Charlie Rose

AntonGrambihler  09/30/2009 04:09 PM Report

The solution to the Middle East Problems is:

No more funding for Israel until it signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Stops it Genocide of the Palestine People, Abides by All International Laws, and All United Nations Resolutions.

If the United States is a Nation of Laws, they must be enforced equally on ALL PEOPLE.

robdverity  09/30/2009 03:42 PM Report

Patience. We excell in preemption.

richie8811  09/30/2009 10:51 AM Report

What's so complicated? The Iranian government should count its lucky stars that America hasn't decided to invade.

robdverity  09/29/2009 07:28 PM Report

Scuse me - conflated Afghan and Iran. Getting senile.

robdverity  09/29/2009 07:26 PM Report

Afterthought. Nothing COMPLICATED about this relationship. The MI oligarch has put down good faith money to sustain a conflict (somewhere) for as long as politically palatable. The fourth estate trumpets the accepted orthodoxy in lock step, as if it's a done-deal. Obama - a total puppet - can do nothing, as he is not really in control. Despite security would be served MORE with our departure than with our arrogance and presence. An assured NET GAIN in enmity and enemies - WHENEVER we leave.

robdverity  09/29/2009 07:13 PM Report

As usual a bit pedagogic, but agree for the most part. The experts seem to agree that even with a military strike it would only delay by months rather than years.

If all 203 (Googled) soveriegn states ultimately acquire nukes, a large case of hold-your-breath MAD will of necessity have to be the LAST hope. I don't think our species has the 'wisdom' to handle the challenge.

REMant  09/29/2009 10:10 AM Report

I have no doubt that Iran wants nuclear weapons and expects the Israelis might try to destroy them, hence the security measures. But Israel has nuclear weapons, does it not? France, the UK, the US, China and Russia have nuclear weapons, do they not? Is it the weapons we are opposed to, or who has them? Do we really suppose that crazy as we may think them to be, they will use nuclear weapons against Israel, Europe or the Saudis, or even threaten to use them? The Soviets were never that crazy, nor China. But no doubt the chance goes up the more we, and especially Israel, conspire and threaten and call them names. After all President Jimmy Carter was an evangelical, engineer, and ex-military man interested in nuclear power, too. He had some enemies, but few in this country because they expected him to bomb anyone. Yet what did he do?

The Iranians wisely have little interest in Afghanistan, nor in Iran, since the regime is cooperating with them, but our continued presence there will no doubt increase their fears of invasion. We ought to be talking about containing whatever the threat is, not provoking it, and unless they appear to be gearing up to invade someone I don't see leaving them alone as appeasement. Sanctions, even if they could be applied, would likely turn more Iranians against us and away from the indigenous reform movement, which, in any case, even if it succeeds, is not going to turn the country into the 51st state. We failed to recognize in Vietnam, probably in Iraq, and likely will in Afghanistan as well, that the majority of ppl are neither for the fundamentalists nor the liberals, but will probably unite in opposing the intervention of a foreign power no matter what it says its intentions are and especially if it meddles with the social structure. And sanctions will turn Iran's trading partners against us, too, making our job in the rest of the Middle East that much harder. We used an embargo against the British more than 200 yrs ago, and it is a little childish, like threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue. That might sway your mother (altho I doubt it) but it is not going to make any difference to the Iranians, who do not particularly care if we love them or not.

We accused those in the dock at Nuremberg of hijacking a democratic government for the purpose of making war and it is presumably what we still mean by applying the word fascist. We could get away with that piece of hypocrisy after the fact, but we should be very careful about making that kind of accusation here, or anywhere, and not the least because of the number of coups we, ourselves, have supported. The charge of being outside the bounds of international law is so ludicrous I doubt even Sotomayor would agree with it, and besides its premise is like that of an embargo. Unless I miss my guess Amadinejad is interested mainly in restoring what he views to be the glory of the Persian Empire, and if Iran gets involved in a war with anyone I would suppose it to be the Sunni Arabs for very old reasons we will be powerless to stop and fools to get in the middle of.