Democrats & Liberals Archives

Fight Iran with Friendship

After long negotiations with Iran, the Europeans declared an end. They and the U.S. submitted the issue of the Iranian nuclear program to the Security Council. It is expected that some form of sanctions will be proposed. As with Iraq, this seems to be the start of a bitter confrontation that may lead to military action. We should learn from our experiences with Iraq that confrontation is not the best policy. Maybe we should fight Iran with friendship.

Friendship? After the way Ahmadinejad has vowed to erase Israel and to get rid of the satanic United States? Maybe you think I'm nuts? But hear me out.

Ahmadinejad provoked this confrontation. He will have Iran develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes, he says. But almost everyone is pretty sure he wants to develop a nuclear bomb. President Bush said that Iran's desire to develop a nuclear bomb posed a "grave threat to the security of the world."

Why did Ahmadinejad provoke this confrontation? Could it be that he is looking for a confrontation in order to enhance his power? After all, the vast majority of Iranians are not seeking military conquests. According to polls the average Iranian likes America. Tom Porteous has written a very insightful article about Iran, from which I extracted this illuminating paragraph:

"In the power struggle now being played out in Iran, Ahmadinejad may well see international economic sanctions and even military confrontation between Iran and the West as opportunities to consolidate his position within Iran. Given the chance, he would use a showdown with the West to take on the role of Iran's defender against foreign aggression, to wrest control of the economy from the oligarchs, and to undermine rival centers of power in the security forces under the cover of a general military mobilization."

According to Porteous, we are falling into a trap. We go to the UN and vote for sanctions. Ahmadinejad fights to protect the "honor" of Iran. Sanctions don't work; they rarely do. So the West goes for military action. This puts all Iranians on the side of Ahmadinejad and he gets more powerful. Now, the only way to stop him is through a full scale war.

Are we ready for this? What will happen to Iraq? Iraqis - at least the Shiites - are more than likely to side with the Iranians. What a mess. This may very well be the beginning of a world war.

War is often the result of confrontation. We have confronted Iran by making it a member of the "axis of evil," together with Iraq and North Korea. Iraq has been taken care of. Is Iran next? North Korea has the bomb so it is not next. Developing a bomb seems to be the best form of protection. This is what the average Iranian believes. Ahmadinejad is ready to take advantage of this to gain more power for himself.

The important point to remember is that the Iranian public may be for the bomb as a form of protection but is not in favor of using it for military adventures. The Iranian public, for the most part, believes in democracy; Ahmadinejad is a tyrranical leader. There is a division here, a division we can exploit. Instead of U.S. confronting Iran, let's try to get the Iranian public to confront their tyrranical leader.

We do this by being nice to Iran. We may do this 2 ways:

  • We spread the word all over the world that Iran is a democracy (it's as good as Iraq's democracy) to make the Iranian people feel good about themselves. We praise the Iranian people and encourage them to speak their minds and vote

  • We offer Iran a deal. Submit the nuclear program to inpection by AIEA and we will negotiate a trade deal that will be good for both our countries
There probably are other ways to be friendly. The point is to plant a wedge between the people and their tyrranical leader Ahmadinejad.

Let's fight Iran with friendship.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 16, 2006 5:31 PM
Comments
Comment #113650

Believe it or not, Ahmadinejad actually has his own website: http://www.president.ir/eng/ It would be really funny, if it was a joke. I couldn’t find anything about the news stories denying the holocaust and wanting to have a big conference to prove that it never happened. That is the only thing that I have ever heard about him.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at January 16, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #113652

Paul, given the current state of relations between the US and the Muslim world, I don’t believe this is a practical alternative. That said, there are some very strong arguments to be made for engaging in a dialogue with Iran over alternatives to sanctions and a line in the sand that prevents Iran from enjoying nuclear energy.

(Don’t however take my statement as one supporting nuclear generated electricity. Until rational, affordable and safe methods of disposing of the nuclear waste are found, I don’t support ANY more nuclear power generation development, anywhere.

