Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think viz Iran we need to do several things (1) let Israel do whatever they want militarily, (2) let Bolton steamroll France and the EU at the UN to get actual, legitimate sanctions in place, (3) step up our efforts (which clearly have been atrocious in recent years) to encourage the pro-American Iranian middle class to rise up against the Mullahs, and (4) stop looking weak by allowing terrorists like Khatami to wander around the US giving speeches.

(1) I don't think Israel can do anything we can't. Generally, the military options are not robust.

(2) What we need is EU countries not to feel steamrolled by the likes of Bolton, since we need them for sanctions to work. Note, too, that European countries are within the range of Iranian missiles, unlike us.

(3) Our efforts in this regard might be counter-productive. Which may be why Iranian leaders are stepping up the rhetoric.

(4) Letting Khatami into the country is a sign of strength, not weakness. We're strong enough to hear what he has to say. Refusing to tolerate dissent is a sign of weakness. Moreover, what this guy says about Khatami's visit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So what the hell do we do if Muslims take control of that government?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is there a way to put your posts on ignore but continue get PMs from you?

You know you agree with one of the points of my post., The follow up is, who takes responsibility when we don't take them at face value and yet they act at the face value of their word, i.e. nuke Israel.

Is it Bush's fault then? Or is the loyal opposition going to accept the blame for Holocaust II?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You know you agree with one of the points of my post., The follow up is, who takes responsibility when we don't take them at face value and yet they act at the face value of their word, i.e. nuke Israel.

Is it Bush's fault then? Or is the loyal opposition going to accept the blame for Holocaust II?

I would say that Iran's leaders are at fault.

There are limits to our ability to keep other countries from going nuclear. See, e.g., the USSR, the PRC, South Africa, India, Pakistan.

By invading Iraq -- the country in his axis of evil farthest from developing nuclear weapons -- Bush made North Korea and Iran all the more motivated to develop nuclear weapons. That genie is out of the bottle now.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would say that Iran's leaders are at fault.

There are limits to our ability to keep other countries from going nuclear. See, e.g., the USSR, the PRC, South Africa, India, Pakistan.

By invading Iraq -- the country in his axis of evil farthest from developing nuclear weapons -- Bush made North Korea and Iran all the more motivated to develop nuclear weapons. That genie is out of the bottle now.

So is there never a point where there is some consequence for violating international law and/or acting like a militant terroristic renegade? Is the threat of use and the ability to carry out the trheat never sufficient for preemptive action? Or if it is, then when? It's all well and good to say that Iran will be blamed (although you create the road map above for Bush to be blamed)for their actions (although I am not sure what you would advocate doing? Sanctions that the Russians and Chinese would not join? Finger wagging? Wet noodling?), but that's cold comfourt to millions of dead Israelis.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
((4) Letting Khatami into the country is a sign of strength, not weakness. We're strong enough to hear what he has to say. Refusing to tolerate dissent is a sign of weakness. Moreover, what this guy says about Khatami's visit.

This is absolute nonsense. Hell, let's give al Sadr a visa too so he can spew his violent rhetoric and maybe shoot some folks

BTW, here is the Governor of MA, in a very Rudy-esque moment:

ROMNEY DENOUNCES KHATAMI VISIT TO HARVARD
Declines to provide escort, or offer state support for trip

Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University.

State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.

Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town. The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.

Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”

Said Romney: “The U.S. State Department listed Khatami’s Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy. For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple.”

Romney cited a litany of hateful actions by Khatami, including his support for violent jihadist activities:

During the period of time he was in office, from 1997 to 2005, Khatami presided over Iran’s secret nuclear program. Currently, the Iranian Government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is snubbing the international community’s request to cease nuclear weapons production.

In the recent conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border, Khatami described the terrorist group Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.”

Khatami has endorsed Ahmadinejad’s call for the annihilation of Israel.

During Khatami’s presidency, Iran refused to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.

In his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of Iranian students, journalists, and others who spoke out for freedom and democracy. Khatami relaxed freedom of speech laws giving democracy reformers a false sense of security only to engage in one of the largest crackdowns in the country’s history.

In Khatami’s Iran, there was no religious tolerance. According to the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom, Iran was one of the worst offenders of religious persecutions. Minorities, such as Evangelicals, Jews, Catholics and others, have suffered.

Khatami pretends to be a moderate, but he is not. My hope is that the United States will find and work with real voices of moderation inside Iran. But we will never make progress in the region if we deal with wolves in sheep’s clothing,” said Romney.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
So is there never a point where there is some consequence for violating international law and/or acting like a militant terroristic renegade?

