Former Iranian President, Mohamed Khatami visits US

[Durgan]

Visits Harvard

In his recent five-city U.S. tour, former Iranian President, Mohamed Khatami gave out speeches, attended interviews and meetings with foreign policy groups, through which he offered a moderate take on relations between East and West, that had been disturbed due to global developments in recent months.

Khatami, who acknowledged the iHolocaust as a "historical fact", condemned Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, focused in his speeches on rejecting violence, and ways for mutual and better understanding between the West on one hand, and the Arab and Muslim world on the other.

A voice of reason from the Muslim world. If this was in the Western Press, I missed it. It appears the West is ignoring some positive signals.

Durgan.

[KrustyKidd]

It appears the West is ignoring some positive signals.

On the contrary, it appears as if you, like most of the rabble have missed the entire political game which has been unfolding for years. Ask yourself when a former head of state (especially from a repressive regime like Iran) has say on what is what in his country and taken seriously on the world scene.

Iran needs to become modern and needs the west. It also has to keep the Revolution alive and has a population that is increasingly miffed that they have not had the fruits of what was promised. Hence, the nuclear standoff where with little hope of becoming a nuclear power they gain the ears and attention of the world without getting bombed. Ahmadinejad preaches that the holocost never happend and makes inuendo about how Israel must not be allowed to exist and the world thinks he is a nut but listens and wonders what they can do to award them with things to make them sane. When they feel there is no sound mind in charge, along comes the former Presidetn, the very next day getting equal time on Iranian tv saying that the Holocost was a fact and voila! A sane voice to talk to now that the attention is focused.

A very basic game of good cop bad cop and both of course, puppets of the Iranian Council composed of clerics.

[jbg]

It appears the West is ignoring some positive signals.

On the contrary, it appears as if you, like most of the rabble have missed the entire political game which has been unfolding for years. Ask yourself when a former head of state (especially from a repressive regime like Iran) has say on what is what in his country and taken seriously on the world scene.

I'm a rabbler (over 15 screen names so far, 12 of them banned), but I haven't "missed the entire political game".

[Figleaf]

Personally, I fully believe Iran's government would like to be a nuclear armed state. I also believe there is nothing 'the west' is willing to offer them that is likely to dissuade them from that objective. Furthermore, I see little chance of preventing them from eventually acheiving nuclear capabilities, short of bombing on a massive scale or a military invasion. Finally, I think that militarily confronting Iran would be a much, much, bigger challenge than Iraq was.

It's a dicey situation. To bad we've had an incompetent administration to deal with this hazard for 6 years.

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I fully believe Iran's government would like to be a nuclear armed state. I also believe there is nothing 'the west' is willing to offer them that is likely to dissuade them from that objective. Furthermore, I see little chance of preventing them from eventually acheiving nuclear capabilities, short of bombing on a massive scale or a military invasion. Finally, I think that militarily confronting Iran would be a much, much, bigger challenge than Iraq was.

It's a dicey situation. To bad we've had an incompetent administration to deal with this hazard for 6 years.

Neither massive bombings nor an inavsion is needed. Simply bombing the 20 or so sites associated with the enterprise should be enough to put them out of business for 20 or so years. When you detsroy a complex, not only do you destroy the hardware, you also kill the intellectual resources .....once 30 or 40 nuclear scientists and engineers are dead...these people are smart, they will start majoring in economics or law....

[Figleaf]

Personally, I fully believe Iran's government would like to be a nuclear armed state. I also believe there is nothing 'the west' is willing to offer them that is likely to dissuade them from that objective. Furthermore, I see little chance of preventing them from eventually acheiving nuclear capabilities, short of bombing on a massive scale or a military invasion. Finally, I think that militarily confronting Iran would be a much, much, bigger challenge than Iraq was.

It's a dicey situation. To bad we've had an incompetent administration to deal with this hazard for 6 years.

Neither massive bombings nor an inavsion is needed. Simply bombing the 20 or so sites associated with the enterprise should be enough to put them out of business for 20 or so years.

I don't think that's realistic. Even assuming you could find all the sites and bomb them effectively it would take a massive degradation of infrastructure to prevent them from having it all rolling again in under 5 years.

