Readers’ Responses to Our Question (216)

Unlike Israel , Pakistan and India , my country” Iran “ has signed NPT and must be praised for obeying law and signing this international treaty . IAEA as the competent organ of UN by numerous inspections done by its inspectors has found nothing illegal in Iran’s nuclear activities and this is enough to say that all UN sanctions against Iran are contrary to basic rules of international law . Punishing a member state to NPT before committing a nuclear offence is a new form of justice invented by western propaganda headed by US. Regards. Hamid - Iran

Nuclear armament is the way to go. Iran should develop it's nuclear technology for both energy and military objectives. First of all, it has the right to do so as a sovereign nation. If Iran has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver it, she would gain recognition and respect. Political issues that are difficult to resolve today in the region wiil be resloved when players go to the table with serious intent and have mutual respect as equal negotiating partners. It is a useless proposition to negotiate from a position of weakness. Iran has realized this and is taking appropriate steps to correct the situation. It is obvious that there will be no meaningful peace in the Middle East untill all parties are heavily armed and dangerous.

Remember the incident when the US violated China air space with a spy plane. Well, China air defence forced the American plane down and detained the crew. The plane was later chopped in to bits and given back to the US in scrap boxes. The US shrugged this challenging action off as just another day in the spy jungle. Can you imagine what would have happened to China if it had no nukes. The morale of the story is that it is the duty of every country to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction if it is to remain free.

Anyone who wishes to understand the mounting nuclear crisis with Iran will find no better starting place than the conflict of Jovian versus Sapor.

The year: 363 A.D. The Roman army had invaded Persia and suddenly found itself surrounded. Jovian, the Roman emperor and military commander, decided to sue for peace with Sapor, the ruler of Persia. Edward Gibbon ("The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", chapter XXIV) gives this account of what happened: "The crafty Persian delayed, under various pretences, the conclusion of the agreement; started difficulties, required explanations, suggested expedients, receded from his concessions, increased his demands, and wasted four days in the arts of negotiation, till he had consumed the stock of provisions which yet remained in the camp of the Romans. Had Jovian been capable of executing a bold and prudent measure, he would have continued his march with unremitting diligence; the progress of the treaty would have suspended the attacks of the Barbarians; and before the expiration of the fourth day, he might have safely reached the fruitful province of Corduene, at the distance only of one hundred miles. The irresolute emperor, instead of breaking through the toils of the enemy, expected his fate with patient resignation, and accepted the humiliating conditions of peace, which it was no longer in his power to refuse."
Gibbon goes on to tell what happened on the home front: "The messengers of Jovian promulgated the specious tale of a prudent and necessary peace: the voice of fame, louder and more sincere, revealed the disgrace of the emperor, and the conditions of the ignominious treaty. The minds of the people were filled with astonishment and grief, with indignation and terror" when they learned that, among other concessions, the treaty handed over 5 provinces to the Persians.
Gibbon concludes: "Sapor enjoyed the glory and the fruits of his victory; and this ignominious peace has justly been considered as a memorable era in the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The predecessors of Jovian had sometimes relinquished the dominion of distant and unprofitable provinces: but, since the foundation of the city, the genius of Rome... had never retired before the sword of a victorious enemy."

Gibbon's account incites easy answers and invites difficult questions. Perhaps the most rudimentary of the latter: is the number of Western government officials who know about the Jovian-Sapor episode greater or lesser than the number of Iranian ones who do not know about it?


Sincerely,

Tom Warson, Ph.D.

I do not understand some very fundamental aspects of the Iranian nuclear issue: (1) Iran remains a sovereign nation, despite the threatening and hostile rhetoric of its current leaders, who may or may not be in power over the long-term. By what authority (legal, moral, ethical, whatever) does the UN, the US government, or any other entity demand that Iran not develop nuclear weapons? Obviously, a specific threat to use nuclear weapons in your possession or that you plan to acquire is a different matter. (2) Little mention has been made of the speculation by nuclear experts that Iran is at least a decade away from having an actual nuclear weapon. The roiling debate and inflammatory rhetoric foster the impression that Iran's acquisition and use of a nuclear weapon against the US or others is imminent or possible in the near-term. (3) Bush administration statements about Iran seem to be aimed at creating or feeding the fear that Iran poses a direct nuclear threat to the United States and, therefore, must be punished economically or possibly even attacked militarily. Has the current Iranian regime threatened the United States? What would be the objective of such a threat given Iran's apparent political ambitions on the world stage? In any event, what would be the military significance of such a threat to the world's only superpower? (4) How can Iran or any other country be anything but hostile to a US government that adamantly says "We are not going to talk to you, but you'd better do what we say do."

Iran knew what it was doing 20 years or more ago when it started its covert nuclear program. It had examples ranging from China to Israel to India to Pakistan, among lesser others like South Africa, Korea, Romania, and Taiwan, to learn from. Their top scientists went to the best universities to learn the fundamentals. They were sold stuff from China, Switzerland, Germany and others that helped them along the way. This was after the Revolution; we all know the Shah had his own plans and ideas about nukes - Bushehr, the plant the Russians want to finish, was a pre-Revolution German design opposed by most nonproliferation types and the Carter Administration, if memory serves. The Russian Atomic Energy Ministry desperately needs this deal, for the bucks.

Iran has partially accomplished its major strategic goal, through a combination of "constructive irresponsibility," divide-and-conquer diplomacy, and technological achievement, it now owns a virtual nuclear deterrent. It can take its time, learn from its technical mistakes, and decide on its own terms when to break out of the NPT (which it is not adhering to now in any case) and build real
weapons.

President Discusses Global War on Terror
Capital Hilton Hotel
Washington, D.C.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

(excerpt)

Listen to the words of Hezbollah's leader, the terrorist Nasrallah, who has declared his hatred of America. He says, "Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, 'Death to America' will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America."

Iran's leaders, who back Hezbollah, have also declared their absolute hostility to America. Last October, Iran's President declared in a speech that some people ask — in his words — "whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved. I say that this goal is achievable." Less than three months ago, Iran's President declared to America and other Western powers: "open your eyes and see the fate of pharaoh. If you do not abandon the path of falsehood, your doomed destiny will be annihilation." Less than two months ago, he warned: "The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes, America and the West should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region." He also delivered this message to the American people:

"If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down."

America will not bow down to tyrants.

——————-end excerpt————

Appeasment never stopped those who wanted war. Sanctions will not induce "behavior change", and more talks will only result in a "Neville Chamberlain Moment" No agreement reached will be worth the paper it's written on, and will only buy the regime time.

We can and will "exhaust" diplomacy, as the regime takes diplomatic options off the table till there's but one option left.

(see prior post)

Originally posted on Post-Global thread "Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons"

http://tinyurl.com/he4hn

(part of a fair assesment posted)

"We've come to the embarrassing point of having to argue that religious pluralism, political and economic openness, individual rights and freedom of expression are preferable to theocratic dictatorships."
-SMB

(my response):

Agreed, and it can be expanded to include non-theocratic dictartorship in the case of North Korea...as far as the nuclear and WMD delivery system proliferation threat in general is concerned.

