Diplomacy, Not War, With Iran
By Bill Richardson
Saturday, February 24, 2007; Page A19
The recent tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons -- weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them "evil" and talking about "regime change," we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner. (oh bullshit, this idiot comes from the administration who's "negotiations" gave N Korea the ability and the materials needed to build the bomb. Only the administrations stance on multi-lateral talks have resulted in this small step by the N Koreans. Plus before we give them anything we have verifications in place with them un-like the administration that he came from)
As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, President Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war -- a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don't believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf. (This man actually wants to be president. It's a shame that we allow socialist appeasers to rise to a position that they have such delusions as this man. But such are the flag bearers and pillers of the Democrat party. This asshole refuses to believe both the physical evidence of Irans involvment with IEDs and the plain commonsensicle evidence of what they have to gain by interfearing in Iraq. He does though without hesitation believe what the Iranians say.)
Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations. (Yes it would be a major disaster to stop the mad little persian from establishing a nuclear armed caliphate that will engulf the Middle East, that has the major goal of the destruction of both Israel and the US.)
A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks. (excuse me but isn't that what has been going on in the UN for the last 3 years?)
No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, (bullshit we forced Germany to renounce Nuclear weapons by destroying thier ability to build them during WWII) but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. (no but they will if we bomb the shit out of their nuclear facilities and their oil fields) They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership. (and 2 aircraft carriers parked off their coast)
Diplomacy is more than just talking to people. It requires speaking credibly from a position of strength. As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as energy secretary, as a member of Congress and as a diplomatic envoy, I have always believed in and worked to achieve tough, credible and direct negotiations with adversaries. (and what did you accomplish? the answer is simple, NOTHING) To be tough, you need strong alliances and a strong military. And to be credible, you need a record of meaning what you say. (all things the administration that Richardson came from lacked) By alienating our allies, overextending our military, making idle threats and antagonizing just about everyone, the Bush administration has undermined our diplomatic leverage.
We need to change course. Iran's nuclear program is a threat to peace, but it also presents an opportunity to start rebuilding America's credibility and leadership, which have been weakened by six years of incompetence.
This is no time for chest-beating and dangerous brinkmanship. It is time for alliance-building, direct engagement and tough face-to-face negotiations. For the United States to attack Iran without exhausting all diplomatic options would be a terrible mistake. (ahh yes lets adopt the direct one to one talks that your administration employed so well with the N Koreans that gave them a bomb.)
The writer, a Democrat, is governor of New Mexico and a presidential candidate. (and an ASSHOLE)
Here is more of this ASS parroting the Mad Mullahs in Iran
Iran: U.S. Not in Position to Start War
Feb 24 12:39 PM US/Eastern
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran said Saturday the United States was not in a position to take military action against it and urged Washington and its allies to engage in dialogue.
"We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers inside America by starting another war in the region," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters. (keep telling yourself that while we move another aircraft carrier off your coast)
Mottaki was responding to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who renewed Washington's warning to Iran earlier Saturday that "all options" were on the table if Tehran continues to defy U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment.
"But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table," he said, leaving open the possibility of military action.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Thursday that Iran had ignored a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze its uranium enrichment program and had expanded the program by setting up hundreds of centrifuges.
The IAEA report came after Wednesday's deadline of a 60-day grace period for Iran to halt uranium enrichment. Iran has repeatedly refused to halt enrichment as a precondition to negotiations about its program.
Mottaki said negotiations, not threats, were the only way left to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear activities and urged the U.S. and its allies to return to dialogue when they are scheduled to meet in London next week. (yes they need more time to get their bomb production up to speed)
"The only way to reach a solution for disputes is negotiations and talks. Therefore, we want the London meeting to make a brave decision and resume talks with Iran," Mottaki told reporters during a press conference with Bahrain's visiting foreign minister. (they've talked to them for 3 years to no avail, it's time to use the stick which has always been the more productive side of diplomacy)
Bill Richardson, the governor of the U.S. state of New Mexico and 2008 U.S. presidential candidate, on Saturday also urged the Bush administration to negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program. (why are the Democrats always saying the same thing as the enemy?)
"Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate," Richardson said in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post. "But it is a good way to start a new war." (it's NOT a new war. It is a war that started in the 70s under Jimmie "grtiz for brains" Carter)
A better approach, said Richardson, who served as U.N. ambassador during former U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration, "would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons." (like I said using the Clinton administrations example of what worked so well with N Korea)
Iran, he said, 'will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names." (to repeat, but they will when we bomb their facilities and oil fields)
Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel even at the risk of sanctions.
