We can't afford a nuclear Iran
- Thread starter zoofer
- Start date
RE: We can't afford a nuc
North America Harbors the World's Most Dangerous Terrorists
By JASON MILLER
4/18/06
“After the explosion itself, anyone on the edge of the explosion (who were lucky enough to survive) would have melted flesh and severe burns, the skin would literally fall off the bone. Anyone who had seen the blast from such a distance would have permanent loss of vision.”
(http://www.armageddononline.org/nuke.php)
A little perspective, please
After years of living under the perpetual risk of the ultimate terrorist attack, most people have become acclimated to the distinct possibility of imminent extinction of life on Earth. Fortunately, humans tend to be highly adaptable beings, and most are able to go on with their daily tasks without dwelling on potential doomsday scenarios.
In fact, people have become so desensitized to the threat of nuclear holocaust that those who still believe American propaganda are more terrified of religious fanatics wielding box cutters than they are of an ICBM capable of annihilating millions.
According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is:
“the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Given the knowledge that it is the United States which created and primarily wields the power to extinguish life on Earth, it is not a tremendous intellectual leap to classify the American government as the world’s most dangerous and most powerful terrorist.
America’s own domestic law enforcement entity has defined terrorism as “threatened use of force or violence”, intimidation, and coercion against governments or civilian populations for the “furtherance of political or social objectives”.
What could be more threatening or violent than a nuclear attack? What could be more coercive than the US imposition of its will, culture, and ruthless economic agenda on a global populace like a domineering father abusing his cowed children? Employing terrorist tools of intimidation, coercion and threats of violence, the United States consistently sets the political and social objectives for the rest of the world.
Remember, Iran, “All options are on the table.”
America is the Don Corleone of the world community. They make offers you can’t refuse. “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” delivered the Sicilian message that nations defying the United States would find many of their innocent civilians “sleeping with the fishes”. 200,000 dead Japanese showed the skeptics that the Godfather meant business.
Bearing in mind that the atomic bombs deployed in Japan were mere firecrackers relative to today’s nukes, the following puts a grim perspective on the situation:
“A single Hiroshima-size blast in downtown Los Angeles, according to a computer projection done several years ago by Physicians for Social Responsibility, would kill about 150,000 people immediately and 100,000 more from neutron and gamma radiation. An additional 800,000 people would be exposed to high-level radiation.”
(Seattle Times)
Evil begets evil
Not only did the United States let the nuclear genie out of the bottle and unleash it on humanity, through Operation Paperclip, it provided safe haven for Nazi war criminals. During and after World War II, the CIA altered the records of Nazi scientists so they could enter the United States and contribute to the evolution of America’s nuclear weapons program.
Needing an “enemy” for its indoctrinated citizens to fear, the United States began demonizing Communism in the 1950’s. As they created their “bogeyman” so they could manipulate the masses with psychological terror, America’s leaders pushed a nation with a much weaker economy into an insane scenario of Mutually Assured Destruction and an arms race. By 2004, Russia’s stockpile of warheads had the combined power of 120,000 of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima.
The combined nuclear capacity of the United States and Russia at the height of the nuclear arms race was enough to eradicate the Earth of life 1,500 times over.
When is enough, enough?
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in 2004 the United States had 10,000 nuclear warheads, 7,000 of which were operational. Yet existing in a realm of thought where logic ceases to exist, America's leaders are obsessed with “national security”. The United States accounts for half of the world’s military expenditures to protect 350 million of the 6.5 billion people on Earth.
With over 500 land-based ICBMs, the United States can incinerate any region of a 4.5 billion year old planet within a mere 35 minutes. The Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles are only one leg of America’s triad of doom. Submarine-based Trident nuclear missiles have the capacity to unleash Armageddon from the depths of the Earth’s tranquil oceans. Maintaining a fleet of B-1, B-2, and B-52 long-range bombers, the USAF can also rain nuclear hell upon millions of unsuspecting “units of collateral damage”.
Desperation and treachery are the parents of US nuclear invention
Realizing that the “Nuclear Club” is rapidly expanding, the United States is desperately seeking ways to circumvent treaties in which they have pledged to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. As they down-sized their nuclear stock-pile in the 1990’s by retiring ICBM’s like the Peacekeeper, America’s leadership found ways to avoid truly surrendering its tools of terror.
The United States began diverting substantial portions of its obscene defense budget to its Stockpile Stewardship Program to perpetuate and expand its nuclear capacities. Consider this 1996 statement by the Department of Energy:
"[n]ational security policies in the post-Cold War era require that all historical capabilities of the weapons laboratories, industrial plants, and NTS [the Nevada Test Site] be maintained," and that "denuclearisation... is not feasible based on current national security policy."
