"On our side, we want them to commit to ending their nuclear program; we don't want their oil exports cut off; we desperately need more stability in the Middle East; "

WE might want this, but the Bush administration certainly does not. Their actions speak very loudly.

The published positions of Bush and lil Hitler are not that far apart.

Bush wants worldwide cessation of all nuclear weapons activities, all nations, no exceptions. He just presented this treaty proposal.

lil Hitler wants that too, with some enhancements so they can have the bomb.

I like Bush's position and have often advocated his position with some extra teeth. I am a little more radical than Bush, for not only should all nations cease, but it should be the stated duty of all nations to use any means necessary to cause this to happen.

However much we hate Bush, me included, he is has taken the forward position on nuclear arms control. Under his regime, arms control has progressed so rapidly between Russia and the U.S., that we have a real issue of managing the excessive plutonium that arms control is making available.

It would take an idiot not to follow up on the Iran letter. And we have just the idiot.

The single most impressive thing about Kevin is that he is honest enough to sometimes praise President Bush or someone else he does not normally agree with politically -- here he acknowledges that "the Bush administration has successfully forced them to make the first move."

Yet, some of the comments (obvously not Matt) immediately launch into vicious anti Bush comments. In 20 years, when hopefully democracy and freedom rules for thousands of miles along a path from Pakistan through Lebanon, I hope some of you folks are big enough to join in the praise of President Bush.

...and the Bush administration has successfully forced them to make the first move.

It looks more like the administration simply ceded the diplomatic initiative to Iran.

So: conservatives are fully in charge; their nuclear program gives them some negotiating leverage; they don't want sanctions to be imposed; and the Iranian public is in favor of closer ties with the U.S. On our side, we want them to commit to ending their nuclear program; we don't want their oil exports cut off; we desperately need more stability in the Middle East; and the Bush administration has successfully forced them to make the first move.

But... but... but...

Conservatives are in charge on our side too...

Yet, some of the comments (obvously not Matt) immediately launch into vicious anti Bush comments. In 20 years, when hopefully democracy and freedom rules for thousands of miles along a path from Pakistan through Lebanon, I hope some of you folks are big enough to join in the praise of President Bush.

Posted by: brian on May 23, 2006 at 10:41 PM 20 years from now, 3-5 presidents from now, and when the bill is paid...Yeah we'll give all the credit to the shrub for mission accomplished in IRAQ!!!

Dude, stop harshing our war!

In 20 years, when hopefully democracy and freedom rules for thousands of miles along a path from Pakistan through Lebanon...

Clap harder - Tinkerbell can't hear you.

Yes but the "US is preparing Son-of-Star-Wars to counter Iran from European bases."

To think, Europe will once again stop and reflect on the great visionary Ronald Reagan. (Ronnie must be chuckling in his grave.)

Unless of course, Ahmadinejad is another one of the Rovian plants. He gets him to fire off them missiles to scare the beejesus out of us so that we can go out and buy all this Star Wars foolishness.

"it's foolish not to try."

Then, I suppose, it is a foregone conclusion that Bush will choose not to try.

Its probably worth repeating that the current dilemma vis a vis Iran is pretty much a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq.

During the run up to the Iraq war, I wonder if anyone mentioned the downside of invading a country on the pretense of halting WMD activities.

Of course the downsides include costs in money and lives, but another obvious cost is that, basically, if you do not give countries some sort of "out" through which they can negotiate with you, then their only rational defense is to get ahold of any atomic bomb or two as fast as they possibly can.

Atomic bombs are expensive to construct, maintain, and are obviously dangerous, even to the countries that have them.

However, as having an atomic bomb seems to be the only way to prevent the United States from pretty much unilaterally invading your country, why would anyone expect it to be easy to convince a country not to have such a program?

How ironic, invade a country to stop proliferation and you guarantee additional proliferation.

Iraq hierarchy is not nearly as removed from their people as Korea but I see no difference in the way this administration plays their hand.

The immediate reaction is to get all hot and bothered. There's no graduated response; real mature. They try to publicly belittle the president of a sovreign state but his people rally behind him although he's a lunatic (sound familiar?). They will not sit down and talk to them about nukes but they were willing, for a moment, to talk to them about Iraq then realized a monolinear relationship is kind of impossible.

Who's doing the thinking here? Must be genius himself. The one who has done nothing to complete the security of Russian nukes, who has done the most of anyone in 40 years to singlehandedly undermine all the nuclear anti-proliferation and reduction and limitation treaties.

There's only one man who can take all the blame. President "I'll start a war before talk" Bush.

Ta-raah!

The problem goes beyond Iran, but is forced by Iran. Namely, centrifuges will be a dime a dozen, in relative terms, within a few years.