The oceans are the great hiding and dumping ground for nuclear waste available to nations who have no cheaper alternative. This poses a threat to all of mankind in the future and we should not be turning a blind eye to this fact.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #113684

I whole heartedly support your position.I really don’t believe that Irans nuclear program poses a truly great threat to the existance of the United States as the last estimates that I could find are that we have enough atomic warheads in our stock piles to fill their ENTIRE country with mushroom clouds blast ring to blast ring.All of this sabre rattling must stop on both sides.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at January 16, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #113687

You’re suggestion is frankly, ludicrous. What Iran would learn from any such concessions is 1) Their strategy of consistent denial and evasion has been successful, and 2) having restrained so successfully with the threat of conventional war, the actual possession of a nuclear device will restrain us even more.

Let me make it clear that I have nothing good to say about U.S. Foreign policy towards Iran in the past 50 years. Ahmadinejad and the repugnant regime he represents are more our creation, than Iran’s. We have only ourselves to blame for the hostility now being directed at us from this nation. That said however, it is clear to me that our ignorance and myopia have inspired a regime immune to the reason and vision you now suggest we adopt. There has been not one hint from the Iranians that such overtures would be welcome or fruitful.

Iran a democracy? It may well be as you say “as good a democracy as Iraq” but that is more a criticism of Iraq than a complement to Iran. The religious fundamenalists clerics wield absolute power in Iran. Period. The opinion of the Iranian people, moderate though it may be, will not prevent the offensive use of a nuclear weapon by Iran, particularly when, like many authoritarian and terrorist-friendly regimes, Iran defines “defence” quite loosely (i.e., the suicidal bombing of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are “defensive tactics” in Iranian parlance).

It makes me ill, thinking about the present crises and all of the opportunities we’ve had over the past several DECADES to prevent it. But it is what it is. The current Iranian government is extremely intelligent, cunning, and absolutely certain in their worldview. They have played the every regional crises in recent years from the Intifada, to 9/11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to beautifully to their advantage. Now they seem to be betting everything that their hand is so strong, and ours so weak, that we will not forcefully prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. It is a good bet. In their position, I would probably make it too.

Posted by: Mike Cooper at January 16, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #113712

Strictly speaking, they has never been a case of Arabs commiting genocide against Jews. In the past thousand years, it has been ONLY Europeans who hunted Jews and killed them. England, France, Italy and all the rest are guilty of genocide but not the Arabs.

Just food for thought.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #113728

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by: steve at January 16, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #113738

I say we start piping in free cable TV… maybe a few McDonald’s and Wal-mart stores… Iran wouldn’t stand a chance.

Posted by: tony at January 16, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #113743

Come on Mr Siegiel Iran a democracy? Kill them with friendship? Thats just another name for appeasment. Look if we are going to have the audicity to demand a soverign nation give up their right to “defend themselves” any way they know how, we better be able and ready to back up our words. The way I see it is we either shut up and leave them alone, in which case we will in the near future have to deal with a nuclear strike on our soil, or we turn the whole country to glass right now. Any other response would be foolhardy cowardice.

Posted by: jc at January 16, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #113744

This kind of thing doesn’t help.

The only real way to get Iran to stop trying to get nuclear weapons would be for Israel to not only disarm but not threaten to bomb Iran. If they are even working on nuclear weapons, while I agree with David that there are some real ecological concerns involved with a country like Iran having nuclear power, I also realize they need energy sources and nuclear seems to them to be the best option. Merely telling them no nuclear plants yet not offering a realistic option as a replacement is not going to end this.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #113750

Iran has all the petroleum that it would ever need to produce as much power as they need to live in the middle ages forever.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at January 16, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #113754

“Maybe you think I’m nuts?”

Maybe.

Posted by: THC at January 16, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #113757

Paul,
“Let’s fight Iran with friendship.”

Would you fight a copper head snake with friendship?!! Or, would you cut its’ head off?!! Think about it.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 16, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #113759

Aldous said:

“Strictly speaking, they has never been a case of Arabs commiting genocide against Jews. In the past thousand years, it has been ONLY Europeans who hunted Jews and killed them. England, France, Italy and all the rest are guilty of genocide but not the Arabs.

Just food for thought.”

If the Jews had been in their homeland (Palestine) for the past 1900 years, the Arabs would have tried to drive them into the sea. As it was, the Jews dispersed (most of them going to Europe)after the Roman’s sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The only reason Arabs hate Jews is because of where the Jews live and they hate us because we suport their right to live there.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at January 16, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #113765

Ray, they may have it however they are forced to import energy. Which is why I stated the alternatives to nuclear power since they do need the energy should be explored/promoted.

