# How to deal with Iran....now



## DeadCanDance (Dec 5, 2007)

There's really no point or substance to making bellicose proclamations about world war three, or threats about bombing the shit out of them.  Belligerence isn't the way to go, now that Iran has demonstrated a fair bit of "semi-good" behaviour, with respect to stopping its nuclear weapons research, and cooperating to a good extent (if not perfect) with IAEA inspectors. 

Bottom line:  Cowboy diplomacy, and belligerent NeoCon warhawk chants will not bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. 

A more tactful, yet strong diplomatic effort involving carrots and sticks is warranted.  Which requires a president with half a brain, and a realistic sense of how the world works. 

For example, Barak Obama strikes the correct tone, between belligerence and cooperation:





> Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that "changes in behavior" by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
> 
> "We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."  -- Barak Obama, November 7, 2007


----------



## Gunny (Dec 5, 2007)

I'm starting to wonder what all of these Iran threads would look like merged since there seems ot be reason for new threads to say the same thing daily.  Working on perpetuating the liberal myth, are you?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 5, 2007)

Why did you not consider it a problem until just now?

Recent Threads:


Iranian Pushes Nuclear Talks Back to Square 1
GunnyL 

Iraq blast blamed on Iran-backed militants (Multi-page thread 1 2)
GunnyL 

Bush says Iran remains a threat (Multi-page thread 1 2)
GunnyL 

Iran's Revolutionary Guards patrol Persian Gulf
Nevadamedic 

Shite Iraqis Condemn Iran For Violence
Kathianne 

 Iran cracks down on 'obscene' rap music
Shogun


----------



## Gunny (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Why did you not consider it a problem until just now?
> 
> Recent Threads:
> 
> ...



What problem?

I DO notice you seem to have left off of your little laundry list all the threads YOU started that say the same thing.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 5, 2007)

What I find intererst is this ...

You have created an enemy.  I have seen ONE (count all of 'em) conservative on this board call for the immediate invasion/bombing of Iran.  The rest express a desire to keep Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.  I specifically have said almost exactly what you said in one of your threads ...

I prefer a peaceful, diplomatic solution, and am not advocating giving up on that at all.

That being the case, it isn't about Iran and the issue of nuclear weapons.  It's about YOU ranting about Bush and "the rightwing warmongers" you have concocted for your little show.  Anyone not agreeing with your poltitical rhetoric is automatically relegated to the aforemention "rightwing warmongers" group regardless actual belief.  

So why the subterfuge?  Just label your threads rants about Bush and accuse anyone of not agreeing with you of whatever.  Seems like that would save you a LOT of time and effort.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 5, 2007)

If Bush had bombed Iran the day before the NIE came out, which demonstrate that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, you know that nearly every republican on this board would have been in favor of it.   

I would bet you any amount of money, that no republican here would have denounced bush's bombing of a phantom threat.    You know that's true.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> There's really no point or substance to making bellicose proclamations about world war three, or threats about bombing the shit out of them.  Belligerence isn't the way to go, now that Iran has demonstrated a fair bit of "semi-good" behaviour, with respect to stopping its nuclear weapons research, and cooperating to a good extent (if not perfect) with IAEA inspectors.
> 
> Bottom line:  Cowboy diplomacy, and belligerent NeoCon warhawk chants will not bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.
> 
> ...



I've read your reasoning on why not to do certain things. What's missing is your suggestions of how to respond to the facts as they are.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> If Bush had bombed Iran the day before the NIE came out, which demonstrate that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, you know that nearly every republican on this board would have been in favor of it.
> 
> I would bet you any amount of money, that no republican here would have denounced bush's bombing of a phantom threat.    You know that's true.



You stand corrected.  IAEA stated that Iran DOES have a nuclear weapons program.  Halting work on it merely means that.  

You need to open your eyes up a bit more, bubba.  There are plenty of conservatives who have repeatedly criticized Bush, myself being one of them.  

How many times have I said I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq since 2003?  How many time DO I have to say it before you lefties comprehend?

If Bush gave the order to bomb Iran today, I would not agree with it, and would in fact say so.

But returning to the how many times ... is there a set number of times one must rant. harp and villify before one convinces oneself they are right?  Or can you just believe something and say it once?


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> If Bush had bombed Iran the day before the NIE came out, which demonstrate that Iran had no nuclear weapons program, you know that nearly every republican on this board would have been in favor of it.
> 
> I would bet you any amount of money, that no republican here would have denounced bush's bombing of a phantom threat.    You know that's true.



Based on what? There was no suggestion that something like that was in the offing. Nice spin, or attempt.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 6, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Based on what? There was no suggestion that something like that was in the offing. Nice spin, or attempt.



You don't think the administration and the military command (commanders who are cooperating with the status quo right now, anyway  ) have already planned out all contingencies for dealing with Iran?  You don't think they've already drawn up airstrike plans, possible invasion and regime change plans?  

They have said that military aggression is _on the table_, which would mean that they are ready and willing to implement it whenever they desire.  

Saying that it's merely "on the table" is just a fancy way of making people feel at ease that it might NOT be used.  The fact is, that military aggression towards ANY country is "on the table".  Why should it not be?  The US military has an established plan, which I'm sure is updated frequently, for dealing with every possible threat from every nation.

