jcd11235 0 #26 May 20, 2008 Quote No, you didn't. Well, we've tried it your way for 7+ years without positive results. That doesn't sound very effective.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #27 May 20, 2008 QuoteUnfortunately, you think that the interception via missle or Airborne Laser are the only methods we are researching. Unfortunately, you don't realize the inherent problems with acquiring a tiny, fast moving target, successfully, every time.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #28 May 20, 2008 QuoteNo, but if we only put forth the resources we have been throwing away in wasteful programs which do no good whatsoever, it can be done. To think that we cannot do this is ludicrous, heck if we put a man on th emoon in the 1960s, we sure as hell can do this now. We have far too many people who hold office in this country dragging their feet, and wasting taxpayers resources. We already are wasting plenty of money on that program. I'd propose that instead of wasting more money on it that we "waste" it pursuing nuclear fusion. Achieve that and much more than the problem of Iran will be solved. I for one am tired of hearing that the solutions to our problems can be solved by increasing our military expenditures and deployment and building both a virtual and a physical wall around our country. If beating up on people and boxing ourselves in is the answer then something's wrong with the way we live. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #29 May 20, 2008 Quote Unfortunately, you don't realize the inherent problems with acquiring a tiny, fast moving target, successfully, every time. Piece of cake. GWB signs an executive order that all missiles around the world have to be fitted with transponders, squawk a specific code, and enemy countries must notify us at least 24 hrs in advance of an attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #30 May 20, 2008 QuoteHmmm...in the last 20 years... You can go back a 100 years if you like. QuoteHow many innocents have Iran's surrogates in Hezbollah and Hamas killed? Two separate groups but I bet if you add both of them up it will be less then what we have done in Iraq. QuoteHow many leaders have they assassinated? Who Hamas, Hisbolah, or Iran. If you are talking about Iran as I am then I would say none, but I know of a country who actively hunts leaders of democratically elected countries there called Israel. QuoteHow many people have they kidnapped? I have no idea how many people have we sent to be tortured by secret CIA plans? How many have we killed? I doubt we will know the exact events of the inhuman secretive actions of a country, but if we are to point fingers shouldn’t we not be hypocrits? QuoteHow many different Lebanese governments has Hezbollah overthrown (or tried to) at Iran's behest? I don't know how many? As for lebanon Last I checked we had accelerating our cluster bomb delivery to Israel so they could kill more people. We all know how cluster bombs are great for targets in heavily populated areas. QuoteWHat has Iran's antics done to the Lebanese people? i'll answer: SCREW THEM OVER. When did Iran start talking for them and when did the international community accept that Iran is their representative? Also when did we start getting so concerned for the Lebanese people? It seems making sure we get bombs delivered to there # 1 enemy in a time of war is not really showing how much we care. This is what I mean about changing morals and values just fit the argument. Quote They've an incredible ocean, educated multi-lingual populace, and superb wineries, ski slopes, the wonders of Baalbek, and other tourist draws. Lots of $$ should be coming in there but aren't - and who's the reason? IRAN - I'd say Hezbollah, but Iran is running them. Funny you mention that. yesterday I was watching an American show on travelers channel. Anthony Bordains no reservations. He was in Beirut and guess what had all the tourist leaving? The isreali bombs. Somehow I think being next to a country that has no regards for any international law and has been giving the green light by us to do what they wish is worst for tourism. You know when you destroy a countries infrastructure it is bad for tourism? Again who has done all of that Israel yet you excuse them and try a desperate search to show something negative about Iran. QuoteEngaging Iran directly at the Presidential level is not really an option as long as they're a state sponsor of terrorism. Other issues, such as trade, are an option. Until they cease such antics, no President in his right mind would meet directly with them. Until they stop such garbage, all contact/cooperation - and there should be some - should be at lower levels. Perhaps Mr. Ahmadinejad could send the President a 444 rose bouquet and announce he's ceasing all support for Hezbollah if he's interested in speaking with the US at the presidential level. I don’t think there is enough flowers in the world to cover the number of people who have died because of our direct or indirect actions. Again your arrogance and your one way of looking at things is what is wrong with our FP. You want answers for every wrong thing Iran has done no you demand it, yet you excuse every thing we have done. When you compare numbers of dead, numbers of civilians dead, and the general blood on hand count we are by far the winners.