Posted by Sean McCormack on Oct 10, 2007 - 06:31 PM
![Top: UNSC votes March 24, 2007. Bottom: Iranian heavy-water production plant. [AP file photos]](http://blogs.state.gov/images/UNGA/field/2007_1010_iran_m.jpg)
I’ll start with a simple premise: diplomacy without incentives and disincentives (carrots and sticks) is just talking. Put another way, diplomacy without the proper mix will accomplish nothing when dealing with an adversary. The question then becomes one of establishing both sides of the equation – incentives and disincentives -- before any negotiation. So those who want to divide the world into engage vs. isolate camps are missing the point. In fact, it is not a binary choice. Instead engagement and isolation are two different sides of the same coin.
Experience tells us that without creating significant leverage, you will fail in a negotiation – unless of course you face a weak or unthinking opponent. So, unless the U.S. creates the right conditions for successful negotiations with Iran, we won’t get anyplace. For example, part of creating the right conditions is to make clear to friends and the Iranian government that the U.S. has interests in the Gulf it does not plan to abandon. Carriers in the Gulf and building strong military relationships with allies in the region are one way to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take those interests, and our readiness to assist our friends against any threats. Arms sales are just one element to building those strong relationships; we are now working with Congress to gain approval for sales to bolster our allies. Going after Iranian-backed networks targeting our troops with sophisticated improvised explosives is yet another way in which we show our determination to defend broader interests, as well as protect our troops.
On the diplomatic side, Secretary Rice met September 28 in New York during the UN General Assembly with Foreign Ministers from China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom—the so-called P5+1 (easier than writing out the names of each country when talking about this group). They repeated the 2006 commitment to a dual track diplomatic approach to Iran. Basically, this translates to increasing pressure (vias sanctions and other diplomatic means) on Iran to come clean with the world and meet its UN and other obligations, while at the same time offering Iran direct talks on the nuclear issue if it suspends its nuclear enrichment activities. The offer to Iran also includes the prospect of assistance with the development of a peaceful, civil nuclear program if it agrees to comply with its international obligations and come clean with the international community regarding its nuclear past and generous economic incentives for Iran, including support for Iran’s ascension to the World Trade Organization. The P5+1 proposal remains on the table. It is also worth noting that we have made it clear that the Iranians can also bring up whatever other topics they wish in these talks. We will certainly be prepared to bring up other issues of concern to us. The group’s only condition for starting talks is that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment work; for our part, we will suspend UN Security Council sanctions for the lifespan of the negotiations. We have even been flexible in considering the duration of negotiations/suspension.
Until that point, we will continue working with the Treasury Department and key international financial institutions to ensure that Iran does not abuse the international financial system to fund its proliferation and terrorism activities. We are joined in efforts to pressure Iran outside of the UN framework by allies such as France, which recently announced its support for imposing broader EU sanctions on the Iran.
I hope that gives you an idea of how we are working to establish both sides of the equation – incentives and disincentives. In our view diplomacy still has a lot of legs left, but in order for it to succeed we need to keep working both sides of the isolation/engagement coin.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Eric in New York --
Personally, I thought the litigation end of things (or "trial") was being handled in the UN.
I think your reference to war would be more accurately placed in the context of the sentencing phase of the "proceedings"....
After Iran's government is duly convicted(as it should be) for crimes against humanity against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Argentina, Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, USA, UK, France, Russia, and several more that have suffered terrorism at the hands of the leading state spnsor of terrorism and its proxi.
Take all the various UN resolutions violated in the process and the threats to wipe nations off the map, cram them down the General Assembly's throat, and force a vote to revoke the Islamic Republic of Iran's membership to the UN.
Force the concept of "responsibility to protect" to be implemented in full, and without delay.
Then as it is in the common interest, may the U.S., NATO, China, Russia, and like minded nations make this the quickest and most effective regime replacement therapy ever concieved in combining force and resource, enabling the UN to manage an interim protectorate that builds the institutions of representitive government w/separation of mosque and state.
As long as the leading sponsor of terrorism exists as safe haven next door to the fledgling democracies we've helped establish over the last 5 years, no amount of troops, no amount of diplomacy, and no amount of money spent in nation building will change the dynamics of the instability created by those who want, and have been engaged in war with the U.S. over several decades.
That said, I am in full agreement with the President when he said,
"And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda."
(Excerpt from speech-President Discusses Global War on Terror
Capital Hilton Hotel ,Washington, D.C.)
We don't want to give them the war they want nor expect....on their terms. We give them the war they are neither prepared for nor able to fight...on our terms.
Sun Tzu had it right.
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
@ Eric in New York --
Personally, I thought the litigation end of things (or "trial") was being handled in the UN.
I think your reference to war would be more accurately placed in the context of the sentencing phase of the "proceedings"....
After Iran's government is duly convicted(as it should be) for crimes against humanity against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Argentina, Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, USA, UK, France, Russia, and several more that have suffered terrorism at the hands of the leading state spnsor of terrorism and its proxi.
Take all the various UN resolutions violated in the process and the threats to wipe nations off the map, cram them down the General Assembly's throat, and force a vote to revoke the Islamic Republic of Iran's membership to the UN.
Force the concept of "responsibility to protect" to be implemented in full, and without delay.
Then as it is in the common interest, may the U.S., NATO, China, Russia, and like minded nations make this the quickest and most effective regime replacement therapy ever concieved in combining force and resource, enabling the UN to manage an interim protectorate that builds the institutions of representitive government w/separation of mosque and state.
As long as the leading sponsor of terrorism exists as safe haven next door to the fledgling democracies we've helped establish over the last 5 years, no amount of troops, no amount of diplomacy, and no amount of money spent in nation building will change the dynamics of the instability created by those who want, and have been engaged in war with the U.S. over several decades.
That said, I am in full agreement with the President when he said,
"And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda."
(Excerpt from speech-President Discusses Global War on Terror
Capital Hilton Hotel ,Washington, D.C.)
We don't want to give them the war they want nor expect....on their terms. We give them the war they are neither prepared for nor able to fight...on our terms.
Sun Tzu had it right.
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
Eric in New Mexico writes:
I wish the arms merchants of the world would invent a smart bomb that would wise people up.
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
I wish the arms merchants of the world would invent a smart bomb that would wise people up.
Posted on Tue Oct 16, 2007
S (Schmetterling) in U.S.A. writes:
I have the strong impression that Sean McCormack and the rest of the Public Affairs staff at State are really having a big laugh over some of the comments found in DipNote-Dips there are!
@ Susan in Maryland -- I do hate to disappoint you, given how steadfastly you hold to your beliefs and are so keen on the authors whom you like to cite as the gospel, but the "S" does not stand for "Sean" as in "Sean McCormick" by any means-LOL!
@ Brad in Florida -- I thought your posts were excellent-both of them. It has been my observation through the years that good lawyers tend to agree with each other, more often than they disagree! (smile)
@ Eric in New York -- Interesting observations-I can't disagree with your conclusion of course, but would add that there has to come a time, a cut-off point for the U.S. overtures towards Iran to cease (and those overtures that have been made and are being made by the U.S. towards Iran are substantial, as the "real" Sean McC has pointed out (smile). But ultimately, as Brad says, when one side refuses to seriously discuss settlement, and/or abjectly refuses to compromise at all on the terms of such settlement, then you have to go to trial, or in this case, war. The situation is complicated in Iran as there are forces at work (the Revolutionary Guard) who are more powerful even than the "democratically" elected president, Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, (much as he wants the world to believe otherwise), is not really in control of the country, nor even are the mullahs-it's the terrorist Revolutionary Guard who are really calling the shots, and there are a LOT of dangerous rogue factions within that organization. So even if some within Iran wanted to make concessions in their position, the Guard is not going to allow it.
The consequences of Iran's failure to comply with the UN mandated conditions to cease uranium enrichment are too momentous for the future of the world, just to let it go with meaningless sanctions. When the P5+1 extends the threat of sanctions indefinitely, as well as the time period for Iran to respond, then obviously, Iran gets exactly what it wants, it has bought time to move closer to its goal of nuclear weaponizing, sanctions that ultimately will have little practical effect on Iran's daily operations.
The key is Russia-but if Russia is going to continue the above-described scenario of endless sanctions and negotiations, then the U.S. will at some point have to move on Iran with or without Russia-sooner, rather than later.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
I have the strong impression that Sean McCormack and the rest of the Public Affairs staff at State are really having a big laugh over some of the comments found in DipNote-Dips there are!
@ Susan in Maryland -- I do hate to disappoint you, given how steadfastly you hold to your beliefs and are so keen on the authors whom you like to cite as the gospel, but the "S" does not stand for "Sean" as in "Sean McCormick" by any means-LOL!
@ Brad in Florida -- I thought your posts were excellent-both of them. It has been my observation through the years that good lawyers tend to agree with each other, more often than they disagree! (smile)
@ Eric in New York -- Interesting observations-I can't disagree with your conclusion of course, but would add that there has to come a time, a cut-off point for the U.S. overtures towards Iran to cease (and those overtures that have been made and are being made by the U.S. towards Iran are substantial, as the "real" Sean McC has pointed out (smile). But ultimately, as Brad says, when one side refuses to seriously discuss settlement, and/or abjectly refuses to compromise at all on the terms of such settlement, then you have to go to trial, or in this case, war. The situation is complicated in Iran as there are forces at work (the Revolutionary Guard) who are more powerful even than the "democratically" elected president, Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, (much as he wants the world to believe otherwise), is not really in control of the country, nor even are the mullahs-it's the terrorist Revolutionary Guard who are really calling the shots, and there are a LOT of dangerous rogue factions within that organization. So even if some within Iran wanted to make concessions in their position, the Guard is not going to allow it.
The consequences of Iran's failure to comply with the UN mandated conditions to cease uranium enrichment are too momentous for the future of the world, just to let it go with meaningless sanctions. When the P5+1 extends the threat of sanctions indefinitely, as well as the time period for Iran to respond, then obviously, Iran gets exactly what it wants, it has bought time to move closer to its goal of nuclear weaponizing, sanctions that ultimately will have little practical effect on Iran's daily operations.
The key is Russia-but if Russia is going to continue the above-described scenario of endless sanctions and negotiations, then the U.S. will at some point have to move on Iran with or without Russia-sooner, rather than later.
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
@ Eric in New Mexico --
I am very glad that you have taken me to task. But, what I did was scare the hell out of those who think being bigger gives them a right to threaten other nations. To keep you informed that others also have their fingers at the button, not the U.S. alone. It was a warning to those who use threats to get their own way against smaller nations. If you continue down the dark road of naked aggression you will end up like Nazi Germany.
The fanatics, are no diffent today, to those who ran America during the McCarthy era, and they are just as viscious to boot. All I ever heard them say, is that we can wipe out this or than country. They have this unique outlook that only they exist in the world today, and can do as they very well please. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
As for attempting to put fear in me, about my treatise, is a futile attempt, because, it will not scare me. You people think that everyone is scared of your power, I beg to differ. There are those of us, that fear very little, because we came through hell already.
As for your family, I am rather taken aback. I have not even mentioned them. It actually means that you are now aware of the consequences of any nulcear war, by attacking any country. Thus, we can all sit back safely, knowing that it will not happen in our lifetime.
If what, I said, was said in the early 1930s, the Nazi Germany would not have taken a chance, but stopped in its tracks. Millions of lives would have been saved by such actions, but there were not many fearless individuals to openly threaten Adolf Hitler.
Have you lost anyone in World War II? If you did, you would not be so gung ho about attacking any attack any country. Because the results are still with us today. I am glad that those fanatics that want war, are not in the drivers seat. Because, as funny as it seems, I abhor war and its results. Even the loss of life in Afghanistan and Iraq, make me sick. The useless blood letting will in the end serve no useful purpose. Families are destroyed and innocent children suffer. If anything, I am very glad to have written that message, because, it seems to have woken you to the reality of war and its consequences.
