There is no doubting the fact that Iran is behind the mayhem in Iraq . By going into dialogue with Iran, the USA is conceding victory to Iran in the ongoing war. This I view will drasticaly erode America,s influence and superiority in the region and in the world at large..
2007-05-31 01:50:22 · 14 answers · asked by Stanley U 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You are a good example of being BRAIN WASHED by the PROPAGANDA that is vomited out every day by the FOX NOISE CHANNEL... I recognize their idiotic rhetoric in your posting.
FIRST of all... you need to start watching REAL news... and stop believing that drivel the FOX NOISE CHANNEL puts out... their stuff is NOT NEWS... it is PROPAGANDA that is put out by the White House because they know Americans will believe anything.
The reason we are in the mess that Bush has GOTTEN THIS COUNTRY INTO is, BUSH WON'T TALK TO HIS ENEMIES. And, if he won't talk to them, he can't avoid going to war with him.
DON'T BELIEVE THE FOX NOISE CHANNEL... their supposed 'News" is mostly LIES or deliberate attempts to controle your mind with their endless PROPAGANDA.
2007-05-31 01:53:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is no doubt that Iran is behind PART of the mayhem in Iraq. Attempting a dialog or rapprochement with Iran BEFORE taking military action is the only responsible course of action. As for it eroding our influence, how will talking to Iran reflect any more negatively on the US than this entire debacle in Iraq?
2007-05-31 01:57:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You act like we have never had any dialogue with Iran. Do you remember Iran-contra?
The US has already eroded its image of superiority. Letting OBL go after the 9/11 and then lying about WMDs in Iraq.
Diplomatic relations are strange at best, take Saddam for example:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
2007-05-31 01:58:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was never an intent to use force to bring Iran into compliance with world guidelines. The biggest threat was embargo, UN sanctions and possible actions. I doubt that discussions will prove worthwhile; but talk can't hurt. Look at North Korea.
2007-05-31 01:54:09 · answer #4 · answered by wizjp 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You seem to have forgotten that the US INVADED Iraq and Iran. Dialogue is the only way. America does not have superiority in the region(they aren't winning are they?) You can't change a mindset by threats and if killing is the only answer well then how much better is your way?
2007-05-31 01:56:58 · answer #5 · answered by ButwhatdoIno? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Iran has outfitted relatively some centers to augment Uranium and has hundreds of Centrifuges in operation at this 2nd. at the instant Iran probable has no extra beneficial than sufficient enriched Uranium for one or 2 Nuclear weapons. inspite of the shown fact that with 10 extra enrichment vegetation that variety ought to strengthen exponentially.
2016-11-23 21:16:37 · answer #6 · answered by grunlien 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't value American "superiority" nor condone military intervention in the region or the world. War has yet to solve a problem. The very concept is outmoded, out dated, and expresses the barbaric ego of a depressed society.
2007-05-31 01:57:23 · answer #7 · answered by Don W 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Fighting, war, continued chaos should be the last resort, not the first. Not only is it right strategically, it is right morally, religiously, ethically. I honestly can't think of a 'good' reason to preemptively go to war with Iran (which is what I believe you're advocating)
2007-05-31 01:54:17 · answer #8 · answered by words_smith_4u 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I see nothing wrong with diplomacy other than the fact that it rarely works. It just seems to delay the inevitable. UN sanctions are not deterring Iran from its nuclear program anymore than UN sanctions worked in Iraq for the 12 years between the Gulf War and our latest incursion into Iraq.
2007-05-31 01:55:35 · answer #9 · answered by Kalmad Jaheed Ali 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Talk is cheap. We aught to have a state department division called, "insignificant dialogs". Talk them to anywhere they want to go. As long as it has no significance.
Iran comes across as a rogue nation, in the midst of some religious anachronism. We aught to be dealing with the suppliers of the materials for their nuclear reactor. Apply the same principles of civil litigation, deep pockets. "You supply a rogue nation, you're responsible for their actions".
2007-05-31 02:23:22 · answer #10 · answered by Wonka 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