It sounds good, although the magic words 'with the support of the U.N. Security Council' are squishy. It's fine to try to get U.N. support for some kind of carrot and stick diplomacy, but it isn't realistic to think that China or Russia is going to allow any sort of U.N. sanctions as a threat. The two questions now are, will the U.S. really pursue active diplomacy with Iran, and will the E.U. really go along with a threat of comprehensive long-term sanctions in the absence of U.N. support? And even if both these happen, is this really in Iran's interest to cooperate? China alone can probably easily fill a demand and supply role for Iran. And having nuclear weapons is a far greater long-term security guarantee for Iran than some pledge by the U.S. and E.U.

Diplomacy is fine, it gives diplomats something to do. There's no better course of action right now in any case. And Iran's attempts to talk show that they at least fear U.S. and E.U. action enough to bother stringing us along a bit.

I'd be a lot more impressed, but not much more optimistic about the results, if U.S. and European leaders came out and publicly agreed on a firm deadline at which sanctions would begin. That would be non-squishy, even if the deadline was a year or more from now. I'm not holding my breath.

The following words by Fischer are what bother me:

“In this confrontation, international credibility and legitimacy will be the deciding factors, and ensuring them will require farsighted and cool, calculated American leadership”

The Bush administration certainly lacks international credibility, even credibility at home. I completely agree with Fischer that the solution is international and we need the biggest player to have consensus-building skills. But what we have is a group of adults who have, their entire adult lives, denigrated every international mechanism ever created.

It would be nice is 2008 were here, but it’s not. So, we need sensible Republicans to stand up and be heard.

Iran is not currently a threat and probably won’t be for years. I note that Fischer does not make much a case at all that Iran is really a threat. However, if we unleash our bombers, there will be big trouble.

I agree with the article you posted, Kevin. The European states (except England) have become so mired in socialism and universal healthcare that their military and economies have withered and died. Only America has kept up the spending levels required to have a credibly military.

Ideally, Europe would have an actual military that didn't have the stars and stripes or a union jack on its shoulder. Until then, European diplomats can continue to play tea party until the Americans show up.

Meanwhile, in Iran...

Yes, Iran is poised to throw off the mullahs and all you can think about is giving them cover by negotiating. We need to be helping the students. Have you read the last chapter of "Guests of the Ayatollah" ?

If Fischer thinks Iran will give up the nuclear fuel cycle, I think he's fooling himself. They might be willing to delay or defer, and subject themselves to IAEA inspections--which would be a very good thing and provide assurance that they are not pursuing nukes and which would be a very good thing for the West to pursue---but give it up? I doubt it.

Here is the interesting thing. Iran would not be so well-positionrf to be troublesome if a stable and more or less hostile Iraq was still in existence.

So much for the Realpolitik of our neo-con over-lords.

Of course, they can swagger all they want to, but we are now stretched way to thin to seriously bring military solutions to bear on Iran, short of nuking them.

I think that those who advocate that course of action should probably get back on their meds.

One other note... Rice recently stated No Security Guarantees for Iran. Either something very significant has changed, or someone is blowing smoke. (Or the administration is simply treading water waiting on the outcome of the EU3 discussions.)

The European states (except England) have become so mired in socialism and universal healthcare that their military and economies have withered and died.

Uh-huh. So how come it's the US which is a junkie to overseas capital?

Learn to speak Chinese, Hawk - they'll be owning your ass, by and by.

so, i hope all the doubters will now pay some attention: the iranian regime wants and is seriously working towards building a bomb. got that? now, do we believe old joschka, and think that they're amenable to negotiations? or do we trust our guts, and sense that negotiations will be just another tour round the block while they feverishly attempt to render futile our 'diplomatic' overtures?

either way, it is TOTALLY INTOLERABLE for the iranians tohave the bomb, no?

i look forward to comments about israel's nuclear capability, my own collusion with the neocons etc etc, and no substantive ideas about how to deal with these motherfuckers.

lucretius -- What I'd really like to know is WTF you suggest we do about the situation? Got a rabbit handy? Yes? Then please tell. If not, then STFU.

i look forward to... no substantive ideas about how to deal with these motherfuckers.

As opposed to military action, which will fail?

BTW, why is Iran having a bomb any worse than North Korea or, more to the point, Pakistan having a bomb?

and since America always honors its agreements and treaty obligations, it's a great deal for Iran.

I could give a shit about Iran having a handfull of primitive a-bombs (not nukes, jesus), and I'm sick to death of all the scare-mongering. Oooh, that Iran, they're going to launch a missile strike on Europe, so the US needs to make a phony bullshit anti-missle sheild offer. OOOhh, Iran is going to give an a-bomb to some misc "terrorists".

As if the US hasn't been tracking the isotope signature IDs of bombs from every atomic capable country since the 40s. We know the composition of every nation's bombs, how they work, how to id them. Gen Odom has even said as much publically; he thinks this is all bullshit as well. Every bomb comes with a return address no matter who sends it. Of course, those crazy nutbag Iranians who aren't rational, esp their evil nutter leader, nothing can deter them, certainly not assured destruction of themselves, their families and their nation after any such bomb went off against US interests, because hey they're just fucking nuts. Probably eat their own poo or something.

I can't believe all the devious crap that's going on over Iran's potential to build a few defensive bombs 5-10 years from now, it's mind bending. And the freakish lying and the hipocrisy.

Hello? Isreal's 200+ bombs? On cruise missiles mounted on deisel submarines? You know, the non-signatory to the proliferation agreement? Yes that Israel, the country with the fun fun fun Samson Option?

Jesus christ, i feel like I'm trapped in some kinda Philip K Dick schizo episode every time i read or hear in the media, "is war with Iran... inevitable?" Fuck it.

Has this sour Kraut ever said a peep about the Euro-colonial Apartheid regime squatting in Palstine who are reliably reported to possess HUNDREDS of nuclear weapons?

Thats bombs - not power stations too for the morons here and Kevin of course.

