Keith Devens .com

And what exactly do you expect us here in Europe to do? What right do we have to involve ourselves in Iran's internal affairs?

In the same place what right does Iran have to involve itself in America's or Europe's internal affairs?

Appeasement? What are they appeasing? It's not like Iran has annexed the East Coast of the US and people are handing them toys to play with instead of kicking them out.

You're overly interventionist for someone who I thought was a Conservative.

Go read Goldwater era Conservative Republican, long time GOP Senator and current Editor & Chief of The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/ Pat Buchanan's book "Where the right went wrong"
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksea...erid=t82c0ETATM&isbn=0312341156&itm=1

Then come back and tell me that you think fighting wars against other sovereign nations who haven't attacked you, and are incapable of resisting you when you attack them, is a good idea. Buchanan is as far right as they come so it certainly isn't some leftist Michael Moore style hit piece.

And what exactly do you expect us here in Europe to do? What right do we have to involve ourselves in Iran's internal affairs?

Don't ask me man, you're already doing it. But you're persuing foolish meaningless diplomatic agreements that you have no reason to believe Iran will abide by.

Of course it's appeasement. Iran: "We're one of the most oil rich nations in the world yet we're building nuclear centrifuges for 'energy' purposes." Europe/Kerry: "Please don't enrich uranium and build nuclear weapons. If you pinky swear not to, we'll give you lots more nuclear technology and implement an ineffective inspections regime that's easy for you to ignore/circumvent. Plus, hiding behind the pretense of our diplomatic success will guarantee that you're successful in arming yourself with the most dangerous weapons known to man."

In the same place what right does Iran have...

It doesn't, but it's been doing so for a while, and will do so in a big way if/when they acquire nuclear weapons. Iran is a terrorist state. Iran having nuclear weapons would be a "bad thing".

You're overly interventionist for someone who I thought was a Conservative.

Conservative thought isn't monolithic. I'm aware of Buchanan's views and I think he's dead wrong (at least as far as his isolationist foreign policy).

"Don't ask me man, you're already doing it. But you're persuing foolish meaningless diplomatic agreements that you have no reason to believe Iran will abide by."

I don't expect Iran to abide by anything, I expect them to let us the hell alone and not use Western resentment to prop up their brittle theocracy. Without the great Satan, something they can't possibly hope to destroy, there's no place for the demagogues.

"Of course it's appeasement. Iran: "We're one of the most oil rich nations in the world yet we're building nuclear centrifuges for 'energy' purposes." Europe/Kerry: "Please don't enrich uranium and build nuclear weapons. If you pinky swear not to, we'll give you lots more nuclear technology and implement an ineffective inspections regime that's easy for you to ignore/circumvent. Plus, hiding behind the pretense of our diplomatic success will guarantee that you're successful in arming yourself with the most dangerous weapons known to man.""

It's not appeasement simply because it eliminates the excuse for them building heavy water reactors in the first place. They say, 'Well we need it for energy and can't build the other type because you've embargoed all of the technology.' This agreement eliminates that excuse. The fact of the matter is that telling not to, or even threatening them not to, does nothing but cause them to redouble their efforts. Invading Iraq probably had them throw even more resources at the program. Now lets not forget, Iran sees nuclear weapons as a deterrent against an already nuclear enabled Israel. The horrific weapons horse has bolted years ago. I'd want a nuke if I thought someone might be coming to get me.

Buchanan isn't all for isolationism, he's for something which was used to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union and the lock down of China, containment. The idea that containment doesn't/didn't work in Iraq's case was blown out of the water when the Iraqi military deserted the moment US boots touched Iraqi soil.

Iraq as a nation state collapsed into dust before the blow was even struck.

Containment worked against communism, it was working against Iraq and it will work against Iran. Do you seriously think America can afford to start yet another fight and engage in another occupation within the next four years? Not only don't you have the troops (Without turning to the draft) but the way the dollar is sinking in the currency markets you're weeing away your financial strength as the higher ups keep throwing more of your money against the wrong things.