You see, I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and saw its results. And you think, that I want a war? You have to be joking. When you have seen what I have seen, you too, will follow the ways of PEACE. If one person dies as a result of war, it is too much. When a nation is attacked, multiply that a thousand times over. Are you willing to allow that sort of carnage to happen and sit back feeling very smug? I am afraid, that I am not going to allow another war to happen, my lifetime has already seen the death and devastation it his brought millions.
So Eric, keep a stiff upper lip, and take care of your family. God keep them safe from all danger, especially from man's madness, which is war.
Oh by the way, in case I forget, I belong to a group that wants nuclear disarmament for the whole world. You see shock treatment has its merits!
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Eric in New Mexico --
I am very glad that you have taken me to task. But, what I did was scare the hell out of those who think being bigger gives them a right to threaten other nations. To keep you informed that others also have their fingers at the button, not the U.S. alone. It was a warning to those who use threats to get their own way against smaller nations. If you continue down the dark road of naked aggression you will end up like Nazi Germany.
The fanatics, are no diffent today, to those who ran America during the McCarthy era, and they are just as viscious to boot. All I ever heard them say, is that we can wipe out this or than country. They have this unique outlook that only they exist in the world today, and can do as they very well please. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
As for attempting to put fear in me, about my treatise, is a futile attempt, because, it will not scare me. You people think that everyone is scared of your power, I beg to differ. There are those of us, that fear very little, because we came through hell already.
As for your family, I am rather taken aback. I have not even mentioned them. It actually means that you are now aware of the consequences of any nulcear war, by attacking any country. Thus, we can all sit back safely, knowing that it will not happen in our lifetime.
If what, I said, was said in the early 1930s, the Nazi Germany would not have taken a chance, but stopped in its tracks. Millions of lives would have been saved by such actions, but there were not many fearless individuals to openly threaten Adolf Hitler.
Have you lost anyone in World War II? If you did, you would not be so gung ho about attacking any attack any country. Because the results are still with us today. I am glad that those fanatics that want war, are not in the drivers seat. Because, as funny as it seems, I abhor war and its results. Even the loss of life in Afghanistan and Iraq, make me sick. The useless blood letting will in the end serve no useful purpose. Families are destroyed and innocent children suffer. If anything, I am very glad to have written that message, because, it seems to have woken you to the reality of war and its consequences.
You see, I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and saw its results. And you think, that I want a war? You have to be joking. When you have seen what I have seen, you too, will follow the ways of PEACE. If one person dies as a result of war, it is too much. When a nation is attacked, multiply that a thousand times over. Are you willing to allow that sort of carnage to happen and sit back feeling very smug? I am afraid, that I am not going to allow another war to happen, my lifetime has already seen the death and devastation it his brought millions.
So Eric, keep a stiff upper lip, and take care of your family. God keep them safe from all danger, especially from man's madness, which is war.
Oh by the way, in case I forget, I belong to a group that wants nuclear disarmament for the whole world. You see shock treatment has its merits!
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Susan in Maryland writes:
Sean, Your response to Kenneth piqued my curiosity.
Please tell us more about your extensive background in law enforcement & intelligence. Where did you go to college? What did you study? How long have you been with the State Dept?
Also, have you discussed Iran with Trita Parsi? or Vali Ansari or Ray Takeyh? Have you read Herodotus on Persia, where the father of history reports that the Persians are the most honest people he had ever encountered, and that honesty was not only a virtue but a practical matter in the Persian world view?
Do you consider Dr. William Polk and Zbigniew Brzezinski to be more or less knowledgeable than you with regard to the Middle East?
You say "Iran is the source of all terrorism," and that Iran will not negotiate but the Sunnis do." Do you completely disregard Dore Gold's thesis, that Saudi Arab (Sunni) Wahabbism is the source of radical Islam that motivates Osama binLaden, Al Qaeda, and jihadists?
Sen. Jos. Lieberman asserts that Iran is responsible for the death of 170 US soldiers in Iraq? Who is responsible for the deaths of the other 3,650 US soldiers who have died in Iraq?
How are we to understand Iran's release of the British sailors and of the Iranian-Americans: are those actions emblematic of a government inimical to "dealing and overtures?"
Did Iran torture those people or, for that matter, the 444 embassy hostages? Did the US torture any captives it has taken recently? How about America's ally, Israel, which levelled half of the sovereign state of Lebanon rather than negotiate for 3 soldiers; Israel, whose Mossad trained the SAVAK that terrified Iranians under the shah such that Iranians chose otherwise hated Islamic leaders rather than continue to live under a shah?
@ Brad in Florida -- Who would you silence: those who agree with Nicholas Burns and Sean McCormack or anybody who sees larger realities and facts and draw conclusions more critically than doMessrs Burns and McCormack?
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Sean, Your response to Kenneth piqued my curiosity.
Please tell us more about your extensive background in law enforcement & intelligence. Where did you go to college? What did you study? How long have you been with the State Dept?
Also, have you discussed Iran with Trita Parsi? or Vali Ansari or Ray Takeyh? Have you read Herodotus on Persia, where the father of history reports that the Persians are the most honest people he had ever encountered, and that honesty was not only a virtue but a practical matter in the Persian world view?
Do you consider Dr. William Polk and Zbigniew Brzezinski to be more or less knowledgeable than you with regard to the Middle East?
You say "Iran is the source of all terrorism," and that Iran will not negotiate but the Sunnis do." Do you completely disregard Dore Gold's thesis, that Saudi Arab (Sunni) Wahabbism is the source of radical Islam that motivates Osama binLaden, Al Qaeda, and jihadists?
Sen. Jos. Lieberman asserts that Iran is responsible for the death of 170 US soldiers in Iraq? Who is responsible for the deaths of the other 3,650 US soldiers who have died in Iraq?
How are we to understand Iran's release of the British sailors and of the Iranian-Americans: are those actions emblematic of a government inimical to "dealing and overtures?"
Did Iran torture those people or, for that matter, the 444 embassy hostages? Did the US torture any captives it has taken recently? How about America's ally, Israel, which levelled half of the sovereign state of Lebanon rather than negotiate for 3 soldiers; Israel, whose Mossad trained the SAVAK that terrified Iranians under the shah such that Iranians chose otherwise hated Islamic leaders rather than continue to live under a shah?
@ Brad in Florida -- Who would you silence: those who agree with Nicholas Burns and Sean McCormack or anybody who sees larger realities and facts and draw conclusions more critically than doMessrs Burns and McCormack?
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ Kenneth in Canada -- "What makes you Americans think that you can order the world around?
If and when you attack Iran, I hope that the Russians and the Chinese launch a preemptive strike on the U.S. This will carry a message to the American people, that to every move, there is a counter move. If one plays chess, one learns that.
For the last five years, I have been urging the Chinese and Russian Governments to re-arm, and be ready to attack the U.S. itself. No country since World War II, has been more involved in the overthrow of foreign governments than the U.S. Thus, steps must be taken to bring it under control by whatever means is necessary.
The world of today, does not need a rogue cop, like the U.S. to deal with its problems. Sometimes it becomes very necessary to imprison the rogue cop. Right now, I do not see any way out, without a direct attack on the U.S. itself. Enough is enough. Let us have an end to the madness that the U.S. has exported to a peaceful world." Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
-end comment-
Kenneth,
The Dept of State has posted your comment and let it stand in the great American tradition of freedom of speech..or as we in the wild wild West of my country sometimes interpret thusly: "That when a fool wishes to hang himself with his own words, we'll gladly supply the rope."
As a private citizen of this nation that you have sought to have preemptively attacked by nuclear powers, there are certain responsibilities I have as a citizen to "protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
You should now be duly informed of the ramifications of your solicitations to commit global genocide by nuclear war (for that would be the inevitable result should anyone actually think your insane advice worthy of implementation.) on a most personal of levels.
1. You are in standing violation of Article 3c of the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. "public encitement to commit" You may access this doc. on the UN's website if you wish.
2. As a private citizen of Canada, The Canadian government, should it be informed of your above post on this site, may choose to persue this matter with you in a court of law.
3. You have sought to bring grevious harm upon my children and family, and now it's personal with me.
4. Your post will be forwarded by me to the Canadian Ambassador to the US with a formal complaint attached, as is my right as a US citizen to do so.
5. You may have violated Canadian laws as well as international law in seeking to influence foreign governments to take action that would result in utter disaster upon Canada and it peoples. ( something that must have escaped your reasoning apparently)
6. Don't complain to me, don't bother to appologize, I'm having none of it. Yes, every action has its reaction...but this is no game of chess, this is the real world, and you live with the concequence of your actions in it.
Now I believe I have addressed this issue with you in as civil a manner with as much grace as humanly possible under the circumstance.
But one thing you should also know is that my grandfather helped build the very first a-bomb, so if you have any illusions that I make idle jest here Kenneth, that should erase any doubt you have of my seriousness in this matter.
( To moderator: please pardon the off topic subject matter, it was in the interest of global peace and security)
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
@ Kenneth in Canada -- "What makes you Americans think that you can order the world around?
If and when you attack Iran, I hope that the Russians and the Chinese launch a preemptive strike on the U.S. This will carry a message to the American people, that to every move, there is a counter move. If one plays chess, one learns that.
For the last five years, I have been urging the Chinese and Russian Governments to re-arm, and be ready to attack the U.S. itself. No country since World War II, has been more involved in the overthrow of foreign governments than the U.S. Thus, steps must be taken to bring it under control by whatever means is necessary.
The world of today, does not need a rogue cop, like the U.S. to deal with its problems. Sometimes it becomes very necessary to imprison the rogue cop. Right now, I do not see any way out, without a direct attack on the U.S. itself. Enough is enough. Let us have an end to the madness that the U.S. has exported to a peaceful world." Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
-end comment-
Kenneth,
The Dept of State has posted your comment and let it stand in the great American tradition of freedom of speech..or as we in the wild wild West of my country sometimes interpret thusly: "That when a fool wishes to hang himself with his own words, we'll gladly supply the rope."
As a private citizen of this nation that you have sought to have preemptively attacked by nuclear powers, there are certain responsibilities I have as a citizen to "protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
You should now be duly informed of the ramifications of your solicitations to commit global genocide by nuclear war (for that would be the inevitable result should anyone actually think your insane advice worthy of implementation.) on a most personal of levels.
1. You are in standing violation of Article 3c of the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. "public encitement to commit" You may access this doc. on the UN's website if you wish.
2. As a private citizen of Canada, The Canadian government, should it be informed of your above post on this site, may choose to persue this matter with you in a court of law.
3. You have sought to bring grevious harm upon my children and family, and now it's personal with me.
4. Your post will be forwarded by me to the Canadian Ambassador to the US with a formal complaint attached, as is my right as a US citizen to do so.
5. You may have violated Canadian laws as well as international law in seeking to influence foreign governments to take action that would result in utter disaster upon Canada and it peoples. ( something that must have escaped your reasoning apparently)
6. Don't complain to me, don't bother to appologize, I'm having none of it. Yes, every action has its reaction...but this is no game of chess, this is the real world, and you live with the concequence of your actions in it.
Now I believe I have addressed this issue with you in as civil a manner with as much grace as humanly possible under the circumstance.
But one thing you should also know is that my grandfather helped build the very first a-bomb, so if you have any illusions that I make idle jest here Kenneth, that should erase any doubt you have of my seriousness in this matter.
( To moderator: please pardon the off topic subject matter, it was in the interest of global peace and security)
Posted on Mon Oct 15, 2007
Brad in Florida writes:
Mr. McCormick:
Unfortunately, you're going to have to moderate comments more strictly ... otherwise, it's going to turn into the type of spitting match we see all over the web.
