I can't help but think that our aggressiveness in dealing with Iraq will cause us to be overly cautious with Iran. That in not wanting to repeat the mistakes of dealing with Iraq that we'll end up letting Iran develop nuclear weapons and then we'll have a real problem. Somehow it seems like that kid crying wolf is going to get us into a lot of trouble.

But hey, now's the chance for our PTT political gurus to step up and make the call. How should we handle this bee's nest? Wait and see, call in the inspectors and do the sanction bit again? Or just drive the M1s on over to Teheran since we're already in the neighborhood and poke around a little?

Personally, I think we're going to hang back till they're ready with nukes, try to do something about it too late, then things are going to get ugly (and radioactive).

And just to spice things up, if you thought GW was bad with his Judeo-Christian beliefs, he's not the only one with religious leanings in government. 'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

Last edited: Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 11:41:25 PM

@ Tally

You mean Reagan is the reason they won't shave?

;)

Seriously - I caught it.

Surprisingly enough, I think you and Stink and I are probably going to land on the same side on this one.

 

"How's about ceding control of the Panama Canal?"

Egads!

"Jimmy Carter SUCKED as president. Look at the Iran hostage deal. Look at the Panama canal. He was the WORST president in the last 70 yrs."

Gazooks!

How dare the panamanians! Wanting control over their own property! The outrage! And when I look at the iran hostage deal, I can't help but notice the the arms-for-hostages deal reagan et al engaged in.

Careful with the ideological spew fellows...it awakens a part of me you've never been able to deal with. Stick to the subject and leave the right wing resentment fueled stupidity out of this...you've been warned.

"

Panama Canal Treaty of 1977

President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian Chief of Government Omar Torrijos signed the Panama Canal Treaty and Neutrality Treaty on September 7, 1977. This agreement relinquishes American control over the canal by the year 2000 and guarantees its neutrality. On May 4, 1904, Panama granted the United States the right to build and operate the canal and control the five miles of land on either side of the water passage in exchange for annual payments. For the history of the Panama Canal, visit the Library of Congress American Memory section.

Appendix B: Texts of the Panama Canal Treaties with United States Senate Modifications -- Panama

The United States of America and the Republic of Panama, Acting in the spirit of the Joint Declaration of April 3, 1964, by the Representatives of the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Panama, and of the Joint Statement of Principles of February 7, 1974, initialed by the Secretary of State of the United States of America and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Panama, and Acknowledging the Republic of Panama's sovereignty over its territory, Have decided to terminate the prior Treaties pertaining to the Panama Canal and to conclude a new Treaty to serve as the basis for a new relationship between them and, accordingly, have agreed upon the following: blah blah blah"

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rlnks/11936.htm

Catch that bit about respecting sovereignty?

"The Iran-Contra Affair (also known as "Irangate") was a mid-1980s political scandal in the United States. President Ronald Reagan's administration sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy. At the time, Americans were being held hostage in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a militant Shi'a organization loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini. The US government claimed that using the arms would influence Iran to release the hostages. At the same time, Iran, which was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War, could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. However, the arms shipments began before the first hostage was taken, and ended a long time after the last hostage was released. The U.S. Diverted proceeds from the sale to the Contras, anti-Communist guerrillas engaged in an insurgency against the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Both the sale of weapons and the funding of the Contras violated stated administration policy as well as legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress, which had blocked further Contra funding.

"Allegations persist to this day that the hostage release was purposefully delayed until after the election through an illegal arms-deal between Iran and the Reagan kitchen cabinet, which was keen to avoid what they saw as an October Surprise - i.e., a pre-election hostage release that would have handed the vote to Carter. The flow of weapons increased once the Reagan government was in power, becoming what would be known as the Iran-Contra affair, and apparently this deal was a major factor in the rescuing of the American hostages from the embassy"
wikipedia

How dare you say carter was the worst president in history when you have this example screaming for comparison.

Now, cut the rush-speak and try engaging in more honest discussion for a change. If I want resentment filled diatribe, I can turn on the am radio.

 

Last edited: Monday, January 23, 2006 at 5:58:02 PM

Thx rabban for the digression...it was needed.

I agree with your freind Ed's points. I dont deny the scenarios. I am somewhat of an idealist and this tends to sway my arguments in a particular direction. I realize the faults of this but have accepted it as I feel the arguments I take up represent an important aspect of "seeing the greater picture". Hope that makes sense.

I think it boils down basically to understanding (or not understanding) an oppenents intentions. Fear can lead to disasterous results under these circumstances. I personally dont understand either Iran's or any terrorists groups intentions...but I choose to err on the side of optimism. I know that sounds niave given the climate we find ourselves in since 911....but once again I feel hope and optimism are important and deserve representation always.

I actually empathize with some of what the terrorists goals are (or at least what I understand them to be). DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT empathize with the terrorists. To be more specific....it seems to me that their main goal (and it seems to be generally shared by most of the middle eastern governments) is to rid their lands of western influence. This is the watered down rhetoric free version of what I have heard them say and I actually agree with that. I just dont agree with their methods. The west (excluding the canadians of course cause they are just so damn lovable!) has the propensity to meddle in other cultures in a way that is quite patronistic and at the very least offensive. We all know the US is better than most at doing this. Truth is, at least what I beleive the truth to be, is that most if not all western intent is fueled by profit. And not profit for all....just for us. Being a beleiver in fair play I just cant bring myself to swallow that pill. And the whole "we are spreading democracy" bullshit just pisses me off. Im not THAT naive. Anyway....i seem to have stepped upon my soapbox. Allow me to digress....

The dirty bomb scenario is one I find a) more likely and b) infinately more terrifying. To be honest I havent given enough thought to the matter to attempt discussion on the matter beyond that. I do feel that this current administration would absolutly respond with a nuke given the aforementioned scenario ( a released nuke on us territory). It is just their type of reactionary, we dont need diplomacy, not gonna think long term response.

But hey....im a gemini, so my silver lined cloud does have a darker underbelly....what can I say.