ExiledInIllinois Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Honestly. A little devil's advocate here. Why would any country fear an pre-emptive strike and invasion from the US? It is not like we can spread ourselves out all over the world?. The first couple of countries that "take it on the chin" will suffer the most. The next ones that puff up against us obvioulsy have an easier time. That is why I believe force is not the true and correct answer. You always got to mix in world diplomacy... Something this administration has zero credibility with. "We don't do diplomacy" ~Secretary Rumsfeld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 "We don't do diplomacy" ~Secretary Rumsfeld 119134[/snapback] And on a side note...did it ever occur to anyone to wonder why Rumsfeld is espousing that policy? Not much of a surprise Powell quit, is it...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 And on a side note...did it ever occur to anyone to wonder why Rumsfeld is espousing that policy? Not much of a surprise Powell quit, is it...? 119423[/snapback] Ya. Where do the people in the current administration think they are? On the first grade playground? It is appalling that those are the dynamics behind it and you seem to be justifying it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Ya. Where do the people in the current administration think they are? On the first grade playground? It is appalling that those are the dynamics behind it and you seem to be justifying it? 119432[/snapback] Point to an administration where the internal dynamics weren't !@#$ed up. Clinton's sure as hell were...as, I recall, were Reagan's (was it Schultz who was "in control" when Ronnie was shot?) Kerry's would have been just as bad, simply because that's the way the game is played. Even so...I'd rather Powell had stayed and Rumsfeld left. Rummy's done some good for Defense...but overall he's not a credit to the administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whynot Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 was it Schultz who was "in control" when Ronnie was shot? 119463[/snapback] It was Al Haig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Point to an administration where the internal dynamics weren't !@#$ed up. Clinton's sure as hell were...as, I recall, were Reagan's (was it Schultz who was "in control" when Ronnie was shot?) Kerry's would have been just as bad, simply because that's the way the game is played. Even so...I'd rather Powell had stayed and Rumsfeld left. Rummy's done some good for Defense...but overall he's not a credit to the administration. 119463[/snapback] Fair enough... I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 How do we verify that this is the case? I dont trust them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Is my assessment that Iran's "committment" is of little value amounting to nothing more than a public "pledge" not accurate? Or is the actual issue of no concern to you? Beyond taking shots at me because I see no reason to be impressed with a public promise by Iran of all nations, do you have anything substantive to add to this debate? 118949[/snapback] Considering the ping ponging that has been going on between the Big Three, Iran, and the IAEA, I would say that this declaration by Iran represents progress but not much more than that. To an extent we are in agreement as to how much the Iranians can be trusted, but differ in how this crisis shoul be approached. Kerry suggested in the first debate that he would engage in bilateral talks with Iran and North Korea, which is in stark contrast to how the Bush Administration has been handling theses two crises all along. If you, like I do, have issuses with the Iranian intentions, why engage in bilateral talks/ agreements? Wouldn't making them responsible to other nations better serve our interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Considering the ping ponging that has been going on between the Big Three, Iran, and the IAEA, I would say that this declaration by Iran represents progress but not much more than that. To an extent we are in agreement as to how much the Iranians can be trusted, but differ in how this crisis shoul be approached. Kerry suggested in the first debate that he would engage in bilateral talks with Iran and North Korea, which is in stark contrast to how the Bush Administration has been handling theses two crises all along. If you, like I do, have issuses with the Iranian intentions, why engage in bilateral talks/ agreements? Wouldn't making them responsible to other nations better serve our interests? 119957[/snapback] Frankly, I don't see unilateral or bi-lateral talks as the key to a solution of this problem. The questions for both NK and Iran are, A) why do they want nukes and B) is there something they want more? and C) is there another way to get what they want besides nukes? Beyond that there is a question of "what if?" What are we willing to do to prevent these nations from getting nuclear weapons? Are we willing to go to war with them? Are we willing to launch air strikes against facilities involved in their nuke program? Is living with a nuclear armed NK and/or Iran preferable to a world war? Neither candidate addressed these issues which I think are the real nuts and bolts of the issue. For Iran, I think they were scared to death when we invaded Iraq fearing that as another member of the "axis of evil" they were next. With that mind set, they were, intellligently I might add, all too eager to get their nukes up and running asap. Now that we are getting dragged down in Iraq, I don't think they see us as realistically prepared to invade them any time soon. I don't think they see their nuke program as essential for the time being. Still, having some nukes would pretty much end the threat of invasion from the United States. It is the same reason Castro wanted them. There are ways to give Iran some assurances against an invasion they might find worth delaying a nuke program for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Good points Mick. I agree that Iran (Syria too) was scared to death when we went into Iraq, and I maintain that they have been behind much of the current "insurgency" in Iraq. Thier goal of keeping us off balance and bogged down in a guerrilla war has prevented us from taking the diplomatic steps to build a case for regime change in Iran. Santorum introduced legislation earlier this year, but I think it's going to take more than $10M and a bunch of fluff from Congress to get the job done. I liken it to the Iraq Accountablity Act of 1998. I don't think the Iranians are pursuing nukes to keep us from invading. I see thier program as a deterrent to Israel's program/ stockpile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts