C'MON IRAN! YOU CAN DO IT!!!

[GWS]

Eff you and eff your schitzoid double talking B effin S.

It's "schizoid" you pinhead.

Nice come-back.

Not too bright are you, keyboard warrior-boy?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

 

[23rdstMB]

[bold]Bush has repeatedly touted the line that he will not talk or negotiate with enemy nations [/bold]

why should he negotiate with a regime that is fighting a proxy war against us? There is alot of proof of Iranians in Iraq killing Americans with Iranian bombs. They want US to APOLOGIZE before any talks can proceed. gimme a break.

[bold]Clearly Bush's policy of isolationism has failed. [/bold]

How?

[bold]NK successfully tested a Nuke[/bold]

thats up for debate. analysis has shown that they didn't successfully explode their weapon but rather vaporized to less than 1 kiloton. This was a failure and they havn't done anything since.

[bold]Do you honestly believe we should just sit back and wait to see what Iran does next and just hope they don't get to that point? [/bold]

How many times during the past eight years did you hear C. Rice and Bush warm of the Iranian nuclear threat? I'm of the belief that no amount of diplomacy will make Iran NOT want to obtain a nuclear device. They are in a race to get a bomb and then either wipe out Israel or sit on the bomb like Tony Montana and say "Say helloo to my lil friend!" Its pretty obvious to me that they want to be THE power in the middle east and with a bomb they will become that. We can only take Iran at its word - that they are going to "wipe Israel off the map". So what are we left with? How do you talk to these people???

 

[23rdstMB]

why should he negotiate with a regime that is fighting a proxy war against us? There is alot of proof of Iranians in Iraq killing Americans with Iranian bombs. They want US to APOLOGIZE before any talks can proceed. gimme a break.

There was a lot of proof that the Saudi's were providing material and financial support to various factions of the iraqi insurgency, particularly the Sunni's who represented most of Al Qeuda in Iraq. We deal with them plenty.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/15/world/fg-saudi15

Clearly Bush's policy of isolationism has failed.

How?

How has it worked. I told you repeatedly how it failed. North Korea successfully developed and tested a Nuke and Iran is on the verge and more a threat than ever. How do you define success in that? The burden of telling me how it worked is on you amigo.

NK successfully tested a Nuke

thats up for debate. analysis has shown that they didn't successfully explode their weapon but rather vaporized to less than 1 kiloton. This was a failure and they havn't done anything since.

If what you say is true we still let them get to the point of failing before we gave up on isolationism and resorted to diplomacy to talk to them.

Do you honestly believe we should just sit back and wait to see what Iran does next and just hope they don't get to that point?

How many times during the past eight years did you hear C. Rice and Bush warm of the Iranian nuclear threat? I'm of the belief that no amount of diplomacy will make Iran NOT want to obtain a nuclear device. They are in a race to get a bomb and then either wipe out Israel or sit on the bomb like Tony Montana and say "Say helloo to my lil friend!" Its pretty obvious to me that they want to be THE power in the middle east and with a bomb they will become that. We can only take Iran at its word - that they are going to "wipe Israel off the map". So what are we left with? How do you talk to these people???

How do you not talk to these people? The idea is to prevent them from getting the bomb in the first place. Not to sit back and twiddle our thumbs and then worry about it after the fact. Once they have the bomb there's little options but to talk to them and get them to stand down. Once they have the bomb they have power. Right now we have the upper hand and we need to use it. You really have little understanding of the use of nuclear weapons. Aside from hiroshima and nagasaki the historical use of Nuclear weapons amount to great big powerful chess pieces in power struggles. You let Iran get a nuke and it empowers them. Do you think they'll really preemptively nuke an israeli city? Thats all talk and rhetoric. They're not nearly that stupid. It'd be raining radioactive fire in less than thirty minutes in Tehran if that were to happen. It's strategic suicide. You've seen way too many movies and really have little understanding of how global politics work.

You claim Bush and Rice warned of the threat repeatedly...thats great. It just shows that they're aware of the problem and doing nothing about it aside from scaring fvcktards like yourself into thinking you're doomed to an Iranian nuclear winter.

ps I fixed all your quotes and bold type for you. You should learn how to use the erBB <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/poke.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nananana.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/loser.gif" alt="" />

I have a very good understanding of mutualy assured destruction. Will they use their weapon for negotiating? We can only take them at their word and measure them by their actions. Its fact that they supply arms to hezbollah and hamas, its fact that they supplied weapons to the Iraqi shia. Is it such a stretch to believe that they wouldn't give the nuclear device to them as well? Do you believe for a second that a hamas or hezbo wouldn't use the bomb if they could? How can Israel assume that they will act like a civalized nation and come to the table once they have their weapon? Even if they do want to talk they won't sit down with Israel because they don't recognise their existence. And like N Korea there will be the years long runaround on exactly how many parties are to come to the table. Of course the object here is to prevent them from getting a weapon. Short of sending in the Israeli airforce there is just no way to prevent it.

Tell me what sort of concessions would have to be made for the Iranians to stop their program?