Bin Laden spent $0.5M on his 9/11 operation, you folks have spent $500B+, and climbing, on the great Neocon Adventure. Which side got a better Return On Investment, and isn't occupation so much more expensive than conflict?

A lot of you are under some delusion that the US fighting a 2nd generation war against nation states, when what you're actually fighting is a 4th generation war against fanatics & hired mercenaries. Keep picking fights with nation states and you'll watch as your country's moral, social and economic power begins to wane.

Britain went from being an Empire at the apex of it's power to being a spent force over the course of 100 years, don't think it can't happen to you folks too.

You may make the case that it's containment, and not appeasement. I'm not quite sure where one ends and the other begins. In any case, the most appropriate example for this type of "containment" is not the Soviet Union, but North Korea. Europe wants to do with Iran apparently exactly what Clinton did with North Korea. Clinton gave North Korea billions of dollars and lots of nuclear technology, and we built them reactors, and all we got out of it were empty promises that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. And now we have a nuclear North Korea.

We also had a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear Peoples Republic of China and guess what, with containment we haven't had a nuclear war. This is even after both of those nations developed nuclear weapons regardless of what everyone else asked them to, told them to do, and threatened to do to them if they did.

Anyone studying North Korea realises that nuclear weapons are a failing regime's attempt to dissuade their enemies from attacking. North Korea knows full while the consequences of a nuclear exchange with a western alined nation, it would mean nothing less than watching their own country turn into ashes.

There is no mutually assured destruction here, it's a case of if North Korea slips up they'll be wiped out of existence while the rest of the world goes on.

Clinton's framework was the correct path to take, even without nuclear weapons North Korea's conventional weaponry is formidable enough to put off an invasion by a foreign power, as the North Koreans could reduce South Korea's Capital Seoul, a city just a few miles away from the DMZ, to rubble and drastically effect the worlds economy in the opening moments of any combat.

If you have any hopes that Bush will go after North Korea within the next four years you might want to put those out of your head. When the Pentagon moved the 2nd Infantry Division from the North Korean DMZ to Iraq, Wolfowitz said in front of committee:

"We have moved troops off of the DMZ, where frankly, they were performing nothing except, a kind of useless -- and indeed I would say counterproductive -- tripwire function".

Indeed future Pentagon planning numbers show a massive reduction in the numbers of US troops stationed in Korea. For all the tough talk, it appears that containment is the order of the day. The long game here is to keep stretching things out until the current regime becomes the old regime, and more reasonable leaders arise.

If you're trying to tell me what worked against Stalin and Mao won't work against Kim Jong Il and his ilk, a third rate Bond villain if there ever was one, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Man, your judgement is all screwed up. Clinton's policy was the correct path to take, even though it was a complete failure? Containment with Iraq was "working"? You see no problem with rogue and terrorist regimes having nuclear weapons? You think the mullahs in Iran merely want nukes for defensive purposes against Israel, and that them having nuclear weapons is equivalent to comparatively sane regimes like China and the Soviet Union having nukes? I don't get it.

Sane regimes? Oh here we go, he's the sign of someone who can't remember the cold war. How was the Cuban missile crisis sane? The Soviets tried to park boatloads of nukes right off your coastline and yet now they are a "comparatively sane regime".

Man, your judgement is all screwed up.

How about China, who to this day still threaten to take Taiwan by force. Were they a "comparatively sane regime" when it looked like they were going to go on a rip through Asia?

Man, your judgement is all screwed up.

No they weren't "comparatively sane" regimes, both were amongst the biggest threats the West had faced at the time and US has faced in it's history. Both were encircled and neutered by the western powers without having to launch an all out war.

If you consider Iran, a country who already has nuclear neighbours and is busy enforcing it's theocracy on a bunch of young people who are on the verge of their own popular rising, to be more dangerous than Maoist China, to be more dangerous than the Leninist USSR, both of whom saw themselves at war with democracy & capitalism and had the armies required to actually get the job done, then your judgement is all screwed up.