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #31 May 20, 2008 And Chamberlain met with Hitler...that wasn't very effective either, was it? What do you think the President should discuss? Regional security issues? Hezbollah funding, perhaps? Seek a promise not to export nuclear material to Hezbollah for use in a dirty bomb, perhaps? We all know how well promises like that are kept, right? Perhaps they could discuss compensation for the 444 days of terror against our embassy workers a few years back? Re-discuss the Vincennes shot perhaps? How about having Iran to use its influence with the terrorists to return those Israeli soldiers they kidnapped? Or get them to agree to stop sending guided missile technology to the Hezbollah terrorists? They'll keep such a promise, right? There's nothing to discuss at the Presidential level. Period. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #32 May 20, 2008 You ignore the fact that Iran funds Hezbollah and tells it what to do. Hezbollah is an instrument of Iranian foreign policy - period. Not facing that fact is not facing reality. You've no credibility until you do. If you don't believe Hezbollah and the violence it creates impacts terrorism, then you are not facing reality. WHY did the Israelis invade southern Lebanon a short while ago? HEZBOLLAH (instrument of Iranian foreign policy) and their terrorist actions. Amazing that after the Israelis kicked the living hell out of them - and admittedly caused a ton of collateral damage in the process - that sonofabitch Nasrallah stated that if he'd known such a response would have been forthcoming, he wouldn't have kidnapped the soldiers. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Where Israel screwed up - and the Lebanese government as well - was they didn't send aid to the public afterwards. Hamas and Hezbollah did. Terrorists with a heart. Assholes. Iranian supplied $$, by the way. I just returned from the region. I have Lebanese friends. The lie that the Lebanese enjoy Hezbollah's presence and iranian/Syrian influence on their internal politics is wasted on me. You can watch the travel channel all you like. I haven't seen that fellow or that episode, be if he'd talked to a few more Lebanese he'd find their true feelings about Hezbollah and Hamas. iran funds terrorism. Period. If you can't face that fact, you've no credibility. Call me arrogant all you like - matters not to me, I assure you. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 May 20, 2008 QuoteAnd Chamberlain met with Hitler...that wasn't very effective either, was it? What a terrible analogy. What was it that Chamberlain did that was so bad? QuoteWhat do you think the President should discuss? … There's nothing to discuss at the Presidential level. Period. That very attitude is exactly why this President has been a dismal failure w/r/t foreign policy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #34 May 20, 2008 Very cute. Now instead of dodging my question - answer it. "I think the President should discuss the following issues with the Mr. Ahmadinejad: - - - -" There. Now you just have to cut and paste. GWB's foreign policy has been pretty much screwed up for many reasons other than refusing to meet directly with Iran. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #35 May 20, 2008 Three 9-year-old girls named Marcie, Sue, and Joann are standing in a hallway at school. Sue says something Joanne doesn't like. Joann turns to Marcie and says "that's it, I'm not talking to Sue until she apologizes". Sue says to Joann "Apologize for what?" Joann says to Marcie, "tell her I'm not talking to her!" Sue says to Marcie "Why the hell would I apologize to her while she's being such a stupid bitch" Joann says to Sue "Am not..." then remembers she's not talking to her. This continues till the bell rings for classes to start, and resumes the following morning. It becomes cyclical in nature with high points and low points, all of them demonstrating appropriate maturity for the girls age. Stupid, right? Personally, I'd prefer our diplomatic efforts show more wisdom and maturity than the average 9-year-old girl. In recent years, that hasn't seemed to be the case. McCain and Clinton have both promised to keep not talking to Sue until she promises to carry their books for a week or some such thing. I'd rather we have a leader who sits down and talks directly with the Iranian leadership to establish a) what our differences are, b) what we can collectively do to resolve or at least minimize them. You know, basically talk like adults. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 May 20, 2008 QuoteVery cute. Now instead of dodging my question - answer it. I dodged only a strawman. (Hint: We haven't had hostages in Iran for over a quarter century.) If we have legitimate problems with Iran, we need to discuss those problems with them, not make threats of war or abuse the power of our permanent seat on the UNSC. If diplomacy fails, then other options can be considered. But diplomacy should be the first course of action. QuoteGWB's foreign policy has been pretty much screwed up for many reasons other than refusing to meet directly with Iran. It's certainly not the only mistake he's made.