

[someguy]

Mind you, killing off the entire human race is the best thing that can happen to the planet right now, so let's hope they hurry up the development somewhat :cool:
Not to worry. By 2012, we'll all be destroyed by this big comet I keep hearing about. :cool:

[Queso]

The problems we face are not gonna be solved by high-tech anything. High-tech stuff doesn't create friendships and understanding, when you're talking about Iraq, e.g. Another issue--and more of a political problem--is that even if we bail out of Iraq, the Jihadist crowd isn't gonna quit hating us or happifying themselves by killing us.
In a way this is just like global warming. Our current path isn't working and we need to act now to put right the damage done, even if it takes us 100 years to do so.

If the West starts treating the countries and cultures of the Middle East with respect, we could in 10 years time lower the numbers of angry young men we create and maybe stop them being driven to the extremists. Today's terrorists are the direct result of the mistakes of 20-30 years ago, and here we go making the same errors and making the problems even worse for the next generation.

Sells missiles though, doesn't it? Which, let's face it, is all our so-called leaders are really interested in.

Not to worry. By 2012, we'll all be destroyed by this big comet I keep hearing about. :cool:
Hurrah for comets. Let's hope it's a biggie.

[pseudobrit]

Don' matter; I ain't leavin', and so far I've been pretty hard to kill.

The probability of dying is 1.

[eenu]

If America invested the trillions of $'s it has on war for Oil into R&D of green methods to run their cars and industry etc then they wouldn't need to fight all these countries for 'terrorism and national threats' (more commonly known as oil!) they wouldn't have pissed the Muslim fundamentalists off (Therefore no 'war on terror' required!) and then they would still have their trade towers and money to spend on their people and the country - which funnily enough wouldn't be sinking like the titanic ($2 to the £ now!)

The American government is ****ed up! Wasting all their peoples money on BS! And what have they got as a result?

1. Cheap Fuel
2. A huge hole in NYC
3. Thousands of their own dead
4. A huge rich/poor divide
5. An economy that is sinking fast
6. Housing market in a real slump!
7. A crap reputation/hated worldwide

God Bless America!

EDIT: To the hardcore Americans please note i refer badly to your government not your people, i actually feel sorry for your people!

[Desertrat]

"The probability of dying is 1."

True, but even at 72 I don't plan to check out early from the Big Round Hotel. :D

eenu, it's not a lack of knowledge that is the problem with "green". Part of it is that too many people think that the Jane Fonda movie, "China Syndrome" was a documentary. Even our Green State, California has decided that natural gas fired electric power plants don't emit carbon dioxide, apparently...But nuke plants do? The thing is, our standard of living depends on electricity, as of first importance.

Then transportation. Don't ever believe that there is not a ton of R&D money being spent to work out some sort of "best" solution. The need for uniformity across a 5,000-kilometer country isn't trivial.

You do not make rational changes in a gigantic system in any overnight manner. There is inertia in people and economics as well as in physics.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

You do not make rational changes in a gigantic system in any overnight manner. There is inertia in people and economics as well as in physics.

You can make drastic and overnight changes to a system, but it requires visionaries with balls. The inertial status of economy and industry is such that their record profits render them immovable.

[Sayhey]

Thats not so , we allready are testing and using aircraft with no pilots so in essence its allready happened. Plus they are working towards aircraft with Artificial intellegence. We are moving towards our tech will fight your tech.

No, we are using our tech to kill their people. No other armed forces have the kind of battlefield technological advantage the US has. The idea of any similarly armed forces facing each other is many, many years away. Now, we look through video screens and press buttons to activate our laser-guided weapons to blow the hell out of peasants. I'm not advocating giving up a technological advantage to be "fair," but let's not think for a moment this is war, or any likely war in the future, will be fought with equal technology.

[Queso]

No, we are using our tech to kill their people. No other armed forces have the kind of battlefield technological advantage the US has. The idea of any similarly armed forces facing each other is many, many years away.
I wouldn't be so sure. Do you honestly think China's hosting of all those electronics factories isn't going to have an effect on their military? They are leaping forward and closing that gap, even as I type.

[skunk]

They are leaping forward and closing that gap, even as I type.Wasn't the Great Leap Forward several decades ago?

Or maybe that was your point...

[Peterkro]

Wasn't the Great Leap Forward several decades ago?

Perhaps your thinking of The Great Leap Sideways?

[skunk]

Perhaps your thinking of The Great Leap Sideways?I guess it depends on whether the year is divisible by 4.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Meanwhile over in Iran they are putting into place 3,000 centrifuges so they can spin down nuclear material so they can build the big one.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842959/

[skunk]

Meanwhile over in Iran they are putting into place 3,000 centrifuges so they can spin down nuclear material so they can build the big one.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842959/Don't believe that: it's all spin.

I love this classic line, from Michael Hayden, head of the CIA:"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said.The CIA doesn't really do irony, does it?

[Peterkro]

I guess it depends on whether the year is divisible by 4.

Yes a very tricky leader old mousey tongue.

[Sayhey]

I wouldn't be so sure. Do you honestly think China's hosting of all those electronics factories isn't going to have an effect on their military? They are leaping forward and closing that gap, even as I type.

