Iranian leader ..Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator

[no name 1]

PWND!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ok, I am so wrong. Iran is such a nice place. They are Israels best friend and the USA is just causing trouble. Jeez

Nobody's saying that, Gary....why do we have to argue in extremes? I just want us to abandon this strike first policy...it has ironically made us less safer for it. Diplomacy must be tried until it is no longer possible.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

Ok, I am so wrong. Iran is such a nice place. They are Israels best friend and the USA is just causing trouble. Jeez

Nobody's saying that, Gary....why do we have to argue in extremes? I just want us to abandon this strike first policy...it has ironically made us less safer for it. Diplomacy must be tried until it is no longer possible.

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ok, I am so wrong. Iran is such a nice place. They are Israels best friend and the USA is just causing trouble. Jeez

Nobody's saying that, Gary....why do we have to argue in extremes? I just want us to abandon this strike first policy...it has ironically made us less safer for it. Diplomacy must be tried until it is no longer possible.

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

What's holding us back, Gary? Why don't we bomb the sh#t out them then?

[no name 1]

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

So your answer is bomb them first? No talking with a 3rd/4th/5th country, or the UN, etc, etc???

[Dan J 277]

Ok, I am so wrong. Iran is such a nice place. They are Israels best friend and the USA is just causing trouble. Jeez

Nobody's saying that, Gary....why do we have to argue in extremes? I just want us to abandon this strike first policy...it has ironically made us less safer for it. Diplomacy must be tried until it is no longer possible.

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

Sure, we haven't even tried. We haven't had any formal diplomatic relationship with Iran since about 1979.

If you want to beat the drums, go join a band. If there anyone thats a threat to middle east stability its not Iran, But our current leadership, and people who support them like you.

[GaryC 7]

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

So your answer is bomb them first? No talking with a 3rd/4th/5th country, or the UN, etc, etc???

Talking isn't going to change this guys mind. All it will do is buy him time to get his bomb. While we "talk" he is working towards arming himself with nuclear weapons. I want to see a first strike on his nuclear sites. Hit him hard and then back off. No invasion, just take out his ability to make a bomb.

[no name 1]

Talking isn't going to change this guys mind. All it will do is buy him time to get his bomb. While we "talk" he is working towards arming himself with nuclear weapons. I want to see a first strike on his nuclear sites. Hit him hard and then back off. No invasion, just take out his ability to make a bomb.

ooh, that'll definitely show him who's got bigger balls!

Edited September 25, 2007 by devilette

[GaryC 7]

Ok, I am so wrong. Iran is such a nice place. They are Israels best friend and the USA is just causing trouble. Jeez

Nobody's saying that, Gary....why do we have to argue in extremes? I just want us to abandon this strike first policy...it has ironically made us less safer for it. Diplomacy must be tried until it is no longer possible.

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

Sure, we haven't even tried. We haven't had any formal diplomatic relationship with Iran since about 1979.

If you want to beat the drums, go join a band. If there anyone thats a threat to middle east stability its not Iran, But our current leadership, and people who support them like you.

Seems there is one thing Hillary and I agree on.

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel

The Associated PressPublished: February 1, 2007

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and its Jews returned to Europe.

Iran insists its nuclear program is designed to produce energy, not weapons. Ahmadinejad said Thursday his government is determined to continue with its nuclear program, despite U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel to generate electricity or for the fissile core of an atomic bomb.

Clinton, the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/...linton-Iran.php

Edited September 25, 2007 by GaryC

[Dan J 277]

Ok, I am so wrong. Iran is such a nice place. They are Israels best friend and the USA is just causing trouble. Jeez

Nobody's saying that, Gary....why do we have to argue in extremes? I just want us to abandon this strike first policy...it has ironically made us less safer for it. Diplomacy must be tried until it is no longer possible.

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

Sure, we haven't even tried. We haven't had any formal diplomatic relationship with Iran since about 1979.

If you want to beat the drums, go join a band. If there anyone thats a threat to middle east stability its not Iran, But our current leadership, and people who support them like you.

Seems there is one thing Hillary and I agree on.

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel

The Associated PressPublished: February 1, 2007

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and its Jews returned to Europe.

Iran insists its nuclear program is designed to produce energy, not weapons. Ahmadinejad said Thursday his government is determined to continue with its nuclear program, despite U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel to generate electricity or for the fissile core of an atomic bomb.

Clinton, the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/...linton-Iran.php

Except the last line

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

So your answer is bomb them first? No talking with a 3rd/4th/5th country, or the UN, etc, etc???