Perhaps the fact that this loony ex-Trot's nation helped create this Euro-colony in the first place explains the ommission. That doesn't excuse the imbecile Drum quoting him but I guess we make allowances for our own retards.

now, do we believe old joschka, and think that they're amenable to negotiations? or do we trust our guts, and sense that negotiations will be just another tour round the block while they feverishly attempt to render futile our 'diplomatic' overtures?
Posted by: lucretius

would that be the same gut that proved so trustworthy regarding iraqi wmds, collusions with al qaeda, yellow cake, and imminent iraqi nuclear capability???

clearly you are unable to trust your brain. ... I can see why dumbfucks like yourself prefer trusting your gut. Your gut doesn't need to think about the atrocity that is this war ... it just feels right that we're killing some brown people.

clearly you are unable to trust your brain. ... I can see why dumbfucks like yourself prefer trusting your gut.

The great advantage in thinking with your gut is that a lobotomy is as easy as sticking your finger down your throat.

Iran doesn't need anyone except China on its side. China can feed Iran all the industry, technology and food it requires. Go ahead, try unilateral sanctions.

And go ahead, try war. Iran can crush Persian Gulf oil production and shipping with just missiles and in some cases artillery. Is stopping Iran's nuclear program worth $150/barrel oil? For the decade until we can rebuild all the pumps, refineries, pipelines and offshore loading pipelines?

George Bush sank non proliferation. By demonstrating the short term might and long term incompetence of the US military, he made it mandatory for every country not wanting to be a subsidary of the US corperate economy to get a bomb. By pulling out of so many international treaties, he demonstrated that there is no international order, only the law is "what you take is yours".

Instead of a domino theory of "democracy" (read: US dominated corporate capitalism) spreading through the middle east, Bush has created a rolling snowball of anti americanism.

I have no doubt Bush will launch a war if he thinks it will be most beneficial to the US interests he represents - oil companies and defense contractors. You can't logic your way out of it - logic doesn't apply. No matter how much more damage such a war would cause, to the US and the rest of the world, it will not harm the people Bush cares about.

But why should the US want peace with Iran?
Why not smash an enemy to little bits before they get stronger?

As if the US hasn't been tracking the isotope signature IDs of bombs from every atomic capable country since the 40s. We know the composition of every nation's bombs, how they work, how to id them.

Posted by: daren on May 29, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

This isn't true for secret military programs y'know.

Mysticdog, I almost agree with everything you said, except I think it's even more inevitable than you suggest. Bush may have accelerated things, but nuclear proliferation is due more to technological advances than anything else. If the U.S. didn't exist, or if Bush had stayed out of Iraq and we had supported the NPT, Iraq would still have powerful incentives for having a nuclear deterrent. For one, it would border a nation under a leader that had launched a devastating decade-long war in the 80s.

Right now, the U.S. is Iran's chief enemy. But this isn't really about the U.S., unless the Iranian leaders are so stupid as to think we are the only nation that will ever be in a position to bully them. Which isn't to say, again, that Bush didn't accelerate the process. It's hard to ignore the fact, though, that no nation has ever directly attacked a nuclear power (except for the partial exception of Argentina and the UK).

Hey man,

We're talking about the Decider, here.

If there's a "solution," it's one that ends invariably, inevitably in violence and death on a grand scale. Anything else is less than manly.

In my opinion, mysticdog comes closest. Hope the last paragreaph is wrong.

The first mistake was to immediately ramp up into "put down your gun or I shoot" mode. No moment of thought. So I'm glad that Georgie regrets his past macho talk but he's too stupid to realize he hasn't left it behind. As usual, everybody goes with the story line without evidence. Does Iran really want the bomb? They may have the ability to make a bomb (who hasn't who wants to?) but are they willing to give it up? With Saddam, he didn't have WMD, said he did. For why? We disbelieved the only actual evidence we had, preferring to believe our suppositions. Iran doesn't have them, says they don't want them, we tell them them they do. Nuke is years away but we prefer to believe our suppositions. Fool me ONCE?

Unfortunately, the administration has already made the first mis-step. Iraq redux.

How stupid are we?

Well, not as stupid as American Hawk.

Personally, in part, I would reorganize the EU military to have a function outside/beyond NATO and the UN so it would have more flexibility to act. Of course the dastardly French suggested same so the US beat it down. Yes, it needs to be capitalized to act longer range, but without the approved function there is no need.

"The European states (except England) have become so mired in socialism and universal healthcare that their military and economies have withered and died."

Posted by: American Hawk on May 29, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk probably doesn't have a passport. He has never been to Great Britain or the United Kingdom or the British Isles (if he did, he didn't learn anything. Quelle surprise!)otherwise he might know that Irish, Welsh, Scottish as well as English troops serve in both Afghanistan and Iraq, along with ethnicities that derive from Pakistan, India, the Caribbean islands, and god knows where else.

Socialism and healthcare are American Hawk's distractions. They have nothing to do with this debate. His own spittal to politicize. The UK would no more give up national health care than France.

Until US citizens recognize that other countries do not have to arrive at the same conclusions as the US (which have not necessarily served us well) and that is valid and OK, we will continue to think we have the best system that everybody else should adopt. That's Imperialism! If not by government by capitalism.

Are you sure our present way of life is the ONLY WAY?

'Mike' posted:

"Yes, Iran is poised to throw off the mullahs and all you can think about is giving them cover by negotiating."

Surely you jest. The vast overwhelming majority of the citizens of Iran wildly support their nuclear fuel program as well as a nuclear bomb program.
.

'McA' posted:

"Why not smash an enemy to little bits before they get stronger?"

As good an idea as that might be, you could get in trouble for suggesting something like that against the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal. The Bushies don't handle dissent very well.
.

or do we trust our guts

The Butch Davis School of Policy Decision

Funny, but I don't have any problem with Iran's hegemonic ambitions on the Middle East. If they want to become the big dog in that area, good for them. I don't care. What I care about is why the Middle East matters now.

Oil, oil and oil.

Period. Nothing else. Oil is the issue. Without oil, the Middle East is of no importance whatsoever, just a parched wasteland bearing impoverished, backward, powerless nations. Solve our oil addiction and the Middle East will revert to the insignificance it should have always remained stuck into.

Any effort expanded on the Middle East is a complete waste. We should let this region slide in the destitution and the wars it deserves. We need concentrate on what really matters to us : Oil and the need to get rid of it once and for all.

