Middle East News
Iran demands compensation from US for nuclear accusations (Roundup)
Dec 4, 2007, 10:58 GMT
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley briefs reporters in the James Brady Briefing Room of the White House, Washington, D.C., USA, 03 December 2007. EPA/Ron Sachs POOL
Tehran - Iran's government spokesman on Tuesday demanded compensation from the United States for accusations made in recent years by Washington regarding Tehran's nuclear programme.
'The Americans have put a lot of pressure on us and manipulated world public opinion against Iran with their baseless accusations and should therefore pay the price for it,' state news agency IRNA quoted Gholam-Hossein Elham as saying.
'The whole world is aware that Iran has not even taken one single step contrary to international regulations and that all nuclear centres in Iran are supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - the US should therefore start revising its stance,' the spokesman added.
A US intelligence report released Monday said that Iran halted its atomic weapons programme in 2003 and seemed less determined to develop nuclear arms than the Bush administration previously believed.
As of mid-2003, Iran had not resumed its nuclear weapons programme even as it was continuing uranium enrichment in defiance of the UN Security Council, the National Intelligence Estimate report added.
State-run news network Khabar commented that the intelligence report had revealed 'the biggest US lie' and Washington should now allow the Iranian nuclear dossier be dealt with by the IAEA only.
Another senior Iranian official said earlier Tuesday that US President George W Bush should stop making further accusations against Iran.
'The report is de facto confirming the IAEA report and proved once again Iranian claims that all its nuclear programmes are just for peaceful and civil(ian) purposes,' said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the parliamentary foreign policy and security commission.
Boroujerdi told Khabar that the report also neutralized 'plots by Zionist (Israeli) circles' in the United States which had pushed the White House to put pressure on Iran 'with untrue charges which even the US intelligence rejects.'
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
Seems clear cut - defamation and slurs. Take the aggressive US to the courts !
THe posters should learn to put things in persqpective .Iran has been accused by the White House of building nuclear weapons .Bush even menaced to bomb the reactors .We now know that the White House was lying all these years....again.These lies are now exposed by their own intelligence community .In case you guys don't know,Bush and his neocon croneys have made up plans to bomb Iran,your military have flatly refused to do so in the past ...you guys should learn to read between the lines.It will take american a few years to discover these facts,as usual.
So, the spies that are in the secret Iranian bunkers told the CIA that the Iranians are NOT building nuclear weapons there..... but only baby formula!!!!
Sure, what idiotic stuff....
There is truly no limit to the STUPIDITY OF MAN!
Perhaps they deserve to be wiped out by the Iranian nukes.
There is truly no limit to the STUPIDITY OF MAN! As Observer proves !
I guess Iran's ignoring of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is of no consequence . .
I kind of agree with you.
This is what should be done, everyone should just step back from the tables, take a deep breath and come together.
If they can ABSOLUTELY prove that their nuclear program is completely civil via full transparency, then there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to enrich uranium.
Isn't that what the report above has just stated ?
send bush and his buddy sp4 to kiss irans ass
'This is what should be done, everyone should just step back from the tables, take a deep breath and come together'
I don't want to come together with people who do this to each other on a regular basis...
www.liveleak.com/view?i=44a_1176709269
www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657
www.liveleak.com/view?i=518_1190245078
'If they can ABSOLUTELY prove that their nuclear program is completely civil via full transparency, then there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to enrich uranium.'
Iran can't be trusted...Since 1979, Iranians or Iranian funded and controlled terrorist groups have; invaded the US embassy and held our diplomatic staff for 444 days, took American journalists and a British minister hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley, bombed the US embassy in Lebanon killing 17 Americans, bombed the US barracks Beirut which killed 241 Americans on a peacekeeping mission, bombed the Khobar Towers killing 19 Americans, hijacked an aircraft and killed Robert Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac, bombed a Jewish center in Argentina, killing 85, their proxy Hezbollah has started several conflicts with Israel, including the one last summer which left hundreds dead. They still have a bounty on the head of Salmon Rushdie for writing a book that they didn’t like, they have provided the Shiite death squads in Iraq with training and material as well as the Sunni death squads that go after the Shiites with the objective of creating as much bloodshed in Iraq as passable. They have also been supplying shaped charges and shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles to kill coalition troops. They Chant 'death to America' on a daily basis in their schools and Mosques, they continually threaten to wipe Israel off the map, they have mined the Strait of Hormuz, they publicly lynch girls for being 'disobedient', they publicly lynch boys for being homosexual, they publicly lash women for the crime of being raped, they stone women to death for infidelity, they censor their news, They beat a Canadian journalist to death because she wrote unflattering stories, they murder political dissidents, invented the suicide bomber, kidnapped British sailors and holding them hostage, kidnapping American aid workers and holding them hostage...ect, ect....
The west has been committing shiite genocide for the past 30 years and it is time to stop.
'The west has been committing shiite genocide for the past 30 years and it is time to stop.'
Stupidest comment ever.
I see the 'hidden imam' nom de plume has been resurrected for this thread - I guess he imagines himself as Bob Dylan cutting a new album.
The Iranians (certainly out of self interest) nonetheless were meeting with the U.S. after Tora Bora, as they're Shia, and have had problems with al Qaeda and the Taliban (Sunni) for years. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iraq policy, Iran pictured itself caught between U.S. influence on two sides. Read this link to understand what happened - some of it is reported in Woodward's book as well:
www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0222-07.htm
How Neo-Cons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al Qaeda
by Gareth Porter
(part of a long and detailed link)
WASHINGTON - After the Sep. 11 attacks, U.S. officials responsible for preparing for war in Afghanistan needed Iran's help to unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had organised resistance by the 'Northern Alliance' and had provided arms and funding, at a time when the United States had been unwilling to do so.
'The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States,' recalls Flynt Leverett, then senior director for Middle East affairs in the National Security Council (NSC), in an interview with IPS.
In October 2001, as the United States was just beginning its military operations in Afghanistan, State Department and NSC officials began meeting secretly with Iranian diplomats in Paris and Geneva, under the sponsorship of Lakhdar Brahimi, head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Leverett says these discussions focused on 'how to effectively unseat the Taliban and once the Taliban was gone, how to stand up an Afghan government'.
