darn liberal Euro media...

[svandamme]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

[Jim Richards]

I saw that, too. It's a pity that the Administration took 6 years to be show even the slightest bit of flexibility in their handling of any issue. IMO, Colin Powell was a good Sec. of State that was marginalized by the neo-con zealots.

[svandamme]

eeh are they showing flexibility now?
Timmaay, i really oughto start paying attention to things...

[lendaddy]

Cause Iran will be honest with us? They will use such an "in" into Iraq to simply create the foothold for a future takeover. They don't give half a squirt about actually helping the Iraqi people.

[Jim Richards]

Yeah, I can't argue with you len. Anything you do with some of these regimes needs to be handled with eyes wide open and a hand on your wallet, so to speak. Still, B2's approach to dealing with the world has been more suitable for the grade school playground.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Cause Iran will be honest with us? They will use such an "in" into Iraq to simply create the foothold for a future takeover. They don't give half a squirt about actually helping the Iraqi people.

same could be said about North Korea, yet the US Still negotiated with the North Koreans, and that was after they had welched on a prior deal that got them 2 Nuke Plants or so , by ABB at the time when none other then Rummy was on the Board of Directors there... true Clinton approved it.. but last time i checked, all this was no reason for the US to stop trying and at least negotiate with DPRK..
santions yes, but still the 6 party talks are beeing done, no matter how defunct they may be...

but not so with Iran, they opened a line of communication and it was burried instantly, nothing was done with it, not even the smallest, most carefull attempt was made to try and accomplish "something"

[lendaddy]

Iran is not in the same boat as NK, but I don't like the idea of appeasing either one the way way have with NK(thanks again Billy and Halfbright). But seriously, the people in NK don't have a religious thirst to destroy us. The next leader could easily moderate that country as the spirit of opposition lies mainly with the current admin.

The situation in Iran goes MUCH deeper. Achmagicughmeeejanilbob could be replaced tomorrow and the sentiment would have no chance of changing as it is rooted in the religious leadership and we all know they're not about to love us.

So I guess I would say that I don't like negotiating with either, only one has a snowballs chance in hell of accomplishing anything.

[svandamme]

so what's next Len? what do you suggest? WWW3? because it's a more predictable scenario???

sort of like

" i know we're going to globally selfdestruct, but at least i get to push the button"

or

" dr Strangelove wasn't a bad movie, let's work with it, see how far we can take it"

?


self fullfilling prophecy off course... in turn allowing all the abrahamic religious freaks to say " told you, it was in the *torah/bible/quran*, we said it all along....

[lendaddy]

So, since we can agree that Iran would never act in good faith with us and would only use such an agreement to strengthen their hand....

Why should we take people who suggest such things seriously? It's like we are asked to suspend sense in order to reward good and peaceful intentions. The end result of which is the exact opposite.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by svandamme
so what's next Len? what do you suggest? WWW3? because it's a more predictable scenario???

sort of like

" i know we're going to globally selfdestruct, but at least i get to push the button"

or

" dr Strangelove wasn't a bad movie, let's work with it, see how far we can take it"

?


self fullfilling prophecy off course... in turn allowing all the abrahamic religious freaks to say " told you, it was in the *torah/bible/quran*, we said it all along....

We could crush them militarily and that would work....but it's not going to happen so it's not worth discussion. Even if we do go to war with them, we won't crush them so it won't have the required effect of breaking the spirit of the opposition.

Maybe we take Pats approach with them...ignore it. Stand back and leave them alone, don't deal with them in any way. Then when/if they do ever provoke us we would have the capital and the will to actually crush them and sleep at night.

[svandamme]

what is the alternative? ignore the offer, dismiss it, and years later demand the same thing they initially offered, but from a worse standpoint to negotiate???

you have to admit, that the US position in the world, has not improved in any way... not economically nor military... i would say it got worse since...

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by svandamme
what is the alternative? ignore the offer, dismiss it, and years later demand the same thing they initially offered, but from a worse standpoint to negotiate???

you have to admit, that the US position in the world, has not improved in any way... not economically nor military... i would say it got worse since...

I don't see how we can negotiate in any way. They are not going to stop developing nukes, of this there can be no doubt. So what's the point? We don't negotiate and they get nukes or we do negotiate and they get nukes and some other goodies from us? Pointless.

[svandamme]

but the nuke story wasn't even on the agenda
that's a recent development.

[lendaddy]

Ok, you can take out "never stop developing nukes" and replace it with "never stop acting against our interests". It really doesn't matter what the situation is, they think we are the devil and they are never going to act in good faith with us.

[gaijindabe]

A package of concessions? And you believe this to be true? Just a face value?

These are the people who invented chess. Then you have someone as dopey as Bush. Best he not negotiate at all..

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by svandamme
" dr Strangelove wasn't a bad movie, let's work with it, see how far we can take it"

Dr. Strangelove was a pretty good movie.

[lendaddy]

My honest opinion is that one of these days they(one of the idiots) are going to nuke us or some other massive effect WMD like chemical or biological. Then we will crush them, utterly and completely. Peace through decisive victory.

Ugly, but likely and definitely effective.

[gaijindabe]

Most likely they would not. And if a group like AQ did it - who or where or what are we going to crush?

Decisive victory in some WWII inspired campaign just aint going to happen.

This is going to be a low intensity, floating conflict for years and years and years..

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Most likely they would not. And if a group like AQ did it - who or where or what are we going to crush?

Decisive victory in some WWII inspired campaign just aint going to happen.

This is going to be a low intensity, floating conflict for years and years and years..

It won't matter, trust me. If half a million Americans die we will remove several middle east countries from the map...count on it. Will it be fair? No not really but what difference does that make?

As the natural order man dictates, my kindness and sense of fairness only reaches af far as my comfort.

Remember, we only lost 2800 people on 9/11, imagine the rage and public demand for action if there were three more zeros on that. Fairs ass.

A ****storms a brewin' and since we don't have the stomach for the current method, we'll get this one.

[lendaddy]

I rushed that a bit. What would likely happen is that we would go to these countries and demand 100% immediate cooperation and access, they would tell us to pound sand or drag their feet and we would end them. We would not indiscriminately attack, that's not what I meant.