Comments on: U.S.: Iran Response On Nukes Unacceptable
Sanctions Against Tehran Believed More Likely Following Reply From Iran Regarding West's Incentives Offer
Add a Comment See all 148 Comments
- They understand that it will take a strong, united, and dominant front to force the Iranians into retreat on uranium enrichment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by AJMarine111 at 12:44 AM : Aug 06, 2008--
It doesn''t matter because if you are sincere in diplomacy then you don''t want to block yourself in with pre-conditions.
this whole idea that the rest of the world cannot see the hypocricy in this type of diplomacy is worse then racism.
And you need the rest of the world to help solve this problem. - Reply to this comment
- Kindasleezy Rice follows all mandates given to her by the Bush/Cheney Crime Cartel. Just the SUGGESTION of an Imminent Attack on Iran would send Oil Prices Skyrocketing into the Stratosphere. Now who do you suppose stands to gain from such an occurrence???
Somebody get a Rope...... - Reply to this comment
- What the Israelis may be risking out of a "presumptous" strike on Iran is that Americans could in large numbers over here start to blame the Jewish people for their suffering of super high gas and heating oil prices.
Think about it, American Seniors would in no way be able to afford $1200.00 month home heating bills and people would literaly freeze to death and starve to death because the economy would come to a screeching halt.
As a result people in this country rightly or wrongly would blame Jewish people for this causing an unprecedented anti-semitism that could get out of hand. Remember what happened in Germany in a similar situation when Hitler scapegoated the Jews because of hyper-inflation and real suffering.
Jews have to be careful not to overplay their hand and assume that we are going to automaticly back the Israelis in striking Iran. - Reply to this comment
- Who''s kidding who here?! Bush and Cheney are committed to having a war with Iran! They''re obligated to their corporate sponsors! They need to get this war rolling before September 20, 2008 or thereabouts! You see it everywhere you look!
They send U.S.military illegally into Iran on operations, they overfly Iranian airspace---which, if the situation was reversed, we''d consider an act of war! And, no matter what they do diplomatically, it''s NEVER good enough!
Yet, WE ALL KNOW THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AT THIS POINT! The most crooked, lying, illegal presidency in American history! Mark my words---Bush will falsely accuse the Iranians of something and launch a missile attack against them! He''s a war criminal and he needs to be stopped! When it happens, remember you heard here first! - Reply to this comment
- "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would have no choice "but to begin again to prepare sanctions resolutions for the (U.N.) Security Council"
"Uncle Tom''s perverted Rice" should ****, and go prepare her defense for the war crimes trials. - Reply to this comment
- And where''s the "coalition of the willing" supposed to come from.
It''s disgusting that Condileeza Rice keeps saying "the international community" as if only us the British and the Israelis represent the "international community".
The fact is that most countries would sympathize with Iran striking back at "aggression" and besides you can''t get anymore N.A.T.O. troops out of Europe let alone to go in an occupy Iran.
You warmongers out there better hope for Obama to save face for all of this "cowboy talk" from George W. - Reply to this comment
- While Europe may not care for the Bush administration%u2019s tendency towards saber-rattling, they do not prescribe to the nonsense that dropping the precondition for ending enrichment would somehow make the Iranians more likely to stop. The EU has been on the front line of this issue for several years, and they have first-hand experience with Iranian lies and double-dealing. They understand that it will take a strong, united, and dominant front to force the Iranians into retreat on uranium enrichment
- Reply to this comment
- I think Israel might find themselves alone if they strike Iran.
Right now Americans are upset that they are paying for the so-called "liberation of Iraq" through inflation.
Americans are quick to make the connection of high oil prices with the war in Iraq, how much more so if and when we go to war in Iran.
If Israel strikes Iran and presumptously relies on the U.S. to take sides; it might be a gamble and price to high to pay by American Seniors who will pay $1200.00 heating bills or commuters paying $17.00 gal gas.
Over half of your income would go to fuel for your car and heating your home. I don''t think Americans would stand for that which is why most Jews in this country are for Obama to come up with a diplomatic and pragmatic solution. - Reply to this comment
- Iran could go the same way as Iraq if it persists in its confrontation with the West, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said Tuesday.
"What Iran is doing is pure vanity," Reuters quoted Gaddafi as saying. "If a decision is taken against Iran, it will suffer the same fate as Iraq...Iran is no stronger than Iraq and will be unable to resist."
Gaddafi said countries that chose isolation were doomed to fail. "No country will survive on its own in the future - it will disappear," Gaddafi said. "The challenges facing Iran are greater than its ability to overcome them alone."
