Aftermath from the war on Lebanon - Now what?

[JustBob]

Iran is not interested in talking as shown by the total disregard for resolutions concerning it's nuclear program. They will do things their way no matter what the rest of the world wish. North Korea is no different. Don't make the mistake that these countries can be reasoned with through diplomatic means. All that will succeed in doing is to give them enough time to develop the nuclear weapons they so badly desire and then the time for negotiation will be over. They will be the ones holding the cards and they will not be interested in any deals. As long as there are countries such as Russia and France who are ready and willing to veto any severe santions against them, there is no chance of diplomatic solutions.

Don't make the mistake? How the hell are you going to know if you don't try? Iran has expressed the willingness to have direct talks with the US. Even if you argue that the probability of these talks achieveing anything positive is minimal why not at least give it a shot? The "we don't negotiate with terrorists and talks would be useless anyway" approach is pig-headed and childish. Give it a try and let them know that military options are on the table if they do anything stupid.

How often has diplomacy really worked to avoid major conflicts?

It certainly worked during the Cold War. The US negotiated with the Soviets -even though they said they were going to bury the US. They (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, etc.) made it quite clear what would happen if Russia chose to use those weapons and what the response would be if they invaded Western Europe. The Soviets made as many - probably more - threatening moves than Iran has.

You have to be pragmatic. The leaders of a nation have the interests of their nation in mind plus they want to remain in power. I don't believe any leader of any nation would consider the destruction of his nation to be in their interest. And, that applies to Iran as well. A military attack on Iran would be a huge mistake. Heck, even Newt Gingrich of all people said today that he opposes a military strike on Iran.

 

[Techman]

The leaders of a nation have the interests of their nation in mind plus they want to remain in power. I don't believe any leader of any nation would consider the destruction of his nation to be in their interest.

Have we forgotten Saddam Hussein so quickly? He really gave a shit about his country didn't he? Do you think Kim cares about what happens to North Korea if he was no longer in power? Do not compare the Soviets with religious leaders such as those in Iran or those who are border line insane such as Kim. It would be a serious mistake.

 

[JustBob]

Did Saddam threaten the US? The rest of the world? I must have missed that memo. Saddam was a scapegoat, no more no less.

As for Iran and North Korea I'm not confusing anything and my point still stands. They want to talk then talk and see what happens. Don't go "ohhh it won't work so why bother...".

For the sake of argument, let's say we forget about diplomatic solutions. What do you propose? That we just bomb the shit out of every country that we argue poses a threat? Yeah, one more time, let's apply an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem without thinking about the consequences. That has been working brilliantly so far...

 

[Techman]

Neither Iran or North Korea has threatened the rest of the world either and they are unlikely to be able to. Even if they do develope nuclear weapons they will lack the technology to deliver them to europe or North America. If all we are concerned about are threats to North America then we may as well let them fight out their own battles and stay the hell out of it.

Diplomacy was tried before. There were ongoing talks with Japan while their aircraft carriers were on their way to bomb Pearl Harbor. Diplomacy was also tried with Hitler. It really worked well then didn't it? Why do people insist on repeating the same mistakes? They will love to continue talking right up until the time they have developed their own nuclear weapons. Then the talks will stop. Any suggestion on what to do at that point? If Hitler had possessed nuclear weapons he would not have hesitated to use them. Are you willing to wait until some modern maniac has that capacity? Do you want to wait until some Israeli city becomes a glowing hole in the ground before doing something?

You want to deal diplomatically with these countries fine. Impose extreme sanctions against them as well as against any country that continues to sell them the technology they need. Blockade them economically. But if we do that then the civilians will suffer and of course we wouldn't want that to happen. Well lets just keep talking and talking and talking...and wait for the first Iranian nuclear test.

 

[General Gonad]

Well lets just keep talking and talking and talking...and wait for the first Iranian nuclear test.

Why are you so convinced that Iran is on the brink of obtaining a nuclear bomb? Also, why are you more afraid of Iran than the loonies running North Korea, which we know have many nuclear warheads?

I am not convinced that Iran is close but even if they got the bomb, they wouldn't be able to use it without evicerating themselves in the process.

GG

 

[JustBob]

There's a reason we don't let the military run our nations. It's because like Techman., they constantly confuse capacity with intentions and try to draw everybody else into their "Minority Report" policy of "let's get them before they get us".