3 Comments so far

1. fedupwithpolitics February 23rd, 2007 11:54 am

   “Ahmadinejad… says Iran is interested only in nuclear power generation. U.S. officials believe Iran is using its civilian nuclear industry as cover for a weapons program.” The key phrase here is “officials believe,” because the US has absolutely no credible evidence that Iran is developing anything other than nuclear energy–which it has every right to do. The neocons and the Israelis are hyping this crisis for their own master plan of total control of oil resources in the Middle East–regardless how many have to die or be maimed for their interests. While Israel accumulates nuclear weapons clandestinely and refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which Iran has signed) the famous Western double standard has the US screaming for tougher sanctions against Iran. And then we wonder why “they” hate us?

2. spinglitter February 23rd, 2007 12:22 pm

   I read somewhere that China sold Iran SS220 missiles which are now ranged along the shore of the Gulf of Hormuz and are able to fly beneath the Aegis radar system - don’t you love all the geek mythology in modern weaponry - and turn the Gulf into “a lake of fire”. This - a couple of years ago - was given as the reason why the US had hesitated thus far…
   If this is true… surely China, as Iran’s arms dealer, is the member of the international community best placed to discuss nuclear proliferation, and any misdirected Shi’a desire to transmute George Bush into Yazid, with Iran. So if negotiations are the way forward, is the US approaching the Chinese?
   In the interests of Tarof, why does America not have more Shi’a Iranian-American spokesmen capable of negotiating the devious diplomacy and etiquette that may earn Iranian respect at the negotiating table? Having a woman as secretary of defence seems to be a sure-fire way of causing offence in the Muslim world. It reeks of the clumsy diplomacy of the ideologue, when what is required is common sense humanity.
   I believe the US administration when it says it has no desire to go to war - it just doesn’t appear to have the skills to manage much else.

3. Vera Diligo February 25th, 2007 8:03 pm

   “Fool me once, shame on you…”

   If I remember it correctly the tipping point that persuaded a reluctant US Senate to authorize the President to attack Iraq came when they insisted that we needed to leverage the UN Security Council with that vote. If the Senate did not buy in, they argued, then how could we expect the international community to go along with the Bush Administration?

   So the Senate gave it to them but the Security Council did not, thanks primarily to France and Germany (not that I fault them. They got it right)

   So what did Bush do? Why he took us to war anyway. How many Senators, I wonder, when they cast that vote expected Bush to go war with just the “coalition of the begrudging” and without the full backing of the United Nations?

   Is what I see coming a case of deja vu? Is the Senate so gullible and timid that they would let this belicose gang of neocons take us over the cliff again?

   …fool me twice, shame on me.”

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)