Democrats
Richardson
By Bill Richardson
Saturday, February 24, 2007; Page A19
The recent tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons -- weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them "evil" and talking about "regime change," we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner. (oh bullshit, this idiot comes from the administration who's "negotiations" gave N Korea the ability and the materials needed to build the bomb. Only the administrations stance on multi-lateral talks have resulted in this small step by the N Koreans. Plus before we give them anything we have verifications in place with them un-like the administration that he came from)
As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, President Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war -- a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don't believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf. (This man actually wants to be president. It's a shame that we allow socialist appeasers to rise to a position that they have such delusions as this man. But such are the flag bearers and pillers of the Democrat party. This asshole refuses to believe both the physical evidence of Irans involvment with IEDs and the plain commonsensicle evidence of what they have to gain by interfearing in Iraq. He does though without hesitation believe what the Iranians say.)
Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations. (Yes it would be a major disaster to stop the mad little persian from establishing a nuclear armed caliphate that will engulf the Middle East, that has the major goal of the destruction of both Israel and the US.)
A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks. (excuse me but isn't that what has been going on in the UN for the last 3 years?)
No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, (bullshit we forced Germany to renounce Nuclear weapons by destroying thier ability to build them during WWII) but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. (no but they will if we bomb the shit out of their nuclear facilities and their oil fields) They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership. (and 2 aircraft carriers parked off their coast)
Diplomacy is more than just talking to people. It requires speaking credibly from a position of strength. As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as energy secretary, as a member of Congress and as a diplomatic envoy, I have always believed in and worked to achieve tough, credible and direct negotiations with adversaries. (and what did you accomplish? the answer is simple, NOTHING) To be tough, you need strong alliances and a strong military. And to be credible, you need a record of meaning what you say. (all things the administration that Richardson came from lacked) By alienating our allies, overextending our military, making idle threats and antagonizing just about everyone, the Bush administration has undermined our diplomatic leverage.
We need to change course. Iran's nuclear program is a threat to peace, but it also presents an opportunity to start rebuilding America's credibility and leadership, which have been weakened by six years of incompetence.
This is no time for chest-beating and dangerous brinkmanship. It is time for alliance-building, direct engagement and tough face-to-face negotiations. For the United States to attack Iran without exhausting all diplomatic options would be a terrible mistake. (ahh yes lets adopt the direct one to one talks that your administration employed so well with the N Koreans that gave them a bomb.)
The writer, a Democrat, is governor of New Mexico and a presidential candidate. (and an ASSHOLE)
Here is more of this ASS parroting the Mad Mullahs in Iran
Iran: U.S. Not in Position to Start WarFeb 24 12:39 PM US/Eastern
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran said Saturday the United States was not in a position to take military action against it and urged Washington and its allies to engage in dialogue.
"We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers inside America by starting another war in the region," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters. (keep telling yourself that while we move another aircraft carrier off your coast)
Mottaki was responding to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who renewed Washington's warning to Iran earlier Saturday that "all options" were on the table if Tehran continues to defy U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment.
"But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table," he said, leaving open the possibility of military action.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Thursday that Iran had ignored a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze its uranium enrichment program and had expanded the program by setting up hundreds of centrifuges.
The IAEA report came after Wednesday's deadline of a 60-day grace period for Iran to halt uranium enrichment. Iran has repeatedly refused to halt enrichment as a precondition to negotiations about its program.
Mottaki said negotiations, not threats, were the only way left to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear activities and urged the U.S. and its allies to return to dialogue when they are scheduled to meet in London next week. (yes they need more time to get their bomb production up to speed)
"The only way to reach a solution for disputes is negotiations and talks. Therefore, we want the London meeting to make a brave decision and resume talks with Iran," Mottaki told reporters during a press conference with Bahrain's visiting foreign minister. (they've talked to them for 3 years to no avail, it's time to use the stick which has always been the more productive side of diplomacy)
Bill Richardson, the governor of the U.S. state of New Mexico and 2008 U.S. presidential candidate, on Saturday also urged the Bush administration to negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program. (why are the Democrats always saying the same thing as the enemy?)
"Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate," Richardson said in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post. "But it is a good way to start a new war." (it's NOT a new war. It is a war that started in the 70s under Jimmie "grtiz for brains" Carter)
A better approach, said Richardson, who served as U.N. ambassador during former U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration, "would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons." (like I said using the Clinton administrations example of what worked so well with N Korea)
Iran, he said, 'will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names." (to repeat, but they will when we bomb their facilities and oil fields)
Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel even at the risk of sanctions.
Democrats
Richardson
No comments:
Post a Comment