Don't start crying because some tin-pot dictator has nukes, it's not like no one else does. The price for a nuclear detonation in the west would be nothing less than absolute destruction of the attacking nation. They'd kill tens of thousands, the west would kill tens of millions.

The same thing goes if a nation supplied a terrorist organisation with nuclear materials. If Iran handed terrorists a suitcase sized dirty bomb which was used on western soil it would mean the end of Iran, and they know that.

North Korea is using their handful of nuclear weapons as a threat to shake people down for money but wouldn't dare use them for fear of turning China, the only friendly nation in the region, into a powerful enemy. If North Korea ever used a nuclear weapon it would be the end of North Korea, and they know that too.

In both cases it's checkmate, neither nation can make a move without losing everything they have. That's why we haven't seen any action between Pakistan & India, both know that the other will also take them out should anyone fire first.

With all this talk about "Rogue Nations", "Terrorist States", "Axis of Evil" and all that other sound bite nonsense, people appear to have forgotten that it wasn't a rogue nation or terrorist state who flew those aircraft into the towers, It was a bunch of sickos bankrolled by a rich boy from Saudi.

You want to deal with North Korea?
Give Japan the Bomb. If Japan has the bomb who is North Korea supposed to threaten?

You want to deal with Iran?
Get out of the Middle East and stop buying Iranian oil. Without oil sales they have nothing and will wither and die as a force in the region, the same goes for every other nation in the region too.

Containment destroys empires and nations alike, it has since any two tribes teamed up to freeze out a third, but pre-emeptive wars destroy them and you. You just linger a while before dying of the self inflicted wounds a while later.

Look, you're all over the place. Here's the whole point of this post: Iran having nuclear weapons = bad. Europe's diplomacy = not working. I'm still not sure why or what you're arguing.

Well Keith, which other options can be pursued instead? Why don't you propose an alternative that does "work"?

Assuming that all european governments condemn Irans policy and start to isolate the country - what exactly is won by that? Their nuclear program is still running, and their rocket technology is equally advanced. From my point of view, preemptive military strikes are out of question too, because

a) Who should do it, the europeans certainly haven't got the manpower stationed in the gulf. American military seems a little stretched thin right now, and then there's the question of public support for yet another gulf war.

b) It's quite dangerous to attack someone who could already have nuclear weapons. What if they decided to turn Israel into a nuclear wasteland as a sort of ?

c) Aggressive action would only confirm the mullah's rhetoric that the west/USA really is the great satan, and oppositional forces would be marginalized and silenced by the ensuing "rally-around-the-flag" effect. Not exactly helpful for a regime change policy. Remember, it seems as if the mullahs were actually hoping that scenario might become a topic of public debate, because otherwise their grotesque endorsement of Bush doesn't make any sense at all.

For me, Iran is a lost cause for non-proliferation. All odds speak against it. It's inevitable, seen from a realistic perspective (the "realistic" school of political science I mean) that Iran is seeking an effective measure that protects them from invasion. That you won't trust neighbours who are better armed than you is clear, and it has always been the starting point for an arms race. In such a situation, nuanced diplomacy might not be such a bad idea as you seem to portray it. But tell us the alternatives you have in mind.

Your responses appear to be nothing but -fingers in the ears- No it's not, I can't hear you.

To simplify if you're looking for an invasion of Iran you're not getting one, but if they are foolish enough to give you one get ready to wave your country's current place in the world bye bye as it'll sink you.

Simple enough?

Your responses appear to be nothing but -fingers in the ears- No it's not, I can't hear you.

I don't see what would lead you to say that. Like I've said, I don't even know what you're arguing with me about.

...if you're looking for an invasion of Iran...

When have I ever said I'm looking for an invasion of Iran? I don't even know anyone who's talking about an invasion of Iran, so I don't know why you'd jump to that conclusion.