But why should the US want peace with Iran?
Why not smash an enemy to little bits before they get stronger?
Posted by: McA on May 29, 2006 at 2:40 AM

One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.

Are you kidding? Iran offered such package 2 years ago and it was rejected by neocons. Just read this:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11539

This isn't true for secret military programs y'know

Those that know don't say. Those that say don't know.

What is especially indicative of the seriousness of Fischer's statement is that he, as a Green, and long-term opponent of nuclear power in his own country, is willing to concede additional proliferation of nuclear power generation in exchange for arms control.

"Security guarantees can come only from the United States, and Iran knows it. This is why the U.S. has to be part of any serious negotiations. The Europeans simply can't address security issues without us."

1) There can be no security guarantees without the US because the US under the bushliar-criminal regime has become the world's aggressor, militarist state, i.e., the US is the cause of the insecurity and the stimulus behind the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. So we provide security not through provision of protection, but by issuing a promise not to attack.

2) after unilaterally withdrawing from treaties, lying about the reasins for invasion and torture, undermining our own constitution, etc. a promise from the likes of the bushliar-criminal regime is meaningless and everyone knows it.

So where are we going to find a diplomat amongst the fascist thugs in this Administration? I say draft Bill Clinton as special envoy to Iran and we would get a diplomatic solution toot sweet!

"The European states (except England) have become so mired in socialism and universal healthcare that their military and economies have withered and died."

I remember that in a discussion the late german chancellor Helmut Schmidt said, that Germany is as indebted as it is, because they decided from the 1970s on to spend lots of money on welfare, because they weren't sure of the democratic moorings of the population in face of hardship. That I found highly sobering.

The state in itself, in Europe at least, has long moved beyond the 'Nachtwächterstaat', focusing only on law and order, to a system that also takes care of basic needs of the popultion. That was logical considering the unrest the social (especially socialist) movements brought into the monarchies of the 19th century. They bought peace by giving to the people.
The opposition of the US right to welfare is IMO quite peculiar, as they seem to overlook what welfare is there for. Not to feed the few no-goods and frauds as a result of liberal stupidity, but to buy internal stability. Sure that's inefficient, but I'd say inefficiency is a good buy here. What I always wonder is if such über-patriots do get that they are sawing on the perch they're sitting on.

The problem we in the West see ourselves faced with today is that we might cease to be able to fund our stabilising welfare that is part of the modern state image. In that case that will undermine support for the state. Living on a black hole of a deficit increases the risk of economical collapse.

State welfare is a vastly underestimated factor when it comes to keeping the internal peace. The successful counterinsurgency campaign in Malaya included lots of that, and so did the more successful US operations in Vietnam. Hamas an Hezbollah have set up social networks and with them bought loyalty and confidence of their local populations.
Contrast that to the Bush administration's wrecking of FEMA and the outsourcing of public aid services to privates. Both undermine the state at local, state and federal levels - and the failing of these privatisation efforts thanks to curruption and incompetence only add to the damage already caused. FEMA coming to the rescue could have built trust in the public government. Since FEMA was wrecked the Bushies sent in the military, not to mention non government aid groups. Weird message sent by folks who hold up the ideal of a strong executive and unitary executive branch theories.

I wonder how the long US, in absence of a social network worth the name, and effective state control, can hold in case of a recession or serious economic mayhem. Katrina to me showed up a significant lack of social coherence. And so do gated communities with private guards.

A strong military is pretty much beside the point when a society is inherently unstable from within.

Norman, Americans, on the whole, are quite a bit more individually capable than Germans and do not look towards someone else to care for their well being. Thanks for your concern though.

"The European states (except England) have become so mired in socialism and universal healthcare that their military and economies have withered and died."

the Europe is collapsing due to universal healthcare pretty much falls apart by the fact (that's fact, as opposed to lying republican talking point) that the cost/person for healthcare in Europe is less than that in the US and health services in Europe are better. recent studies showed the health services of the richest American to be on a par with that of the poorest British and health services for the less than very wealthy American were no where near as good as that of the British in spite of the higher cost of the American health services.

And as for economies of countries providing government sponsored single payer universal healthcare, their corporations are more competitive because they do not have the burden of providing health benefits to their employees. Employer provided health benefit is both competition eroding and an incentive for corporations to move jobs overseas.

On the military side, why would Europeans even think of wasting the kind of money the US does on a global reach capability when the America does it for them. Its a simple equation, the $450 billion per year Americans pour into their white elephant military in lieu of social services is $450 billion per year (or there abouts) that Europeans don't have to and can pour into their social services.
.

Once again the left demonstrates their complete lack of understanding of this enemy. Iran, and Admenhijad, would not be the least interested in the offer of international security or financial offerings in exchange for abandoning their nuclear ambitions. This is a society that ascribes to the radical fringe of their religion in which Christians and Jews are the infidels, and any dialogue, or peace accords with the infidels is a sure sign of weakness and is diematrically opposed to their beliefs.

The only thing that would be achieved through this strategy is much lip service and lying from the Iranian administration while they continue down the road towards nuclear capability all the while hood winking the west. Much like NK did with the Clinton administration. That worked out well didn't it? The left still doesn't understand that radicals like Admenhijad DO NOT WANT TO BE YOUR FRIENDS. They would rather kill you, so by all means send Clinton over for a nice chat.

Jay,

how about you explain your pompous drool to the 45 million Americans without any health insurance;
how about you go to Katrina survivors and tell them how much Americans don't need any help - do the same for some elderly people who's survival depends on Sovcial Security and Medicare;
gee, lets see wasn't that Chrysler a few years ago that bought Daimler Benz, and, and GM and Ford are sure whipping the pants off of Toyota....

you and your ilk are deluded egocentric fucks, having been graced by dumb luck to have the means to comfortably survive, you coldly turn your back on millions not so lucky and then ratioanlize your heartless judgement that they somehow desrve their fate because they're not so clever as you.
.

Why not smash an enemy to little bits before they get stronger?

so, get your own country to do it.

This is a society that ascribes to the radical fringe of their religion in which Christians and Jews are the infidels

a religion that thinks non-believers are bad people? how unusual!

...and any dialogue, or peace accords with the infidels is a sure sign of weakness and is diematrically opposed to their beliefs.

indeed. for example...