If then dictatorships that threaten global peace and security are found to be unacceptable in the 21st century....or dictatorial regimes in general...the debate then is one not of whether to allow them to continue to exist as governments, but how best to toss them and the concept of tyrany itself, into the dustbin of history.

A complex problematic paradox ensues, with millions of lives at stake.

What is desirable and what is do-able is inherent in forming a correct solution.

The "Four Pillars of Inditement" as I call them....being;

1. Human rights

2. Threat to global peace and security

3. Support for Terrorism

4. Interference in other soverign nation's affairs, and destabilization of.

...must be stood up in a wholistic manner, as a case presented before the UN Security Council.
Self supporting in weight of facts, and mutually supporting in their inter-relationship with each other.

While resolution on each may be separate, resolution on the whole must be brought to bear, So that the weight of the international community's decisions will be adequately implemented in a cohesive manner "In Larger Freedom" concurrent with international law, the universal declaration of human rights, and the UN charter itself.

The time is here, and history will be the judge of those who shirk this duty to mankind.

As will it be the judge of the actions taken, both by the regimes and the family of nations.

Posted by: Eric Jette | September 3, 2006 07:29 PM

Should Iran actually develop and use nukes against Israel, Israel would respond with nukes. No more Israel - no more Iran. The fall out envelopes - who? Iraq, Afghanisten, Syria/Lebanon, Jordan, perhaps the Pakis, Egypt and, depending on the mega tonnage, several others to a lesser degree, Saudis, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, UAE etc. As an American, I wonder, after all the problems the world has faced since the fall of the USSR (sorry comrade Putin)what would be left? Without the Middle East noise - North Korea might be either emboldened to take a shot at IMMORTALITY or shut up! (Not Likely). That leaves China and the US as the world's two largest consumers of fossil fuels with fewer suppiers. Russia would then have the largest availble supply of oil and natural gas supplies. This leads me to believe that comrade Putin actually wants this conflagration. Russia would then become the world's and most important source of energy. Without firing a shot - Putin would be in the driver's seat! "Mother Russia" would be closer to "ruling the world" than Nikita would have dreamed! WOW, who'da thought. The UN would declare that a TRAGEDY has occered (quite beyond their capacity to avoid) and that all the world should now meet to plan the future with open arms for all. Yeah, the UN would lead the way to peace, prosperity and love for all mankind. Sweet, isn't it?

Srikanth, as for proxy wars and regimes the US supported, this was a consequence of military and political doctrines to stop nations from being taken over by communism. The Soviet Union and China both tried hard to undermine democracy, the pattern was set for example in Italy, 1948 where the Soviets funded the communist effort to defeat the democratic parties with vast amounts of money; estimates vary between $5 to $10 million US$ a month (1948 dollars). It is to the credit of the US that it did so at the time and to its credit that since the fall of the Soviet Union, is no longer doing so, or at least not to my knowledge.

I agree with your 5 points. I also realize that we (in this case the UK, France and Germany) have spoken very softly to Iran over the last years ever since it became clear a nuclear weapons program was being developed. The response we were returned was that Iran was willing to 'talk seriously'. I'm certain the European three have done nothing but talk seriously over the last 3 years apparently Iran has not. So we have spoken softly.

It is not yet time for the big stick but the current Iranian regime with its lack of respect for anyone elses ideology, its apparent fear and hatred of our liberal and inclusive values, should not have access to nuclear weapons.

I feel that now at the end of this debate too much blame has been put on the US and too little on Russia, China and far too little on Iran. It's as if Iran will become a land full of happy reasonable people once the current US administration is exit. If only.

read this:

Devaluing Labor

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901042.html

I think that this may be the longest "Response and Comments" on Washington Post's Questions! I, too, apologize for my contribution to this.

It feels immensely refreshing and enlightening to hear all points of view, and I am glad that I am a citizen of a country (USA) that allows such freedom. Having said that, that freedom is fast diminishing, because of the multitude of changes in the laws since September 11, 2001, primarily due to hysteria, paranoia, and short-sightedness. Guess who lost the most - we, the Americans. Is the world a safer place now than ante-Septemebr 11, 2001? The answer, in my opinion, is a resounding no! My only goal is use this freedom to promote the same in other parts of the world. I truly appreciate everyone's comments (especially jvd70, Amsterdam, NL; Rossini, FR; Hossein, Washington, D. C.; MikeB; Daniel; AM, Vienna; et al).

jvd70:
The West has also fought many "proxy wars." I will attempt to give you some examples: Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Iraq (during Iran-Iraq war), and countless many others. Here is where I advocate not interfering in other sovereign nations' affairs. It WILL come back to haunt us in the future and eat us alive. Remember Stinger missiles (MANPADS) - we provided the Mujahaideen (AKA Freedom Fighters, now mutated into Al Qaeda). Let us not argue on who did what wrong, but look to the future and see how to make it fruitful to everyone. You are correct in that we both (and many others) want the same thing - peace and prosperity on earth.

Here are my thoughts on what we (the West, especially the U. S. should do):
* read and understand history and learn from it (as to "what NOT to do");

* understand that the separation of church and state is a must;

* not support one faction, or another, in a conflict; and

* insure that our policies are even-handed, fair, just, have a long-term view, and not for the sake of expediency;

* invest in a strong "defense," not "offense." In Teddy Roosevelt's words: speak softly and carry a "really" big stick (the key here is speak softly, first).

I do know that the world will be a much better place in the future (I am an irrepressible optimist!). As Jesse Jackson said "Keep hope alive!"

Lastly, I have request to all the readers: let us not vilify the dissenters, personally. (Some of us are less informed than others.)

As you read this keep this in mind about the writer:
Born in Iran but have lived the majority of my life in the States.
I do believe Iran has the right to nuclear power.
I do not believe they have a right to nuclear weapons.
I am not a supporter of the Bush administration
I do NOT believe that the Bush administration is to blame for hte current situation in Iran

Even though Iran has not broken the letter of the Non-Proliferation agreement, certainly the spirit has been compromised! Iran, if left to it own devices would most certainly create a weapon. Whether thats in 2 years, five years or 10 years is irrelevant. What is importnat is that we need to engage them NOW. We have lost are best partner (Khatemi, moderate who is coming to the US to give a speach), maybe the current people are not ideal but at least we know who we are delaing with. The unknown of what could follow is scary to me . . .

Threats of war, sanctions (won't work because China and India are not incentivized in anyway to follow them plus there are not enough "willing" countries) and chest thumping are not going to get results.

As of today Iran has directly challenged Bush to come to the table. If he does nto take them up on it, he really has lost it all. In 2003 when the Iranians made the first open gestures to the US it was turned down (subsequently the government has become more hardline), the diplomatic window is closing fast and for Bush to not take it would be irresponsible. I suppose they could argue that by ignoring the Iranians all these years, they have made them come to the US and ask for talks. Giving the US the diplomatic upperhand. But seriously, this is no longer about saving face, this is the "nuclear" issue and the last thing we need is for the power people to worry about face . . .But is the US willing to risk them NOT asking a third time. This is a case where ignorance (ie bad foreign) got the world in a bad spot, and the arrogance might keep us there.

