Better than the alternative??? Not if the alternative is an easy war that transforms the entire Middle East into a pro-Western democracy!

Try thinking like a neocon, it's fun in a way.

yes, and at this critical juncture, we are certainly blessed to have Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld calling the shots. i'm sure they'll seize this historic opportunity to the benefit of all mankind

I was going to say... the alternative - permanent war involving people other than themselves - is actually what the GOP wants, isn't it?

We can't have peace. That way lies a Democratic government! The horror! The horror!

What diplomatic triumph of the last six years could possibly make you think that anyone in this administration has the skills to negotiate their way out of a paper bag? They took the greatest well of international sympathy and good will America has ever known and poisoned it in less than a year. They have managed to alienate every single traditional ally we have, save one, and Tony Blair is suffering for that public error in judgment. Even before 9/11, they responded to an incident in which the Chinese forced down one of our military aircraft by apologizing to the Chinese. Instances which require careful diplomacy have been manhandled, and instances which required a tough and principled stand have been met with timidity or stupidity. Of course it's too late to respond intelligently to Iran. We bypassed that option in November of 2004.

Even now, it's not too late to talk to Iran.

Kevin, conservatives like myself believe it's WRONG to negotiate with terrorists and Islamofascists. And I think you'll find out the American people agree with conservatives that it's wrong. After 9/11 happened, did America negotiate with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda on whether or not they would turn over Osama Bin Laden? Of course not. That's because it would be WRONG to do so. Giving in to the demands of terrorists is always wrong. It only EMBOLDENS the Islamofascists to commit more terrorism. For the same reason, it would be wrong to negotiate and give in to the demands of the Islamofascist terrorist state of Iran.

"Even now, it's not too late to talk to Iran..."

In Bushworld? You forgot to add ".... and a pony."

I don't know what herbs your friend is smoking on the streets of Tehran.

I hear from Iranian exhiles and middle eastern experts in an unnamed country a little further west (on the Mediterrranean) that we need to 1) assasinate that Iranian guy who hates america so the 10's of millions of america-loving Iranians can take over the government and 2) blow up the nuclear sites so we don't have to fight the damn jihadist maccacas over here.

You can't trust what citizens of an authoritarian theocracy tell you. For all they know David Ignatius is in the intelligence service and is ready to hang them by the balls if they say the wrong thing. You expect them to talk about how Ahmadinejad's latest idea is stupid?

Even now, it's not too late to talk to Iran.

That is so damned depressing. Are we already in the eleventh hour?

UH, THEY AS UNTRUSTWORTHY AS HITLER; BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, THEIR FAITH, AS THEY INTEPRET IT, PERMITS THEM TO LIE, BREAK OATHS, DEFY TREATIES, ETC., TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF ALLAH.

So, even with a "deal" it would only be a slightly slower U.S. surrender. Now is the time to end this Iranian defiance; the swifter and more violent we end it, the more lives saved down the line, U.S. lives, Iranian lives, untold other lives.

Please, peace fetishists, metaphysically the same ones who cheered that feckless pandering twit FDR as he let both Germany and Japan encroach upon us at the cost of 60M world dead in what was a relatively less dangerous world . . . please stand with whomever is President to . . .

STOP IRAN NOW!

Your peace is killing us.

And, let's start bombing the enemy into submission like in Bosnia rather than trying to be the good guys and putting our soldiers at risk to benefit the incorrible ingrates that overwhelmingly constitute the Muslim world. Iraq proves its pointless both practically and diplomatically (with the world press so biased against us). Dead Iranian civilians, collaterally killed, are preferable to dead U.S. soldiers. That is the fighting faith Beinart should be writing about and all Americans should embrace. If Iranian civilians don't want to be dead, they should not have elected Amadinejad. Let's explain it to them loud and clear . . . KABOOM!

TOH

The Objective Historian wrote "UH, THEY AS UNTRUSTWORTHY AS HITLER; BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, THEIR FAITH, AS THEY INTEPRET IT, PERMITS THEM TO LIE, BREAK OATHS, DEFY TREATIES, ETC., TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF ALLAH."

Well, Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel on behalf of Egypt in 1978. From 1948 to 1978, there were four full-blown wars between Israel an Egypt. From 1978 to 2006, zero. So it looks like Arabs and Muslims are capable of abiding by treaties.