They would rather kill you, so by all means send Clinton over for a nice chat.

I don't have health insurance justfred. So keep your mindless opinions tucked away in that empty vessel of your. btw, anyone walking into an emergency care needing aid, will not be turned away. Secondly, medicare, medicaid and wic are all entitlement programs that cover "disenfranchised". If you would like to pay for the rest of societies health needs, by all means gather your friend together and start sending in your checks, there's nothing stopping you.

cleek, go ahead a join Clinton on that venture and go talk with your new friends in Iran. I am sure they'll listen to your wisdom.

"Norman, Americans, on the whole, are quite a bit more individually capable than Germans and do not look towards someone else to care for their well being. Thanks for your concern though."

'Taking care of their wellbeing' can also take the form of something like the looting whenever something went real bad, be it Katrina or a riot in LA.

Stuff like that happens in America with a certain regularity, every couple of years or so. I doubt that's just a coincidence. I rather think that it's a symptom of something deeper. When in times of crisis order dissolves so easily, how healthy are the structures that hold society together in normal times?

I offer North Korea and Cuba as outstanding examples of the "success" of the policy prescriptions offered by Fischer.

Why or why do we continue to cede to such lunacy the sobrequit of "serious"?

I supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I would do both again. Were I young enough, I would dearly love to be living in a climbing tent on a ridgeline in Afghanistan, waiting for Pashtun adherents of Al Qaeda to come down a trail with weapons on their back. The Barrett Corporation in Tennessee makes just the medicine for what ails such people.

Actually, now that everyone has thought the problem through, Iranian nukes a top medium range Scud-type missiles will not be that big a threat to Israel, Europe, or anyone else. The reason is that Boeing here in Seattle makes an excellent system for blowing up such missiles during climb-out. The big airplanes can circle over Iraq or the Persian Gulf and completely negate the threat of intermediate ballistic missiles.

There still could be a problem with an Iraniam A-Bomb being smuggled in somewhere in a cargo container. Probably that will mean searching every cargo container by hand, which adds terrifically to the cost of imports and actually becomes a kind of high tariff policy. Senators from my state (Murray and Cantwell) have figured that out and rolled it into the anti-Walmart program that Democrats are in love with.

Hmm, America's military is a "white elephant?" What do France and Sweden get for all of their social services spending? A mainstream society of degenerate, whiney layabouts covered with a thick frosting of angry immigrants who really aren't allowed to assimilate because they would out-work the grandfathered layabouts.

But, truth to tell, if I were going to really be in the business of pre-emptive war against the proto-nuclear warlord kingdoms of the globe, I would want a small force equipped with French Leclerc heavy diesel tanks, British Sorpion light tanks, German Fuchs reconnaisance cars,and the excellent American Stryker vehicles. For coastal patrol I would want the Swedish hovercraft vessels. The Germans make the best light arms and grendade launchers. The Italians make good light helicopters. On a cost efficiency analysis, the Russians make good everything.

It doesn't need to be an American elephant that defends the world, but there should be an elephant.

FISCHER ON IRAN

More like FISCHER ON DRUGS. When will those Euroweenies ever learn anything? Weren't for us, they'd all be speaking German.

I offer North Korea and Cuba as outstanding examples of the "success" of the policy prescriptions offered by Fischer.

Last I checked, neither Cuba nor NKorea had invaded the US or their immediate neighbors in a generation. Wouldnt that be construed as a policy success?

Norbert, rioting and civil unrest are just a sympton of selfish people that have no respect for others or themselves, no values, no dignity, no integrity and should be in prison. Those are the people that don't deserve a damn thing.

troglodyte, you might want to ask the common people of Cuba and NK how enjoyable their society is. Oh, yeah, that's right you can't, they're not allowed to speak out. Of course I doubt you actually care about the people of those countries?

Oh, but they do get their aspirin for free, woooo hooooo!!!!!!!!!!

Would they riot, loot if they had decent living standards? Jobs? A perspective? Do they loot by default?

How many middle-class suburbia riots have you heared of?

Two things stand out as I read these comments. Number one, many of the commenters do not recognize that Iran is not a threat. They would be a threat if, years down the road, they were able to build deliverable nuclear weapons. That's years away, IF everything goes well for them. If you disagree, research what the IAEA says about their capability and who around the world agrees with the IAEA. You'll find the same situation we had with Iraq. The credentialed adults around the world, including the U.S., agree with the IAEA.

Number two, many commenters have no respect for international institutions and routinely, cavalierly dismiss them. One question: is this attitude the result of a sober and sustained effort to educate yourself? Is it really an informed attitude? Many decades of effort by serious people have been invested in these institutions for all the right reasons, not for the sneaky conspiratorial world domination reasons you hear endlessly perpetuated by John Birch and others. You like wars, carnage and chaos? If not, allow yourself and others to build international mechanisms that can deal with contentious issues. The rest of the world is not going away unless we are all taken down by nuclear weapons.

I am sure they'll listen to your wisdom.

please, go on. keep proving my point for me.

And the reason that Northern Europe and the United States get to impose their will and desires on the rest of the world, including Iran, is...?

If the answer is "because we are stronger" well then I think you have your answer: every midsized regional power in the world is probably working on deliverable nuclear weapons as we speak.

Not Really

Oh, if the answer is "because we are better/more moral", see Katrina, national response to.

I wasn't ready to go to Iraq.

But I feel so strongly about Iran getting a nuclear weapon that I am going to enlist today.

Hey Mac, how about we go down and both sign up today?

It's Memorial Day.

What better way to show our support for the war then to join it?

How many surburbia teens and families are addicted to meth? How many surburbia serial killers are there? Financial security is not a cure for poor, or criminal behaviour. Integrity is. I am sorry you haven't learned that by now.

The war is over AH. It's now just a bunch of Muslim losers killing each other (something I hope they keep up for a while longer). The permanent government is in place, the Iraqi Army controls over 60%, soon to be over 75% this fall and our troops will start coming home later this year. Did you miss that?

yeah! success is just around the corner.

Jay It's now just a bunch of Muslim losers killing each other (something I hope they keep up for a while longer).

