LOL. Are you suggesting that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program? Moreover, are you suggesting that you or anyone on the LEFT would have supported a war with Iraq if they had WMDs?
I wouldn't have, but John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Jacques Chirac would have. Do they count?
On one score you may indeed be correct that we "have to adapt to the situation." But that doesn't mean abandoing a certain degree of bellicosity. What somebody should have done to the sleeping ambassador from Iran is shove the specs for our various stealth and UVA vehicles in his face. That would have woken him up. These guys are dancing the jig because they think they've pulled a fast one. And more than that, they don't have the sense to keep their glee to themselves!! So what does that tell you?? Fact is, a firm resolve from us is all that the Iranians in the end are going to respond to. If they think we mean business, then they'll talk for real. But if they think they can agree, and then decide not to agree, and find that no one is going to do anything about it, guess what?? On your second point, you are dead wrong. Concluding that Iran with nuclear weapons is a "leveling" of world power and that it might do us "all good in the end" is naive in the extreme. There was a murder in you country a short time ago. THAT's what we are potentially up against, but with far more deadly means to execute such acts, and more widespread means at that.
Of course they have a weapons program, and the Iranians would be idiots not to have one. Pakistan and Israel are nuclear, as are several of the Former Soviet Union republics. My point about Fox News was their outright dismissive comments about diplomacy as an option with Iran. I was against the Iraq invasion for a number of reasons. They weren't involved in 9/11 and our priorities should have been to deal directly with the countries that harbor terrorists: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and so on down the line. Iraq was pretty far down that line. Anyone with half a brain new that Iraq was a minimal threat to the US, but Fox News played it up. Now they are essentially discrediting diplomatic means of addressing the Iranian nuclear issue. With Condi in charge of the State Department, I think our soldiers can start packing their bags, not to go home but to go next door to Iran.
Then what's the point of diplomacy? Which former Soviet republics? Diplomacy will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. If Iran, a supporter of terrorism, gets nukes, so will the Saudis. Iraq was a long-term threat, but not worth the effort of invading. Not likely. I doubt we'll do anything, but at most it would be air strikes.
Worked in Iraq Of course, there was no credible evidence that they were developing nuclear weapons in Iraq, so the two situations aren't really similar at all.
You mean that one organization of whom the leaders' son was getting oil-for-food (read: money that was supposed to go to the starving Iraqi people) kickbacks? Not that the leader or that organizations members would be apt to look out for Iraq in exchange...because politicians never work for those that grease their wheels.
Apparently, as discussed in the news report linked below, Israeli officials privately concede there is nothing that can be done to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Neither diplomatically nor even militarily. I hope the Israelis follow through with this conclusion, and look at fostering the bright side of this equation: that without this source of animus between Iran and Israel, the only obstacle down the line to the beginnings of a reapproachment between the two countries would be finding a reasonable resolution to the Palestinian problem. Although Iran officially does not recognize Israel's right to exist, and despite its support for the most radical groups in the Palestinian camp, I am sure once the regime in Tehran feels that the "objective grounds" for the animus between Iran and Israel are removed, the Palestinian issue can find a reasonable solution too. Privately, in fact, Iran has clearly signalled as much: that absent Israeli attempts to isolate and cause problems for Iran, Iran will be willing to accept any deal with the Palestinians that the latter find acceptable themselves. It will take a little time, but in less than a decade after Iran becomes a nuclear power, the whole dynamics would create a friendship between Iran and Israel that no one can expect now. All that stands between that future and now is a wise policy by Israel and the US, looking for a genuine reapproachment with Iran that also fosters moderation, investing in the future and giving up on concentrating just on immediate fears.
Bottom line is, there weren't nothing there. Suck it. Assassinate character all you want, you were wrong and we were right. Until you right wingers incorporate that fundamental fact into your discussion, your points are all gonna be worthless.
What color are your panties? If you Google News Search UN Fraud, there are 661 stories detailing the scum that is Kofi and Kojo Aaannan and the rest of the blue berret horde.
Keep your fetishes to yourself. If you Google News Search "grilled cheese miracle" you get 104 responses. 104 news stories about the face of Mary on a grilled cheese sandwhich.
What are these "objective grounds" other than Israel's continued existence ? Do you think there is any chance the current regime in Iran would ever have normalized relations with "the zionist entity" ? (except in the form of a historical footnote if Israel ever ceased to exist)
Let's get back to the subject of us being right and you being wrong, and 1250+ US soldiers dying for no good reason.
