Bush won't rule out nuclear stike on Iran...

[Teejay32]

The ideology "we don't talk to a country who has the potential to go nuclear even though it may avert a crises while we're holding the bargaining chips" looks sane to you?

yes. now please tell me how you and the other 65% of the country are going to bargain with Iran.

 

[lw49033]

You sound somewhat anti Semitic or is that my imagination?

It's your fevered imagination.

 

[LuvDuke]

yes. now please tell me how you and the other 65% of the country are going to bargain with Iran.

Yanno, I was actually in the process of typing up a response, but frankly, this exchange speaks for itself. End of story.

 

[Jabber_Jaws]

Yanno, I was actually in the process of typing up a response, but frankly, this exchange speaks for itself. End of story.

So that means you have no answer?

 

[Charade]

So that means you have no answer?

she is the answer.

 

[Free4Life11]

I wonder what Israel has planned/is planning? They are the ones who it seems should be most fearful of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

 

[LuvDuke]

So that means you have no answer?

No, it means I'm not going to bother. If at this point, someone considers it sane policy to blow off a potential nuclear power, solely on ideological grounds, they're beyond redemption and have crossed over into LaLa Land.

Even assuming, in 2003 after the US had toppled Saddam Hussein in 3 weeks, the Iranians were full of crap in their zeal to speak to the US, what possible difference would an hours meeting have made other than to confirm the beliefs about the Iranians or find out something new.

So now it's 3 years later and it doesn't take a genius to see that Bush is mired in an Iraqi civil war, the Iraqi unity government is a dead pipe dream and have given the US and the Iraqi people the "purple finger", the US military is busted, the US treasury is busted and needs Chinese investment just to keep afloat, there are no good options, and the good news just goes on and on.

What difference would an hours meeting have made? I don't know and neither does anyone else and that is the point of this exchange. What I do know is the results and options we have today could not have been any worse than we have now.

To repeat, this exchange speaks for itself.

 

[Teejay32]

naturally. The Iranian regime represents exactly what people claim to hate about the Bush administration, without having to make stuff up, and you're all like "let's sit down and hear what they have to say."

They'd probably speak reams of the same Islamic diplobabble we've been hearing since 1979, and eventually they'd get around to the real problem of our support for Israel. They won't compromise, neither will we. And since we couldn't trust anything they said anyway, why bother? The country isn't ready to be yanked around by some theocrats who just figured out how to enrich uranium.

 

[sodaseller]

yes. now please tell me how you and the other 65% of the country are going to bargain with Iran.

The point you are attempting to make is typically inane. No, bargaining likely won't work. Neither will any option you could consider. Your side typically substitutes tough talk but gets terrible results. That's usually good enough given the worldview of your supporters.

Look at North Korea. You railed that the Agreed Framework was appeasement. In typical Bush apologist fashion, almost all of you were willfully ignorant of te basic facts, either believing the NKs were alchemists or that the distinction between plutonium and uranium were irrelevant. You've had six years now to show that your strong approach would yield te results that the craven Neville Chamberlain predecessors didn't. Had that approach actually bore any fruit, a hat tip would be required. But instead NK now has nukes it did not before.

So don't try the ignorant baiting. There are no good options. And they've only gotten worse due to the utter folly of the foreign policy of the last six years. The facts always expose ya'll, and you're screwing up the country in your ignorance

 

[sodaseller]

I wonder what Israel has planned/is planning? They are the ones who it seems should be most fearful of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Isreel has said it will strike if we do not, but it's unclear what they could do that we could not, since neither one of us likely able to disable the program with anything short of a full scale invasion and occupation, which neither one of us is capable of. Still, the fact that they will try (and they likely will, as they truly face an existential threat from it) is one reason for us to, as an Israeli strike would certainly cause the regional conflagration that a strike by us is omnly likely to

 

[Teejay32]

....and over here, as usual compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest idea on the thread:

No, bargaining likely won't work.

I agree.

 

[Charade]

The point you are attempting to make is typically inane. No, bargaining likely won't work. Neither will any option you could consider. Your side typically substitutes tough talk but gets terrible results. That's usually good enough given the worldview of your supporters.

Look at North Korea. You railed that the Agreed Framework was appeasement. In typical Bush apologist fashion, almost all of you were willfully ignorant of te basic facts, either believing the NKs were alchemists or that the distinction between plutonium and uranium were irrelevant. You've had six years now to show that your strong approach would yield te results that the craven Neville Chamberlain predecessors didn't. Had that approach actually bore any fruit, a hat tip would be required. But instead NK now has nukes it did not before.

So don't try the ignorant baiting. There are no good options. And they've only gotten worse due to the utter folly of the foreign policy of the last six years. The facts always expose ya'll, and you're screwing up the country in your ignorance

You forgot the part where NK lied about making nukes.

 

[sodaseller]

You forgot the part where NK lied about making nukes.

I didn't forget about anything. You don't even understand the points, even though they're laid out (hint uranium v. plutonium), in an obviously futile attemot to head off ignirant talking points attacks like yours, a response worth of JER

 

[LuvDuke]

The point you are attempting to make is typically inane. No, bargaining likely won't work. Neither will any option you could consider. Your side typically substitutes tough talk but gets terrible results. That's usually good enough given the worldview of your supporters.