With the ethereal nuclear genie slipping further from its grasp, the United States is now focusing its resources and determined efforts toward ensuring nuclear proliferation to those it deems deserving. Israel, the US satellite in the Middle East, and India, a nation Uncle Sam is determined to lure into his bed, both qualify. Iran and North Korea are obviously not welcome at the nuclear party, whether they apply the technology for military purposes or not.
On the domestic front, America’s bellicose government is emphasizing the enhancement of existing nuclear weapons to give the appearance that it is not developing new ones. For example, the B61-11 is a modification of the B61, a “tactical nuke” which “only” has 2/3 the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. To neutralize nations which have developed weapons facilities deep underground, America created the B61-11 to burrow into rock before discharging its nuclear payload. America’s Neocons are itching to play with their new toys in Iran.
The Pentagon claims that these “bunker busters” would pose no threat to life outside of the underground targets. However, Dr. Robert Nelson of Princeton University offers a significantly differing opinion:
"No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. "The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."
Dr. Nelson’s analysis is substantially more seaworthy than the stone the Pentagon tried to float when they proclaimed earth-burrowing “mini-nukes” to be “safe”.
A Messiah complex, severely stunted emotional intelligence and profound ignorance are the defining characteristics of the man capable of making nuclear holocaust a reality within minutes. In light of this, Osama bin Laden, box-cutters, and suicide bombers don’t seem quite so formidable or worrisome.
Jason Miller is a 39 year old sociopolitical essayist with a degree in liberal arts and an extensive self-education (derived from an insatiable appetite for reading). He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at
North America Harbors the World's Most Dangerous Terrorists
By JASON MILLER
4/18/06
“After the explosion itself, anyone on the edge of the explosion (who were lucky enough to survive) would have melted flesh and severe burns, the skin would literally fall off the bone. Anyone who had seen the blast from such a distance would have permanent loss of vision.”
(http://www.armageddononline.org/nuke.php)
A little perspective, please
After years of living under the perpetual risk of the ultimate terrorist attack, most people have become acclimated to the distinct possibility of imminent extinction of life on Earth. Fortunately, humans tend to be highly adaptable beings, and most are able to go on with their daily tasks without dwelling on potential doomsday scenarios.
In fact, people have become so desensitized to the threat of nuclear holocaust that those who still believe American propaganda are more terrified of religious fanatics wielding box cutters than they are of an ICBM capable of annihilating millions.
According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is:
“the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Given the knowledge that it is the United States which created and primarily wields the power to extinguish life on Earth, it is not a tremendous intellectual leap to classify the American government as the world’s most dangerous and most powerful terrorist.
America’s own domestic law enforcement entity has defined terrorism as “threatened use of force or violence”, intimidation, and coercion against governments or civilian populations for the “furtherance of political or social objectives”.
What could be more threatening or violent than a nuclear attack? What could be more coercive than the US imposition of its will, culture, and ruthless economic agenda on a global populace like a domineering father abusing his cowed children? Employing terrorist tools of intimidation, coercion and threats of violence, the United States consistently sets the political and social objectives for the rest of the world.
Remember, Iran, “All options are on the table.”
America is the Don Corleone of the world community. They make offers you can’t refuse. “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” delivered the Sicilian message that nations defying the United States would find many of their innocent civilians “sleeping with the fishes”. 200,000 dead Japanese showed the skeptics that the Godfather meant business.
Bearing in mind that the atomic bombs deployed in Japan were mere firecrackers relative to today’s nukes, the following puts a grim perspective on the situation:
“A single Hiroshima-size blast in downtown Los Angeles, according to a computer projection done several years ago by Physicians for Social Responsibility, would kill about 150,000 people immediately and 100,000 more from neutron and gamma radiation. An additional 800,000 people would be exposed to high-level radiation.”
(Seattle Times)
Evil begets evil
Not only did the United States let the nuclear genie out of the bottle and unleash it on humanity, through Operation Paperclip, it provided safe haven for Nazi war criminals. During and after World War II, the CIA altered the records of Nazi scientists so they could enter the United States and contribute to the evolution of America’s nuclear weapons program.
Needing an “enemy” for its indoctrinated citizens to fear, the United States began demonizing Communism in the 1950’s. As they created their “bogeyman” so they could manipulate the masses with psychological terror, America’s leaders pushed a nation with a much weaker economy into an insane scenario of Mutually Assured Destruction and an arms race. By 2004, Russia’s stockpile of warheads had the combined power of 120,000 of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima.