Information on why Iran is developing nuclear power

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #113767

Perplexed:

Shows how much you know. You missed the obvious fact that Romans were Italians. As for your claim that the Arabs would “drive them into the sea” for 1900 years, that is just your speculation and wild guess.

The Arabs hate Jews because the guilt-ridden Allied Powers in WW2 awarded the Jews a greater percentage of the land in the Partition instead of a simple 50/50 split.

FYI. There were 600,000 Jews in Palestine in 1945.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #113771

Aldous,
“The Arabs hate Jews because the guilt-ridden Allied Powers in WW2 awarded the Jews a greater percentage of the land in the Partition instead of a simple 50/50 split.”


Yo, Aldous, Arabs have been hating Jews a lot longer than WWII, brutter. You might want to pick up a history book, or a Tora or Koran for that matter, to figure that out; they’ve been hating each other for the last 5,000 years. Now, the arabs have been hating the US since the WWII deal; that part is for sure.


Ray,
“I couldn’t find anything about the news stories denying the holocaust and wanting to have a big conference to prove that it never happened. That is the only thing that I have ever heard about him.”


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/swank102805.htm

“Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking to his own nation’s youth, the next generation. He said what his generation has always believed, that is, that Jews must be killed. He stated that the state of Israel, founded on May 14, 1948, must be “wiped off the map.” In other words, all Jews must be slain. That is the typical degradation given to Jews by Muslims. Jews are referred to as “Jew-pigs and descendants of monkeys.”“


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has courted further controversy by explicitly calling the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a “myth”.
“They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets,” he said.

On live TV, he called for Europe or North America - even Alaska - to host a Jewish state, not the Middle East.”


Posted by: rahdigly at January 16, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #113774

Technically it wasn’t England’s land to give. Those who lived there were punished for the actions of a group that conquered them. I often wonder what would have happened had one of the other plans such as creating a Jewish homeland in South Africa would have happened.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #113789

JC, Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missiles with which to attack the U.S. And I guarandamntee you Russia and China aren’t goint to sell them the technology for obvious reasons. So your argument falls as flat as Bush’s did about Hussein delivering mushroom clouds to N.Y. City.

When will they every learn…? Bob Dylan I think.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #113790

Hoo hoo. Paul, I love you. I absolutely love you.

Not in a sexual way of course because I’m part of the theocracy which frowns on that sort of thing, but nevertheless this post is priceless. (Lisa too, I love you as well.) ;)

Your problem is that the Iranian Mullahs are too far away. You have no experience dealing with them. Now luckily, I am here to help you visualize the proper way to deal with a theocratic state that wants nothing but the worst for you.

You see, you need to visualize these bad people (who actually do want to hurt you) as if they were Republicans. But not just any Republicans, as right-wing Conservative Christian theocrats bent on pursecuting libruls’ and instuting God’s law on all you librul’ athiests.

Does that help orient you on how to treat Iranian mullahs? Does that help you understand the real danger?

Of course, it doesn’t do any good to explain that these Right wing Christians aren’t any danger to you and Iranian Mullahs will actually cut your throat if they could. But hey, one step at a time.

Posted by: esimonson at January 17, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #113794

All,
The oldest Jewish community in the world inhabited Bagdhad, and they co-existed peacefully with the Muslims for time immemorial. The Jews left Bagdhad after WWII. Arabs began persecuting Jews only in the past century, in response to Zionism. This did result in anti-semitic riots in Bagdhad during the brief gap between German withdrawal and British occupation during WWII.

Without Zionism and the Balfour Declaration, it would reasonable to assume Jews and Muslims would have continued living together peacefully, just as they have done for thousands of years.

Posted by: phx8 at January 17, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #113799

Thanks Eric, I have to honestly say that’s the first time someone here has told me they loved me.