Not only do I think China has made important strides in its technological development, but I believe they're determined to catch up to the US in regards to how technology effects their military. I just don't think it will happen anytime soon. I'm more worried that the US government will do something stupid to make sure the Chinese won't catch up than what the Chinese will do when they finally do. Anyone want to bet there weren't fools in the Pentagon and in neocon think tanks advocating "taking out" China's anti-satellite missiles (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/asia/18cnd-china.html?ex=1170046800&en=337ff3d4da2f111f&ei=5070)?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Not only do I think China has made important strides in its technological development, but I believe they're determined to catch up to the US in regards to how technology effects their military. I just don't think it will happen anytime soon. I'm more worried that the US government will do something stupid to make sure the Chinese won't catch up than what the Chinese will do when they finally do. Anyone want to bet there weren't fools in the Pentagon and in neocon think tanks advocating "taking out" China's anti-satellite missiles (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/asia/18cnd-china.html?ex=1170046800&en=337ff3d4da2f111f&ei=5070)?
But what about those MacMini's coming out of China And those Pods? Arent those the real threat? It funny how even China Spins its anti satellite missile as a peaceful test. LOL Every Govt on this planet will lie over weapons,U.S.,China,and our we wannabee nuclear too Iran. Everyone wants to rule the world. I wonder what the Greyshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys think about this one.

[Sayhey]

But what about those MacMini's coming out of China And those Pods? Arent those the real threat? It funny how even China Spins its anti satellite missile as a peaceful test. LOL Every Govt on this planet will lie over weapons,U.S.,China,and our we wannabee nuclear too Iran. Everyone wants to rule the world. I wonder what the Greyshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys think about this one.

What I find funny is this wonderful quote from the NY Times article on the Chinese tests:Arms control experts called the test, in which a Chinese missile destroyed an aging Chinese weather satellite, a troubling development that could foreshadow either an anti-satellite arms race or, alternatively, a diplomatic push by China to force the Bush administration into negotiations on a weapons ban.emphasis added

As if the two alternatives are equally a disaster? Somewhere we have to learn the idea that peaceful negotiated settlements between equals is something to be valued and strived for, while unilateral diktat of the US to the rest of the world is no more acceptable or to be desired than from anyone else.

[MACDRIVE]

http://perso.orange.fr/mdi/images/bckgrd/bckgrd_big/terminator_004.jpg


He's comming for you skunk, look out! :D

[skunk]

Somewhere we have to learn the idea that peaceful negotiated settlements between equals is something to be valued and strived for, while unilateral diktat of the US to the rest of the world is no more acceptable or to be desired than from anyone else.It's going to be a steep learning curve. Your lot haven't negotiated in good faith for years.

[Desertrat]

"Your lot haven't negotiated in good faith for years."

I'm reminded of an old school-yard cliche, "Your saying don't make it so."

Be that as it may, my rejoinder is, "Who has?" PLO? Iran? Hezbollah? Russia? France? The UK? China?

:), 'Rat

[skunk]

Be that as it may, my rejoinder is, "Who has?" PLO? Iran? Hezbollah? Russia? France? The UK? China?Unilateralism doesn't have such a devoted fan base in Europe at least. John Bolton wasn't put in place to negotiate, and I don't think Cheney could negotiate his way out of a paper bag.

[Sayhey]

It's going to be a steep learning curve. Your lot haven't negotiated in good faith for years.

"It's been a long, long time coming, but I know a change is gonna come." (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=76532027&s=143441&i=76532142) ;)

[skunk]

Be that as it may, my rejoinder is, "Who has?" The UK? China?Since you mention these two, can you honestly imagine the peaceful hand-over of Hong Kong being negotiated by the US of A under George Bush & Co? Personally, I think that was a piece of State of the Art negotiation, from a position where the UK had virtually zero leverage with China.

[Macky-Mac]

Unilateralism doesn't have such a devoted fan base in Europe at least. John Bolton wasn't put in place to negotiate, and I don't think Cheney could negotiate his way out of a paper bag.

so are you saying the USA isn't willing to negotiate? or that they only negotiate in bad faith? there is quite a difference of course

[mactastic]

Apparently, a fair percentage of the people are a bit fed up with all the saber-rattling.

'Rat
The parallels between Iran and the USA continue to astonish me...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Makes you wish we could take these two Presidents and just put them in a ring and let them duke it out. I bet the people of both countrys could work it out if given the chance but these two arrogant behinds will end up getting thousands killed for their inability to talk to each other.

[BoyBach]

Makes you wish we could take these two Presidents and just put them in a ring and let them duke it out. I bet the people of both countrys could work it out if given the chance but these two arrogant behinds will end up getting thousands killed for their inability to talk to each other.


As the great war leader Winston Churchill put it: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

If only...

When we needed intellectual giants we got pigmies.

[skunk]

When we needed intellectual giants we got pigmies.Half a brain between them would be enough.

[eenu]

To support my post earlier about the US government wasting money:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6316057.stm

There are parts of the US that could do with that money!

[mactastic]

Makes you wish we could take these two Presidents and just put them in a ring and let them duke it out.
In the one arena where this is possible -- intellectual debate -- Ahmedinijad has offered to do battle with Bush, and Bush has refused.

I can't imagine why...

[hulugu]

In the one arena where this is possible -- intellectual debate -- Ahmedinijad has offered to do battle with Bush, and Bush has refused.

I can't imagine why...

You don't go to a gunfight unarmed. ;)

[obeygiant]

In the one arena where this is possible -- intellectual debate -- Ahmedinijad has offered to do battle with Bush, and Bush has refused.

I can't imagine why...

Bush is trying to be nice. He doesnt want to expose Aquavelvajad as an insane person and bruise his ego.

[hulugu]

Bush is trying to be nice. He doesnt want to expose Aquavelvajad as an insane person and bruise his ego.

Somehow I don't think Bush would come out of such an engagement with any aplomb, Iran's PM is a smart political animal and Bush has a tin ear for such a dialogue. Of course, Bush did the right thing in not agreeing to such a debate, giving Armenijad the chance to frame the debate is a very bad idea.

[mactastic]

Bush is trying to be nice. He doesnt want to expose Aquavelvajad as an insane person and bruise his ego.
:D That must be it!