Seen on a local bumper: A French flag crossed out with caption "Boycot Peace"

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

"Brought peace."

"Oh. Peace? Shut up!"

WHERE ARE MY MEDS!? I CAN'T FIND MY MEDS!!!

There's no diplomatic problem to be solved, only oilfields to be seized. Keep adding to your oilstock portfolio, Al.

Ignatius says the Iranians has been "opening a new heavy-water reactor" repeating an inaccuracy from the NYT. They opened a plant to produce heavy-water, and that is not the same thing. I guess reactor sounds better to our leading journalists, why should we mere mortals care about the facts?
Moon of Alabama sets the record straight.

OH, you forgot to mention the Jews. I'm sure they belong in your nightmare someplace.

Of course Ignatous knows nothing about the nuclear weapons production cycle. It seems that punditry and actual knowledge of anything serious are orthogonal.
I bet they think 'orthogonal' means something dirty.

I've never known the press or any other idiots like TOH to be embarrassed by their inaccuracy or ignorance.

I know I've been away 4 weeks, but Al is speaking like another person; he's actually reasoning,and constricting agreement!!!! Is this another new "Al"?

As a regular reader of foreign press, I have read many articles about the dicotomy of Iranian politics and the attitudes, lifestyle, and statements of Iranians themselves. Kevin quotes the UK Guardian frequently, lately; maybe he doesn't read their Iranian articles.

Ignatius tells me a lot less than I have read elsewhere. But if USians are catching up, all the better.

Just another reason not to believe all we are told by the "authorities" we love and hold dear.

Reality check.

Juan Cole had an item on Iran on Monday, noting that

Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:

He also reminded us that

Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei's pledge of no first strike against any country by Iran with any kind of weapon, and his condemnation of nuclear bombs as un-Islamic and impossible for Iran to possess or use, was completely ignored by the Western press and is never referred to.

One might therefore suppose that our highest priority ought to be a preemptive bombing strike. That will show those godless heathen!

Reality Check #2.

Reality Check #2, continued.

Dead Iranian civilians, collaterally killed, are preferable to dead U.S. soldiers.

This statement alone proves that, whether The "Objective" Historian is a troll or not, he does not deserve to be taken seriously. For this reason: we cannot win in Iraq if we do not have the support of their ordinary people, and we cannot have the support of their people if they believe we consider their lives less valuable than our own.

On second thought, we do need to take The Objective Historian seriously... as a threat to American interests.

Bush, who hates science, has decided that he can control who does what science. He has restrained American biological science, and he’s attempting to restrain Iranian nuclear science. This is contrary to agreed international law, and not bush’s decision. He is not the decider.

The simplistic bush idea about how the world works has eliminated nuance, compromise, and all other intelligent aspects of negotiation and diplomacy. What’s left is showdown and bullying, jazzed up with lying, ignorance, spin and backstabbing, smothered in ignorance.

Bush’s stupidly reduced choice is this : does Iran acquire nuclear power, or do we attack them? Well, I prefer that Iran go nuclear. Notice that Bush’s Choice doesn’t differentiate nuclear electrical power from a bomb program. Notice the choice is attack them, not stop them.

We haven’t the power to turn back Iran. If they choose nuclear, in any manner, they will do it. Do we want a nuclear Iran as a responsible world citizen, or an angry and estranged regional nuclear power? This is the stupid and unfortunate simplistic choice that bush has boxed us into.

Iran has repeatedly offered to talk, on virtually everything, always refused. Bush is afraid of legitimate and intelligent negotiation.

different from most of what you hear about Iran these days, even from liberals

Is there much difference between conservatives and "liberals" on the pages of the NYT, or TNR, or those who write for the liberal blogs (this one included) when it comes to the making war on Muslims? Any difference in the voiced opinions of elected Democrats or Republicans?

bush and his oil buddies want to steal Iran's oil, just like they stole Iraq's oil. There is no need for debate, just steal it.

I have a friend who is a defected Soviet scientist. I once asked him what he thought of the Cuban Missile Crisis at the time, from his point of view in the Soviet Union.

He said he didn't think about it much at the time, because he knew he had no input on the actions his leadership would take.

