"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."-----George W. Bush, 8/15/08, on Russia's military offensive into Georgia.
Indeed, Mr. Bush. Demanding that Iran forgo uranium enrichment, a right enshrined in the NPT to which it is a signatory, before diplomacy and negotiations are started to resolve disagreements over its nuclear policy (bullying), and threatening unilateral military action ("all options are on the table") by the world's most powerful military against a sovereign state with limited defensive capabilities (intimidation) to force them to give up that right because we say so, are unacceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.
When Iran returns to the top of your foreign policy agenda; when bullying resumes at the UN Security Council (Ambassador Khalilzad pressuring the council to go along with further US-sponsored sanctions), and intimidation goes into high gear in the campaign season (Messrs. McCain and Obama echoing your threat that the military option remains on the table), perhaps the Russians will remind us to listen again to your own words. Or did Mr. Putin's eyes tell you, in Beijing, something we don't know? Well done, Mr. President.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879
Khrushchev used to say that encircled Berlin was the US' privates, which he could squeeze at will. The new Mideast birthed by the abovementioned morons has replaced Berlin as squeeze point, and has the added advantage that it generates hard currency for Russia. Here comes the payback for those Stingers we delivered to Osama & Co.
Next, maybe, an advanced missile defense system for Iran. Maybe advanced interceptors for Syria. Anti-ship missiles for both nations? The Russians have so many options, while we've boxed ourselves neatly into a no-win choice between impotent screeching and WW III.
Khrushchev used to say that encircled Berlin was the US' gonads, which he could squeeze at will. The new Mideast birthed by the abovementioned morons has replaced Berlin as squeeze point, and has the added advantage that it generates hard currency for Russia. Here comes the payback for those Stingers we delivered to Osama & Co.
Next, maybe, an advanced missile defense system for Iran. Maybe advanced interceptors for Syria. Anti-ship missiles for both nations? The Russians have so many options, while we've boxed ourselves neatly into a no-win choice between impotent screeching and WW III.
Oh, I forgot. We have Poland and Burkina Faso behind us.
why even bother anymore? they don't care in the slightest.
Sitcrit.
it IS ROCKET SCIENCE after all.
I encourage all of you to watch the Bill Moyers special on PBS - a clear and concise
timeline of how our own government and MEDIA lied us into war. We, as Americans,
should now say NEVER AGAIN! I'm sick.
The validity of said telegram has always been in question since, of course, so you aren't wrong so much as your details were off
Um, wait a minute - did or did not all permanent members of the UNSC vote (along with the US) regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations? So how is that babuskie's fault?
}}}}}}}}}}}
None of those I knew would've made the chimpanzee comment, for example.
}}}}}}}}}}}
Look, I already apologized for that remark..
It was an insult to chimpanzees to compare them to the psychotic scumbags that pass for leadership in Iran..
Mea culpa...
Michale.....
Once thing thought, you have to pound ground, no leading from the air.
EL....
When the US bombed targets, we choose MILITARY targets.. The fact that those military targets were staged in civilian areas, is the fault of the enemy.. Not the US..
Michale.....
It's just like the 4th of July
}}}}}}}}
They know it would likely turn into a huge mess.
{{{{{{{
They also know that it would likely be a lot BIGGER of a mess if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons.
Michale.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486338.stm
I disagree with him..
And so does conventional wisdom.. AKA common sense...
Michale.....
In my opinion, the Nuclear Ban Treaty is a failure and a joke.
Countries have been allowed to ignore it( India, Pakistan and Israel come to mind ) while others are been threatened with punishment if they don't do certain things that suit some members.
I say abolish the treaty, let anyone who has the capacity to develop Nukes develop them and accept the consequences of using them; the MAD doctrine at work; OR, let EVERYONE who now has them agree to destroy them within a specified and verified period of time.
No more BS, we're all adults,no one is fooling anyone.
What would you expect would happen as a consequence? That the country that exploded a nuclear bomb be then attacked with comparable nuclear weaponry? And how do you plan on living the remainder of your life in such an event? Are "underground tunnels for the foreseeable future" an attractive alternative for you?
There is no scenario where not using nuclear weapons is worse than using them.
}}}}}}}}}
Let's go for a nuclear free mid-east. How do you think the Israelis will take to that?
}}}}}}}}}
If you could get EVERY country in the middle east to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and BACK up such an acknowledgment with definitive actions, I think the Israelis would "take" that just fine..
But you can't so they won't...
Michale.....
And Europe has been a bloody continent for 1,000 years,
and I don't recall the brits having too much to do with
"continental adventures".
}}}}}}}}}}}}
I don't hear anyone talking about giving Iran what they really want: a guarantee that the United States will not attack them. From their point of view, the only way to keep the world's premier rogue nation off their backs is to have a nuclear deterrent.
}}}}}}}}}}}}
If there was ANY reliable evidence to suggest that Iran was looking for a 'deterrent', I would agree with you.
But, from all indications, Iran intends to use their nuclear bomb..
Michale.....
Pure speculation. You're postulating that they plan to use something that we don't even know for sure that they're trying to develop.
As for their intent to use them, you are right. It IS speculation.
But it is informed speculation based on the words of Iran's leadership..
So, what would be the more prudent thing to do??
Assume that Iran IS developing nuclear weapons (as the facts would indicate) assume that Iran's leaders intend to USE the nuclear weapons (as their own words would indicate) and take steps to prevent it??
Or assume (without ANY facts to back it up) that Iran really isn't developing nuclear weapons and wouldn't use them if they had them..
Which is the more PRUDENT course of action???
Michale.....
And for rogue nation status, no one beats us. We attack nations that haven't attacked us, on false pretenses. We torture prisoners. We incarcerate people without charges. Plus we claim the right to attack any nation that we say threatens us. That creates worldwide instability. It violates the basic principles of international order.
In case you didn't notice, BHO was rattling the sabre at Iran during his Berlin speech. GWB, JMac, BHO, they're all the same on Iraq policy.