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I fully believe Iran's government would like to be a nuclear armed state. I also believe there is nothing 'the west' is willing to offer them that is likely to dissuade them from that objective. Furthermore, I see little chance of preventing them from eventually acheiving nuclear capabilities, short of bombing on a massive scale or a military invasion. Finally, I think that militarily confronting Iran would be a much, much, bigger challenge than Iraq was.

It's a dicey situation. To bad we've had an incompetent administration to deal with this hazard for 6 years.

Neither massive bombings nor an inavsion is needed. Simply bombing the 20 or so sites associated with the enterprise should be enough to put them out of business for 20 or so years.

I don't think that's realistic. Even assuming you could find all the sites and bomb them effectively it would take a massive degradation of infrastructure to prevent them from having it all rolling again in under 5 years.

You think scientists grow on trees? Do you have any idea what is needed to develop a succesful programme?

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I fully believe Iran's government would like to be a nuclear armed state. I also believe there is nothing 'the west' is willing to offer them that is likely to dissuade them from that objective. Furthermore, I see little chance of preventing them from eventually acheiving nuclear capabilities, short of bombing on a massive scale or a military invasion. Finally, I think that militarily confronting Iran would be a much, much, bigger challenge than Iraq was.

It's a dicey situation. To bad we've had an incompetent administration to deal with this hazard for 6 years.

Neither massive bombings nor an inavsion is needed. Simply bombing the 20 or so sites associated with the enterprise should be enough to put them out of business for 20 or so years.

I don't think that's realistic. Even assuming you could find all the sites and bomb them effectively it would take a massive degradation of infrastructure to prevent them from having it all rolling again in under 5 years.

Yoiu don't have to find all the sites...just enough to cripple the effort

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm

[Figleaf]

Personally, I fully believe Iran's government would like to be a nuclear armed state. I also believe there is nothing 'the west' is willing to offer them that is likely to dissuade them from that objective. Furthermore, I see little chance of preventing them from eventually acheiving nuclear capabilities, short of bombing on a massive scale or a military invasion. Finally, I think that militarily confronting Iran would be a much, much, bigger challenge than Iraq was.

It's a dicey situation. To bad we've had an incompetent administration to deal with this hazard for 6 years.

Neither massive bombings nor an inavsion is needed. Simply bombing the 20 or so sites associated with the enterprise should be enough to put them out of business for 20 or so years.

I don't think that's realistic. Even assuming you could find all the sites and bomb them effectively it would take a massive degradation of infrastructure to prevent them from having it all rolling again in under 5 years.

Yoiu don't have to find all the sites...just enough to cripple the effort

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm

Do you really believe that Iran has no plans and is completely helpless against this contingency?

[M.Dancer]

Do you really believe that Iran has no plans and is completely helpless against this contingency?

I'm sure they have plans and I'm sure they have contingencies.....and I'm also sure it won't mean much to a thermobaric bomb

[Figleaf]

Do you really believe that Iran has no plans and is completely helpless against this contingency?

I'm sure they have plans and I'm sure they have contingencies.....and I'm also sure it won't mean much to a thermobaric bomb

Well, I'm sure it's comforting to imagine that opponents are helpless against our might. No danger there, eh.

[M.Dancer]

Yes....consider the Royal anthem, God Save the Queen.....

O Lord, our God, arise,

Scatter thine enemies,

And make them fall:

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On thee our hopes we fix:

God save us all.

This bomb will be operational next year. My guess is the Iranians have untill that time to come clean

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...tions/dshtw.htm

Now I have =never said they are helpless, and I don't imagine they are. Just that if the US decides to make an end of the Iranian gambit, they will and they will be succesful. Now will the Iranians act like scumbags and attack women and children in response? Probably. Will the left make excuses for the scumbags attacks?

Absolutely.

[Figleaf]

Yes....consider the Royal anthem, God Save the Queen.....

O Lord, our God, arise,

Scatter thine enemies,

And make them fall:

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On thee our hopes we fix:

God save us all.

This bomb will be operational next year. My guess is the Iranians have untill that time to come clean

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...tions/dshtw.htm

Now I have =never said they are helpless, and I don't imagine they are. Just that if the US decides to make an end of the Iranian gambit, they will and they will be succesful. Now will the Iranians act like scumbags and attack women and children in response? Probably. Will the left make excuses for the scumbags attacks?

