Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No
|
Read everything I've written on Iran.
I'll rehash the salient points here.
You cannot vilify a moderate.
If the rest of the world attacked Obama the way the Bush Administration attacked Khatami publicly in the global media, Americans would have elected anyone but Obama. The personal attacks by the Bush Administration made the moderate President Khatami appear weak and effeminate in the eyes of Iranians and they naturally responded by electing an hard-liner like Ahmadinejad.
Iran will hold presidential elections this year. Iran has a two-term limitation just like the US. Ahmadinejad cannot run for re-election.
Since controlling Iran in order to have unfettered air, rail, road and sea access to Central Asia is crucial to the success of US Geo-political strategy, the US cannot allow a moderate to be elected, since that would delay the invasion of Iran by as much as 8 years.
That's 8 years worth of oil and natural gas wells, plus pipelines being built to transport Central Asian oil and natural gas to China, Russia and Europe, where it will be sold in Rubles or Euros, but not in US Dollars.
Invading Iran to control Central Asia is (according to the US) the only possible way the US can avoid future serious economic problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual
So I guess Republicans are ok with Kim Jong Ill of North Korea threatening to nuke America?
|
I guess Democrats are okay with the fact that Clinton didn't give the North Koreans one nuclear reactor, he gave them two plutonium producing nuclear reactors.
Besides, making threats is one thing, having the ability to carry out the threat is something else.
Why don't you impress us and tell us what kind of "nukes" North Korea has?
Unilaterally...
Mircea