Do you agree with the Republicans suggestion Of invading Iran

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mahram, May 18, 2006.

  1. do Eters agree with the republicans suggestion of invading Iran. Not a full invasion but a limited invasion, with limited force.
  2. obviously those of us that got some common sense don't agree with any kinda invasion, lmtd or full scale, and neither with bombin' facilities...already in much trouble in iraq, if we learnt somethin' from that catastrophic mistake we won't do a thing with iran..of course wudnt be surprised to know this drunken man led admn plans to launch an attack very soon.
  3. I am not aware of any "republican" plan to invade iran. Why would we want to do that?
  4. yeah, u might have asked u self da same q. before we went into iraq, innit[?]
  5. Say no to Tehran

    May 26, 2006

    by Charles Krauthammer

    WASHINGTON -- All of a sudden, revolutionary Iran has offered direct talks with the United States. All of a sudden, the usual suspects -- European commentators, American liberals, dissident CIA analysts, Madeleine Albright -- are urging the administration to take the bait.

    It is not rare to see a regime like Iran's -- despotic, internally weak, feeling the world closing in -- attempt so transparent a ploy to relieve pressure on itself. What is rare is to see the craven alacrity with which such a ploy is taken up by others.

    Mark my words. The momentum for U.S.-Iran negotiations has only begun. The focus of the entire Iranian crisis will begin to shift from the question of whether Tehran will stop its nuclear program to whether Washington will sit down alone at the table with Tehran.

    To this cynical bait-and-switch, there can be no American response other than No. Absolutely not.

    Just yesterday the world was excoriating the Bush administration for its unilateralism -- on Kyoto, the ABM Treaty and most especially Iraq -- and demanding that Washington act in concert with the ``international community.'' Just yesterday, the Democratic candidate for president attacked Bush's foreign policy precisely for refusing to consult with, listen to and work with ``the allies.''

    Another day, another principle. Bush is now being pressured to abandon multilateralism and go it alone with Iran. Remember: In September 2003, after Iran was discovered cheating on its nuclear program, the U.S. wanted immediate U.N. action. The allies argued for a softer approach. Britain, France and Germany wanted to negotiate with Tehran and offer diplomatic and economic carrots in return for Iran giving up its nuclear weapons program. The U.S. acquiesced.

    After two and a half years of utter futility, the EU-3 had to admit failure and acknowledge the obvious: Iran had no intention of giving up its nuclear ambitions. Iran made the point irrefutable when it broke IAEA seals and brazenly resumed uranium enrichment.

    The full understanding we had with our allies was that if the EU-3 process failed, we would together go to the Security Council and get sanctions imposed on Iran. Yes, Russia and China might still stand in the way. But even so, concerted sanctions by America, Europe and other economic powers could have devastating effects on Iran and on its shaky clerical dictatorship.

    Which is why the mullahs launched this recent initiative. They know, and fear, that if the West persists on its present and agreed course, they face sanctions so serious that their rule, already unpopular, might be in jeopardy. The very fact that Iran is desperately trying to change the subject, change the venue and shift the burden onto the U.S. shows how close the mullahs believe we are to achieving major international pressure on them.

    Pushing Washington to abandon the multilateral process and enter negotiations alone is more than just rank hypocrisy. It is a pernicious folly. It would short-circuit the process that after years of dithering is about to yield its first fruits -- sanctions that Tehran fears. It would undo the allied consensus, produce endless new delays and give Iran more time to reach the point of no return, after which its nuclear status would be a fait accompli.

    Entering negotiations carries with it the responsibility to do something if they fail. The EU-3 understood that when they took on the mullahs a couple of years ago. Bilateral U.S.-Iran talks are the perfect way to now get Europe off the hook. They would pre-empt all the current discussions about sanctions, place all responsibility for success on U.S.-Iran negotiations and set America up to take the blame for their inevitable failure.

    It is an obvious trap. We should resolutely say no.

    Except on one condition. If the allies, rather than shift responsibility for this entire process back to Washington, will reassert their responsibility by pledging support for U.S. and/or coalition military action against Iran in the event that the bilateral U.S.-Iran talks fail, then we might achieve something.

    You want us to talk? Fine. We will go there but only if you arm us with the largest stick of all: your public support for military action if the talks fail. The mullahs already fear economic sanctions; they will fear European-backed U.S. military action infinitely more. Such negotiations might actually accomplish something.

    That's our condition. Otherwise, the entire suggestion of bilateral talks is a ploy that should be rejected with the same contempt with which it was proposed.
  6. Isn't that what Bush wants?

    "President Bush says he remains committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions. He is downplaying the possible use of military force."

    Hapa, what part of "diplomatic solution" do you not understand? Your dear leader is willing to negotiate with dictators and terrorists after all.
  7. dddooo, since when does "diplomatic solution" mean direct talks?

    Have you been watching the way in which the US is approaching the North Korean situation? Instead of going with direct talks, the US has remained committed to multi-party negotiations.

    Please enroll in Diplomacy 101 and leave your sanctimonious remarks at the entryway.
  8. Since the beginning of times Hapa, since Adam negotiated with God to get himself a girlfriend.

    LOL and what a wonderful and profound success it has been, NK is building nukes and we're still waiting for those mulit-party negotiations to commence. Next time try to come up with a better example - maybe Bush's direct negotiations with Lybia which were indeed a success, maybe Reagan's direct talks with Gorbachev, Nixon's trip to China. Maybe Israel's direct negotiations with Egypt and Jordan which were huge breakthroughs and even with Arafat which almost succeeded, maybe India's direct negotiations with Pakistan....

    PS For the record I personally don't believe that a diplomatic solution will work but your dear leader seems to think so.
  9. let the crippled neocon go in there his own fucking self. what a huge flabby wuss. i would love to watch this idiot ROLL into iran in his wheelchair and save the world from some more fictitious boogie men. is he sending his children in there? hell no... what a son of a bitch. leave our youth alone (and alive).... no more fake wmd's or 9/11 connections that never were. no more fake yellow cake stories... no more hegemony over oil fields that enrich exxon and other oil oligarchs etc.

    to mention liberals being against this is laughable. how many liberals voted against georgie going into iraq??? how many liberals voted against the patriot act??? these fascist get whatever they want because they have a complicit media.
  10. how stupid do you guys think we are??? one false flag on american soil is all that is needed to "get the guns a blazin." then the mongers can stand back and say, "see...... we tried to talk but these people are 'terrrrrr-ist'. they will have joe six pack so riled up he will shoot Gandhi. this smoke screen of pretend diplomatic theater is just that.
    #10     May 27, 2006