:-)

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #113801

Just to set the historical record straight, there have almost always been Jews in Israel. When the diaspora occurred, people didn’t go that far away. Alexandria in Egypt had the largest population, but Jews eventually settled in the north around Galilee, in addition to the non-observant people in Samaria, and in other cities in neighboring countries. The main point of dispute was and is Jerusalem. Jews were expelled from England in 1292 during a crusade, and from most of France in the next 50 years. After that, persecutions began in Germany, and many people moved east to Poland and old Lithuania, which was a very large country at that time, including part of the Ukraine. Some Jews were able to continue to live in France and Germany, since there was no central government to enforce the expulsion, like there was in England. In the Middle Ages Spain had a large Jewish population, but they had to convert or be expelled in 1492. The people who converted were persecuted anyway. Some people went to the Netherlands, and from there to New Amsterdam. Before and during WWI, Jewish immigrants from Germany were considered to be German. One person changed that in the 1930s. Many of his nastiest theories were developed on this side of the Atlantic, and he imported those ideas into Germany. Andrew Jackson is the ultimate source of some anti-semitic stereotyping, even though he was specifically referring to the Rothschild family and his concerns about their ownership of so much of our national debt. The hate-mongering that is taught to children in schools all over the Arab world originates in Russia, where people were jealous of urban prosperity in a mostly poor agricultural country. The holocaust denying president of Iran is representing a view that is actually increasing in popularity. People who believe that Iran needs nuclear power are deluding themselves. The international posturing that is occuring now is aimed at preventing a strike at Iran to destroy whatever capability they have.

I apologize if this is a double post, the moderator sometimes eliminates this as well as this part of the post.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at January 17, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #113800

Just to set the historical record straight, there have almost always been Jews in Israel. When the diaspora occurred, people didn’t go that far away. Alexandria in Egypt had the largest population, but Jews eventually settled in the north around Galilee, in addition to the non-observant people in Samaria, and in other cities in neighboring countries. The main point of dispute was and is Jerusalem. Jews were expelled from England in 1292 during a crusade, and from most of France in the next 50 years. After that, persecutions began in Germany, and many people moved east to Poland and old Lithuania, which was a very large country at that time, including part of the Ukraine. Some Jews were able to continue to live in France and Germany, since there was no central government to enforce the expulsion, like there was in England. In the Middle Ages Spain had a large Jewish population, but they had to convert or be expelled in 1492. The people who converted were persecuted anyway. Some people went to the Netherlands, and from there to New Amsterdam. Before and during WWI, Jewish immigrants from Germany were considered to be German. One person changed that in the 1930s. Many of his nastiest theories were developed on this side of the Atlantic, and he imported those ideas into Germany. Andrew Jackson is the ultimate source of some anti-semitic stereotyping, even though he was specifically referring to the Rothschild family and his concerns about their ownership of so much of our national debt. The hate-mongering that is taught to children in schools all over the Arab world originates in Russia, where people were jealous of urban prosperity in a mostly poor agricultural country. The holocaust denying president of Iran is representing a view that is actually increasing in popularity. People who believe that Iran needs nuclear power are deluding themselves. The international posturing that is occuring now is aimed at preventing a strike at Iran to destroy whatever capability they have.

I apologize if this is a double post, the moderator sometimes eliminates this as well as this part of the post.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at January 17, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #113805

phx8, I would agree that is a reasonable assumption. There are many variables that could have changed the current situation had things been done differently in the past.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #113813

Lisa,
Yes, the whole ‘what if’ thing is kind of a waste of time.

The whole situation with Iran is bad and getting worse. Paul, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this post. Saber rattling just makes matters worse. The best hope seems to be just the opposite, to attempt to talk everybody down. But there really aren’t any good solutions.

Does anyone doubt the Israelis will bomb the Iranians if the Israelis think a nuclear weapons program is going forward?

Does anyone doubt the Iranians will go forward with a nuclear weapons program? Given a hostile US army on their border, the Iranians would be foolish not to make the attempt. Meanwhile, it does appear the Iranian president has calculated a hardline, confrontational approach plays into his hands.

Once again, we find ourselves dancing to the tune of Iranian policy, with few good choices available.

Posted by: phx8 at January 17, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #113814

Paul,

One simple question: what are our options? While we still remain the most mighty nation on earth what real options do we have? If we were to use conventional weapons to restrain Iran (or North Korea for that matter) do we still have adequate ground troops to follow up on what would inevitably be a large scale ground offensive?

Or are our ground troops in as poor of shape as John Murtha suggests? What could John Murtha’s reason be for lieing? What would possibly be his ulterior motive? A sudden senior moment? The only thing he gained was an incredulous GOP attack on his record both in Congress and in the Marines. No surprise there.

Could we resort to the use of nukes? What would the outcome be? Scorched earth syndrome? No biggy to Bush & Co. they believe in Armagedon anyway, why not “bring it on”?

And of course the terrorists started WWIII, hmmm, when, er ah, who? Terry Nichols (#2 in the OKC bombing) lived about 25 miles from me. Maybe Clinton should have blanket bombed Kansas.

Er, ah, how many 9-11 hijackers were from Irag? Sorry I get confused. I’ll check back in after I have a nap and read some more of that book about those goats. That was pretty good.

KansasDem
PS: I need to call a few old Saudi friends before I check back in here.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 17, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #113821

David R Remer,

Actually the solution to the nuclear waste problem is a little more of the hair of the dog that bit us. Fast Breeder Reactors can solve the nuclear waste problem for us - a little more problematic for the Iranians. Current heavy water reactors use only one percent of the available energy in the nuclear fuel. The waste products remain dangerous for thousands and thousands of years (over ten thousand I think) because they have a long half life. How do you store something safely for over ten thousand years? You don’t. You can’t. Reprocessing that fuel for fast breeder reactors can use the other 99% and the waste products that were left would only remain dangerous for a couple hundred years. Furthermore, the spent fuel rods could be reprocessed of site and would not have to be transported and exposed to risk. New fast breeder designs are also intrinsically safer than the current heavy water reactors. There is a good article about this in December 2005 issue of Scientific American. You can view at least part of the article at: www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000D5560-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000

Nuclear power is also better for the environment because it does not add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. On the down side though, fast breeder reactors do produce bomb grade material - so that is a problem for nuclear proliferation unless the fuel cycle is tightly controlled through monitoring.

This Iran mess is just one more example of this disgrace on the Presidency’s incompetence. He pushed Iran into it by naming them and by saying that he was coming after them. Then he wears our Army out and ties them down in Iraq - and he has never been any good at diplomacy - what a mess.

We need to drive the Unitary Executive out of power. It is the hope that I see and there is precious little of it. There is a protest being organised to correspond with his state of the union address on Jan 31 around the country and in Washington on Feb. 4. Information is available at www.worldcantwait.org

If you are interested in any on my other writing, you can read it at: www.rayspoliticalblog.blogspot.com

Posted by: Ray G. at January 17, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #113850

Actually the question is whether we are spread too sparsely to win a war against Iran, should it ever come down to this (?). And 2) could the Shiia ties in Iraq turn against us? See the problems yet?

Would Russia step up for Iran due to them being their partner to building these ‘said’ reactors? Are we too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to win and should we lose such a conflict they could get the entire region perhaps Afghan region included (granted we would probably bomb them to the nines so hard they would never engage in these ventures again).

TRUTH: We have to get Iraq and Afghanistan settled soon and effective to take control of themselves (which they can’t—I don’t care what republicans assume is possible in that region, democracy will be a short-lived flicker) and Iraq is now burgeoning towards a three-way civil conflict between Suni, Kurd and Shiite, fact. Can we fight a war against Iranian Shiite factions WITHOUT being attacked by Shiite’s in Iraq?

Did Israel get us into this mess in Iraq? There are records at Israeli thinktanks that really outline everything that the Bush administration has been doing even down to the ‘Roadmap for peace’ which was evidenced to be Israeli and not an American derived agenda (although we are told otherwise). Nine-eleven did not get us into Iraq, that is a BS notion, the fear-based drive was 9-11 as that was what was sold to us and what we feared but this playbook The Bush Administration is working off of may not be ours entirely.

Now we are looking square down the potential barrel of middle-east war part three and we are at a standstill as having little means to really do anything. But on the high-note we have Iraq to utilize as a base (though we could have done it with just Afghanistan and there wouldn’t be a possible Shiite insergeancy out of Iraq should we engage in actions. But there will be, and then there’s the potential of thousands of Shiite’s released from Saddam’s regime attacking us.

Problems, problems, hands tied.

Posted by: Novenge at January 17, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #113884

Let this third world country do what it wants who cares about dead jewish trash all jewish scum do is control the media-banks-women-the white house American True Born People ( Like Me ) jews control everything in America they make me sick so let that lame do what he wants and then the United States can Murder everyone in that shit hole of a Third World Country and make me happy and I am very happy to be a born US true white skinhead that is half mexican and I have the black race in my family all so and proud to be an American.

