http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7131703.stm

Some odd reason I don't believe even the French and Germans are too trustful of Peaceful loving Iran.

Being in range of Iran's IRBMs apparently clarifies the mind wonderfully.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

So let's see - I don't "get" this.

I mean, haven't the US and the Iranians just been having this amazing war of words, for like, the last couple of years now?

And hasn't it been over this supposedly secret "nuclear weapons development" program, which now turns out to be non-existent?

So, now you hawks are pulling a Bushie, and shifting the goal, right?

Now it's no longer "stop them from building a bomb", it's, "well, they still pose a threat" - you know, I mean, do you realize how stupid that sounds, after all the flip-flopping that happened over Iraq? You know, first it was Saddam, then it was WMD, then it was democracy, then it was stability, then it became "an ally in the War on Terror", whatever the hell that means....

And so now, the same thing is happening with the Iranians. It's like, oh, they've just taken away our primary excuse, so okay, we'll just go find another one. What's next in line?

You know, this whole thing about being in range of Iranian nukes, is just stupid. First of all, there are no Iranian nukes, and basing your entire foreign policy on a non-existent eventuality is kinda stupid, don't you think? And then secondly, even if there were Iranian nukes, there's no evidence whatsoever that they'd have any interesting in using them against Europe -

I mean, Iran seems to have a very specific kind of interest, in terms of the way it supports terrorism and the like, and the "types" of organizations it supports, you know, they don't just go around willy-nilly supporting every anti-US organization on the planet, they only support specific "efforts" in favor of certain specific "political goals", and I mean, you know, as far as I can tell, they're acting quite rationally given their perceptiosn and their belief systems, so....

You know, in my eyes, our President is a lot more irrational than Ahmedinejad is. I mean, Ahmed's worst crime is that he hates Israel, and his worst faux-pas is that little bit about "no gays in Iran". You know, and compare that to Bushie, whose worst crime is... I dunno... torture? Abramoff? Katrina? Iraq? Ahmedinejad would probably say "Iraq".... And then, I mean, Bushie's worst faux-pas is, well, I mean, excluding all the idiotic stuff his administration does, like paying reporters to plant fake news stories, his worst faux-pas in Iranian eyes is probably that bit about the "crusade" in the context of relations with Islam -

So you know, it's like, we've got a guy who's gonna torture people and then turn around and veto stem cell research, and on the other hand, they've got a guy who hates Israel and doesn't want to admit there's any such thing as gays in the world (or, oh yeah, they're all "over there", in the West, that kinda thing) -

So, like, who's worse? It's hard to tell, ain't it? You know, Bushie, through current US policy, is arming and funding guerilla groups whose specific purpose is to overthrow the freely elected Iranian government -

And I mean, in anyone's eyes, and by Bushie's very own standards, that makes the United States a rogue nation and a terrorist nation, and believe me, the hypocrisy of that, is not lost on the world.

So I mean, talk all the sh** and spout all the BS you want about Ahmedinejad, but at the end of the day, Bushie has just been proven wrong. Again. Yet again. And again. And again. And again.

It's like, how many more times does it have to happen, before you guys will admit, that Bushie is just wrong, period? The guy's a moron, an idiot, he doesn't understand thing one about Iran or Islam or anything else, and I mean, in that regard he's no better than Homer Simpson sittin' at home watchin' TV and sippin' on a beer - you know, while making national policy, right? And then, the flip side of that is, that in spite of the fact that the guy's obviously gettin' information, he's not sharing any of it with We the People, so like, anything he says, given his behavior patterns to date, is highly suspect.

I wouldn't believe anything that guy says, at this point, unless I had overhwleming evidence from multiple sources in support of his claims.

Otherwise, my read of his behavior pattern, is that he's a liar to begin with, and that's just what I should expect from the guy.

__________________

You have that wrong - the report said they DO have one that they "froze" four years ago. Does "froze" mean "ended"? Noooooooo. Does "froze" mean "never existed"? Noooooooo.

A nation which sits on an ocean of oil is ENRICHING URANIUM with 3000 centrifuges so that it can "generate electricity". It's stockpiling enriched uranium, and it FROZE, not ended, it's nuke bomb program. And there's no threat, none, no possibility? Do you realize how stupid that attitude is?