So, we have a global warming type of problem. Nations must agree on forceful inspections for everyone. In an odd sort of way, Iran is forcing this issue. They are saying, in essence, if nuclear capability is going to be widespread, then we will be the first to take advantage of that.

This puts the problem in Israel's lap, currently, but the wider message is that this is a larger issue. Why should six or seven major powers legislate that they, and only they get nuclear weapons when the capability is widespread? It is a typically passive aggressive approach built into the hidden resentment of the wanna be Persian superpower.

In a wierd way, Bush and this A. guy seem to agree.

As far as negotiations, in fact, I suspect they are ongoing and substantial, but confidential. Both nations in their bizzare diplomacy are working together to force the issue. Iran by revealing what the future will be, and the US by revealing what the solution will be.

brian: "In 20 years, when hopefully democracy and freedom rules for thousands of miles along a path from Pakistan through Lebanon, I hope some of you folks are big enough to join in the praise of President Bush."

Hahaha! Hillary will be the Prez from 2008-2016, then Obama from 2016-2024. Since things suck so bad now, they will get the credit even if they don't deserve it. Hahahaha!

The absolute maximum diplomatic pressure we have any chance of exerting against Iran (unless or until they attack someone) would be to persuade the EU to boycott Iran. I doubt this would dissuade Iran from continuing their nuclear program, since they would only have to wait Europe out for a few years, but it's possible. If negotiating with Iran is a step toward encouraging European pressure, it's worthwhile, but let's not pretend that there's any real common ground in our direct negotiations with Iran, because there's nothing the U.S. alone can give them that's preferable to having nuclear weapons. It's very much in Iran's rational interest to have a nuclear deterrant, given their proximity to U.S. occupied countries and Russia.

I think some liberals can be just as blind about the power of diplomacy as some conservatives can be about the power of military action. Considering that China and Russia have no reason whatsoever to support any UN action against Iran, there won't be any 1990s Iraq style sanctions (for which support was rapidly fading in any case). I seriously doubt the EU will impose any serious sanctions over a threat to Israel or the U.S. And military action would either be ineffective, if limited, or disastrous, if a full invasion. It was always inevitable that nuclear technology, like all other technology, would become cheaper and more easily acquired with time. Now we've hit that point, and we have to live with it. And given our problems in Iraq, and our utterly pathetic response the last time Iran provoked us with the hostage crisis, I don't see any reason Iran would particularly heed any preemptive threats of ours.

I do think Bush made the right move by publicly committing to defending Israel, because it plays the only real card we have. If we had left that unclear, Ahmadinejad (or a successor) might eventually try to wipe out Israel with one nuclear attack, hoping to destroy their nuclear forces and prevent a large counterattack. Now that we've made it clear that we will carry out a counterattack, we've added a credible deterrant. And hopefully, at some point, Iran's younger generation will be able to overthrow their government. But there's not much else we can do, diplomatically or militarily.

"It's foolish not to try" No it's policy not to try!

Matt: Nations must agree on forceful inspections for everyone.

It's called the Additional Protocol, and it's been around for about a decade. Many countries have signed up; too many still have not, or do not yet have it in force. Iran voluntarily submitted to it for a period during earlier negotiations with the EU-3.

Hank said: "However, as having an atomic bomb seems to be the only way to prevent the United States from pretty much unilaterally invading your country, why would anyone expect it to be easy to convince a country not to have such a program?"

We played a role, but a small one at most. The U.S. isn't the last powerful country the world will ever see, and history shows that powerful countries tend to use military 'persuasion' to get their way. I think it's Americocentric (or whatever) to presume we're the major driving force here. Iran has a powerful national interest, as a nation with valuable resources near far more potentially powerful nations, in having a nuclear deterrent. Even if the U.S. behaved more like Canada in our foreign policy, there's still Russia, China, India, Iraq, and Pakistan in the area. It's not all about us, it's about an accurate perception of reality (in this case at least) by the Iranian leaders that they are a mid-sized nation in a dangerous neighborhood.

Matt
I don't think you're right that they are talking, but who knows? Goes against cowboy's grain. Hope you're right.

But you layed out very well all the ground that was covered, treaties negotiated the last 40 years: that Reagan started to pick apart (anti-ballistic missile defence, weapons in space), that the major powers did not follow through on aggressively (weapons reduction), the anomaly that was not dealt with but has remained dormant until now (Israel), and the last shreds of non-proliferation (inspections, Korea, Pakistan/India), and now the trigger of threat by otherwise overwhelming force (Iraq invasion).

This administration threw all experience aside. Has trampled over international relationships as unvalued. Has proven to be incapable of accurate vision, to foresee consequences, or to plan for the day after an invasion victory.

