Has the Iranian fist unclenched?
President Obama needs some successes at the moment.
Maybe he has got one. He could argue the first talks between Iran and the US for 30 years have worked, and that the success justifies his call for hostile nations to unclench their fists, and receive the hand of friendship in return.
The talks with Iran, at first blush, seem to justify his decision to "reach out", as Americans would say.
And, he could argue, the Iranians appear to be shifting only because he took care to get the Russians and Chinese on-side first.
The Iranians have agreed to have some of their uranium enriched outside the country by another nuclear power, which could lessen their ability to develop weapons.
The president says more action must follow: the inspectors have to be allowed in to the (now not-so-secret) site near Qom within two weeks. Otherwise, there would be "increased pressure".
And there has to be "swift action" from the Iranians, he said, to prove they are only interested in civil nuclear power. "Talk is no substitute for action," he insisted.
One former insider I have been speaking to tells me that enrichment is a bit of a red herring and what really has to be stopped is "weaponisation".
Iran almost certainly has the scientific ability to make a bomb, he says, but has not taken the political decision. Mr Obama hopes to drive them off this course.
The decision to hold talks was widely derided by critical commentators as a sign of weakness. The trouble with that is that "talks" is where you always end up.
Persuasion leads to talks. Successful sanctions lead to talks. Even military action, in the end, leads to talks.
But it is important that the president sets a pace to undermine any suggestion that he is being strung along.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~11~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark writes:
"And, he could argue, the Iranians appear to be shifting only because he took care to get the Russians and Chinese on-side first.
.............
But it is important that the president sets a pace to undermine any suggestion that he is being strung along."
I would venture the idea that international relations is the process of stringing each other along, from time to time, according to the perceived advantages of the day.
If the O is dancing with the stars on the international stage, he and they both know how the US political system works. Obama is the man in the big hat today, but foreign policy extends across administrations and is largely controlled by the established forces behind the party system.
That is to say, the sector of the community who handles the private military supply contracts for the public sector military workers. Ergo, the banks.
Curiously, for the first time in a hundred years, Russia and the USA share a free market approach to foreign policy and military supply. China has socialist military supply policy, by contrast. The state supplies however much military resourcing they think is a good idea at the time.
That is the background that will push the advice going to the dancers on stage. In that context, and given Obama's political heritage and favoured advisors, the only thing he will achieve is elegance. But he does that well. He earns his wage.
Complain about this comment
The president says more action must follow: the inspectors have to be allowed in to the (now not-so-secret) site near Qom within two weeks. Otherwise, there would be "increased pressure".
Haven't we heard that line before? Knowing how Mr Obama felt about the invasion of Iraq, I find it difficult, nay, impossible, to believe that he would entertain the thought of military intervention. Of course, a newly installed President Blair might go for it but I cannot see that either the American or British people would support such a course of action. If the President should decide that force is necessary, he can say goodbye to another term. It would be interesting to know what his Secretary of State thinks, other than "we're making progress". She too has a vested interest in the future - her own, as well as that of the United States.
P.S. Couldn't you get rid of the "got"? What's wrong with Maybe he has one?
Complain about this comment
Referring to comment 2:
Obama's unwillingness to intervene militarily in Iran by invading (something I agree with you on) doesn't preclude him ordering a military strike with 'bunker-buster' bombs, does it?
The President has to shake the impression that he is weak - which is what I get from the increasing belligerence in some places after his inauguration. The only positive reception from President Obama's 'gentle attitude' from an antagonistic country (so not European ones) is from Cuba so far. I don't buy the Russians supposedly loosening up after the missile shield thing in Poland/Czech Republic was scuttled.
Complain about this comment
Interesting thoughts David @2. I don't disagree. However a full-scale invasion is a whole lot different than a quick strategic strike with airplanes. The latter, I think, could be countenanced and not affect Obama's run at a 2nd term. War, rightly, is totally out of the question from the american perspective, politics aside. We are fighting two already.
Would the US 'allow' an Israeli strike and then provide it 'cover'? We'll see. The recent Israeli strike against Syria was a total success. The Syrians pretended nothing happened. But the calculus is different striking Iran. They might very well lob something in the Israeli direction as a reprisal.
To Mark's comment about 'weaponisation'. The ability to refine uranium/plutonium is one thing (as seen with the DRPK) but to miniaturize it and place it on a missle is different. Not sure if the Iranians have mastered that yet (i'd need to do more research as I am not sure).
Let us hope that when the Iranian fist is unclenched it isn't limited to its middle finger!
Complain about this comment
DC, you speak a lot of good sense, but when you start criticising people's English you invariably go over the top. MM writes perfectly good English. I'm a critical reader myself (allowing for the irresistible change always taking place in English, as in other languages), but I saw nothing wrong at any point in MM's piece.
"Couldn't you get rid of the 'got'?"
Why should he? "Maybe he has got one" is in no way unacceptable to any but the most pedantic Anglophone.
"What's wrong with 'Maybe he has one'?"
I'll tell you what's wrong with it: it doesn't say the same thing as "Maybe he has got one". This implies "Maybe he has obtained one/acquired one/been given one", whereas "Maybe he has one" can easily be read as meaning "Maybe he's had one for a while".
That's my feeling as a linguist, anyway. I may, of course, be wrong.
Complain about this comment
Oddly enough, most media outlets have ignored the remarks that the US and the West KNEW about this facility- so any claims of it being new are lies.
Most media outlets have also ignored Ayatollah Khameni's fatwa against nuclear weapons as well.
And nobody's even mentioning the old ad in which US Nuclear Utilities PRAISED the Shah for trying to build nuclear reactors in Iran.
BTW, welcome, Mark. Hope you won't echo the Washington establishment...
Complain about this comment
"But it is important that the president sets a pace to undermine any suggestion that he is being strung along" - after all, America calls the shots half way round the globe in the M.E. - along with it's colonialist partner-in-crime, Israel, not some upstart nations like Iran or Iraq that actually belong there. So talks - just as with Iraq - are simply a prelude to some sort of heavy-handed future action, just to maintain the fiction that they tried but it didn't work. Force is always the American/Israrli preferred method in the end and Obama is no different despite the rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#5. Didactylid: "That's my feeling as a linguist, anyway. I may, of course, be wrong."
As indeed you are. I don't know where or when you were educated but good British teachers of English always frowned on 'got' as being lazy. The former prime minister was very fond of the word when he really meant 'must'. In addition to being lazy, it sounds ugly, even Germanic, an unfortunate language if ever there was one. If you're a linguist by profession, it doesn't say much for your training. Standards dear boy! Standards!!
Complain about this comment
6, Orvillethird: Oddly enough, most media outlets have ignored the remarks that the US and the West KNEW about this facility- so any claims of it being new are lies.
Most media outlets have also ignored Ayatollah Khameni's fatwa against nuclear weapons as well.
Well, NPR and the BBC didn't ignore either one of those news items. Those are two very large media outlets. Do you listen to/read/watch all media outlets so that you know for a fact that "most" ignored them?
Complain about this comment
#4. DiscoStu_d: "Would the US 'allow' an Israeli strike and then provide it 'cover'?"
If the Israelis used a nuclear weapon as they very well could, then I do not believe the USA would condone it. Even an unprovoked attack with a conventional bomb would cause an uproar. Iran would not sit back and let Israel walk all over it. I feel sure that no-one wants another debacle like the Iraq fiasco. America is stretched as it is, although my late father always said that "war is good for the economy". Once a nuclear bomb is dropped, everyone and anyone would be fair game. Having opened Pandora's Box, who is to say what China, Russia or any other country with nuclear capability might do? In their view America would be fair game and we really would have a holocaust. At the risk of quoting my entire family, one of my elderly aunts liked to say "we're living in wicked times" - and I fear she was correct.
Complain about this comment
11, David_Cunard -
Why would the Chinese consider the U.S. fair game, and nuke us? Wouldn't that be kind of like killing the Golden Goose? What would be the point of that?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sometimes a topic to talk about problems can provide a good solution if there is agreement between the parties ... But after talks were completed actions that need to be done ... And as to make the decision to consider the factors of peace ... Be careful when you speak or express their opinions, who knew it would turn back on yourself ... Obama's goal should be to try to protect the countries that weak ... Yeah but no man who can do it perfectly ... It is unfortunate ... In the end talks for peace or protect others bring someone on the wrong ambition of mastering the state or anyone else ...
Complain about this comment
Iran may sit down at the table and talk with us, but it won't be over anything substantive. They have no reason to. The Iranians neither respect nor fear the Obama administration; Russia and China will look after their commercial interests with Iran and nothing will change. They could have the fuel for their reactor manufactured outside Iran while at their secure facilities they could enrich anywhere from 5% (fuel grade) to 95% (weapons grade) and we may not know it. The Iranians want commercial nuclear power and, at the very least, the capability to build and deliver a nuclear weapon. It is a vital national interest to them and there is nothing we can do about it. We need to make it as painful diplomatically and economically as possible and begin work on a theater missile defense system and work with friends in the Middle East on how to collectively contain a nuclear Iran with unfriendly aspirations towards its non-Shia neighbors.
Complain about this comment
No. Iran will act in what they believe to be their own self-interest,
like any state. We need to look after our own self-interest, and not
expect any favors. If something good comes of it, fine. We'll see.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell:
I think in my own opinion....That the Iranian fist has unclenched
to a point....But, I am being skeptical.
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
#12. socialistlibertarian: "Why would the Chinese consider the U.S. fair game, and nuke us? Wouldn't that be kind of like killing the Golden Goose? What would be the point of that?"
There's no telling what the future holds - the sleeping giant could well awake. Today (yesterday GMT) China showed her military might, a favourite ploy of the old USSR, which I took to be a signal that she is a power amongst powers. I never could grasp the idea that the Soviets wanted to "own" or occupy the United States - what would they do with it and how could they have achieved it? The Cold War was essentially paranoia. The Chinese are inscrutable and no-one really knows the long-term aspirations of the hybrid Communist-Capitalist nation. Nevertheless, once nuclear warfare becomes the norm, every nation with nuclear capability will have no fear of using it, remembering that the precedent has already been set for an unprovoked attack. Gunpowder was once the most powerful killing agent; now the stakes are higher. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the US sided with Israel in an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran and the Chinese took offence, who's to say what might happen?
Complain about this comment
The best way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is to destabilize Iran from within with applying sanctions that weaken the Iranian economy.
Sanctions and using undercover agents are not as dramatic or observable as would be using military strikes to take out a uranium processing plant...but in the end more successful.
If Obama's diplomacy were able to cause a change in the government in Iran that would be a major victory...
If the US had more economic power now that would strengthen the use of sanctions..but the US has yet to recover from the damage to its economy done by unregulated corporations and expensive wars.
The key will be getting China and Russia to work with the US. The US will be unable to have a strong effect alone because of the damaged US economy.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with bethpa on this... there is really no viable military
option. Perhaps the Israelis are thinking that they will take out Iran's
enrichment capabilities, but this would, at best, only set them back a few
years. In the meantime, Iran would feel free to retaliate by destabilizing
Iraq and causing other problems.
In spite of my general disapproval of the Obama administration, they are playing
the game properly here, given the weak cards which they were dealt.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, not to be strung along? How to prevent such a predicament... A full 180 degree turn might suffice and start mounting pressure with a military presence. Or talk until we are blue in the face and when Iran is finally able to pull the knife from behind their back, and remove the glad hand and smile presented to stall. Dr. Spock Diplomacy does not work! As past policy stated, you must speak softly, and carry a big stick. To bring that phrase into the current times, "Speak less (they aren't listening anyway), and show them the big stick (and swing it a couple of times for effect...). The option of stalling, just long enough for them, means annihilation. I guess we should wait and see if Russia and China would like us to be annihilated before we do anything...