OF COURSE military aggression towards Iran is on the table.  Military aggression towards CANADA is potentially on the table.  What if Canada was involved in some type of attack against us?  You never know...

The only difference, is that the idea of attacking Iran pre-emptively is kept alive in people's minds by constantly talking about it on the TV news, and the internet.

The Bush admin could have secretly bombed Natanz in Iran, and automatically 35-40% of Americans would have been OK with it, just because it was a republican operation.  

I can't help but wonder if those 6 nukes that were "mistakenly" sent from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB were supposed to have been used on Iran, but people within refused to carry out the mission.  It was a little strange that it happened to coincide with Israel's secret bombing operation in Syria.

For me, that's food for thought.  

How can you blame people for suspecting the administration of desiring war?  It's what the administration has been about since day 1.

Bush ran on a humble, non-interventionist, no nation-building foreign policy (i guess it wasn't called isolationism back then, huh?), and the day he took office there were already plans being made to deal with Iraq.

Why should anyone not suspect them of desiring a war with Iran?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 6, 2007)

Now that we are aware that the hyped-up fear mongering about Iran nuclear weapons activity is no longer operative, we can focus on sane and reality-based alternatives. 

Iran is going to enrich uranium.  We'll probably never stop that.  In fact, they technically have a right under NPT to enrich uranium for civilian use. 

Demanding that they stop enriching is going to end up in an endless impasse.  For national soveriegnty and national pride reasons, they want to have their own domestic enrichment capacity.  As do other civilian nuclear power nations, like Brazil have. 

The question then is, not to stop them from enriching.   But, to make sure they don't cross the "red line" - by enriching uranium to weapons grade capability.  Which would require an ongoing, and intrusive IAEA inspection program.   




> *The Right Nuclear Red Line*
> 
> By Gareth Evans
> Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Dec 8, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Now that we are aware that the hyped-up fear mongering about Iran nuclear weapons activity is no longer operative, we can focus on sane and reality-based alternatives.
> 
> Iran is going to enrich uranium.  We'll probably never stop that.  In fact, they technically have a right under NPT to enrich uranium for civilian use.
> 
> ...




The only hyped-up fearmongering I've seen are your claims that it's happening.

I see no evidence that proves or dispproves anything.  Just opinions.

Moving beyond that, just how do you propose to monitor a program that will surely be kept secret and hidden?  Crystal ball?


----------



## roomy (Dec 8, 2007)

Whether we like it or not, I am getting nearer and nearer to the opinion that we will have to obliterate one or more of these muslim lunatic nations before they get the fucking message through their obviously thick, ignorant fucking skulls.


----------



## doniston (Dec 8, 2007)

roomy said:


> Whether we like it or not, I am getting nearer and nearer to the opinion that we will have to obliterate one or more of these muslim lunatic nations before they get the fucking message through their obviously thick, ignorant fucking skulls.


  OH OBVIOUSLY!.  if we can't PROVE a threat, we just assume one.   RIGHT???


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 8, 2007)

roomy said:


> Whether we like it or not, I am getting nearer and nearer to the opinion that we will have to obliterate one or more of these muslim lunatic nations before they get the fucking message through their obviously thick, ignorant fucking skulls.



Fascinating. 

I've spent a week getting lectured by bush voters, that conservatives _aren''t_ been pounding the war drums, but I keep running across posts like this.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 8, 2007)

I think we should take all the extremists muslims in the world, fill the stadium with them, in the big house, Michigan, charge up the stadium and electrocute all of em. The big house holds about 100000, do this about 10 times and they'd get the picture.  Electric bleachers, if you will.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 8, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> I think we should take all the extremists muslims in the world, fill the stadium with them, in the big house, Michigan, charge up the stadium and electrocute all of em. The big house holds about 100000, do this about 10 times and they'd get the picture.  Electric bleachers, if you will.



HEY!!!  Electric bleachers is MY idea!!!


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> HEY!!!  Electric bleachers is MY idea!!!



Dang it, I should've known that such a great idea had already been taken. Lol


----------



## doniston (Dec 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> HEY!!!  Electric bleachers is MY idea!!!


  Certainly NOTHING to brag about.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 9, 2007)

Statements about "obliterating" muslim nations, and jokes about bar-b-cueing muslims in electrified bleachers. 


I'm not suprised in the least.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 9, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Statements about "obliterating" muslim nations, and jokes about bar-b-cueing muslims in electrified bleachers.
> 
> 
> I'm not suprised in the least.



Try pulling the stick out of your ass and getting a sense of humor.

If it makes you feel any better, electric bleachers was my idea on how to deal with US prison overpopulation.  Ought to make you feel better I just wanted to BBQ Americans.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 9, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Statements about "obliterating" muslim nations, and jokes about bar-b-cueing muslims in electrified bleachers.
> 
> 
> I'm not suprised in the least.



I strictly said extremist muslims.  The ones that want us to die.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 9, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> I strictly said extremist muslims.  The ones that want us to die.



