"...Baghdad's uranium enrichment activities..."? typo needs to be fixed?

Yes, you may wish to do a search and replace for Tehran vs Baghdad.

Wow, honest mistakes like that give life to the phrase, "first as tragedy, then as farce..."

But now Russia is saying they believe sanctions would be "premature."

The Russians are correct. Baghdad probably is years away from uranium enrichment.

Yikes.

What the hell are you talking about? If you are confusing Baghdad and Tehran... well, either you need more sleep or you need to reexamine your credibility.

earl

That goddam Malaki! I knew it!

So they did have a nuclear weapons program after all? Wow!

Is Dick Cheney writing this blog?

Although I intensely dislike Putin (when I look into his eyes I see a dark and putrid soul)thank god he is being an ass.

Once sanctions are in place, I am sure that Iran would certainly continue what they are doing. The extreme elements want a show down with an extremely over-extended USA. Their end game is to once and for all expose the myth of American power in that region.

Putin is saving us from Bush's stupidity.

Suzanne Nossel of "US Control of Middle Eastern Oil Arsenal" refers to the government of Iran as "Baghdad" five separate times in this post.

That's pretty slovenly writing, even for a Friday afternoon. Or else it's a Freudian slip by an apologist for militarism.

The point is that Russia doesn't give a damn. They don't care about Iran's nuclear program and are essentially an ally of Iran. So too is China. Thats the reality.

Um, yeah. I think she means Tehran, not Baghdad. Weird.

Putin is saving us from Bush's stupidity.

It's about time someone did. I've been waiting for three years for Blair to wise up.

Suzanne, even though people here don't neccesarily believe it's in US interests, narrowly defined, for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, most people here don't buy into the fundamental parameters of your question. Me included.

Russia is even less on our side than it was in 03 and cannot be expected to approve any aggressive US military action in the Security Council. Period. Barring a cassus belli of 9/11 size.

Real attempts at diplomacy have, in fact, helped keep Europe on board.

But more to the point, people here think military strikes on Iran are stupid, be it unilaterally or with the entire quote western world unquote. Some of us even think that the very idea of trying to stop this regime from this kind of goal is a fool's errand. There are better things to concentrate on, such as deepening its dependancy on the quote western world unquote, co-opting its movements, and pushing it to liberalize until dissolves.

Dammit, we need boots on the ground in Baghdad yesterday to save us from this menace.

apologist for militarism

It seemed to me that Ms. Nossel wants to punish Iran for its refusal to submit to US authority, also.

Iran is a threat to US and Israeli political hegemony in the region, but that cannot explain the desire to use force against it. The desire to prevent Iran from being able to defend itself from the US must derive from coveting its oil. Militarists cannot fight wars without oil. Militarists have to fight wars to obtain oil to fight more wars.

Having arsenal in the title of an opinion/discussion blog frames the discussion for punitive action against perceived adversaries. Epithet.

glasnost, you explained my attitude better than I could. Thank you.

April fools? WTF?

Iran, Iraq, whatever ...

GWB

>belated and belittling reaction to the proposal

Belated and belittling, huh? Sure sucks to get a dose of your own medicine.

How many people in the White House disparaged President Ahmadinejad's letter of a few months ago, most of them clearly having not even bothered to read it?

And actually there is no evidence of "belittling" anywhere I can find, unless "belittling" means actually behaving like an adult with an inherent sense of dignity, instead of like the US's bitch as the chickenhawks think everybody should do.

Here is the AP categorization:

" contained in a 20-page document presented Tuesday, was judged insufficient by the United States and some of the five other major nations that drew up the package"

Twenty pages, not what they wanted but that's "belittling".

Fucking white people, what is our problem?

" Iran's belated and belittling reaction to the proposal"

Sheesh. Susan, have you read the Iranian reaction yet to our 'proposal?' 'Belated and belittling?' Huh?

In the first place, despite what US and most of the world might 'suspect,' Iran is not breaking any of the rules of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Signers of that treaty have THE RIGHT to enrich uranium for peaceful use, as in nuclear fuel for power plants. El Baradei has not found any solid evidence that Iran is doing anything other than that. I don't see how we can even consider sanctions on Iran, much less military action, unless the IAEA provides evidence of enrichment that is far beyond that found so far.
Yikes, I'm angry.

Hey, I'm sure DemocracyArsenal is concerned with sharing the benefits of democratization (under a rain of steel) with ALL oppressed people, the world over, and doesn't have a fixation with Muslims, and their lack of, um, democracy...

Similarly, when Rebecca Sinderbrand, in a post on Aug.10th (The Tipping Point) on this site, includes comments from the Institute of Counter-Terrorism, an astro-turf group run by ex-Mossad and Israeli govt officials, concerning the imminant invasion from the Muslim hordes, I'm sure it was a good-faith, objective analysis.

