well a little more grist for the mill to keep the ball rolling. Indeed what have they done? I know they started their prgm 20 years ago and are playing the saddam 2 step.........and this doesn't even take into account what sunni nations over there are thinking. But I can take an educated guess- bomb the plants to rubble, ala Osirak.

Iran Has Earned Nothing
July 22, 2008; Page A18
In its waning days, the Bush Administration seems to be veering toward a policy of détente with Iran. Recent moves include a face-to-face meeting with Iran over its nuclear program and the likelihood of reopening a diplomatic mission in Tehran for the first time since -- well, you remember. Iran responded to these gestures on the weekend by rebuffing the West's latest set of carrots while refusing once again to give up its uranium enrichment.

What precisely did Iran do to deserve the warm shoulder? Now as ever, Tehran underwrites and arms terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Gaza, and calls for Israel's destruction. Earlier this month, it tested long-range missiles capable of reaching southern Europe. As for getting that bomb, Iran has made steady progress this decade, enriching uranium in increasingly sophisticated centrifuges in violation of three U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The State Department is playing down any shift in its approach toward Iran. William Burns, the third most senior U.S. diplomat, merely sat in on the latest round of talks this weekend between the 5+1 group -- the permanent Security Council members and Germany -- and Iran's chief negotiator, Saeed Jailili. And yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, possibly trying to rebalance the latest tilt, threatened a return to sanctions absent a "serious answer" from Iran on giving up its enrichment program.

As for the establishment of a U.S. Interests Section in Tehran, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on Thursday wouldn't say when a decision might be taken, adding, "We want to have people-to-people contact with the Iranian people." News reports claim the decision is all but made, pending approval by the Iranians.

Diplomacy has its uses, and the U.S. can do more to support the Iranian peoples' struggle to shake off their oppressive theocracy. Just how a U.S. Interests Section would achieve that is another question: The Iranian government maintains a tight grip on what foreign embassies can or cannot do, as British diplomats have learned after twice coming under attack the past three years.

But diplomacy also means getting something for giving something. That's not how it has worked here. Mr. Bush has conceded Iran's supposed "right" to build nuclear reactors, despite the fact that Tehran forfeited that right when the U.N. found it to be in material breach of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Mr. Bush has also offered to negotiate directly with Tehran on the sole condition -- the only "precondition," as Barack Obama refers to it -- that Iran stop enriching uranium. Yet Iran continues to enrich.

The Iranians understand that the fondest wish of America's foreign policy establishment is to strike what is often called a "grand bargain" that would lead to the normalization of relations between the two states. We would not be opposed to such a bargain, provided it required Iran to verifiably abandon all its nuclear programs, including the so-called civilian ones; stop supplying arms to militias that are killing our soldiers in Iraq; end its support for terrorist groups and hand over the suspects in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombings, in which 19 U.S. servicemen died.

Instead, Iran is having it both ways, behaving like a rogue state even as it is increasingly accorded the respect due a normal one. We understand that the U.S. has had diplomatic relations with other rotten regimes. But so long as U.S. diplomatic recognition of Iran remains a carrot in any negotiations with them, what's the point of surrendering it by stages now?

That's a question some of our friends in the neighborhood are asking themselves. We know from talks with Iraqis that they wonder what price they might pay for our accommodation of their ambitious, meddling neighbor. We know from our Israeli friends, too, that they sense the accommodationist drift of our Iran policy and are drawing conclusions of their own. Unlike the Bush Administration in its legacy-hunting days, inconstancy is not a policy option they can afford.


Iran Has Earned Nothing - WSJ.com

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

Is the Bush administration funding groups with ties to Al-qaeda in it's efforts to destabilize the Iranian regime? That appears to be the case, and war may not be off the table, either -- not if Dick Cheney has anything to say about it.

Why is it that we refuse to learn from our mistakes?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

The US/Zionist attack on Iran is still being finalized.

The US speaks with forked-tongue.

Hmmmm. 28,000 LAWs. Hizb'allah could do with misappropriating some of those. They're the only law that the Zionists respect.

And what tongue best classifies Iran? Insane?
Clip

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html

Anybody launching an attack is the world's enemy, and there is no such animal in reality as 'pre-emption', otherwise America and Israel would be attacked now, before they attack Iran.

Iran should most certainly take a seat in the Security Council. It might head off Bush's planned war.

I'll laugh my ass off if in four months that becomes

You better hurry and get all your Bush slurs in now, he'll be gone soon!

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

Pre-emptive war is as old as dirt. It's history dates back before the ancient Greeks and endures to this very day in places like Iraq and Pakistan.

Moon you might consider pre-emptive war wrong or "animal", but to those who take the lessons of history seriously, and the hostile words and deeds of enemies seriously, and matters of national security seriously. . .there is profound logic in cutting off the head of a coiled snake before it strikes.

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html

PJ;
I don't believe there is. You need a more holistic view of life and some schooling in international law since the creation of the United Nations. It's very clear that 'pre-emption ' cannot constitute a war of aggression in itself.
The previous Secretary General to the UN, Annan, was quite clear in his opinion that the US attack on Iraq was illegal. The price for that is yet to be paid. It will only take one legal challenge and widespread anti-American support. The current Sec. Gen. will be of the same opinion. Knowing the law is one criteria for the job. The American judge at the UN court has already made a complete ass of himself over his opinion on the illegal Zionist barrier. The modern approach to fair play at the UN is to diminish America's role.

Besides, your 'profound logic' would entail everybody attacking the US and Israel with a pre-emptive strike. The trial-runs, press-releases and weapons sales obviate US/Zionist intentions.

1. There is no such "animal" as international law. Where was your "international law" for the billion victims who were enslaved behind the Berlin wall? China's annexation of Tibet? Genocide in Darfur? Genocide in Cambodia, Russian invasion of Georgia? Saddams invasion of Kuwait? N.Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and the list just goes on and on and on.

2. Kofi Annan's role at the U.N. was that of a dishonest pimp. . .

3. There simply is no "profound logic" in preemptively attacking the United States. . .doing so would only guarantee unimaginable death and destruction for any nations stupid enough to try it.

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html

PJ
There's little point in responding to a statement which displays such a profound ignorance of everyday realities.


Only through the eyes of a cheated ho.


With any luck, your bullying days are done, me bucko. The Internet is a very powerful tool for justice , the like of which your type of Chief has never witnessed before.

In the realm of international law, the "everyday realities" worldwide, past and present, demands you rethink what exactly "international law" has provided humanity and sovereignty. . .cause from where I'm standing, it doesn't add up to squat.

The Internet vs. American power. . .Are you serious?

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html

PJ;
Too right. Think ' Papal tyranny versus the printing press '.

Papal tyranny???

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html

PJ;
Where you bin ?

My bracketing.



Think flugschriften. ( Forum threads. )

Never more so.