Diplomacy has failed
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Those are the only two choices he has offered.
I'm not offering "choices". I'm soliciting opinions because leftists so frequently criticize without producing constructive suggestions. So far in this thread I've received 3 basic responses from American-based leftists: 1. I don't know. 2. Do nothing. 3. Sanction the United States. I honestly find that quite sad. I think it's very important for conservatives to take back our educational institutions because they have failed to create responsible citizens.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espiroagnew wrote:
So far in this thread I've received 3 basic responses from American-based leftists: 1. I don't know. 2. Do nothing. 3. Sanction the United States.
While the "American-based rightists" have offered: 1. Nuke 'em. 2. I'm not offering choices. And you find the "leftist" responses sad?
-
espeir wrote:
No, I specifically asked what you "solution" with Iraq's refusal to comply with UN resolutions would have been. Remember that diplomacy was attempted and had failed, so it was not an option.
In Iraq, history shows us that diplomacy and sanctions had not failed. There was no nuclear program.
espeir wrote:
That "false" intelligence turned out to be true. It was demonstrated that Iraq had indeed sent its top nucealr officials to Sudan. That falsity of that intelligence turned out to be false...Something perpetrated by a traitor and his wife trying to set up the president.
You are about the only person in the world you still believes that yellow-cake Niger story. Not even the White House tries to.
espeir wrote:
An Iranian military response would be dealt with quite easily.
Yeah, right, Israel couldn't. We can't even deal with the limited amount of interference that Iran is causing in Iraq right now.
espeir wrote:
The nuclear weapon would be used to destroy a weapons facility, not a city. But yes, if blowing up violent people is necessary to preserve the lives of peaceful people rather than having the reverse happen, I advocate military force.
Bush is bad enough, I'm glad you don't have your finger on the button!
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
In Iraq, history shows us that diplomacy and sanctions had not failed. There was no nuclear program.
How can you possibly say that? Saddam Hussein was in power for a dozen years under sanctions. There was no nuclear program because of prior military action.
dennisd45 wrote:
You are about the only person in the world you still believes that yellow-cake Niger story. Not even the White House tries to.
Ummmm...No. There was definately an Iraq-Niger connection[^]. Iraq pursued yellowcake and Niger was interested in selling. The falsity of that report was overshadowed by Plame's "outing" (which also turned out to be bogus).
dennisd45 wrote:
Yeah, right, Israel couldn't. We can't even deal with the limited amount of interference that Iran is causing in Iraq right now.
I repeat...We could easily handle an attack from Iran.
dennisd45 wrote:
Bush is bad enough, I'm glad you don't have your finger on the button!
More criticism without ideas.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
espiroagnew wrote:
So far in this thread I've received 3 basic responses from American-based leftists: 1. I don't know. 2. Do nothing. 3. Sanction the United States.
While the "American-based rightists" have offered: 1. Nuke 'em. 2. I'm not offering choices. And you find the "leftist" responses sad?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
While the "American-based rightists" have offered: 1. Nuke 'em. 2. I'm not offering choices. And you find the "leftist" responses sad?
Did you even read the thread?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
espamalamadingdong wrote:
According to your teenager-oriented article, they would destroy bunkers up to 1000 feet below the surface, so they most likely would be effective. You really should read your own links.
I was aiming at your reading level, e. Did I aim too high? Even the most cursory search turns up a truck load of articles -- from the Union of Concerned Scientists, to right-wing bloggers -- stating that the ancillary damage done by RNEP weapons makes them too dangerous to use near populated areas, and ineffective beyond 1000 feet. Are you privy to intelligence that places the targets in Iran within that range? If so, from what I gather, you have better intelligence than the Pentagon. My guess is that you are talking out of your ass, as usual, and have no intelligence at all. As usual.
espn wrote:
unfortunately scrapped last year and replaced with one that uses conventional weapons that are as effective
If the conventional weapons are as effective, why is it unfortunate? Do you have a thing for nukes?
espork wrote:
I find it interesting that leftists always seem to say that new weapons programs will never work
Something that I've never said, by the way, and with which I do not agree.
espeirituallyvoid wrote:
like the now proven successful missile defense shield.
:wtf::laugh:
especiallydense wrote:
I'm pretty confident that our military would be able to take out a few nuclear facilities.
Again, it's a question of justification, and cost/benefit. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
espidiot wrote:
That's interesting that you equate George Bush to Ahmalamadingdong and that says a lot about your Benedict Arnold attitude to your home country. Your desire for inaction is noted in conjuntion with your trechorous, anti-American stance.
Right. He may be a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass, but he's our posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass! Way to refute my point. And your desire for indiscriminate action makes you as intelligent as our President. Congratulations.
espoodlewalker wrote:
Your desire for
You brought out the namecalling early today!
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
While the "American-based rightists" have offered: 1. Nuke 'em. 2. I'm not offering choices. And you find the "leftist" responses sad?
Did you even read the thread?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
Did you even read the thread?
Yes. And I just re-read it in case there was another brilliant solution from your side that I overlooked. There wasn't.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
In Iraq, history shows us that diplomacy and sanctions had not failed. There was no nuclear program.
How can you possibly say that? Saddam Hussein was in power for a dozen years under sanctions. There was no nuclear program because of prior military action.
dennisd45 wrote:
You are about the only person in the world you still believes that yellow-cake Niger story. Not even the White House tries to.
Ummmm...No. There was definately an Iraq-Niger connection[^]. Iraq pursued yellowcake and Niger was interested in selling. The falsity of that report was overshadowed by Plame's "outing" (which also turned out to be bogus).
dennisd45 wrote:
Yeah, right, Israel couldn't. We can't even deal with the limited amount of interference that Iran is causing in Iraq right now.
