Will Iran Be Next?

[ericsp23]

Of course they are continuing to work on developing WMD, because we are continuing to threaten them. They would be insane to stop now.
I would prepare for eventual battle too where I in a position in the Iranian government to do so.

[rmnunez]

Cheney would prefer a diplomatic solution:

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," Mr Cheney said in the interview, aired on MSNBC. But if Iran continued to resist demands to rein in its nuclear program - which Tehran insists is solely to produce electricity - the US would seek international sanctions against the country from the UN Security Council, the vice-president warned. He also suggested that Israel might itself take action against Iran to safeguard its own future - indicating that this would be highly undesirable. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4193225.stm

[RickSp]

He also suggested that Israel might itself take action against Iran to safeguard its own future - indicating that this would be highly undesirable.

Hell, Cheney is still lying about terrorists and WMD. Now you are taking him at face value about diplomacy. I think what he is saying is pretty clear as Cheney-speak goes.

(Wink, nod, nod.) If Israel has to attack, well we would certainly hope that doesn't happen, (wink, wink) but if Israel must defend herself, it will take any action necessary to "safeguard its own future."

Sure Cheney supports diplomacy, especially if someone will start the war for him.

[rmnunez]

Rick, if we guess that whatever is in the news is some sort of distortion and we make the pertinent adjustments to interpret what we are told, the same news means different things. A note I saw suggests the US favours the EU effort based on the VP's comments, you read it to mean the opposite. You are not alone, in the earlier note the Iranian spokesman said the US sought to portray the EU-Iranian negotiations as a failure. I think the truth is in there somewhere, Cheney is not quite salivating at the prospect of war with Iran, but probably isn't very satisfied with EU-Iranian progress either. I'm not impressed with progress in the negotiations with Iran, are you?

[castille]

Sounds like the chicken and the egg puzzle. Did the US threaten Iran first, causing them to develop WMDs, or did Iran develop WMDs first, causing the US to threaten them?

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Rick, if we guess that whatever is in the news is some sort of distortion and we make the pertinent adjustments to interpret what we are told, the same news means different things. A note I saw suggests the US favours the EU effort based on the VP's comments, you read it to mean the opposite. You are not alone, in the earlier note the Iranian spokesman said the US sought to portray the EU-Iranian negotiations as a failure. I think the truth is in there somewhere, Cheney is not quite salivating at the prospect of war with Iran, but probably isn't very satisfied with EU-Iranian progress either. I'm not impressed with progress in the negotiations with Iran, are you?

Cheney lied consistantly, and for that matter continues to lie about Iraq. If you believe him about Iran, well that is up to you. I don't thinlk all news reports are idstortions, FOX notwithstanding, but if someone has lied to me in the past I don't immediately trust him now.

Of course you aren't satisfied with negotiations with Iraq. You also believed that Saddam was hiding tons of WMD, didn't you? You weren't happy with those inspections either.

I think diplomacy is almost always preferrable to war. The ongoing negotiations are not perfect but they are making progress.

[RickSp]

Interesting commentary on the ongoing negotiations with Iran by Seymour Hersh. Essentially Bush is positioning the US so that he can claim that the negotiations are a failure regardless, and that war is the only option. Bush talks diplomacy then refuses any alternative short of war.

The United States has not joined in those talks, absolutely has nothing to do with them. In the article, I quoted senior Western diplomats — everyone's so nervous about being quoted about anything these days with this administration — anyway, a senior European diplomat said to me, we're in a lose-lose position, because as long as America doesn't join in these negotiations we really don't have the leverage. What kind of a commitment can we make for Iran's security if America stays out of it? And as long as they don't join in, we're eventually going to have to go to the United Nations for sanctions because we can't do it through diplomacy to stop them, and at that point, everybody understands that Russia and China will probably veto it, and then the Bush administration can claim, ‘Aha! The U.N. is not working again,’ which is analogous to what happened in 2003 when we went into Iraq. We didn't give the negotiations there a chance to work. So, if you really are interested in negotiations, it's simple. Start talking to Iran.

Iran: The Next Strategic Target

[rmnunez]

As tyrants get overthrown and regime change is accomplished in one place or another, other countries, like Iran, will advance on the list of places where intervention becomes likely.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez As tyrants get overthrown and regime change is accomplished in one place or another, other countries, like Iran, will advance on the list of places where intervention becomes likely.

That is offensive imperialist claptrap. Worst of all, it should be obvious by now that a brutal invasion by a foreign power not only doesn't deliver democracy but is its anathema. It promises only bloody failure and more tyranny.

[rmnunez]

Despite imperialist claptrap, the logic is inescapable; if international terrorists, their failed state supporters, rogue regimes in pursuit of WMDs and tyrants are targetted, as some get done the need to focus on others will become more apparent. I don't think the only outcome to result from intervention must be greater tyranny, in fact it seems less of this has resulted in the most recent cases (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq).

[Scribbler1]

Speaking of "rogue regimes", I wonder how the bulk of the rest of the world sees that explanation of yours in light of the fact that WE invaded a country which was no immediate or forseeable threat to us, and we must be in the top TWO countries possessing WMD!

[rmnunez]

Though "rogue" may be ambiguous, proscription of WMD pursuit or possession is not. Only certain specific countries are allowed to have them, the US is one of them. I know its 'unfair', but that's the way the deal was made when they set up the UN. It is forbidden for the exempted to transfer the technology, but they haven't been very observant, so now we've got Israel, India and Pakistan, plus DPRK and maybe Iran as WMD possessors or pursuers. I don't think mere possession or pursuit means a government is 'rogue', but if it is and they do have or try to get the weapons it seems fairly certain they'll get targetted.

