Right wing logic:
We Americans are tough as nails and can never be deterred from anything we want to do, no matter what we’re threatened with.
Those other guys are pussies and will be deterred by our threats against them.

Things look simple when your world is so asymmetrical. Of course it helps if
– when someone on your side seems to not want to bear the costs of war, paint them as weaklings and appeasers
– if the guys on the other side show any backbone, chalk it up to death-loving religious fanaticism

I will give you credit for one thing though: you acknowledge that whether you talk to your enemies is neither here nor there. What matters is what you say.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

2 pts, First, Iran’s got WAAAAAAY more than enough conventional ballistic missiles to lay waste to Tel Aviv using conventional warheads. Hundreds-even thousands would do it. That’s a serious and sufficient deterrent force. Second, is it worth going to war against a state sponsor of terror that has nuclear weapons and could give them to terrorists at war with the US? They give all other kinds of munitions to their death cult suicide bomber buddies-why not nukes? If an American city blows up via a car bomb w a nuke inside, there’s no pinning it on Iran, but the effect that benefits Iran is made. Deterrence only works against traceable attacks. If terrorist proxies of a state sponsor of terror like Iran deliver a nuke, then there’s no accountability. No accountability=no deterrence (especially in an environment where political wackos think all that needs be done is to sit at the same table and a fairy Godmother waves a wand making all the world safe; ie talk).

I fall back to the refinery accident idea.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

My point is, talking to Iran will not work. They don’t “deserve” or “need” nukes, they want them. They think if they can get one, it will put us or Israel off attacking them. I don’t think they would be stupid enough to launch a first strike on Israel, the U.S or europe, they know they would be obliterated. It doesn’t matter what we say to them, or what they say to us, they’re going to work flat out until they get a nuclear bomb. The question is therefore, is it worth going to war to stop them?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Canada and Mexico aren’t Islamic Republics and state sponsors of Islamic death cults/jihadis. Bad example.

Regime change was never a US objective towards Afghanistan until that nation’s terrorist arm, Al Queda, destroyed 2 US zip codes in an attack that was aimed at 250,000 Americans, sought to destroy our government, put us in a recession that cost millions of jobs, and devastated entire industries.

As to Iraq…the US did what Iran wanted-removed Saddam.

Nah, the “they need nukes”/deserve nukes argument is not only incorrect, but a veiled excuse at suggesting they be allowed to get nuclear weapons then they’ll stop being a threat (ie, give the tyrants what they want, and they’ll stop=appeasement).

Please try again. HOW can “talking” w Iran work?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Unfortunately, building a nuclear bomb is the only logical course of action for the Iranians, so it’s certain that that’s what they are doing. They know, that a credible nuclear detterent is the only guarantee they can get that they won’t get subjected to the same attempts at “regime change” as their neighbours to the left and right, iraq and afghanistan. Think about it…. if the USA wasn’t nuclear armed, and Iran had invaded Canada and Mexico, wouldn’t developing a nuclear bomb be top priority number one? It’s worked for North Korea so far.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Barbara S is absolutely right. The “EU THREE” made up of Britain, Germany and France have been talking to the Iranians FOR YEARS with no result.

It was hoped that a multilateral process, similar to the one which has recently born some small fruit in the six party talks with North Korea would be a better idea than a unilateral approach. And aren’t all the Dems constantly whining about how we have to work with our allies and not go ahead unilaterally? I wish they would make up their minds.

But in the case of Iran, negotiations have been a useful tool to hide from accountability and their obligations under international treaties:

From the Sydney Morning Herald: “THE man who for two years led Iran’s nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic program.

In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Tehran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear program was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.

He boasted that while talks were taking place in Tehran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake – a key stage in the nuclear fuel process – at its Isfahan plant while convincing European diplomats that nothing was afoot.

‘From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, ‘The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything’. The Europeans used to respond, ‘We trust them’,’ he said.”

P.S. It would appear that commenter Haas is grossly misinformed about what the Iranians are doing and the illegality of that activity under International Law.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Really Hass? Then, could you help me with a few things I find odd about it?
1) They’ve got huge amounts of oil, but prefer to develop the most expensive, complex, and toxic form of energy rather than wind, solar, wave, geothermal, or (dare I suggest it…) oil. Why nuclear power instead of the others?

2) Why did the IAEA find plans to build a nuclear bomb in their inspections?
3) Why did the IAEA find plans to make a nuclear bomb core in their inspections?
4) Why doesn’t Iran show the IAEA all their facilities?
5) Why do all of the Iranian nuclear plants look exactly like the Pakistani nuclear bomb plants?
6) Why hasn’t Iran started building a power grid for their peaceful nuclear program?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Really hass?

I say you’re full of crap.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
-Philip K. Dick

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Iran’s nuclear program started with the full support and encouragement of the United States because it is perfectly legitimate and everyone who keeps saying “they’re making nukes” or “they’re sending IEDs into Iraq” etc is just spouting Bush propaganda BS . That’s all there is to it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hey, correct me if I am wrong but didn’t we hold talks with Iranians already? Didnot the Europeans hold talks with the? Didn’t the Iraqis hold talks with them? Didn’t Saudi Arabia call on them to stop their nuclear actions? Let’s see, who else can we bring into the equastion? Here the Iranians are, surrounded by countries who don’t want them to have the bomb and they still spew the same logic “peaceful purposes” “death to Americ and Israel”, absolute proof they are meddling in Iraq. And some still want to talk to them? All this willingness to talk is nothing but delaying tactics. They hope to get the bomb so they can wipe out our forces in Iraq and Israel. They evidently don’t care that they will be abolished also. That is the problem with an enemy who doesn’t care if he dies. And he doesn’t care if he takes his entire country with him. Talks will do no good. Appeasement will do no good. They want to wipe us off the face of the earth. This is their goal and we forget it at our peril.

Like or Dislike: 0  0