If this is about humanity, President Bush get ass out of the poker table and into the dialogue table. You have no right to gamble with humanity no matter how much it hurts you or your political parties November elections . . .and make no mistake by doing the righ thing (sitting down with the Iranians) he is most certainly losing congress and the Presidency for the Republicans!

ps. - While I agree with much of what you posted, you publish a statistic with regards to handguns that is simply untrue and also pretty outrageous. In 1999, and remember the level of deaths and injuries due to guns has *fallen* 60% since then, a total of 1,770 deaths in the 0 -to- 17 year old age group, 1,609 deaths in the 18 and 19 year old age group, 4,003 in the 19 through 24 age group and 4,515 for the population aged 24 and above. Now, what is intersting about these statistics that 56% of the deaths in all categories are suicides, mostly in the over 24 year old segment. Beyond that, a whopping 83% of the deaths due to all causes takes place in either the gang or illegal immigrant communitees! If you subtract out these, the TOTAL number of firearm related deaths for children 15 and younger last year was ..... 16. That's nation wide. For the 16 to 19 year old set, it is less than 500. For the over 24 set it is slightly more than 2,000, virtually all of them suicides. And, let's look at the suicides. The U.S. doesn't even rank in the top ten for suicides in the West. That honour is held by Russia, followed by Denmark, then Sweden, Estonia, France, Switzerland, Germany, Lithuania, Norway, Iceland, the U.K. and Spain (tied), etc. You get to the U.S. at around #22 on the list. The manner of suicide appears to be one of convenience. In other words, where guns are not available, as in Europe, the favored methods of doing ones self in include hanging, drowning, poison, cutting instruments whereas, even though our rate is less than 1/4 of their rate, it is via fireams. Essential the CDC and Dept Of Justice studies conclude that if you banned the future sale of and confiscated every single legally owned firearm in the U.S., you wouldn't do one thing to decrease the suicide rate, the homocide rate, or even the rate of accidental deaths. When you get right down to the raw statistics you will find that you are 6 times more likely to be struck and killed or badly injured by lighning than you would be harmed in any way by a firearm. You are 140 time more likely to die in an organized sporting event at school or work than from a firearm. You are 200 times more likely to drown and 60 more likely to die while watching a firework display on the Fourth Of July. Overall, and even account for gang and illegal community violence, the rate of injury or death due to firearms amounts to 0.04% of all injuries and deaths in the U.S. on an annual basis.

I get extremely angry when some East Coast or big city sort starts mis-quoting statistics about guns and violence. Out here, in the West, we *liberals* hunt and shoot competitively. It's fun. Posting dishonest and misleading "statistics" is exactly the same sort of thing Bush and Rove have done with "terrorism", no different in any regard - scare the bejesus out of the soccer moms and those twits, like a flock of frightened sheep, can be led to almost any conclusion or action.

From Gordon Prather, writing on www.antiwar.com:

...

"A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

"The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."

Linzer doesn't say whether the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear programs took into account at all - much less was largely based upon - the quarterly reports the on-the-ground IAEA inspectors had been making to the IAEA Board and to the Security Council.

And a year later, IAEA inspectors have yet to see any indication - much less evidence - that Iran has engaged in any activity involving the use of any amount of proscribed nuclear materials in furtherance of a military purpose.

Furthermore, if IAEA inspectors are allowed to continue safeguarding Iran's nuclear facilities, the Iranians will never succeed in producing any amount of weapons-grade enriched uranium, much less enough to make a nuclear weapon.

Nevertheless, the members of the Cheney Cabal continue to forcefully assert - without offering any proof whatsoever - that Iran has a nuclear weapons program that has already "reached a point of no return."

Why?

Apparently because we have pledged to not use nuclear weapons against those signatories to the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons who don't already have nukes.

So, when Bush says "all options are on the table," he's telling the Iranians that our no-nuking pledge won't keep him from nuking them because he has it on authority - God Almighty, apparently - that the Iranians have nukes.

Now comes Linzer to tell us the House Intelligence Committee has just issued a staff report [.pdf] - authored principally by Frederick Fleitz - that uses information contained in the IAEA "null" reports to come to conclusions diametrically opposed to those of the IAEA.

You may recall that Undersecretary Bolton and his chief of staff Fleitz were point-men in the largely successful attempts by the Cheney Cabal to cook the intelligence in the run-up to the preemptive attack on Iraq.

Looks like they're at it again.

DEAR Millersville, Maryland....

thanks for the clarification, I'm not attacking you, perse, I'm illuminating the position that bush is not responsible for what he's doing because he's ineffective as a human being.....soooooorrry that's not true

most people seem to want to not say these words, he's an evil thoughtless, friggin dictator, disguised as a president of a democratic nation....

does he really seem any different than the leader of Pakistan, or Putin, or Il Kim whatever he is with the hair........or just like them?

electoral fraud anyone? Katherine Harris, now there's somebody that would get the vote count right in Florida!!! unlesssssssssssss GAWD TOLD HER TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!! Right?

I have seen a couple of people, mostly editors here, that think that Bush is a good guy, just a little simple that is being mislead by Cheney.....I think he understands what is going on, and that he's part of it....he's setting up for a handoff to someone that backs PNAC.......

His constant linking or Iraq and the WTC, his links to the family business, his coziness with ruthless dictators, his passage of the destruction of the Bill of Rights (?partriot/dictators rights), his disarming of congress, his interference in the Jefferson case, his okayness with destroying civil liberties and the destruction of our peoples with his

hate disguised as "family values" campaign, he has done more to back right wing crackerism, "gawd smiting mine enemies" and make it a symbol of America then George Wallace ever dreamed of.......

if there is such a thing as evil, this Executive Branch reeks of it.....

it is _not_ simple incompetence.

this two simple things:

1. if you make over $200,000 you get a tax break, if you're poor/disabled/elderly _you_ are paying for this occupation labeled a war out of the General Fund....Estate Tax/Minimum wage linkage/fraud....same thing

2. we did a pre emptive strike on Iraq, there was no involvement in the WTC..........this is fraud, there should be no "war powers," and everything done under them should be examined, all appointments should be withdrawn and this criminal, this daddy's boy that is driving the car to destroy Americans' Reputations that we have built up for years with our honesty, relative though it might be, looked pretty good in contrast to the rest of the world......we are making the rest of the world feel that there is no hope, that there is no truth, that money wins out over truth love or beauty or integrity....

that bullying gets rewarded, this presidente' has bullied his own countrymen and asked 2,000 of them to lay down their lives so he can cut a deal...........I don't even want to think about the injured and severely injured that have had their VA benefits cut as we expand invasive actions!!!!!!

this guy is an evil piece of s hit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not just friggin incompent....he intends these things to happen......

he doesn't think people out of his caste are people he thinks that they are "the poor people," he's never had to be friends with them on any meaningful level.........or pay for his actions, he's a rich kid, son of the President/Congressman/CIA Director/etcetera/connected....

good luck to you if you get laid off, he's got a bid in to sell your factory to another country and making money off of that deal.......

IF I were in any position to do so, I would monitor, indict, arrest, and imprison, and sue for liquidation of estates and charge all the involved parties with treason....