The combined nuclear capacity of the United States and Russia at the height of the nuclear arms race was enough to eradicate the Earth of life 1,500 times over.
When is enough, enough?
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in 2004 the United States had 10,000 nuclear warheads, 7,000 of which were operational. Yet existing in a realm of thought where logic ceases to exist, America's leaders are obsessed with “national security”. The United States accounts for half of the world’s military expenditures to protect 350 million of the 6.5 billion people on Earth.
With over 500 land-based ICBMs, the United States can incinerate any region of a 4.5 billion year old planet within a mere 35 minutes. The Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles are only one leg of America’s triad of doom. Submarine-based Trident nuclear missiles have the capacity to unleash Armageddon from the depths of the Earth’s tranquil oceans. Maintaining a fleet of B-1, B-2, and B-52 long-range bombers, the USAF can also rain nuclear hell upon millions of unsuspecting “units of collateral damage”.
Desperation and treachery are the parents of US nuclear invention
Realizing that the “Nuclear Club” is rapidly expanding, the United States is desperately seeking ways to circumvent treaties in which they have pledged to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. As they down-sized their nuclear stock-pile in the 1990’s by retiring ICBM’s like the Peacekeeper, America’s leadership found ways to avoid truly surrendering its tools of terror.
The United States began diverting substantial portions of its obscene defense budget to its Stockpile Stewardship Program to perpetuate and expand its nuclear capacities. Consider this 1996 statement by the Department of Energy:
"[n]ational security policies in the post-Cold War era require that all historical capabilities of the weapons laboratories, industrial plants, and NTS [the Nevada Test Site] be maintained," and that "denuclearisation... is not feasible based on current national security policy."
With the ethereal nuclear genie slipping further from its grasp, the United States is now focusing its resources and determined efforts toward ensuring nuclear proliferation to those it deems deserving. Israel, the US satellite in the Middle East, and India, a nation Uncle Sam is determined to lure into his bed, both qualify. Iran and North Korea are obviously not welcome at the nuclear party, whether they apply the technology for military purposes or not.
On the domestic front, America’s bellicose government is emphasizing the enhancement of existing nuclear weapons to give the appearance that it is not developing new ones. For example, the B61-11 is a modification of the B61, a “tactical nuke” which “only” has 2/3 the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. To neutralize nations which have developed weapons facilities deep underground, America created the B61-11 to burrow into rock before discharging its nuclear payload. America’s Neocons are itching to play with their new toys in Iran.
The Pentagon claims that these “bunker busters” would pose no threat to life outside of the underground targets. However, Dr. Robert Nelson of Princeton University offers a significantly differing opinion:
"No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. "The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."
Dr. Nelson’s analysis is substantially more seaworthy than the stone the Pentagon tried to float when they proclaimed earth-burrowing “mini-nukes” to be “safe”.
A Messiah complex, severely stunted emotional intelligence and profound ignorance are the defining characteristics of the man capable of making nuclear holocaust a reality within minutes. In light of this, Osama bin Laden, box-cutters, and suicide bombers don’t seem quite so formidable or worrisome.
Jason Miller is a 39 year old sociopolitical essayist with a degree in liberal arts and an extensive self-education (derived from an insatiable appetite for reading). He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at
Still the world will let one more nation cross the
threshold.
Liberals used to believe no more nations should
be allowed.
Reduce the variable of yet another idiot nation
with nukes.
Nah, we got tunnel vision, eh ?
Who's the wiser for it ?
threshold.
Liberals used to believe no more nations should
be allowed.
Reduce the variable of yet another idiot nation
with nukes.
Nah, we got tunnel vision, eh ?
Who's the wiser for it ?
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
And you have this on good authority, Jimmoyer? Who are you to speak for the liberals? Or the left? Perhaps your wording says a lot more about where your mind resides ... all that talk of "size". tsk tsk ... don't you know that most of us really don't care? Only the ones with their zippers down and the rulers out actually give a sh*t.
I find your post offensive in that it doesn't refute any argument, it doesn't add any information to the debate and doesn't serve any higher purpose than tossing out insults. You're smarter than that. Either debate the issue or go out and play in the nice spring sunshine. Don't bring your attitude in here. I only bothered to answer this post in response to an XReport that was sent in about it. I didn't change your words since I think they reveal a whole lot more about you than they do about the topic at hand.
BTW ... I'm back from my move, my house is in boxes, I can't find my chocolate and I'm cranky.
Tomorrow will be a better day!
jimmoyer said:
And you have this on good authority, Jimmoyer? Who are you to speak for the liberals? Or the left? Perhaps your wording says a lot more about where your mind resides ... all that talk of "size". tsk tsk ... don't you know that most of us really don't care? Only the ones with their zippers down and the rulers out actually give a sh*t.