It was thanks to the Northern Alliance Afghan troops, which were supported primarily by the Iranians, that the Taliban was driven out of Kabul in mid-November. Two weeks later, the Afghan opposition groups were convened in Bonn under United Nations auspices to agree on a successor regime.
The bureaucracy recognised that there was an opportunity to work with Iran not only on stabilising Afghanistan but on al Qaeda as well. As reported by the Washington Post on Oct. 22, 2004, the State Department's policy planning staff had written a paper in late November 2001 suggesting that the United States should propose more formal arrangements for cooperation with Iran on fighting al Qaeda.
That would have involved exchanging intelligence information with Tehran as well as coordinating border sweeps to capture al Qaeda fighters and leaders who were already beginning to move across the border into Pakistan and Iran. The CIA agreed with the proposal, according to the Post's sources, as did the head of the White House Office for Combating Terrorism, Ret. Gen. Wayne A. Downing.
But the cooperation against al Qaeda was not the priority for the anti-Iranian interests in the White House and the Pentagon. Investigative journalist Bob Woodward's book 'Plan of Attack' recounts that Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, who chaired an inter-agency committee on Iran policy dealing with issues surrounding Afghanistan, learned that the White House intended to include Iran as a member of the 'Axis of Evil' in Bush's State of the Union message in January.
Hadley expressed reservations about that plan at one point, but was told by Bush directly that Iran had to stay in. By the end of December, Hadley had decided, against the recommendations of the State Department, CIA and White House counter-terrorism office, that the United States would not share any information with Iran on al Qaeda, even though it would press the Iranians for such intelligence, as well as to turn over any al Qaeda members it captured to the appropriate home country.
Soon after that decision, hardliners presented Iranian policy to Bush and the public as hostile to U.S. aims in Afghanistan and refusing to cooperate with the war on terror -- the opposite of what officials directly involved had witnessed.
To dare to be objective for a moment - I don't know this poster's history (and he does not know mine; yet he comments about it endlessly). My feeling is that he's ex-military, stridently Neocon, and refuses to digest any facts which go against his existing hatreds. Rebut him, and watch the name-calling.
It could be Bush, but of course HE did not serve, except on paper.
At any rate, although July 4th is over, enjoy the fireworks. The U.S. regularly deals with regimes, and even supports some, who are worse than Iran. In Africa they starve out their own people, or hold tribal conflicts - fine, if they're oil producers. If they're not oil producers, no one in government really gives a damn, anyway. Bush just objected to the 200 lashes to be doled out to a Saudi rape victim who made the error of being with a man unattended. This is the Sharia mindset, and as Bush's policies continue to alienate neutrals who then become our enemies, Sharia rule becomes more prevalent. Any modern Muslim disowns that thinking, but the radicals have the attention right now.
Meanwhile the Taliban gain strength in Afghanistan, as the large bombing indicates:
www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2221641,00.html
'The Taliban today carried out a suicide attack on a Nato convoy that injured at least 22 Afghan civilians to 'welcome' the US defence secretary to Kabul. The attacker drove into the convoy during the morning rush hour on a road just outside Kabul's international airport. There were no casualties among Nato troops.
A spokesman for the Taliban said they carried out the attack to welcome Robert Gates, who arrived in Kabul yesterday evening. Foreign and Afghan troops sealed off the site of the attack and smoke could be seen rising from the area.'
(Just in time to add pressure on Congress for funding; but this would require an increase in the $195 billion of supplementals already requested, if the accounting were honest. Meanwhile, of funds sent to Iraq, perhaps 1/3 was lost to corruption in Baghdad)
www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C12%5C05%5Cstory_5-12-2007 _pg4_21
Afghanistan asks US for more money, arms
* Army chief wants small arms, mortars
* Taliban control no more than 5 districts: NATO
KABUL: Afghanistan’s army chief on Tuesday asked the United States for more security trainers and equipment to fight an insurgency led by Taliban, saying the aid given so far was generous but inadequate.
General Bismillah Khan asked US Defence Secretary Robert Gates to act quickly on delivering needed help. “The biggest problem is we don’t have enough mentors, enough advisers,” Khan told Gates after the two toured the Kabul Military Training Centre. “I need your prompt attention on this matter.”
Arms, mortars: “The US government has been more than generous but our weapons are not adequate,” he told the Pentagon chief through a translator. Khan specifically asked for small arms, mortars and armoured vehicles.
Gates said the Pentagon was looking for ways to expedite delivery of needed weapons and supplies to Afghanistan. But he stressed that other NATO partners in Afghanistan must dedicate more resources to the war effort.
'I see the 'hidden imam' nom de plume has been resurrected for this thread - I guess he imagines himself as Bob Dylan cutting a new album.'
You are just begging for some attention, aren't you?
'The Iranians (certainly out of self interest) nonetheless were meeting with the U.S. after Tora Bora, as they're Shia, and have had problems with al Qaeda and the Taliban (Sunni) for years.'
Yes, out of self interest, idiot, and at the same time according to the IAEA they were cheating on their nuclear weapons program.
'Read this link to understand what happened - some of it is reported in Woodward's book as well:'
I don't particularly care what excuse you are trying to provide the mullahs with in order to justify their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that is universally acknowledged to be the worlds #1 state sponsor of terrorism. Before 9/11 they killed more Americans through their terrorist proxies then any other terrorist entity. This is a country that publicly lynches 16 year old girls for the 'crime' of being 'disobedient'. They routinely threaten us and the Israelis and whomever else they feel is in their way.
That is all fine and dandy with you though, anything that is against Bush you are for, even al Qaeda in Iraq. You will lie and spin and flood the internet with excuses for them. You are genuinely pathetic.
'www.commondreams.org'
Common dreams is propaganda garbage geared for morons. You certainty are their target audience.
'part of a long and detailed link
Shove it.
'Rebut him, and watch the name-calling.'
You do not 'rebut'... You post the same discredited arguments over and over. The idea that Bush is somehow responsible for Iran being a miserable theocratic thug-ocracy is laughable. They have been so since 1979 when their very first act as a 'sovereign nation' was to take our embassy staff as hostage. They have sponsored more terrorist attacks against and killed more Americans in the period between the 1979 'revolution' and 9/11 then ANY other entity. REBUT THAT. Bush did not create this miserable regime. The fact that they offered some cooperation in getting rid of the Taliban signifies nothing, especially since they have been ARMING them to get rid of the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan.