Unless I'm mistaken in believing you're aiming for a coherent, civil discussion of policy, that is.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Mr. McCormick:
Unfortunately, you're going to have to moderate comments more strictly ... otherwise, it's going to turn into the type of spitting match we see all over the web.
Unless I'm mistaken in believing you're aiming for a coherent, civil discussion of policy, that is.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Eric in New Mexico writes:
@ S in Washington -- I would agree with you in all aspects save one, and from one who has worked a very long time helping bring some of the issues out of the dark, and working w/ the many democratic, republican and monarchist opposition groups to help them have a voice in the matter I can say for a fact that they would be highly insulted at your use of the word "Persian" in your post.
See, they, real "Persians" consider themselves an "occupied country" by political Islam, and the radical thuggies practicing it. Once you understand that, then you'll understand why I've told the powers that be in this gov. that we've utterly failed to tap into the greatest ally in the war on terrorism. The Iranian people and their thirst for freedom from theocracy, and ethical infants.
It's true that diplomacy without teeth is a toothless beggar. This isn't a choice between diplomacy and bombs, diplomacy doesn't stop when bombs fall, but it is said to have failed upon them falling on someone's pointy little head. There is no purely diplomatic solution, nor is there a purely military one. Today we are engaged in both.
The Iranian government uses the word "enemy" to describe the US. Undersecretary Burns recently described U.S. viewpoint thus:
(Interview on The Charlie Rose Show, October 1, 2007)
CHARLIE ROSE: Are they our most extreme enemy?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Enemy is a strong word.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, that`s why I`m using it.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I think they`re an adversary of the United States, an
adversary because .
CHARLIE ROSE: The Iranians are not an enemy of the United States.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, enemy, adversary. Usually you think about an enemy
.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: . as a country that you`re fighting in strict diplomatic terms. You are fighting in an armed conflict. We`re not doing that with Iran right now, but they are a country that is absolutely opposed to everything that we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East, from Iraq to a Palestinian peace, to stability in Afghanistan.
--end excerpt--
Seems to me if our military is openly tracking down Iranian agents responsible for blowing our countrymen up in Iraq, then we are in an "open" military confrontation, if not in an undeclared state of war with Iran.
All semantics aside, I think it's about time folks understood that while we may not ( or the Dept of State may not) consider this the acts of an enemy of the United States, THEY DO.
Nor should anyone pin hopes on any "reformers", "behavior change" , or engagement policy unless it involves the early retirement of ethical infants, at the hands of the Iranian people.
The choice to "go back to the mosque, preace peace, so one may live in peace" should be offered as "carrot" before the big "stick" out of a B-52 drives the point home.
Regards.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
@ S in Washington -- I would agree with you in all aspects save one, and from one who has worked a very long time helping bring some of the issues out of the dark, and working w/ the many democratic, republican and monarchist opposition groups to help them have a voice in the matter I can say for a fact that they would be highly insulted at your use of the word "Persian" in your post.
See, they, real "Persians" consider themselves an "occupied country" by political Islam, and the radical thuggies practicing it. Once you understand that, then you'll understand why I've told the powers that be in this gov. that we've utterly failed to tap into the greatest ally in the war on terrorism. The Iranian people and their thirst for freedom from theocracy, and ethical infants.
It's true that diplomacy without teeth is a toothless beggar. This isn't a choice between diplomacy and bombs, diplomacy doesn't stop when bombs fall, but it is said to have failed upon them falling on someone's pointy little head. There is no purely diplomatic solution, nor is there a purely military one. Today we are engaged in both.
The Iranian government uses the word "enemy" to describe the US. Undersecretary Burns recently described U.S. viewpoint thus:
(Interview on The Charlie Rose Show, October 1, 2007)
CHARLIE ROSE: Are they our most extreme enemy?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Enemy is a strong word.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK, that`s why I`m using it.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I think they`re an adversary of the United States, an
adversary because .
CHARLIE ROSE: The Iranians are not an enemy of the United States.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, enemy, adversary. Usually you think about an enemy
.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: . as a country that you`re fighting in strict diplomatic terms. You are fighting in an armed conflict. We`re not doing that with Iran right now, but they are a country that is absolutely opposed to everything that we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East, from Iraq to a Palestinian peace, to stability in Afghanistan.
--end excerpt--
Seems to me if our military is openly tracking down Iranian agents responsible for blowing our countrymen up in Iraq, then we are in an "open" military confrontation, if not in an undeclared state of war with Iran.
All semantics aside, I think it's about time folks understood that while we may not ( or the Dept of State may not) consider this the acts of an enemy of the United States, THEY DO.
Nor should anyone pin hopes on any "reformers", "behavior change" , or engagement policy unless it involves the early retirement of ethical infants, at the hands of the Iranian people.
The choice to "go back to the mosque, preace peace, so one may live in peace" should be offered as "carrot" before the big "stick" out of a B-52 drives the point home.
Regards.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
@ Susan in Maryland -- What you have written is very clear with regards to non-intervention of one nation into the internal affairs of another. If people would only take the time to think out the situation, we might get somewhere. Be that Iran or any other nation, there are areas that are exclusive, in which there should be no interference by the U.S.
If anything, there are fanatics on both sides of the equation. Those who judge Iran, should also judge their own actions, both past and present. All, I see is a one-sided approach, which creates even more resistance from the other. If, some other country were brought in, that was neutral, we might just see a difference in Iran's attitude. Otherwise we are caught between a rock and a hard place. Only cool head can solve problems.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
@ Susan in Maryland -- What you have written is very clear with regards to non-intervention of one nation into the internal affairs of another. If people would only take the time to think out the situation, we might get somewhere. Be that Iran or any other nation, there are areas that are exclusive, in which there should be no interference by the U.S.
If anything, there are fanatics on both sides of the equation. Those who judge Iran, should also judge their own actions, both past and present. All, I see is a one-sided approach, which creates even more resistance from the other. If, some other country were brought in, that was neutral, we might just see a difference in Iran's attitude. Otherwise we are caught between a rock and a hard place. Only cool head can solve problems.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
@ S in Washington -- Don't forget, that this is the same Iran, that in 1953 you in the U.S. used as a buffer against many Middle Eastern countries, by setting up your own puppet, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as the Shah-in-Shah of Iran. Thus, the naivete is not on my part, but yours.
I beg to differ. Being knowledgeable, and dealing with law enforcement and intelligence, does not make you any expert on Iran either. Again, I see your typical American attitude takes over as being someone of authority. I think its time you put that theory away. These certainly are not the days of Teddy Roosevelt's gun boat diplomacy. Because, there are a lot of people who carry guns nowadays.
Secondly, Persia became Iran in 1927, so why are you still stuck in that time period of history? It was General Pahlavi, the father of the 1953 puppet who ousted the real Shah-in-Shah of Persia, and renamed the country after the Plains of Iran, where he hailed from.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
@ S in Washington -- Don't forget, that this is the same Iran, that in 1953 you in the U.S. used as a buffer against many Middle Eastern countries, by setting up your own puppet, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as the Shah-in-Shah of Iran. Thus, the naivete is not on my part, but yours.
I beg to differ. Being knowledgeable, and dealing with law enforcement and intelligence, does not make you any expert on Iran either. Again, I see your typical American attitude takes over as being someone of authority. I think its time you put that theory away. These certainly are not the days of Teddy Roosevelt's gun boat diplomacy. Because, there are a lot of people who carry guns nowadays.
Secondly, Persia became Iran in 1927, so why are you still stuck in that time period of history? It was General Pahlavi, the father of the 1953 puppet who ousted the real Shah-in-Shah of Persia, and renamed the country after the Plains of Iran, where he hailed from.
Posted on Sun Oct 14, 2007
S in Washington, DC writes:
@ Kenneth in Canada -- "The issue of Iran is not something that can be settled without many overtures, that the U.S. should make. Remember the first step to peace, is not by the cannon, but by the dove. Every country reacts to issues differently. Thus you will solve the Iran issue immediately."
Uh, Kenneth, don't you think you've contributed enough to this forum? Methinks thou doth like to hear yourself speak too much over matters of which you have no, trust me, no experience. You are showing naivete, and are not knowledgeable on the subject matter of Iran. Take it from someone who has been dealing in law enforcement and intelligence matters for many years: Iran is the source, from which all terrorism flows, in some form, in some fashion, it all crosses through the Islamic Republic of Iran.
And as far as "dealing" and "overtures" to Iran. They are useless. This is not a country that compromises or does anything other than what the Revolutionary Guard and the mullahs dictate-and what they dictate is: terror.
The Persians do not "negotiate"- they are not like the Sunnis-Sunnis are, for the most part, rational, reasonable people, they do compromise, they are part of the world order, and their word can be trusted. This is not true of the Persians. The Islamic Republic does not "conduct" foreign policy-that's only an illusion, a superficial not to make people think that iran is part of the world order-it is not-it is only the Persian way, or the highway.
And because of that, the Islamic Republic must be divested of the ability to construct nuclear weapons, it must be divested, and deconstructed-the sooner, the better-it must be done to bring some measure of stability to the world, and this country is the only country that can do that-and it will have to be done by force, there is no other way with the Persians: The Islamic Republic of Iran has got to go.
Posted on Sat Oct 13, 2007
@ Kenneth in Canada -- "The issue of Iran is not something that can be settled without many overtures, that the U.S. should make. Remember the first step to peace, is not by the cannon, but by the dove. Every country reacts to issues differently. Thus you will solve the Iran issue immediately."
Uh, Kenneth, don't you think you've contributed enough to this forum? Methinks thou doth like to hear yourself speak too much over matters of which you have no, trust me, no experience. You are showing naivete, and are not knowledgeable on the subject matter of Iran. Take it from someone who has been dealing in law enforcement and intelligence matters for many years: Iran is the source, from which all terrorism flows, in some form, in some fashion, it all crosses through the Islamic Republic of Iran.
And as far as "dealing" and "overtures" to Iran. They are useless. This is not a country that compromises or does anything other than what the Revolutionary Guard and the mullahs dictate-and what they dictate is: terror.
The Persians do not "negotiate"- they are not like the Sunnis-Sunnis are, for the most part, rational, reasonable people, they do compromise, they are part of the world order, and their word can be trusted. This is not true of the Persians. The Islamic Republic does not "conduct" foreign policy-that's only an illusion, a superficial not to make people think that iran is part of the world order-it is not-it is only the Persian way, or the highway.
And because of that, the Islamic Republic must be divested of the ability to construct nuclear weapons, it must be divested, and deconstructed-the sooner, the better-it must be done to bring some measure of stability to the world, and this country is the only country that can do that-and it will have to be done by force, there is no other way with the Persians: The Islamic Republic of Iran has got to go.
Posted on Sat Oct 13, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
This is for Sean McCormack:
When I read about the carrot and stick proposition, i wanted to laugh. Because, only a donkey would be taken in by such a trick. In the case of Iran you are dealing with humans, and therefore the carrot and stick proposition will not work. What you need to do, is think outside the box.
I do not believe that Iran will come round to the American way of thinking, but that is to be expected. Let's not blame the Iranians alone, because some of the blame lies with the U.S. I wonder if you remember the deliberate shooting down of the Iranian Airline Airbus 300, with some 297 passengers aboard, by the USS Vincennes, on orders of U.S. President Ronald Reagan? If you not, then first study it and tell me that it was right.
Before going any further, I have been in touch with a member of the board of inquiry of the PanAm Airliner blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland and wrote on the issue. A member of the board of inquiry contacted me, after reading my article, and said that I had done a good job of explaining the double standards of justice. If you would like to get a copy of that message, please try to contact me, and I will furnish you with a copy.
The issue of Iran is not something that can be settled without many overtures, that the U.S. should make. Remember the first step to peace, is not by the cannon, but by the dove. Every country reacts to issues differently. Thus you will solve the Iran issue immediately. But, there must also be resolve on your part to meet them halfway, otherwise this issue will not go away.
That does not mean that you should give up trying. But keep at it, and somewhere, somehow there is bound to be a breakthrough.
Do you really believe that countries want a war in that region? I do not believe that neither the Iranians, nor the Americans want a war, because it's too costly.
Posted on Sat Oct 13, 2007
This is for Sean McCormack:
When I read about the carrot and stick proposition, i wanted to laugh. Because, only a donkey would be taken in by such a trick. In the case of Iran you are dealing with humans, and therefore the carrot and stick proposition will not work. What you need to do, is think outside the box.
I do not believe that Iran will come round to the American way of thinking, but that is to be expected. Let's not blame the Iranians alone, because some of the blame lies with the U.S. I wonder if you remember the deliberate shooting down of the Iranian Airline Airbus 300, with some 297 passengers aboard, by the USS Vincennes, on orders of U.S. President Ronald Reagan? If you not, then first study it and tell me that it was right.
Before going any further, I have been in touch with a member of the board of inquiry of the PanAm Airliner blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland and wrote on the issue. A member of the board of inquiry contacted me, after reading my article, and said that I had done a good job of explaining the double standards of justice. If you would like to get a copy of that message, please try to contact me, and I will furnish you with a copy.
The issue of Iran is not something that can be settled without many overtures, that the U.S. should make. Remember the first step to peace, is not by the cannon, but by the dove. Every country reacts to issues differently. Thus you will solve the Iran issue immediately. But, there must also be resolve on your part to meet them halfway, otherwise this issue will not go away.
That does not mean that you should give up trying. But keep at it, and somewhere, somehow there is bound to be a breakthrough.
Do you really believe that countries want a war in that region? I do not believe that neither the Iranians, nor the Americans want a war, because it's too costly.
Posted on Sat Oct 13, 2007
Susan in Maryland writes:
Neither U..S nor any nation has the right to tamper with Iran's economy. That is economic warfare, it's immoral, and it doesn't work. In "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capital," Naomi Klein spelled out just what's going on when the US Congress, perversely influenced by neoconservatives, voted for HR 1400. Ed Royce gleefully described the hoped-for effect of the legislation: it will create hyperinflation in Iran, and will strangle Iran's ability to process natural gas, "hopefully," says Royce, causing riots among the Iranian people, that will lead to regime change.
Klein explains that a crisis is required to enable the creation of a "blank page" to get "Shock Doctrine" rolling. Neoconservatives see a crisis such as the collapse of the Iranian economy as a brief window of opportunity for which neoconservatives are prepared to go in swiftly, before the victims of the crisis are able to recover from the trauma of the crisis; deploy the irreversible policies of their choice, such as Bremer did in Iraq; and stand back and admire their handiwork.
Klein explains that such practices cause rage in the people on whom they are imposed and, she argues, the neocons ought to know better: Keynes pointed out in 1920 in "The Consequences of the Peace," that disregarding the wishes of the people and imposing on them onerous policies not of their own devising is dangerous; the people will react with rage, like that preceding WWII.
On another level, the entire direction and purpose of the plan McCormack describes is a rehash of the same policy failures the West has been pursuing since WWI and should be rejected. It's so childish that he should be embarrassed to be bruiting it about. The US has not yet figured out, nearly 70 years into its involvement with the Middle East, that attempting to play one power off against another will backfire sooner or later, more likely sooner. Trita Parsi argues articulately and with uncompromising rationality in "Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States," that it's time for the U.S. to deal maturely with the entire Middle East, recognizing that each state actor has interests that demand respect and consideration. Not only is the zero-sum game the wrong--and unjust-- game to play in the Middle East, the US has squandered its moral authority and financial and military ability to enable it to lead that power play.
The U.S. maintained relations with Iran as a buffer against Russia until 1979. Israel stepped into the vacuum at that time, and Israel is eager to retain the favored status it has enjoyed over the last 30 years. But as Walt & Mearsheimer pointed out, that relationship is no longer protecting the interests of the U.S. and should be adjusted: Israel should be treated the same as any other actor in the international community, and dealt with consonant with American values of rule of law and fundamental fairness, not guilt-induced indulgence. Newton's laws ought to be the model for the centrist position the US ought most beneficially to take with respect to all the states in the Middle East.
Back to the drawing board, Mr. McCormack; stay out of Iran's affairs; deal honestly with states who own resources that the US needs; deal morally with Israel, which is oppressing Palestine.
And save the carrots for the salad bar but try the tuna: it stimulates the brain.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Neither U..S nor any nation has the right to tamper with Iran's economy. That is economic warfare, it's immoral, and it doesn't work. In "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capital," Naomi Klein spelled out just what's going on when the US Congress, perversely influenced by neoconservatives, voted for HR 1400. Ed Royce gleefully described the hoped-for effect of the legislation: it will create hyperinflation in Iran, and will strangle Iran's ability to process natural gas, "hopefully," says Royce, causing riots among the Iranian people, that will lead to regime change.
Klein explains that a crisis is required to enable the creation of a "blank page" to get "Shock Doctrine" rolling. Neoconservatives see a crisis such as the collapse of the Iranian economy as a brief window of opportunity for which neoconservatives are prepared to go in swiftly, before the victims of the crisis are able to recover from the trauma of the crisis; deploy the irreversible policies of their choice, such as Bremer did in Iraq; and stand back and admire their handiwork.
Klein explains that such practices cause rage in the people on whom they are imposed and, she argues, the neocons ought to know better: Keynes pointed out in 1920 in "The Consequences of the Peace," that disregarding the wishes of the people and imposing on them onerous policies not of their own devising is dangerous; the people will react with rage, like that preceding WWII.
On another level, the entire direction and purpose of the plan McCormack describes is a rehash of the same policy failures the West has been pursuing since WWI and should be rejected. It's so childish that he should be embarrassed to be bruiting it about. The US has not yet figured out, nearly 70 years into its involvement with the Middle East, that attempting to play one power off against another will backfire sooner or later, more likely sooner. Trita Parsi argues articulately and with uncompromising rationality in "Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States," that it's time for the U.S. to deal maturely with the entire Middle East, recognizing that each state actor has interests that demand respect and consideration. Not only is the zero-sum game the wrong--and unjust-- game to play in the Middle East, the US has squandered its moral authority and financial and military ability to enable it to lead that power play.
The U.S. maintained relations with Iran as a buffer against Russia until 1979. Israel stepped into the vacuum at that time, and Israel is eager to retain the favored status it has enjoyed over the last 30 years. But as Walt & Mearsheimer pointed out, that relationship is no longer protecting the interests of the U.S. and should be adjusted: Israel should be treated the same as any other actor in the international community, and dealt with consonant with American values of rule of law and fundamental fairness, not guilt-induced indulgence. Newton's laws ought to be the model for the centrist position the US ought most beneficially to take with respect to all the states in the Middle East.
Back to the drawing board, Mr. McCormack; stay out of Iran's affairs; deal honestly with states who own resources that the US needs; deal morally with Israel, which is oppressing Palestine.
And save the carrots for the salad bar but try the tuna: it stimulates the brain.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Karl in Canada writes:
This thing with Iran has nothing to do with WMDs or terror or anything else but what lies under the earth in that region.
This is a chess game that the U.S. cannot win because they want to play football!!!
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
This thing with Iran has nothing to do with WMDs or terror or anything else but what lies under the earth in that region.
This is a chess game that the U.S. cannot win because they want to play football!!!
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Kashif in America writes:
Hey let me ask you guys why you think democracy is the solution to all of life's problems. I mean if you think about it rationally all democracy is, is the ability of the majority of a population to impose it's will on the minority similar to what Nazi Germany did to it's population. SO what may i ask will democracy do when someone you people obviously hate like Ahmadenijad gets elected or Hamas and you try placing sanctions on it for being elected democratically. The argument for a Bill of Rights universally is a stronger and more important step for equality then the spread of democracy which has elected officials that in my opinion are just another dime a dozen politician that promises their people the moon, simply ridiculous what politicians will say to get elected and then get elected and give nothing they promise the people. Call me cynical and pessimistic as you inevitably might but some people call people with opinions like mine realists.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Hey let me ask you guys why you think democracy is the solution to all of life's problems. I mean if you think about it rationally all democracy is, is the ability of the majority of a population to impose it's will on the minority similar to what Nazi Germany did to it's population. SO what may i ask will democracy do when someone you people obviously hate like Ahmadenijad gets elected or Hamas and you try placing sanctions on it for being elected democratically. The argument for a Bill of Rights universally is a stronger and more important step for equality then the spread of democracy which has elected officials that in my opinion are just another dime a dozen politician that promises their people the moon, simply ridiculous what politicians will say to get elected and then get elected and give nothing they promise the people. Call me cynical and pessimistic as you inevitably might but some people call people with opinions like mine realists.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
I am glad that you people are testing me out. Because, I have not had such an interesting discussion in a long time. So I appreciate it.
But, this I must tell you. I have crossed the world six times. and every time I did, I learned something new.
Not being of a mind to sit down in one place, gave me the opportunity to travel, but more than that, I was able to absorb everything that came my way. I cannot imagine myself sitting down at a desk, because that would kill my spirit. I began to realize that I had the capacity to retain anything that I read or told. In time my friends thought that I was a computer. That was something that never entered my head. Now, I write articles on journeys and on varied subjects. They do make a difference. Because most of them are published, and that also in many languages worldwide. I am also an artist, which is only by the way.
I have been following the political world and have written on that subject as well.
So, anyone who wants to, may fire away
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
I am glad that you people are testing me out. Because, I have not had such an interesting discussion in a long time. So I appreciate it.
But, this I must tell you. I have crossed the world six times. and every time I did, I learned something new.
Not being of a mind to sit down in one place, gave me the opportunity to travel, but more than that, I was able to absorb everything that came my way. I cannot imagine myself sitting down at a desk, because that would kill my spirit. I began to realize that I had the capacity to retain anything that I read or told. In time my friends thought that I was a computer. That was something that never entered my head. Now, I write articles on journeys and on varied subjects. They do make a difference. Because most of them are published, and that also in many languages worldwide. I am also an artist, which is only by the way.
I have been following the political world and have written on that subject as well.
So, anyone who wants to, may fire away
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
@ Ron in Kansas -- It must have slipped your mind, because the more things change, the more they remain same. That is my answer to your question.
Freedom struggles, democracy, aristocracy and dictatorship are the result of laxness on the part of citizenry. If we sit back on our laurels, we are sure, to have bad things happen. Thus the watchwords of every citizen should be, keep an eye on government, it can fail you when you least expect it.
Speaking of bankruptcy Communism & capitalism (not democracy) which one usually goes broke first? Have you not heard of the great depression of 1929 in the U.S. when people jumped out of the windows of New York Skyscrapers. That was a Capitalist failure, was it not? You jumped to the conclusion that democracy was capitalism, it is not!
But, I must add further, that neither is the pseudo-communism of the Soviets a form of democracy.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
@ Ron in Kansas -- It must have slipped your mind, because the more things change, the more they remain same. That is my answer to your question.
Freedom struggles, democracy, aristocracy and dictatorship are the result of laxness on the part of citizenry. If we sit back on our laurels, we are sure, to have bad things happen. Thus the watchwords of every citizen should be, keep an eye on government, it can fail you when you least expect it.
Speaking of bankruptcy Communism & capitalism (not democracy) which one usually goes broke first? Have you not heard of the great depression of 1929 in the U.S. when people jumped out of the windows of New York Skyscrapers. That was a Capitalist failure, was it not? You jumped to the conclusion that democracy was capitalism, it is not!