The Iranians are in that same position - why bother getting into a twit about something your leaders may or may not do when you have no power to affect them one way or the other?

Hard to tell if it was real Al or a fake Al upthread, asserting we couldn't talk with the "Islamofascist terror state of Iran", because "we didn't negotiate with al-Qaeda or the Taliban after 9-11". Of course, being a conservative, he couldn't ascertain the difference - namely that Iran has done nothing to the United States in over 25 years, while we have shot down one of their airliners and supplied Saddam Hussein with precursor chemicals and delivery systems to gas the Iranian army in the Iran-Iraq war. Not to mention the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953. Iran clearly has more to hate us for than we do to hate them. But in the mind of a modern conservative, KILL, KILL, KILL is preferred over TALK. And they dare call themselves Christian....

There are nations in the Islamic core where many of the people genuinely reject our culture and us. Iran is _not_ one of those nations.
If we could make peace with Red China through commerce, we could do it with Iran.

Well why are we allowing George to go to war with Iran when George hasn't finished his first two wars yet?

There are things they want and things we want. If we take a toughminded approach to negotiation, which includes a starkly realistic assessment of what concessions we can afford to make and what concessions from Iran we genuinely can't live without, there's a chance we could make real progress. It's no panacea, but it's better than the alternative.,/i>

Yeah, if only the Bush team did push the hubris of jr's cowboy diplomacy, (otherwise know of as faux pas diplomacy).

Maybe Bush should just get on the phone call Bill Clinton.

Kevin, negotiations are very ho-hum affairs and not conducive to agitated news coverage. War is needed for the '06 midterms. Something splashy and attention grabbing, a festival of flag waving xenophobia doubling as an opportunity to bash Democrats as limp-wristed sissies desirous of an Arab takeover of the U.S. Nah, talk is for wusses, Dubya needs to go in guns blazing at least by early October. That'll give Fox and CNN 2-3 weeks preelection to rush over a few camera crews to film the rose petals showering American troops. Bush can be air-dropped in to go trick or treating with the 101st Airborne while Bill Frist phones in a few treatment recommendations to Landstuhl. Negotiations?! Hah! Gay! Liberace gay at that!

婚纱摄影 婚纱影楼 非油品 中石化 网页制作 网页设计 网站建设\ 网站制作 网站设计 设计 北京网站设计 网站推广 北京网站推广 北京网站制作 北京网页设计 北京网站建设 网站优化 yahoo竞价 google推广 google排名 google优化 双线空间 ＰＨＰ空间 ＡＳＰ空间 网站空间 虚拟主机 域名注册 法语 钟表 塔钟 钟表 家用中央空调 格力中央空调 助听器 助听器 助听器 发电机 发电机组 柴油发电机 发电设备 发电机出租 康明斯 发电机 发电机组 柴油发电机 发电设备 发电机出租 康明斯 法国留学 法语培训 进口轴承 skf轴承 nsk轴承 轴承 进口轴承 skf轴承 fag轴承 轴承\ 轴承 进口轴承 进口轴承 直线轴承 skf轴承 nsk轴承 北京装饰|装修 家装|家庭装饰 办公室装饰|装饰公司 装修公司|工装装潢 装饰装修|北京装饰公司 家居装修|室内装修 房屋装修|家庭装修公司 装修设计|室内装潢 家居装潢|家庭装潢 装潢设计|室内装潢设计 充气床 充气用品 充气游泳池 野营用品 户外用品 充气船 气垫床 钓鱼船 帐篷 户外帐篷 瑞士军刀 intex充气床| 中央吸尘 家用中央吸尘 商业中央吸尘 吸尘器 中央吸尘系统 工业吸尘 风灶清洗 通风清洗 中央空调管道清洗 机器人管道清洗 管道清洗机器人 机器人清洗 检测机器人 吸尘机 别墅吸尘 宾馆吸尘| 网站建设 网站制作 网页设计 网页制作 网络推广 网站优化 网站推广 GOOGLE优化 进口轴承|nsk轴承|skf轴承 充气床|充气用品|充气游泳池|野营用品|户外用品|充气船|气垫床|钓鱼船|帐篷|户外帐篷|瑞士军刀| 北京酒店 上海酒店 广州酒店 长沙酒店 张家界酒店 南京酒店 深圳酒店 天津酒店 重庆酒店 昆明酒店 桂林酒店 井冈山酒店 酒店 西藏酒店 宾馆 宾馆预定 杭州酒店 北京酒店 上海酒店 广州酒店 长沙酒店 张家界酒店 南京酒店 深圳酒店 天津酒店 重庆酒店 昆明酒店 桂林酒店 井冈山酒店 网站制作 网站策划 网页美工设计 网站设计方案 网站建设公司 网站制作公司 网站推广公司 网页设计公司 网站设计公司

Hard to tell if it was real Al or a fake Al upthread...