I would reexamine the destruciton of the CIA under Goss, and I would RESCIND NEGROPONTE's ability to jerk pensions on anyone that he suspects may have revealed/talked about information.......due diligence, fair trial, review board has worked up to this point......

right?

what the hell is going on?! WHERE'S THE UNITED STATES THAT PEOPLE USED TO LOOK UP TO??????????????????

.

Sabre Rattling? NO creating a premise.........COMPLICIT CONGRESS

why's he still president? why hasn't he been arrested? somebody has his back....

how about a last minute 9/11-Like attack? YOU think that's implausible, who cares, if something gets blown up he's still Commandre in Chief........even though it's a fraud....

you are witnessing the getaway car getting it's tires blown out by discovery, exposure, putting the dots together....

he's not a nice guy, arrest him.

.

August 28, 2006 07:40 PM

I assume that this was posted by 'jvd70, Amsterdam, NL': You have made assumptions, and these are usually wrong. I hail from one of the nations that fought the Axis countries in the battlefield, and had an extensive resistance throughtout the war, not just near the end (the Western European style). My mother experienced the Axis occupation first hand, and my father fought them for many years. I hail from one of those nations that is not impressed by the western Europeans' experiences in WW2, which are impressive only because of their complicity to the Axis. I also hail from one of those nations that does not have a history of anti-semitism. I personally have seen civil war first hand.

This still does not give the US the right to dictate to others, nor to deny security to some. We, in the US, have the right of course to defend ourselves against attack. We also have the responsibility to prepare ourselves for it. The same rights are also reserved by other countries, even those we do not like.

That excludes preemptive attacks half-the-way around the globe.

Dear Millersville re-read my last entry. You must have me confused with someone who supports Bush. I can't stand him. I loathe the ground he walks on. Two years can't come fast enough for me. I want this arrogant, lying, incompetent Neo-Con out of office as quickly as possible.

His policies have alienated the majority of Americans today as well as the majority of the international community. The reason I stated Bush's rhetoric over Iran was sabre rattling with no intention of charging is becuase no majority at home or aboard wants to back Bush on anything anymore. He has been a complete failure at everything he's tried to do. Bin Laden is still roaming the planet. Iraq is in a state of civil war, democracy in Iraq is a joke and our troops are bogged down. He hasn't been able to tackle immigration and the alien problem. Katrina showed the country how aloof and incompetent he is. His private accounts for Social Security got laughed out of Congress. Oh, the list just keeps going on. His interference in the Terry Schiavo case was as unpresidential as it gets. His nomination of Harriet Miers even had neocons scratching their heads. The one constant with GW is he has just about a perfect record of screwing up everything he has touched.

Iranians can watch CNN or surf the net and know all of this as well. Bush has about zero political captial left. The right is distancing themselves from him in order to save their seats. The democrats can't stand the president (unless you name is Lieberman). Right or wrong Bush has so alienated the international community they're not about to back him on anything. Our esteemed leader is rapidly running out of steam and everyone knows it including the Iranians.

Iran doesn't need to buy time. They have the next two years to toy with us. As long as they don't get caught doing something stupid like blowing up a building in the US there is no mood in this country or internationally to intervene in Iran in any meaningful way.

I am from Turkey. As I live near to Middle East, have some different ideas from westerners. Western civilization have double standard from its origin and when westerners begin to talk on Middle East disputes they simply use the logic of "we" and "other".

Israel was "other" just 60 years ago in ther west, but with their global effect and big propaganda power Jews have changed the western mind. At the end of that effort they had a big succes to direct Christianity toward their aim; it was Evangelism. So western mind became blind on Muslim side of Middle East.

Now shall Iran try to obtain nuclear power? If they don't try they are stupid. Even their nuclear power will be a threat for my country (Turkey), they are under a very big threat come from US and Israel. If they want to defend their country, they need any kind weapons including nuclear one.

Why you don't understand that peace can not be built with violence. US and Israel are trying to built peace on dead children bodies. Don't they know that Islam reward with martyrdom the believers, if they die while defending their religion, family and children.

If anyone want peace then he should accept anyone equal human beings.
"Israel can obtain nuclear power but Iran can not even obtain nuclear energy". Is this a fair rule?

If you say; "we are not interested in fairness, justice and equity, we'll do our wants like Crusades". I say if you prefer to live so historic period, then you may find same historic collocutors and you carry the human beign back toward history.

The problem now seems to be that the ball is in the Iranians' court and they know it. Direct talks would be a reward for this dangerous brinksmanship that coud possibly embolden other countries to take the same road, Venezuela perhaps. The Administration could simply try to ignore the problem, but then Iran would stoke Iraw to even worse levels of violence until the US came back to the table. So the question remains, will Iran wait it out until thay get as many 'carrots' as they can from the US or will they realize that there is a better way to engage the world's powers, real tangible reform and respect for the rights of their citizens. Hopefully Iran will stop this silly business before some thing terrible happens.

Nash equilibrium

yes, only if they see the outcome........that is the point of not mincing words

as long as they can convince you that the best answer isn't achievable they can try and scam the citizens, other countries

good engineering always needs to be established based upon what is the truth and truth is to a certain extent verifiable without spin...

Clarity, emptiness, clear light cognition

all achievable states, but only by one who values honesty, and undistorted perceptive processes

absence of agendae, socratic dialogue

diamond sutra, lamp of mahamudra, Book of Five Rings, The Book of Family Traditions On The Art of War Yagyu Munenori "Appearance and Intention," from "the Killing Sword" although in this case "Beating the Grass to Scare the Snakes," is probably best............

.

tax breaks for anyone making over $200,000 while reducing social security medical payments to old people and the disabled by $30/month per person.........

tax breaks for the wealthy, the poor pay for his occupation out of the General Fund.......

12,000 died in handguns related crimes the same year as 9/11

gun manufacturers get exempted from lawsuits by Complicit Congress

how many people have died because of alcoholism, or depression or whatever from having their jobs shipped to India/Indonesia/Pakistan/China?

outsourcing? downsizing->sellingto Internationals that retain a couple of Americanos so they don't have to pay import duties?

who's going to buy this sh it pendejo?

homophobia sold as family values? that my friend is a hate crime, and we have laws against it............

yeah, these Executive Branch Peoples and Complicit Congress they're all about the rights of citizens..........

tha's why they want to get the jomp on them in the stock market with dem dere NSA spyink pogroms...right laisses faire.....

who boy, ahm talkin in multiple languages, hop I didn't thing a worng a thing...