Why would they start now?

手机铃声免费下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
mp3铃声下载
下载手机铃声
三星手机铃声
手机铃声
免费铃声下载
铃声下载免费
搞笑铃声下载
搞笑免费铃声
铃声下载免费
搞笑下载铃声
下载铃声
三星铃声
免费铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
免费铃声下载
搞笑免费铃声
免费铃声下载
手机铃声
mp3铃声下载
免费铃声下载
下载铃声
mp3手机铃声
三星铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
搞笑手机铃声
手机铃声免费下载
免费铃声下载
铃声下载免费
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
和弦特效铃声下载
文秘写作
竞聘演讲稿
个人工作总结
八荣八耻演讲稿
中国文秘网
治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药
免费歌曲铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
mp3铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
mp3手机铃声
免费手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
免费铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
搞笑铃声
免费手机铃声
免费铃声
免费铃声下载
mp3手机铃声
mp3铃声下载
免费铃声
手机铃声免费下载
mp3铃声
免费手机铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声
免费铃声下载
手机mmf铃声下载
mp3手机铃声
手机铃声
手机铃声免费下载
铃声下载
免费铃声
手机铃声下载
免费手机铃声
免费铃声
免费手机铃声
mp3铃声
mp3铃声下载
免费铃声

Matt: Nations must agree on forceful inspections for everyone.

It's called the Additional Protocol, and it's been around for about a decade. Many countries have signed up; too many still have not, or do not yet have it in force. Iran voluntarily submitted to it for a period during earlier negotiations with the EU-3.

I'd be interested to know how many times the IAEA inspectors have toured the facilities of the permanent members of the Security Council.

Of course they want to talk. They can't engage in nuclear extortion if they don't. They learned from the masters: The USA.

And of course the US want to talk, as well. They don't have any other options.

There are how many potential US hostages right next door in Greater Iran?

Not too mention that unimportant black stuff that has no relevance to any of this.

Don't u yanks have an ongoing issue with Iran since they did the embassy hostage thing?

Oh please.

The Ayatollahs are the Neocon's best buddies.

They keep the oil prices nice and high. Like Enron likes it.

They've been best buddies since Reagan got the hostages released, and sold them missiles. Obviously this "Axis of Evil" garbage is just a bunch of crap designed to mislead our rednecks. Kinda similar to Iran's own heated rhetoric towards Israel.

In 20 years, when hopefully democracy and freedom rules for thousands of miles along a path from Pakistan through Lebanon, I hope some of you folks are big enough to join in the praise of President Bush.
Posted by: brian on May 23, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yes - I already made that bet with my neocon friend. I promise, I will buy our local bar a round and drink a toast to Bush, if, by 2013 (ten years from the invasion of Iraq, was our agreement) "peace and democracy and freedom" have taken over the middle east.

And then, monkeys will fly out of my butt.

(in fact, in coversations we've had since then, my neocon freind is convinced we've already screwed it up beyond recovery, and there's no way we'll accomplish that goal by 2013 now. Of course, it's the Liberal Media's fault in his mind. He was one of those insipid twits who believed we'd be in-and-out in 6 months, and the war would cost $20 bln, and oil revenues would pay for it. Now I have the privilege of laughing at his gullible ass ever time I see him).

From Roman-emperors.org:
The ultimate humiliation of a Roman emperor by a foreign leader was enacted through Sapor's use of Valerian as a human stepping-stool to assist the Persian king in mounting his horse and Valerian's body was later skinned to produce a lasting trophy of Roman submission.
Somebody in DC needs a history lesson.

Of course it'd be good to talk, always is. Of course we won't talk, Bush has zero interest in peace with Iran.

The only problem with negotiation is that it takes two. When has George W Bush ever negotiated anything?

And like some powerful people, W doesn't respect knowledge or skills that he himself doesn't possess, so he can't/won't negotiate and he won't delegate either.

thoristotle --
You're brilliant. There's the solution for neocons and Bushite Repubes. They need to have something to lose to see reality.

I say that a law be passed that all those who still see the invasion as a great strategic coup, and today is the next step to inevitable success, they all get to replace the troops on a one-for-one basis from February 2009.

There's an incentive to speak straight and to get the job done. No more propaganda. Moreover, Army recruiting problem solved until "Mission Accomplished."

And W won't be C-in-C. He gets out on point.

floopmeister: I'd be interested to know how many times the IAEA inspectors have toured the facilities of the permanent members of the Security Council.

For facilities under Safeguard agreements, I expect they get visited (or at least their records inspected) at least once a year. The IAEA doesn't publish an inspection schedule, but does have to provide an annual certification report.