'At any rate, although July 4th is over, enjoy the fireworks. '
I recall that last 4th of July you were comparing the terrorists who were sawing peoples heads off in Iraq and putting up the video on the internet with our continental army in the revolutionary war. That is the kind of despicable twists your genuinely sick mind is capable of.
'. The U.S. regularly deals with regimes, and even supports some, who are worse than Iran.'
Firstly, that is not true. Secondly, even if it were does that make Iran somehow better? More capable of handling nuclear weapons?
'In Africa they starve out their own people, or hold tribal conflicts - fine, if they're oil producers.'
So we are supporting that in Africa? Where? Another one of your unsubstantiated claims that will not be backed up... Only to be repeated on a later thread. That is called a willful lie.
'Bush just objected to the 200 lashes to be doled out to a Saudi rape victim who made the error of being with a man unattended. '
I am surprised you are not for advocating for 300 lashes because Bush is opposed to it.
' This is the Sharia mindset, and as Bush's policies continue to alienate neutrals who then become our enemies,'
This is a barbaric, inhuman, savage, disgusting, beyond primitive 'mindset'. Punishing a woman for the 'crime' of being gang raped (As they do in Iran by the way) is an atrocity and an affront to common decency. Somehow Bush objecting to that alienates neutrals? What kind of monster would be 'neutral' in the face of a woman who had been gang raped being punished by being lashed for it? Who are these 'neutrals' that you speak of?
'Any modern Muslim disowns that thinking,'
Why the hell are they not disowning it LOUDLY then? They seem to rush to the defense of it or make EXCUSES for it whenever I hear them. Usually from the safety of the west where THEY will not have to face the same treatment.
' Sharia rule becomes more prevalent.'
You are blaming Bush for what Saudi Arabia has been exporting for decades and what Iran has been exporting since the late '70's? Well, after all, you are an idiot.
'Meanwhile the Taliban gain strength in Afghanistan, as the large bombing indicates:'
The Taliban have NOT been 'gaining strength' in Afghanistan. They have been almost universally rejected in Afghanistan. They are attacking from the tribal areas of Pakistan and they are routinely getting their butts kicked. You have stated that we should not invade Pakistan to stop them then, when the Obama campaign said it was OK for you to think other wise you have stated that we should invade Pakistan to deal with them, then you have stated that we shouldn't. So flip flopper, you are not the one who should be outlining solutions. In fact, since you have been categorically wrong on so many things here you should probably just shut up and try to get a life.
'www.guardian.co'
Couldn't find anything from 'common dreams'?
'
'The Taliban today carried out a suicide attack on a Nato convoy that injured at least 22 Afghan civilians to 'welcome' the US defence secretary to Kabul.'
1)The subject was suposedly Iran's nuculear weapons program. Your ADHD is carrying you away agaiin.
2) NATO has killed off a few thousand of the idiots in the southern mountains of Afghanistan over the past 6 months.
'A spokesman for the Taliban said they carried out the attack to welcome Robert Gates, who arrived in Kabul yesterday evening.'
So injuring 22 civilians would somehow do that... good thing you dutifully posted this non sequitur. If this is the best you can do the war on terrorism is going better then expected.
All of this has been said before by the way. You are just plain boring. It is sad that you need so much attention from a stranger on the internet.
One important question to ask: What if U.S. intelligence got this one wrong too?
That's even worse. One idiot excusing the other.
Wherever your preoccupation with Iran began, it's time to get yo' head outta yo' nether regions and take a look around at the other problems. Iran could be dealt with, if we ever bothered to try. I believe that Bush has contaminated the current situation to the point where the next President would have to salvage it, which is why Giuliani would be a bigger tragedy than Bush. The trick is to get Cheney and Co. the hell out of power.
Right now, Bush's policies, and our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan (find a map, will you?) and Bush's Axis speech have Iran in a defensive posture. Watch 'Dog Whisperer' sometime, and see how an angry animal is tamed. Part of it is understanding their nature, and part of it is establishing yourself as pack leader, rather than a threat.
Commondreams simply picks up stories from elsewhere, and Woodward's book speaks for itself. I'm tired of your bullcrap blaming the link source, when the link itself refers to other primary sources. Your sainted Kenneth Pollock has been no fan of what's been going on.
www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301faessay84204/kenneth-pollack-ray-takeyh/ taking-on-tehran.html
'Summary( from 2005): If Washington wants to derail Iran's nuclear program, it must take advantage of a split in Tehran between hard-liners, who care mostly about security, and pragmatists, who want to fix Iran's ailing economy. By promising strong rewards for compliance and severe penalties for defiance, Washington can strengthen the pragmatists' case that Tehran should choose butter over bombs.'
www.brookings.edu/articles/2006/11iran_pollack.aspx
(2006) Bringing Iran to the Bargaining Table
November 01, 2006 —
Iran's interest in nuclear weapons is both wide and deep, but it is not adamantine. The issue, as always in politics, is not whether Iran wants to see its nuclear program through to completion, but what it would be willing to sacrifice to keep it. On this matter, I believe the Iranians would be willing to sacrifice a fair amount, but not everything. This suggests that convincing Iran to give up its nuclear program is going to require considerable inducements, both positive and negative, but that doing so is not impossible.
The events of this past summer, unfortunately, appear to have strengthened the hand of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's radical hard-liners. The continued deterioration in the U.S. position in Iraq, coupled with the seeming 'victory' (at least in the minds of Arab publics) of the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia in the Israel-Lebanon conflict, has made Tehran feel more secure in stiffing the international community. Iranian leaders seem confident that, with the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq and the American people unsupportive of that mission, Washington would not dare attack them.
Pollack suggested it first in 2006, but what the heck .....
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR200712040114 6.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Time to Talk to Iran
By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29
Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is gone.
Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in winning international support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of American military action was always the primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran. Fear of an imminent Iranian bomb was secondary. Bringing Europeans together in support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it is impossible.
With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran.
Negotiating will appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranians could use talks to exploit fissures between the United States and its allies, and within the U.S. political system.