Complain about this comment
#20 There is always a viable military option! The Ace of Spades Trumps all else! In case you haven't noticed, or have only been watching NBC, Iran has long been trying to destabilize Iraq with insurgents and causing problems! Why would they want that to be a success for the USA? And the current administration appears to be ready to fold...
Complain about this comment
11 ,David.
I wonder if all the Israeli talk of an Iranian threat, and its threats to Iran in turn, aren't designed as a distraction to what is going on in Israel itself. Perhaps she is adopting a victim status for her own purposes.
Complain about this comment
#22, we appear to finally be getting out of Iraq on our own terms, so I hardly
see why we would want to destabilize that. After we're gone, the Iranians
can start a fight if they want to. It won't involve us, and it won't go
well for them, nukes or not.
A direct attack on Iran would only allow their regime to further suppress dissent.
Let's not make their job easy. Let's make their job as difficult as possible
by removing ourselves from their domestic political dynamic.
Complain about this comment
#24 There's the gamble! It doesn't matter what "we want" Iran will seek mischief either way. A direct attack would remove the possibilty of them getting a viable nuke in the near future, and allow the neighboring countries to stand a chance, and perhaps your children in the not too distant future. They are playing a weak hand, what are we giving away?
Complain about this comment
Guns I agree with you on this one, while there is a military option it would be a mistake to use it. For one reason if nothing else the whole region is such a tinderbox if something went wrong (missiles etc which lets face it could happen) then it could easily set something much larger off which we could fail to contain.
Complain about this comment
Actually, there was a study done near the end of the Bush administration
which concluded that the Iranians could only be set back by about 5 years
or so by a military campaign. Gates was the one who told Bush not to do it.
In the long run, moderation of Iranian politics is the only solution,
and it has already happened on a social level. We need only to contain them
until a more moderate faction takes control there.
Us not being in the neighborhood would remove a lot of support for the current
faction. Killing thousands (or more) Iranians would have the opposite effect.
Complain about this comment
24, guns.
Iran's overriding desire is to become an economic power. War, which she nor anybody else could win, would hamper her plans. So I do not see her warring with her neighbors. Her meddling in Iraq was intended to pin us down there, thus diverting attention from herself, because she knew she was next in line.
All this nuke talk is nonsense. Politicians may speak like madmen (our own included) but that does not mean they are mad. The disaster at Chernobyl affected, not only Russia, but a good part of Europe. Can you honestly see Iran nuking Iraq, which is right next door?
Obama would be out of his mind to make a direct attack on Iran (or allow Israel to do so). We would be left with another Afghanistan, but one of much larger proportions. Obama is not weak when he chooses negotiation over military action. He is wise.
Complain about this comment
Could we Contain an Iran Nuclear Weapon? Pull your head out of the sand. Stop listening to Brian Williams and company! You are in as much Danger as Israel and American Forces in Iraq and Aphganistan!!!
Did you forget that New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked?!?
Complain about this comment
'On Thursday, Carter said he was only speaking about a "fringe element."
"I said those that had a personal attack on President Obama as a person, that was tinged with racism," Carter said. "But I recognize that people that disagree with him on health care or the environment, that the vast majority of those are not tinged with racism."
[CNN]
The former president added that during his reign he had to deal with the same issues as pres. Obama, prominently including Iran.
How Mr. Carter dealt (or rather not dealt) with Iran during his presidency is a matter of a well documented public record.
Complain about this comment
29, BraunSA.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. But India does, Israel does. We do. Russia does. And on and on. If we are so against nuclear weapons, then we should ALL get rid of them. I don't see that any one country is more of a danger than another. Any country that has one is a danger. Let's ban them all.
Complain about this comment
29, actually, yes. Frankly, I'm looking forward to the stimulus effect
on our economy by the increased deployment of the Aegis-based system.
I don't like some of the moves that the Obama administration has made
as far as weapons systems cancellations, but I don't think that we're
going to let anybody walk over us, either. I noticed, for example, that
development of a hypersonic bomber fleet has been moved forward as part of the stimulus.
Complain about this comment
#23. allmymarbles: "I wonder if all the Israeli talk of an Iranian threat, and its threats to Iran in turn, aren't designed as a distraction to what is going on in Israel itself."
Nice point which hasn't been considered. Political life is very much like that of the professional illusionist - smoke, mirrors and misdirection.
Complain about this comment
29, BraunSA.
"Could we Contain an Iran Nuclear Weapon? Pull your head out of the sand. Stop listening to Brian Williams and company! You are in as much Danger as Israel and American Forces in Iraq and Aphganistan!!!
Did you forget that New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked?!?"
I was not aware that Iran attacked New York and Washington. I am also not aware that nukes were used. Your emotion comment makes no sense.
Complain about this comment
So Obama waits (sorry, negotiates)? Sir, we feel you should sit on your hands while these fanatics, whom have already overthrown their government, and have taken hostage American Professors, albeit over a few years (doesn't that sound better?), dictate to you their agreement to "talk" about the possibility of letting us have a peak at what they are really up to. We know they would never intend to hurt us, but have disagreements with some neighboring countries. So sit back, worry about the Olympics going to Chicago and see what these self professed, Israel, American, and West hating whackos will agree to let us, "the West" intervene in their business...
Complain about this comment
Re #28 "The disaster at Chernobyl affected, not only Russia, but a good part of Europe."
Russians, who designed and built Chernobyl reactors, are building some more in Islamic Republic of Iran.
I say: let them.
Complain about this comment
35, BraunSA.
Unlike you, I have an intimate knowledge of the Middle East having spent a good chunk of my professional life there. I pay no attention to media hype or the blthering of politicians, but rather look to the underlying motives of those involved.
Complain about this comment
33, David.
"...smoke, mirrors and misdirection."
Yes, David, and that aptly describes the situation with Iran.
Complain about this comment
#37 allmymarbles
For your insight, I too have spent a great deal of my professional life in the Middle East! But I have conlcuded that I am despised and worthy of death for being different. (i.e. not subject to Mohammed). That pretty much sums up current disagreements with the West, although they would like us to keep on talking... The "media hype" I listen to actually leans to the left and seems to ignore the wolf at the door. But because I have drawn a different conclusion, you assume I listen only to Rush and Beck...
Complain about this comment
39, BraunSA.
If I believe you, and I am not sure I do, if you were treated that way iwas it because you felt yourself superior for being a westerner? Did you ever bother to learn the language? Did you hide yourself out in a foreign enclave? Why did anyone want to kill you? Were you that obnoxious?
Your problems are foreign to me. With the exception of the personal likes and dislikes one experiences on one's home ground, I got on well. I have kept my Iranian and Arab friends to this day.
Complain about this comment
Obama is playing this exactly right ... lots of UN involvement, not unilateral US performance.
The only long term strategy that makes sense is to contain and monitor the situation and work towards the empowerment of the Iranian people, many of whom are ready for chnge. They have a very young demographic and horrific social problems (6 million heroin addicts) ... change will come, but bellicose posturing or worse and actual strike would set back the domestic democracy movement and continue to fuel the indoctrination of another genereation of west-hating uneducated malleable youth.
Well done Obama .. I just hope that domestic pressure doesn't force him to accelerate.
Complain about this comment
To bethpa (19):
There is no assurances that even a democratic and human rights respecting Iran wouldn't want to obtain nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.
For Iran, be it an Islamic Republic or just a normal Republic there concerns that validate on obtaining a nuclear threat...
1) Middle-East is not nuclear arms free zone. Israel has an enormous stockpile, and there is no guarantee that Israel doesn't turn into fundamentalist religious state that threatens its heathen neighbors with a nuclear holocaust.
2) Iran's other neighbors like Pakistan has nuclear weapons currently these two are in conflict in Afghanistan were Iran has been backing up Shia tribes while Pakistan via ISI has backed up Pashtun based Talebans.
3) Saudi-Arabia and other rich gulf state countries are arming themselves up with the aid of west and to Wahhabis in power there, they don't see Persians and Shia believers in any positive lights, in essence Arab-Persian conflict is a possibility.
4) Iran lost over a million people in war with Iraq which the Iraq started and the west aided in intelligence data and in building Saddam's weapons arsenal from ordinary to weapons of mass destruction. A memory of that kind of devastation leads people to be quite wary.
5) UK and USA overthrew democratically elected Iranian government and set up Shah as their puppet. As gulf state countries into an extend, especially in economics terms, as puppets of the USA via usage of USd as oil trading currency and on them having an silent obligation to buy US Treasury bonds.
Because of how things are and because of how things were, I really don't think that Iranians see no other option than to get nuclear arm.
Personally I would start to adjust on the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and concentrate on building a defense for Europe and North America in case the middle-eastern states go in war and we got a few missiles launched against us.
Complain about this comment
Re #32 [hypersonic bomber fleet]
Promoting HCV concept (which, incidentally, would allow US to close most of its foreign bases and let governments of their hosting countries employ hundreds of thousands of their citizens somewhere else)- is arguably that smartest thing Rummy did.
Although SLV (Small Launch Vehicle) and Cav (Common Aero vehicle) may be available much earlier if DARPA is allowed to do what it's traditionally done best. [vide...Internet. :)]
Complain about this comment
@23
Don't let magic hear you saying that israel may be up to something. Even though it would be on topic on this blog lets not get it completely highjacked again.
Complain about this comment
41, RomeStu.
Well reasoned. I only make the point that what the Iranians envision in their leadership may not be what we expect. They are not Americans. One of the so-called reformers, Ibrahim Yazdi, was Khomeni's chief henchman. His family is (or at least was) very religious.
Complain about this comment
Ref #20,23 and 44
Let Magic speak for Magic.
There are other ways for a shutodwn of Iran's weapon facilities. I don't expect the U.S or Israel to publicy give out that information.
I look at this as a NK situation where NK is given a carrot and then does what it wants even with China on the same side as the U.S in the 6 party talks.
As the majority of Iranians do not want their goverment, taking out the President and the rulling mullahs is an option.
Complain about this comment
42 jukka
"4) Iran lost over a million people in war with Iraq which the Iraq started and the west aided in intelligence data and in building Saddam's weapons arsenal from ordinary to weapons of mass destruction. A memory of that kind of devastation leads people to be quite wary."
and 45 Marbles (hello by the way - where have you been)
"I only make the point that what the Iranians envision in their leadership may not be what we expect. "
These are both excellent points. There is absolutely no reason that a democratically elected secular Iranian govt would be pro-USA.
However it is less likely to be rabidly anti-USA for propagnda reasons.
The best we can hope for is a fresh start through calm and reasoned negotiation, with both sides treating the other with respect. Iran/Persia has a millennia long history of which its people should be proud. Respect is the key to the future.
Complain about this comment
46 magic
"As the majority of Iranians do not want their goverment, taking out the President and the rulling mullahs is an option."
As ever you fail to be able to see any view other than your own blinckered one.
However much a section of the Iranian population dislike their current govt, nothing will pull them together against the west faster than an intervention by the USA or Israel.
And however much the different branches of Islam disagree they would undoubtedly find common cause in yet another unwarranted attack.
Do you have shares in major arms companies? You seem very keen to promote war.
Complain about this comment
46. At 09:43am on 02 Oct 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
"As the majority of Iranians do not want their goverment, taking out the President and the rulling mullahs is an option."