.

thanks so much for your kind remarks belittling my intelligence, it hurts deeply..........

you said:
"
However, I believe GW believes in God (as he defines it) and Democracy (again, as he defines it). After 9/11 he really believed Iraq to be evil. Evil needs to be dealt with.
"

yes, "Evil needs to be dealt with."

you mean like starting an occupation without evidence? you mean like getting 2,000 Americans killed and another 20,000 maimed for life because you want to cut an oil deal with your saudi and UAE brothers and sisters?

who piloted the planes in to the WTC? saudis and uae, where did they learn how to fly? the United States.

who trained al Queardas? CIA in Afghanistan, in terrorist tactics. You think they've turned against the United States? whose word do you have on that bushes? please

I suppose pre emptive strikes as outlined in PNAC and with the statement of purpose signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and a few others of this cast of clowns "means nothing,"

George Bush ought to be arrested for perpatrating fraud upon the United States Citizens......

hand hold er of princes of Saudi origins in his home, father working for Halliburton, selling ports to Dubai,

have YOU no shame?

you're walking right past all of that and saying that he's earnest, that is a crock of sh it buddy.........

and you know it....

his father set up Saddam for a fall when he sent April Glaspie to tell Saddam that the United States would look the other way if he wanted to kick some Kuwiati bu tt........

we went into full Op, and killed 200,000 Iraqis and place Iraq in Embargo until picking time.........

as China/Pakistan/India emerged from 3rd world into emerging first world country status.........need to buy some oil don't they?

where are the second (2ND) Largest Oil reserves in the world?

IRACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why do 80% of the United States Soldiers deployed in Irack think that the United States had been attacked by Iraq? 'Cause the President/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice let that slip during every press conference that they've held up until last Wednesday?

you think that is a fricking ACCIDENT?!

Rumsfeld, Negroponte, Cheney and others have been around since the Nixon years....Bush, George H.W. has purportedly been involved with the CIA when he was trying to get CASTRO offed in Florida with his Mafia connections.............MAFIA/CIA/TEXAS sound familiar? George H.W. Bush also took over after that one guy developed brain cancer and died in three days when he had to testify against Regan about Panama/Honduras/Contras/Noriega/Negroponte/Cocaine didn't he? Boy that was fricking fortuitous............wasn't it?

Negroponte and Goss (latest CIA director) were Yale men together along with George W. Bushes uncle Walker, Chertoff has no history in intelligence, unless you call giving people money so he gets appointed to one of the MOST IMPORTANT jobs in the United States without credentials is intelligence.........

google Negroponte and Honduras if you want to read about some _real_ terrorism.........

GOOGLE Negroponte Honduras buuday!

all of these people have one thing in common, they are family friends, as are the Saudi and UAE boyz........

and the citizens of the United States? cannon fodder, give their jobs the ones that are left to ILLEGAL FRICKING ALIENS?????!!!!!

yeah, george bush believes strongly in his convictions, that's why he's president..........

with his record, cokehead, alcoholic, business failure, daddy's boy, draftdodger............the only reason he's president

'cause he sure couldn't get a frickin clearance is, his daddy needed someone to drive the car on the latest heist/scam

who's trying to melt a glacier to get to some minerals underneath of it in CHILE, that let the President of Chile get assinated on his watch while he was CIA DIRECTOR? George H.W. Bush........poppy.

Who's son Neil Bush participated in the Silverado Savings and Loans fiasco that was part of the multi Billion Dollar Savings and Loans fiascos that occured when Congress deregulated Savings and Loans investments (Neil never did time or got fined) George H.W. Bush........poppy.

So you see, George W. Bush has been trained, and he knows, sort of what to say and what not to say.........he's a decider

what he's not is a man of character because he's never had to work for anything.........

dui dad pays it off, business fails.......governor ship calls dad buys him that, war going on....hey National Guard with an early out to help out a crony......

you left out a little bit, he's no innocent.........

he's inherited wealthy, and trained

who else but these kinds of people would prevent slaves from learning how to read and write as a normal business practice and see nothing wrong with it.....

I suggest you read this, to find out about pre emptive strikes and also

google Wolfowitz and Goss and Negroponte together

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Daniel, I highly recommend "Persian Pilgrimmages" by A.Molavi - a free-lance journalist with the Washington Post. You can get it on Amazon.
He travels through Iran and intersperses her entire 2500 years of history with his travel diaries. It's an extremely light read and a very good introduction, I believe.

The worst error is to mix "Isalm" in with so many diverse countries and cultures. It's like calling the West "Christian" and then not differentiating between the Swedes and Italians, or the Greeks and the English, or the Spanish and the Germans - I hope you catch my drift.

Iran is essentially Persia + Islam as its religion. Just like Turkey has it's own identily and history, as does Egypt, Indonesis, Morrocco, Uzbekistan - simply calling them Islamic is a first step to further futile errors. They are different people, with different languages and histories. The colonialists loved to homogenize the "otherness" of foreigners. But to follow in thier footsteps would simiply result in gigantic diplomatic error. The US isn't colonial Britain, and shouldn't be following her policies.

You seem like a thinker and together with the above book, I'd also recommend: "Searching for Hassan, an American Families return home to Iran." Terrence Ward. 50,000 Americans lived in Iran during the pre-Revolution days, in the '50s, '60s and '70s and this is a very sweet tale of Iran's history through the eyes of an Irish-American boy who grew up in Iran in the '60s. (again available on Amazon.)

I hope you enjoy these. They are very heartfelt documents. Not knowing Iran's history is like not knowing that of Italy and the Romans. Unlike Greece that simply finished after the days of Athens, the Persian Empire, re-surfaces under diverse identities. Just as when you travel in Italy, there are at least 4-5 peaks of history, from Rome, to the Byzantine, to the Renaissance and Baroque - Iran can only be seen by traveling to several idstinct regions that present you with Several cultural peaks, the Persian Empire, the Sassanians, the Samanids, and the glory of the 17th century Safavids in Esfehan.

This is a country not simply 2500 years old - but rather, with 2500 years of continuous history, resulting in several peaks of culture, science and thought. In my years of living in Europe and the US, Italy is the country that best compares by way of having such a continuous history.

If Italy was only judged by the actions of Mussolini, we'd all be called philistines.

By the way and I apologise for taking up more space on this blog but words are being put in my mouth that suggest I would advocate a war against Iran. I advocate a total boycot including an oil boycot. I advocate the unity of western democracies so that China and Russia will have to chose between a world with or without a nuclear armed Iran.

I urge those in the west that prefer the defeat and humiliation of the Bush administration before all other preferences to think again because we don't have the luxury of settling scores and I urge them to really investigate the regime in Iran and to reach a conclusion either way on whether it is a threat to us in all of the west or not. You will find that almost all of our elected representatives, including almost all European politicians, are extremely worried and it is their job to be well informed on these issues.

Yes, Hezbollah invaded Israel on the 12th of July 2006 killing 7 and abducting 2 IDF soldiers. Invading is "To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage." according to the dictionary.

Ahmedinejad got elected, if you recall, out of two conservative Khamenei approved candidates, more liberal candidates were sidelined both for presidential and parliamentary elections. What I said is that Iran is not a liberal democracy and the term 'democracy' does not apply since "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" does not exist in Iran: the leadership council is the ultimate authority.

So Hezbollah invaded Israel and Iran is not a democracy also according to your dictionary, you still think my argument is silly?

jvd70, Amsterdam, NL,
Hezbollah invaded Isreal?
Didn't Ahmedinejad got elected? -don't ask about Khamenei think about the Supreme Court.
The world will not buy this war...Those who are advancing it are ready to say anything, even the most silly things, to sell it.

AM from Vienna, VA: We don't have the "right" to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations. But we have the duty to protect ourselves from the rethoric that seeks a 'world without the US'.