But there is a good case for negotiations. Many around the world and in the United States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behavior has been America's unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamper American efforts now and for years to come. Eventually, the United States will have to take the plunge, as it has with so many adversaries throughout its history.
(This might be a good moment, as Chavez just lost his bid for 'Castrohood', and Iran and Venezuela had been cutting deals).
He may not be ready for Mount Rushmore, but his head is .....
www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/105709.html
Bush: Iran report changes nothing
President Bush said the recent U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran froze its nuclear program in 2003 will not alter his efforts to isolate that country.
'The NIE says that Iran had a hidden -- you know, a covert nuclear weapons program,' Bush said in a news conference Tuesday, a day after the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate, the consensus report of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. 'That's what it said.
'What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program? And the best way to ensure that the world is peaceful in the future is for the international community to continue to work together to say to the Iranians, you know, ‘We're going to isolate you.' '
(He still speaks like a 5-year-old, I see - certainly, none of us knew that 'hidden' meant 'covert'. The 'W' must stand for 'what did he say???))
www.slate.com/id/76886/
The decisions we make in Washington have a direct impact on the people in our country, obviously.' —New Albany, Ind., Nov. 13, 2007
'In other words, he was given an option: Are you with us or are you not with us? And he made a clear decision to be with us, and he's acted on that advice.' —on President Pervez Musharraf, Crawford
(and my recent favorite)
'I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it.' —Crawford, Texas, Nov. 10, 2007
This could be the first Presidential library with its own blooper reel:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism
Your President is a simpleton and should not be allowed out by himself. Americans are generally fat, stupid and without determination, bravery or moral strength. It's best that your leader talks up fights with relatively small and weak nations such as Iraq and Iran since the warrior races of Russia and China would easily overcome the people of North America. What cowards you are. You will ultimately however have to face these nations directly if you are to secure a future that is anywhere near your present one in terms of comfort. The people of the USA and Europe are cuurently at war for their survival and they vast majority of them do not even realise it.
'Warrior races of Russia?'
That's hilarious. Has the poster ever been to Russia I wonder? Moral strength? Why not add 'hard working' and 'sober' too?
You guys are too much!!!
I think the main problem with Iran - and other nutball theocracies/ thugocracies, is that they support terrorism, their minions mob the streets chanting 'death death', and they hide their nuclear intentions.
Iran didn't disclose its programs - it was caught!
Why isn't the media exploring the allegation that Iran had a weapons program that it never disclosed?
I admit it is frightening to read the idiotic comments on this site. Some belgian fellow was foaming at the mouth calling Bush a liar for asserting that there was a nuclear threat from Iran because of the recent NIE. Yet Bush's previous claims were based on another NIE.
Truly profound idiocy and it is obvious we are outnumbered...
RE: 'Americans are generally fat, stupid and without determination, bravery or moral strength.'
================
Probably a resident of some country the U.S. helped liberate in WWII, or when the USSR broke apart. Short memories and feeble minds are a tough combination when combined with egomania.
'Bush seems responsible for YOU, actually
That's even worse. One idiot excusing the other'
I haven't sought to 'excuse' anyone. You on the other hand have sought to legitimize the behavior of Ahmadinejad and his thugs.
'Wherever your preoccupation with Iran began, it's time to get yo' head outta yo' nether regions and take a look around at the other problems.'
The subject was the Iranian regime, a despicable, terrorist supporting blight on humanity. You never fail to come to the defense of these monsters, tell me, are you Iranian? If so how do you feel about them doing this to their own people?
www.liveleak.com/view?i=44a_1176709269
www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657
www.liveleak.com/view?i=518_1190245078
'Iran could be dealt with, if we ever bothered to try.'
Iran has proven time and time again that it can not be trusted. Let me amend that statement: Iran has proven it can be trusted to act as our enemy whenever given the opportunity to do so. It has done so since 1979. They chant death to America there on a daily basis. Their enmity for us is written in to their 'constitution'.
'I believe that Bush has contaminated the current situation to the point where the next President would have to salvage it, which is why Giuliani would be a bigger tragedy than Bush. '
Once again, idiot, Iran has been our sworn enemy through Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagen, George Bush the elder, Bill Clinton and your scapegoat. They will continue to be so regardless of whomever is elected. They are a totalitarian, theocratic, despotic, terrorist supporting thug-ocray who can be counted on to do us as much damage as possible. The fact that you oppose Guliani couldn't be a better endorsement.
' The trick is to get Cheney and Co. the hell out of power.'
Last I checked, they were not running for office in '08. then your universal bogey man will be replaced with someone else who will be seen as an infidel in the eyes of the nut cases in Tehran.
'Right now, Bush's policies, and our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan (find a map, will you?) and Bush's Axis speech have Iran in a defensive posture.'
You are just making excuses for their behavior. Hitler saw himself in a 'defensive posture.' Perhaps if they would stop supporting the likes of Nasrallah and Hamas and vowing to destroy the USA and Israel they wouldn't need to be on the defensive.
'Watch 'Dog Whisperer' sometime, '
No.
'and see how an angry animal is tamed.'
They need to decide whether or not they want to be considered human or 'angry animals' and then behave accordingly.
'Part of it is understanding their nature, and part of it is establishing yourself as pack leader, rather than a threat.'
Much as you have done they have defined themselves as 'the against'. Regardless, any regime that buries people up to their wastes and has people throw rocks at their skulls until they split open doesn't have a 'nature' that needs to be legitimized.
'Commondreams simply picks up stories from elsewhere,'
That is not true. They post editorials written by leftist propagandists and overgrown infants.
' I'm tired of your bullcrap blaming the link source, '
Then stop posting garbage from propagandists. Stop posting entirely. Drop dead.
'Your sainted Kenneth Pollock has been no fan of what's been going on.'
So you only believe him when he agrees with you. Surprise, surprise.
Iran needs regime change, it is as simple as that.
'Time to Talk to Iran'
About what?
Not being a theocratic state?
Not censoring information?
Not supporting terrorists?
Not throwing it's weight around the Gulf?
Not trying to undermine US currency?
Not threatening to destroy us?
Not threatening our allies?
Not being a bronze age throwback with aspirations to get a doomsday device?