Ah. That argument has been heard so many times before. What kind of moral sphere do you live in, which assumes you have the right to rule by assassination? I could remind you that the current president of the USA was actually elected by a minorityof the electorate, like virtually every western government. Then why should another country not argue, at some point, the same action is permissible?
I am disturbed enough as it is that the US now refers to the 'AfPak' war, as though, now, the whole of each country is involved. The same goes for the simplistic combination of numerous countries, cultures and governments into one amorphous 'Middle East' or 'Islam'.
It's the 'South East Asia' syndrome from the 1970's all over again. Why does the USA apparently learn nothing from its failures, the misconceptions, and ignorance, except to repeat them in the vain hope that next time the short-term consequences might be different?
The current US fright over the spread of nuclear states would not have happened (or might have been more amenable to negotiation) had the US, for very short-term, and short-sighted, policy reasons not decided that in the case of India the non-proliferation treaty didn't matter.
It's not going to be easy to put the consequences of that back in a box and shut the lid on it nice and tidily.
This is where 'clever' ideas like 'regime change', military intervention, threats of invasion and so on lead: to the urgent desire of any state to provide itself with a means of deterring them. Isn't that, after all, just what so many of the people who have proposed (or now propose still) are so proud of the US itself having done?
Complain about this comment
ref #48
RomeStu wrote:
46 magic
"As the majority of Iranians do not want their goverment, taking out the President and the rulling mullahs is an option."
As ever you fail to be able to see any view other than your own blinckered one.
However much a section of the Iranian population dislike their current govt, nothing will pull them together against the west faster than an intervention by the USA or Israel.
And however much the different branches of Islam disagree they would undoubtedly find common cause in yet another unwarranted attack.
Do you have shares in major arms companies? You seem very keen to promote war.
(It's not being keen on war, it learning from history and realizing ilsamic facism like Nazism can't be negoiated with. As far as moslem reaction we can only hope the people become sophisticated enough to look beyond religious identification as far as right and wrong. And yes simple Simon and Fluff brain as a Jew I do)
Complain about this comment
#49 Squirrellist
It does seem that American right wingers ignore history when it suits them (especially it seems when it comes to South East Asia). As a famous philosopher once remarked: events seem to occur twice, but first time as tragedy, the second time as farce!
Complain about this comment
50 magickirin
"(It's not being keen on war, it learning from history and realizing ilsamic facism like Nazism can't be negoiated with. As far as moslem reaction we can only hope the people become sophisticated enough to look beyond religious identification as far as right and wrong. And yes simple Simon and Fluff brain as a Jew I do)"
I agree that "ilsamic facism" (sic) cannot be reasonned with, but the VAST majority of muslims are not extremists. Obama's current policy of discourse over bellicosity is more likely to ensure they remain so.
You can no more talk of a "moslem reaction" as one could talk of a "christian reaction". People are people and if we treat them as such they will certainly respond better.
Negotiation solved the worst of the Northern Ireland issues, and grown-up behaviour will undermine the extremists in the moslem world too. There will always be lunatics on the fringe, but Obama's policies should make sure they stay on the fringe. The policies of the Bush II govt pushed Islamic extremism into the mainstream in many moslem states.
I am glad that "as a Jew" you can "look beyond religious identification as far as right and wrong" but you are now racially steroetyping, albeit in a positive light. I wish all your co-religionists lived up to your high standards.
Complain about this comment
"Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki -- who was given a rare visa by the Obama administration to visit Washington on Wednesday -- told reporters in New York that Iran is not building any other nuclear facilities, saying the "only case under construction is Qom."
Sure, just like previously non-existing Natanz has become the only underground uranium-enriching facility, after it was discovered and its coordinates conveyed to U.S. by Iranian People's Mujaheddins.
The existence of the facility 20 km NNE of Qum was "revealed" by the ayatollahs' regime only after they found out that U.S. knew about it and were about to make that knowledge public.
Now about possible other, so-far "non-existing" underground facililites in the Islamic Republic. There are several candidates, but we'll wait patiently for a public announcement.
Although somehow I don't think that the regime in Tehran will be the first to make it.
Complain about this comment
P.S. Do not expect China (a supporter of the most unsavory regimes -Burma, N. Korea, Sudan) support, let alone enforce any possible UN sanctions (even if they and Russia would't veto them in SC).
15% of its oil imports come from Iran, and Beijing pays for it in kind with Chinese-made weapons and missile technology.
Not a bad deal.
Complain about this comment
53 meerkat
Does the USA disclose every secret base or installation?
Do they openly broadcast their new weapons technology?
Why would you expect anyone else to?
Double standards.
Complain about this comment
Re #52
The problem is, RomeStu that we're dealing with a SILENT majority.
Majority of British or American Muslims do not support terrorism, or even a concept of a Sharia-based caliphate, either.
The problem is they are afraid to take care of their own problem, which they could deal much more effectively with than MI5, FBI, Surete and BND combined.
What did that famous German pastor say?
"First they came for Jews. But I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for Catholics. But I didn't speak out, because i was not a Catholic.
Then they came for me. But by then, it was too late".
Take it from somebody who is neither Jewish, nor Catholic nor Protestant, not even a Buddhist, and who doesn't spend his life dealing with unfalsifiables.
Complain about this comment
President Obama's pragmatic and deliberate approach to problem solving is bearing fruit in solving international problems and defusing some of the crises created, to some extent, by his predecessors.
Greater cooperation between the USA, Russia and China is already evident, not only to us but to the Iranians as well. Agreeing to enrich uranium in a foreign country gives Iran the credibility they need to claim that its nuclear program is limited to the development of alternative sources of energy, a goal we share. Obviously, allowing IAEA inspection would be the icing on the cake and, hopefully, would put an end to all the bickering.
The biggest challenge for President Obama on this issue does not involve getting concessions from Iran, including verification, but the opposition he is going to encounter at home where rapproachment and defusing crises with countries we hate are often perceived as examples of appeasement or naivete.
We need enemies to sustain our foreign policy and our "defense" budget. A stable world where mutual cooperation and respect are the norm is not in the best interest of those whose ideology and personal interests require an enemy to achieve their material and phylosophical goals. Fanatics can be found everywhere, and our country is not an exception to that rule. Fortunately, they are a minority, vociferous, but still a minority.
Complain about this comment
#11 DavidCunard
I couldn't agree more. Attacking a country twice the size of France with a population of 71 million most of whom are in broad agreement with their leaders would be foolish indeed. If such an attack was carried out by the US or it's proxy Israel I think that US and Allied troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq would be very vulnerable.
In addition to which I question the Israeli view that Iran or any other Arab/Muslim state armed with nuclear weapons would automatically attack Israel. The Israelis hold a very large number of hostages namely the Palestinians and I am certain that any Arab/Muslim state would think very hard before using such an indiscriminate weapon on Israel. Possibly one could argue that given the Israeli tendency to shoot first and ask questions after we should be asking them to surrender their 'non existent' weapons as a quid pro quo for Iranian guarantees not to proceed further up this road
Complain about this comment
#50 MagicKirin
Here we go again. The old trick of merging words 'Islamic Facism' and Nazism this time. I'm surprised the holocaust and genocide weren't trotted out as well. Dislike of the state of Israel and it's brutal acts does not mean one is Anti Semitic a Fascist or that one advocates genocide. Merely that one dislikes brutality and theft as typified by Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians.
Complain about this comment
The worst delusion is self delusion. It is a dangerous misconception that Iran can be strong armed into changing its policies or views. Nothing that has been done to it so far has had anything like the impact necessary for the extremists who rule the country to even consider change. The sanctions to date may have had an impact on ordinary citizens through damage to their economy but not to the grip on power or the will to pursue their goals the rulers have. What that is is very clear;
Establishment of an Iranian Caliphate that is the hegemonious ruler of the region and imposition of Shiite theology on all Moslems in the region.
Elimination of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.
A world without the United States as a major military or political power.
To achieve these goals Iran has fostered the creation of and supported terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. It has used terrorism to capture and control the government of Lebanon. It has formed an alliance with another agressor and sponsor of terrorism Syria. It has actively opposed all efforts to bring peace to Iraq. It has built a huge arms industry manufacturing thousands of short and medium range missiles. It has built a powerful conventioal military force. It is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons researching and manufacturing them in secret plants. It will use these weapons to initimidate and possibly even attack those who oppose it. It has established a cruel and brutal domestic dictatorship which will crush all opposition without any restraint on the force it will use. It's messianic theology places emphasis on the next world no matter what happens in this one. It is therefore a dangerous menace to the region and the entire world. All negotiations including by the EU for years, and its ally Russia to divert it from its current path have poved fruitless. Trying to find a glimmer of hope in any small signs that it might change is a dangerous delusion. Time is rapidly running out. Up to this point the world has taken no actions that would even suggest to Iran that there would be a price to pay for continuing its current path. Whether further sanctions would ultimately work has become a moot point at this late stage.
The lessons of allowing Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to rise to a position of great military power have clearly been forgotten. It remains to be seen whether Iran will be permitted to cross the rubicon and actually become a nuclear weapons armed state sponsor of terrorism. The world will pay a terrible price if it allows it to. At this late stage, the only effective way to prevent it may be massive military action, the components of its nuclear weapons technology probably having been scattered across the entire country by now to enable it to survive anything less than total attack.
Complain about this comment
#46 MagicKirin
"As the majority of Iranians do not want their goverment, taking out the President and the rulling mullahs is an option."
The above misspellings and all is a quote.
Have you any evidence of this? Most information I have seen says that the Iranians support their government on the subject of their nuclear programme and that in the event of an Israeli or US strike on their country would be fully behind the leadership.
Remember the US tried regime change in Iran once before and look where it 'got' us.
Complain about this comment
#60 MarcusAureliusII
Wow, Armageddon here we come, roll out the four horsemen and get on with it. Did someone ask about shares in the armaments industry?
Complain about this comment
56. At 12:03pm on 02 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"What did that famous German pastor say?"
Did you know that Pastor Niemolller voted for Hitler in 1933? Delivered anti-Jewish (and anti-Communist) sermons in the 30's?
Complain about this comment
60. At 12:58pm on 02 Oct 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The worst delusion is self delusion."
From the horse's mouth, as it were. Which is why it is not worth replying in any detail.
Complain about this comment
ref #61
Have you any evidence of this? Most information I have seen says that the Iranians support their government on the subject of their nuclear programme and that in the event of an Israeli or US strike on their country would be fully behind the leadership.
Remember the US tried regime change in Iran once before and look where it 'got' us.
did you see the recent protests in Iran even a goverment sponsered one against Israel turned into a protest against the goverment. Yes the Shan was a dictator but woman did not have to wear burkhas and they were not a regional threat to their neighbors
Complain about this comment
Re #55
There's no such thing as a truly secret U.S. installation.[alas]
Even so called Area 51, where we keep UFO crews squeezing the newest technologies from Little Green People by subjecting them waterboarding, is known to every conspiracy theorist in the world.
P.S. If you know of any truly secret U.S. installation, please, do not hesitate to reveal it. Mere coordinates would help.
Complain about this comment
It is always slightly amusing, though vastly more sad to see opinions that equate diplomacy with appeasement. Yes a misguided attempt to prevent a major war though diplomacy massively backfired, however, other potentially major conflicts have been avoided by nations sitting around a table and making compromises.
The US is involved in two major military actions which are straining its capacities and the goodwill of its people. If they did decide to invade and/or bombard Iran I am not sure who they could convince to back them up, I cannot see public opinion in the UK supporting another war or occupation and the UK was going to be the only European nation that would have signed up to such an action. As has been pointed out Russia and China are more likely to support Iran than the US, leaving the US facing three armed conflicts and the bad will of two of the most powerful nations on the planet. The US administration knows this, Iran knows this, and most reasonable people in the world know this. The threat of armed conflict against Iran was never going to work.