[Scribbler1]

I agree that WMD are definitely something I'd not want to see flourishing around the globe, but just WHO "allowed" US to have them? The U.N., or ourselves by the virtue of not having anyone else strong enough to tell us not to?

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Despite imperialist claptrap, the logic is inescapable; if international terrorists, their failed state supporters, rogue regimes in pursuit of WMDs and tyrants are targetted, as some get done the need to focus on others will become more apparent. I don't think the only outcome to result from intervention must be greater tyranny, in fact it seems less of this has resulted in the most recent cases (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq).

The logic is non-existant. Delusional. The real democratic revolutions whether in America, the Phillipines, Indonesia, or East Germany come from within. The British invasion and occupation of Iran in 1918 did not lead to democracy. As the US is losing the war in Iraq right now, it is not at all clear whether democracy will result. The US's loss in Vietnam did not result in a democratic regime either. The conflicts in Afghanistan and the Balkins were not in any respects preemptive, notwithstanding that their outcome isn't entirely clear either.

To suggest that the US should "intervene" in Iran is merely stupid. Iraq failed to conquer Iran and now we are losing in Iraq. Invading Iran would be a disaster in virtually evey sense.

[rmnunez]

Though revolutions (democratic or not) must arise from within, in some cases this is not possible. Where levels of repression or lack of custom are such that the repressed cannot rise up to challenge and change things, a little help from a powerful friend would be wonderful. Consider the situation in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan or Iraq shortly before interventions there, do you think the chances of revolution were 'ripe' in any of those places? But there can be no doubt change was needed. If we take the view that until the situation is 'ripe' enough the revolution has to wait, we condemn the victims of repression to its continuance until the tyrant's repression reaches a level of degradation adequate to overcome the force he can bring to bear in maintaining that situation.

[Comrade]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I agree that WMD are definitely something I'd not want to see flourishing around the globe, but just WHO "allowed" US to have them? The U.N., or ourselves by the virtue of not having anyone else strong enough to tell us not to?

The hidden assumption is that everyone is entitled to them, or nobody is entitled to them. The other one is that the UN is a font of legitimacy.

We got them because we were the first to build them, and we're pretty lucky that it was us first (though luck had little to do with it). And we deny them to others because some of us believe in the things America stands for (gee, what's your response to that statement going to be?), and keep them out of the hands of people who would use them for tyranny/killing the Jews/to blackmail America/etc.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Though revolutions (democratic or not) must arise from within, in some cases this is not possible. Where levels of repression or lack of custom are such that the repressed cannot rise up to challenge and change things, a little help from a powerful friend would be wonderful. Consider the situation in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan or Iraq shortly before interventions there, do you think the chances of revolution were 'ripe' in any of those places? But there can be no doubt change was needed. If we take the view that until the situation is 'ripe' enough the revolution has to wait, we condemn the victims of repression to its continuance until the tyrant's repression reaches a level of degradation adequate to overcome the force he can bring to bear in maintaining that situation.

You compare situations in three countries that are so different as to suggest, at least to me, that you either aren't aware of the conditions in each, or more likely, that you are not making any distinctions at all. To compare an intervention with broad international support to impede "ethnic cleansing" during the implosion of a post Communist state, to the necessary reaction to a direct attack, also with broad international support, to a completely unwarranted invasion of a state that never attacked us is simply absurd and I suspect reflects a certain arrogance that justifies almost any action of an imperial power. Again the word delusional comes to mind.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Comrade The hidden assumption is that everyone is entitled to them, or nobody is entitled to them. The other one is that the UN is a font of legitimacy. We got them because we were the first to build them, and we're pretty lucky that it was us first (though luck had little to do with it). And we deny them to others because some of us believe in the things America stands for (gee, what's your response to that statement going to be?), and keep them out of the hands of people who would use them for tyranny/killing the Jews/to blackmail America/etc.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, well, there you right-wingers go again. And some of us DO believe in what America STOOD for, and since Bush can be easily called a radical, your support of him shows you do not believe in what America "stands for".
Bush is, from many perspectives, a radical and not even Reagan had taken the country in such a radically different direction before, so your cliche of "what America stands for" is little more than an empty slogan. Not surprising coming from you though, espeially since I made no statement but merely asked a question and expected more than a bumper sticker answer. And you haven't answered it.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Bush is, from many perspectives, a radical and not even Reagan had taken the country in such a radically different direction before, so your cliche of "what America stands for" is little more than an empty slogan.

Regrettably "what America stands for" under the Bush administration, or more accurately "what the Bush administration stands for" is needless war, incarceration without trial, and torture. That and mindless arrogance as Comrade so proudly seems to display.

[Comrade]

Quote by: Scribbler1 To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, well, there you right-wingers go again. And some of us DO believe in what America STOOD for, and since Bush can be easily called a radical, your support of him shows you do not believe in what America "stands for". Bush is, from many perspectives, a radical and not even Reagan had taken the country in such a radically different direction before, so your cliche of "what America stands for" is little more than an empty slogan. Not surprising coming from you though, espeially since I made no statement but merely asked a question and expected more than a bumper sticker answer. And you haven't answered it.

I was hoping with my "gee I wonder what your response to that will be" statement that I wouldn't have to listen to that tripe again, I suppose us evil Republicans aren't as good at pre-empting as we claim to be.

The question isn't being answered because its not a question.
I did tell you why we have them and why we deny them to others.