Talking isn't going to change this guys mind. All it will do is buy him time to get his bomb. While we "talk" he is working towards arming himself with nuclear weapons. I want to see a first strike on his nuclear sites. Hit him hard and then back off. No invasion, just take out his ability to make a bomb.

So strategic targets? No human casualities?

[Dan J 277]

You can't reason with someone that is insane. Diplomacy will not work and has never worked in resolving issues like this.

So your answer is bomb them first? No talking with a 3rd/4th/5th country, or the UN, etc, etc???

Talking isn't going to change this guys mind. All it will do is buy him time to get his bomb. While we "talk" he is working towards arming himself with nuclear weapons. I want to see a first strike on his nuclear sites. Hit him hard and then back off. No invasion, just take out his ability to make a bomb.

So strategic targets? No human casualities?

Look at our lack or manipulation of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. Its very unlikely we would even be able to get all the correct sites.

And also, isn't bombing really cowardly? We should be doing the honorable thing and fighting on the battlefield right?

[no name 1]

Even Fred has some restraint.

When asked about Iran, Thompson replied, "They're killing our people as we speak. ... We cannot allow this to go on forever. ... Within the next few years, most experts think, well on their way to making a nuclear weapon. ... I don't know how much stark the situation could be. They perceive us as being weak, they perceive us as being divided, and they think they could get away with anything."

"The nucl -- the military or nuclear option or whatever certainly should be the last thing to be considered," continued Thompson. Referring to public discontent within Iran and raising the hope of a revolution in that nation, he suggested, "There are also a lot of good things that could happen between now and then but there are no options that can be taken off the table."

source

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Even Fred has some restraint.

When asked about Iran, Thompson replied, "They're killing our people as we speak. ... We cannot allow this to go on forever. ... Within the next few years, most experts think, well on their way to making a nuclear weapon. ... I don't know how much stark the situation could be. They perceive us as being weak, they perceive us as being divided, and they think they could get away with anything."

"The nucl -- the military or nuclear option or whatever certainly should be the last thing to be considered," continued Thompson. Referring to public discontent within Iran and raising the hope of a revolution in that nation, he suggested, "There are also a lot of good things that could happen between now and then but there are no options that can be taken off the table."

source

Its not very good restraint - he's saying "good things could happen" but we reserve the right to bomb the $hit out of Iran if we so choose. Iran has little reason to trust the US - even those elements who oppose the government there can hardly call the US a 'friend'.

At least GWB will be out of the picture by the time this comes up for more substantive discussion than mere speculation. I honestly don't think there's enough political mileage left in 9/11 to endorse a strike-first policy. Quite apart from whether its a good idea - the folks who favour unilateral action should really be blaming GWB et al for gambling everything on a one-trick horse (i.e. Iraq). I think the public has more or less had enough of Iraq, and by extension the entire middle-east.

[GaryC 7]

So much for diplomacy.

Iran leader says nuclear issue closed

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

39 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Tuesday that Iran's disputed nuclear program is closed as a political issue and said Tehran will ignore a U.N. Security Council demand imposed by "arrogant powers" that it halt uranium enrichment.

He told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly that Iran has decided to pursue the monitoring of its nuclear program "through its appropriate legal path," the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.

When Ahmadinejad was ushered to the podium of the General Assembly to speak, the U.S. delegation walked out, leaving only a low-ranking note-taker to listen to his speech, which indirectly accused the United States and Israel of major human rights violations.

The Iranian president spoke hours after French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned the assembly that allowing Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons would be an "unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world."

Earlier, German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened tougher sanctions against Iran if the country remained intractable on the dispute over its nuclear program.

Iran insists the program is purely peaceful, aimed solely at using nuclear reactors to generate electricity. But the United States and key European nations believe the program is a cover for an Iranian attempt to produce nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad has defied two Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment and imposing escalating sanctions on key figures and organizations involved in the nuclear program. He made clear in his speech that Iran did not intend to comply with them now.

"In the last two years, abusing the Security Council, the arrogant powers have repeatedly accused Iran and even made military threats and imposed illegal sanctions against it," he said.

"Fortunately, the IAEA has recently tried to regain its legal role as support of the rights of its members while supervising nuclear activities," he added. "We see this as a correct approach adopted by the agency."

As a result, Ahmadinejad said, "I officially announce that in our opinion the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed and has turned into an ordinary agency matter."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_...eneral_assembly