You think prudent foreign policy with an islamofascist state is wait until they've done nuclear explosion tests, tested long range rockets, and have a nuclear tipped IRBM missile on the launch platform and are counting down 10, 9, 8, ..... and THEN you do something???

You are also clueless about the "use" of nuclear weapons - they aren't necessarily fired, their EXISTENCE is used against countries to change policy just by intimidation - just like how the soviets created a few generations of euro-appeasers with their missiles. GET IT, now?

What sort of blabber is that? Hitler had specific "efforts" in favor of certain specific "political goals", so did Stalin and Brezhnev - so what??

"blah blah Bush rant blah blah..............."

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

97240sx

Sorry does the posting of factual headlines in the "Latest World News:
Posts of newsworthy political items current within the last 72 hours."....involving real players in world affairs bother you that much?

Or is it just they contradict the line that you and some others wish to be?


BTW this is France Germany and the UK.....telling the USA "yes we read your report....its nice..but its not enough to make us dismiss Irans actions."

I agree with the general thrust of nonsqtr's piece. It is clear to anybody with half a brain that the US-led "coalition of the killing" is now shifting the goalposts in relation to Iran.

We have of course been here before. In the build up to the illegal attack on Iraq we were told that Saddam was in possession of WMD that could strike the UK within 45 minutes. After all, Colin Powell (remember him?) had the satellite images to prove it.

When that lie failed to win over public opinion, we were told that Saddam illegally imported uranium from Niger. The export licence documentation that allegedly purported to confirm this was proven to be a forgery. So the goalposts were moved yet again.

This time we were told that the justification for attacking Iraq was to remove Saddam from the reigns of power (regime change) despite the fact that "regime change" is illegal under the UN Charter.

We were then told that the invasion was necessary for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian intervention, we were told, was a necessary precursor to enable the Iraqi's to live in a free democracy.

The people we were told would be jubilant in the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow. The new liberated people of Iraq would demonstrate just how grateful they were for the coalition of the killing's intervention into their country by showering them with flowers.

Of course what followed in the ensuing years was the attempt at the IMPOSITION of a form of western liberal democracy. Yes, the dual notions IMPOSITION and DEMOCRACY are of course a contradiction in terms, but hey, why the hell should this little spanner in the works stop the neo-con grand imperial strategists in their tracks?

After all, the Iraqi's were going to lead better lives than they did under Saddam. Why? because Bushie boy said so. But, wait for it folks .... yes, of course this was yet another lie!

Over 4 years down the line and with 1.2 million Iraqi men, women and children dead, 4 million displaced and 7 million seriously injured, conditions have got worse - far worse. Infant mortality has gone up, life expectancy has gone down, disease is rife, malnutrition is widespread, the infrastructure has all but been bombed including water mains (biological warfare by another name).

Essential services have been curtailed, including the use of hospitals and schools. But hey, we don't wanna know this stuff in the America, the land of the free where the corporate media operate as surrogates for the elite. We'll just close our eyes, and pretend that it isn't happening, and then perhaps it will all go away, like a bad dream.

So to summarise, the justification used to attack Iraq were all based on a pack of lies - WMD, uranium importation from Niger, humanitarian interventionism, freedom and democracy etc - all a pack of lies. And people, most of you seem to be falling for the same lies in relation to Iran.

Iran, like any other nation, has the right to possess uranium. The country has not been a threat to anybody for over 200 years. The country has a right to develop research into nuclear energy in order to satisfy THE FUTURE ENERGY DEMANDS of its population in the same way that Bushie has.

Yes, Iran is rich in oil, but so too is Texas. The issue at hand is the necessity that both the US and Iran look at the issue of future energy use in an age of finite resource of oil in both countries and elsewhere in the world.

Iran just isn't scary.

Not a threat.

Not the government, I mean. And not its people. Are there people in Iran that might prove problematic at some point? Quite possibly.

And if that happens, I would like the country itself to be an ally. I would like the neighbors of the guy planning to attack America to turn him in.

As near as I can tell, that's our only good long-term defense.