But, I must add further, that neither is the pseudo-communism of the Soviets a form of democracy.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Ron in Kansas writes:
@ Kenneth in Canada --
Sir,
As you state you are a historian and as such are unabashed by propositions of equality which fall short of your well versed opinion; I have a question for you.
How would you equate the current world struggles for freedom, democracy, and aristocracy, dictatorship with the transitional periods in the Greek, Roman, and Ottoman empires?
I have always found it amazing how easily the "ignorance is bliss" tends to allow those who purportedly know the answers to comment on things without ever sharing their vast knowledge as to what the better way is and what if any the expected results would be.
PS: Speaking of bankruptcy (Democracy,Communism) which one's usually go broke first?
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
@ Kenneth in Canada --
Sir,
As you state you are a historian and as such are unabashed by propositions of equality which fall short of your well versed opinion; I have a question for you.
How would you equate the current world struggles for freedom, democracy, and aristocracy, dictatorship with the transitional periods in the Greek, Roman, and Ottoman empires?
I have always found it amazing how easily the "ignorance is bliss" tends to allow those who purportedly know the answers to comment on things without ever sharing their vast knowledge as to what the better way is and what if any the expected results would be.
PS: Speaking of bankruptcy (Democracy,Communism) which one's usually go broke first?
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
@ S in Washington, DC -- S from Washington, DC has a very short memory span, is saying that France is now with us. Does he nor remember that President Jacques Chirac of France would not join in the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq? Remember also how Bob Ney called the French SURRENDER MONKEYS. Then went on to change FRENCH FRIES to FREEDOM FRIES, and FRENCH TOAST to FREEDOM TOAST. Short memory S. Do you suffer from loss of memory?
I find it hard to believe that the U.S. is like dog barking up the wrong tree. Get your priorities straight, and go from there.
To the members of the U.S. Department of State, wise-up. You just do not have the intelligence to deal with world issues. Go back to school and learn more, before taking up a job, that is out of your sphere. Are you people not lucky, that I have been approached by parties against the U.S., and I refused to become join them. I also know my true worth. Besides all this, my eldest brother Joe became a GI, during the Korean Conflict in 1950. Yes! I will continue to criticize the U.S. because, if I did not, you people would still be running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
So, if I criticize you understand me well. I really feel sorry for the American people, because they have been mislead by the clowns that they call politicians. Work to make your country better, not worse. Because, there is going to be a tomorrow, and the next generation will have to bear the brunt of the problems that now beset your country.
Remember also, whatever happens we are still family. That is something that cannot go away.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
@ S in Washington, DC -- S from Washington, DC has a very short memory span, is saying that France is now with us. Does he nor remember that President Jacques Chirac of France would not join in the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq? Remember also how Bob Ney called the French SURRENDER MONKEYS. Then went on to change FRENCH FRIES to FREEDOM FRIES, and FRENCH TOAST to FREEDOM TOAST. Short memory S. Do you suffer from loss of memory?
I find it hard to believe that the U.S. is like dog barking up the wrong tree. Get your priorities straight, and go from there.
To the members of the U.S. Department of State, wise-up. You just do not have the intelligence to deal with world issues. Go back to school and learn more, before taking up a job, that is out of your sphere. Are you people not lucky, that I have been approached by parties against the U.S., and I refused to become join them. I also know my true worth. Besides all this, my eldest brother Joe became a GI, during the Korean Conflict in 1950. Yes! I will continue to criticize the U.S. because, if I did not, you people would still be running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
So, if I criticize you understand me well. I really feel sorry for the American people, because they have been mislead by the clowns that they call politicians. Work to make your country better, not worse. Because, there is going to be a tomorrow, and the next generation will have to bear the brunt of the problems that now beset your country.
Remember also, whatever happens we are still family. That is something that cannot go away.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
S in Washington, DC writes:
I rarely agree with Sec. Rice, but this time I absolutely do. On the subject of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sec. Rice is calling it exactly the way it is. Iran is a liar, it lies continuously-it is how it conducts its foreign policy-you can never ever believe anything it says on the international level-it speaks always with the proverbial forked tongue-all conciliatory and compromising on the outside-to the foreigers, but back on the home front, it goes right back to single-mindedly pursuing its deadly aim to create nuclear weapons-as if Iran had never said a word to the contrary-to the IAEA or to anyone else. With the Persians, still waters run very very deep, their deceptiveness knows no bounds, which explains in part why they are the world's number one exporter of terrorism by proxy-they work below the radar to carry out their objectives against U.S. and Israeli interests-providing arms and logistical support to various terrorist factions throughout the world-not to mention gold shipments. To destroy the U.S. and Israel is part and parcel of Iran's entire raison d'etre, all the way back to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 when they took 89 American embassy hostages for some 444 days.
Accordingly, the U.S., with its allies, is going to have to "deconstruct" the Islamic Republic, and this time France has already stepped up and called out that they will be there with us on this fight.
France is with us on Iran, because it is the right thing to do-it IS Realpolitik writ large, this threat must be gotten rid of-by whatever means necessary.
The Persians will only understand sheer brute firepower-and that is exactly what they should and must expect. This country cannot sit idly by and allow Iran to go forward with nuclear weaponizing-come hell or high water, the cancer known as the Islamic Republic must be surgically removed, or we will never have anything approximating peace in this world, but we could quite actually be facing the end of the world, if Iran is allowed to continue on their path of world destruction.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
I rarely agree with Sec. Rice, but this time I absolutely do. On the subject of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sec. Rice is calling it exactly the way it is. Iran is a liar, it lies continuously-it is how it conducts its foreign policy-you can never ever believe anything it says on the international level-it speaks always with the proverbial forked tongue-all conciliatory and compromising on the outside-to the foreigers, but back on the home front, it goes right back to single-mindedly pursuing its deadly aim to create nuclear weapons-as if Iran had never said a word to the contrary-to the IAEA or to anyone else. With the Persians, still waters run very very deep, their deceptiveness knows no bounds, which explains in part why they are the world's number one exporter of terrorism by proxy-they work below the radar to carry out their objectives against U.S. and Israeli interests-providing arms and logistical support to various terrorist factions throughout the world-not to mention gold shipments. To destroy the U.S. and Israel is part and parcel of Iran's entire raison d'etre, all the way back to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 when they took 89 American embassy hostages for some 444 days.
Accordingly, the U.S., with its allies, is going to have to "deconstruct" the Islamic Republic, and this time France has already stepped up and called out that they will be there with us on this fight.
France is with us on Iran, because it is the right thing to do-it IS Realpolitik writ large, this threat must be gotten rid of-by whatever means necessary.
The Persians will only understand sheer brute firepower-and that is exactly what they should and must expect. This country cannot sit idly by and allow Iran to go forward with nuclear weaponizing-come hell or high water, the cancer known as the Islamic Republic must be surgically removed, or we will never have anything approximating peace in this world, but we could quite actually be facing the end of the world, if Iran is allowed to continue on their path of world destruction.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Mike in Kansas writes:
@ Jeff in Washington -- Communicate with mad men, terrorists? Again, how many years have we been trying to do just that? This country donates more to the World than Europe combined and yet we are hated?
Are you beginning to see a Pattern here?
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
@ Jeff in Washington -- Communicate with mad men, terrorists? Again, how many years have we been trying to do just that? This country donates more to the World than Europe combined and yet we are hated?
Are you beginning to see a Pattern here?
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Mike in Kansas writes:
@ Ronnie in North Carolina -- Here's a clue for ya, it is about oil as well as the survival of the West! You can thank the LiBruls for that! No refineries built in this country over the last 30 years due to the govt. regulation and accompaning costs, No drilling for oil in Anwar and elsewhere!
What do you think would happen if Iran controlled the oil reserves of the ME??
Oh, thanks for your service!
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
@ Ronnie in North Carolina -- Here's a clue for ya, it is about oil as well as the survival of the West! You can thank the LiBruls for that! No refineries built in this country over the last 30 years due to the govt. regulation and accompaning costs, No drilling for oil in Anwar and elsewhere!
What do you think would happen if Iran controlled the oil reserves of the ME??
Oh, thanks for your service!
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Max in Germany writes:
Fighting terror with violence makes the terrorists stronger.
The Americans should ask themselves why the world hates them. Every Story has a piece of truth, like the Story of isolating America.
Actually the people hate Bush and his supporters for his lies and because he can't admit that the main Reason for the Iraq-war is oil.
I hope that the U.S.A. goes another way in 2009.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Fighting terror with violence makes the terrorists stronger.
The Americans should ask themselves why the world hates them. Every Story has a piece of truth, like the Story of isolating America.
Actually the people hate Bush and his supporters for his lies and because he can't admit that the main Reason for the Iraq-war is oil.
I hope that the U.S.A. goes another way in 2009.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
@ Eric in New York -- You said, that it was with great sadness that you must read words of such ignorance on this blog, before hearing it on C-SPAN, from the U.N. or Columbia University (the old King's College). Perhaps the real issue here is that you live in a country where ignorance is bliss. Take a good look around you, and what do you see? A land where ignorance has taken hold in a big way.
Your very news media is government controlled, and then you speak of free speech? A free press and free speech are the first victims of any tyranny, including the U.S. Ask your government why it must spy on its citizens? Then ask yourself, is this any better than the Soviet Union of yesteryear? Every American today bows before the altar of mammon, in fear lest they are incarcerated. I ask you is that really living? Do you really believe so?
Some years ago, I paid a visit to Runnymede, England, to view this memorial to our freedoms, and noted that it was built by the American Bar Association. Where has that freedom gone today? Do you know? I doubt it, because you follow the dictates of your federal government without question. I on the other hand do not take government or freedoms lightly. I question anything the government does, because government is known to err.
If Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, were here toady, I am very sure that he would agree with me on all counts. You had better go back and search where you took the wrong turn where the road forked. It is never too late to find your way back to democracy. Thus, it is sorrow, that I have to chide you on the error of your ways. Don't give in to tyranny, because you demean democracy and hurt humanity.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
@ Eric in New York -- You said, that it was with great sadness that you must read words of such ignorance on this blog, before hearing it on C-SPAN, from the U.N. or Columbia University (the old King's College). Perhaps the real issue here is that you live in a country where ignorance is bliss. Take a good look around you, and what do you see? A land where ignorance has taken hold in a big way.
Your very news media is government controlled, and then you speak of free speech? A free press and free speech are the first victims of any tyranny, including the U.S. Ask your government why it must spy on its citizens? Then ask yourself, is this any better than the Soviet Union of yesteryear? Every American today bows before the altar of mammon, in fear lest they are incarcerated. I ask you is that really living? Do you really believe so?
Some years ago, I paid a visit to Runnymede, England, to view this memorial to our freedoms, and noted that it was built by the American Bar Association. Where has that freedom gone today? Do you know? I doubt it, because you follow the dictates of your federal government without question. I on the other hand do not take government or freedoms lightly. I question anything the government does, because government is known to err.
If Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, were here toady, I am very sure that he would agree with me on all counts. You had better go back and search where you took the wrong turn where the road forked. It is never too late to find your way back to democracy. Thus, it is sorrow, that I have to chide you on the error of your ways. Don't give in to tyranny, because you demean democracy and hurt humanity.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Nina in U.S.A. writes:
Stop the dogs of war. Have you learned nothing from the horror you have created in Iraq and yet pine for more?
Bloody, blind, stupid fools, no wiser than the beasts you feed upon. Diplomats? What a laugh. You are merely pawns in a game played by madmen. Man of peace or man of war - the peacock spreads his fan.
Find your spines.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Stop the dogs of war. Have you learned nothing from the horror you have created in Iraq and yet pine for more?