Of course the US could leave it to Israel to do the dirty, but I doubt that is likely to happen. Israel directly attacking Iran is going to bring retribution from Iran and will even further polarise the Middle East. In that situation the only way Israel could survive is with US aid, bringing the US into the situation could again force the hand of China or Russia, worse both might decide to get involved. Would the US really risk a world wide conflict to protect Israel, I would be reluctant to put money on it, and I would suspect that Israel would be too.
The only real options are to either let Iran get into a situation where its guilt is too obvious for anyone to ignore, meaning it would be too late, or defuse the situation through diplomacy. The US administration have taken the only really logical option, it might not work, which regrettable but at least proves the US (unlike with Iraq) took every means possible to avoid a war. Then again it just might, which I think most reasonable people would believe to be the best outcome available.
As Winston Churchill said, not known for his appeasement tendencies ‘it is better to jaw jaw, than to war war.’
Complain about this comment
And how exactly would we A) fund another war, B) manage to get the support needed and C) provide and equip all the troops for this little jaunt into Iran Marcus?
Complain about this comment
Re 63.
Of course I do. And that's why pastor Niemoller was so sorry of having been a 'useful idiot'.
Like so many today.
BTW. You DO know that many Arabs were Nazi allies during WWII? Dont'ya?
Complain about this comment
Mohammed El Baradei and the IAEA were successful in containing Iraq. The sanctions on Iraq had been successful.
Now El Baradei is saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei
“Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran." He considers an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would "turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.”[24]
"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb. We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."[7]
.........................
The US should use every means possible to contain Iran but any use of military force should always be a last ditch attempt and only to preserve the nation under direct attack.
The lesson to be followed is not Nazi Germany almost 100 years ago now...which was not contained but encouraged by wealthy manufacturers like America's own Henry Ford
The lesson to be followed is Iraq...
CONTAINMENT WORKS
and it worked on Communist Russia also
Incidentally ElBaradei donated all the money he received for his 2005 Nobel peace prize to orphanages in Cairo Egypt.
Complain about this comment
The Europeans believed they could negotiate with Hitler and appease him. The Russians believed they could sign a treaty and divide spheres of absolute control with him. Them US remained hostile and aloof. Then the greatest bloodbath in world history ensued. History repeats itself. Europeans deluded themselves for over two years trying to negotiate with the Iranian regime. Russia has never considered that an Iranian nuclear weapon might one day fall into the hands of Islamic extremists who will use it to kill millions of Russians making Beslam look like an insignificant incident. And America has remained uninvolved except for useless bellicose talk. Now President Obama is going to try Europe's failed tactic. And here I thought he was smarter than that. One thing extremists like the Nazis and the current Iranian regime have in common that others including ordinary brutal despots and western politicians don't understand is that unlike them, extremists are uncorruptable. Any deal made with them is for them only a temporary tactic to advance their real objective. A "deal" with Iran will not hold up any more than Chamberlain's deal with Hitler in Munich nor Stalin's secret treaty with Von Ribbentrop. Believing otherwise is a conquest of ego over knowledge that should have been gained from the experience of history and study of human nature.
Complain about this comment
A question for MagicKirin
Magic. Given the tenacity shown by the Jews in maintaining their claim to the lands in the Middle East variously known as, Israel, The Holy Land, Palestine et al why do you and Jews in particular think that the Palestinians are going to be any less tenacious? After all their claim is much more recent than the Jewish claim and in many cases has more documentation.
Complain about this comment
There are almost NO similarities between present day Iran and Nazi Germany.
The situations are almost completely different.
The greater similarity is between Iran and Iraq
or between Iran and the USSR.
The US and Israel are two separate nations with sometimes similar interests...but we are two separate nations. If some people want another Masada...don't pull the US into it.
In the year 2009 sanctions and containment work!
(This is not 1933)
Complain about this comment
#69 powermeerkat
Yup know that.
Also know that Jews, later to be called Israelis killed British soldiers in what was then Palestine. I also know that the Israelis talked with and made deals with Vervoerd the ex nazi supporter, South African prime minister and chief architect of apartheid.
Complain about this comment
#69
And did you know that the Lehi group supported the Nazis!
Complain about this comment
75 dceilar
Thanks for that - I had never heard that.
Interesting how the historical truth can be so inconvenient sometimes.
Still with blinkers you can always ignore the bits you don't like!!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Iran continued it's policies I think because of Saddam and then Bush.Iraq under Saddam and Iran were fearful of each other.After we went into Afghanistan and Iraq,Bush was threatening their country.I think the Israel spew is just that,for votes and to pacify Religious Right(like abortion here).Now there is a new president of US and they guessed wrong with regards to nuclear program but won't admit it.They are a proud people most former colonies are like ourselves when UN or foreign countries try to tell us things we get defensive.Talks would work if you ask instead of demand.As for China their central Government is weakening.There are Labor,Environmental,Civil Rights movements all going on at one time.The government is just trying to keep employment and development moving,but at great costs to it's people.They have their own problems.Almost every class and region in China is discontent except the rich class that is growing there at a cost to everyone else.Those military marches are to impress and keep their own people in line,not to scare Western nations.They need resources and infrastructure that's why they need to keep selling goods and keeping wages low so they can invest in foreign resources and their own development they have a Billion people to modernize from the dark ages.However they don't understand World Market and maintaining balance to circulate resources from one country to another.
Complain about this comment
Re #74
I've been to South Africa during the white apartheid. More than once.
I've been to South Africa during the black apartheid. Last year.
True: it's not the same powerful, modern country it once was.
And those who made it powerful and modern have been moving out for quite some time, in case you haven't noticed.
Leaving behind something fast becoming another Zimbabwe.
Regime of which, btw. is staunchly suppported by the current government in Pretoria.
P.S. I've been to 'victorious' Vietnam not so long ago.
Boy, has this country progressed in the last 30 years. Wow! ;-)
Complain about this comment
#75 Dceilar
That was a new one on me as well. It does, however, encapsulate my belief that the state of Israel has never been a friend to the UK and that risking the lives of myself, my fellow citizens and most importantly the lives of my children and grandchildren in support of Israel is foolish indeed.
I repeat a three questions
1. Did 6 million Jews really die? Yes they did.
2. Did the Palestinians kill these Jews? No they didn't
3. Why should the Palestinians pay the price?
If the Jewish people are so set on their own homeland why do they not buy the land? They are reputedly very rich, have huge support in the US why not buy a tract of land in the US and settle down there. If a solution is not found we will continually find ourselves in the position we are now in with Iran. Every time an Arab state becomes powerful Israel and it's powerful friends will try to force us to attack that state.
This position is not Anti Semitic it's self interest and no more reprehensible than many acts performed by Israel protecting it's own interests.
Complain about this comment
MAII – Using you more reasoned head today I note. So you are one of those that feel diplomacy and appeasement are the same thing? That diplomacy has never achieved anything? That Iran and Nazi Germany are basically the same type of thing?
Reasoned but still flawed and with little merit, the Iranian threat does not measure up to that generated by Nazi Germany. A few pointers on why European nations tried diplomacy on the eve of WWII:
1 – A bare 20 years previously Europe had been embroiled in a massive war, which cost the major European nations huge amounts of capital and decimated a whole generation. Many (if not all) of those in power just before had direct experience of that war and knew the horrors a pan-European conflict would entail.
2 – They were just coming out of huge economic down turn, caused in part by the costs of the previous war and in part by the corruption that led to Wall Street Crash.
Now compare that with the current situation, the collapse of Yugoslavia was a threat to European peace, but not a massive one. WWII is a distant memory fewer and fewer old the actual combatants have survived, none hold power. Europe pushes for peace not because it fears conflict but because it has grown used to it. The exception being the UK which prior to the Balkan conflict had fought and won a war, without any US assistance I might add.
It is the US that has the painful memories of a recent conflict, it is your leaders who could have experienced actual conflict, though Bush seemed to have dodged actually going to Vietnam.
Again the world is suffering a pretty massive economic down turn, one which started in the US, so that might be a reason why Europe does not want to throw money and lives into a conflict which could be avoided. To be honest other than a few arm chair generals, such as your good selves, I think most Americans will find the idea of spending billions more dollars fighting in a foreign country a bit hard to swallow.
Not only is your comparison to Europe’s reaction between Iran and Nazi Germany terminally flawed, so you equating the situation of Iran and Nazi Germany together, yes they may have authoritarian governments and have negative ideas about the Jews, but the similarities end pretty much there.
Complain about this comment
To those who claim that an invasion of Islamic republic of Iran with an army would be necessary to eliminate ayatollahs' underground nuclear facilities.
Please, take a moment to inform yourselves how Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility in Iraq (Osirak) and Bashar Assad's similar facility in Northern Syria have been taken out.
One does not have to resort to war and invasion to eliminate a potential nuclear threat emanating from fanatical regimes.
And nobody will.
BTW the same pertains to North Korea.
Complain about this comment
#79 powermeerkat
I notice in your partial answer to my post you refrained from mentioning the murder of British soldiers by Jewish terrorists.
Complain about this comment
To MagicKirin
You did not answer RomeStu's question in #48:
"Do you have shares in major arms companies? You seem very keen to promote war"
In the absence of an answer people might assume yes.
Obviously trying to keep up credible fictional characters is time consuming, expensive and it is difficult to keep the interactions authentic. Then you have to ask yourself if people have to go to all that trouble perhaps the arguments aren't actually very sound in the first place. Maybe the defence companies could just finance a few more glorifying war films rather than present one-dimensional blinkered characters in blogs.
To powermeerkat:
Do you have shares in major arms companies? You seem very keen to promote war.
Complain about this comment
To MAII #71:
Others have asked "Are you more than one person?". Well, are you? Is there a larger group behind the user MAII, that explains the inconsistencies in style and the constant promotion of war?
Complain about this comment
Re #78 "The [PRC] government is just trying to keep employment and development moving,but at great costs to it's people.They have their own problems. Almost every class and region in China is discontent except the rich class that is growing there at a cost to everyone else."
According to Chinese sources there are about 300 million 'haves' in the People's Republic of China, and over a BILLION of 'have-nots'.
[mostly in rural areas]. And discrepancies in income only grow, with top Communist Party aparatchicks simultaneously being top exploiters of the
Chinese 'proletariat'.
[cf only horrific accidents in Chinese coal and uranium mines owned, in many documented cases, by local Party officials.]
Now, imagine what would happen to PRC's export-based economy if USA and EU introduced protectionist measures in order to reduce their unemployment and reduce the pressure from their own labor unions.
That's why selling arms to unsavory regimes in Burma, Sudan and Iran in exchange for oil is such a top priority for Beijing regime.
Complain about this comment
#57 SaintDominick: well reasoned. The President does have a long, rocky road to drive as he undoes the damage of the previous administration and moves forward with international cooperation to limit nuclear proliferation and to stabilize and reduce the current weapons stockpiles, keeping them out of the hands of the non-nation terrorist types.