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #37 May 20, 2008 QuoteYou ignore the fact that Iran funds Hezbollah and tells it what to do. Hezbollah is an instrument of Iranian foreign policy - period. Not facing that fact is not facing reality. You've no credibility until you do. Trust me when I say you or any one who has supported this administration, and some who continue to support it should not even think of the word credibility. To think they should be who determines who is and is not credible is just ridicules. Nothing personal against you but denying the facts has been the party line for the past 8 years. QuoteIf you don't believe Hezbollah and the violence it creates impacts terrorism, then you are not facing reality. WHY did the Israelis invade southern Lebanon a short while ago? HEZBOLLAH (instrument of Iranian foreign policy) and their terrorist actions. Amazing that after the Israelis kicked the living hell out of them - and admittedly caused a ton of collateral damage in the process - that sonofabitch Nasrallah stated that if he'd known such a response would have been forthcoming, he wouldn't have kidnapped the soldiers. Link please QuoteI just returned from the region. I have Lebanese friends. The lie that the Lebanese enjoy Hezbollah's presence and iranian/Syrian influence on their internal politics is wasted on me. You can watch the travel channel all you like. I haven't seen that fellow or that episode, be if he'd talked to a few more Lebanese he'd find their true feelings about Hezbollah and Hamas. I never stated that Hexbollah was a charity organization or claimed that everyone in Lebanon is in love with Hezbolah. I am sure there are people for it and against it like any thing else. All I stated was that we should look at what we have done before we point the finger. We tend to forget how many lives have been lost because of our FP. Iran supports hezbolah, we supported Osama Binladin off course you excuse that because it was convenient or the right thing to do for us. That’s where I think there is a disconnect. I think some of you believe that the right thing for America is always the RIGHT THING to do and often its not. Often it drastically effects the lives of others and an often end peoples lives. Yet the same action even to a much lesser degree is condemned when it is not us doing it. Is that not the definition of hypocrisy?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #38 May 20, 2008 Face the extant facts, do some research, and get back to us. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #39 May 20, 2008 Another dodge!Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #40 May 20, 2008 QuoteAnother dodge! How is "If we have legitimate problems with Iran, we need to discuss those problems with them" a dodge? What legitimate concerns do you believe we have with Iran?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #41 May 20, 2008 And yet another dodge! As I stated perviously - there is NOTHING TO DISCUSS AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL. At lower levels...perhaps some engagement on trade...or anti-piracy efforts in the Arabian Gulf. Again...as I stated earlier... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #42 May 20, 2008 QuoteAnd yet another dodge! You're still reaching. QuoteAs I stated perviously - there is NOTHING TO DISCUSS AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL. Well, fine then. I guess there's no reason to be concerned with Iran then, certainly no reason to threaten an invasion or bombing. QuoteAt lower levels...perhaps some engagement on trade...or anti-piracy efforts in the Arabian Gulf. Talking is certainly the best place to start. We just have to make sure we send someone to talk that has the authority negotiate, make and keep offers and agreements. Generally, that's the President or a very high level official. QuoteAgain...as I stated earlier... "And Chamberlain met with Hitler...that wasn't very effective either, was it?" And I asked what it was Chamberlain did wrong, and you never answered.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #43 May 20, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg&feature=bz302 James Baker on Fox News Talking to the enemy is not appeasementI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #44 May 20, 2008 Quote Step : Perfect the ABM system, with extensive testing until we achieve 100% interceptions. Step 2: Make the test results very public, and demonstrative. Step 3: The first time anything gets its motor warmed up in a prelaunch sequence, the entire region dies. Step 4: Bring the Iranians to the table in Geneva to atone for the decades of terrorism, and the direct attacks on US Personnel, as well as sovereign territory. Step 5: In bringing the Iranians to the table to discuss the dismantling of their Nuclear Research Program, also bring the other members of the UN Security Council with us to provide a unamimous front. Step 6: Upon acceptance of our terms, cooperation with all inspections, and the arrest and turn in of known terrorism suspects, along with providing the list of all involved with the network, we will give them Most Favored Nation Status after a period of 10 years of absolute compliance. Diplomacy is not always just bending over to see what you get Just how many Iranian sleeper cells do you think MIGHT be activated if that was the way we approached them....hmmmm? There are one hell of a lot of Iranians in this country and I dont think all of them are truely running from the current situation in their home country. They are just waiting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #45 May 20, 2008 Quote No, but if we only put forth the resources we have been throwing away in wasteful programs which do no good whatsoever, it can be done. Gee I kinda wonder what we might have used the 500 billion + that we have wasted on Iraq so far Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 May 20, 2008 QuoteUnfortunately, you think that the interception via missle or Airborne Laser are the only methods we are researching. And more unfortunately, you seem to presume that the enemy would use a missile to send this bomb to us. Maybe we could lobby the UN to mandate that all nuclear bombs be delivered on ICBMs only. We'd have to dismantle our cruise missiles of course, but that would be worth it knowing that Iran couldn't smuggle the bomb into the country in a vat of oil or heroin. Star Wars was the greatest form of GOP pork in US history. Going to the moon on 60s technology is child's play in comparison. The difference is one mission is feasible, and the other is impossible. Now if the moon was hurling towards our soil and we were trying to shoot it down, that would be a similar scope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #47 May 20, 2008 What have both candidates missed? im-ever-ho ... Delineation of the goals of US Foreign Policy Toward Iran. What we want and why. Then go about figuring out how to get there. Goal #1: No nuclear weapons in Iran. Why? (Aka the “So what? Who cares?") A nuclear weapons state of Iran would be destabilizing to the region. Israel. Whatever your opinion on Israel & its policies, it perceives Iran -- & in particular a nuclear weapons empowered Iran – as a threat to its existence. The US may have variable influence on Israeli policy; the US does not, however, control Israel. Former Iranian President Akbar Rafsanjani, who was much more pragmatic than Ahmadinejad, noted than Iran – because of geographic size and dispersed population – could survive many nuclear bombs exploding within its state; Israel, given its small size and concentrated population centers, may not even survive the detonation of one modern nuclear weapon. Very similarly to segments of the US populace that have been concerned regarding suggestions that US policymakers are driven to fulfill Biblical prophecy for return of the Messiah (e.g., via the “Left Behind” series); the Iranian leadership is subject to influence by their own domestic fundamentalist apocryphal prophecy for hastening return of the “Hidden Iman.” The Israelis are cognizant of this, question whether that segment of the Iranian leadership can be deterred, and have indicated that they are less than enthusiastic about risking the consequence of finding out. If Iran is considered to be close or succeeds at producing nuclear weapons, the likelihood of a pre-emptive Israeli military strike is high. If you think politics in the Middle East in complicated & problematic now and if you think oil prices are high now, an Israeli strike on Iran will exacerbate both … considerably (to put it diplomatically). Proliferation. If Iran succeeds at producing nuclear weapons, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are likely to make decisions to pursue offensive nuclear weapons programs. Risk of transfer to sub-state or non-state actors. Whether direct, indirect, or tacit, Iran has connections to terrorist groups, notably but not limited to Hezbollah & Hamas. While I see nothing to indicate that Iran’s nuclear security would be particularly lax, that’s just a ‘guestimate.’ Beyond direct transfer for ideological, religious, or capitalistic reasons, the risk is there. Goal #2: Ending Iranian support for terrorist groups. Stop providing equipment, training, and other tacit support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other regional militias. Goal #3: Decreasing the risk of diversion of civilian nuclear power to offensive nuclear weapons programs. When the NPT was signed (1968), there was a tacit recognition/short-sighted assumption that most states didn’t have the technology, infrastructure, or knowledge-based workforce to develop independent nuclear weapons programs or support them. This is not the case in 2008. (The situation is similar w/r/t biological weapons programs; the BWC was signed in 1972.) Toward Goal #3 are actions like continued support of the IAEA Fuel Bank Initiative. That's my initial vision of what the goals of the US Foreign Policy Toward Iran should be (ends). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #48 May 20, 2008 >you seem to presume that the enemy would use a missile to send this bomb to us. I can just see it now: ================= What happen ? Somebody set up us the bomb! How are you gentlemen !! You are on the way to destruction. What you say !! You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha Ha Ha Ha .... Take off every 'ZIG' !! You know what you doing. Move 'ZIG'. For great justice. ================== Clearly we need to upgrade our ZIG forces to plan for this nefarious tactic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #49 May 20, 2008 Quotefirst...ratchet DOWN all the talk of war, and attack, and isolation... invite the leader(s) of Iran... Amadinejad (sp), as well as Miltary Generals, Religious Leaders, and , current Reigning scientists , and heads of Academia, to a summit in Switzerland... (emphasis, on the location,,,as it it a world accepted place of Neutrality...and non Agression) Hell ,,, show them a bit of respect.... Try to indicate to them that maybe we are not as well versed in the ways, of that part of the world, as our current leaders so arrogantly, assume themselves to be... many of those cultures, did just fine, for thousands of years,,,, With great developments in art, and culture, and technology... Strength through compassion, and common sense, and consideration of the culture and histories of other nations can go far towards changing the way that these other countries view us... You hit on a few different points that I would definitely recommend including! Point #1 of my recommendations for US Foreign Policy Toward Iran: The US and its diplomatic corps need to significantly increase cognizance of cultural, historical, and religious factors influencing engagement with Iran. From the basics (Persian not Arab) to the influence of fundamentalists wanting to hasten the return of the “Hidden Iman.” A little effort can go a long way in diplomacy. Just as a stupid goof or arrogance can cripple negotiations and hinder relations for years. You’ve also alluded to another piece that I would recommend: Track II diplomacy, especially between scientists and business folks. Rather than Switzerland, I would recommend Russia as the location. It’s easier for Iranian nationals to get visas to Russia than Switzerland. (It also has a secondary benefit of engaging Russia.) And I completely concur with the need to pursue actively the use of "soft power." We had tremendous soft power influence through the collapse of the Soviet Union. The value and strategic importance of 'soft power' has been minimized over that last 7 years ... perhaps at a time when the US needed it more than ever, i.e., to reduce the threat of al Qa'eda and growth of the radical Salafists (Islamic terrorists) ... and to decrease tacit support of those terrorist groups by the majority of Moslems across the world who are more interested in raising their families. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #50 May 20, 2008 QuoteWell since isolating them for the last 28 years has not done us a whole lot of good, perhaps serious engagement diplomatically might be a better option and more fruitful. Concur, containment & isolation has not been effective and is not likely to be effective w/r/t Iran and achieving the US Foreign Policy goals (as I delineated them) Point #2 of my recommendations for US Foreign Policy Toward Iran: Recognition that containment and isolation are not effective w//r/t Iran. Containment worked with Libya, and it’s working to some extent with the DPRK. (Kim Jong Il is willing to sacrifice his people; he’s not willing to risk his legacy and DPRK becoming a failed state.) Almost 30 years of containment policy toward Iran has driven the country inward – perpetuated an internal international martyr attitude -- and driven Iran to engage other states, e.g., DPRK, Syria … and China. China is one of Iran’s largest trading partners. Regardless of the party affiliation of the next US President, I would strongly encourage a slow and cautious easing off on the rhetoric regarding sanctions. Foreign policy implications extend beyond any single administration. It is critically important that the next administration not unilaterally repudiate all of the previous administration policies. (Yes, I recognize that might be a metaphorically painful pill to swallow for some/many. The current administration went 180° on significant foreign policy issues that extended back through to at least Pres. Reagan’s administration, e.g., BWC verification protocol.) Foreign policy needs to some basic consistency across administrations to maintain and strengthen credibility. Choose wisely and act intentionally, even if that action is sometimes quiet. Rather than pronouncements of changing policy, I would recommend tacit communication of it via multi-lateral and direct diplomacy dialogue. Sometimes what is not said can be just as powerful as what is said. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