Here we go again, a PARTIAL LIST:Iran can't be trusted...Since 1979, Iranians or Iranian funded and controlled terrorist groups have; invaded the US embassy and held our diplomatic staff for 444 days, took American journalists and a British minister hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley, bombed the US embassy in Lebanon killing 17 Americans, bombed the US barracks Beirut which killed 241 Americans on a peacekeeping mission, bombed the Khobar Towers killing 19 Americans, hijacked an aircraft and killed Robert Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac, bombed a Jewish center in Argentina, killing 85, their proxy Hezbollah has started several conflicts with Israel, including the one last summer which left hundreds dead. They still have a bounty on the head of Salmon Rushdie for writing a book that they didn’t like, they have provided the Shiite death squads in Iraq with training and material as well as the Sunni death squads that go after the Shiites with the objective of creating as much bloodshed in Iraq as passable. They have also been supplying shaped charges and shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles to kill coalition troops. They Chant 'death to America' on a daily basis in their schools and Mosques, they continually threaten to wipe Israel off the map, they have mined the Strait of Hormuz, they publicly lynch girls for being 'disobedient', they publicly lynch boys for being homosexual, they publicly lash women for the crime of being raped, they stone women to death for infidelity, they censor their news, They beat a Canadian journalist to death because she wrote unflattering stories, they murder political dissidents, invented the suicide bomber, kidnapped British sailors and holding them hostage, kidnapping American aid workers and holding them hostage...ect, ect....
Regime change should be the goal with Iran, not to push for such would be especially bad for the Iranians. Same with Chavez.
'Bush standing short in the saddle
He may not be ready for Mount Rushmore, but his head is .....'
Remember that TV show MASH? When you try to be funny you remind me of Frank Burns.
'Bush: Iran report changes nothing'
It doesn't. Tomorrow there will still be Iranians treated like garbage by the thug-ocracy in charge, there will still be support of terrorism, there will still be threats and efforts made to attack this country usually by underhanded means. They will still be a theocratic dictatorship with no real democracy and no chance for meaningful change. They will still be our sworn enemy. If this report is wrong, which I think is likely, they will be all of that with a weapon that could murder New York or Los Angeles. Or Tel Aviv, or London...
'He still speaks like a 5-year-old, I see - certainly, none of us knew that 'hidden' meant 'covert'.'
You are ABSOLUTELY no one to talk regarding sounding like a 5 year old.
RE: 'I haven't sought to 'excuse' anyone. You on the other hand have sought to legitimize the behavior of Ahmadinejad and his thugs.'
=============
Garbage; your usual for-sale catalog. Under current treaties, Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and that's what they're hiding behind. I cannot undo a treaty, and neither can you. Not blaming Bush is the equivalent of backing this series of gross errors of the past 7 years, at this point.
The last NIE report undercut Cheney's and the Neocon position, and probably handed Agmadinejad an issue to run on in his next election. Frank Gaffney and the other apologists are finding all sorts of ways around it (see today's 'Hardball'), and accused Buchanan of 'no longer being a Conservative', a rather amazing comment.
What we have is a bunch of angry egomaniacs, yourself included, who have lost all reason, and just strike out saying anything that comes to mind, truth or not. It's one thing to want to defend the country and declare that you perceive a threat; and another just to call everyone else a traitor, which is the current line of B.S. that people like you adhere to.
Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's military. He's a politician and power seeker, just like those we brew right here.
Bush's problem now is the fact that he insisted that Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion, and they did not. The weapons inspectors were there to find them, and they did not. Cheney will still insist today that they existed. That makes him a liar.
Now, we're supposed to believe that the 2005 NIE said one thing, and the 2007 (all of the contributing agencies) see a very different situation. How come no one clued Bush in two months ago, before the WW III blather?
Bush has shot his believability. Annapolis is going nowhere. Iraq has daily violence, which now is back in the headlines. Iran is claiming 'victory', since Bush handed them a P.R. win for the moment. The Pentagon is just relieved that they don't face a war with Iran, and the intel agencies feel that they were able to speak out freely, for the first time in years.
If we could look up the word 'futility', we'd see your picture right next to Bush's. All you can do is rant like chicken-little on meth, and complain about everyone else.
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1691241,00.html
The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was the final factor in a military equation that now appears to guarantee that there will be no war with Iran during the Bush Administration. It meshes with the views of the operational types at the Pentagon, who have steadfastly resisted the march to war led by some Administration hawks. The anti-war group was composed of Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Admiral William Fallon, who oversees the U.S. forces that would have had to wage that war. In recent months, all have pushed back privately and publicly, on the wisdom of going to war with Tehran. Indeed, the Pentagon's intelligence units were instrumental in forming the NIE's conclusions.
The U.S. military contributes nine of the 16 intelligence agencies whose views are cobbled together in NIEs: the Counterintelligence Field Activity, the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, Army Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Naval Intelligence. Some critics have suggested that the military simply found a public way to quiet the drumbeat for war coming from Vice President Dick Cheney and his shrinking band of allies in the Administration.
Some Pentagon officials welcomed the new NIE as evidence that the intelligence community is not tied to ideology, as some critics argued was true during the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003.
(The danger now is Giuliani's advisors, and Giuliani could make Bush look like a pacifist. This is another asshole of your ilk, self-inflated to the point past reason. This link includes a video. Note Pod's intimations that Iran was responsible for 9/11, and his acknowledgement that we helped overthrow an earlier regime. THIS is why no one with a brain trusts these maniacs.)
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/231007_shut_up.htm
Arch-Neo Con Norman Podhoretz's book reading at a recent Barnes and Noble appearance in New York turned into a hostile affair after he told the audience that Iran should be bombed because 'We were attacked by Islamofascists on 9/11,' before being bombarded with accusatory questions and eventually telling the crowd to 'shut up'.
Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy advisor was subject to walkouts by individuals disgusted at the fact that Podhoretz openly called for air strikes on Iran, labeling Podhoretz a 'fascist' who would have blood on his hands.
Asked whether there should be a fresh investigation into 9/11, Podhoretz simply dismissed the suggestion as 'paranoia' and refused to answer the question.
He later defended the fact that he signed the infamous Project For a New American Century documents, a Neo-Con manifesto for world domination that includes advocating the use of race-specific bio-weapons, and claimed that the PNAC had been 'misrepresented'.