Uh. No, it's not.

P.S. I love American Buzzard.

None of this matters. The administration is posturing for us, trying to reclaim some weird glory they think they had before going to Iraq. It's like the cool kid that keeps hanging out in his high school parking lot long after he's graduated. What may have been cool to some once is now embarrassing and lame to all.

So extract yourself from the "if only they'd think about diplomacy and negotiation instead of threats." This has never been about diplomacy or a responsible foreign policy. These guys are going on ego now, which is not altogether a firm foundation for dealing with other countries.

Now I know where to find fanatics on the web. There is no reason to attack Iran. Why do you want war so bad? What is your true motivation? Is there anything honest about you?

Iran wants to talk with us? Of course we talk. It's not like we're letting them slip a hand in our pocket.

Iran is untrustworthy? That doesn't preclude talking. An intelligent interlocutor uses lack of trust to guide the conversation.

There is more to history than war. Please try to learn something useful from it. We don't need rage right now. We need intelligence and miraculous luck and intuition.

To all those who have hyped themselves up to this frantic lust for war (note the contrast with the atmosphere in the capital of "islamofascism"): You're not helping.

Kevin wants to start the negotiations "with a starkly realistic assessment of what concessions we can afford to make."

Can Kevin get any more idiotic, folks?

Maybe Bush will debate Ahmadinejad and we can all have a good laugh.
America's Least Wanted

Al(ish): After 9/11 happened, did America negotiate with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda on whether or not they would turn over Osama Bin Laden? Of course not.