Oh man, Bush just winds 'em up and lets 'em at it. Now that's genius. Same play for Iran. Say bye bye dirty mullah huggers. The USA is coming at you.

It's now just a bunch of Muslim losers killing each other (something I hope they keep up for a while longer

there's some more of that superior Republican compassion. golly, if only we liberals were as compassionate as that.

"The permanent government is in place, the Iraqi Army controls over 60% . . . "

Hmm. Must be a new and unfamiliar use of the word "controls":

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/29/iraq.main/index.html

Actually, Jay, over 60% of Iraq is desert. That's the 60% that the Iraqi Army "controls." It's the remaining 40%, the 40% with, you know, actual Iraqis living in it, that they can't seem to manage.

Moron.

"...there's some more of that superior Republican compassion. golly, if only we liberals were as compassionate as that."

The really sad thing is that so-called 'liberal hawks' (like Drum) actually bought into Bush's compassionate bullshit concerning Iraq.

You know... we were there to liberate them, rebuild their country, and all that happy talk.

We were there for the oil.

And since there are no more sactions in place in regards to purchasing Iraqi oil... in some small sense you can say "mission accomplished."

But let's be clear here.

The Republican party has for the last 50 years chided all the progressive notions of so-called "do-gooders." To suddenly believe that Republicans wanted to do good in Iraq was to surrender one's critical thinking facilities on a whim.

Republicans don't care about doing good in the world. They never have. They never will. Let's hope the liberal hawks have finally learned that one...

Success will continue to elude you lib.......

So Basra, Mosul and Tel Afar are deserted? Wow. They must not be actual Iraqi's. Shit-for-brains Joel chimes in with more defeated opinions. How refreshing.

cleek, better they kill each other than us, huh? Or would you prefer to be slaughtered considering your self loathing nature?

I am not sure you can use "liberal" and "learn" in the same sentence, can you? Isn't that an oxymoron, or are liberals just morons?

"So Basra, Mosul and Tel Afar are deserted? Wow. They must not be actual Iraqi's. Shit-for-brains Joel chimes in with more defeated opinions. How refreshing."

So all foreign troops have evacuated Basra, Mosul and Tall Afar? Wow. Who knew? Shit-for-brains Jay chimes in with more ignorant propaganda. Our very own Baghdad Bob. How refreshing. Not.

Moron.

Europeans cannot guarantee security, nor can they guarantee insecurity. All security guarantees for non-poliferation compliance eventually come from the USA, currently. This is the problem.

If nations of the world want to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, which now seems to be a public domain technology, then they cannot rely on the USA as the policeman of last resort.

First, it is a large globe. Second the black market for centrifuges is growing and gaining economies of scale.

The security guarantees need the following counter premise:

All the nations, the G77, the USA, and Europe have to guarantee insecurity if a nation engages in this activity.

This is an agreement that starts with negotiations between Europe, Russia, China and the USA.

If the Germans want to add teeth, which they evidently do not, then Germans have to say, eventual military action, which they do not. Absent Germans adding teeth, the proliferation will be hard to stop.

If we are the policemen of last resort, then keep us out of the negotiations; and be prepared to give us a union contract.

Your confidence in the Iraqi people is under-whelming. Much like the confidence you place in your country or yourself. btw, can you super-size that for me?

Here's what Jay is talking about when he says the Iraqi Army "controls" 60% of Iraq:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

Moron.

It's now just a bunch of Muslim losers killing each other (something I hope they keep up for a while longer).

Your confidence in the Iraqi people is under-whelming.

Jesus, am I stupid! Proof of the idiocy of my opinions is the front page of every newspaper in the world. But I just keep pluggin: Liberals! Liberals! Libs! Libby-libbs! Ditto!

cleek, better they kill each other than us, huh?

false dichotomy. minus 10 yards. loss of down.

Or would you prefer to be slaughtered considering your self loathing nature?

false dichotomy. ad hominem. mind reading. automatic forfeit of game.

cleek, aren't you piling on? running up the score?

The problem is not just Iran but Venezuela, Niger, and no doubt others.

So, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea are in a position of tying down the US by spreading the centrifuge technology. Iran's best security defense is to spread the technology as long as the USA is the world's cop. China and Russia are similiarly motivated.

The Europeans are motivated to keep the USA as the world's cop because the USA becomes the universal nuclear target.

Even if we were to get Iran to cross the line, it is likely too late, we will be facing the problem with two or three other nations.

We need a trigger, a way for any local country to secretly present evidence of a neighbor working the technology. Once the mere suspicion arises this would trigger whatever force is needed for immediate inspection.

Iran is trying to join the nuclear club before this protocol is implemented. Once the forceful inspection protocol is implemented, then Iran is sitting pretty with the bomb while neighboring Arabs and central Asians are subject to forceful inspection.

It is like the amnesty. The trick is to cross the line before amnesty becomes law and the borders enforced.

The solution is to make forceful inspection a protocol for eveyone, Israel, USA, Europe, Russia, China and the rest. Make it forceful; subject to severe trade restrictions for all of us, including port blockades in the case of China, India, Pakistan; and where the will and capability is there, use stronger military force.

Trade restrictions are a tool because, like China, violators collapse under universal trade restrictions. The USA as been subject to intrusive inspections ever since arms agreements have started.

> as long as the USA is the world's cop.

Simpler solution: USA stop trying to be the world's top "cop".

Cranky

Should no agreement be reached, the West would do everything in its power to isolate Iran economically, financially, technologically and diplomatically, with the full support of the international community

I expect that the international community would cooperate, except for Venezuela, France, Russia, China, Syria, N.Korea, and Indonesia. France, you'll recall, was working with Russia to end the embargo against Iraq, even though the embargo was "working".

The proposal as described is a carrot and stick approach with all carrots and no stick.

The high price for refusing such a proposal has to be made absolutely clear to the United States' leadership: Should no agreement be reached, the West would do everything in its power to isolate the United States economically, financially, technologically and diplomatically, with the full support of the international community. The United States' alternatives should be no less than recognition and security of Iran or total isolation.

Hostile,

You could not have said it better.

"BTW, why is Iran having a bomb any worse than North Korea or, more to the point, Pakistan having a bomb?"

Or Israel, or the US, or Russia?
Or Venezuela or Peru or Nigeria or etc.

In the long term, no. We are in the long term, I think, would be the conclusion of your question.

"Oil, oil and oil."

Yes but, as the nuclear technology spreads, the cost drops and instead of oil, it become farmland, factories, trade advantage, etc.

"..the iranian regime wants and is seriously working towards building a bomb.."

As is half a dozen other countries in a growing list.

"I can't believe all the devious crap that's going on over Iran's potential to build a few defensive bombs 5-10 years from now"

Or Pakistan, Noth Korea, etc.

What you are proposing is that each nation get a few.

"It doesn't need to be an American elephant that defends the world, but there should be an elephant"

Give the man a gold star.

George Bush sank non proliferation.

This point is worth repeating. Bush pissed all over the very notion of nonproliferation in the name of America's so-called "national security interest," only to find that a strong international nonproliferation regime is in fact in America's national security interest, and well worth the cost of America's participation. Yet another reason the Republican Party's incompetence has lost it all credibility on national security.

Oh my gosh can you imagine total isolation from the rest of the world? What would we do without the economic support of Kenya, the financial stability of Ecuador, the technology of Romania or the diplomatic wisdom of France. Gasp!!!!! We better start being nicer to low level dictators and tyrants or else the left of this country is going to angry. And you can only imagine what an angry liberal is capable of.

Oh my gosh can you imagine total isolation from the rest of the world? What would we do without the economic support of Kenya, the financial stability of Ecuador, the technology of Romania or the diplomatic wisdom of France. Gasp!!!!!

...or the financial support of China and Japan, which are currently financing GWB's deficit spending and, not incidentally, America's military action. Jeez, Jay, but you're an idiot.

To Jay and other idiots,

If we bomb the Iranians, just how hard do you think they could make our lives in Iraq? Do you honestly think they couldn't turn up the heat on the civil war that's brewing there? They don't need a sophisticated army, they just need to finance the Shiites and provide the material for suicide bombers.

Your fearless leader has squandered our strategic flexibility by pinning us down in Iraq.

Oh of course, we certainly could not get by without the financial assistance from China or Japan, why they both have been instrumental in our growth over the last fifty years........wait. Didn't we completely rebuild Japan about fifty years ago? And wasn't the relations with China recently normalized a few years ago, boy without that financial support from them I don't know how we made it. btw, you might want to tell Tokyo that they are financing the Iraq war, I am sure they will be surprised being that their economy is currently in the tank.

Didn't we rebuild Japan just fifty years ago? Yeah, without their financial support, I don't know how we made it. You might also want to let Tokyo know that they are funding the Iraq war, they might be interested in that considering their economy is currently under performing. Also, doesn't the "rest of the world" include other countires than Japan and China? Just asking.

Pinned down in Iraq? The entire US military is comprised of nearly 2 million people. We currently have 130,000 in Iraq. Not exactly over extended huh? And I am sure you support the troops, every good liberal does right?

Secondly, our troops will begin heading home this year with much more coming home next year. I think it will be more interesting to see how the decent non-radicalized people of Iraq with their new governance and military will react to a radical Iranian regime attempting to acquire the bomb.

Be careful with who you call idiot. That's a label that tends to get stuck on the caller.

Of course we'd expect to find you here Jay. It's a holiday, and I guess you have nowhere or no one to spend it with. Such a pity. But take solace, you can always feel important coming here with your juvenille talking points. At least someone will pay attention to you then even if it only to scold you like a unruly school boy.

That's all you've got jya? Wow, no wonder you guys lose elections.

Secondly, our troops will begin heading home this year with much more coming home next year

loser-defeatist

You're getting it now cleek! Yes, with our troops heading home this year, you, and the left have lost and have been defeated. Much like what will happen in the fall and '08 elections. Of course, I am sure you are use to that by now. But I am glad to see you're finally wrapping your little mind around it....well done.

"You might also want to let Tokyo know that they are funding the Iraq war, they might be interested in that considering their economy is currently under performing. Also, doesn't the "rest of the world" include other countires than Japan and China? Just asking."

Jay, Japan currently holds over $600 billion in US debt. China holds over $300 billion. You can find "other countires [sic] than Japan and China" here:

http://www.treasury.gov/tic/mfh.txt

So, yes, Japan and China *are* financing our little adventure in Iraq. As are France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands . . .

Moron.

he left have lost and have been defeated

Zoiks! Not only has the left lost, but they have been defeated too? Say it ain't so Jay!

Is this why you are such a hit with the ladies? (snicker)

Wow, imagine international economic investments. Had you considered that debt equals investment and Japan and China did so because they know that those investments in the strongest economy in the world will in turn make them money down the road. Also, the US forgave billions in debt Japan owed to us after reconstruction and we still survived. You really should attend an economics 101 class, assuming you made it past 8th grade.

Al, you might want to get together with jya. You both contribute about the same and are both fine examples of the mentally deficient left.

"You really should attend an economics 101 class, assuming you made it past 8th grade."

Heh. I had to chuckle at this, Jay, coming at the end of your non sequitur post. The fact that you could post something this moronic:

"You might also want to let Tokyo know that they are funding the Iraq war, they might be interested in that considering their economy is currently under performing."

and when I show you how idiotic that post was, you follow it with some mindless babble about how owning debt is the same as investing, shows you are both ignorant and immature.

Moron.

Jay, you might want to consider one of the following

eharmony.com

match.com

You really don't have to spend the rest of your worthless days alone but somehow I get the sense if we saw your photo we'd know why you are sentenced to a life of involuntary abstinence.

It can be cruel for those who cannot find a mate.No wonder you are as bitter and angry and upset as you are.

But hey, you guys win all the elections and in the grand scheme of things, that's all that matters. At least for toadies who are powerless who love to suck up. This governing effectively and wisely, that's for liberal pussies.

That was funny Al, at least you still have your sense of humor.

OK Joel, I will break it down for you. When I buy stock in a company, I am investing in their debt positions as well as their assets. I buy the stock with the full knowledge and confidence that it is a viable company that will make money for me at the end of the day. It's no different on the international scale.

Again, no wonder you guys lose elections.

There's always hookers if you get desperate enough Jay, but I think even ho's have their standards. They might charge you double for extra fat/ugly fees.