You shouldn't just focus on the "current regime", which is basically led on top by the most reactionary elements in Iranian society. When you look at the "regime" more broadly, to include the reformers, and when you add the cultural and political sentiments within Iran to the mix, you will find a much more hopeful future. Provided that the short term fears are traded in with longer term calculations. The threats to Iranian national security that exist retard the process of reform/change within Iran -- and help strengthen those factions you have reason to dislike the most. That is why today despite the stepped up rhetoric and propoganda campaign against the regime, the conservatives are the ones actually gaining the most from the bellicose talk against Iran. In time, the objective facts prevail over ideological affinities, specially when those affinities aren't that widely shared in Iran. The "objective facts" I refer to are whether the threat to Iran comes from Israeli/US? Or whether that threat imminates from other quarters? Whether Iran's interests are better served by having good relations with the US or even (one day in the future) with Israel? And whether the conditions for it are made more posssible or less possible by US/Israeli actions? The other "objective factor" is this: most Iranians have no interest in the Arabs "driving the Jews into the sea". They don't want a united Arab world that then will look at Iran either. At the same time, and with equal fervor and passion, most Iranians don't want a Middle East dominated by Israeli expansionist policies either. If the Oslo peace process had won out, among the biggest losers would have been the hardliners in Iran. That is why in the short term they did what they could to disrupt the process. But the Israeli hardliners helped them too in that regard, again showing that extremists on each side help the other side the most. I am hopeful about Iran's future and its prospects for change, including in its policies and attitudes towards Israel, once threats to its national security are removed and efforts to isolate the country are reversed. I am not optimistic if Iranian nationalism is pushed to the side of the most reactionary mullahs.
Credible evidence? What the hell is credible? espionage? http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1256868.htm
Once again, a most reasonable post. You do great as long as you don't talk about the US state department and slip into this Likudnik thing ! Isn't it funny that the "hard liners" in one country seem to push the hard liners in other countries to the fore. Its counterintuitive, but real. The only exceptions seem to be when a transcendent figure emerges that breaks the cycle (e.g. Nelson Mandela). Perhaps in the coming years we will see an International reversal of this trend. Or, on the other hand, perhaps GWB will toss out the Constitution, declare himself king, and we'll all be screwed.
I don't know what you were referring to when talking about the "US state department"? But as far as the "Likudnik thing", I believe I am on firm ground. Perhaps you must misunderstand my argument, or confuse it with arguments some others might have made? Anyway, I wanted to find an article that I thought might present both sides of this argument fairly -- and which you might be open to reading! The reason I cite the article linked below is, firstly, to let you know that my views on this subject are quite widely held -- and certainly not just by "anti-Semites". In fact, the latter only detract from the argument and make an easy target to confuse the real point of the debate. Secondly, I think the article does give a reasonably fair summary of "both sides" on this debate, even if it ultimately seeks to "debunk" this theory. On the latter point, let me note that those who are serious about understanding the influences on US foreign policy -- and are concerned about the "Likudnik thing" -- obviously recognize that no one group holds all power in a country like the US. That is a ridiculous carricature. Nor do they believe that "Jewish" neoconservatives, on their own, wield such enormous influence to the exclusion of everyone else in that larger coalition. The concern, rather, is that a prior agenda among the Likudnik faction within the neoconservative camp was packaged in a way to help draw a broader constituency, bringing within its wings several other groups: militarists in the Republican party who benefited from the rise in profile and funding for their projects; evangelical christians and their bible prophesies, including politicians that needed to pander to them; as well as even rank file Republicans and Republican strategists who saw the agenda politically beneficial to their party. In this regard, it is really undisputed by everyone that a central tenet of all those who are referred to as "neoconservatives" relates to a passionate advocacy of Israeli interests (Likud's version of it), regardless of what motivates each of these factions to reach that conclusion. Anyway, let me link the article from the Detriot Jewish News which I referred to earlier. Read it carefully, bearing in mind what I have said in response to some of the points made to "debunk" this theory.
Quote: Who’s really steering U.S. foreign policy? http://www.detroitjewishnews.com/mo...article&sid=721 Unlike Fox News - this article is fair and balanced. It reveals little to support your Likudnik theory. So there are a handful of Bush appointees who are Jewish (or have Jewish sounding names) and are Neocons ? So that means they actually put Israel's security above the US's ? Where is your Wahabist theory ? You know, VP Cheney has friends in Saudi Arabia so his motivation must be primarily to protect them and their oil interests, right ? Yes, the Likudnik theory is anti-semetic, even though you would paint it otherwise. As I said in an earlier post, I beleive "improving Israel's security" might have been on Bush's and the Neocon's list of reasons for invading Iraq but it was somewhere down around # 7, behind "because Saddam tried to kill my Daddy".