Exactly. Well said. Iranian behavior and goals, are rather easy to explain. They're perfectly rational, as far as I can tell. I mean, I did a little bit of checking, and it turns out, that even the stuff that Iran is suspected of, is all perfectly logical.

I mean, it makes sense that they'd want some kind of "protection", in today's world, right? After all, "we" overthrew their government once already.... or was that twice.... hmm..... well, "at least once".

And like, we're "right next door", in the immediately adjoining country, doing some "regime change" over there too.

And we're talking about doing "regime change" in Iran, and we are currently right now actively funding terrorist groups within Iran whose specific goal is that very thing.

So I mean, it seems to me, that all this "terrorism" strategy that's coming into play, is kinda just a "vehicle" for the little guy to fight back against the big guy. That's pretty much all it is, it's a "method" and a "mechanism", and it has relatively little to do with the ideology that's behind it (execpt insofar as the latter "enables" it, from a psychological standpoint).

So, you know, Iran wants to be a regional geo-political player, and guess who's in the region? Why, it's a bunch of Arabs, right? So, like, by helping Hizbollah (which, oh, by the way, just happens to be Shi'a too), they're also helping the Arabs and their Palestinian cousins, both of which also happen to be Islamic..... I mean, this is a much deeper thing, 'cause if you check into this equation, this goes all the way back to Nasser and his "pan-Arabism" thing. I mean, this whole equation, has relatively little to do with the US, all things considered. The US is just kinda "getting in the way", from an Iranian point of view, so I mean, it's only natural that they'd wanna "oust the tyrant", right?

And I mean, the whole Jewish thing is kinda interesting too, 'cause there are lots of Jews in Iran, right? And they're mostly fully integrated, I mean, they coexist peacefully with the Mulsims, much better in that regard, for the most part, than most of the folks in Gaza. So you know, when ol' Ahmed'jad says "we hate Zionism", he's kinda talking about a land grab that displaced some of his Arab cousins. He isn't talking about Jews. And I mean, the only reason the Holocaust enters into the equation, is 'cause it was the excuse for the land grab. And the reason he's fighting back, is not 'cause he hates Jews, but 'cause he hates the land grab. It's all very logical, but you kinda gotta understand the "reasons", if you just listen to "what's being said", and only the "sound bites" thereof, you're not gonna get the accurate picture.

See, and I mean, you know, here's Bushie doing his usual thing, you know, "Iran must" and "Iran should" and if it doesn't accede to his wishes then they're a "rogue nation" and a "terrorist state", and meanwhile Bushie's funding his own terrorists to get in there and topple the regime. I mean, what could be more transparent?

But you know, the Mullah's would never talk to Bushie. They don't trust the guy, and for good reason. And I mean, Bushie ain't wasting his time tryin' to talk to them either, right? The Mullah's might talk to Hillary though, they kinda trust her a little more. Clinton was pretty reasonable with the Iranians, and Hillary might be able to make use of that "pre-packaged respect" if she gets into office. But I mean, you know, then again, Iran probably wouldn't be the "most important" thing on her plate, from the standpoint of US national interests. But I mean, I have no doubt that one of the first things that would happen in the State Department is the opening of an informal dialog, and then a formal one.

Rudy - hard to tell. Probably not "initially". He'd probably take his time with Iran. And that might work too, as long as the Iranians don't do anything um... "hasty" either. It's hard to tell what Rudy would do right now, it's kinda too early in the election cycle to tell what he's really made of yet, in terms of his outlook on geo-politics. If NY is any indication ('cause I lived there during his term as mayor), what'll happen is that Rudy will take a very "practical" approach - I mean, his version of "diplomacy", is that he had a crime problem, right? So he got together with the leaders of the various community groups he thought might be influential in that regard, and basically said, "look, we're gonna clean this place up. Go along with it, and your people will get lots of good things, and we'll even look the other way once or twice when you really need us to. But fight it, and we're gonna make sure every minute of every day of your lives, is more miserable than the last".... and it worked, and I mean, the way he did it, is quite a brilliant example of "managing the reins of government" - 'cause I mean, first thing he did was, he passed this law that said the storeowners and tenants were responsible for keeping their sidewalks clean, and then he sent around the cops to enforce it for a day or two - so like, suddenly you had all these guys out there at seven in the morning, sweeping and hosing down their sidewalks, where before they'd only get up at noon or something - and then, he changed all the signs, right? So like, suddenly the "Federal Social Services Building" became the "Federal Employment Center", and stuff like that... you know, "symbolic" stuff - and it was all pretty brilliant, I mean, it was like a "concerted campaign", right?