As to inspections under the Additional Protocol, the P-5 are all nuclear weapons states and their agreements are different. Also, only three of he P-5 have an AP greement in force: China 2002, UK 2004, France 2004; although the US and Russia have signed, it is not yet in force. ("In force" meaning that the country has enacted legislation to support the agreement, especially more intrusive inspection.)

say that a law be passed that all those who still see the invasion as a great strategic coup, and today is the next step to inevitable success, they all get to replace the troops on a one-for-one basis from February 2009.

Posted by: notthere on May 24, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

I suggest all the leftie's who think Militant Islam can be reasoned with, are drafted and sent to Iran without weapons to resist Iranian thugs with their bare skulls, and naked throats.

McA --
so are you admitting you can't see reason and still say "the war is being won"?

I'm never quite sure which war that is. The "war on terror" or the war of terror we've visited on another nation state?

I have no problem with militant Islamists (why is militant capitalized? Is it a formal group?) if they stay in their own country. I see you still believe the myth that fighting them "there" somehow prevents them from bringing their fight "here". Not actually connected.

Intelligence is our best defence. Wish there was more of it about.

I see you still believe the myth that fighting them "there" somehow prevents them from bringing their fight "here".

Posted by: notthere on May 24, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

And how does not fighting them at all help?

There is no Intelligence reform that can prevent a terrorist attck if you don't engage the underlying problem - which is overseas (where I am). Homeland security has to be lucky every time, terrorism has to be lucky once.

McA
define militant Islamists. There were both militant and fundementalist Islamists in Afghanistan. The reason we went there was to get al-Qaeda and OBL, not to deliver Afghanis from the Taliban. It doesn't make the news, but since then we've done a pretty mediocre job of putting the country back on its feet. Wonder where they'll be in 5 years? We didn't destroy al-Qaeda and for some reason we deliberately avoided making a 100% effort to catch/kill OBL.

Then we went for Iraq. No al-Qaeda there. No OBL. And there have been god only knows how many reasons why we did it--any one but the truth. After thousands killed, more thousands injured, $300 billion and countng, we've revitalized al-Qaeda, given god only knows how many children a reason to hate the US, and where's OBL? Or the other head hochos. Do they even matter now? How many lieutenants have they trained?

So, McA, which militant Islamists next on your list? Who would you like to pay with their life and everybody's money?

McAristotle

Tomorrow the world!!

Don't waste your breath. Two aircraft carriers are steaming toward the area to join the one that is already there. The attack will occur in June.

Kevin: ...and the Bush administration has successfully forced them to make the first move.

has407: It looks more like the administration simply ceded the diplomatic initiative to Iran.

has407 gets it right.

I thought the "no direct comm ever" is a left-over of an attempt to create disincentives for embassy hostage stunts.

it certainly didn't stop the Reagan administration from "communicating" with Iran to illegally sell them arms.

I suggest all the leftie's who think Militant Islam can be reasoned with, are drafted and sent to Iran without weapons to resist Iranian thugs with their bare skulls, and naked throats.

And I suggest all of you war lovers sign your asses up today to go to Iraq and replace the men and women who have already given too much of their service.

Put your money where your mouth is, McAsshole. But that would mean putting your money to close to Bush's ass.

"But it's foolish not to try."

See post above entitled THE DEATH OF POLICY. I think that pretty much sums up what we can expect as a response to this offer.

ja, tomorrow the world!

Unrest across Iran, please see:

http://aryamehr11.blogspot.com/

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/

99% of the news we hear in America about Iran is propaganda. They want to soften us for an attack on "suspicious sites" by October. Bolten wasn't placed at the UN for nothing. The reality is that Iran is not a threat, and by CIA accounts - at least 10 years away from a nuke.

As for Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush - I read it, and you should too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_06ahmadinejadletter.pdf

How can a person be a follower of Jesus Christ and be in favor of indiscriminate killing of men, women and children in the midst of war?

And I suggest all of you war lovers sign your asses up today to go to Iraq and replace the men and women who have already given too much of their service.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on May 24, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

After you kum-bah-yah peacenik girlymen line up as human shields for the executed political dissidents and the women stoned for infidelity.

Why don't y'all head to Palestine and volunteer as hostages? That way no one would need to suicide bomb coffee shops.

If Iran gets bombed, its not like they don't have ways to stop the process. They just seem fairly determined to force the process.

They just turned down a free nuclear reactor from the French and fuel from China & Russia because it doesn't allow them to enrich on their soil. And enrichment serves only one purpose if you don't need to make your own fuel - the bomb. Between that and threatening genocide on Israel regularly, they look like a nuclear first strike waiting to happen.

You don't really have a choice between war and peace when discussing Iran. Its more like a certain conventional war or a 20% chance of a nuclear first strike by Iran.