WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IRAN?

Iran is pretty much going to enrich uranium no matter what. So the questions are many, among them, can they be trusted with uranium? is the UN doing enough to stop it if they can't? will they make bombs? do they just want nuclear power plants? are sanctions enough to discourage them? should Bush go postal again, get drunk, talk to God and send our men to Iran to die too? should the USA 'test fire' one of our nukes at them so they can see what nuclear bombs are about up close and personal?

If anything at all, what should be done about Iran?

This is an excellent example of why you on the Left can't be trusted with issues of security....

You are such a stupid ass, I am not asking the question in the literal sense you dolt, it is to provoke thought and converstaion on the topic, that is all. I see you have no answers, just more Republican smear to offer, what else is new.

Yours is a simple foreign policy based on your hatred for Bush....

If we can do this, first individually then as a national group, it will be something we can do about Iran.

Bush is not running. And are you saying that Bush's opponents aren't worried about Iran? They're very worried, as are the French, Germans, and British, three nations that negotiated with Iran for years only to find out Iran was gulling them.

Iraq is more important to the electorate, no? That's what I've heard from the Left here. It's all about support or non-support for Iraq, not Iran.

Nationalize? You mean breach of contract, theft?

Ever had anyone breach a contract with you? How'd it feel? Did you like that?

Deposed Shah. Why was he deposed?

Does Shiah Islam have anything to do with what went on? How much about Shiah Islam must one learn to understand the situation today?

Tell us how Iran's violating the NPT and their pronouncements of destruction for Israel, a fellow member of the UN, has anything to do with 'good reason to be upset and mistrustful.' Tell us why they negotiated with The Gang of Three in bad faith. Tell us why they rejected the IAEA's jurisdiction.

No, it doesn't. It has to do with national security. But you're welcome to think so.

Interfered? The US has been a net force for good in the world by far. If you want to talk about interfering, take a good look at the Ottoman Empire, Europe, and Japan.

OK. What about the military component? This is about threats to security, which goes way beyond international business practices.

Go for it. Let us know what you find when you're done. Don't forget to tell us by what standard you make your judgments. First principles are very important when constructing a foreign policy.

How are we to give Iran's oil production back to it's rightful owner?

While you're contemplating your navel, Iran is headed toward a nuclear bomb. Thanks for your advice, but we don't have time to wait for your

Bush is going to wait until after the election to decide what to do. I think the price of gas was intentionally hiked to prepare us for war with Iran. If Republicans keep control, Iran will get their asses kicked :o) We're already at war with them in Iraq.

This is disputable. For the interventions, see for example http://www.zmag.org/grossmanciv.htm

The Ottomans etc. are nowhere near the same ballpark.

For the 'net force for good', what yardstick do you use to measure the suffering and damage (to structures, to culture, to environment, ...) wrought by the US, against whatever good the US has brought about?

Conducting international business the same way as everybody else (buy oil from those who have, without sending your military there) would, I guess, go a long way to reduce such threats.

The same way, I guess, as giving American territory to its rightful owners. Of course, the minor matter as to who is actually the rightful owner must be settled first.

Matti P.

On 31 Aug 2006 01:18:15 -0700, 'Bush War is for GOP Profit'

We should pay them for their rights to have a heavy-water reactor. We should swap security promises for promises by them to not develop nuclear weapons.

Of course, promises are sort of cheap. So there's no real way that they can really believe US promises to not attack them, but maybe we could find a way to make it expensive for the US to lie about that.