Podhoretz then admitted that the CIA had overthrown the U.S.-friendly Iranian government of Mohammad Mossadegh in the 50's, but called it 'ancient history.'
He then went on to make a case that Iran was behind the violence in Iraq and had formed an alliance with Al-Qaeda, despite the fact that the two are Shia and Sunni respectively and as such are arch-enemies. He was then educated about how in fact it was the U.S. government that is funding Al-Qaeda affiliated groups to attack Iran. This mattered little to Podhoretz, who was then asked why we should 'fight back' against Iran by bombing them when they had never attacked us?
Podhoretz's answer was to state that, 'We were attacked by Islamofascists on 9/11,' clearly implying that Iran attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Such unmitigated and bellicose propaganda might fly on Fox News, but many members of the audience were having none of it, asking why they should trust Bush and the Neo-Cons after being lied to for six years.
Podhoretz is a conspiracy theorist, and despite his seemingly mild-mannered public appearance (until he told people to 'shut up'), has had great influence with Cheney, and therefore with Bush.
The last few minutes of that video show that Podhoretz sees it all as one great plot, and no difference between Sunni and Shia. He simply sees Iran meddling in Iraq to work against U.S. policies, and a great conspiracy at work exceeding the borders of the countries involved. Clearly, the audience at the bookstore disagreed strenuously.
What he seems blind to is that Bush's own policies have contributed to what he fears, including the Axis speech itself, which had no actual purpose except to stoke the fires of 9/11 one more time - a job that Giuliani has now delegated to himself. Geographically, Iran sits between a U.S. presence in Iraq, which thanks to Bush's 'agreement' with al-Maliki, that's endless by design. Afghanistan will likely take 10-20 years to fix. That's why the Iranian people elected Ahmadinejad, and instead of giving the Iranian moderates a voice, the Iranians will continue to support the current regime next year.
Podhoretz is a bigot who declares himself 'once a liberal', and who dismisses the past as irrelevant or 'ancient history' (another problem that YOU share).
He's given Bush lousy advice, and the proof is where we sit as a nation after 7 years of his delusions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz
Podhoretz is like the lover who gives you VD, and then tells you that you should have been more careful.
Any decent argument he actually raises as to the threats from radical fundamentalism (while leaving out the fact that they're a tiny minority of the Muslim population) is ruined by his only remedy - don't just stand there, bomb somebody.
The situation, bad as it actually was when Clinton tried (and failed) in an attack on bin Laden, is now many times worse, since U.S. military solutions have done nothing overall but create bigger problems, and more diverse enemies, while losing a great deal of support amongst allies.
The leverage has shifted, with economies rapidly expanding in China, and Russia in a resurgence of patriotism, fueled by oil wealth. Iran is a key supplier and business partner to both countries, and 10 more books from Podhoretz will not change that. This latest NIE report will make life more difficult for us in the Security Council, adding to the error of putting Bolton in there. Khalilzad is a far more sensible choice in today's world.
All Podhoretz has on his plate is the military solution, and Bush spent those chips in Iraq; while Afghanistan was left to fester, and Pakistan is still a huge question mark, in terms of the very problems of Islamic fanaticism that Podhoretz writes about. He identifies problems, but offers no solution beyond the military avenue that even the Pentagon wants no part of.
It's time for some new-think in the White House, and the nation will have to wait until 2009 for that. Hopefully, they will look at who Giuliani is listening to, and realize that his campaign slogan is really '4 more years of the same thing'.
'Garbage; your usual for-sale catalog. '
Not really a rebuttal now is it?
'Under current treaties, Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and that's what they're hiding behind.'
Under the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty they signed they are to comply with the requirements of the security council which has told them to cease enrichment. Therefore they are in violation of the non proliferation treaty. That is why they are being sanctioned, so ONCE AGAIN you are WRONG. Idiot.
'I cannot undo a treaty, and neither can you. Not blaming Bush is the equivalent of backing this series of gross errors of the past 7 years, at this point.'
This treaty that Iran is in violation of was signed by the Iranians before your scapegoat came in to office.
'The last NIE report undercut Cheney's and the Neocon position, and probably handed Agmadinejad[sic] an issue to run on in his next election.
Seeing as they control the media and censor outside news I don't think Ahmadinejad needs to look to reality to create an issue for political purposes. That is something else you and he share, seeing reality as irrelevant.
'What we have is a bunch of angry egomaniacs, yourself included, who have lost all reason, and just strike out saying anything that comes to mind, truth or not.'
Where have I demonstrated a 'lack of reason'? Where have I lied? I just caught you in an un-truth, one of MANY. I can post links to your lies and distortions here... Where have you found that I have lied about something?
Go ahead... Point something that I have lied about.
' and another just to call everyone else a traitor, '
You have poured your defeatism all over this website in a pathetic attempt to sway opinion to the disaster that would be an American defeat in Iraq. You have all but rooted for the terrorists to kill and maim as many Americans and Iraqis in order for you to be able to have the pleasure of saying 'I told you so'. You have even compared the terrorists in Iraq to the continental army in the revolutionary war. I certainly do not think that anyone who disagrees with the specifics of the strategy or tactics that we have employed in order to defend ourselves. I have strong disagreements with certain aspects of them myself. But you have repeatedly crossed the line here over these many months with your gloating over and your hyping of terrorist atrocities and your desperate desire for a humiliating defeat for the USA and Bush. Thank Good and the coalition troops that you have repeatedly been proven wrong. Thanks to me for repeatedly proving you an idiot who is only capable of regurgitating the wrong-headed diatribes of know-nothing Trotskyites who can barely slap together a coherent paragraph on 'Common Dreams'.
'Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's military. He's a politician and power seeker, just like those we brew right here.'
What of it? The Iranian government is rotten to the core. Deny it.
' How come no one clued Bush in two months ago, before the WW III blather?'
What he said is the world doesn't want WW3 it had better help thwart the mullahs in their drive to get the a doomsday device. He is correct.
'ush has shot his believability. Annapolis is going nowhere.
The peace process has gone no where since 1948... Is that your scapegoats fault too?
' Iraq has daily violence, which now is back in the headlines.'