As a European from a family that remembers liberation from Nazi occupation extremely well perhaps I am in a better position to say that the US more even than my own nation safeguards my rights than you are since you lack the experience of what it means to be liberated. I would ask you to treat above response to Shrikanth as a reply to you as well because I believe we dont have the right, we have the duty.

The US nuked Japan to prevent having to invade the mainland, it did so to prevent the Russians from advancing into Hokkaido and having to divide Japan as well. It did so to have unconditional say about reforms in Japan. If you had been Truman then given the same circumstances and the same intelligence you would probably have made the same call.

Srikanth,"Should [the First Amendment] not apply to Iran, also?"

I believe so: Ahmadinejad and Khamenei claim they rule in name of the Iranian people but the Iranian democracy is extremely restricted, it is not a liberal democracy, there is no freedom of speech or of the press, of the right to assemble, to petition the government or to freely elect and be elected. The only legitimacy they have is the one of force and intimidation, over their own people and once they have nuclear weapons, over however far they can (threaten to) deliver them.

"As regards Iranians' meddling in our affairs, perhaps, you can educate me as to how they did it." - their proxy army invaded Israel when the G8 were about to meet to discuss actions to curb their nuclear ambitions. Iran has a case history of supporting terrorism and has built up a horrible track record in Iraq supporting Shia militias and bombing the (Kurdish) north (of Iraq). Whereas the west and Israel support a democratic Lebanon it has been actively undermined by both Iran and Syria through targeted assassinations. On march 14th, 2005 a demonstration for freedom and sovereignty took place in Beirut, by many accounts one million people showed up. That's 1 million on a total population of 3.8 million who took the trouble to go to Beirut in person to be counted and heard. I believe all free people should make a stand in support of them. Iran further is meddling in our affairs by seeking nuclear weapons which will mean they will aquire immediate strategic control over the oil deposits in the Gulf, in northern Iraq and around the Caspian sea and hence on the entire world economy.

"I am almost certain that Russia, China, and others who cold water on sanctions, are doing it out of sheer economic necessity." As for Russia, the economy is buoyant with current oil prices. Being buddies with Iran and Venezuela gives them a bit of leverage on the oil market. Iran is giving Russia free reign to carry out repression in (Muslim) Chechnya which is very hypocritical when you contrast that to Iranian support of Hezbollah's fight against 'occupation'. I believe China tries to hedge its bets and hopes that it can remain friends with Iran and do business with them, China is hardly in a position to do much in terms of foreign policy because it is right now dealing with the greatest mass migration of people in the history of the planet. It can ill afford a global crisis of any kind.

Srikanth, I'm not sure our positions are so different, we just reach different conclusions. When I look around the world I see only one hope and that is the US, even though its current administration could use a few better brains and some less brawn they remain by far the best hope for freedom and independence for all of humankind. I believe increasing wealth will transform China into a true liberal democracy because its growing middle classes will make demands (labor protection, consumer rights, freedom of expression) that only a democracy will be able to meet. Over the coming decades India can also help hundreds of millions of people escape poverty and dependence on traditional relationships. I think that is real progress. Plenty problems remain to be solved, especially in the field of providing all those people with enough energy, without certain nations providing the current energy trying to undermine the spread of liberal values.

Yes, we should not seek to impose our values or beliefs on anyone, and Ahmedinejad and Khamenei should neither. Just because they are Iranians doesn't give them the right to oppress Iranians. But because you and I have these freedoms we can call out in favor of Iranian freedom. You see, Iranians should be allowed to be the most conservative of Muslims under a democracy that grants them those freedoms, or they can be gay or Jewish or communist or atheist because they have the freedom to be that. That's what everyone deserves and nobody should impose their values upon anyone. Calling for people to be free isn't imposing our values upon them, it is calling for them to be free. Thanks for your responses I am enjoying our exchange.

jvd70, Amsterdam, NL August 28, 2006 03:02 PM

You ask what we should do. We should drop the presumption that it is up to us to determine who can have access to, or use of, or research in these fields. The essential fallacy in our approach is that we have that right. We don't.

We are the only country to use nuclear weapons; and that to win an unconditional surrender, emphasis on 'unconditional'. We turn a blind eye to select countries also having nuclear weapons, and even grant the 'right' of one of them to use them, if it feels threatened.

We also have a president who, frankly, is not a model of reason, and feels free to attack whomever he pleases if he feels threatened. Considering what he did to Iraq, and comparing it to North Korea, if I was running Iran, I would certainly want the weapons. They are obviously an excellent deterrent.

I think Iran is emboldened for two important reasons. First, China's major reliance on Iranian oil and secondly the hesitancy of most UN members to really push for serious sanctions or use of force. Additionally, Iran's "tough guy" approach toward the United States is cheered on by most of the Middle East in reaction to both the Iraq War and the recent war in Lebanon.

Certainly the United States' recent agreements with India regarding nuclear energy must be like sand in Iran's eyes. However, Iran does not help its case by calling for the destruction of Israel. this forces the U. S. and most of the UN members to stiffen up.

The world needs to undertstand that this is not a replay of Wyatt Earp at the O.K. Corral. Resorting to any semblance of a shoot out by any of the parties involved will most likely ignite a global inferno.

Gee DEAREST MILLERSVILLE,
What can I say? I bow to your superior intellect and logic. It's impeccable.

Although I hate to admit it oil probably does play a role in our current foreign policy in the Middle East. We need it and they have it. It certainly is in our best interest to be able to buy it. Saudi Arabia isn't even hinting about cutting us off and since the market for oil is really a global market I'd guess Iranian oil makes it way into the US at this point as well.

However, I believe GW believes in God (as he defines it) and Democracy (again, as he defines it). After 9/11 he really believed Iraq to be evil. Evil needs to be dealt with. It didn't matter there was no legitimate basis for invasion because evil needed to be dealt with. GW was astonished when the Iraqi people didn't welcome the American invaders with open arms. He really believed he could rid the world of Saddam and engage in regime change in Iraq and the process would be relatively quick. Obviously, it hasn't turned out that way and many of us would argue it never could have turned out that way.

I think his rejection of the legitimately elected Hamas officals and more recently his feet dragging on Lebanon just further show how he believes it is a good vs. evil issue. (let the Israelis kill a few more of those nasty Hezzbollah's. Who cares because they are evil) I don't have any doubt he sees Israel as good. Support good and don't support and/or tamper with evil seems to be the doctrine. The only problem with this doctrine is the majority of the Arab World sees it for what it is. They see us talking and acting like a country that considers them bad people. If one believes GW they are either supporters of Democracy or they are bad people. It's a rather simplistic and myopic view on other cultures.

To this day Bush will argue it's only the leadership and a few bad apples of Iran that are truly evil. The majority of the population, if they could be shown another way, would love us and embrace a Democratic form of government at the first opportunity. Sound familiar? Just like how Iraq was supposed to act and didn't.

The Iranians don't need to buy time to develop nuclear energy and possibly weapons. De facto we've already granted them time. Bush is coming up on his mid-term elections and only has 2 years left in office. He doesn't have the time or the political capital left to intervene in Iran and they know it. We can sanction them, but it will probably be weak at best. Iran will still sell lots of oil to the world, more then likely finish their reactor and sooner or later develop a nuclear device. So, pretty much this administrations actions are tantamount to sabre rattling with no intention of charging.

