|
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The intent is not the "win the war on terror". It is to win fat contracts for connected contractors, U.S. elections, and pave the way for a corporatist government with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_theory">"unitary executive"</a>, unencumbered or restricted by the consitution, congress, the courts, or the common people of the United States.
To an Iranian official, or to anyone else who once perceived the U.S. as a country that could be assumed to act in it's own best interests, all hopes of that happening, appear to be dashed. There was a struggle for power and influence....and the neocons won. The reports of the longterm damage that they are doing to our country's reputation in the world community, and to it's treasury, security, and military capability....will be streaming in far into the future.
|
I planned on walking away from this discussion until I read your post.
Here is another perspective, an editorial from Investors Business Daily. They are as conservative as it gets. They agree that Iran wants bilateral talks with the US, but see it as a no-win situation for us. Seems that they think that Russia, China and the EU have the most to gain. Like me, they see little to feel good about. And, it is truely sad that about half of the people in this country have no faith that our President can do the right thing, Iran is smart enough to know that and will use the information.
Quote:
Neutralizing Tehran
Posted 5/26/2006
Nuclear Proliferation: As Europe caves and Iran drags its feet, the pressure grows for the U.S. to engage in one-on-one talks with Iran. We shouldn't let Iran — or the rest of the world — off so easy.
The temptation to let the U.S. go toe-to-toe in talks with Iran over its burgeoning nuclear weapons program is great. After all, the European Union has shown no willingness to get tough with Iran's rogue leaders.
Last week, after meetings of the "six world powers," the EU offered, in the words of a Reuters dispatch, to "drop the automatic threat of military action if Iran remains defiant."
Ponder that for a moment. The EU says it will, in essence, do nothing, no matter what — other than, perhaps, put some feeble sanctions in place. Yet it somehow expects this will prod Iran to act.
Iran, meanwhile, is pushing hard to have the U.S. engage in bilateral talks, excluding others. Doing so would be quite fruitful. It would let Iran play the "America as bully" card, claiming the U.S. is being too tough on a "developing" nation.
Saddam played that card brilliantly before the U.S.-led war. Today, many in the world's intelligentsia willingly parrot Saddam's line, asserting — contrary to logic and available evidence — that the U.S. picked a fight with Iraq for no good reason.
Iran knows it will be able to isolate the U.S. in world opinion, absolve the craven United Nations of all responsibility for Iran's actions, further humiliate Europe and move forward with its nuclear program, all in one swoop. And it'll do so safe in the knowledge that in mere weeks the U.S. will be blamed for the whole mess.
But wait! That's already happening. On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, basically blamed the U.S., as a nuclear power, for encouraging countries like Iran to build their own arsenals.
So the bottom line is: It's America's fault — not Iran's. And when Iran builds a nuke and uses it — on Israel, or Saudi Arabia, maybe even Europe — that, too, will be our fault.
As you read this, Russian, Chinese and EU officials are busy crafting an elaborate "incentive" plan to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. But given that China and Russia, both major trade partners with oil-rich Iran, have said they will not go along with sanctions or military action against Iran, an obvious question arises: What incentive does Iran have to do anything?
The answer is none. Europe is starting to see the limits of its kinder, gentler approach, and in recent days has hinted it might just want the U.S. to help it with missile defense after all. That would be a step forward for Europe, which until recently showed few signs of wanting to defend itself.
As for the U.S., we really don't need to talk further with Iran about anything. Bilateral talks won't do any good, but they could do much harm. And further U.N. efforts are a waste of time.
So what to do? The U.S. now would best be served by convincing EU allies to go along with a package of economic sanctions. If those don't work, our cards are already on the table:
The U.S. will not tolerate — cannot tolerate — Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That means we, or our friends in Israel, will have to take out Iran's nuclear installations. It's that simple.
|
http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060526
If your were President what would you have to say to Iran? What would you negotiate? What do you want from them? What are you willing to give up? Would there be consequences? What would they be? I sure you, or anyone who agrees with your view, won't answer these questions, but at least it is food for thought.
Just for the record, this is bigger than Neo-Con v. Conservative v. Liberal. In my view this is like the Cuban Missle Crisis, handled well by a Democrat and the End of the Cold War, handled well by a Republican.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
|