Bloody, blind, stupid fools, no wiser than the beasts you feed upon. Diplomats? What a laugh. You are merely pawns in a game played by madmen. Man of peace or man of war - the peacock spreads his fan.
Find your spines.
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007
Eric in New York writes:
@ Kenneth in Canada -- It is with great sadness that I must read words of such ignorance on this blog before hearing them on C-SPAN, from the UN or from Columbia University.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
@ Kenneth in Canada -- It is with great sadness that I must read words of such ignorance on this blog before hearing them on C-SPAN, from the UN or from Columbia University.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Eric in New York writes:
In the presidents words, "I stand before you as a wartime President. I wish I didn't have to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, declared war on the United States of America. And war is what we're engaged in. The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater scale.
We fight for the possibility that decent men and women across the broader Middle East can realize their destiny -- and raise up societies based on freedom and justice and personal dignity. And as long as I'm Commander-in-Chief we will fight to win. I'm confident that we will prevail. I'm confident we'll prevail because we have the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known ", the truth is alluded to yet concealed.
The goals of diplomacy are apparent. To avoid open hostilities when progress is being made diplomatically.
However, a "new barbarism" is not the truth. There are those of a belief that their religion should govern the globe. This is the truth and not new by any means. The US, her allies and those who seek a mutually progressive way of life must continue with resolve in this path toward freedom and justice while at some point, again, making a demand that those nations either stand true with us, feign support in hopes of failure or openly be held in defiance. The latter two are becoming more obvious by the day as citizens around the globe are faced with the reality of what exactly these beliefs transform into, terrorism in furtherance of their cause, religious supremacy.
Is it diplomacy to deny the truth of these religious imperialists as innocent people die waiting for this great power to behave as confidently as it speaks? Is tolerance the new word for lack of resolve?
Brad in Florida makes an excellent observation, diplomacy can become a useful tool of the opposition in weakening resolve. Should the resolve of ending this imperialistic religion ( I apologize if I don't mince words) weaken then the victory the other half seeks will be further exacerbated by would be followers. Jumping on the band wagon so to speak. Should that occur the world will definitely be more divided and at a horrific price.
How much walking must one do before using his big stick? Will the stroll end in clouds of mushroom dust?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
In the presidents words, "I stand before you as a wartime President. I wish I didn't have to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, declared war on the United States of America. And war is what we're engaged in. The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater scale.
We fight for the possibility that decent men and women across the broader Middle East can realize their destiny -- and raise up societies based on freedom and justice and personal dignity. And as long as I'm Commander-in-Chief we will fight to win. I'm confident that we will prevail. I'm confident we'll prevail because we have the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known ", the truth is alluded to yet concealed.
The goals of diplomacy are apparent. To avoid open hostilities when progress is being made diplomatically.
However, a "new barbarism" is not the truth. There are those of a belief that their religion should govern the globe. This is the truth and not new by any means. The US, her allies and those who seek a mutually progressive way of life must continue with resolve in this path toward freedom and justice while at some point, again, making a demand that those nations either stand true with us, feign support in hopes of failure or openly be held in defiance. The latter two are becoming more obvious by the day as citizens around the globe are faced with the reality of what exactly these beliefs transform into, terrorism in furtherance of their cause, religious supremacy.
Is it diplomacy to deny the truth of these religious imperialists as innocent people die waiting for this great power to behave as confidently as it speaks? Is tolerance the new word for lack of resolve?
Brad in Florida makes an excellent observation, diplomacy can become a useful tool of the opposition in weakening resolve. Should the resolve of ending this imperialistic religion ( I apologize if I don't mince words) weaken then the victory the other half seeks will be further exacerbated by would be followers. Jumping on the band wagon so to speak. Should that occur the world will definitely be more divided and at a horrific price.
How much walking must one do before using his big stick? Will the stroll end in clouds of mushroom dust?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Catherine in California writes:
The situation with Iran and the rest of the Middle East and Asia is complicated. I applaud the State Department for dealing with the threats and promises on a daily basis.
Most frustrating to me is the fact that U.S. policy has failed to do a good job of employing the Iranian people, inside and outside Iran, who are willing to overthrow that radical regime with help from the U.S. There are many opposition groups around the world including the controversial MEK, which the DOS classifies as a terrorist group. A large group of the MEK are under our protection inside Iraq. Before we invaded Iraq. the MEK had protection of Saddam Hussein in exchange for the MEK protecting the border between Iran and Iraq.
Mu question is why the U.S. doesn't negotiate with the MEK leaders, exiled in Paris, and other opposition groups to empower them to take out the regime.
The MEK has given the U.S. the first accurate reports of Iran's nuclear program, among other intelligence.
It is unclear to me why the U.S. doesn't make a full-hearted attempt to assist expatriates and Iranian, who face more and more repression, instead of focusing solely on military invention vs. direct negotiations with Iran, a terrorist state.
We may be able to avoid military action with Iran or giving in to fruitless negotiations with the Regime which has never given us a thing.
Can you enlighten me?
Thank you and take care.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
The situation with Iran and the rest of the Middle East and Asia is complicated. I applaud the State Department for dealing with the threats and promises on a daily basis.
Most frustrating to me is the fact that U.S. policy has failed to do a good job of employing the Iranian people, inside and outside Iran, who are willing to overthrow that radical regime with help from the U.S. There are many opposition groups around the world including the controversial MEK, which the DOS classifies as a terrorist group. A large group of the MEK are under our protection inside Iraq. Before we invaded Iraq. the MEK had protection of Saddam Hussein in exchange for the MEK protecting the border between Iran and Iraq.
Mu question is why the U.S. doesn't negotiate with the MEK leaders, exiled in Paris, and other opposition groups to empower them to take out the regime.
The MEK has given the U.S. the first accurate reports of Iran's nuclear program, among other intelligence.
It is unclear to me why the U.S. doesn't make a full-hearted attempt to assist expatriates and Iranian, who face more and more repression, instead of focusing solely on military invention vs. direct negotiations with Iran, a terrorist state.
We may be able to avoid military action with Iran or giving in to fruitless negotiations with the Regime which has never given us a thing.
Can you enlighten me?
Thank you and take care.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Kenneth writes:
@ Dave in Florida -- This is not the early 20th century. To speak of: "Talk softly and carry a big stick," as Teddy Roosevelt said. We are now in the 21st century and things are a lot different. They other chap might also have a big stick, even though he does not talk softly, so be aware of its pitfalls.
Who came up with idea of talking religion to the Iranians. Gary Wills, might have his head separated from his body, if he started to talk about any religion but Shiite Islam.
What I said earlier, was true. You Americans have no idea about the world you live in. You assume too much, which is not in evidence. What, does Dave from Florida want? To have Gary Wells' head separated from his body.
Remember something that is very important. If you are to take up an issue, make sure you have studied all the facts. I know, what I am talking about, because I study history and religion. I note that even the people employed by the U.S. Department of State, are not experienced, and it becomes obvious, when they say or express themselves. Don't shoot your mouth off, when you are not an erudite. You are liable to make people realize that you are a rank amateur.
I could give you people a history lesson. I mean even in U.S. history. I write articles on it and advise people. You are still wet behind the ears, you can take that from me.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
@ Dave in Florida -- This is not the early 20th century. To speak of: "Talk softly and carry a big stick," as Teddy Roosevelt said. We are now in the 21st century and things are a lot different. They other chap might also have a big stick, even though he does not talk softly, so be aware of its pitfalls.
Who came up with idea of talking religion to the Iranians. Gary Wills, might have his head separated from his body, if he started to talk about any religion but Shiite Islam.
What I said earlier, was true. You Americans have no idea about the world you live in. You assume too much, which is not in evidence. What, does Dave from Florida want? To have Gary Wells' head separated from his body.
Remember something that is very important. If you are to take up an issue, make sure you have studied all the facts. I know, what I am talking about, because I study history and religion. I note that even the people employed by the U.S. Department of State, are not experienced, and it becomes obvious, when they say or express themselves. Don't shoot your mouth off, when you are not an erudite. You are liable to make people realize that you are a rank amateur.
I could give you people a history lesson. I mean even in U.S. history. I write articles on it and advise people. You are still wet behind the ears, you can take that from me.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Brad in Florida writes:
Mr. McCormick:
I appreciate your point.
The concern I have is that the "engage" side of the coin assumes Iran and the U.S. have compatible goals, absent which diplomacy" - even with 'carrots' and 'sticks' - is still just talking.
We believe Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. As I understand it, we also believe Iran's goal is to dominate the Middle East & Southwest Asia, which will require (at a minimum) that it either eject, or at least neutralize, the United States. Finally, we believe Iran sees its nuclear weapons program as the means by which it will accomplish its ejectment/neutralization of the United States / domination of the Middle East & Southwest Asia, that no one will challenge Iran once it openly possesses nuclear weapons. There is no indication that I'm aware of that Iran is interested in ratcheting down its goals, no indication that it is ready to live with Israel in peace & to accept American influences in the region.
As an attorney, I engage in negotiations all the time (far less complex, I admit). There's one constant - if one side's goal is victory and the other's is settlement, THERE WILL BE NO SETTLEMENT.
I see no indication the Iranians are interested in abandoning "victory" as they define it, in which case their participation in any "negotiation" will not be devoted to "settlement" - except on their terms. Assuming the United states refuses to surrender (and there's a significant block of our electorate who'd be fine with that), the Iranian's participation will be intended to advance "victory."
Now, how does that play out, given what we believe to be the facts on the ground?
* Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
* Iran doesn't have them yet.
* Iran believes the tables will be turned as soon as it gets them.
* Iran believes the United States won't act against it as long as there's some 'hope' that 'negotiations' will prevent conflict.
Doesn't it seem obvious that an Iran devoted to "victory" will use 'negotiations' to forestall any move against it until Iran has nuclear weapons?
Why does anyone at State believe Iran's goals are compatible with our own?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Mr. McCormick:
I appreciate your point.
The concern I have is that the "engage" side of the coin assumes Iran and the U.S. have compatible goals, absent which diplomacy" - even with 'carrots' and 'sticks' - is still just talking.
We believe Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. As I understand it, we also believe Iran's goal is to dominate the Middle East & Southwest Asia, which will require (at a minimum) that it either eject, or at least neutralize, the United States. Finally, we believe Iran sees its nuclear weapons program as the means by which it will accomplish its ejectment/neutralization of the United States / domination of the Middle East & Southwest Asia, that no one will challenge Iran once it openly possesses nuclear weapons. There is no indication that I'm aware of that Iran is interested in ratcheting down its goals, no indication that it is ready to live with Israel in peace & to accept American influences in the region.
As an attorney, I engage in negotiations all the time (far less complex, I admit). There's one constant - if one side's goal is victory and the other's is settlement, THERE WILL BE NO SETTLEMENT.
I see no indication the Iranians are interested in abandoning "victory" as they define it, in which case their participation in any "negotiation" will not be devoted to "settlement" - except on their terms. Assuming the United states refuses to surrender (and there's a significant block of our electorate who'd be fine with that), the Iranian's participation will be intended to advance "victory."
Now, how does that play out, given what we believe to be the facts on the ground?
* Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
* Iran doesn't have them yet.
* Iran believes the tables will be turned as soon as it gets them.
* Iran believes the United States won't act against it as long as there's some 'hope' that 'negotiations' will prevent conflict.
Doesn't it seem obvious that an Iran devoted to "victory" will use 'negotiations' to forestall any move against it until Iran has nuclear weapons?