Hossein , Washington DC - The only reason you cannio believe Bush-Rove are doing this is because it so outrageous. But they are! Simply take a look at terror alerts, searches, plane groundings, involvement of the feds in "normal" arrests, and you will see a pattern. The Bush White House uses all of this purely for political purposes. Take a few minutes and start tracking the idiot lights and elections or Bush's being in political trouble. Track, don't they? Then, do the reverse and look at warnings about gasoline trucks used as suicide weapons, bridge and port closures, etc. and you will find that they track, too. And, that, unbelievable as it may sound, is true and ought to give everyone pause to consider just how far these criminals will go.

want you to _forget_ that Iran can be destroyed at any time, so that they can

"rush in there"

while everyone is "emotionally appealed to, and willing to agree to anything,"

and destroy Iran, on the pretext that they represent a very _current_ danger

what would really happen is that the American led OIL CARTEL would control the region, good for a few riche men.........

not the United States,

what _would_ be good for the United States of America's Citizens?

1. stop outsourcing

2. set up several layers of alternatives to oil

3. establish and enforce mpg for non commercial vehicles, have families that consume more than 30 gallons per week, pay more at the pump for every gallon over 30.

4. bring all customer service jobs home within 2 months, start charging penalities on companies that employ customer service people overeas.

5. start working on infrastructure problems that contribute to excessive energy usage.

6. mandate telecommuting

7. arrest the president, and Executive Branch Members and Complicit Congress that have taken this country, The United States of America, for a strong ride towards returning to it's fuedalistic roots

when the last King George was overthrown.

Replace Chertoff as the head of DHS, with someone whose qualifications are something other than "biggest contributor to the bush campaign,"

if there _are_ terrorists, this appointment screams "eff me"

or "there are no terrorists, it's simply an "appeal to emotion" to control the sheeple............

your choice.

.

8. Move from containment as a way of controlling disenfranchised people to _intervention_ which I would be happy to lay out for you, that would cost much less than the current burden on hospitals, law enforcement, healthcare, DEA, etcetera......

take back America from the neo conartists..............

Does anyone know how easily Iran fits into the socialist reasoning of China, Russia (taking into consideration the Soviet past), and the European Union? I ask this simply by having gone from the Letter from the President of Iran to Bush. In his letter to Bush the President of Iran seems influenced by Soviet reasoning/communism in the part where he writes about democracy, etc. not being the path in the future (see toward the end of his letter. I got the letter off the net in translation from the French newspaper Le Monde). I suppose what I am trying to get at is that in his letter to Bush the President of Iran seems something of a synthesis between rationality, Islam, Soviet reasoning, honesty, etc. (and not a little beauty in composition). This seems to fly in the face of believing at least (the U.S. hopes) Iran is difficult to reconcile with Russia and China let alone Europe. To be absolutely clear, if Iran fits quite easily as a piece into the puzzle composed so far of the above entities (and I am aware of the differences between them and simply put them on hold for the moment), we can hardly expect Israel and the U.S. to prevail. It will quite simply be in Europe, China and Russia's interest to have a strong Iran. Another question: Do the Shiites in general fit in better to the above scheme than the Sunnis? I am trying to see how Islam fits in with nations...Iran seems nationalistic and of course Islamic and hostile to Israel, but the socialistic leanings put it into the camp with the European Union, Russia, China...Or am I reasoning erroneously here? Of course I am just going by a single letter, the posts here on the question of Iran, and limited background knowledge. Where exactly can the U.S. expect to get help on the problem of Iran? Or is Iran really even a problem at all? I have difficuly in even determining what Iran is let alone the part we can expect her to play in the world.

by

"SG1, sacramento, ca, usa"

no _real_ content

"they call us monkies and swine,"

no small one _I_ call this president, complicit congress and Executive Branch...

filtheeeeeeeeee MONKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeessssssssss

and you a panderer to emotional appeal, a shucker, a neoconartiste', poltroon, bald faced liar, appealer to Man Hood

whilst ignoring the truth, Iran could be anihhilated by a submarine launch in 5 mintues at any point in time..........

there's no real danger,

however is the United States is perceived as a bully, well, that's really not good for the world, or the citizens of the United States mr short peepee..........

.

In case you're too lazy to google, you still need to understand what you're looking at

the use of the word "terrorism" or "terrorists" is a ploy by the neoconartistes

to use "appeal to emotion,"

in a debate when their opponent/the audience is beginning to understand the situation at hand or the good guys are winning because they have a more reasonable/cogent/logical/obvious answer...

an Olde ploy used by rascals/poltroons/baldfaced liars was to simply "appeal to emotion,"

that was seen as a strong form of fallicious reasoning....

Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy where a party relies too much on emotional issues or presents only an emotional case in establishing an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Appeal to consequences

Appeal to fear

Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking

Related fallacies

Other types of fallacies may also overlap with or constitute an appeal to emotion, including:

Ad hominem attacks
Guilt by association
Misleading vividness
Slippery slope

Two wrongs make a right (if arguing for revenge)

Examples
"Think of the children!"
"For The Children"
"Mom and Apple Pie,"
"Appeal to manhood/patriotism"

I see a lot of different views here, the truth is if you go by Islams' laws you realize negotiations are a waste of our time. Iran is buying time. Islamic law allows muslims to lie to infidels, it actually encourages this practice since infidels are "monkeys and swine". We can continue to spin our wheels as far as Iran, or Islam for that matter, care.

The formation of Israel has nothing to do with what is going on TODAY, any more than the patriot act is has anything to do with patriotism..........

these words define your executive branch and complicit congress:

labeling, jingoism, demagoguery, greed, white men, gawd using serf loving elitists....

Israel is being helped supported because there was some sentiment and a lot of Jews in the United States.........they're hardly majority. The United States is currently being run for the wealthy by the wealthy, and inviting the international community to come in and shop, as everything is forsale here unlike Britain or Japan, who have invested a modicum of intelligence in keeping their countries relatively intact although lack of resources make them vulnerable to be taking over.....

however since greedy monkeies with their hands down their own pants are in control of the United States we are at risk....

and since they are monkies....well it's about money/banannas not integrity, or honesty or even friendship........it's about using other people.........

do you think Bush ever got charged with a DUI? Do you think he ever drank and drove? Does the opep hsit in the woods?

these are not normal American Citizens that are running things, it's CRONYISM............how else does CHERTOFF get to run one of the most sensitive agencies in the United States, the Department of Homelunt Securitag..............his greatest QUALIFICATION is having donated a lot of money to Bushes campaign........

that is what it takes to get bushes attention right now, Ports of Dubai, hint hint hint.......

geta grip, Israel is important as a talking point, in 50 year? get real.

.

MikeB
I think you should lay off the absynth :)

I certainly am not a defender of the bush administration but at the end of the day this is even too much for me.

I don't belive this is an issue of Blues vs Reds. I thnk both sides can agree that either:
- a nuclear free Iran
- a freindly Iran

is better then what we have now. Since the first is inevitable, I would suggest they tailor thier strategy towards the second. That being said, they do need to throw in a little rhetoric (all options are on the table) but they also need to be ready to sit down.