Posted by: Albert Garibay at January 17, 2006 5:04 AM
Comment #113919

Iran is suppounded by Nuclear powers - Pakistan, India, Israel. To top all of that, the US invaded its neighbour Iraq on disputed grounds, and has made beligerrant noises about Iran. Add to this the fact that Korea (north) is not subjected to the same implied or even explicit threats precisely because they already have nuclear capabilities, one has to ask if it’s any surprise that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. If it’s not right for one nation to have such inhuman weapons, then it’s not right for any of us to have them. I say it’s more appropriate to get back to work on the complete elimination of these horrors from the face of the earth. And the place to start is with the leading nuclear powers and their clients.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at January 17, 2006 6:57 AM
Comment #113971

Paul,

Sounds like it might be worth a try. After all, we can always retaliate if necessary. And we’d have the world on our side for once, since Iran would have started any action.

And, we know that Israel will strike pre-emptively if Iran does pose a risk to Israel.

I really don’t care what the wolrd thinks of the US, but I believe it’s time we take care of our own and be prepared for future military action.

Posted by: mac6115cd at January 17, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #113983

Paul et al

Now come the mighty Sicilian Eagle flying in to the fray.

First off,diplomacy will work with the Iranian regime as well as Chamberlain’s efforts did with the Nazis.

Second,a war there won’t happen with Iran but a regime change will,which we will orchestrate down the line by who knows who.

Unlike Iraq, some people in Iran actually like Western culture.

Third..what’s to fear about Iraqui Shia?How many divisions do they have?How many planes?Tanks?

Get a grip.

One well placed bomb on their leadership will do the trick.

They have proven to be sheep who run.

What has to be done in Iraq if this democracy thing doesn’t work out(I now believe that they are a generation away from even understanding democratic principles)is what the Romans did to Macedonia when they had a Civil war that wouldn’t quit.

The Romans partitioned Macedonia into three seperate countries and forbade trade,communication and travel between the three.

Maybe that is where they are headed.

These folks have the mentality of 2 millenia ago..mind as well use those techniques.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 17, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #113988
After long negotiations with Iran, the Europeans declared an end. They and the U.S. submitted the issue of the Iranian nuclear program to the Security Council.

Paul, could you back that up with a link? I don’t think that’s happened yet.

As for the rest of all this, you guys are really worked up over it. Here’s what’s going to happen: In the face of universal condemnation, Iran will take Russia’s offer and get out of the uranium enrichment business.

Iran’s ambassador in Moscow just said, “As far as Russia’s proposal is concerned, we consider it constructive and are carefully studying it. This is a good initiative to resolve the situation. We believe that Iran and Russia should find a way out of this jointly.”

The plan is for Russia to control the fuel cycle for Iran’s nuclear plants. If Iran can’t enrich uranium, they can’t build bombs.

I really hope the Iranians take Russia’s offer, because it’s an important issue even beyond the current situation. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) is deeply flawed because it lets countries develop nuclear technology to the point of making weapons (Iran’s program is technically legal). At that point, a country can withdraw from the treaty and quickly become a nuclear power.

ElBaradei, the IAEA director, called for a new NPT that puts uranium enrichment into the hands of just a few trusted countries which then provide commercial-grade uranium fuel to whoever wants it. This keeps the technology for making nukes out of the hands of the kooks. John Kerry also talked about this approach during the last presidential campaign, and I blogged on it here a while back.

If Iran goes for the Russian offer, that opens the door to a stronger NPT. Hopefully President Bush — or more likely Dr. Rice — will seize the opportunity to keep other countries from taking the road Iran and N. Korea are going.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 17, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #113990

‘And then Polly Anna baked a pie for Mr. Hitler, Mr. Stalin, Mr. Lenin, Pol Pot, Sadam Hassan and the rest of her motley crew and they all went to bed (after having cookies and milk) agreeing that they would rather be friends than try to conquer the world.

Sadam couldnt sleep so Polly Anna read him a fairy tale about how liberals in the US would help him and the rest of his friends conquer the world one day ‘

Posted by: MIKE at January 17, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #114009

Albert Garibay,

That is great. you are only racist against the Jews. I guess that makes you a liberal racist. Israeli policies are a problem however.

sicilianeagle,

One well placed bomb worked really well on Saddam. We Americans place too much macho faith in the false security of our smart bombs. 911 should have taught us that. Military might is nice to have as a support for diplomacy, but all strengths confer a weakness. If we put all of our eggs in the military basket, we are not going to have any chickens in the diplomacy basket, and we will force our rivals to militarize which will undermine our military advantage. We need a sophisticated, nuanced, balanced, intelligent approach.