actually we did. with the Taliban. but they refused, go fig.

~~~~~~~~
was there a memo to ignore Al that I missed?

Ignatius is a liberal?

D g Frazier -
Well, there was the time he said he was going to give Bush and Cheney the benefit of doubt ...

At this point, Bush's actions are driven only by Rove and the mid-terms. Period.

IMHO, it's one of three possiblities:

1. Dubya/Cheney is going hardline in order to win as many concessions from Iran as possible; negotiation will happen, but the US is angling for the best deal possible. I don't know if the administration is that clever; they don't 'do nuance'...

2. It's all one big election-eve kabuki dance designed to build fear among the electorate and bringing them running home to their big GOP Security Daddy...regardless as to whether he's doing the job. Once it's over, then you'll see all the brouhaha over Iran fade just like any other big election-eve issue the 'Publicans have offered over the past few years.

3. Big Oil has their eyes on Iran's oil reserves...If so, then there won't be any negotiation; the US and Israel will go it alone, and heaven help us all.

Of course, there may be other possibilities...

Talk is cheap. War is where the REAL money is.

Iran is not the pariah state it is painted to be. The American leadership suffers from Manichaeism true-believerism. They cultivated this disease of mind during the Cold War. It was a mistake to think Vietnam was a struggle for communism. Communism was the useful narrative for nationalist aspirations that had persisted for centuries. Religion in Iran has the same function and any regime in that country, short of a puppet government beholden to the Western powers, would be equally as nationalistic and independent-minded.

The American leadership constructs the climate of crisis for cynical reasons (elections, oil, Israel) and because they believe their own propaganda. Rumsfeld is particularly mad. It is very interesting to watch how the media, and through them the public, are seduced even after the last ill-starred affair. It is almost as if people want to believe this is the epochal struggle of our time. They want to ride in the house of horrors. It makes good TV and it gives some a purpose driven life. This is only possible in a country that has little understanding of those outside its borders, their history or their politics and even less understanding of the cruel, brutal nature of war.

I feel sorry for the people of Iran.

People in countries that are in Wasthington's way always seem to have trouble believing just how cynical United States leaders are, and just how little they care about innocent lives.

After 9/11 there were spontaneous demonstrations in Iran in support of the United States. I cannot imagine many Americans giving a shit about the innocent Iranian civilians that look likely to be killed before Bushes second term finishes.

I wonder if more Iranians will be killed by American made and launched bombs than died on 9/11.

From our intelligence, the nuclear sites are so far underground destroying them requires the use of nuclear weapons. So we are now supposed to deter nuclear proliferation by nuking countries? This is going to make us safer? Once again, other countries will see that North Korea isn't attacked while Iraq and Iran is, so the key is to have nukes and keep them hidden. The current Iranian nuclear program is an outgrowth of seeing Iraq attacked and North Korea left alone. The Iranian nuclear program was put on hold in the 1990's by the reformers. If you supported the Iraq War, you only have yourself to blame

Nuking Iran would only rally the people around the government and turn the most pro-American government in the area into the most anti-American. Right now al-Qaeda style thought is a minority among Muslims. Nuking a country we are not at war with would literally turn this into a clash of civilizations. Does anyone think that any military can beat one billion people in an age of unconventional warfare?

Hell, Reagan negotiated with the "Evil Empire" in Iceland. He had the closest relationship with any Soviet head since WWII. Gorbachev understood that if he experimented with both glasnost and perestroika, he could count on American non-aggression. These reforms led to the collapse of the USSR. Conservatives at the time called Reagan a traitor who had guaranteed the American loss of the Cold War. When the Cold War ended, they had to find a way to rehabilitate Reagan's image so they cooked up that crap about military spending killing off the USSR (yet somehow, when our military spending is the highest in the world by far today, no other regimes like North Korea or China have been collapsing).

Hell, if the neocons of today were around back in the 1940's, they would have declared that because Chiang Kai-shek and the GMD were part of a Leninist party-state run with democratic centralism, had been allies with the Comintern and the CCP in the past, had enacted land reform and other policies in Taiwan reminiscent of communism, and part of the leadership had been trained in Japan by the military bushido fascists and still swore loyalty to them, therefore the US should abandon Taiwan because they would be unworthy of protection (especially since before Lee Teng-hui Taiwan was a dictatorship). The PM of Japan in the 1960's had once been justifiably labelled a war criminal by us and had been involved in the war effort against us. I guess according to neocon logic we should have just bombed Japan in the 1960's as well.

Last week James Dobbins said the only real concession Iran wants from the US is to abandon it regime change policy.

Why would the US want to change who rules Iran? The rulers of Iran want to use the revenues from its oil sales to improve the lives of its people. The US thinks those revenues should be revenues of energy corporations and is willing to interfere with the internal affairs and self-determination of Iranian society to make it so. There is no negotiation that can bring about this change and that is why the Bush regime cannot talk to Iran to achieve its goals.