Absolutely.

Which women and children? What about the women and children affected by an attack on Iran?

But seriously, the idea of an attack is folly -- what pretense could justify it? What president would want to risk it? What general could sanely recommend it?

No, I'm afraid the world needs to begin contemplating the reality of a nuclear armed Iran.

[M.Dancer]

But seriously, the idea of an attack is folly -- what pretense could justify it? What president would want to risk it? What general could sanely recommend it?

There is no need for a pretense***. Iran's refusal to comply with the NNPT will be enough. This and growing evidence that peaceful civilian nuclear technology is not what they are developing and the stated desire for genocide are ample reasons for a limited strike.

Which women and children? What about the women and children affected by an attack on Iran?

Are you suggesting that the sites are in cities? How stupid do you think they are?

No, I'm afraid the world needs to begin contemplating the reality of a nuclear armed Iran.

No don't be afraid. A few hundred dead Iranians is good value for a world without a nuclear armed Iran.

Any general or president will tell you, a thousand dead them is a better deal than 10 dead us.

***Pretense

The act of pretending; a false appearance or action intended to deceive.

A false or studied show; an affectation: a pretense of nonchalance.

A professed but feigned reason or excuse; a pretext: under false pretenses.

Something imagined or pretended.

Mere show without reality; outward appearance.

A right asserted with or without foundation; a claim. See Synonyms at claim.

The quality or state of being pretentious; ostentation.

Considering you already seem to acknowledge that Iran is trying to get armed, why do use such chuckleworth language?

[Figleaf]

But seriously, the idea of an attack is folly -- what pretense could justify it? What president would want to risk it? What general could sanely recommend it?

There is no need for a pretense***. Iran's refusal to comply with the NNPT will be enough. This and growing evidence that peaceful civilian nuclear technology is not what they are developing and the stated desire for genocide are ample reasons for a limited strike.

Iran can withdraw from the NNPT on three months notice -- plenty of time to be outside the rules if things really start to heat up for them in the UN.

Which women and children? What about the women and children affected by an attack on Iran?

Are you suggesting that the sites are in cities? How stupid do you think they are?

How fanatical do you think they aren't (all of a sudden)?

No, I'm afraid the world needs to begin contemplating the reality of a nuclear armed Iran.

No don't be afraid. A few hundred dead Iranians is good value for a world without a nuclear armed Iran.

Any general or president will tell you, a thousand dead them is a better deal than 10 dead us.

In my estimate, to achieve a strategically relevant termination of Iranian nuclear research would involve easily the deaths of many thousands of Iranians and probably require at least some hundreds of (presumably US) lives.

***Pretense

The act of pretending; a false appearance or action intended to deceive.

A false or studied show; an affectation: a pretense of nonchalance.

A professed but feigned reason or excuse; a pretext: under false pretenses.

Something imagined or pretended.

Mere show without reality; outward appearance.

A right asserted with or without foundation; a claim. See Synonyms at claim.

The quality or state of being pretentious; ostentation.

pedantic: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects

[M.Dancer]

In my estimate, to achieve a strategically relevant termination of Iranian nuclear research would involve easily the deaths of many thousands of Iranians and probably require at least some hundreds of (presumably US) lives.

What pray tell do you base this groundless estimate on?

[M.Dancer]

pedantic: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects

Either you used the word incorrectly or you're just confused...what ever, but your choice of language shows your contempt and bias

[Figleaf]

In my estimate, to achieve a strategically relevant termination of Iranian nuclear research would involve easily the deaths of many thousands of Iranians and probably require at least some hundreds of (presumably US) lives.

What pray tell do you base this groundless estimate on?

General reading, current events, historic precedent. It is my estimate, I don't claim any greater pedigree for it.

pedantic: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects

Either you used the word incorrectly or you're just confused...what ever, but your choice of language shows your contempt and bias

[M.Dancer]

General reading, current events, historic precedent. It is my estimate, I don't claim any greater pedigree for it.

Okay....how many US lives were lost when the US attacked Libya?

How many Israeli lives were lost when Israel attacked Iraq?