 

[23rdstMB]

your best bud's the Israelis will solve the problem because they'll be forced to. They'll never allow Iran to have a nuke and you know it. No amount of "engagement" will change the fact that in the next year, if Iran keeps its promise, there will be war on a scale that will make gaza seem like a water balloon fight.
'

And how close to successfully testing a nuke does Iran have to get before you'll acknowledge that Bush's policy of isolationism was a complete and utter failure. It led to North Korea testing a nuke and now Iran being on the brink.

Keep your friedns close and your enemies closer. Ignoring them like a 21yr old kid ignores his credit card debt doesn't make them go away. Which is the reason why you vote smart, sometimes elitist people into office to take rogue nations like this to the table. I know Bush was too damn tough to talk to an enemy. But what exactly has nothing but rhetoric and ignoring them gotten us?

Might as well of saved our country a trillion bucks and given one to Saddam if we were just going to look the other way while North Korea and Iran (the other axis of evil members) developed weapons. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />

have you forgotton how North Korea became a nuclear threat? Clinton "having a dialogue" and rewarding them with nuclear technology. Fine mess thats created, eh? I'm fine to have a debate with you skully and not have things devolve into mudslinging by the way....

Clinton worked with them to help them get a coldwater reactor. Something thats useless for making weapons grade plutonium or uranium. North Korea was behaving itself for the most part until Bush took office and gave his famous Axis of Evil speech. Kim Jong Il is like a child who needs attention. And he got it once he tested a nuke and Bush flipped the script and sent Condi to use diplomacy after the fact. Diplomacy is never flawless and it requires both parties to do their part. But can you give me one historical example where isolationism has quelled a problem nation?

Libya.

Umm that was diplomacy not isolationism:

Libya to give up WMD
Libya has said it will give up its programmes for developing weapons of mass destruction and allow unconditional inspections.
President Muammar Gaddafi said that, after months of negotiations with the West, his country was ready to play its role in building a world free from all forms of terrorism,

Friday's surprise statement drew immediate praise from Washington and London.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called the announcement "an historic one and a courageous one".

US President George Bush said: "Colonel Gaddafi's's commitment, once fulfilled, will make our country more safe and our world more peaceful."
"Leaders who abandon the pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will find an open path to better relations with the US and other nations."

The US and its allies have long suspected that Libya had secret chemical and biological weapons programmes, but Libya repeatedly denied such allegations saying it only had facilities for pharmaceutical or agricultural research.

In 1995, the country reopened its Rabta pharmaceutical plant at Qabilat az Zaribah which, prior to its 1990 closure, had produced up to 100 tons of chemical weapons, according to the US.

But chemical weapons production at Libya's underground Tarhuna facility is thought to have been suspended following intense international scrutiny.
UK officials believe Libya was close to obtaining a nuclear weapons capability before the deal.

Libya says it has now agreed to immediate international monitoring of its facilities.

Tripoli also promised to negotiate a new deal with the United Nation's nuclear agency and provide guarantees on biological weapons.

Mr Blair said Britain had been engaged in talks with Libya for nine months.

""Libya came to us in March following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly co-operative manner," he said.
Friday's decision entitled Libya to rejoin the international community, Mr Blair said.

"It shows that problems of proliferation can, with good will, be tackled through discussion and engagement, to be followed up by the responsible international agencies.

"It demonstrates that countries can abandon programmes voluntarily and peacefully."

Mr Blair contrasted Libya's voluntary relinquishment of weapons of mass destruction with Iraq's defiance, which led to military action and the toppling of leader Saddam Hussein.

During three weeks in October and early December, a team of experts from Britain and the US had visited Libya and gained access to projects, including uranium enrichment, under way at more than 10 sites.
The team had also been shown "significant quantities" of chemical agent and bombs designed to carry it, British officials said.

The Libyan Government said it had shown the experts equipment that could have been used to develop "internationally banned weapons".

It said it had now decided to abandon the programme of its own "free will " and to admit weapons inspectors.

Libya called on other countries to follow its lead.

It said: "By taking this initiative, (Libya) wants all countries to follow its steps, starting with the Middle East, without any exception or double standards."

BBC world affairs editor John Simpson says Libya has not been at the centre of the war on terror, but has always been regarded as a "friend of terrorists" - and had, for example, helped the IRA in the 1970s.

BBC Jerusalem correspondent James Reynolds said Israel would be "surprised and relieved" by the announcement.

"Israel's main hope will be that the announcement puts additional pressure on Iran."

But he added: "It may also refocus attention on Israel's own nuclear weapons programme."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

Got any other examples of isolationism working?

I was being cheeky with that subject title. I don't want them to have a bomb but being the pragmatist that I am I don't believe there is any way to stop them. Engage them all you want but just like NK they will say one thing then behind their back they will go right on ahead with their program. So we have to get used to the fact that they will have a bomb eventually. Israel will be forced to act but it won't be as easy as Iraq. Most Iranian reactors and nuclear weapon facilities are underground in hardened bunkers. Bunker busters and daisy cutter might slow them down but ultimately the writing is on the wall. Engage them all you want but I don't trust Iran to negotiate in good faith, do you? As far as concessions go its obvious that they will require us to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thats just not going to happen any time soon.

I really think they are going to use the bomb to force Israel's hand. Iran knows that world sentiment is against Israel for defending itself but I honestly think that Israel just doesn't give a fvck... they will defend their right to exist to the bitter end.