Jay,

How much education do you have?

The EU does not need military power, surrounding nations are struggeling to join the EU.

The last military victories the US had alone were Granada and Panama. Would you say they were military giants?

Gulf one was fought with allies, remember? And paid for by allies
Gulf war one

OK, Jay, I will break it down for you. Your little high school dissertaion on stock investment (Treasuries are not company stocks, moron) is a non sequitur (does not follow from the argument, irrelevant, beside the point). You posted:

"You might also want to let Tokyo know that they are funding the Iraq war, they might be interested in that considering their economy is currently under performing."

Since Japan is currently the largest international holder of US debt (not the same as stocks, moron), I'm sure that Tokyo already knows that they are lending money that this administration is spending on the Iraq war with no plan for how it will be paid back.

Moron.

Riiiiiight, the Japanese typically just throw away money.............

BTW, since you know them so well, see if they wouldn't mind paying back some of that reconstruction money.

I will remind you that the left constantly complains about how much money we are spending in Iraq, yet Renate and Joel keep telling me that Japan, China, and the allies have paid for our wars. So what is there to complain about? I would think that that would be great news.

" . . . Joel keep telling me that Japan, China, and the allies have paid for our wars."

Uh, no. I am telling you that Japan, China and other nations are paying for our military occupation in Iraq. Are you illiterate or just stupid?

Smarter trolls, please.

Just trying to understand your dementia here Joel. China and Japan are bank rolling our "occupation" (again that losing elections thing) yet the Democrats are screaming about how much money this is costing the taxpayers. So, if Japan and China are paying for it, what do we care. It's not like we have to pay them back, afterall the Japanese never paid us back nor has just about any other country on the planet. So this is a win-win, awesome news.

I a bit naive about diplomacy, but: Krauthammer has a piece out ragging on the idea that the US should talk one-on-one with Iran, equating that with derailing the multilateral talks. But can't we just talk with Iran without messing up other negotiations? We don't have true diplomatic relations with them, right, and we could at least get that going on a parallel track to any other negotiations. Is Kraphammie is troting out one of his red herrings to serve the Misadministration?

"So, if Japan and China are paying for it, what do we care."

Because the Treasuries that Japan and China hold are debt that the taxpayers will eventually have to repay. Default is un-Constitutional (See Article 14, section 4).

Smarter trolls please.

That should be Amendment 14. But since you have amply demonstrated your illiteracy, I don't expect it will make a difference to you.

Moron.

So you are assuming that our economy will stagnate or tank, thereby putting the taxpayers on the hook, assuming we be "constitutional" and actually repay the debt. Do liberals understand growth economies as they relate to debt and assets? Apparently not.

" . . . Joel keep telling me that Japan, China, and the allies have paid for our wars."

We have to ask why Japan and China and the Gulf monarchies are hold some of our depreciating currency? What hidden service are they getting, for they pay an American trade tax in falling currency value?

For China and Japan, the oil flows.

For China, te Americans stand between the economic reformers and the Chinese military right, Taiwan is competetive and a strong invester, and America takes the lead in making South East Asia a nuclear free zone.

China gets to find something for their substinance farmers to engage in without mass disruption.

For China and India, American trade keeps them focused and cooperative and they are no longer at each others throat.

For Europe, American trade deficit keeps the new eastern european countries in the European free trade zone and prevents European wars.

And for everyone, America polices the free trade routes.

These services they get, we get a special deal on imports by vitrue of a declining dollar. Worth it? Probably not for us, and we ought to think of pulling back.

"So you are assuming that our economy will stagnate or tank, thereby putting the taxpayers on the hook, assuming we be "constitutional" and actually repay the debt."

I neither said nor implied anything about the future of the US economy.

I do assume the United States of America will continue to be governed by the U.S. Constitution, yes. Do you have a problem with the Constitution, Jay? Apparently so.

Moron.

thereby putting the taxpayers on the hook

they are already on that hook.

Bush pissed all over the very notion of nonproliferation in the name of America's so-called "national security interest," only to find that a strong international nonproliferation regime is in fact in America's national security interest, and well worth the cost of America's participation.

Unfortunately, a "string" international nonproliferation regime can not be enforced. What Bush "pissed all over" was a decoration.

A curious news item about Iran. Apparently, Iran imports about 40% of the petroleum that it uses. Their oil infrastructure has deteriorated since the mullahs took over. Besides that, they maintain a low price on gasoline, so that smugglers take about 8million barrels of oil per day out of the country to sell in the internationa black market. Venezuela has a similar problem: they have sold oil contracts at low prices to their favored nations, like Cuba; but production has declined as Chavez has been replacing professionals with political loyalists, so Venezuela is buying oil from Russia at market prices to sell at below market prices.

But back to Iran and nuclear power: no international sanctions regime can be sustained as long as major nations find it in their interest to work with Iran developing their oil and gas resources, and then buying the oil. If China and Russia joined the EU in these talks, instead of the US, there might be progress.

no international sanctions regime can be sustained as long as major nations find it in their interest to work with Iran developing their oil and gas resources, and then buying the oil

"I think we'd be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions [on Iran], didn't try to impose secondary boycotts on companies ... trying to do business over there ... and instead started to rebuild those relationships"

remember saying that one, Cheney ?

China and Japan are bank rolling our "occupation" (again that losing elections thing) yet the Democrats are screaming about how much money this is costing the taxpayers. So, if Japan and China are paying for it, what do we care. It's not like we have to pay them back, afterall the Japanese never paid us back nor has just about any other country on the planet. So this is a win-win, awesome news.

Sweet Jesus, Jay expects China and Japan to simply forgive the debt the US is accruing, so "this is a win-win, awesome news."

Four words, Jay: "Full faith and credit." The US can ill afford to default on its T-bills. But then, the Bush Administration policy of turning this great nation into a banana republic will be fulfilled at last.

Jeez, what a moron.

Hey, Jay, is this what you mean about how the Iraqi Army is controlling the country?

"In Baghdad and most of Iraq, the police are the Mahdi Army and the Mahdi Army is the police. The same holds for the actual Iraqi army, posted throughout the country."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601578.html

Moron.