I know Mr. Drum (like all media and Democratic politicians) was a war supporter, and only differs from the Republicans in views on the most expeditious strategy for eliminating the muslim threat (a difference of degree only) but jeez....this site just goes further and further down the shitter, don't it?

nepeta- you're not getting it. Please insert the following code snippet in your EventsOfTheWorldHandler():

if( Iraq )
{
behavior_flag = BAD;
}

See, you don't have actually listen to them!! No parsing, no chess playing, none of that difficult win/win negotiating work that those post WWII guys sweated so hard over. They didn't have Nintendo, but we gotta be deciders and move on. The Play Station isn't going to play itself!!

How banal. What if Iran did get nukes? Why is this a prob?

"Washington 'treating Tehran with greater respect'"

Anybody have a good example of this 'greater respect' ploy? I haven't seen an iota of any respect for Iran coming out of Washington.

and that "getting tough" needs to mean something more than sanctions liable to boomerang

Ms. Nossel, you seem to want the UN to authorize the use of force against Iran. If this is true, can you explain the legal basis?

Before the Iraq invasion, even the Bush neocon gang went to great lengths to establish a legal basis -- the ceasefire resolution from the first Gulf War, which prohibited Iraq from working on WMD.

But what is the legal basis against Iran? It seems that all we've got is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is voluntary and even specifies, I believe, that members who believe that their national security is threatened can walk away from it. (Iran surely could claim this).

I haven't seen anyone making the case that non-complinace with the voluntary NPT constitutes cause for war. (In fact, I'm not sure how non-compliance can justify even sanctions). All this while we have great relations with three nuclear powers that have refused to sign the NPT.

I would like to see a non-nuclear Iran as much as anyone does, but I think that any vestiges of "international law" are being obliterated in this process. Have we accepted the neocon precept that international law does not exist? Can you shed some light on this?

Oh, I get it. Offering a carrot (and not a very tasty carrot at that) but promising a stick is 'respect.'

What is frustrating is the total lack of credibility of the U.S. We will not even begin have any until after 2008.

We are able to defend ourselves, but that is it. We are not doing well anywhere, but in the Middle East we are toast.

This ain’t funny at all.

"The real question here is how premature is premature - are the Russians saying a few more go-rounds should be tried before the Security Council gets tough (and that "getting tough" needs to mean something more than sanctions liable to boomerang), or do they want endless rounds of diplomatic spinning while Iran's centrifuges continue to rotate?"

But, but, but, this is NOT the real question AT ALL. Why is this so hard to understand?

The way that the pre-war intelligence on Iraq was overcooked, I trust these neocon assholes not one whit. Putin has good reason to urge a “go slow” approach. Those centrifuges you think you hear spinning might be the Founding Fathers whirling in their graves, bemoaning this country’s entrapment in the very “foreign entanglements” they cautioned against.

I sorry but I can't see the point of this article. Bush never wanted a diplomatic deal with Iran and he has done everything he can to undermine what I believe was a good-faith effort by the European 3 to come to a deal with Iran to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. But Bush has decided that he wants regime change come what may and he is the 'Decider'.

A far more informative article can be found here

Despite the desire of other members of the 5+1 for a genuine diplomatic offer to Iran that could possibly lead to an agreement on its nuclear program, the Bush administration's intention was just the opposite.

Bush's objective was to free his administration of the constraint of multilateral diplomacy. The administration evidently reckoned that once the Iranians had rejected the formal offer, the US would be free to take whatever actions it might choose, including a military strike against Iran. Thus the June 5 proposal, with its implicit contempt for Iran's security interests, reflected the degree to which the US administration has anchored its policy toward Iran in its option to use force.

As Washington now seeks to the clear the way for the next phase of its confrontation with Iran, Bush is framing the issue as one of Iranian defiance of the Security Council, rather than US refusal to deal seriously with a central issue in the negotiations. "There must consequences if people thumb their noses at the United Nations Security Council," Bush said on Monday.

If the EU-3, Russia and China allow Bush to get away with that highly distorted version of what happened, the world will have taken another step closer to general war in the Middle East.

suzanne This will reinforce claims by unilateralists that even when the US plays ball with other powers, those others cannot be trusted to stick to the rules.

And America is a more trustworthy partner. Right. If you wait until you guys actually get attacked yourselves you might join us in a war against fascism for instance. Would you Yanks get over yourselves!!! You're not especially moral (nor are your especially bad - you're human).

NPT violations aside, is a world with a nuclear Iran any more frightening than a world with a nuclear Pakistan? And the only country where a sizeable minority talk about using its nukes is you.

little ole jim What is frustrating is the total lack of credibility of the U.S. We will not even begin have any until after 2008.

I have total sympathy for your position. But 2008 may only be the start of a long slow process. It's not just Cheney and company. We lost our trust in America when you re-elected (elected?) Bush in 2004. 78% of Canadians would have voted against them. How can we trust a country so unaware, with such a spectacular lack of judgement that apparently has more tom1charlies than little ole jims? It took Germany and Japan (note to trolls, this is not a comparison of actions) decades to regain trust and even today in some quarters suspicions remain.

One of the most disconnected postings & threads I have EVER seen

anyone know what it is about ?