I find your post offensive in that it doesn't refute any argument, it doesn't add any information to the debate and doesn't serve any higher purpose than tossing out insults. You're smarter than that. Either debate the issue or go out and play in the nice spring sunshine. Don't bring your attitude in here. I only bothered to answer this post in response to an XReport that was sent in about it. I didn't change your words since I think they reveal a whole lot more about you than they do about the topic at hand.
BTW ... I'm back from my move, my house is in boxes, I can't find my chocolate and I'm cranky.
Tomorrow will be a better day!
solution
let them get the bomb
then
detente
iran and the US as security partners
so long as iran is-- marginailzed and prevented from finding its destiny a leader of the muslim world---and to some extent arab world--- although they are persians and not arab---
it will undermine all efforts at stability in iraq-- and palestine--isreal
let them get the bomb
then
detente
iran and the US as security partners
so long as iran is-- marginailzed and prevented from finding its destiny a leader of the muslim world---and to some extent arab world--- although they are persians and not arab---
it will undermine all efforts at stability in iraq-- and palestine--isreal
RE: We can't afford a nuc
What the right can't afford, (the US in particular) is a coalitition of these players, Iran, Shiite Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China, that would be a tendency toward a Soverign Iraq, something that the US cannot accept.
What the right can't afford, (the US in particular) is a coalitition of these players, Iran, Shiite Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China, that would be a tendency toward a Soverign Iraq, something that the US cannot accept.
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
USA never threathened Canada that it is going to wipe it off the map ... what are u going to say now? even that comment made by ahmadinejad was fabricated by The USA so it can get the support it needs - Iran has nukes and it is driven by extremism, it will use it on its own people if they want too"
aeon said:
USA never threathened Canada that it is going to wipe it off the map ... what are u going to say now? even that comment made by ahmadinejad was fabricated by The USA so it can get the support it needs - Iran has nukes and it is driven by extremism, it will use it on its own people if they want too"
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
that is exactly correct
if the existing nuclear powers are adamant that these weapons are absolutely vital to their security
the same argument is valid for other nations-- who quite legitimately have reason to fear a military attack by --well
you know who
the hypocrisy of the existing nuclear powers-- particularly the one thats actually used these weapons -- is astounding
with respect to the middle east--the hypocrisy---is astronomical
if these weapons are trully a threat--- in the region
then lets set up a region wide UN inspection team to visit all the states in the region----anyone not complying---GETS SANCTIONS
lets begin with ---- i dont know
randomly selecting here
---- say isreal......
hummm.... i wonder
aeon said:
that is exactly correct
if the existing nuclear powers are adamant that these weapons are absolutely vital to their security
the same argument is valid for other nations-- who quite legitimately have reason to fear a military attack by --well
you know who
the hypocrisy of the existing nuclear powers-- particularly the one thats actually used these weapons -- is astounding
with respect to the middle east--the hypocrisy---is astronomical
if these weapons are trully a threat--- in the region
then lets set up a region wide UN inspection team to visit all the states in the region----anyone not complying---GETS SANCTIONS
lets begin with ---- i dont know
randomly selecting here
---- say isreal......
hummm.... i wonder
TALKING TO IRAN....What should we do about Iran? I have a suggestion, but first I need to relate a story that's gotten suprisingly little attention from the press. Perhaps they're too bored to pick up on it.
It started on May 6, 2003, shortly after George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. On that day the Associated Press reported without elaboration that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman had confirmed that "Iran has exchanged messages with U.S. officials about Iraq through the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Tehran. He declined to give details."
What was that all about? Last January, Flynt Leverett, who worked for Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council, provided some initial clues:
In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.
In February, Newsday picked up the story:
The fax was one of a series of informal soundings that emanated from Tehran in the months after the United States invasion of Iraq. Iran's envoys to Sweden and Britain also began sending signals that the regime was ready to negotiate a deal, according to a former Western diplomat closely familiar with the messages. Iran was sending messages through other back-channels as well, according to Paul Pillar, who served as the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.
...."No one at a senior level was willing to push Iran on diplomacy," said Leverett. "Was there at least a chance that we could have gotten something going? Yes, there was a chance."
Three weeks ago, Gareth Porter added some more details:
Realists, led by Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.
Exactly how the decision was made is not known. "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints," [Lawrence] Wilkerson told IPS. "But I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. Bush."
As Wilkerson observes, however, the mysterious death of what became known among Iran specialists as Iran's "grand bargain" initiative was a result of the administration's inability to agree on a policy toward Tehran.
