Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Were Ahmadinejad to simply vanish, what makes people think that things would change over there suddenly ? Pushing Iranians, and threatening them doesn't work. I think talking is essential. Bush and the mad drummer Rice were so negative, and hateful toward Iran. The US needs to send people who aren't so bellicose, and full of themselves or eager to start the chest pounding all over again.
Why should Iran kiss US posteriors ? The US doesn't rule the world. America is deep in debt to a Communist nation. How does that make it "King of the roost ?"
The last time our allies were on board was when their oil supply was at stake. When we were attacked on 9/11, they really couldn't be bothered.
That would be when NATO offered to invoke article 5 in the war against Afghanistan, correct? Just checking.
Anyway, apart from the basic moral aspect - war is the last resort for a civilized people - attacking militarily would be a strategic blunder
One second after the first warhead - US or Israeli - hits Iranian soil, the opposition movement currently in Iran will be history. Its leaders will be lucky to get through it alive. There's no better unifying political force than an external attack - you can ***** & moan about government, but when the bombs are dropping where you live, you're either with your country or not. There's also no better excuse for any government to clamp down on dissension.
Were Ahmadinejad to simply vanish, what makes people think that things would change over there suddenly ? Pushing Iranians, and threatening them doesn't work.
For that matter, who's to say a reformed democratic Iran wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons? It's hugely prestigious on the world scene.
That would be when NATO offered to invoke article 5 in the war against Afghanistan, correct? Just checking.
Anyway, apart from the basic moral aspect - war is the last resort for a civilized people - attacking militarily would be a strategic blunder
One second after the first warhead - US or Israeli - hits Iranian soil, the opposition movement currently in Iran will be history. Its leaders will be lucky to get through it alive. There's no better unifying political force than an external attack - you can ***** & moan about government, but when the bombs are dropping where you live, you're either with your country or not. There's also no better excuse for any government to clamp down on dissension.
Yep - I thought that this would have been evident to our American friends
after their experience in Iraq, but obviously we're dealing with the slow learner brigade here.
Remember when Bush/Cheney/Perle/Wolfowitz/Powell/Rice were beating the war drums in 2002/3 : they claimed that the Iraqi's "would welcome the liberators with open arms".
And many of us said this thesis (along with the entire invasion) was flawed.
Thus it transpired.
I can tell you if America tried to attack Iran - there would be very severe reprisals.
If the israeli/Zionists tried to attack Iran - I would guess that this would actually manage to unify the entire Islamic world and the israel would be over run.
And finally, some stats.
Iran is a huge country.
200 million people with a landmass which dwarfs Iraq in terms of size.
Different kettle of fish.
Yep - I thought that this would have been evident to our American friends
after their experience in Iraq, but obviously we're dealing with the slow learner brigade here.
Remember when Bush/Cheney/Perle/Wolfowitz/Powell/Rice were beating the war drums in 2002/3 : they claimed that the Iraqi's "would welcome the liberators with open arms".
And many of us said this thesis (along with the entire invasion) was flawed.
Thus it transpired.
I can tell you if America tried to attack Iran - there would be very severe reprisals.
If the israeli/Zionists tried to attack Iran - I would guess that this would actually manage to unify the entire Islamic world and the israel would be over run.
And finally, some stats.
Iran is a huge country.
200 million people with a landmass which dwarfs Iraq in terms of size.
Different kettle of fish.
Yup with plenty of time to have dispersed key military resources and maximize the number of targets needed to be hit. Hey when is the last time we flat out won a war or conflict? How many have we flat out won since WW2?
Present negotiations still stand open. They can be continued if you will give the word. Should the need for supplementing them become evident, nothing stands in the way of widening their scope into a conference of all the nations directly interested in the present controversy. Such a meeting to be held immediately-in some neutral spot in Europe—would offer the opportunity for this and correlated questions to be solved in a spirit of justice, of fair dealing, and, in all human probability, with greater permanence.
In my considered judgment, and in the light of the experience of this century, continued negotiations remain the only way by which the immediate problem can be disposed of upon any lasting basis.
Should you agree to a solution in this peaceful manner I am convinced that hundreds of millions throughout the world would recognize your action as an outstanding historic service to all humanity.
The "Vital Work" of the Diplomats remains of enormous importance
in this on going and seemingly impossible political situation with
Iran .....
America must never diminish it's outstanding legacy as a nation
which applies the principal of intense "Global Diplomacy" at any
and every opportunity.....
And as our maximum efforts of "Diplomacy" are tirelessly applied
to those "Flash Points" upon the "World Stage"..... May we never
forget the inevitable arrival of the "Appropriate Time"..... to
initiate the forceful usage of the "Big Stick".....
Whether or not much of the current "political Leadership" of this
great nation has the "Wisdom" or "Resolve" to effectively exercise
this latter option is anyones guess .....
Yup with plenty of time to have dispersed key military resources and maximize the number of targets needed to be hit. Hey when is the last time we flat out won a war or conflict? How many have we flat out won since WW2?
let's see, since you're such a historian I don't have to remind you of the first Gulf war? I think that was somewhere between WWII and now. wasn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Let The Diplomats Continue Their Work......