'McAristotle' posted:

"And doing nothing while someone who wants to exterminate another nation gets nuclear weapons is quite likely to be be a bad call."

"And doing nothing while someone who wants to exterminate another nation" illegally militarily occupies another society, and murders it's civilians with our American weaponry, is a "bad call".

Retaliation, like reality, bites.
.

'Jay' posted:

"The only thing that would be achieved through this strategy is much lip service and lying from the Iranian administration while they continue down the road towards nuclear capability all the while hood winking the west. Much like NK did with the Clinton administration. That worked out well didn't it?"

It worked GREAT until the Bushies violated the 1994 agreement.

.

"The permanent government is in place, the Iraqi Army controls over 60%, soon to be over 75% this fall and our troops will start coming home later this year. Did you miss that?"

No.

Did you miss it the first time the Bushies forecast it for the Fall of 2003 ?
.

cleek: remember saying that one, Cheney ?

That's a good post. I think it supports my point. The US even supported Jordan when Jordan broke the sanctions on Iraq. When some countries do it, all countries find it in their interest to break the sanctions so as not to lose competitive advantages.

Sanctions against S. Africa worked because S. Africa had an elected government and a market economy. Granted,it was an ironic democracy because only 5% of the people had the franchise. A similar set of sanctions against the far worse government of Zimbabwe would be worse than useless; they would be counterproductive.

"And doing nothing while someone who wants to exterminate another nation" illegally militarily occupies another society, and murders it's civilians with our American weaponry, is a "bad call".

Retaliation, like reality, bites.
.
Posted by: VJ on May 29, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

I think its a question of scale.

Israel occupies Palestine because its surrounding neighbours and Palestinians tried to exterminate their race.

It would some of what they got back, except that the Palestinians are greedy buggers who want more and are too stupid to stop shooting rockets into Israel or stop voting for people who want to exterminate the Jews.

'McA' posted:

"I think its a question of scale."

Quite.

.

"Israel occupies Palestine because its surrounding neighbours and Palestinians tried to exterminate their race."

Interesting take on the Israeli RightWing's illegal military invasion of it's "neighbors".

.

"It would some of what they got back"

???

.

"except that the Palestinians are greedy buggers who want more"

More of their own land back ? How dare them.

.

"and are too stupid to stop shooting rockets into Israel"

They are under illegal military occupation. They should not resist ? They should not fight back ? Should Denmark not have resisted their illegal military occupation ? Should the French Resistance not have fought back against their illegal military occupation ?

.

"or stop voting for people who want to exterminate the Jews."

Not likely while the Israeli RightWing still advocates that the Palestinians be driven into the sea.
.

Fischer says that nuclear weapons are a key part of Iran's plans to achieve its strategic goals, which also include revolutionary changes within the power structure of the Middle East.

Unless the US is willing to provide security guarantees to Iran that include a guarantee not to attack even if Iran is causing revolutionary changes within the power structure of the Middle East is it reasonable to believe they would give up nukes?

But should the US agree not to attack Iran if Iran is causing "revolutionary changes within the power structure of the Middle East"? I think the answer is obviously "No" - like it or not we need oil for the foreseeable future and the kinds of revolutionary changes that Iran presumably would support would be a direct threat to US security.

So where's the room for a diplomatic solution?

Freedom Fighter: So where's the room for a diplomatic solution?

It's not just about a solution, but the strategy needed to achieve a solution. As brooksfoe noted in a previous thread about Regan's strategy with Russia: take them at their word that their nuclear ambitions are peaceful, and get them to either live up to it, or show them as hollow.

For example: (1) The US commits to the carrots as well as the sticks; and (2) we use that commitment to either bring Tehran into line or reveal its intransigence to an extent that can't be ignored.

Unfortunately, at the moment the US is doing little more than sitting behind the curtain occassionally brandishing sticks such as sanctions, and mumbling about regime change. That has zero productive effect on anyone who might view the US's intentions and actions with skepticism (i.e., China, Russia, most of the Middle East, etc) and who are needed to make any solution work.

Years ago, Mack Reynolds wrote about a war in which one side held a crushing technological advantage but could not prosecute a long-term engagement because of the horrendous expense, while the enemy recycled ordnance, scaveged, skulked and held on, knowing the adversary would eventually have to go home.
I think he was writing about 'Nam but Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran would all be a case of the flies conquering the flypaper.

Not likely while the Israeli RightWing still advocates that the Palestinians be driven into the sea.

Posted by: VJ on May 29, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

If they wanted too, they could. Nuclear Power remember?

But from what I remember, they are East of Israel and have no sea access so they'd have to drive them into Jordan at best.

Nice editing out of your memory of the various wars of extermination the Arabs tried on Israel.
6 day war, Yom Kippur, the original invasion of Israel....

Funny how Jew-hatred allows people to rewrite the truth without shame.

The real stick for Iran is their internal situation. There demographic and economic situation dooms them to a reformation that runs counter to the conservative political situation. There ultimate collision is interal, the same with the Soviets. They cannot satisfy the economic requirements with a theocratic regime.

The Europeans are proposing a sort of detente, put the struggle off a few years. It has merit, it gives us a breathing space.

"Israel occupies Palestine because its surrounding neighbours and Palestinians tried to exterminate their race."

When, exactly, did this happen? Funny how the most narrow-minded, bigoted shitstains on the Web go overboard in defending Jews from their fabricated misconception of anti-semitism. You dishonest hacks wouldn't give two farts about jews or Israel if your masters in the military and oil industries hadn't placed all their hopes for future profits and their dreams of empire in the Middle East.

here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Boy, I sure did enjoy watching Joel stuff Jay in the bung-hole!

'McA' posted:

"If they wanted too, they could. Nuclear Power remember?"

It's not a matter of having the ability, it's a matter of the Israeli RightWing stating that they WANT the Palestinians to be driven into the sea.

.

"Nice editing out of your memory of the various wars of extermination the Arabs tried on Israel.
6 day war, Yom Kippur, the original invasion of Israel.... Funny how Jew-hatred allows people to rewrite the truth without shame."

Well, just because your memory glosses over those past Israeli RightWing military aggressions does not mean YOU are full of "Jew-hatred". As to rewriting the truth without shame, the RightWing are masters.
.