Maybe on common dreams, where idiots like you go to read what they want to read. Everywhere else they have been FORCED to acknowledge progress. Even NPR did a piece outlining the progress made in Iraq today. It is simply irrefutable, despite your best wishes for death and destruction.
'Iran is claiming 'victory', since Bush handed them a P.R. win for the moment. '
Iran can claim whatever it wants. The Mullahs control what information goes to the Iranians...Remember?
' and the intel agencies feel that they were able to speak out freely, for the first time in years.'
So when they say that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq they are not to be believed, when they say what you want to hear they are to be believed... When the intel is what you disagree with it is Bush's fault, when you agree with the conclusions, it was released in spite of Bush. LOL!
You obviously see what you want to see. Newsflash, the white house could have blocked this report, instead they gave it the OK to be released.
'If we could look up the word 'futility', we'd see your picture right next to Bush's.'
If we could look up pathetic we would find yours there alone. You are obsessed with Bush. You really do (and I am NOT KIDDING) need to see a shrink to find out why so many hours of your day are devoted to seething and whining about what has become the scapegoat of all things wrong in life. You have a case of Bush derangement syndrome. You are like Rainman, ranting about Bush.
'All you can do is rant like chicken-little on meth, and complain about everyone else.'
Not really the case, is it? I have presented an articulate, linear rebuttal to what has become a chore; refuting your rantings. It wouldn't be so tedious if you would occasionally come up with something new or interesting to say. Proving you wrong simply isn't a challenge. You are a dull, sick little person.
'THIS is why no one with a brain trusts these maniacs.'
No one with a brain trusts these maniacs...by 'these maniacs' you are referring to Giuliani. (As a New Yorker I can tell you what he did for this city was nothing less then incredible) Yet you trust Ahmadinejad to be nice and not develop an atomic bomb. Smart, and entirely in keeping with your disregard for common sense.
You trust a filthy pack of glorified witch-doctors who have dragged what was once the most cosmopolitan country in the middle east deep in to the dark ages, a pack of pigs who deny the holocaust ever took place and who want to destroy Israel, not to mention the country that your stupid rear end is sitting in... you trust the maniacs who have committed the crimes that I have repeatedly outlined here to behave in a way that they have consistently not behaved in: decently.... yet you call Giuliani a maniac.
This is why you are such a clown... You are so dense that you can't even see the irony.
By the way: 'www.prisonplanet.com' is even worse then 'common dreams'. Grow up, for Gods sake grow the hell up.
'Any decent argument he actually raises as to the threats from radical fundamentalism (while leaving out the fact that they're a tiny minority of the Muslim population'
Why is it then that when we hear from one of them they are not condemning the atrocities that are committed in the name of their faith on a DAILY basis? Why is it that they come to the west and use their new found freedom to MAKE EXCUSES for the barbarity of the 'fundamentalists'? This 'tiny' minority sure does get a free pass from the vast majority.
I have answered ALL of your stupid, tiresome questions, you have never answered one of mine. Answer this: Are you a muslum?
If you are don't you think it Ironic that you rise to the defense of those who are bashing the brains out of other muslims to death for 'infidelity' or publicly, slowly strangling them for being homosexual?
RE: Under the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty they signed they are to comply with the requirements of the security council which has told them to cease enrichment. Therefore they are in violation of the non proliferation treaty. That is why they are being sanctioned'
====================
Not quite. I'll let this link define it.
www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=98cb854d-c970-4 b7f-a6f6-489e427dd357
'The Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) grants the non-nuclear weapons states an 'inalienable right' to the peaceful use of all aspects of nuclear energy (which includes uranium enrichment), and obligates the weapons states not only to not prevent them doing so but actually to help them. If the assessment of the intelligence community is that the Iranian program is now peaceful, under the terms of the NPT, the United States, United Kingdom and France are actually obliged to help Iran enrich uranium, not obstruct it.
Given all this, we may expect Iran to reiterate its right to continue enrichment, and to feel fairly certain that the threats against it lack credibility. In the aftermath of the NIE, the likelihood that Iran will back down has diminished considerably. This puts the West in a bind. The chosen path - demanding that Iran cease enrichment, and relying on coercion to ensure compliance - is clearly a dead-end. A serious re-think of policy is required.'
(This is what happens when different factions construe the facts differently. Bush's view begins with his perception that there's nothing to do but condemn them and force them somehow to back down. The latest NIE findings fly in the face of that 'need' as imminent threat, whether they're 'accurate' or not. It was a massive change in direction from the 2005 NIE as it was perceived, and the military is happy to see it as a rebuttal towards a move towards a shooting war, which we cannot support. Bush should have acknowledged it months ago when he was first privy to it.
The question - if a reason could be found for an initial attack - is what Iran can muster following that initial attack; and their willingness to continue the battle, although clearly outclassed. Then come the political ramifications, as my feeling is that Putin cannot be counted on to stand by and let his partner Iran get smacked, and neither will China. There are lots of things that China can do to make our life miserable - the current blockade of Hong Kong against American warships is only one such example.
As usual, all you can think of is the military option - in part, because we can start a war; and in part the fact that Bush's version of diplomacy is more about threats. It's nice that Brown - in his currently weakened political position - and Sarkozy and Germany still see the wisdom of diplomatic pressure rather than overt action - in effect, they're keeping Bush corralled. They were likely quietly happy with the NIE report's taking the edge off preemptive military action, bringing the discussion back towards sanctions - which really haven't much bite - and actual diplomacy, which I do not think anyone believes Bush can pull off. Dr. Rice has worked her tail off, only to be constantly sniped at by Bolton and others, undercutting her own position.
The problem now is the classic post-9/11 problem - the public perception that all threats are passed, and they can go back to complaining about foreclosure and energy prices. Bush seems unable to keep the momentum going without trying to scare the crap out of everyone. This is 'leadership by imagined crisis', and the public is SICK OF IT.
Annapolis will be the model - a big show for the press, and nothing coming from it of lasting substance. The surge in Iraq was supposed to permit the Iraqi Government to take charge, and it's probably a bigger mess in Baghdad now than then, less the number of bombings averted which have no real relevance to the Government's actual ability to run the place. Parliament can still meet, and laws could get passed, if the factions were not competing for power.
