My concern is that the Iranian's leaders inflammatory rhetoric will serve to deepen the fanatical instutions while the masses are left to just turn away from it. We should at least put sanctions on Iran - this way the progressives who care more about economics advancement will have a reason to oppose the fanatics. It's similar to many Nationalist complaints that the Chinese made about U.S. policy. That by giving China so much favored economics status, we were in fact supporting violations of human rights. If we really cared for human rights and forcing a nation to change what it does internally, we need to fully use the power of sanctions. Of course now, we can't because sanctions on China would be very detremental to our economy...well at least inflationary...but imagine the power it would have! Iran...I think sanctions are a must - some sort of sanctions. We can't allow this guy to encourage fanaticism - we're seeing the cost is has.
brilliant. destabalize the mid east some more. i wonder how that would solve all our problems. its reactionary idiocy that you continually display on this message board that is disgusting. you have to be the most ignorant and emotional of all posters on this message board. i read your posts hoping that you can add an ounce worth of logical and perhaps beneficial discussion to any thread. but you fail every bloody time. i think you should stick to making toys for 15 year old boys instead of debating political issues which you obviously have absolutely no comprehension of.
do you really think calling someone an idiot and viciously attacking their character is going to acheive anything?
I think sanctions will only further hurt those very people it's designed to help (much like it did in Iraq). However, sanctions might become a reality in the next few months, although it won't likely be effective nor have the intended conssequences.
Seriously, that's uncalled for. I wish DaDakota would educate himself on Islam as much as the next guy. That being said, there is no need to criticize or make fun of what someone does for a living, provided it's honest.
Take it easy bro.......read between the lines........your sarcasm detector seems to be broken. But lets think about it a bit shall we....for giggles.... What would killing the leader of Iran do to destabilize the middle east further? What? Allow their people to think for themselves? Oh my....horrible....a free Iran....allowing women the right to think and be equals......no, that can't be..... DD
They don't? There is no sacred stone? Dude....chill..... Sometimes it is more fun to wind you people up then you realize... So sensitive .... DD
You're joking right? Assasinating the president of Iran is going to lead to women's rights? A U.S. assasination of a Middle Eastern leader won't destabilize the mid east further?
Who said anything about a US assasination? I was being sarcastic as to we should kill the guy because of his anti-Israel remarks. I would never condone a hit squad for people who think differently, but I fail to see how killing this man would destabilize the Middle East further. As for women's rights, killing their leader certainly couldn't hurt them, now could it? DD
Sanctions were very effective in keeping Iraq disarmed. People blame outsiders for the harm it causes - but you know, I put the blame on the leadership. The people of the nation that is under sanctions should as well. If you aren't an advocate of strikes, and you don't advocate sanctions - do you think a nation should be allowed to preach hate AND develop nuclear weapons? Is that what your position is?
Again, you're joking, right? You're telling me that this president is the cause of women's rights abuses in Iran? That their ideology hasn't been present for some time? So taking out the leader will suddenly shock them into a liberal revolution? Iran has made progress on the women's rights fronts in recent years, but obviously still not up to western standards. I have a hard time believing you were being sarcastic when your comments were basically in line with the reactionary attitude displayed in most of your posts. If you say so though, then I believe you.
Kept them disarmed, yes, but I don't think it will work with Iran, because the sanctions won't be effective and the Chinese, the Russians, and numerous other countries will scoff at the sanctions and continue to do business with Iran, which will essentially circumvent the whole process. I don't think it will work, I just don't. What do I propose? I said it before: 'balance of terror'. You make loud and clear (official policy, announced in a speech or something) that any attack on Israel or any country in the region by the Iranians will result in a nuclear attack by the U.S. That will more than do the trick, and cheaply too.
What about the potential for Iranian nuclear materials and know how to get in the hands of those zealots who would use it without fear of reprisal - and in fact wouldn't mind seeing a nuclear response from the U.S.? That is more a worry to me then the Iranian army launching nuclear missles.
Are you sure about that? Let's see...Iran funds and controls Hezbollah, right? I guess those are a bunch of Boy Scouts? Then let's go to Iraq...who here thinks that Iran isn't trying to stir up the Shiite extremist factions in the south?