Regime change in Venezuela is desired for the same reasons.

Even now, it's not too late to talk to Iran. There are things they want and things we want. If we take a toughminded approach to negotiation, which includes a starkly realistic assessment of what concessions we can afford to make and what concessions from Iran we genuinely can't live without, there's a chance we could make real progress. It's no panacea, but it's better than the alternative

Have you told Suzanne Nossel?

Kevin, conservatives like myself believe it's WRONG to negotiate with terrorists and Islamofascists. And I think you'll find out the American people agree with conservatives that it's wrong. After 9/11 happened, did America negotiate with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda on whether or not they would turn over Osama Bin Laden?

This sounds so ridiculous I am almost convinced that this is Kevin trying to use commenters to punch holes in arguments he has heard and/or just stimulate conversation. I used to laugh at this suggestion earlier, but I am not so sure anymore.

What is everyones vote? Is Al Kevin's alternate persona? Does anyone know Kevin's midddle name?

At some point, we have to start believing that President Bush and his people actually mean what they say. We are not talking about reasonable people here. We are talking about zealots, people who really do believe their hype.

We are hearing the same war drums beating for Iran that we heard for Iraq. Same rhetoric, same people, same PNAC mentality.

Reality Man:

From our intelligence, the nuclear sites are so far underground destroying them requires the use of nuclear weapons. So we are now supposed to deter nuclear proliferation by nuking countries? This is going to make us safer? Once again, other countries will see that North Korea isn't attacked while Iraq and Iran is, so the key is to have nukes and keep them hidden. The current Iranian nuclear program is an outgrowth of seeing Iraq attacked and North Korea left alone. The Iranian nuclear program was put on hold in the 1990's by the reformers. If you supported the Iraq War, you only have yourself to blame

That "deep underground" is a lot of crap. It's of a piece with "we can't see them, so they MUST be hidden REALLY REALLY well!". Yeah, and Saddam hid all his tons and tons of WMDs in his shorts, too.

If you want to see what a uranium enrichment plant that can produce enough bomb-grade uranium to actually MAKE a bomb looks like, take a look at Oak Ridge. Put it underground? Yeah, maybe if you put could put the entire city of Knoxville underground, with Dollyland, Graceland, and a bit of Memphis as well...THEN you'd have enough room.

As for the heavy water stuff, the Iranians are just getting started. You need tens of tons of heavy water. Again, it's either major industry or very slow (or both).

I think the Iranians are just trying to ramp up their claims to the point where they can say "yeah, we got the bomb. Better not attack!" and create enough doubt that they won't get attacked (cf. NK; if they really had a bomb they could trust would work, they'd have tested it by now)

And the neocon assholes are just looking for an excuse to break the taboo against using nuclear weapons.

They mean exactly what they say. They truly believe that they can read the ciphers- of dangers, of risks, of men's hearts- that others cannot understand. Usually because the others, in the intelligence community or Congress or wherever, are ideologically blinded. This is Seymour Hersh's conclusion after talking with many folks close to the situation. It is not that they lie. They do that only to manufacture consent. It is that they think reality corresponds to their pre-conceived, intellectual (if you can call it that) ideas of the truth. They only need to find the evidence.

The Nixonites in the Cheney administration and their neocon co-travelers are part of a common authoritarian movement. It is not remarkable in the broad context of such movements in the 20th century. Mysticism, apocalyptic wars for survival, and underestimating the enemy are chronic elements. It is about as far away from American pragmatism, which dominated the American political mind from the Civil War until WWII, as one could be. It is the opposite of understanding the world through investigation, consultation and probability.

If the world did not depend on the US as the principle consumer this perverted ideology of power would have led to ruin long ago.

Unfortunately, when it comes to dealing with Iran, one of the "things we want" (or the Bush Adminstration, anyway) seems to be, as bellumregio points out upthread, for the country to be governed by precisely a "puppet government beholden to the Western powers [i.e. the US]"; and they have more-or-less made it clear that anything else is unacceptable. And you don't need an advanced degree in FR to figure out that that is not a productive precondition for diplomacy.

PS: Is there, or has there ever been, a "real" Al?

to grumpy physicist, from another grumpy physicist: Hoppe-style centrifuges take far less space and a lot less electrical power than a gaseous diffusion plant. But they're tricky to make work.

But on the whole you're absolutely right. Iran is aiming at minimal deterrence, which is somewhat different from global domination. They're no threat.

Jay C,
Those calling the shots may realize military defeat and overthrow of the Iranian government are not an option at this time. It may be enough to break Iran and reduce the power it is able to project. This is what was done to Iraq when it became clear Saddam was going his own way after his alliance with the US. It was war, sanctions, and a final war. You take the big bits out first then let it rot.

In other words, a failed state is not necessarily bad, if it fails in the right way. It gives one the chance to divide and conquer. Failed states can be made slave states.