Like Iran, Libya was for many years engaged in a conflict with the west over its nuclear ambitions before common ground was found in 2003. - Reply to this comment
- "...Obama wins the election, W spends the last 3 months fanning the flames and walks out with Iraq in an uproar and Iran ready to nuke everyone, reason for more years in Iraq and Iran ready to blow is Obama''''s *inexperience*"
Posted by cyberus
3) Since Iran is unable to "nuke" anyone, and at best wouldn''t be able to for at least another ten years, Bush continues to lie about a non-existent Iranian nuclear threat, and the uneducated mansses of pro war advocates insist in a pre-emptive expansion of genocide.
Obama refuses, and is branded "soft on terrorism" by the hysterical war mongers. Obama couldn''t care less, as he is busy attending to real problems, rather than fake manufactured ones. - Reply to this comment
- Plain and simple. Look on the internet for the Apollo Affair concerning Israel and France where 200 pounds of enriched uranium was declared lost in 1965 and was presumed to have turned up in Israel. Within 8 years, in 1973, the Israelis had an operational nuclear weapon. The Arab-Israeli war in ''73 was non-nuclear, but the lasting effects of the price of oil has lingered ever since. It was at this time, that Arab oil producers began to raise the price of oil. It has never been published that Arabs didn''t like Israeli nuclear weapons, but the contempt over them is implied. The Iranian race for nuclear weapons rides the same coat-tails and has the same effect on the price of oil. When the theme is about military disadvantage and when oil is the major revenue supplier for a country, then Arab insecurity will aggravate the oil markets.
- Reply to this comment
- That''''s because Israel has not lost her temper.
God help the Palestinians if she does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by payasyougo at 10:30 PM : Aug 05, 2008--
All I''m saying is that Fidel Castro admitted in an interview on CNN''s COLD WAR series that came out in the 1990''s that he was being used as a pawn for the Russians in the Cold War.
He said and I quote: "If I would have allowed those weapons to remain on Cuban soil we would have been obliterated; it was like comitting suicide..."
This is because of the fact that Cuba is a small island with far less territory then the U.S.
Could it be the same situation with Israel? a
Israel is small like Cuba with far less territory then it''s neighbors and yet the British who claims to be their ally was behind Hitler with famous pictures of the so called King Edward shaking hands with Hitler.
So could it be that Israel is being set up like a pawn who allways die for no reason in the game of chess? - Reply to this comment
- ----
At this rate the delaying tactics employed by Iran will result in the next administration handling the issue.
Obama can use dialogue to earn Iran''''s respect enough to stop their path to the bomb.
Posted by payasyougo
----
Why do you think that they are allowing these repeated stalls?
Allowing things to get closer and closer to a war?
Scenario #1) McCain wins the election, W starts pulling troops back in Iraq, McCain declares the Iraq war done, moves on Iran for another 8 yrs of war.
Scenario #2) Obama wins the election, W spends the last 3 months fanning the flames and walks out with Iraq in an uproar and Iran ready to nuke everyone, reason for more years in Iraq and Iran ready to blow is Obama''s *inexperience* - Reply to this comment
- "nobody over there is scared of Israel"
----
That''s because Israel has not lost her temper.
God help the Palestinians if she does. - Reply to this comment
- At this rate the delaying tactics employed by Iran will result in the next administration handling the issue.
Obama can use dialogue to earn Iran''s respect enough to stop their path to the bomb. - Reply to this comment
- I believe that if the Arab states recognized Israels right to exist and signed a non-aggression treaty with Israel then Israel would no longer need nuclear weapons.--
I never understood this argument, because other middle eastern countries have far more territory to sacrifice in a war.
I''m not justifying the destruction of Israel but there needs to be another excuse for their nuclear weapons....nobody over there is scared of Israel, look at what happened with the Scud missils that fell on them during the first Gulf War. - Reply to this comment
- This is the same old tragic play with different actors...And not even good ones for the matter!
This is not the trilogy I want to see... - Reply to this comment
- Iran does not need nuclear weapons to disrupt the world''''s oil supply. They do not even have to sink the tankers. Most military strategist will tell you, all Iran has to do, is aim the missles at the loading docks where the tankers fill up. The missiles will make a short trip across the Strait of Hormuz and that is all she wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by BajaJohn1 at 07:15 PM : Aug 05, 2008
-------------------------------------
WTH are you talking about? Dont you know the Iranian-Soviet made missiles are blind? They dont have the precision of American missiles. I remember during the Iran-Iraq war when fired missiles toward Bagdad and most of them landed in the middle of the desert. - Reply to this comment
- I would say these anonymous officials are the same ones who want this war soooo badly they can''''t stand it. Just like the other side. War at all costs. At any cost for that matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by dscott407 at 08:37 PM : Aug 05, 2008
-Yep, we all heard it, saw it before. Huh! - Reply to this comment
- Again, this anonymity is annoying me! Who are those anonymous officials?
Trishab4...
I would say these anonymous officials are the same ones who want this war soooo badly they can''t stand it. Just like the other side. War at all costs. At any cost for that matter. - Reply to this comment