Iran looks now like a repeat of Iraq policy - Saddam used to have weapons; he has weapons now; or he will have weapons in the future. Substitute Iran for Iraq, and it's Groundhog Day. The President bought some poll numbers with the surge, but the public simply won't put up with another war based on the excuses in Iraq, shown to be grossly off the mark.
You have to fight the fight that THERE IS; not start the one you'd like to have.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactors for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.
The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised 'in conformity with Articles I and II' (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the 'first pillar' of the Treaty).
AS THE COMMERCIALLY POPULAR LIGHT WATER REACTOR NUCLEAR POWER STATION USES ENRICHED URANIUM FUEL, IT FOLLOWS THAT STATES MUST BE ABLE EITHER TO ENRICH URANIUM OR PURCHASE IT ON AN INTERNATIONAL MARKET.
(Note this today: 'Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was urging Iran to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can be part of bomb-making.' Ideally, Iran would say 'OK, we'll buy it from Russia instead of producing it' - and that should be what we're after, as a first step).
Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the 'Achilles heel' of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability.
Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, Iraq was cited by the IAEA and sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations; North Korea never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations, and later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device; Iran violated its NPT safeguards obligations; and Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed.
Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to acquire nuclear weapons.
'
Not quite. I'll let this link define it.'
No, we won't let the link from the goddamn Ottawa citizen 'define' it. Iran has been caught cheating by the IAEA and it has also been caught with traces of highly enriched uranium. That is all the Security Council needed to demand an enrichment freeze under the NNPT which Iran is a signature of.
'This is what happens when different factions construe the facts differently.'
No, it is what happens when idiots like you LIE for Iran.
'The latest NIE findings fly in the face of that 'need' as imminent threat, whether they're 'accurate' or not.'
You add that 'whether they're accurate or not' as if it didn't matter to the central question.
' and the military is happy to see it as a rebuttal towards a move towards a shooting war,'
It was the White House who signed off on this, in my opinion mistakenly. NO ONE wants a war with Iran, the only option that is worse then that is having these monsters who run it in control of a weapon that they are certainly not to be trusted with.
'Bush should have acknowledged it months ago when he was first privy to it.'
He shouldn't have acknowledged it at all. It weakens our effort for sanctions to resolve this peacefully and brings us closer to war.
'as my feeling is that Putin cannot be counted on to stand by and let his partner Iran get smacked,'
Putin is a thug and can not wield the international power that you think he can.
'and neither will China. '
China is not going to risk relations with it's number 1 trading partner over it's number 30...
' the current blockade of Hong Kong against American warships is only one such example.'
How is that making life miserable? We would be made most welcome in Taiwan or Japan.
'As usual, all you can think of is the military option - '
As usual you are just flat out wrong and haven't understood a wqord I have written. As usual you just blather on and don't bother to read anyone else's words. As usual you are an IDIOT, a boring idiot.
'in part, because we can start a war; and in part the fact that Bush's version of diplomacy is more about threats'
Iran has been in a state of war with us since 1979. Threats? They issue them daily.
'It's nice that Brown - in his currently weakened political position - and Sarkozy and Germany still see the wisdom of diplomatic pressure rather than overt action - in effect, they're keeping Bush corralled.'
That is just nonsense. The European effort at negotiations that the Bush administration has signed on to has gotten absolutely no where with these animals in Tehran.
' They were likely quietly happy with the NIE report's taking the edge off preemptive military action, bringing the discussion back towards sanctions -'
Fine, where are the increased sanctions?
'which really haven't much bite'
No, not much do they?
'and actual diplomacy, which I do not think anyone believes Bush can pull off.'
Actual diplomacy effectively means getting in to bed with a repugnant regime that can't be trusted regardless of whatever piece of paper they sign. We need to replace the regime in Iran, not legitimize it.
'This is 'leadership by imagined crisis', and the public is SICK OF IT.'
Poor dears. Firstly, you are a lonely little person who does not speak for 'the public'. Secondly we are in a state of war with islamism and when we let our guard down they are going to remind us of that in the most spectacular way possible. Having seen 9/11 I am willing to do whatever it takes so our country does not have to go through anything like that again at the hands of these savages that you love to make excuses for.
'Annapolis will be the model - a big show for the press, and nothing coming from it of lasting substance.'
As was with Clinton... As has been the case since 1948.
'The surge in Iraq was supposed to permit the Iraqi Government to take charge, and it's probably a bigger mess in Baghdad now than then,'
Yes, that is your new talking point. Face it, your insurgents have all but lost. When their attacks are not achieving their goal of grabbing headlines and weakening the American publics resolve the attacks will dwindle even further. They are down almost 70% according to NPR today.
'less the number of bombings averted which have no real relevance to the Government's actual ability to run the place.'
You seem to think I care whether or not Iraq is run like Switzerland. That is pretty much their problem. I see AMERICAN GOALS being met in Iraq and yes, I even see progress being made by the Iraqi government.
'You have to fight the fight that THERE IS; not start the one you'd like to have.'
You haven't even wanted to fight that.
'Note this today: 'Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was urging Iran to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can be part of bomb-making.' Ideally, Iran would say 'OK, we'll buy it from Russia instead of producing it' - and that should be what we're after, as a first step'
They were offered a light water reactor that would be harder to make weapons from. They insisted on a heavy water reactor. They were offered free enrichment. They said no. They were offered their own enrichment on Russians soil, they said no. They have build 3000 centrifuges, many more then are necessary for simple enrichment to fuel rod levels. Enough for weapons grade enrichment though. They have been caught lying and cheating. They have been caught buying bomb plans and materials from the Kahn network...
All of this and much more begs the question: How stupid are you?
The only other explanation for you being this brain dead is that you are a Shiite who thinks that Iran having an atomic bomb will bring glory to the long suffering Persians... It will bring death in the form of a massive Israeli counterstrike.
So which is it? Idiot or brainwashed fool? You are obviously too cowardly to answer.
'However, Iraq was cited by the IAEA and sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations'
So I guess the Ottawa citizen didn't properly 'define' it...
page: 1
NSKDec 4th, 2007 - 12:38:36
So Iran threatens the world, the U.S. responds to their threats and now they want compensation? That'll be the day!
Report this comment