Why does anyone at State believe Iran's goals are compatible with our own?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Tom in Illinois writes:
I think some of the nuance you'd like to see can be found in a forum and debate on Iran taking place at the Encyclopaedia Britannica blog
Some very prominent, knowledgeable, and thoughtful people are posting there, as well as some who are more, shall we say . . . impassioned?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
I think some of the nuance you'd like to see can be found in a forum and debate on Iran taking place at the Encyclopaedia Britannica blog
Some very prominent, knowledgeable, and thoughtful people are posting there, as well as some who are more, shall we say . . . impassioned?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard are no different to the U.S. National Guard, to call them terrorists is some kind of joke. But, what is more galling, is to refer to the Iraqi Patriots fighting for their homeland against a foreign occupier, as insurgents, you've got to be kidding. If that is the case then George Washington and his band pof insurgents are also terrorists in the same vein.
Please, don't come out with that patriotic garbage that they were fighting for independence, because they were not. Their sole aim was to gain power. That is no different to the Bush regime in the U.S. today. Sorry, your propaganda has not touched me in any way, any more than the Chinese Maoist propaganda of the People's Republic of China, when I was there. Funny how some countries refuse to face up to reality, and cover everything with a veneer of home-spun propaganda.
Back in Shanghai, China I saw the way the Red Guards treated the ordinay people. I was appalled by their attitude. When I got back home, I vowed to fight against them. This I did with gusto. Today, that moment came, when I saw the U.S. for what it was and decided to take action aganist it, all over the world. I am very proud to be an individual and can stand up to anyone. What guides me most, is intelligence, that is something you Americans lack.
My greatest hero, believe it or not, is that grand old Englishman, Thomas Paine. I like him, I will stand against all comers. Yes! the same Thomas Paine that you call an American.
Verily, the pen is mightier than the sword!
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard are no different to the U.S. National Guard, to call them terrorists is some kind of joke. But, what is more galling, is to refer to the Iraqi Patriots fighting for their homeland against a foreign occupier, as insurgents, you've got to be kidding. If that is the case then George Washington and his band pof insurgents are also terrorists in the same vein.
Please, don't come out with that patriotic garbage that they were fighting for independence, because they were not. Their sole aim was to gain power. That is no different to the Bush regime in the U.S. today. Sorry, your propaganda has not touched me in any way, any more than the Chinese Maoist propaganda of the People's Republic of China, when I was there. Funny how some countries refuse to face up to reality, and cover everything with a veneer of home-spun propaganda.
Back in Shanghai, China I saw the way the Red Guards treated the ordinay people. I was appalled by their attitude. When I got back home, I vowed to fight against them. This I did with gusto. Today, that moment came, when I saw the U.S. for what it was and decided to take action aganist it, all over the world. I am very proud to be an individual and can stand up to anyone. What guides me most, is intelligence, that is something you Americans lack.
My greatest hero, believe it or not, is that grand old Englishman, Thomas Paine. I like him, I will stand against all comers. Yes! the same Thomas Paine that you call an American.
Verily, the pen is mightier than the sword!
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Robert in Ohio writes:
I can't believe I'm actually about to quote Monty Python, but it applies:
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Stop demonizing Americans.
Let's look at this another way. Consider all countries to be people. Relative to other countries that have been around for ages America is still a child. Children also sometimes do not recognize their own strength and damage things without malicious intent. Now continuing with this line of thought, the countries that have been around for so long would be adults. Adults have more experience than children. But how did they gain it? By going through the same process of development as everyone else. Now, it is frustrating to watch a child do something that the adult knows to be wrong to any extent. But which will teach the child more, setting a good example and sharing wisdom gained with age or just scolding the child?
Not only does calling Americans evil and wishing harm upon us sound immature, but it makes you sound rash and unreasonable. You have the right to be frustrated. Many Americans are as well. But I urge you to be thoughtful in how you vent that frustration. Instead of providing useful insight you just put people on the defensive. Once people are on the defensive because of an affront to their homeland they will not be receptive to suggestions for improvement. This is basic human nature. I can only imagine that in chess it would also help to be able to understand how your opponent thinks . ;)
Attack the policies, not the people. Speaking in generalities about a people is irresponsible at best and can lead to disastrous consequences.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
I can't believe I'm actually about to quote Monty Python, but it applies:
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Stop demonizing Americans.
Let's look at this another way. Consider all countries to be people. Relative to other countries that have been around for ages America is still a child. Children also sometimes do not recognize their own strength and damage things without malicious intent. Now continuing with this line of thought, the countries that have been around for so long would be adults. Adults have more experience than children. But how did they gain it? By going through the same process of development as everyone else. Now, it is frustrating to watch a child do something that the adult knows to be wrong to any extent. But which will teach the child more, setting a good example and sharing wisdom gained with age or just scolding the child?
Not only does calling Americans evil and wishing harm upon us sound immature, but it makes you sound rash and unreasonable. You have the right to be frustrated. Many Americans are as well. But I urge you to be thoughtful in how you vent that frustration. Instead of providing useful insight you just put people on the defensive. Once people are on the defensive because of an affront to their homeland they will not be receptive to suggestions for improvement. This is basic human nature. I can only imagine that in chess it would also help to be able to understand how your opponent thinks . ;)
Attack the policies, not the people. Speaking in generalities about a people is irresponsible at best and can lead to disastrous consequences.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
@ Ralph in Greece -- Realm of non-fiction and Tom Clancy's work? Have you never heard it said that reality imitates fiction? Then, of course you are an American, which actually means that you do not read anything written by non-American authors, do you? That, of course speaks volumes. Besides, any publication that is not censored by the Bush regime, cannot be sold in book stores.
That strikes one of the book-burning period in Nazi Germany. Is the U.S. any different to Nazi Germany today? You will not be able to answer that question on the grounds that it would incriminate you. Too bad
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
@ Ralph in Greece -- Realm of non-fiction and Tom Clancy's work? Have you never heard it said that reality imitates fiction? Then, of course you are an American, which actually means that you do not read anything written by non-American authors, do you? That, of course speaks volumes. Besides, any publication that is not censored by the Bush regime, cannot be sold in book stores.
That strikes one of the book-burning period in Nazi Germany. Is the U.S. any different to Nazi Germany today? You will not be able to answer that question on the grounds that it would incriminate you. Too bad
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Mike from Kansas writes:
Negotiate with Iran? LOL, "I've got a Bridge for Sale!" Let's see, How long have we been "Neogtiating" with the Mullahs?? Didn't Jimmuh Catah start this process?
Unbelievable, Just more of the Same from State! "Neva, Neva Land!"
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Negotiate with Iran? LOL, "I've got a Bridge for Sale!" Let's see, How long have we been "Neogtiating" with the Mullahs?? Didn't Jimmuh Catah start this process?
Unbelievable, Just more of the Same from State! "Neva, Neva Land!"
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Richard in Massachusetts writes:
This has been a very useful start in agency transparency (btw, isn't blogging a gas?). Two short points on a subject fraught with potential global mishap -- as in so many matters these days, China is central. Some direct, no nonsense signal from Beijing that Iran has to follow a rational collegial path will carry profound weight, given China's looming political and commercial strength. Also, let's get non-governmental communicators into Teheran's cultural bloodstream -- a week-long speaking tour by someone like Garry Wills on religion and freedom could yield an impressive frisson.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
This has been a very useful start in agency transparency (btw, isn't blogging a gas?). Two short points on a subject fraught with potential global mishap -- as in so many matters these days, China is central. Some direct, no nonsense signal from Beijing that Iran has to follow a rational collegial path will carry profound weight, given China's looming political and commercial strength. Also, let's get non-governmental communicators into Teheran's cultural bloodstream -- a week-long speaking tour by someone like Garry Wills on religion and freedom could yield an impressive frisson.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Jeff in Washington, DC writes:
Your thesis seems to be that you need leverage in order to prevent failure in negotiation. Many would argue, and the UN was partly created because, almost all wars are started on the basis of some kind of misunderstanding on one or both sides and the primary to prevent misunderstanding is to talk to each other. Communication is not just a tool - its a victory unto itself because it increases information and prevents misunderstanding by all sides.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Your thesis seems to be that you need leverage in order to prevent failure in negotiation. Many would argue, and the UN was partly created because, almost all wars are started on the basis of some kind of misunderstanding on one or both sides and the primary to prevent misunderstanding is to talk to each other. Communication is not just a tool - its a victory unto itself because it increases information and prevents misunderstanding by all sides.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Dave in Florida writes"
Basically: Speak softly but carry a big stick. Generally seems to work..
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Basically: Speak softly but carry a big stick. Generally seems to work..
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
James in Virginia:
I would hope that the U.S. can focus enough energy on the Iran problem early enough to solve it. I think some credibility is lost, and that makes solving this peacefully very difficult. Iran, like Iraq, is probably bluffing in a feeble attempt to hold their status. This may result in the U.S. calling their bluff, hopefully not alone, and attempting to drag yet another country out of the middle ages. Thank you for the site, and for the humor these comments so often provide!
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
I would hope that the U.S. can focus enough energy on the Iran problem early enough to solve it. I think some credibility is lost, and that makes solving this peacefully very difficult. Iran, like Iraq, is probably bluffing in a feeble attempt to hold their status. This may result in the U.S. calling their bluff, hopefully not alone, and attempting to drag yet another country out of the middle ages. Thank you for the site, and for the humor these comments so often provide!
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Foppe in The Netherlands writes:
We Dutch know quite well that our government yielded to USA pressure, threats by former ambassador Bremer, to send troops to Afghanistan to help NATO with the destruction of that country.
We have seen how the U.S.A. has destroyed Iraq, and still continues doing this.
It is strange that the U.S.A. government still does not realise that most people in the world see it as the evil power in the world, and that the U.S.A. wants to destroy Iran for the same reasons it destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
We Dutch know quite well that our government yielded to USA pressure, threats by former ambassador Bremer, to send troops to Afghanistan to help NATO with the destruction of that country.
We have seen how the U.S.A. has destroyed Iraq, and still continues doing this.
It is strange that the U.S.A. government still does not realise that most people in the world see it as the evil power in the world, and that the U.S.A. wants to destroy Iran for the same reasons it destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Brady in Greece writes:
A remarkably insular blog posting. Has the author ever been outside the U.S.?
Given that the U.S. also derives benefit (e.g., increased safety for U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, stability in energy prices, potential limits on Iranian support to anti-Israel groups) from engagement with Iran, the inducement for Iran's "good behavior" must be proportional to that potential benefit, not simply the privilege of negotiating with the State Department to make a sacrifice Iran has no obligation (under international law, at least) to make.
There is no international prohibition on enriching uranium, simply a set of safeguards. Iran has told the IAEA it will apply them, though Iranians are internally divided on the issue. The realistic goal, because America has neither the cash nor the troops nor the legitimacy to impose a new regime on Iran, is full Iranian compliance with those safeguards. That can be negotiated pretty cheaply, once it is acceptable U.S. domestic politics to do so.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
A remarkably insular blog posting. Has the author ever been outside the U.S.?
Given that the U.S. also derives benefit (e.g., increased safety for U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, stability in energy prices, potential limits on Iranian support to anti-Israel groups) from engagement with Iran, the inducement for Iran's "good behavior" must be proportional to that potential benefit, not simply the privilege of negotiating with the State Department to make a sacrifice Iran has no obligation (under international law, at least) to make.
There is no international prohibition on enriching uranium, simply a set of safeguards. Iran has told the IAEA it will apply them, though Iranians are internally divided on the issue. The realistic goal, because America has neither the cash nor the troops nor the legitimacy to impose a new regime on Iran, is full Iranian compliance with those safeguards. That can be negotiated pretty cheaply, once it is acceptable U.S. domestic politics to do so.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
S in Florida writes:
Gee, Kenneth in Canda, it sounds like the latest "worthwhile Canadian initiative" is a desire for global thermonuclear war.
