Comments on: First 100 Days: Obama, Iran and Richard Nixon Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Marko Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:58:49 +0000 Iran will have the bomb, get used to it. It is a matter of national pride. Iran is not going to make a deal, period. Iran has the technical expertise, the manufacturing capability, and the national will, Iran would leave the UN first before giving up the bomb, after all Israel has the bomb. That is that and there is nothing anybody is going to do about it, including Israel.

By: Jim Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:33:33 +0000 Spooky got the best comment by saying:
The world has said no to nuclear proliferation.
and the list is:
the U.S., Britain, Russia, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea.
Does anyone bother to mention that Israel got its nuclear
arsenal after the world said no to nuclear proliferation?

Mr. Debusmann asks why does a country rich in oil and gas need nuclear energy? Texas was once rich in oil. It
has 4 commercial nuclear reactors, and plans are in the works to build 4 more. There is even a nuclear reactor
in Mississippi. All these Middle Eastern countries will one day be as short on oil and gas as Texas is. Nuclear power was the best answer for Texas. It will be the best answer for them.

As long as warmonger Israel dictates America’s Middle East policy we will have to treat Iran as an enemy. It
is too bad. Iranians are good people.

By: reza santorini Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:15:39 +0000 How many Muslim and Christian countries exist? How many Jewish countries? How many countries do not even allow Jews? How many do not allow Muslim or Christians?

Come on now, all religions have a right to survive. The reason Jews need a country is obvious. But they do not disallow any religion.

By: Michael Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:55:28 +0000 The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the threats against Iran have nothing to do with terrorism, Israel or weapons of mass destruction. They are all part of a neocon plan to surround Russia and gain a first-strike advantage. Once the foreign policy of the US is rewritten, the empire of 800 foreign military bases will disappear and we will again be a prosperous nation. We must remember Washington and Eisenhower: No foreign entanglements and beware the military-industrial complex.

By: Mike Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:16:42 +0000 Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power. To question its desire for nuclear power when it has gas and oil is asking them to burn their GDP into thin air. If they can use nuclear, solar and wind power to be able to increase oil sales and increase their GDP, why do we have a right to say no they can’t. When their oil reserves are gone they will return to a third world country if they do not manage their resources wisely. Today in America we are complaining because of higher corn prices because of conversion to ethanol fuels. We are trading our ability to sell corn overseas in exchange for producing domestic fuel resources. Does Iran have the right or any other country have the right to tell us we can not convert our corn to ethanol because it does not suit THEIR needs. Yet this is exactly what we are asking Iran to do. Let them have nuclear power and monitor it, negotiate over Hamas and Hezbollah, open the doors to travel and trade and let the beauty of the power of America change Iran. Iranian people already are far west leaning and if we would quit giving them excuses to hate us, we might see a different type of revolution in Iran.

By: Faruk Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:31:41 +0000 im from turkey and we are so close to middle east.. and i know this is a game and same scenario as iraq.. it is all about politics.. i m not afraid of nuclear energy or weapons. there was a war in gazze.. and more than 1500 peoole died. and israel didnt use nuclear something. what is difference. can you tell me?

By: unconditional Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:18:21 +0000 dearest Bernd has the best re-commendation for dearest Barack that i’ve seen for middle-east situation so far and in the same fashion one possibility for Palestine-Israel is to improve up^on China’s “One country, two systems”

By: B.Free Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:41:46 +0000 I am glad we agree on the important part. The US must get off the OPEC oil nipple. The US needs to “encourage” the auto industry to incorporate known technologies that have a very high potential of transforming the current transportation industry into one that is no longer tied to liquid fuel…true plug and go. How ever the auto industry continues to pick strategies that are know to be oil dependent like the hybrid models.

As for Israel and Egypt, no Israel didn’t need to use their battle field nuke, just threaten to use it and the Egyptian fled in chaos with the Israeli military beating them up pretty bad as they went. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. It was the event that established they had a Nuke. I could be wrong…maybe you should check it out.

By: Spooky Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:45:48 +0000 Terrorism is a tricky issue. The key is legality.

Covert operations are not terrorism, if they comply with the laws of war.

Likewise, the death of civilians is not in itself a war crime. Israel’s actions will not constitute a war crime in the ICC, as the deaths occurred through “tactical necessity”. Though the deaths were horrifying, they were legal.

Terrorism occurs when an entity seeks a deliberate strike against civilians with no (legal) tactical value. A roadside bomb used to ambush a military convoy is not terrorism. A suicide bomb against civilians is terrorism.

Hamas earns a double whammy. Not only is it using indiscriminate rocket fire, but it is doing so from civilian areas. What happened in Gaza is the very reason why such warfare tactics are illegal.

So at the moment Iran is accused of financing Terrorism to the extent that civilians are being deliberately killed, and financing Insurgency to the extent that soldiers are being deliberately killed. Or so the US asserts.

By: Anonymous Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:19:19 +0000 Again what arrogance.

Have you been to China? I bet no.

If Nixon hadn’t invited China to join the world financial system, do you think that if China (after Mao) wanted to join, the US could refuse it?
– Posted by ron_paulite

Again what ignorance.

Yes, your bet is right. I’ve never been to China. But according to your logic all astronomers must be dismissed because they’ve never left Earth.
Have you heard about “One China policy”? PRC would never have diplomatic relations with anyone having those with ROC, and vice versa.
Without Nixon’s blunder there’d be no way for PRC to get into UN, let alone SC. As a veto wielding power, America was more then capable to thwart any moves in that direction. And without UN membership, guess how many Western states would’ve switched their embassies from Taipei to Beijing? It would be PRC who refused to open up to any country not explicitly recognizing them as the only China. Considering that USSR and, by association, other Warsaw Pact/Comecon members were not exactly warm to PRC since soon after Stalin’s death, the only European country Beijing would have had warm relations with would’ve been Albania. Add to that some 3rd world regimes, most of them quite odious, and there’d be not much of a world China would’ve opened up to.
And for “the US could refuse it?” you don’t have to look farther away than Cuba (too bad – I wish it became again American resort next door).
But too bad the history doesn’t recognize “what if”. Nixon did what he did, and it resulted in whatever happened next. Now it’s up to Obama to try and fix what’s broken with American industry, including, but not limited to, making it competitive against “China price”. And again, it’s up to Obama to deal with many cases where Chinese global interests are not exactly aligned with ours, to put it lightly.
I guess this sums it up.