"A country which proposes to make use of modern war as an instrument of policy must possess a highly centralized, all-powerful executive, hence the absurdity of talking about the defense of democracy by force of arms. A democracy which makes or effectively prepares for modern scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic." - Aldous Huxley

Bush thinks the US only has 2 policy options for Iran, bombing or neglect.

This is a stupid MF post that is so clueless about the lack of diplomany by the Bush admin. If you idiots in the media don't push back really hard about the idiocy of a shooting war with Iran we are in for some real trouble. There are many potential outcomes of a conflict with Iraq. The most likely are not good.

one more Baghdad to go, second line.

I'll believe sanctions when I see them. It's hard to imagine not needing their oil in the short term, and I don't think they'll respond nicely to an "oil bartering only" embargo.

But the first paragraph still says "Baghdad."

"Recent sanction regimes, including most notably Iraq's, have pinched ordinary citizens harder than they have rogue regimes."

This makes no sense to me. Any forceful action against any state, will, in some sense, pinch ordinary citizens harder than the regime in power, up until the very point where it actually results in the removal of that regime from power. Outright military action usually has that result for example. Either you believe that forceful action is nevertheless justified in certain cases, or you don't.

Apparently Ms. Nossel's organization was careless in recycling arguments that they used to promote the Iraq war, to promote an Iran war. That would explain why the first paragraph says "Baghdad".

This will reinforce claims by unilateralists that even when the US plays ball with other powers, those others cannot be trusted to stick to the rules.

The rule is that powers will look after their own interests. If the US wants to get Russian and China on board, we need to stop threatening their interests, and keep it from being a zero sum game. If those "unilateralists" think this is so damn important, then they need to lose the PNAC and "freedom and democracy" schtick, and get real.

"...sanctions tend not to work well"

If by this you mean sanctions don't work at all, that is true. Let's face reality: the only thing that any of our sanctions have ever done is to perpetuate the party in power. This applies to Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Libya, Cuba, everywhere. It is no coincidence that the names of all the "longest dictators in power" are all on that list.

治疗胆管癌胆管癌如何治疗怎么治疗胆管癌如何治疗胆管癌药物治疗胆管癌胆管癌治疗药物治疗胆囊癌胆囊癌新药胆囊癌治愈胆囊癌的治疗治疗胆囊癌胆囊癌的治疗方法肺癌诊断治疗治疗肺癌的方法药物治疗肺癌肺癌治疗肺癌肝癌新药肝癌药物治疗肝癌治疗肝癌治疗肝癌结肠癌新药结肠癌新药结肠癌治疗药物治疗结肠癌治疗结肠癌怎样治疗乳腺癌药物治疗乳腺癌乳腺癌的治疗乳腺癌怎样治疗乳腺癌治疗方法新药治疗食管癌食管癌诊疗治疗治疗食管癌转移药物治疗食管癌治疗食管癌新药治疗胃癌治疗胃癌新药药物治疗胃癌胃癌新药 治疗胃癌 直肠癌术后治疗药物治疗直肠癌治疗直肠癌直肠癌的治疗方法直肠癌治疗子宫癌治疗子宫颈癌宫颈癌治疗治疗子宫颈癌药物治疗子宫癌

The Administration struggled to moderate its response to Iran's belated and belittling reaction to the proposal put forward by the U.S. and other major powers for a cessation of Baghdad's uranium enrichment activities in return for direct talks with the US and a series of other incentives.

Nossel has added another post and yet this ridiculous error persists. Jeebus.

It seems she is confusing Teh ran with Teh raq.

Great article, thank you!

------------------------------
Home

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kristol, in and of itse

免费铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 三星手机铃声 三星铃声 诺基亚铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 移动铃声下载 nokia铃声 波导手机铃声 手机游戏免费下载 免费手机游戏 手机小游戏 诺基亚手机游戏 三星手机游戏下载 nokia手机游戏 摩托罗拉手机游戏 手机小电影 mp4手机电影下载 手机看电影 免费手机电影 手机视频下载 nec手机铃声 联想手机铃声 摩托罗拉铃声 amr铃声 手机彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 炫铃 移动炫铃 手机酷铃 手机电影 夏新手机铃声 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 联通彩铃下载 联通炫铃下载 特效铃声 midi铃声 和弦铃声 搞笑铃声 原唱铃声 mid铃声 cect手机铃声 和炫和旋铃声 海尔手机铃声 索爱手机铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 康佳手机铃声 真人真唱铃声 mmf铃声下载 lg手机铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 西门子铃声 小灵通铃声下载 tcl手机铃声 手机图片 手机铃音 手机动画 图铃下载 手机游戏 手机炫铃下载 手机彩信 手机铃声图片 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内裤 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫电影 美女波霸 美女淫水 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片

机票 打折机票 国际机票 飞机票 减速机 北京租房 北京租房 翻译公司 机票|打折机票|特价机票|机票预定|机票预订 飞机票 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 香港六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 香港六合彩 六合彩 六合彩 六合彩

answers to questions

simple ask and answer

faq for business and finance