I repeat...We could easily handle an attack from Iran.
dennisd45 wrote:
Bush is bad enough, I'm glad you don't have your finger on the button!
More criticism without ideas.
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
How can you possibly say that? Saddam Hussein was in power for a dozen years under sanctions. There was no nuclear program because of prior military action.
That's right a dozen years of sanctions and no nuclear program. You agree that he didn't have nuclear weapons. Why invade?
espeir wrote:
Ummmm...No. There was definately an Iraq-Niger connection[^].
Oh, of course there was. :rolleyes: http://www.uncoveror.com/niger.htm[^]
espeir wrote:
I repeat...We could easily handle an attack from Iran.
Of, course, nothing the US can't handle. Let's bomb Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc we can handle all. No reason to be concerned with consequences.
espeir wrote:
More criticism without ideas.
That's the benefit of being part of the opposition. He has the power, he has the responsibility. The buck stops with him.:laugh:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
You brought out the namecalling early today!
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
You brought out the namecalling early today!
What namecalling?
-
espamalamadingdong wrote:
According to your teenager-oriented article, they would destroy bunkers up to 1000 feet below the surface, so they most likely would be effective. You really should read your own links.
I was aiming at your reading level, e. Did I aim too high? Even the most cursory search turns up a truck load of articles -- from the Union of Concerned Scientists, to right-wing bloggers -- stating that the ancillary damage done by RNEP weapons makes them too dangerous to use near populated areas, and ineffective beyond 1000 feet. Are you privy to intelligence that places the targets in Iran within that range? If so, from what I gather, you have better intelligence than the Pentagon. My guess is that you are talking out of your ass, as usual, and have no intelligence at all. As usual.
espn wrote:
unfortunately scrapped last year and replaced with one that uses conventional weapons that are as effective
If the conventional weapons are as effective, why is it unfortunate? Do you have a thing for nukes?
espork wrote:
I find it interesting that leftists always seem to say that new weapons programs will never work
Something that I've never said, by the way, and with which I do not agree.
espeirituallyvoid wrote:
like the now proven successful missile defense shield.
:wtf::laugh:
especiallydense wrote:
I'm pretty confident that our military would be able to take out a few nuclear facilities.
Again, it's a question of justification, and cost/benefit. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
espidiot wrote:
That's interesting that you equate George Bush to Ahmalamadingdong and that says a lot about your Benedict Arnold attitude to your home country. Your desire for inaction is noted in conjuntion with your trechorous, anti-American stance.
Right. He may be a posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass, but he's our posturing, nationalistic, religious fundamentalist jackass! Way to refute my point. And your desire for indiscriminate action makes you as intelligent as our President. Congratulations.
espoodlewalker wrote:
Your desire for
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Do you have a thing for nukes?
He probably has stock in nucular companies. Also, he knows that a war with Iran is sure to cause oil prices to go through the roof, which will benefit his portfolio. Just follow the money...
Josh: So you have been married twice? You must have been young the first time around. Christian: Yeah, we were young and stupid. I was young, and she was...
-
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
:rolleyes: Hey! Look guys - Ahmadinejihad (or whatever his name is) signed up on CodeProject!
-
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
Wow. Four Republican responses -- four and a half if you count espeir's initial knee-jerk -- and not one, single, solitary refutation of your point. :)
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
espeir wrote:
So now what?
1. Support the moderate movement in Iran. 2. Stabilize Iraq. 3. Strengthen democracies in the Middle East. Those things would be preferrable to nuclear war. It would also lessen the likelihood of Iran doing something stupid (read: firing a nuke at Israel).
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Dumbest. Movie. Title. Evaaar. The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
That's self-contradictory. If Iran is "legally authorized" (treaties don't provide legal authorization, by the way), then why would they deserve "punitive measures"? And since Russia and China have expressed unwillingness to impose sanctions (and they therefore will not be imposed), what should be done?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
Treaty - a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state
-
That's self-contradictory. If Iran is "legally authorized" (treaties don't provide legal authorization, by the way), then why would they deserve "punitive measures"? And since Russia and China have expressed unwillingness to impose sanctions (and they therefore will not be imposed), what should be done?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
-
I'm curious as to what those (especially the left-wing nutjobs) on here believe the course of action should be since it appears that Iran decided to defy UN resolutions[^] by continuing to enrich Uranium. International diplomacy was attempted and it failed. So now what?
"I make up quotes." -Vincent Reynolds
I think this was more bullying than diplomacy. Although it is very scary that Iran could have the "Bomb", it is a normal reaction from them to defy us. AND PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME SAY I AM PRO-IRAN AND I WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BOMB, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE CASE. SORRY IF I WRITE IT IN ALL UPPERCASE BUT I WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR AS IT IS CUSTOMARY HERE TO BE MISINTERPRETED.
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
I think this was more bullying than diplomacy. Although it is very scary that Iran could have the "Bomb", it is a normal reaction from them to defy us. AND PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME SAY I AM PRO-IRAN AND I WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BOMB, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE CASE. SORRY IF I WRITE IT IN ALL UPPERCASE BUT I WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR AS IT IS CUSTOMARY HERE TO BE MISINTERPRETED.
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Iran is legally authorized to enrich uranium as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As a special signatory to the treaty, the U.S. is legally obligated to ensure Iran receives full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Any attempt by the U.S. to prevent Iran from exercising its treaty rights is a violation of the treaty. The next step should be referral of the U.S. to the Security Council for possible sanctions or other punitive measures as specified under the treaty.
:rolleyes: Hey! Look guys - Ahmadinejihad (or whatever his name is) signed up on CodeProject!
thealj wrote:
Hey! Look guys - Ahmadinejihad (or whatever his name is) signed up on CodeProject!
And he's spoofing Ed Gadziemski!!! Let's kill them both!!!