But then see, what distinguishes him from Bushie (at least so far), is that Rudy actually followed through with the little guy - so like, he promised these guys all these "things" if they played ball, right? And he actually delivered, which is pretty rare for a politician these days. Most of 'em just kinda say "thanks, and see ya". But Rudy came through with all kinds of good stuff for the minority communities and such - he even got the Puerto Ricans a kind of "blanket amnesty" for a while, 'cause there were so many of 'em and they all kinda had problems in one form or another, so one day he just kinda said, "okay, we're gonna start over", and that was that. I mean, not for the "serious" stuff, but for little things, like immigration papers and drug busts and so on. And speaking of drug busts, Rudy did the "Drug Court" system in NYC too, and the result of that was phenomenal, it's like, suddenly the jail at Riker's Island had space again, and suddenly all these addicts were getting the treatment and the help they needed, and suddenly there was a lot less crime 'cause there were a lot less addicts, and then, next thing that happened, is when the addicts were taken care of, Rudy moved in and had his people clean up the "tent cities" in the public parks, and I mean, most of the addicts were already gone, right? So like, it worked perfectly, it was "perfectly staged". So, you know, all the rich people are walking around town, going, "gee Gladys, look, no more homeless bums in the park - Rudy's really doing a great job here", and I mean, so "they" were happy campers too, right?

So I mean, if Rudy can pull something like that off at the international level, then he'd probably be a great President. But I'm venturing a guess here - there's kind of a "trust issue" with Rudy, just 'cause he's a Republican and Bushi is a Republican, so.... we're gonna have to see how this plays out in the campaign. Politics is very complex over here. The RNC, which is the "Party apparatus", is actually quite powerful, even though they don't really "control" anything in government, but in practice, they dictate how committe chairman in the Congress, treat various bills that pass their way, and stuff like that, and they also regulate the flow of money on their respective sides of the aisle, which is very important ( ) -

So, kinda the way things work, is that the Prez gets to do whatever he wants, subject only to the "consraints" imposed on him by the Congress and by the Supreme Court (and I mean, obviously he has to obey the law and uphold his oath of office and all that, but I mean, in terms of "foreign adventurism" or anything like that, he pretty much has a free hand to participate or not, or be as aggressive or not, as he chooses).

So, if I know Rudy, his level of "aggressiveness" is going to be determined by how bad of a "problem" he feels we're having.

You know, he seems to think that abortion is "not a problem", so he's not going to devote any time or energy to it. On the other hand, so far, he's been kinda "rattling the saber" a little in terms of his foreign policy noises, and it's hard to tell whether that's all just due to the primary cycle ('cause in the primaries, he's got to prove he's "more conservative" than all the other conservative candidates, that's kinda how you win in the primaries), or whether that's really his foreign policy "doctrine" - and so, my prediction is, we'll find out "immediately after the primaries are over", when one of two things will happen:

Either a) he'll distance himself from George W Bush "completely", and repudiate his Neo-Con ideology and all that (and I mean, he'll do it in a "gentle" way so as not to (*)(*)(*)(*) off too many staunch Republicans, but he'll have to do it, in order to gain the centrist votes - 'cause in the general elections, it's kinda "exactly the opposite" from the primaries - in the general election cycle, it's the "centrists" who tend to get the votes, so Rudy's probably going to "become a centrist" at that point).

OR, b) he "won't" distance himself from Georgie and his policies, in which case he'll go into the election with a lot of baggage, and a lot of 'splaining to do.

So "my" best guess right now, is he's gonna try to frame himself as "almost" a paleo-conservative. He's gonna try to say he's "almost paleo" in every way but on social issues. That, should allow him to address both sides of that equation, 'cause that way he can say he's both conservative and centrist, as the need arises.

We'll see. This is gonna be interesting.

But anyway, I have no clue how Iran is looking at Rudy - do you? That would be an interesting tidbit of information to know....