While there is no talk among the world powers right now about hitting Iran militarily, European diplomats in particular said they worried about a downward spiral if the sanctions did not work. "They’ve been dragged into three wars over there by the U.S.," Mr. Parsi said, referring to Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. "They don’t want a fourth." This sounds to me like a pretty standard posture for the Europeans. Let’s translate it thusly:
"We don’t have the military capability or the will to actually make Iran do anything. Therefore all we can do it fret about it, until the day comes that they hand us a fait accompli by having finished nuclear weapons. Then we’ll sit around for a while and bemoan how much more dangerous the world has become and find some way to blame it on the US. But we’ll be secretly relieved that we don’t have to think about actually, you know, doing something, because everyone would then agree than it would be too dangerous."
Or am I being too cynical? |
| |
Written By:
Billy Hollis
URL:
http://
|
|
One might have thought that a UNSC resolution was an end to negotiations rather than the opening offer. You learn something every day. |
| |
Written By:
Dave Schuler
URL:
http://www.theglitteringeye.com
|
|
I don’t know why they bother to call them resolutions. There’s never any actual resolve involved. |
| |
Written By:
Achillea
URL:
http://
|
now what?
* shrug * Monitor their weapons program remotely as best as possible, and if it looks like they’re making progress in building a nuke, take their facilities out.
Yes, it will inflame the Middle East (and most of the U. S.’s allies), but it’s a lot more expedient and a lot less costly than "regime change".
I mean, what else are you going to do? Beg the UN to pull their thumbs out of their butts and do something? Invade Iran?
Just keep tabs on their nuke program. It’s the only sane option I can think of. |
| |
Written By:
Brian Martinez
URL:
http://cluebyfour.livejournal.com
|
Hey,
Why doesn’t the US try negotiating one-on-one with them?
;-) |
| |
Written By:
Terry
URL:
http://
|
Why doesn’t the US try negotiating one-on-one with them?
Maybe because we have no diplomatic relations, and they think we are the "great Satan"?
Lets see how those negotiations might go: USA: Uhmm, we don’t want you to enrich Uranium, we will give you money if you stop.
Iran: Fark you
USA: we need you to stop
Iran: Fark you Infidel Pig
USA: Look, we might have to take action
Iran: DURKA DURKA JIHAD!!!! |
| |
Written By:
kyle N
URL:
http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
|
Monitor their weapons program remotely as best as possible, and if it looks like they’re making progress in building a nuke, take their facilities out. Only if we also take out the government and the mullahs at the same time. Wait till they have one of their big meetings and take out the entire government. |
| |
Written By:
kyle N
URL:
http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
|
|
This is almost as funny as the headline on CNN "France: ’Now or never’ for Iran" |
| |
Written By:
Mac
URL:
http://
|
Only if we also take out the government and the mullahs at the same time. Wait till they have one of their big meetings and take out the entire government.
just drop a nuke on the nuke facility and pretend they blew themselves up |
| |
Written By:
Mac
URL:
http://
|
kyleN,
There’s a history here. |
| |
Written By:
Terry
URL:
http://
|
|
Yes, they’ll negotiate anything but what matters. Meanwhile, the nuclearization continues. This is a very dangerous game we’re in with Iran. |
| |
Written By:
David Shaughnessy
URL:
http://
|
|
maybe it’s a good thing we aren’t negotiating with Iran. |
| |
Written By:
Steven Donegal
URL:
http://
|
FUnny how people just have so many opinions on Iran but little ACTUAL knowledge!
1- Iran’s response to the US/EU offer legitimately asks for more details on offers that are too vague to be taken seriously http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1018
2- The US encouraged Iran’s nuclear program: See "Past Arguments Don’t Square With Current Iran Policy" Washington Post Mar 27 2005 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html)
3- Iran has a legitimate case for needing nuclear energy "Forced to Fuel: Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program." by Dr. Muhammad Sahimi, Harvard International Review, (http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1294/) and See "The fuel behind Iran’s nuclear drive" by David Isenberg, Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html)
4- Iran had not "hidden" its nuclear program until the US prevented Iran from acquiring its technology openly in cooperation with the IAEA and other countries. See "Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons" Le Monde diplomatique, Nov 2005 (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Wv7d_FdiMH0J:mondediplo.com/2005/...)
5- Iran has repeatedly made offers of compromises that would resolve any REAL concern about nuclear proliferation, only to see serious offer of negotiation being dismissed without any consideration See "We Don’t Need This Quarrel" www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php and http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals.asp
|
| |
Written By:
hass
URL:
http://
|
|
Just because their president seriously mumbles "death to Israel" in almost the same sentence as "we need nuke power" is no cause for concern. |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
2- The US encouraged Iran’s nuclear program: See "Past Arguments Don’t Square With Current Iran Policy" Washington Post Mar 27 2005 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.htm
Are you even remotely serious? Citing data from 30 years ago?
Why not cite data 30 years old on how we ought to be handling the Russians NOW too? Or China? Or Vietnam?
This paragraph covers the differences that negate the relevance of 30 year old views:The shah made a big convincing case that Iran was going to run out of gas and oil and they had a growing population and a rapidly increasing demand for energy," Sick said. "The mullahs make the same argument today, but we don’t trust them." |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|