Look at North Korea. You railed that the Agreed Framework was appeasement. In typical Bush apologist fashion, almost all of you were willfully ignorant of te basic facts, either believing the NKs were alchemists or that the distinction between plutonium and uranium were irrelevant. You've had six years now to show that your strong approach would yield te results that the craven Neville Chamberlain predecessors didn't. Had that approach actually bore any fruit, a hat tip would be required. But instead NK now has nukes it did not before.

So don't try the ignorant baiting. There are no good options. And they've only gotten worse due to the utter folly of the foreign policy of the last six years. The facts always expose ya'll, and you're screwing up the country in your ignorance

Bingo! These people talk as if they actually have a track record they could be proud of. Fact is, this administration has been one failure after another. There are no successes whether it's tax cuts, enviromental policy, foreign policy, or monetary policy. They have been an utter and complete disaster for this country. So I truly have to have a belly laugh at the ones who peddle the Bush line as if there was something to be proud of.

Btw, here's a pre-emptive strike: The next a Bushie claims the fact that we have not been attacked in nearly 5 years as a Bush success, remind them Bush has 3 more years to go to claim the success Bill Clinton had.

 

[LuvDuke]

naturally. The Iranian regime represents exactly what people claim to hate about the Bush administration, without having to make stuff up, and you're all like "let's sit down and hear what they have to say."

They'd probably speak reams of the same Islamic diplobabble we've been hearing since 1979, and eventually they'd get around to the real problem of our support for Israel. They won't compromise, neither will we. And since we couldn't trust anything they said anyway, why bother? The country isn't ready to be yanked around by some theocrats who just figured out how to enrich uranium.

So you know exactly what would've happened during an hours meeting with the Iranians in 2003? Really? In that case, since you obviously have your crystal ball working, why don't tell me and the good folks here what the lottery numbers will be for Saturday night.

Thanks in advance.

 

[lw49033]

They'd probably speak reams of the same Islamic diplobabble we've been hearing since 1979, and eventually they'd get around to the real problem of our support for Israel. They won't compromise, neither will we.

A minor point: there was no diplobabble under Khomeini, there was just hostility. Diplobabble was a recent improvement on the situation.

But the more basic point: we are wrong to support Israel, the whole world outside of Israel itself knows it, and if, as you say, we "won't compromise" on a mistaken and immoral foreign policy, we will deserve whatever we get.

 

[Teejay32]

A minor point: there was no diplobabble under Khomeini, there was just hostility. Diplobabble was a recent improvement on the situation.

No, it's a big point. You're right.

But the more basic point: we are wrong to support Israel, the whole world outside of Israel itself knows it, and if, as you say, we "won't compromise" on a mistaken and immoral foreign policy, we will deserve whatever we get.

That's their POV. We don't have to share it. In 1948 we seemed rather neutral there, at a time in which millions of all kinds of people died in wars around the world. It would certainly be mistaken and immoral if our position was that since they threaten the Jewish state, they deserve whatever we can dish out. We obviously don't believe that, and there's no reason they should either.

Furthermore, they don't all believe that - not all Arabs are prepared to sacrifice themselves for Palestine, not all Persians are going to want to sacrifice themselves for whatever Ahmajihadi has planned. It would be mistaken and immoral for our policies to capitulate to the ones that do.

 

[pdchris]

It is about the right size, and has a high Jewish population. Do you have a better idea?

Oh, well, if we're talking of giving away part of the US, may I suggest southern California?

 

[pdchris]

A minor point: there was no diplobabble under Khomeini, there was just hostility. Diplobabble was a recent improvement on the situation.

But the more basic point: we are wrong to support Israel, the whole world outside of Israel itself knows it, and if, as you say, we "won't compromise" on a mistaken and immoral foreign policy, we will deserve whatever we get.

Are you saying we should just abandon Israel? Withdraw our ambassador, stop all support? In effect, say to the Arab world, "Go ahead, invade and make war against the Israelies, we won't stop you or support Israel?"
And if such were the case, don't you think the Israeli's with their homeland invaded and they themselves about to be evicted, would use their nuclear weapons? My gosh, the ensuing cataclysm would affect the entire world. The price of oil would sky-rocket to such a price level as to cause almost immediate financial repercussions that would make the Great Depression seem like a little hiccup.

 

[bimshire]

Are you saying we should just abandon Israel? Withdraw our ambassador, stop all support? In effect, say to the Arab world, "Go ahead, invade and make war against the Israelies, we won't stop you or support Israel?"
And if such were the case, don't you think the Israeli's with their homeland invaded and they themselves about to be evicted, would use their nuclear weapons? My gosh, the ensuing cataclysm would affect the entire world. The price of oil would sky-rocket to such a price level as to cause almost immediate financial repercussions that would make the Great Depression seem like a little hiccup.

No don't abandon them. Just bring foreign policy more into balance. Currently we are not an 'honest broker' in the negotiations. The parties are just stuck with us. We back Israel even when human violations are involved. We just turn a blind eye because the Palestinians are deem subhuman.