I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

What kind of psychosis is that? Oh, I forgot, it’s dominionist bullshit just like creationism and intelligent design.

Who exactly do you think rules Iran? Hint: It isn’t the figurehead nutball president.

Enrichment for peaceful purposes under the supervision of the IAEA is preferred. what part of that can’t you get?

Parsi put it perfectly: By saying we are too strong of a nation to hold talks with Iran in 2003 and in 2006 we are too weak to hold talks with Iran really just states that we DON’T WANT to talk with them. It seems the administration is trying to build tensions between nations rather than relieve them. Why do these radicals all believe that they have the “right” cause to fight [die] for? Wes Clarke even said that a troop surge will help the Shia and empower Iran, and Bush is playing right into it. Hell, he’s controlling it. If he really is trying to increase tensions between the U.S. and Iran, it really makes the claim that Iraq was just a “practice run” more plausible, and puts our nation in much more of a risk, because we would be going at it alone this time.

Remember those diplomatic talks with North Korea regarding….what was it again… oh yeah the Nuclear program. Didn’t Donald Rumsfeld help with the sale of those nuclear reactors to North Korea when he worked with ABB (Here? Why is it that people still listen to neo-conservative politicians when it comes to handling foreign policy. They are going to get thousands upon thousands of more people killed.

I love to see people’s real colors shine through though. A preemptive invasion against Iraq in ‘03, a possible showdown with Iran in ‘07 all for what?

“What do you negotiate about with someone who wants to destroy Israel and is waiting on the 12th Iman? What psych hospital he should be committed to?”
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

Are you serious? Didn’t you learn anything from Iraq? And what business is it of ours to attack Iran because they may or may not attack Israel? Why is that our obligation? The bottom line would be the same no matter what the reason. Thousands upon thousands of people would die. Diplomacy doesn’t hurt people, bombs do. Diplomatic talks should always be the first option. If the leaders of nations are willing to talk with the U.S. we should listen.

“I am pretty sure we have stated clearly that we won’t talk with them until they suspend all enrichment activity. Since they hadn’t, we shouldn’t talk with them. Iran is pushing for war more and more everyday. It floors me that Iran wants to make war with us so badly. Regrettably, Iran will get its wish shortly if it doesn’t stop all enrichment.”
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

Let me see if I understand your point correctly. We should not talk with Iran because they want to go to war with us. By your logic, it would make sense to not talk with them (which could avoid a war), but to ignore them and go to war. If war is what they want, then you’d be giving into them. You’d be so willing to sacrifice thousands upon thousands of more lives for this cause (”because they won’t stop enrichment”). Why not try to save more lives and promote diplomacy instead of standing by this cause. Again….Diplomacy doesn’t hurt people, bombs do.

For everybody else who is scared of nuclear enrichment and weapons development, don’t forget that the U.S. is the only nation that used nuclear weapons (2) against another nation. We hold 20,000+ nuclear weapons in our arsenal. We are the bullies. Maybe we should step back for a few minutes and talk with the leaders from around the globe. Now is the time for diplomacy, not war. We should promote peaceful talks before we all end up dead. Let’s all learn from our past mistakes. Hiroshima, Vietnam, the Cold War, oh yeah and let’s not forget 9/11, because it seems like we all forgot what happend that day. Bin Laden is still out there and to quote the president “I I I just don’t spend that much time thinkin’ ’bout him anymore.” Must be nice to not care about 3,000 murdered American’s because your cause is to liberate the Iraqi people. Thank you Mr. President.

Politics, foreign relations, diplomacy, war; these are all things that outline that macho-ist attitude that exists in our world. It is nothing more than a fight between who is right and who is wrong. Why do we [humans] do this to one another? Why do we allow these morons to run our nations? Why do we allow them to build tensions between one another instead of working with one another? Why are so many people fighting and dying for these causes? Maybe it is just human nature. Maybe we are all encoded to manipulate, hate, and destroy one another.

The Swiss ambassador from the U.S. was reprimanded by Cheney for submitting a 2003 Iranian offer. Clearly Cheney and the hard liners didn’t and don’t want a peaceful settlement….

Anyone who reads the document for themselves will see that this does not look like a proposal from Iran.

I would walk away and let them have access to “peaceful” under IAEA supervision of course, enrichment.

Then I would “take it from there”

Not this hardline “no enrichment ever” stance and policy of this administration. Stop enrichment completely or will will take your country over.

What’s to stop India (whom we glorify as our enrichment partners),
What’s to stop them, or Pakistan, or North korea from giving Iran the technology?

We are ALL FOR those countries having enrichment capabilities,(except NK) but not Iran.

Israel doesn’t need enrichment capabilities because WE sold them the bombs they currently have in their arsenal.

No wonder the Iranian President is paranoid and feels threatened.
Pakistan, India and Israel. All of our allies. They have nuclear bombs.

Iran has none. Can a reasonable person NOT feel like they were being threatened by the US and it’s regional allies if even by proxy?

The Iranain President is right in demanding enrichment capabilities. And that is all he ever asked for. Bush says NO.

Know why? Because Iran has been on the PNAC “drawing board” for a long long time.

Iran knows this and they smell a conspiracy between the US and it’s “nuclear partners” in the region.

It is only natural.

No wonder they feel threatened by us. They believe it is some kind of conspiracy no doubt.

And all of that “talk” by the Iranian President, is just talk.
He is trying to keep us from being the “agressor” to his country.

They bel;ieve and rightfully so in my opinion, that there is an unlevel playing field between the US and Israel.

Wouldn’t you be really nervous about this kind of threat to a country you were the President of?

And SAY ANYTHING to make the agressors stand up and take notice that you were not just going to lie down and take it?

The Iranian President deserves a fu*cking medal in my book, for telling the western imperialists and Israel, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

The corporations did the same thing with Hitler in the 1930’s and 40’s. They built Hitler and the region up to the hilt, war profits of course, and then purposefully tore him down.

Then moved on to Korea. Then Viet Nam. The Iran Contra. Then Gulf War I. Now this Gulf War II.

Sadly, this is the ONLY way America knows to keep fiscally afloat.

There has to be a better way.

And by the way, don’t feed the trolls, it just makes them cranky.

Thanks for the kind words ;-)

I reply -trying to stay away from flame wars- mainly for the benefit of other posters, not for the trolls. They are truly a waste of time. The newest one is no exception. He is truly dense. For example:

It doesn’t say anything about the U.S. supporting it.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:07 pm

Right, the article says nothing about the US supporting Iran’s nuclear program, except for the mention of the two nuclear cooperation agreements that the US signed with that country. Other than that, no support at all. ::snark::

I think this is something similar to decompression sickness, as it occurs when you first bring these benighted fools into the light of day. Imagine what it must be like trying to make a transition from the “fact-free” realm of Limbaugh and O’Reilly to a place like TP where things like the historical record actually matter. It’s tough…and few recover. Look how long poor Exley has been around…still mewling about derogation and the glorious reign of Pinochet.

Gregor, nice post on the timeline. Here’s an interesting viewpoint on how American foreign policy mimics the practices of the mafia, and it’s Chomsky no less.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48494/

In Patrick1’s case, I think he might even like eating it. It takes a really special person who is willing to make a fool of himself when all the facts are against you. Over and over and over again.