user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Yeah ... if diplomacy doesn't immediately provide everything you wanted, it is proof it is not worth undertaking. 
According to the neo-con mindset, only war is worth undertaking. Not neo-cons going to war, though, just other people.
It fits right in with that neo-con jackass, Richard Perle, and his concept of "total war," the idea that the U.S. should agressively attack virually all of our enemies, at once. The logic being that by fighting multiple wars at once, the U.S. will be able to, once and for all, bring the world under the boot heel of the U.S. Perle, of course, has never been in the military.
Funny, too, how the neo-cons never have the guts to propose a solution of their own regarding Iran, they just criticize the U.N.
Voted : No, doesn't seem to be
Cathexis- herzog didn't say diplomacy is not worth trying at all.
But Britain and France have tried every kind of diplomacy with Iran. The British and the French have tried both bribes and blackmail, what other diplomacy could there possibly be?
Socrates:
So, what do you propose as the next step? Invasion? And if so, by whom?
cranky- International sanctions. I would not support an Iran War.
Voted : No, doesn't seem to be
What should the west wait for Cathexis for a nuke to go off in Tel Aviv or London before we step in and stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
I'm not saying that we should go into a total war with Iran and the West has to do is attack the nuclear reactors.However according to the liberals defending yourself is a war crime.
Corrupt- technically Iran has not attacked the West. So an attack on Iran would not be defensive, it would be preemptive.
Sorry, why exactly should the rest of the world trust the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on a civilian populace, and is currently starting conflicts left right and center in the middle east?
Americas track record in such matters hardly gives you the moral highground does it?
America have been a far more aggressive nation militarily over the past century or so than Iran, and have used nuclear weapons on CIVILIANS.
Just making a point here..
Having said all of that, of course my country has FAR more in common with America than Iran, as does my own personal culture and views. My point is that given their recent history, you would think America would be the MOST eager to engage in productive diplomacy in a situation such as this.
Socrates:
The U.S. has no economic or political relationship with Iran, so there is nothing to sanction. Russia and Iran want trade and/or oil with Iran, so are extremely unlikely to agree to sanctions. The Muslim world is extremely unlikely to agree to sanctions. Those refusals would gut any sanctions, even if the rest of the world went along.
Plus, there were sanctions against Iraq. How well did that work?
There have been sanctions against Cuba for 40 years. How well has that worked?
And how, anyway, would sanctions stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
Voted : No, doesn't seem to be
The US has never threatened to wipe a country of the face of the world. Iran has. If you think that Iran won't use nuclear weapons if they obtain them, then you are quite naive.
So, Fiddle, you support an invasion, then?
Fiddle
Just as I would be naive to think that a country who has used nuclear weapons once already wouldnt use them again, yes?
My point is, America like to assume the moral highground against these "fundamentalist" regimes when the core of Americas elite is made up of conservative Christian nutjobs, obsessed with power and money, who have already shown a willing ness to use nuclear weapons aginst a civilian populace.
Like I said already, America of ALL countries should be desperately seeking a diplomatic route forward in a situation such as this.
"In the current Middle East crisis, once again, the elder Bush's wise men have stepped forward to offer unsolicited and unheeded advice. (In private they are scathing.) Edward Djerejian, a former ambassador to Israel and Syria and now the director of the James Baker Institute at Rice University, urged on July 23, on CNN, negotiations with Syria and Iran. "I come from the school of diplomacy that you negotiate conflict resolution and peace with your enemies and adversaries, not with your friends," he said. "We've done it in the past, we can do it again."
Charles Freeman, the elder Bush's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, remarked, "The irony now is that the most likely candidate to back Hezbollah in the long term is no longer Iran but the Arab Shiite tyranny of the majority we have installed in Baghdad." (Salon)
Even old Bush and his pals know what fools these neo-cons be.
Guess not. So go sign up an prepare to fight Herzog 
Not to mention the fact that it is was discovered that the USA and Israel signed an agreement NOT TO TALK ABOUT/ADMIT PUBLICLY THAT ISRAEL HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!
If that isnt worrying then I dont know what is.
Cath: you must be kidding, because there is no way you could possibly believe what you just wrote.
Immediately? How many years have they been at this? And since people seem to have forgotten there is a time element here, delay long enough with ineffectual diplomacy and they'll have their nuclear arsenal ready. Hmm, I wonder if the mullahs have though of that? No, of course not, it just seems like they're stalling to gain time for their research without actually offering any concessions, but I'm sure they are really negotiating in good faith.
And if you buy that cath I've got more stuff for sale, a bridge perhaps?
Was chamberlain so long ago? Have people forgotten all those painful lessons already? It seems so, and it looks like we'll have to relearn them all over again.
Perhaps if we'd given chamberlain a few more decades to work his magic things would have gone differently.
Too bad reality had to intervene with what could have been some first class diplomatic successes.
cranky- "The U.S. has no economic or political relationship with Iran, so there is nothing to sanction."
- Iran has a pretty close relationship with Europe and imports quite a lot of goods from there. It imports from a lot of other places too. International sanctions would halt this and put more pressure on the Iranians.
"Russia and Iran want trade and/or oil with Iran, so are extremely unlikely to agree to sanctions. The Muslim world is extremely unlikely to agree to sanctions. Those refusals would gut any sanctions, even if the rest of the world went along."
- I think Russia could be tamed to Western agenda with the proper diplomacy. With proper bribes, Russia may abstain, as they have done with the West before. Perhaps letting them in the WTO would entice them. The Chinese are also a worry. However, with the appropriate diplomacy they may be likely to abstain too. China's interests in Iran is less than that of Russia's.
"Plus, there were sanctions against Iraq. How well did that work?"
- I would argue sanctions were working against Iraq. Even though sanctions were hardly implemented perfectly, they still had an affect. Saddam did not ahve WMD's developed. Sanctions may have just been a coincidence, but I doubt that. Sanctions crippled the Iraqi regime's economy- meaning it had to use whatever capital it had on basic state infrastructure and coudln't divert it to development of nuclear weapons.
"There have been sanctions against Cuba for 40 years. How well has that worked?"
- That is just US sanctions against Cuba, and not international.
"And how, anyway, would sanctions stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?"
- Much in the same way that I have described about Iraq. Iran does depend a lot on imports from foreign nations. Not as much as Iraq (Iran is slightly more self-reliant), but nonetheless, still very reliant on imports, and sanctions would cripple their economy. A weakening of the economy may pressure Iranians to cooperate more in order to lift the sanctions. In addition to this, a crippled economy is less able to divert capital to the development of such things as nuclear weapons (it is a very expensive project for any global south nation, but much more so if they are under sanctions.
Sanctions, from my point of view, were working against Iraq.
MeggidoDawn, last I knew Iran was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under this treaty, only five nations are allowed to own nuclear weapons (a stupid concept, and one that I don't agree with, but I'm just answering your question): the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. Israel, like Pakistan and India (which are confirmed nuclear powers), is not a party to the treaty. Iran, however, is, and therefore the only nuclear technology available to it under the treaty is peaceful nuclear technology. This is "the real issue."
I don't know if it's been proven or not if the United States gave nuclear weapons to Israel, but if it did, it would be in violation of Article I of the treaty.
I guess I sort of went off topic. O.o
|
|