What did I say that prompted this?

Is the threat of use and the ability to carry out the trheat never sufficient for preemptive action?

Sometimes it would be.

Or if it is, then when?

My response to that would be fact-specific.

It's all well and good to say that Iran will be blamed (although you create the road map above for Bush to be blamed)for their actions (although I am not sure what you would advocate doing?

My point -- not rocket science -- is that if Iran decides to use nuclear weapons, Iran bears the blame. At some point, we have to recognize that other countries are going to be able to develop nuclear weapons and that we will not be able to stop them.

As a secondary point, though, recognizing what I just said, we should be adopting policies that actually make us safer, rather than adopting poses of toughness. What Bush has done to date has not made us safer vis-a-vis North Korea and Iran.

Sanctions that the Russians and Chinese would not join? Finger wagging? Wet noodling?), but that's cold comfourt to millions of dead Israelis.

Again, I can't figure out what you're responding to. For the sake of this argument, pretend that I think that Iran using nuclear weapons on Israel is bad, and that I would try to minimize the likelihood of that happening.

If we want to isolate Iran, we've picked a shitty foreign policy.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This is absolute nonsense. Hell, let's give al Sadr a visa too so he can spew his violent rhetoric and maybe shoot some folks

BTW, here is the Governor of MA, in a very Rudy-esque moment:

I think it's fine to let him into the country, and agree with Ty that is a sign of our strenght. Otoh, there should not be a dime of public money spent on this guy. Incluidng no police or federal protection. Let him in and he's on his own. If someone wants to let him speak or sponsour him in any way, then they are showing their colours and the fact they are with them, not us.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
So what the hell do we do if Muslims take control of that government?

Hope they make a grave mistake in Kashmir and get nuked by India.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This is absolute nonsense. Hell, let's give al Sadr a visa too so he can spew his violent rhetoric and maybe shoot some folks

I take it that, given your druthers, you wouldn't have invited him, and that's cool. After all, that's why I elected you into office.

But I don't get how letting him speak is a sign of weakness.

BTW, here is the Governor of MA, in a very Rudy-esque moment:

What is Rudy-esque about it?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think viz Iran we need to do several things (1) let Israel do whatever they want militarily, (2) let Bolton steamroll France and the EU at the UN to get actual, legitimate sanctions in place, (3) step up our efforts (which clearly have been atrocious in recent years) to encourage the pro-American Iranian middle class to rise up against the Mullahs, and (4) stop looking weak by allowing terrorists like Khatami to wander around the US giving speeches.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) I don't think Israel can do anything we can't. Generally, the military options are not robust.

(2) What we need is EU countries not to feel steamrolled by the likes of Bolton, since we need them for sanctions to work. Note, too, that European countries are within the range of Iranian missiles, unlike us.

(3) Our efforts in this regard might be counter-productive. Which may be why Iranian leaders are stepping up the rhetoric.

(4) Letting Khatami into the country is a sign of strength, not weakness. We're strong enough to hear what he has to say. Refusing to tolerate dissent is a sign of weakness. Moreover, what this guy says about Khatami's visit.

You guys are like talking to candidates. Lets just say that all attempts at getting the Iranians to stop fail (which is exactly what I believe will happen - this whole diplomatic thing is just a stupid dance). Israel bombs but we know they are still progressing with the nukes. Do we invade?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That was a perfect reply to my post. Made me laugh out loud.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I take it that, given your druthers, you wouldn't have invited him, and that's cool. After all, that's why I elected you into office.

But I don't get how letting him speak is a sign of weakness.



What is Rudy-esque about it?

Which Rudy did he mean? I was thinking it was that kid who walked on the Notre Dame football team, no?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What did I say that prompted this?



Sometimes it would be.



My response to that would be fact-specific.



My point -- not rocket science -- is that if Iran decides to use nuclear weapons, Iran bears the blame. At some point, we have to recognize that other countries are going to be able to develop nuclear weapons and that we will not be able to stop them.

As a secondary point, though, recognizing what I just said, we should be adopting policies that actually make us safer, rather than adopting poses of toughness. What Bush has done to date has not made us safer vis-a-vis North Korea and Iran.



Again, I can't figure out what you're responding to. For the sake of this argument, pretend that I think that Iran using nuclear weapons on Israel is bad, and that I would try to minimize the likelihood of that happening.

If we want to isolate Iran, we've picked a shitty foreign policy.

I guess my point is, the military option is probably necessary here, whether we carry it out or Israel does. Do you agree?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hope they make a grave mistake in Kashmir and get nuked by India.

That wasn't bad either.