A draft National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran calling for diplomatic engagement had been in the process of interagency coordination for more than a year, according to a source who asks to remain unidentified.
But it was impossible to get formal agreement on the NSPD, the source recalls, because officials in Cheney's office and in Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and kept trying to amend it.
With that as background, here's my suggestion: quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran. After all, the administration's ideologues killed an opportunity to ratchet down tensions three years ago, and since then things have only gotten worse: Iran has elected a wingnut president, they've made progress on nuclear enrichment, gained considerable influence in Iraq, and increased their global economic leverage as oil supplies have gotten tighter. So why blow another chance? If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?
That may well be the Bush administration's strategy, but ordinary horse sense suggests it shouldn't be anyone else's.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008657.php
It started on May 6, 2003, shortly after George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. On that day the Associated Press reported without elaboration that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman had confirmed that "Iran has exchanged messages with U.S. officials about Iraq through the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Tehran. He declined to give details."
What was that all about? Last January, Flynt Leverett, who worked for Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council, provided some initial clues:
In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.
In February, Newsday picked up the story:
The fax was one of a series of informal soundings that emanated from Tehran in the months after the United States invasion of Iraq. Iran's envoys to Sweden and Britain also began sending signals that the regime was ready to negotiate a deal, according to a former Western diplomat closely familiar with the messages. Iran was sending messages through other back-channels as well, according to Paul Pillar, who served as the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.
...."No one at a senior level was willing to push Iran on diplomacy," said Leverett. "Was there at least a chance that we could have gotten something going? Yes, there was a chance."
Three weeks ago, Gareth Porter added some more details:
Realists, led by Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.
Exactly how the decision was made is not known. "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints," [Lawrence] Wilkerson told IPS. "But I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. Bush."
As Wilkerson observes, however, the mysterious death of what became known among Iran specialists as Iran's "grand bargain" initiative was a result of the administration's inability to agree on a policy toward Tehran.
A draft National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran calling for diplomatic engagement had been in the process of interagency coordination for more than a year, according to a source who asks to remain unidentified.
But it was impossible to get formal agreement on the NSPD, the source recalls, because officials in Cheney's office and in Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and kept trying to amend it.
With that as background, here's my suggestion: quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran. After all, the administration's ideologues killed an opportunity to ratchet down tensions three years ago, and since then things have only gotten worse: Iran has elected a wingnut president, they've made progress on nuclear enrichment, gained considerable influence in Iraq, and increased their global economic leverage as oil supplies have gotten tighter. So why blow another chance? If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?
That may well be the Bush administration's strategy, but ordinary horse sense suggests it shouldn't be anyone else's.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008657.php
i agree -- the best option is to keep options open
once military strikes occur against iran however
the options become limited
escalating the situation to the point
where--- some kind of stability in the region-- ie iraq and palestine--- will be impossible--
but then again--- maybe thats the plan
lets also ponder this...
the invasion of iraq by the US -- accelerated irans reach for the bomb--
i wonder why
what this demonstrated was this
The UN inspection system--- failed
message---
if you stand in the way of america
and sanctions arent enough
we will accuse you of WMD reach
and attack you
regardless of the truth
and mess up your country---hummm good
the UN did NOT impose sanctions against the aggressor
as they shoud have --- against the US that is
conclusion----
you are on your own
solution-- get the bomb
then--get more
lots more
as many as say the US has---
and then we will talk
or----- invite them in---
ie
another solution
is this
sell nukes to iran
invite them to be permament members of the security council
once military strikes occur against iran however
the options become limited
escalating the situation to the point
where--- some kind of stability in the region-- ie iraq and palestine--- will be impossible--
but then again--- maybe thats the plan
lets also ponder this...
the invasion of iraq by the US -- accelerated irans reach for the bomb--
i wonder why
what this demonstrated was this
The UN inspection system--- failed
message---
if you stand in the way of america
and sanctions arent enough
we will accuse you of WMD reach
and attack you
regardless of the truth
and mess up your country---hummm good
the UN did NOT impose sanctions against the aggressor
as they shoud have --- against the US that is
conclusion----
you are on your own
solution-- get the bomb
then--get more
lots more
as many as say the US has---
and then we will talk
or----- invite them in---
ie
another solution
is this
sell nukes to iran
invite them to be permament members of the security council
Re: RE: We can't afford a nuclear Iran
That would be consistent with the UN. They should begin by offerring them to chair the Human Rights council.
cortezzz said:
That would be consistent with the UN. They should begin by offerring them to chair the Human Rights council.