Posted by: Ray G. at January 17, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #114011

sicilianeagle,

One well placed bomb worked really well on Saddam. We Americans place too much macho faith in the false security of our smart bombs. 911 should have taught us that. Military power is nice to have as a support for diplomacy, but all strengths confer a weakness. If we put all of our eggs in the military basket, we are not going to have any chickens in the diplomacy basket, and we will force our rivals to militarize which will undermine our military advantage. We need a sophisticated, nuanced, balanced, intelligent approach.

Posted by: Ray G. at January 17, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #114014

I was an advisor in the middle east.
I read the Koran. Yet am christian still.

Arabs are zenophobic like China and Japan. They do not like to be under a microscope and will lie to keep people away. When we get in their mix many will behave irrationaly over there. It is not only religion driven but race driven.

Concepts western thought abandoned centuries ago.
so we need to learn to ignore the excentric minority and aid cultural revolution over there.

Afganistan has a vote. Women have earned a vote
and we are gaining friends daily in the middle east of all things this is visible.

Those who oppose us want one thing.. To rule the world under Taliban.

Posted by: scott at January 17, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #114026

“Would you fight a copper head snake with friendship?!! Or, would you cut its’ head off?!! Think about it.”

That`s a god point!

But you may have inadvertantly devolved the people of Iran, to belly crawling, cold blooded, simple minded, rat eating creatures who act and live solely on instinct without the ability of higher thought process.
Good Gods, the people of Iran are all politicians!


Posted by: Wind Rider at January 17, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #114028

oops….That`s a good point…not God point
Soory bout that

Posted by: Wind Rider at January 17, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #114040

Noevenge,
“Did Israel get us into this mess in Iraq? There are records at Israeli thinktanks that really outline everything that the Bush administration has been doing even down to the ‘Roadmap for peace’ which was evidenced to be Israeli and not an American derived agenda (although we are told otherwise).”


That’s it, blame it on the Jews; we haven’t heard that one before.

Posted by: rahdigly at January 17, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #114069

AP:

Sorry. I should have said that the issue is expected to be submitted to the Security Council.

We hear that Russia is still trying for a deal. I hope it achieves it. But even if it does, I still think we should do our best to drive a wedge between the Iranian public and the mullah bosses.

Noevenge:

So it’s all the fault of the Jews? Do you really believe that a people that are about .1% of the world population has all the riches, controls the media and governments, and is responsible for all that goes wrong among the over 6 billion people on earth?

As a Jew, I resent your bias against me.

I posted an article on what U.S. should do about Iran. Why are you dragging in Israel?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 17, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #114199


FIGHT IRAN WITH FRIENDSHIP— GET REAL
AS FAR AS IRAQ—WE GOT THAT WRONG BY ONE LETTER

-IRAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRST-

Posted by: RUSTNEVERSLEEPS at January 18, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #114224
I still think we should do our best to drive a wedge between the Iranian public and the mullah bosses.

I agree, Paul. The funny thing is, nobody can come up with a set of sanctions that do that if Iran gets referred to the Security Council.

Oil, commercial, and travel bans, all these sanctions hurt the Iranian people and not the leaders.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 18, 2006 6:12 AM
Comment #114271

Ray G-

According to EnergyWashington.com (pay site) GWB will announce a major shift toward reprocessing during the State of the Union.

Posted by: George in SC at January 18, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #114612

Hugs and kisses for foreign governments who hate America.
Trust them. Love them. Give them the benefit of doubt and believe they will do whats right.
The Iranian govt represents the Iranian people and we must respect the Iranian peoples wishes.

To bad you all don’t believe doing this when it concerns your own country and its govt.

Trust, respect and friendship to those who are hostile to the US.
Hate and condemnation to your own.

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #211799

“Being nice to_____(threat)” and they will change = Appeasement

I bet you would be saying the same thing as Hitler started to take power.

War is a messy, but at times necessary, option.

Posted by: John Lidle at March 13, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #251937

i like women hot

Posted by: mehrzad at May 2, 2008 2:40 PM
Post a comment