The problem as I see it is that they are painting themselves into a corner (like the mullahs in Iran) where to even consider being friendly would be selling out.

It would seem to me that the US should accept sitting down without preconditions. The Iranian mullahhs will publicly denounce this as not sincere. At this point the US should make one more strong personal effort to say they are being sincere. The Iranians will then have to accept sitting down. . . and now there is chance for good things to happen.

The problem we need this yahoo (Bush) to suck a little face. I don't have faith that he can do that without it hurting the Republicans in November. Unless he truely believes that history will be his best supporter!

I don't pretend to know what kind of impact this will have n terms of convincing other countries to persue a similar strategy as Iran (develope a clandestine nuclear program, and foce the world to come to the table) but in my littel vacuum it seems to make sense.

David Ignatius - I see where the DNA evidence lining Karr to the Ramsey case...ain't. What this has to do with Iran? Ask yourself why Homeland Security and NSA was involved in tracking this deranged man down and you come up with two answers: (1) It "showcased" how well Bush's creations work (and I know NSA existed before him, but not in it's present form) and (2) it served to distract everyone from the Bush White House for a while... Rove and Bush are plaing every card they have right now to distract voters, mislead voters, frighten voters, do anything to keep the Democrats from taking control of both houses of Congress. If they do, then they fear the investigations of this Administration will likely lead to a lot of Bush's people (Bush included) going to prison. THAT is a front page story. Iran means nothing to this fools. I am quite certain they don't have the slightest idea of how dangerous Iran really is and I don't think they would care if they did understand. Like all of their crowd, after they make a mess of their nest, they just pack it up and move somewhere else. This country and the people mean nothing to them or the rest of the "Pioneers".

jvd70, Amsterdam, NL:

I agree, philosophically, with many of your points. However, let us suppose, for a moment, that First Amendment is indeed one of the Western Ideals. Should it not apply to Iran, also? (Ignore Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ranting and raving about obliterating Isreal, for a second.)

As regards Iranians' meddling in our affairs, perhaps, you can educate me as to how they did it. Many of the modern countries are ruled by demagogues. I am almost certain that Russia, China, and others who cold water on sanctions, are doing it out of sheer economic necessity. Let us look at some of the worst nuclear proliferators and curb their efforts, without any regard to their NPT signatory status. Whom will you find? Well, well, well; certainly the five Permanent Members of the U. N. Security Council; Pakistan; North Korea; Canada; etc. all these countries play favoritism one way, or another. It appears that we all want to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but none of us wants to be the first to actually step up to the plate and do it!

On Mercantile Corporations (and large multinationals - read: oil companies), they simply siphoned off the local wealth and completely drained it, without sharing and spreading the profits among its citizens. (It is still happening in the world. It is especially pronounced in corrupt regimes.) This is exactly one of reasons why local governments are forced to nationalize. I especially liked your statement:
"If they had a liberal multiparty democratic state, good education and above all an equitable distribution of (oil) wealth they could, in time, model themselves after Norway to become one of the most successful nations on the planet."
This is exactly what we all should aspire to be. Unfortunately, I cannot impose my beliefs on any other person; then it would run counter to my Bill of Rights and its amendments (the U. S. Constitution). Would it not?!

jvd70, Amsterdam, NL:

I agree, philosophically, with many of your points. However, let us suppose, for a moment, that First Amendment is indeed one of the Western Ideals. Should it not apply to Iran, also? (Ignore Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ranting and raving about obliterating Isreal, for a second.)

As regards Iranians' meddling in our affairs, perhaps, you can educate me as to how they did it. Many of the modern countries are ruled by demagogues. I am almost certain that Russia, China, and others who cold water on sanctions, are doing it out of sheer economic necessity. Let us look at some of the worst nuclear proliferators and curb their efforts, without any regard to their NPT signatory status. Whom will you find? Well, well, well; certainly the five Permanent Members of the U. N. Security Council; Pakistan; North Korea; Canada; etc. all these countries play favoritism one way, or another. It appears that we all want to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but none of us wants to be the first to actually step up to the plate and do it!

On Mercantile Corporations (and large multinationals - read: oil companies), they simply siphoned off the local wealth and completely drained it, without sharing and spreading the profits among its citizens. (It is still happening in the world. It is especially pronounced in corrupt regimes.) This is exactly one of reasons why local governments are forced to nationalize. I especially liked your statement:
"If they had a liberal multiparty democratic state, good education and above all an equitable distribution of (oil) wealth they could, in time, model themselves after Norway to become one of the most successful nations on the planet."
This is exactly what we all should aspire to be. Unfortunately, I cannot impose my beliefs on any other person; then it would run counter to my Bill of Rights and its amendments (the U. S. Constitution). Would it not?!

Srikanth, what would you do?

Consider, we've talked to Iran about their nuclear program for more than 3 years, they have ignored our concerns, then the very moment the G8 was about to discuss them they send their Hezbollah terrorists and missiles across the border into Israel. Then we give them a fantastic civilian nuclear deal and they reject it. And they mistake our grave concerns for arrogance. Given their track record the consensus is widely held amongst liberal democratic nations that they seek to produce nuclear weapons to use as a threat against us and against the global economy.

We can't invade, the US doesn't have the means to, nobody else has the will to. Ideally a Turkish/Pakistani-style military coup by moderates in the clergy, army and revolutionary guard would give us a reasonable and serious partner. Then, Iran can move towards democracy and I believe we should actively advocate it. If they had a liberal multiparty democratic state, good education and above all an equitable distribution of (oil) wealth they could, in time, model themselves after Norway to become one of the most successful nations on the planet. I am not the only one who feels that way, the very influential (in religious matters) Iranian Grand Ayatollah Montazeri who has been sidelined by the regime has said that the regime betrayed the revolution, is abusing Islam and is just as bad as the Shah ever was while denying the people the right to determine their own destiny.

You say we shouldnt meddle in their affairs, but even when they so blatantly meddle in ours? So what would you suggest we do at this time when talking doesn't help, sanctions are blocked by Russia and China, and doing nothing will arm them with nuclear weapons? Also I'd like to know what organisations or influential individuals are at this time advocating (not discussing but advocating) nuking Iran?

On the subject of mercantile corporations: the VOC was the first corporation in which shares were publicly traded, it was not supported by government bodies to any significant degree at all other than that it received parliamentary endorsements. The shareholders decided its direction and it was a pure for profit multinational corporation. Morally their behavious seems to have been as reprehensible as that of the kings, chiefs, sultans and maharajas they were dealing with. Not much has changed over time in that sense unfortunately.

Srikanth, you asked: "Lastly, I have seen many comments' referring to "Western Ideals" - Exactly what are they, and why are they unique to the West?"

I'd say they're basically the first amendment rights enshrined in your US constitution, they aren't western per-se they are also prevalent in Japan and growing ever stronger in China and India; In their focus on individual freedom the ideals are very similar to Buddist ideals. The ideal state is the liberal democracy in which everyone has self determination and can freely achieve material independence. It incudes supporting and encouraging fellow liberal democracies, it sometimes includes supporting stable potentates