I think the more Machivellian neocons, those who actually know something about the Middle East, would have preferred a pro-Western Iraq but were happy enough to have a state that was no longer a conventional military threat. I think that a certain number of them are men of black malice and are happy to see Israel’s enemies eating the flesh of their brethren.

I suspect they will attempt to cut Iran down in a similar fashion. But first they must brand it a pariah state run by madmen.

Kevin is the real Al.

He is also the fake Al. ;-)

And maybe even TOH.

What we want is two parts. Stop nuclear proliferation and make sure nuclear nations do not give nukes to others.

What is it about Iran that requires a conversation to prevent these seemingly benign policies? Is Kevin implying that if we do not talk to Iran that Hezbollah will soon have nukes? No?

The problem is that Iran wants a theocratic regime which presumedly will dominate the middle east. It is not our job to partion off portions of the middle east to Persians in exchange for a cooperative nuclear stance. If the Persians want expanded influence in the middle east, they should talk to Qatar, the UAE, Arabia, Iraq, Jordon and negotiate agreements of submission. We cannot do it on behalf of those nations.

This is the rub, Persian influence being granted on the backs of the American strategic position, demanded under the threat of nuclear proliferation. This begs for another six party talk situation as with the nukloreans. It is another case in which the U.S. is threatened because of local conditions. It is another case of the Arabs and the Europeans relying on America's strategic position as the solution of last resort.

If we talked the converstion would go like this:

Americans: What do you want?
Persians: Protection while we excercise dominance over the Arabs.
Arabs: We are too fucking stupid to do anything that makes sense here.

What they want:
1) Driving the state of Isreal into the Sea.
2) Killing the Great Satan.
3) Establishing a global caliphate.

What we want:
1) Iran to stop trying to make nukes.
2) Liberalization of the Middle East's politics.

Now what exactly are we to give them from their list that will increase our security?

Do, please, explain.

The negotiating gap in that is most pertinent to the US is the gap between rightwingers and progressives:

What rightwingers want:
1) perpetual war
2) perpetual war
3) perpetual war

What progressives want:
to build a healthy, prosperous civilization

I pissed my pants a minute ago. And then just as I got used to how warm and wet it felt, I started to poop myself.

Now I'm all warm 'n' squishy. And I'm making a very bad smell.

"There are things they want and things we want. If we take a toughminded approach to negotiation, which includes a starkly realistic assessment of what concessions we can afford to make and what concessions from Iran we genuinely can't live without, there's a chance we could make real progress. "

I know this isn't the place for serious questions, but I'll try anyway.

So far as I can tell, the things we want are big, like:

Abandon your nuclear program; or

Stop funding terrorist militias in Lebanon.

The things they want are small-to-medium:

Diplomatic recognition.

Unless they are willing to give up their big things for little things in return, what exactly are the things that they want which could be negotiated for the things we want?

Oh, the stealing of my name will surely not stifle my dissent.

And the pissing your pantsssesssesss argument is weak. The world is full of people who wish to do you harm. The fact that you actively dismiss the statements of those people to that effect is ridiculous.

But you, oh fearless name stealer, are beyond help.

Feh.

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

The Conservative Deflator surely should do a little research on the Iraq facts he states. Myself? I have come to the conclusion maybe it is time for Americans to lower their standards, they have been babied all their lives and don't really know any hardships. One only need to look at the 'Women's Groups' and how much they decry their situation in America and yet seemed unruffled by women living under oppressed societies. I think that can be projected on other Americans who denounce societies that support democracy and walk hand in hand denouncing them with ones that would love to have control over them. Ironic, really. Deserving? Maybe.

csHello. I am new here. It is very interesting. 1ncest movie clips
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestlove.html
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestlittlegirls.html
http://tuupi.poes.net/freestories1ncest.html
1ncest twin 1esbian sisters nud3
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestmomandson.html
family s3x story
stories 1ncest 101ita
1ncest mom and son
http://tuupi.poes.net/stories1ncest101ita.html

csHi. This is my links. free incest in denmark
http://incpics.uplyn.net/family-sex-cartoon.html
free incest porn videos
http://incpics.uplyn.net/mother-son-incest-picture-gallerys.html
http://incpics.uplyn.net/just-incest-stories.html
brother & sister incest
http://incpics.uplyn.net/daddy-and-daughter-incest.html
free family sex orgy
porn incest comics
http://incpics.uplyn.net/free-incest-stories-incest-stories.html

csLook this bbw black gallery|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/bbw-black-gallery.html
fat black boobs|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/fat-black-boobs.html
chubby chick|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/chubby-chick.html
chubby bbw|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/chubby-bbw.html
big titted girls|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/big-titted-girls.html
gung hay fat choy|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/gung-hay-fat-choy.html
fat wet pussy|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/fat-wet-pussy.html
bbw sexy lingerie|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/bbw-sexy-lingerie.html
fat teens in lingerie|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/fat-teens-in-lingerie.html
girls with big dicks|http://chubbygirls.madhunks.com/girls-with-big-dicks.html