For that matter, in the last 20 years of aerial bombardment** by the west, how many aircrews have lost lives.......?

Get back to me on that particular historical precedent.....

**

Gulf War 1

Serbia

Croatia

Kosovo

No Fly Zone Operations

Gulf War II

Afghanistan.....

[Figleaf]

General reading, current events, historic precedent. It is my estimate, I don't claim any greater pedigree for it.

Okay....how many US lives were lost when the US attacked Libya?

How many Israeli lives were lost when Israel attacked Iraq?

For that matter, in the last 20 years of aerial bombardment** by the west, how many aircrews have lost lives.......?

Get back to me on that particular historical precedent.....

**

Gulf War 1

Serbia

Croatia

Kosovo

No Fly Zone Operations

Gulf War II

Afghanistan.....

Could you explain what exactly you think I'm supposed to take from all that, in respect of my estimate of the requirements for eliminating Iran's nuclear research program? Are you suggesting a paralel between them?

If so you are badly mistaken. None of those petty operations would match the scope of the undertaking of eliminating Iran's program. The have, reportedly, over 100 hardened sites, plus decoys. They have an intact, modernizing military (probably the strongest in the region: http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html ). They have little in the way of territorial ethnic minorities. And Iran has more than twice the population of Afghanistan and vastly superior organization and infrastructure.

[jbg]

Neither massive bombings nor an inavsion is needed. Simply bombing the 20 or so sites associated with the enterprise should be enough to put them out of business for 20 or so years.

I don't think that's realistic. Even assuming you could find all the sites and bomb them effectively it would take a massive degradation of infrastructure to prevent them from having it all rolling again in under 5 years.

You think scientists grow on trees? Do you have any idea what is needed to develop a succesful programme?

I'm with M. Dancer on this one. raq took until well into the 1990's to get to where it was before Israel demolished the Osirik reactor. Domestic scientists and "investors" from outside the country both find better uses for their time and money than martyrdom (that's reserved for hormone-fueled 17 year olds).

[Riverwind]

There is no need for a pretense***. Iran's refusal to comply with the NNPT will be enough. This and growing evidence that peaceful civilian nuclear technology is not what they are developing and the stated desire for genocide are ample reasons for a limited strike.

God, haven't you war mongers learned anything from Iraq? Bombing Iran for whatever reason would simply further inflame Islamacists and lead to even more terrorist attacks. Futhermore, when Iran eventually gets the bomb (it will eventually) the chances of them using it will be much higher. Negotiation is the only option available at this time.

[jbg]

God, haven't you war mongers learned anything from Iraq? Bombing Iran for whatever reason would simply further inflame Islamacists and lead to even more terrorist attacks.

I guess the Barbary Pirates were pretty "angry" when they kidnapped European and American sailors and made them into "white slaves". I guess Al Quaeda was pretty "angry" when they piloted planes into buildings, slaughtering total innocents. I'm tired of hearing about "anger" Why not building, work, education?

Futhermore, when Iran eventually gets the bomb (it will eventually) the chances of them using it will be much higher. Negotiation is the only option available at this time.

Negotiate with who, about what?

[Riverwind]

I'm tired of hearing about "anger" Why not building, work, education?

Kick people in the face enough they will kick back. That is what is happening with Muslim world right now. It is time to stop kicking them around. I am tired of people using a few terroristist attacks to justify endless aggression against people who had nothing to do with those attacks.

Negotiate with who, about what?

Accept prinicpal that Iran should be entitled to have nuclear power if they want it and then offer incentives to ensure they use nuclear technologies that cannot be easily converted to weapons use. If they get the bomb we deal with it. If Pakistan and China already have the bomb and the world has not come to an end. Pakistan is one coup away from an Islamic state like Iran.

[Figleaf]

It's important to understand that Iran is not by nature a fundamentalist society. They are a forward-looking society who turned to a fundamentalist faction to free themselves from the US-supported, dictatorial Pahlavi regime. Now they find themselves stuck with the fundamentalist faction in power.

The dishonest, illegal, and ill-advised Bush invasion of Iraq probably set the liberalization of Iran back by about 15 years. If Bush had been sane or sensible he would have encouraged social change in Iran, but it may be too late for that now.