One of the most damaging and -- to me, at least -- incredible lapses of the Cheney/Rummy/Wolfowitz axis was their complete lack of attention to and respect for Iran's position in the Islamic world. The Iranians are Muslims, indeed, but the majority is Shia sect, as opposed to almost everywhere else where Sunni beliefs are dominant...this is a BIG DEAL among Muslims. At least as big a deal as the Reformation was among Christians, and it has caused almost as much bloodshed. It has to be understood in its context, and if you look at a map, you can see Iran as an island among enemies already. Language and culture also play a part here, as the Iranians are not Arabs and will tell you this vehemently if you ask them: they speak Farsi as a mother tongue and not Arabic and their historic roots are Persian and classical, not Arabic and Abrahamic.
Much of what the US sees as Iranian misbehavior over the past 10 years or so, has been a bid for attention -- to be seen as themselves and not as an interchangeable piece of the Arabic/Muslim melange. Yes, they have their own problems internally -- and I miss our Princess here in this forum to keep us updated and grounded in reality.
So, the upshot is that the fist IS unclenching because we finally have a leader who can comprehend nuance and communicate in subtleties that are understood by adversaries to mean that we are finally serious about respecting their sovereignty and finding a way forward that doesn't involve mutual destruction.
Complain about this comment
#42 Jukka_Rohila
I agree with much of what you are writing.
However I think the goal is to bring down the number of nuclear weapons, not arm more nations.
We can do that with negotiations and with inspections. It is possible to track fissionable materials and to monitor the use and manufacture/production of nuclear material . We are doing it now.
We must form alliances and stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons or some of these extremists will use them eventually.
This has to be a world wide effort.
( Some people are just suicidal..I don't know why. I am not a psychiatrist..
but religion seems to play a part in this desire to commit suicide for political/religious reasons and I am not writing about just one religion..but the 3 religions that are involved in the ME...They each have groups that are willing to die and even seem to want to die... bad news for those of us who want to live. But we are dealing with religious fanatics on all sides.)
Complain about this comment
Re#80 "Every time an Arab state becomes powerful Israel and it's powerful friends will try to force us to attack that state."
Every time an Arab state feels it's become powerful enough it attacks mighty Israel (1968, 1976, etc.), which you need a magnifying glass to find on the world map.
[although Mr. Ahmadinnerjacket claims it still obcures his global caliphate vision and therefore needs to be wiped-off of it].
With the same result.
Certain Albert Einstein famously defined stupidity as "repeating the same action in hope of obtaining a different result".
Perhaps that's why there are so few Arab names on a list of Nobel science prize laureats in the last 60 years?
Complain about this comment
I realize that references to secret facilities in the USA were passing remarks, but for the sake of amplification and understanding on the subject of sensitive facilities I would like to add that DISCO issues three levels of security clearances upon completion of the application investigation: confidential, secret and top secret.
In addition to the above, the government has put in place extra protection measures to information classified as Top Secret for matters of critical importance to our national security. The classification used for this type of information is "Sensitive Compartmented Information" (SCI) or Special Access Programs (SAP), and access to it requires "SCI Access" or "SAP approval".
Complain about this comment
This is a very serious situation and it has to watched very carefully...as long as the nations work together I believe we will be able to contain Iran's nuclear program.
There will be other Irans in the future...not always in the ME...but nations that will want to develop nuclear weapons...and the same strategies of containment and sanctions must be used there also.
There must be no let up in monitoring and no space between the resolve of nations to contain and sanction any nation that is threatening to develop nuclear weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/middleeast/02nuke.html
Iran Agrees to Send Enriched Uranium to Russia
"Many diplomats and analysts believe that the plant near Qum is only one of a series of hidden installations that Iran has constructed, in addition to its publicly acknowledged ones, for what is considered to be a military program. Iran insists that its program is purely peaceful and that it has a right under the nonproliferation treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But it has regularly lied to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency about its facilities."
Iran must be carefully watched by all nations. The US alone can not stop this. War will make this situation worse...because nations will want to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
Complain about this comment
Re #84
Yes, I do have shares in major arms companies.
I've started buying some when I was still at the university and didn't have much money.
Boeing, General Dynamics, GE, Garret, Harris, Hughes, Lockeed, Martin Marietta (both of the last 2 now merged) Northrop, Raytheon, Rockwell...
Later I've also bought some stock in Cisco, Cray, HP, IBM, Intel and TI.
As well as in Exxon. {and kept it, though thick and thin]
Yes, I've also bought some gold years ago when it was @ $300.00 an ounce.
And kept it.
I also bought some real estate companies' stock [e.g. GSM] last year.
On purpose.
[I'm keeping it too]
No, I didn't buy any GAZPROM stock, even when strongly advised to do so.
Now, your next question?
Complain about this comment
Sq, I'm not an expert on the subject, but I believe that we did have
frosty relations with the Indians for many years as a result of their
being allied with the Soviets. They developed nuclear weapons as a counter
to the Chinese developing them.
Neither the US nor the USSR wanted either India or China to have nukes
at the time. There was nothing that could be done about it. The Indians
and Chinese are both very talented peoples and, even though backwards
at the time, were both able to figure out how to build nuclear weapons.
The more recent US nuclear policy towards the Indians is one of "don't
ask, don't tell." In return for their putting their civilian program
under IAEA inspection, they have agreed not to use US nuclear technology
in their military program. (If they welch on the deal, we can sue them.
A lawyer beats a nuclear warhead anyday as a weapon of terror.)
So, I don't understand. Are you saying that India is a threat to world
peace because it has nukes? And, if relations deteriorate, will I still
be able to order Chicken Vindaloo?
I say that it's not worth it. I want my Chicken Vindaloo.
Complain about this comment
Re #$88 "It is possible to track fissionable materials and to monitor the use and manufacture/production of nuclear material"
No it's not THAT easy. It is easier, though to track ballistic and cruise missiles shipments to unsavory regimes.
That's why, e.g. "Arctic Sea" has not delivered its "Finnish wood" cargo to...Algeria. :-)))
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, I lit a fire
Isn't it good, Norwegian wood?"
(The Beatles)
Complain about this comment
DR Mu;
I will never cease to be amazed at the European mind's capacity to justify the most irrational arguments possible;
"MAII – Using you more reasoned head today I note. So you are one of those that feel diplomacy and appeasement are the same thing?"
Clearly they are not. There is no diplomacy in the sense you mean it with a fanatical regime or individual with a single minded goal. There is only surrender to it or war with it. It allows no in between. It leaves no room for ultimate compromise, any concessions it makes are a temporary tactic it uses to its advantage to buy time to become stronger and better organized. The danger is in failing to recognize when this is the situation when diplomacy has no chance at all of working. That is clearly the case here. Those who have never fought to gain and defend their freedom usually can't recognize that they will periodically have to fight to defend it again and again and some will die defending it. Real freedom is paid for in blood. In the case of Britain's loss of three world wars, it was American blood that ultimately preserved it. This is the legacy of Lexington, Concord, and Yorktown we Americans should never forget and never allow ourselves to be diverted from this truth by self serving, hypocritical, mendacious, unprincipled Europeans. This is why President Washington warned Americans not to get involved with them in entangling alliances. What a mistake America made when it did.
Complain about this comment
MAII – The use of a question mark denoted that my remark was a question not an argument irrational or otherwise. But to respond to your simplistic approach, of course you can negotiate with a fanatical regime, maybe not on all subjects, fanaticism is usually very focused on some areas. Just deciding that you cannot talk to someone because you think they are a fanatic is just stupid.
In the current situation the Obama Administration have lost nothing by offering Iran a legitimate way out, it is Iran that has been forced to compromise (another reason why it is sod all like the situation was Nazi Germany). You are the one that liked this agreement to appeasement, when most people (that would be everyone other than your hive mind) can see that it isn’t, it is diplomacy. Don’t blame me, it’s your non-grasp of diplomacy that raised the question.
Oh, I have a history degree, studied modern history but this comment has left me confused ‘In the case of Britain's loss of three world wars’, now as far as I am aware there are only two world wars, conveniently normally called World War I and World War II. Now the commonly regarded opinion is that Britain was on the winning side of both those wars. So MAII which three world wars did Britain lose?
As for ‘self serving, hypocritical, mendacious, unprincipled Europeans’ well it seems to some of us not only did you get involved with us you also learnt all those unlovely traits. Not me as it happens, for two reasons, firstly sweeping generalised statements about a nation or race are made by the intellectually immature, those with a fully working intellect look at people on a individual basis. Secondly, I believe that the American government uses the same level of guile and underhandedness as every other big international player government and corporate, it is unfortunately how the game needs to be played.
Complain about this comment
Guns, I'm making chicken korma tonight. Will that do?
Complain about this comment
Didactylid (#5), I share your sentiments here. Our pedant-in-residence makes a habit of lecturing not only the contributors here, but Mr. Mardell himself, who is a professional writer with substantial experience, and who writes perfectly good conversational English. Such cheek! Who does DC think he is, anyway? And he is wrong as often as not, because he accepts no authority other than what he has in his own head -- not the OED, or the Chicago Manual of Style, or Garner; not even the UK government web site on questions pertaining to the UK government.
Does anyone suppose that Mr. Mardell aspires to write like a prissy English public-school boy?
Keep up the good work, Mr. Mardell, and write however you please.
Complain about this comment
Re #95
I've come to believe (it's been a gradual process), that contries which want to be defended by NATO should put in it as much as they'd expect to get from the Alliance in time of crises.
If republics of EUSSR do not feel threatened, they should leave NATO and create their own unified European defense force.
[of course after they've worked out a unified foreign and energy policy]
Or simply disarm and abolish their security and secret services as well.
I think that countries which would like to reactivate Warsaw Pact and rejoin Russian Empire (and later a Chinese one) should be allowed to do so. With impunity.
And that U.S. should resort to wars only if it's in is own interest and only when every other option is clearly exhausted.
And that all U.S. bases in Europe should be closed.
Now, if that makes me a warmonger and an interventionist - so be it.
Complain about this comment
Re #93
It's not true that both, Chinese and Indians figured out by themselves how to build nukes and ballistic missiles.
China benefited from Soviet expertise (till early 60s, i.e. before both countries almost came to blows over territorial disputes) and an expertise of few Chinese American scientists, who, feeling patriotic, returned to China in late 50s and early 60s.
India had a Soviet help for many years.
[Soviets themselves had obtained nuclear weapons technology from Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore Lab strong boxes.]
Pakistan stole some of atomic secrets from West European countries, and later shared them with North Korea in exchange for its missile technology, obtained, in turn, from USSR and PRC.
Israel obtained some of nuclear know-how not from U.S., but from France.
Iran has obtained some of its nuclear technology from Russia, and most of its missile technology from China and North Korea.
[cf. Taepodong-2 vs Shahab 3b: an amazing similarity]
Now, who's Terrorist International going to get its nuclear technology from... :-)
Complain about this comment
squirrelist (#49) "I am disturbed enough as it is that the US now refers to the 'AfPak' war, as though, now, the whole of each country is involved."
This is just shorthand jargon which connotes the fact the problems in Afghanistan and in Pakistan are interrelated. It's nothing to be "disturbed" about.
"It's the 'South East Asia' syndrome from the 1970's all over again. Why does the USA apparently learn nothing from its failures, the misconceptions, and ignorance, except to repeat them in the vain hope that next time the short-term consequences might be different?"
Actually, the US did learn some lessons from its Vietnam experience. The US military operates considerably differently today as a result of studying the Vietnam war in the military academies and applying the lessons in the organization of the military. None of the well-known generals of today -- Powell (ret), Franks (ret), Petraeus, McChrystal -- reminds me of Westmoreland.
An interesting (and rather lengthy) article relating to this question is the article by George Packer on Richard Holbrooke, US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, published in The New Yorker of September 21. Holbrooke was in Vietnam during the Kennedy administration. Highly recommended reading, for anyone who wishes to become better informed on this subject.
