i know. that's why i am puzzled by your comments.

Please explain Taliban-in-waiting, like J eluded to. I took his statement to mean that the Mullahs are in power, and they will do what it takes. They are in power.

right, the article doesn't suggest a "league of consolidated mullahs" like J was alluding to. it actually says something else about what may happen. but you couldn't wait to disagree with me and pile onto what J said.

to wit:



now, i wonder what else the article says. should i quote more?

Does the article say in what way they are against him? My understanding is he is unpopular with them for his economic policies, not his handling of the West.

Ron, do you think the mullahs are any less pro-nuclear-weapon and anti-Israel than Ahmadinejad? They may not like that he is so upfront about it, but they share the same goals.

the way i read it is that, while they are not friends of the west, the pragmatists aren't willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. J suggests they all are.

but the thing is, the pragmatists realize that while they "want" these things too, in reality these things are just not possible in light of the weight of the world (economics).

There is a split within the mullahs, between what the West calls pragmatists and the hard-liners.

Pragmatist is relative to the hard liners and in this case, the pragmatism means they are willing to have relations with the West, but still use surrogate groups for terrorism and destabilization and vow to destroy Israel.

right. so rather than capitalize by 'dividing and conquering' in a sense the political weakness suggested in the original article and in the time article, j and shemp want us to galvanize that the iranian politics by rattling the sword more so than we already have in the middle east.

part and parcel of this and what i suggested is that because of their seeming willingness to NOT cut of their nose to spite their face, we can ameliorate the nuclear tensions, etc.
wouldn't that help prevent an israeli genocide? nobody is saying these people are going to sing kumbaya with us. but with our resident hawks, there is only polarity in international relations.

why can't we foment mitigation?

Amerliorating the nuclear tension is a big if. Would you want to be the politician who strike some deal with the Iranian pragmatist Mullahs and wake up one morning to find out that an A-bomb just blew up over Tel Aviv and the Iranians are threatening to launch against European cities if the US does not vacate the Middle East immediately.

I would not/could not do that.

That is what the next President will face.

ah, so you are a hawk, too. let's just turn iran into a parking lot and leave nothing to chance.

imo, if the brit prisoner crisis proved anything is that there is bravado and then there is reality. i'm saying why can't we at least work with them. somehow some people think that this is letting them off of the hook.

the following link was an addendum to the time article i posted.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599725,00.html?promoid=googlep

I am a hawk in that, once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, we will be in an extremely weak position. Europe cowers now, forget what they will do when Iran is nuclear.

Divide and conquer is an effective strategy, only it has been the Iranians who have excelled at that, splitting Europe from the US.

We must convince Russia that a nuclear Iran is as much a threat to their national interests as ours.

That is where we should be concentrating our reasoning.

ok, so we convince russia by increased gunboat dipomacy with iran. brilliant.

and europe doesn't cower now, they simply don't have this hawkish stance that you, J and shemp do. they see through the bravado. you guys seem incapable. europe isn't as split from us as you would think. we are still a brother to them, just one they wish "wouldn't act like this when we get drunk".

con't:

how did britain NOT becoming hawkish work out for those british prisoners?

Ron, I'd recommend a quick reading of the following 2 articles I posted in separate threads, one earlier in the week, and one over a month ago, both written by Europeans about Europe in relation to Islamic fundamentalism/terror and to the U.S.:

A German journalist sees the folly of the German people with regards to Islam and the U.S. How sad http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474636,00.html

AND
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=16565

yeah, at least those articles are from mainstream sources.

fella, you need to understand that there is a difference between being upset how we currently deal with international politics and what they feel about us as a nation. having just been to europe (and having been there 4 times prior) i can tell you just how much my "brother" analogy is accurate.

now, rather than post articles, what are you trying to say?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070407/ap_on_re_eu/iran_britain

uhoh, a chink in their steely resolve to crush the west? why would they even bother? let's park the gunboats in the strait of hormuz. nobody messes with texas!

While I am in agreement with you that not every situation calls for an immediate military-based strategy or response, I am unwilling to agree with those who reject the peace through strength doctrine that significantly contributed to the fall of the Soviet Empire. What I am really getting at, as reflected in the articles by these European journalists, is that Europe is not addressing the ongoing worldwide threat that the ideology and subsequent terror campaigns and/or nuclear proliferation policies of radical Islam has and continues to pose to the free world. I agree with apt analogies to the manner in which Europe approached Nazi Germany during the takeover by and build-up of the Nazi war machine i.e. Neville Chamberlaintype of diplomacy, as in appeasement, which has not and never will work. Europe's choices are resulting in alot of problems within their own countries withpeople either in line with or sympathetic to radical Islamic ideology. This is not new Ron: France did not permit or join the U.S. many years ago in responding to Moammar Khaddafy (no one was surprised); England now bans history lessons on the Holocaust so as not to offend Islamic students. These are only two examples, but the list goes on.
I mean, the world should be so beyond falling into the trap of "those who forget history are bound to repeat it", and yet in many ways that is what is taking place.

You are blind. Why not just stay in Europe, Ron? I'm sure the caliphate could use some attorneys to help codify Sharia.

In fact, NATO has now taken the lead in conducting the fighting in Afghanistan. They supported us there when we were right, they just knew enough not to get involved in our misadventure in Iraq.

But Ted, what does that have to do with Iran getting the bomb?

2 points: 1) is this the same situation as with the soviets? would you treat a headache and an earache the same way? 2) what makes you thing we aren't showing our strength? we do occupy their neighbors. there is a tacit understanding that if they make thewrong step, they become a parking lot. ever hear the horseracing term "showing the horse the whip"? enough with the right wing bravado already.


what YOU and your ilk fail to realize is that making it "us versus them" only galvanizes all muslims together rather than allowing those capable of compromise from tempering their brethren from within.


i suppose you do not realize the irony of this statement.

because, of course, this is what's happening. only in pleasantville with your national review and drudge report can you truly see the world.

what does galvanizing ALL iranians against the west have to do with making them want to pursue nuclear weapons? ignore the articles i've posted; they are not written by krauthammer and kristol.