Tsk tsk ... you have to understand your place in DCD's black-or-white only scheme of things ... either you embrace his leftwingextremist views, or you are a warmondering, Muslim-hating "neocon."


----------



## bush lover (Dec 10, 2007)

Do you libs want Iran to get nukes and threaten Israel? That's what you're saying when you oppose military action against Iran, which supports terrorists against Israel and harbors Al-Kada anti-American Evil-Doers. Our President identified Iran as a member of the Axis of Evel. We have to take out Iran NOW! But the terrorist-lovers in Congress are blocking our Commander In Chief from doing what he needs to do to keep us safe. I hope they burn in Hell for what they have done to our country.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 10, 2007)

bush lover said:


> Do you libs want Iran to get nukes and threaten Israel? That's what you're saying when you oppose military action against Iran, which supports terrorists against Israel and harbors Al-Kada anti-American Evil-Doers. Our President identified Iran as a member of the Axis of Evel. We have to take out Iran NOW! But the terrorist-lovers in Congress are blocking our Commander In Chief from doing what he needs to do to keep us safe. I hope they burn in Hell for what they have done to our country.



That job at the Comedy Club not pan out for you?


----------



## eots (Dec 10, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> I strictly said extremist muslims.  The ones that want us to die.



and what about the ones that would just be happy to drive the invaders from their homeland..and are willing to resort to terrorism to achieve that . would you spare them the bleachers ?


----------



## doniston (Dec 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Try pulling the stick out of your ass and getting a sense of humor.
> 
> If it makes you feel any better, electric bleachers was my idea on how to deal with US prison overpopulation.  Ought to make you feel better I just wanted to BBQ Americans.


  It was stupid in any event , and not the least bit humerous.   Next you might suggest bbq ing children and say that is funny also.


----------



## doniston (Dec 10, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> I strictly said extremist muslims.  The ones that want us to die.


  You mean like YOU want THEM to die????


----------



## doniston (Dec 10, 2007)

bush lover said:


> Do you libs want Iran to get nukes and threaten Israel? That's what you're saying when you oppose military action against Iran, which supports terrorists against Israel and harbors Al-Kada anti-American Evil-Doers. Our President identified Iran as a member of the Axis of Evel. We have to take out Iran NOW! But the terrorist-lovers in Congress are blocking our Commander In Chief from doing what he needs to do to keep us safe. I hope they burn in Hell for what they have done to our country.


  That is not at all what we are saying-- In a nut shell what we are saying is DON'T OVERREACT.  In spite of Bush's idiotic commernts, Iran has shown no threat.    Just a bunch of over-imagination by you Bushites.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 10, 2007)

eots said:


> and what about the ones that would just be happy to drive the invaders from their homeland..and are willing to resort to terrorism to achieve that . would you spare them the bleachers ?




Are you talking about the ones from Syria and neighboring countries?  Yeah, stick em in there too.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 10, 2007)

doniston said:


> You mean like YOU want THEM to die????



Yeah, the ones that have intentions of killing Americans and every other innocent person in this world.  Screw em.  They can die and meet their 72 sluts for all I care.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 10, 2007)

bush lover said:


> Do you libs want Iran to get nukes and threaten Israel? That's what you're saying when you oppose military action against Iran, which supports terrorists against Israel and harbors Al-Kada anti-American Evil-Doers. Our President identified Iran as a member of the Axis of Evel. We have to take out Iran NOW! But the terrorist-lovers in Congress are blocking our Commander In Chief from doing what he needs to do to keep us safe. I hope they burn in Hell for what they have done to our country.



what a LOAD OF SHIT.

You zionists are really putting in the crybaby overtime now that it doesn't look like the US is on the fast track to pounce on iran.

my advice to you is to Immigrate to Israel if you feel stronger for her than you do the US.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 10, 2007)

Paulitics said:


> You don't think the administration and the military command (commanders who are cooperating with the status quo right now, anyway  ) have already planned out all contingencies for dealing with Iran?  You don't think they've already drawn up airstrike plans, possible invasion and regime change plans?


Of course we have.  We have all kinds of plans like this.  Iran, Nortk Korea, China, Russia -- Japan, the UK, etc as well.

Having a plan doesnt in any way mean that the execution of said plan is imminent.  One of the things militaries do, all the time, is plan.



> They have said that military aggression is _on the table_, which would mean that they are ready and willing to implement it whenever they desire.


Of course.  As it should be.
But, again, having a plan doesnt in any way mean that the execution of said plan is imminent



> How can you blame people for suspecting the administration of desiring war?


Because it hasnt done anythig that every other administration hasn't done.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 10, 2007)

This is how I think that we should deal with Iran &#8211; the supposed axis of evil:

Take it easy.  Don&#8217;t be so trigger-happy and ill prepared as we were with Iraq.  Strengthen our foreign intelligence, our spy network, our CIA, etc.  Know exactly what is out there before we jump in and shake the hornet nest.  Share intelligence with our trusted allies.  As we gather hard and fast proof, present it to other nations (possibly through the UN).  Get more nations on our side.  At the same time, strengthen our military.  Then, when we are fully prepared, call on Iran to respond if we have absolute proof that Iran is creating nukes.


----------