I will just point out the crux of the difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam, which is mentioned in the article, but which is also obvious from Obama's public statements about our mission in Afghanistan. Vietnam was not a threat to the United States. Our involvement there was entirely political. By contrast, al Qaeda is a threat to the United States. We are in Afghanistan in order to attack al Qaeda and deny them safe haven to plot against the US. That's all the difference in the world, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
seanspa, as I age, I find myself acquiring an affinity for milder dishes,
so send me the recipe. But, I am warning the world that if I don't get
a reliable supply of bitters, I may be forced to develop nuclear weapons,
intercontinental missiles, and to invade neighboring countries under the
guise of "liberation."
Complain about this comment
#95 and #99
powermeerkat
I long ago gave up trying to understand the mind of MAII, some things are beyond all comprehension. I do agree that we should wind up NATO and all US forces should be based in the US. In fact I think all national forces should be based on their home soil. As far as a united Europe goes we'll get there when we get there. Not to have had a serious war in 60 years is quite an achievement and there is a lot to be said for peace even if it devalues your armament stocks. Brave of you to tell us though and I notice a certain MK hasn't answered our questions.
Complain about this comment
DR Mu;
"of course you can negotiate with a fanatical regime, maybe not on all subjects, fanaticism is usually very focused on some areas. Just deciding that you cannot talk to someone because you think they are a fanatic is just stupid."
Remember a guy named Daniel Pearl? He used to work for the Wall Street Journal newspaper. He didn't want to negotiate with al Qaeda, he just wanted to give them a chance to tell the world their story. And so they did...by cutting his head off with a sword on the internet. I won't post a link to this gruesome form of diplomacy but I'm sure you or anyone who cares to watch it will have no trouble finding it.
I sometimes don't know whether to laugh or cry at you Europeans. Not only are you invariably irrational, you don't even make sense within the context of your own foolish nonsense. Just look at these two statements you made when put next to each other;
"As for ‘self serving, hypocritical, mendacious, unprincipled Europeans’
...sweeping generalised statements about a nation or race are made by the intellectually immature, those with a fully working intellect look at people on a individual basis.
Secondly, .... every other big international player government and corporate, it is unfortunately how the game needs to be played."
Wherever you were educated, I make you this offer. Tell me where it was and I will write the chancellor of that institution a convincing letter petitioning that you should receive a refund of every last cent in tuition money you spent for it.
Complain about this comment
DC What . Not the grammar trolling again.
here Mark is with a perfectly good question( Mark they always had their hand reached out more than their adversary the USA)an you 'ave to go harping on 'bout it.
Giv it Up.
Yous pathetic on that and as bad as MA is about his rants or the , wait I coulds mention O rings but I ain't so Just SHUT up .
as for what would hillery have done by now. she would have jumped up , done a smart salute and said "yes Aipac" and then started WW# as best she could.
THAT and the answer on this was one of many reasons she LOST>
Do give up the Hillery for 012 rubbish. I know you don't like Obama and all them that would change the culture too much friends but really.
Hillery is OVER.
She is not going to have free reign to "OBLITERATE" Iran.
Complain about this comment
And, now for the real threat. North Korean beer!
So, now we have a triple threat: nuclear warheads, long-range missiles,
and a fairly decent lager. But, no bitters. Apparently, the state security
mavens in the UK have protected the secret of producing bitters to bring
the North Korean government to the bargaining table.
Complain about this comment
Why does everyone always want to buy LAND AND MOVE TO US(i know my ancestors did that).Is that really the answer.The ones who leave and are discontent don't change the system and make fewer numbers of the citizens who do want to because the peaceful always leave first.I always wonder what would have happen to Germany had the peaceful Protestants like the Mennonites has stayed in Germany instead of leaving for other Euro nations and North and South America,how different German history might have been.Or Irish History if the starving people had a revolution instead of moving.Or Mexico today it is one of the richest countries.Oh well then all other places people have made new lives and governments wouldn't be the same either.I think Education and Employment are the answers for every countries problems.
Complain about this comment
MArcus as the contributor that has arm chaired the most wars how do you (if you are a single person ) square your normal comments with
"Those who have never fought to gain and defend their freedom usually can't recognize that they will periodically have to fight to defend it again and again and some will die defending it."
Time for you to join Up. just try I hear they take all sorts that have experience.
Go on you have acted as if others lives have no meaning and done your best to provoke the hatred that causes some to feel america is worth attacking and here you are trying to claim you know the first thing about armed conflict zones.
Were you there when DC hero Hillary was under fire in Kosovo.
Complain about this comment
I wonder If Israel knows how many ariound the world will take up a very strong stance if they used any force.
Back to the school bully I talked about once.
in this case the teacher is allowing it to go to another class romm to beat up the guy that threatened to brng in a knife the same size as the bullies.
How does that get justified.
Any good Obama was intending to do will be wiped away.
America already suffers from too many making the correct assumption that they are bias as can be on the Israeli question.
Osama said he linked the Palestinian struggle with his hatred of the USA in that recent broadcast from beyond this world.(oh wait GW failed in the one goal he set).
Iran has unclenched it's fist now let us make sure if the bully tries to start something we turn swiftly and rebuke that bully.
Complain about this comment
Ref 99, PMK
"If republics of EUSSR do not feel threatened, they should leave NATO and create their own unified European defense force."
I feel the same way, and so do most of my friends and relatives in the USA and Europe. The reason we insist on preserving a relic of the cold war such as NATO, and the reason we do not leave the UN, is because our government believes it is in our best interest to remain in those organizations to legitimize our actions abroad and justify our military presence in Europe and other continents.
The cold war is over and we don't need NATO to deal with a few dozen medieval-vintage Muslim terrorists hiding in caves. For that matter, we don't need 200,000 US troops either, unless the "mission" does not involve fighting actual terrorists and it actually involves fighting and changing an entire culture. Should that be the case, we may have to reinstate the draft and deploy a few million troops from Morocco to Indonesia via the Persian Gulf for decades to come.
We should follow Europe's example and invest our limited financial resources in replacing our crumbling infrastructure, R&D, industrial modernization, education, healthcare reform and other programs vital to our well being, our privileged position on the world stage, and our national security.
Let other nations worry about their own security, and if they decide that is not a priority or concern, that's a decision they must be prepared to live with.
Complain about this comment
All braunUSA 25
How does attacking Iran protect my grandchildren from Israel starting a war?
on 29 you say
"Did you forget that New York City and Washington D.C. were attacked?!?"
Again the point will be made .
why are you not attacking Saudi Arabia then.
What has Iran got to do with the attacks on the towers and the pentagone.
Or are you just racist.
(yep folk I am daring to accuse a person of being racist because they consistently try to claim anyone who is from the middle east (which conveniently is very few Israeli) or a muslim dominated country is a 9/11 terrorist.
No worry that Iran helped us just after those attacks with intelligence and an open hand to help the USA in it's hour of sorrow.
Never mind we took that used it and then began railing on the "axis of evil" Stomping on their hand as best we could.
Don't forget that most americans have such short attention spans jelly fish are saying " did he understand my question or is he just thick, , maybe he can't speak"
No good deed left unnoticed.
Or un repayed. America's great moto
28 MArbles .. all there. well said.
Complain about this comment
"Nice point which hasn't been considered. "
DC lol but really most here have probably considered that . there is a lot of smoke in the Middle east and they are trying to fan as much as possible now. after all if there was not this to talk about we could start trying to fight the real battle we face.
the battle against our own planet wrecking stupidity
Complain about this comment
39 Braun one can only assume you listen to no one but yourself.
You are saying that all muslims are the same and that all in the middle east are muslim.
you ignore non muslims in Iran and the area and generalise.
Mods you want long discussions on O rings or are you planning on moderating this rubbish some day.
Complain about this comment
57, saintD.
"The biggest challenge for President Obama on this issue does not involve getting concessions from Iran, including verification, but the opposition he is going to encounter at home where rapproachment and defusing crises with countries we hate are often perceived as examples of appeasement or naivete."
The "countries we hate" we hate because the government, for its own purposes, tells us to hate them. They are not hateful of themselves.
Complain about this comment
58, TimOthy.
"Possibly one could argue that given the Israeli tendency to shoot first and ask questions after we should be asking them to surrender their 'non existent' weapons as a quid pro quo for Iranian guarantees not to proceed further up this road."
Ah, but that would mean pulling the teeth of our pit bull.
Complain about this comment
"(It's not being keen on war, it learning from history and realizing ilsamic facism like Nazism can't be negoiated with. As far as moslem reaction we can only hope the people become sophisticated enough to look beyond religious identification as far as right and wrong. And yes simple Simon and Fluff brain as a Jew I do)"
gherky No kidding You are jewish.
I would never have thought it. I assumed you were some country that hates jews .
Now I generally don't use capitals in my writings as I am fik. but I wonder why you don't;)
You say yuo inedntify beyond religion.
just show us an example of how calling for all muslims to be attacked is going beyond your religious differences.
Yes you are a jew.
OK but how does you saying you are a jew change the racism that is in your posts ( Are you a semetic jew or a jew from europe with no semetic blood)
big deal.
you promote hatred all the time. you attack anyone who even says " the people in Gaza should be given equal rights"
You have attacke Melson Mandela , Desmond Tutu and a host of others for(carter of course) not siding with Israel.
That is as funny as Anne coultar saying she was a dead head.(greatful dead fan)
Complain about this comment
"To achieve these goals Iran has fostered the creation of and supported terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. "
Marcus Israel also promoted terrorists groups to split the people of Gaza and the west bank. Back when Yassar was running the show.
Which was it Fatah or Hamas that was origionally funded by the Israeli's.
Unfortunately they worked.
Complain about this comment
80, TimOthy.
"1. Did 6 million Jews really die? Yes they did.
2. Did the Palestinians kill these Jews? No they didn't
3. Why should the Palestinians pay the price?"
It was ibn Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia who siad, "What did we ever do to the Jews? Give them part of Germany."
Complain about this comment
Given that Israel attacks any thing they don't like no wonder that the iranians hid their new base.
I went in looking for the plans to the new missile defence shield but they said I couldn't;BAAAAAA.
Complain about this comment
69. At 1:37pm on 02 Oct 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re 63.
Of course I do. And that's why pastor Niemoller was so sorry of having been a 'useful idiot'.
Like so many today.
BTW. You DO know that many Arabs were Nazi allies during WWII? Dont'ya?
-------------------------------------
Then there were those that helped that fictional character " Lawrence"
You are pathetic with your examples.
Don'tcha know anything
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
80, Tim.
"Every time an Arab state becomes powerful Israel and it's powerful friends will try to force us to attack that state."
You have it backwards. For "Israel and its powerful friends" substitute "the United States will use Israel."
Complain about this comment
kitty is it in america's interest to attack a nation that is threatening Israel?
How so?
why so?
You claim to not be a war monger by saying attack Iran.
You Excuse the gross disproportionate killing from Israel. and say you are not a war mongerer.
But you are.
Complain about this comment
Re #110 saintDominick
Fully agree. Suum quique.
Wasting blood and treasure. To be called a world policeman and worse.
I've been also promoting automation and robotization of U.S. force for decades. Service personnel, its training, social obligations and other perks are awfully expensive. If we did things right by the end of the next decade we could not only have eliminated almost all of our military bases abroad; we could also substantially reduce our MAN (and woman)power within U.S.!
Just as by starting to build en mass a 3rd generation nuclear power plants we could reduce not only air pollution and greenhose gases' emission, but also, our dependence on imported oil, leaving many of its producers (prominently in the ME) to figure out who's going to buy their smelly gunk and how are they going to support and arm all and sundry "freedom fighters" of this world.