Trust me; neither the Chinese nor the Russians are as stupid as you desire them to be. They'd much rather us get bogged down in some quagmire in Iran. When one plays chess long enough, one sees that.
Condi and her friends are trying to avoid two things: one-a nuclear armed Iran and two, a return to American isolationism. You'd want to avoid that too, if you actually thought that through.
A nuclear armed Iran leads to a couple of things; a possible accidental nuclear conflict between her and Israel and an almost certain nuclear arms race in the Middle East as the Sunni states, such as Egypt, ramp up their programs with Saudi financing. Turkey won't stand idle, either. Now you can either scream "Bush Lied, They Died!", or you can try and do something about it with the proper mix of carrots and Dick Cheney. And that's what Condi and her subordinates are trying to do.
Whether it has any noticable effect on the kind of people who make up the Revolutionary Guards Corps is another question.
The other issue is a return to Isolationism. This is far more likely than some of our friends at State would like to admit. The American electorate doesn't see itself or it's efforts as wicked, bad, evil, especially in a world that produces the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il. That might be a staple of Canadian politics, but that dog don't hunt down here. However, believe me, out in the country, people tire of getting blamed for everything by our so called "friends". People don't like shoveling out 15 to 30 billion dollars for AIDs research in Africa and then getting the big Eff You from the rest of the world in response. People at Foggy Bottom are totally at sea about this, but when someone like Ron Paul is pulling in the big bucks with his America First platform, it's time for foreigners to take notice.
Casual anti-Americanism is fine when it's cost free. It's when the notion of "American Imperialism", popularized by people wearing Che merchandise who should know better, begins to have an effect on normal people's impression of America that things begin to corrode. Where a lot of our so-called "friends" just don't like us. Then we may arrive at a point at which the American people decide to pack things in and go home. The last time that happened was the 1930's.
We see how well that worked out, don't we?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Gee, Kenneth in Canda, it sounds like the latest "worthwhile Canadian initiative" is a desire for global thermonuclear war.
Trust me; neither the Chinese nor the Russians are as stupid as you desire them to be. They'd much rather us get bogged down in some quagmire in Iran. When one plays chess long enough, one sees that.
Condi and her friends are trying to avoid two things: one-a nuclear armed Iran and two, a return to American isolationism. You'd want to avoid that too, if you actually thought that through.
A nuclear armed Iran leads to a couple of things; a possible accidental nuclear conflict between her and Israel and an almost certain nuclear arms race in the Middle East as the Sunni states, such as Egypt, ramp up their programs with Saudi financing. Turkey won't stand idle, either. Now you can either scream "Bush Lied, They Died!", or you can try and do something about it with the proper mix of carrots and Dick Cheney. And that's what Condi and her subordinates are trying to do.
Whether it has any noticable effect on the kind of people who make up the Revolutionary Guards Corps is another question.
The other issue is a return to Isolationism. This is far more likely than some of our friends at State would like to admit. The American electorate doesn't see itself or it's efforts as wicked, bad, evil, especially in a world that produces the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il. That might be a staple of Canadian politics, but that dog don't hunt down here. However, believe me, out in the country, people tire of getting blamed for everything by our so called "friends". People don't like shoveling out 15 to 30 billion dollars for AIDs research in Africa and then getting the big Eff You from the rest of the world in response. People at Foggy Bottom are totally at sea about this, but when someone like Ron Paul is pulling in the big bucks with his America First platform, it's time for foreigners to take notice.
Casual anti-Americanism is fine when it's cost free. It's when the notion of "American Imperialism", popularized by people wearing Che merchandise who should know better, begins to have an effect on normal people's impression of America that things begin to corrode. Where a lot of our so-called "friends" just don't like us. Then we may arrive at a point at which the American people decide to pack things in and go home. The last time that happened was the 1930's.
We see how well that worked out, don't we?
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Kashif in America writes:
Hello Mr. McCormick i hope you read my comments and the comments of others such as Kenneth in Canada. For too long the U.S. has used various slogans such as freedom, democracy, axis of evil, and so forth to push ahead with it's agendas. The only reason countries follow the american's around is because they want to have good trade relations with it and will say anything to please it. America is not all evil lot's of countries rely on america for trade because they are undeveloped like China for example. To use that desperation of countries who are seeking development through good trade relations to advance an agenda that serves the protection of countries that have violated numerous human rights is deplorable at best. If countries you are allied with such as Turkey had true democracy then they would be allowed to wear scarfs and become islamic however that is not the case and the iron hand which the rest of the world is familiar with in their own respective governments shows it's ugly face through their militaries and other nefarious means. When Ahmedinejad was allowed to speak at columbia i was astounded that americans had the courage to hear another point of view but by the actions of the hooligans at columbia it became clear that certain sloganering from the americans was going to obscure the debate. I hope America will give up it's pretentious claims to be being the saviour of a bankrupt ideology of capitalism and democracy. Let China become economically strong don't restrict trade with them if you don't like what you hear from them and let them get strong enough to beat your country up, PLease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just because you are strong today and have an economic adavantage over other countries that doesn't mean that will protect you on the day of judgement when God will send all jerks to hell, inshallah.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Hello Mr. McCormick i hope you read my comments and the comments of others such as Kenneth in Canada. For too long the U.S. has used various slogans such as freedom, democracy, axis of evil, and so forth to push ahead with it's agendas. The only reason countries follow the american's around is because they want to have good trade relations with it and will say anything to please it. America is not all evil lot's of countries rely on america for trade because they are undeveloped like China for example. To use that desperation of countries who are seeking development through good trade relations to advance an agenda that serves the protection of countries that have violated numerous human rights is deplorable at best. If countries you are allied with such as Turkey had true democracy then they would be allowed to wear scarfs and become islamic however that is not the case and the iron hand which the rest of the world is familiar with in their own respective governments shows it's ugly face through their militaries and other nefarious means. When Ahmedinejad was allowed to speak at columbia i was astounded that americans had the courage to hear another point of view but by the actions of the hooligans at columbia it became clear that certain sloganering from the americans was going to obscure the debate. I hope America will give up it's pretentious claims to be being the saviour of a bankrupt ideology of capitalism and democracy. Let China become economically strong don't restrict trade with them if you don't like what you hear from them and let them get strong enough to beat your country up, PLease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just because you are strong today and have an economic adavantage over other countries that doesn't mean that will protect you on the day of judgement when God will send all jerks to hell, inshallah.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Ralph in Greece writes:
I have been waiting for the U.S.A. to settle the score with Iran since the day our U.S. mission staff were taken hostage many years ago. Although I realize that this is not the reason we are pressuring Iran, it still gives me great pleasure to see the Iranians squirming under the international pressure.
To the gentleman in Canada (Kenneth): Your narrative reads more like the work of Tom Clancy. In my opinion, I think this blog tries to stay in the realm of non-fiction.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
I have been waiting for the U.S.A. to settle the score with Iran since the day our U.S. mission staff were taken hostage many years ago. Although I realize that this is not the reason we are pressuring Iran, it still gives me great pleasure to see the Iranians squirming under the international pressure.
To the gentleman in Canada (Kenneth): Your narrative reads more like the work of Tom Clancy. In my opinion, I think this blog tries to stay in the realm of non-fiction.
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007
Baron writes:
How does one "engage" a theocratic dictatorship? The idea is manifestly absurd.
It is official Iranian state policy that the state of Israel must be destroyed. How does one engage that? What compromise will we offer? To allow them to destroy *part* of Israel??
The president of Iran has declared his mission to be the fulfillment of Shi'ite prophecies, that is, to bring war and destruction upon the world in order to usher in the reign of the Twelfth Imam. Do you think he is being coy? Is this mere rhetoric on his part?
Ahmedinejad has issued "the Call" to the United States. Our failure to heed it and convert to Islam requires our destruction.
He is as clear in his intentions as was Hitler in "Mein Kampf". Not to take him at face value is the height of foolishness.
If we are too weak to confront Iran, then it must be contained, not "engaged". Prudence and common sense demand nothing less.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
How does one "engage" a theocratic dictatorship? The idea is manifestly absurd.
It is official Iranian state policy that the state of Israel must be destroyed. How does one engage that? What compromise will we offer? To allow them to destroy *part* of Israel??
The president of Iran has declared his mission to be the fulfillment of Shi'ite prophecies, that is, to bring war and destruction upon the world in order to usher in the reign of the Twelfth Imam. Do you think he is being coy? Is this mere rhetoric on his part?
Ahmedinejad has issued "the Call" to the United States. Our failure to heed it and convert to Islam requires our destruction.
He is as clear in his intentions as was Hitler in "Mein Kampf". Not to take him at face value is the height of foolishness.
If we are too weak to confront Iran, then it must be contained, not "engaged". Prudence and common sense demand nothing less.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Ronnie in North Carolina writes:
My question is this, was Iran's "weapons of uranium enrichment" discovered before or after the attack on Iraq?
Because, if it was after the attack on Iraq,then this is just another deceptive ploy by the Bush administration to sacrifice more of this countries courageous young men and women in uniform, unnecessarily,for the sake of oil! (Oh, by the way, I'm veteran)
If it was discovered before the invasion into Iraq,then this is without a doubt,"all about oil"...
Let's think this situation through before the U.S. attack.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
My question is this, was Iran's "weapons of uranium enrichment" discovered before or after the attack on Iraq?
Because, if it was after the attack on Iraq,then this is just another deceptive ploy by the Bush administration to sacrifice more of this countries courageous young men and women in uniform, unnecessarily,for the sake of oil! (Oh, by the way, I'm veteran)
If it was discovered before the invasion into Iraq,then this is without a doubt,"all about oil"...
Let's think this situation through before the U.S. attack.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Yaser in Saudi Arabia writes:
What is the point of your demand that Iran suspends its nuclear enrichment activities? Is it temporary suspension? Or you do not want Iran to ever has the nuclear technology knowledge. I think it is possible to check if Iran program is peaceful or not but your main concern is that you do not want Iran to have the knowledge.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
What is the point of your demand that Iran suspends its nuclear enrichment activities? Is it temporary suspension? Or you do not want Iran to ever has the nuclear technology knowledge. I think it is possible to check if Iran program is peaceful or not but your main concern is that you do not want Iran to have the knowledge.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Kenneth in Canada writes:
What makes you Americans think that you can order the world around?
If and when you attack Iran, I hope that the Russians and the Chinese launch a preemptive strike on the U.S. This will carry a message to the American people, that to every move, there is a counter move. If one plays chess, one learns that.
For the last five years, I have been urging the Chinese and Russian Governments to re-arm, and be ready to attack the U.S. itself. No country since World War II, has been more involved in the overthrow of foreign governments than the U.S. Thus, steps must be taken to bring it under control by whatever means is necessary.
The world of today, does not need a rogue cop, like the U.S. to deal with its problems. Sometimes it becomes very necessary to imprison the rogue cop. Right now, I do not see any way out, without a direct attack on the U.S. itself. Enough is enough. Let us have an end to the madness that the U.S. has exported to a peaceful world.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
What makes you Americans think that you can order the world around?
If and when you attack Iran, I hope that the Russians and the Chinese launch a preemptive strike on the U.S. This will carry a message to the American people, that to every move, there is a counter move. If one plays chess, one learns that.
For the last five years, I have been urging the Chinese and Russian Governments to re-arm, and be ready to attack the U.S. itself. No country since World War II, has been more involved in the overthrow of foreign governments than the U.S. Thus, steps must be taken to bring it under control by whatever means is necessary.
The world of today, does not need a rogue cop, like the U.S. to deal with its problems. Sometimes it becomes very necessary to imprison the rogue cop. Right now, I do not see any way out, without a direct attack on the U.S. itself. Enough is enough. Let us have an end to the madness that the U.S. has exported to a peaceful world.
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007
Page 1 of 1 pages