P.S. Not exactly on the subject, but since you've spent decades working for NASA...
Fo quite some time I've been a strong opponent of most manned programs, and particularly of ISS, which, IMHO, simply swallowed billions of $$$ which might otherwise have been spent much more productively on deep-space robotic probe missions. And, most importantly, on a new propulsion system which would finally allow us to visit (by proxy) other solar systems within a reasonable time-frame.
Getting us (U.S.) much more bang for a buck.
[IMHO there's nothing really that interesting in our solar system]
I think its a tragedy that we'll be stuck with ISS for quite a few more years whether we like it or not. And to add insult to injury, will have to develop some (costly) means of transportation to and fro, as well. :-(
Complain about this comment
fluff, I've got a great suggestion for you that may save you a lot of pain and grief or at the very least put your mind at ease.
1. Shut off the water to your house.
2. Disassemble your water faucets
3. Inspect the O-Rings
4. If they are worn replace them. Even if they are not worn replace them anyway. They should not be very expensive.
5. Reassemble the faucets.
6. Turn the water back on
7. Check for leaks. If there are any leaks, turn the water off and tighten any loose fittings, replace any worn washers.
If you cannot do this yourself, hire a plumber, preferably one who is Polish if there are any left in the UK. they have very good reputations. Evidently there are some fine trade schools for plumbers in Poland.
Complain about this comment
121. At 6:35pm on 02 Oct 2009, fluffytale wrote:
"%^ kitty We are also dealing with a silent majority in the USA. on Health care, tea parties. we also have a silent majority on Israel."
I've always wondered if it's silent, how does anybody know what they're saying?
Its spokesmen/women seem to make up for it in sheer ear-splitting volume, though.
Complain about this comment
Mark, why don't you introduce a post that allows us to spout the usual nonsense about the middle east. We haven't gone over those issues for ages!
Complain about this comment
Fluffy.
When you respond to a comment, it would help if you gave the number of the comment you are responding to. Without that reference it is hard to follow your reasoning.
Complain about this comment
lostallyourmarbles;
"Fluffy.
When you respond to a comment, it would help if you gave the number of the comment you are responding to. Without that reference it is hard to follow your reasoning."
I'm sorry to have to break it to you but numbering won't help. That's not the problem.
Complain about this comment
Ref 124, PMK
"Fo quite some time I've been a strong opponent of most manned programs, and particularly of ISS, which, IMHO, simply swallowed billions of $$$ which might otherwise have been spent much more productively on deep-space robotic probe missions. And, most importantly, on a new propulsion system which would finally allow us to visit (by proxy) other solar systems within a reasonable time-frame."
Most of the experiments carried out at the ISS could have been accomplished using robotics at a fraction of the cost. Funding for the ISS diverted funds not only from JPL's deep space projects, but from highly successful - and beneficial - Earth-orbiting satellites. One of my favorite projects was Landsat, a relatively inexpensive project that yielded a wealth of knowledge and valuable data with direct application to our well being. Unfortunately, robotics don't offer the visibility and theatrics that are so valuable to most politicians.
Complain about this comment
squirrellist
the silent majority says stop supporting Israel.
we just don't hear them for the rabids shouts.
same as the majority are not racists. we just hear from them more often.
MA you beat me too it.
but then I'm still doing better than you so there's mud in your eye.
Complain about this comment
Ref 126, Squirrellist
"I've always wondered if it's silent, how does anybody know what they're saying?"
Unfortunately, the silent majority doesn't say anything, that's the problem. They are the millions of people who go to work every day, hold two jobs to make ends meet, struggle to make their mortgage payments and pay high utility bills, worry about how they are going to be able to afford to send a son or daughter to college, wonder why they pay high taxes and Social Security contributions all year while some profitable corporations don't pay a dime and the highest paid Americans stop contributing to SS when they reach the $110K annual cap by the end of January, and those who worry about losing their jobs or getting sick because if they do they are likely to lose whatever little they have.
Complain about this comment
#127 Seanspa
Mark, why don't you introduce a post that allows us to spout the usual nonsense about the middle east. We haven't gone over those issues for ages!
Shh! Dont tell anyone, but this is confidential!
Complain about this comment
133. At 8:26pm on 02 Oct 2009, dceilar
Thank goodness for that. I don't (and never have) worked for the Beeb, but I would feel seriously restricted if I had to expect a confidential report about editorial policies and decisions I'd written for a publisher was going to be read by anybody.
Nobody expects an internal company report to the board to be made available to all and sundry, do they?
Complain about this comment
132. At 8:21pm on 02 Oct 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"Unfortunately, the silent majority doesn't say anything, that's the problem.
I don't care whythey're silent. Just that too many people claim they've heard them say only what they want to hear. If you don't speak, you don't get heard. If you aren't heard, you aren't listened to, only the people who shout loudest are.
It's an easy get out. "The majority of the population is behind me, they may not say so, but I know I speak for them." Does that remind you of anything? From the late 20's and early 30's, say?
Complain about this comment
127. seanspa:
Yes, sometimes an hour can drag so-o-o slowly, can't it?
Complain about this comment
Iran is not trustworthy. You cannot trust Ahmajimijad, as he even denies the Holocaust. Iran is a nation who is far from the truth and close to lies. Americans will never trust or like Iran and I imagine Iran will never trust or like Americans, because USA supports Israel. The relationship between the USA and Iran is tolerable, at best. But trust amongst these two countries will never happen. It is not possible.
Complain about this comment
Ref 135, Squirrellist
"I don't care whythey're silent. Just that too many people claim they've heard them say only what they want to hear."
Could it be a metaphor used to advance the interests of those whose problems are so insurmountable that they don't have the time to engage in philosophical discussions or voice their preferences?
I understand your point, and while I believe claims of populous support are more often than not a chimera or grossly exaggerated, I believe that some politicians are sincere and believe they are speaking for the rest of us and doing what is best for us mortals.
Complain about this comment
#10- Touche. I trust the BBC. I trust NPR a bit less. However, an incident with the "liberal" MSNBC shows the role of the media in provoking things. In a debate between Glenn Greenwald (anti-war) and Arianna Huffington (Anti-Iran), an MSNBC reporter criticized Greenwald for saying that the media supported the demonization of Iran. Meanwhile, an MSNBC "bug" at the bottom of the screen showed an iranian missile launch, and the words "Iran: Defiant and Dangerous".
#95- Marcus, despite our numerous disagreements, I do think we both agree on the need for the US to get out of its entangling alliances. Unfortunately, you view the US as entangled with Europe, as opposed to my view of the US entangling Europe...
#100- Two points. China got a bit of its ICBM technology from Tsien Hsue-shen, who helped found the group that eventually led to JPL (Said group had a number of misfits and geniuses, including the founder of Kinetic Art, and a disciple of Aleister Crowley-- but that's another story...)who was imprisoned for five years by the US on the false assumption that he was a spy. He got traded to China for US aviators shot down in Korea, and never went back.
As for Al-Quaida's attempts to gain nuclear arms, go look up tha A. Q. Khan network, and the BBC investigative reports done on that by Greg Palast. (Incidentally, Bush looked the other way when said nuclear technology was being sold...but so did Clinton...)
Complain about this comment
#102 gunsandreligion
Sorry, late post but 'bitters'? Are we talking 'Fernet Branca' 'Angustura' or hops and British Real Ale? Just trying to gain understanding and prevent nuclear proliferation.
Complain about this comment
93 Guns; 100 PMK.
Sadly you are both wrong. India did not re-invent nuclear weapons, and it was not the Soviets who gave India the bomb.
India's Engineering schools are very good, it's true.
Good enough to enable India to work backwards from a peaceful electricity generating reactor to build a bomb.
Which country provided the reactor to India?
Canada.
Complain about this comment
137, Illinoisan.
"Americans will never trust or like Iran and I imagine Iran will never trust or like Americans, because USA supports Israel."
I have news for you. Iran doesn't give a damn about Israel. She is just trying to buddy up to her Arab neighbors. (Remember, she is not Arab.) Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East aside from Israel, and Jews have lived in Iran since 539 BC, when Cyrus the Great brought them out of captivity in Babylon. When Israel was created, Iranian Jews were not pressured to leave.
Political haranges are just that. You have to look beneath all the talk to find the true motives.
Complain about this comment
Interesting article in Time this week about the power of the Revolutionary Guard - who now control vast business empire within Iran and now have one of their own members as Minister of Security. No one left to watch the Guards now.
The article theorises that within a few years the mullahs may beome irrelevent to Revolutionary Guard business plans ... money will win in the end.
Doesn't mean they'll be our friends of course, but an interesting idea.
Sorry I don't have a link, but it was in last weeks Time.
Complain about this comment
46 magic
"As the majority of Iranians do not want their goverment, taking out the President and the rulling mullahs is an option."
Having lived in Iran and having a number of Iranian friends [as well as other places Middle Eastern] I wish to say that people are people, and will usually act the same way when push comes to shove. You didn't see flowers and candy showered on American troops in Iraq, even though Saddam was widely feared and hated by Iraquis, did you?
The US and Britain have interfered in Iran on various occasions before, and intervention now would drive many of the Iranians who dislike their own government to support it.
Americans are the same. After the attack on 9/11 I actually found myself supporting GWB 100% [a man who, before and since, I thoroughly loathed]. The Iraq war made me step back from that support [and keep stepping].
Complain about this comment
I do not wish to be seen as an apologist for Marcus Aurelius, he is perfectly capable of self-defense as well as offense [sorry for the pun]. I have a problem with people avoiding looking at or dealing with unpleasant realities.
When MAII writes something like, “The lessons of allowing Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to rise to a position of great military power have clearly been forgotten. It remains to be seen whether Iran will be permitted to cross the [R]ubicon and actually become a nuclear weapons armed state sponsor of terrorism,” instead of thinking about the historical implications, some readers resort to ad hominem, or a fluffy feel good “that can’t happen in our civilized times” mode.
Yugoslavia’s self-destruction would have been less dreadful if nipped in the bud. How many Muslim boys would have been saved from the Serbs if the Dutch soldiers been more like Americans [wouldn’t even b___dy Serbs have hesitated to threaten US Marines]? It wasn't an American ship and crew the Iranians dared to capture, was it?
If there had been rather more US military on the ground in Georgia, would even the militarists in Moscow have gambled on possibly starting WWIII?
I don’t agree with everything he says, but think before you dismiss it out of hand. To misquote, those who do not understand history are doomed.
Complain about this comment
I read in your story in the main page today that Iran has finally decided to join the debate on its nuclear programme or words to that effect. Is this really the fact. Iran has been asking to have direct talks with the USA for as long as this issue became important but it was the intransigent USA that refused. No, the fact is that the USA decided to join the Iranians and the debate has taken on a new directions now, a sensible, rational course instead of the sabre rattling, sanction imposing and threat of annihilation instead of talking the issues through.
Complain about this comment
mcjakome
You tell us to be wary and stay in the real world not to ignore the oft wrong rants Of MA.
That lessons fr4om history forgotten are to haunt us.
sorry but I don't disagree but I do think you need to heed your own words.
You say
"After the attack on 9/11 I actually found myself supporting GWB 100% [a man who, before and since, I thoroughly loathed]. The Iraq war made me step back from that support [and keep stepping]."
Sorry but history would tell you that GW had a bad record of reading reports. He had shown his total disregard for justice as gov. of Texas where he had one of the highest rates of signing death warrants in the states. Numerous bad cases where innocence was a surety got by him because he couldn't read reports, he showed a callous disregard for human life as a Gov why would that history give anyone the thought that he could be president let alone prosecute a war that did not come back to haunt us.
What part of Dick Cheneys history said " here's a guy that will not be as nasty as he can get.
Sorry your post seemed reasonable, but then you pontificate like those that say " how did we know hitler was going to be real bad"
Complain about this comment
Creole
you got it right.
now when they have allowed inspections we should demand that Israel show us it's underground facilities as well.
Complain about this comment
"After the attack on 9/11 I actually found myself supporting GWB 100% [a man who, before and since, I thoroughly loathed]. The Iraq war made me step back from that support [and keep stepping]."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did you support GWB 100% after 9/11? And why didnt you support him in case of Iraq? You supported him after 9/11 that led him to occupy afghanistan, which then led to american invasion of iraq.
Complain about this comment
Iran is not trustworthy. You cannot trust Ahmajimijad, as he even denies the Holocaust. Iran is a nation who is far from the truth and close to lies. Americans will never trust or like Iran and I imagine Iran will never trust or like Americans, because USA supports Israel. The relationship between the USA and Iran is tolerable, at best. But trust amongst these two countries will never happen. It is not possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran will never trust america, not because of Israel. It has tasted the bitter taste of american involvement. I think you have forgotten the Shah and the 1953 CIA backed coup against the elected government of Iran. America maybe the the world's oldest democratic country, but when that democracy leaves its geographical boundries, it turns into a brutal force.
Complain about this comment
Interesting article in Time this week about the power of the Revolutionary Guard - who now control vast business empire within Iran and now have one of their own members as Minister of Security. No one left to watch the Guards now.
The article theorises that within a few years the mullahs may beome irrelevent to Revolutionary Guard business plans ... money will win in the end.
Doesn't mean they'll be our friends of course, but an interesting idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure the Time a must have written very if not equally interesting articles about Saddam's Reuplican Guard.
Complain about this comment
Persuasion leads to talks. Successful sanctions lead to talks. Even military action, in the end, leads to talks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
its not iranians who dont want to talk, its the americans and their allies who do not want this.The problem is that americans believe that iran will develop nuclear weapon and so they dont want iran to develop anything nuclear..the problem with iran is that it has the right to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.Iran is the only stable country in that region, noone in that region has any problems with it.
Complain about this comment
What "fist?" There is no evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons. Much of the current debate about Iran appears to be a product of Euro-American scaremongering, likely prodded on in part by an Israel which itself has nuclear weapons produced by facilities which have never been inspected and which has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. The matter has been made worse because of much of the West's news media's parroting of related pronouncements by Western politicians. Given the West's past and present imperialistic meddlings and actual engineering of at least one coup in Iran, it is easy to understand why Iran is what it is today.
Complain about this comment
Fluffytail and Colonelartist,
You completely misunderstood my post #145 [or affected to do so].
I said I supported GWB 100% after 9/11, that is, to be absolutely clear, after my country was attacked by bloodthirsty barbarians who deliberately targeted civilians. I stated, I thought clearly, that I had loathed him before that, I knew about his apalling past and wouldn't have voted for him to be dog catcher. Your implication that I would actually have voted for him was an uncalled for insult.
Certainly I supported the war on the Taliban, they hosted, supported and protected Al Quaida. But GWB began losing my support due to his mistakes, such as trusting unreliable allies to corner AlQuaida at Tora Bora, not sealing the Pakistan boarder, not neutralizing Pakistans pro-Taliban ISI, etc. By the time of the Iraq fiasco [or would boondoggle be more appropriate?] loathing had reasserted itself.
In the '04 election, given the choice of a loathsome cowboy and clueless wooden indian, I held my nose and voted for the wooden indian [no offense to Native Americans].
So if you are going to attack me for getting patriotic after that 9/11 attack, well I am American after all, and we are known not to roll over when attacked. And did you not feel even a mite angry for those countrymen of yours murdered in the trade towers? Did you not, even in the dark corners of your pacifist hearts, wish bloody justice on the barbarians?
This, by the way is the reason why western countries, especially the US, should not attack regimes that we may not like, as in Iran, because most nations would react patriotically, except maybe the Belgians. The French, so maligned by my ignorant countryment have been known to put up stiff resistance [no offense to British sensibilities, but Jeanne d'Arc comes to mind] when attacked.
Complain about this comment
Certainly I supported the war on the Taliban, they hosted, supported and protected Al Quaida. But GWB began losing my support due to his mistakes, such as trusting unreliable allies to corner AlQuaida at Tora Bora, not sealing the Pakistan boarder, not neutralizing Pakistans pro-Taliban ISI, etc. By the time of the Iraq fiasco [or would boondoggle be more appropriate?] loathing had reasserted itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i dont know, but I think when one delibertly targets civilians, one picks up targets such as the ones picked by those who placed bombs in trains and buses, london and madrid..the attacks were against specific targets in usa, the financial, the military and the their one, G-d knows what the target was.
Taliban supported ben laden, because he supported afghans during their war..If America had come to them before ben laden, they would have supported america, but america not only ignored them but decided to call them barbarians after the pipe line deal failure..Taliban offered to give up ben laden to either his own country or to any other muslim country, the american were in no mood to negotiate with the barbarians, Remember that bit? The borders between pakistan and afghanistan were sealed..Noone was allowed, not the refugees..Lots of them got lost, among them women and children..Ofcourse you wouldnt want to know about it..and ofcourse I wouldnt want to tell you about it.There was no such thing as pakistani taliban before americans forced their favourite dictator general musharaff to invade certain areas..That caused everything..The pakistani government broke its treaty to those people without any provocation.and according to the treaty which goes ages back, if the army does that, the locals have the right to retaliate..You have got your historical events of a few years back, totally confused. The ISI, the local leaders, the ordinary people, everyone was trying to tell americans, not to go to war without first taking in confidence the people in the liberated areas, the so called tribal belt of pakistan..But the did the american generals and their political leaders listen? No. They were too happy to buy the so called terrorists from the pakistani army and shifting them to cuba.And pakistani army was all to happy to capture any forgein looking non pashto man they could find in those areas, totally ignoring the fact that majority of those were settled and married with families over there..
Complain about this comment
Are we required by law to post only about the reflectory post of the blogger or can we derail from the topic? I am new to this blog thingie..
Complain about this comment
156 colonel (sorry I called you "colonial" a few times .... need new glasses!)
We often get derailed onto other topics - some rather dull and repetitive political posturing, and others enlightening cross-cultural general information.
It is considered bad form to deliberately lead the topic down a sidestreet .... such as turning every topic into a debate on Israel (can't think why that example springs to mind).
Complain about this comment
Colonelartist,
"Taliban supported ben laden, because he supported afghans during their war..If America had come to them before ben laden, they would have supported america, but..."
Your assertion above is incredible, you are not only a mind reader but able to view events in parallel universes. This smacks of ideological blindness to me.
You also neglected to follow your chain of events back to Cain and able. But to be fair, much of what you went on about consists of reasons why I loathed GWB, and I have been duly suspicious of the American government since Vietnam. You did neatly evade my question, repeated here: Did you or did you not feel any anger at your innocent countrymen being murdered in the trade towers? Did you feel even a tiny pang of wished for vengeance? I'm only a journeyman mind reader, so I can't be sure if what I detected was a leftist idea that as capitalists they deserved it, as did their capitalist spouses and capitalist children, and no doubt their capitalest pets.
Not all barbarians are non-western, there are the cold-hearted barbarians of corporate offices and the equally cold-hearted leftwing ideologues.
Complain about this comment
Here's an interesting view on Iran's alleged threat that I thought I'll share (which comes from a strange source).
;-)
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#157) "We often get derailed onto other topics ... "
I would add that digressing from the thread topic is best done after the discussion has run its course.
Complain about this comment
# 158.
Americans and ben laden both helped the afghans in their own way against russians, both packed and left afghanistan in the hands of Shah, dostum, and karzai who was also part of that northern alliance.Taliban had to come to give security to the country. Americans came running to get pipeline deal, and when it failed, they turned against taliban. Ben laden was forced to leave the saudi arabia because he was against americans troops in saudi arabia, and he eventually came to afghanistan,the country it helped. America's first mistake to sideline taliban at that time. second mistake to put sanctions on it. You dont put sanctions on a whole country which had fought against russia for you and after only 6 or 7 years. Americans betrayed the afghans..
And as far as the 9/11 is concerned, I came to know about it a day or two later, and my reaction was just and I quote "uh huh".
Complain about this comment
161. At 6:06pm on 06 Oct 2009, colonelartist wrote:
# 158.....And as far as the 9/11 is concerned, I came to know about it a day or two later, and my reaction was just and I quote "uh huh".
Cruel, insensitive and cold hearted, which puts you in grand company:
Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Stalin, Napoleon etc., etc. ad infinitum. [I left out the British because I don't want to offend my hosts.]
I don't think the innocent Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Jews, Blitzed Londoners, et al. back through history deserved to be killed, mutilated or otherwise harmed. Nor would I shrug and say uh huh, collateral casualties. They have my sympathies, possibly even the duped ones who blindly killed each other.
Complain about this comment
Cruel, insensitive and cold hearted, which puts you in grand company:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world doesnt revolve round america 24/7. Call it what you want to do, but I am not at all interested in whatever happens inside any other country.. By the time I became aware of the whole incident, bush was making his, "we dont why they attacked us, and we are the civilized etc etc etc nonsensical speech". The americans dont know why they were attacked, and they dont really know why they attacked afghanistan 8 yrs later...The only thing consistent here is , the american ignorance..If sympathies could stop the brutality which america the state, engaged in aftter 9/11/2001, I would be the ultimate sympatheticar..But since it doesnt, so I dont see why I have to utter this word. The word has been abused, its time people stop showing sympathies.
Complain about this comment
I think we have done to this blog, what israel does to peace process. Instead of talking about ending occupation, it starts talking about other things, first it was the PLO, then iraq, then Hamas and now iran..
Complain about this comment
For those who point out, for whatever reason that America goes wrong, I am quite aware of that. It is more important to understand why, and, if possible to try to do something about it.
I know, as most Americans do not, that the US government has supported unsavory regimes and has done some pretty shady things. I am also aware that The US has done more good than harm. Because Americans are inward looking and suspicious of leftist thought, those who are blatently leftist, one sided, snidely critical and unable to explain clearly the reason for criticism actually inflame the problem. Those whom you offend will probably not listen to you [if you doubt this, consider how well MAII is regarded by most of you].
Most Americans really believe in democracy, freedom, equality, and a Christian version of the common good. The problem is that the US IS a democracy and a fairly large, decentralized federal republic. Another reason is that the US has a large majority of conservative Christians not a few of whom are easily misled as they care more about what the Bible and right wing pundits say than what the international press shows. A fair sized subset actually believes that helping Israel will bring on Armageddon [I can't fathom why any sane person would desire this, but they do]. Their votes count, and when you attack them as ignorant and superstitious you fail to persuade.
Americans are less well educated because of the decentralized structure and because the culture wars have undercut education in general, especially the development of logical and scientific modes of thought. The obvious approach is non-threatening and fair-minded persuasion.
Now, the faults of the critics are that they often use Bolshevik propaganda [accusing the US of starting the Korean War, for example]. Some start from the premise that the US doesn't have, and Americans don't value democracy, freedom, etc. Neither is true and Americans resent the accusations. The US, as Mr. Mardell knows, is very complex and only the simple expect simple solutions to complex problems.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS