Question for the Debate:

1. How do you feel about the decision by the German government? Does it undermine our efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear?
2. Could Germany be (as above) privately hoping we will now attack and spare them the need for sanctions that are hurting their economy? Is this fair to the US and the rest of the world or crass selfinterest?
3. What should we do as Iran gets closer to becoming a terrorist state with nuclear weapons.

1. How do you feel about the decision by the German government? Does it undermine our efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear?

I think that the German government should do whats best for the German people. If Chancellor Merkel decides that increased sanctions will hurt the economy of her country, then she has the prerogative to take the necessary steps to increase her nation's power. We certainly do not a weakening of the German state or economy as it has always been the German economy that has driven the entire European economy.

What efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear are you talking about? I really havent seen any roadblocks in Iran's way. Maybe if we stopped the sabre-rattling that we wouldnt be as worried about Iran going nuclear since they would have no reason to hate us.

2. Could Germany be (as above) privately hoping we will now attack and spare them the need for sanctions that are hurting their economy? Is this fair to the US and the rest of the world or crass selfinterest?

Fair? Since when was foreign policy based on such ludicrous idealisms as fairness?

3. What should we do as Iran gets closer to becoming a terrorist state with nuclear weapons.

How about diplomacy? The thing that gets me about this administration is that they see diplomacy as some sort of reward. You have to earn the right to talk to us. What sense does this make? The purpose of diplomacy is to talk with our enemies...not our allies. Maybe if we gave Iran some respect and recognized that they play a role in the international order, specifically the geopolitics of the ME, then maybe we would have no reason to war with each other.

Gee I thought they hated us from the 70s or did I miss something? And gee I thought it was the UN dealing with this nuclear issue and not just the US. And to try to blame their desire for nukes on Bush is ludicrous.



Again did you miss the last few years? Didn’t we offer there folks everything including free nuclear fuel for the power plant they just have to have? Face it – we have been talking to them for years and they have ignored not just us but the rest of the world for decades.


TEHRAN, Iran - Iran and the United States had a rare moment of agreement Tuesday, using similar language to describe “positive steps” toward an accord on a package of incentives aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.

Diplomats said the incentives include a previously undisclosed offer of some U.S. nuclear technology on top of European help in building light-water nuclear reactors. Other incentives include allowing Iran to buy spare airplane parts and support for joining the World Trade Organization.
Tehran is under intense international pressure to accept the deal in exchange for putting on hold a uranium enrichment program

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165152/


http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_06/IranDirectTalks.asp

[b]Question for the Debate:

1. How do you feel about the decision by the German government?

Germany is in independent and sovereign government . The German Government should do what is best for its citizens. The German Chamber of Commerce estimates that 10,000 German jobs would be jeopardized if they were to impose sanctions on Iran. Germany is doing what is BEST for its citizens. Our Government on the other hand is dominated by Israel Firsters so our welfare is secondary to that of the Jewish State.



2- Does it undermine our efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear?

By "our" efforts I take that you mean warmongers, jingoists and "neoconservatives" . You guys are , of course, free to move to Tel Aviv.

But most definitive , You should not be using our monies and resources in order to implement your political platform.


3. What should we do as Iran gets closer to becoming a terrorist state with nuclear weapons.

NOTHING.

I have not seen any evidence that Iran is a "terrorist" state"

However, ABC NEWS is reporting that the CIA is conducting a secret war inside Iran as we speak. So WHO is the terrorist?!?

So if Iran were to attack our interests it would in ***RETALIATION*** for what our government is doing there!!!

Is there any data as to support and financial improvements in the Iranian sale of oil due to Iraq’s oil infrastructure currently being out of order? I would think that’s something to look into. Also the illegal invasion of Iraq as bogus information does nothing but undermine our authority as a nation that cares about global security and or peace or plainly stability. Iran can basically just use that as a means to not only show to its own people why it should arm itself for protection but our actions can be used against us and to galvanize the Iranian populous against us. Simply put Iran being able to sustain nuclear weapons will in large be a massive deterrent against invasion by U.S forces, among many other problems it supports. Kindly I would reference this whole ordeals origins with the GWOT attacking nations it never should have really, one can probably even link this with the behavior of North Korea.

OF course oil money being something that would finance in the middle east not only terrorism but the construction of say nuclear weapons that can be used against us is no deterrence to the use of fossil fuels by the power that be, though one would think terrorism would be hard pressed for funding if the economy of the middle east was basically done away with, that would be to simple though and some current monsters really might have to adapt and or perish, which I guess is what they are doing anyways. Then again as we can see with Saudi Arabia poverty is surely a means to terrorism Yet another reason why most any educated person in the world can basically look at our current foreign and domestic polices and garbage really. Then again the middle and lower classes don’t really have much of a position in politics anyways.

Actually sir I was referring to the UN effort of which we are a part – or do you consider that group to be described by your diatribe?

I have not seen any evidence that Iran is a "terrorist" state"
You need to read more my friend.
“Iran
Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hizballah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals.
Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity, rhetorically, operationally, and financially. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadi-Nejad praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups - notably HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command - with extensive funding, training, and weapons. “
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82736.htm

Ohhhhhhh, the UN......I see........hummmm....ah, er, could I impose on you for a second?

Could you explain to me how is it that the "impartial" UN permitted our CIA to act as UN inspectors in Iraq?

"Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency." Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99)"

Wow, I'm speechless.

You referenced a whitehouse website (who stands to gain from spin and pathological lying) as a factual, authentic link while calling Contumacious' reply diatribe? Yikes. It's hyberbole time! I was willing to overlook the credibility issue for Fox News because this was a significant event. Linking a dot gov website as an unbiased observer may not help your thread reach its full potential. Dang.

How do you feel about the decision by the German government?

Woo-hoo! Or, break open the schnapts!

Does it undermine our efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear?

Not as much as one might think. I wouldn't use "undermine" as much as isolate. Then again who are achem are "we" to prevent a country from achieving their nuclear ambitions?

Could Germany be (as above) privately hoping we will now attack and spare them the need for sanctions that are hurting their economy? Is this fair to the US and the rest of the world or crass self interest?

Considering the extensive trade relationship between Germany and Iran I doubt very much they would privately hope for an attack.
As an aside, if you are looking for speculation into auxiliary factors look at;




The biggie in my opinion would be Germany's attempts to get into the security council.


As for self interest, the same crass interests can be applied to for much of the west's involvement in the middle east.

What should we do as Iran gets closer to becoming a terrorist state with nuclear weapons.

That's a very loaded question. In its current iteration I recommend "nothing".

How do you feel about the decision by the German government?

I applaud it.

Does it undermine "our efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear"?

I certainly hope so. Anything that undermines our next rush to a war of aggression is welcome. (I added the quotes in an effort to keep the question honest.)

Could Germany be (as above) privately hoping we will now attack and spare them the need for sanctions that are hurting their economy?

I sincerely doubt it. I suspect that the Germans know as well as anyone else that Iran has no nuclear weapons program - and that they're doing whatever might be possible to obstruct the Bush administration's military designs on Iran. I wish them every success.

Is this fair to the US and the rest of the world or crass self-interest?

I find it very rich to see accusations of "crass self-interest" coming from an American. This is what psychiatrists call "projection".

What should we do as Iran gets closer to becoming a terrorist state with nuclear weapons?

Debating such hypotheticals is hardly conducive to reasonable debate. Indeed, "questions to debate [that] assume opinion as fact" have been expressly proscribed here. At best, your question should read What should we do IF Iran ever initiates a nuclear weapons program? Even then, though, the question assumes an intent for which there is no evidence. As it also plays into one of the myths being perpetrated by some of the worst men in American history, I cannot even dignify such dangerous propaganda with a response.

Actually that is part of the story I posted. It seems the Europeans are looking for the $$$ and perfectly willing to appear angry as they heave a sigh of relief – if we were to take out Iran’s refinement capability. See below from my link above..


“The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.”

They hate us because we are constantly getting involved in their affairs and trying to affect their way of life. Even after the Shah and the Revolution, right up and to this day we have tried to bring about favorable American regimes with disastrous consequences. Instead of treating Iran like an actual state we label them a terrorist state which puts them at a status below us. Whether or not they support terrorism is not the issue because they certainly do, but in terms of state relations, you have to recognize their presence in the geopolitical landscape of the ME. Instead of providing them with little rewards and incentives like they were a child, we should accept them as part of international order and allow them to engage in the international regimes that govern such things as nuclear weapons. They will defy us at every turn because they can handle everything short of war...a war they know that the American public would not support.

Bush is a major reason that Iran has risen to such prominence in recent years, due to the invasion of Iraq. After the Persian Gulf war, we went short of taking out Saddam because we wanted Iraq to remain strong and act as a counterbalance to Iran in the region. The invasion and weakening of Iraq has created a power vacuum where Iran is now the greatest power.




How have we talked to them Ted? How have they been treated? Did we treat the USSR in such a manner? Believe the hype if you want, but we offered them everything except the one thing that they wanted - respect.

They hate us because we are constantly getting involved in their affairs and trying to affect their way of life. Even after the Shah and the Revolution, right up and to this day we have tried to bring about favorable American regimes with disastrous consequences. Instead of treating Iran like an actual state we label them a terrorist state which puts them at a status below us.


Come on please! How have we “talked” to them. Well lets check with the last 4 presidents. And how have they talked to us? We have offered them plenty and we get back the arming of enemies in Iraq and terrorists in Lebanon.

The bottom line is we support Israel – want to end that?

Iran says he would love to kill them all and is doing his best in Lebanon and elsewhere to bring it about. Theis is what they DO.

And then of course you. could just read what the lunatics SAY about ally Israel, the US and others.

Certainly the French and Germans are making money in Iran and were in Iraq. This is why Saddam got nuclear help (Germany) and French.

Iran will never like us unless we toss them Israel on a platter, and leave the ME for them to play in. This will not happen.

And Bill treated Iran the same way Bush has and the next president will.

Just to put this rumor in perspective....there was a time when it was said that Germany did not even consider sanctions as an option, and now we are on round three.

I think this story is bogus, at least the US govt. claims it is. I doubt that the official and current German govt is considering such a public slight and obstacle to the current diplomatic course we are perusing with Iran. Of course I do believe that many within the Germany govt would feel this way and would be more than happy to express it. This is after all a country in which a recent poll showed that over half of those who responded believed that 9/11 was not orchestrated by OBL or Al Qaeda but instead President Bush or as it was termed "Armed lobby" or "US authorities." Whoever they may be, just your usual American boogeymen I suppose. I think you have to consider this nation's (DE) attitudes and obvious comforts with negative American stereotypes when considering what their national interests on this issue overall may or may not be.

So I am not answering the questions offered for debate as I have little reason to believe they are even relevant because they are likely untrue. Another rumor is that IAEA nuclear chief ElBaradei walked out of a IAEA meeting in "protest" over the EU's nasty comment and what was termed a "snub"
Is this a recount of "The Hills" episode or of a high level UN meeting? Everyone complains that not enough diplomacy is taking place, but I disagree I think there is plenty going on, you must be reading the wrong news articles.

But what I do know is...
Germany is one of Iran's biggest trade partners in regards to the EU and yet consistently sides with the current UN trade sanctions on Iran...must not be that big.
That when the UNSC has their big meetings on Iran Germany is always added or allowed in even tho they are usually reserved for permanent members of the UNSC only. it always reads P-5 +1 I know Germany hopes to end that with an =6, permanently.

I hope you are right bucket – I like the Germans and we need them on our side in the UN.

But lets remember the EU socialistic states like Germany and France have economic problems and depend on business from Iran esp. since their other big customer Iraq, is no longer buying at the former rate.

Every diplomat is down playing the story which leads me to believe it is at least partially true. We will soon see. Certainly Iran would not hesitate, as Saddam did, to threaten lost of business if the vote in the SC goes against him.

We will know soon.

Yep.


"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;"


Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address

First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1801

Uh, I hate to break this bad news to you, but Thomas Jefferson passed away 181 years ago. Not sure how you missed it, it was in all the papers. In any case, given your warped "understanding" (a term I use loosely) of Constitutional Law, perhaps you believe he should still be President and setting national policy since the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that a person who's been dead for 181 years can't be President. But the fact of the matter is he's not and he doesn't set national policy even under your proxy.

Thank goodness.....

For me, for ole Tom and most especially for the American people.


Aquilla

Yes, unfortunately he did. And the powers that be have chosen to ignore his advise, We have become and imperialistic welfare-warfare state. The 09/11 Commission elicited testimony from the FBI confirming that we were attacked because of our crazy , biased foreign policy. Of course their testimony was suppressed/censored.

To add to what Aquilla wrote, the theoretical Jefferson, with whom Con is so enamored, did not always let theory overrule pragmatism. The Louisiana Purchase is an example.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

On principle Con, should we give or sell the Louisiana territory back to France?

Well the Germans have consistently been on our side in regards to Iran, regardless of their trade records. So that places a lot of doubt on this but it has never ended the speculation. I think the German economy is not as dependent upon Iranian trade as is often claimed, I do think it is significant when you consider what a limited, authoritarian and isolated nation Iran is, but I think outside of that it is not as significant. Everyone always makes the claim that the one thing Iran wants more than anything, so much so it would endure this international crisis, is international legitimacy. Well do you think Germany is not willing to sacrifice a little to receive it's own desired international legitimacy in the form of a permanent seat on the UNSC? I think going against a very high profiled and long standing diplomatic action being persuaded by the UNSC would limit their chances or at the least make them less desired.

Regardless as I said before if we are to consider the rumors of the unnamed diplomats let's also consider the one about how ElBaradei is so angered by the EU's refusal to endorse his deal for Iran. This story places China and Russia as a far more concerning obstacles in this crisis. This article also claims China now surpasses Germany's trade with Iran.
US and Europe drain Iran's half-full glass

Yes, I already saw that. I tend to take "impressions" inferred by unnamed sources from unnamed countries with about a metric ton of salt. I would suggest that you "consider the source" - except that there is none.


Oh - and you should be careful with those quote tags, Ted. When I saw this as part of your post, I was going to say, "Oh, my God - I agree with Ted!":
Turns out it was lederuvdapac - without attribution. And, for a moment there, I thought you were making sense.

What have we offered them Ted? I mean come on. You may have nuclear technology if you do this, that, and the other thing. From their perspective, why should we dictate to them what technology they can or cannot develop? We took the wrong approach. We should have accepted their situation and allowed them to enter the international regimes governing nuclear weapons. This would have put us in a much better position to control Iran's nuclear power because we would be dealing with them on an equal basis and they would have to cooperate with the international body. Politically, this gives us a much better standing because if Iran snuffed its responsibilities after being welcomed into the regime, then we would have more leverage in building a coalition against them.



I am indifferent to the issue of Israel. From a national security standpoint, I have not heard a compelling argument for how our support for them betters our geopolitical position in the ME.



Israel has a nuclear arsenal of its own, it can handle Iran. The Iranian hardliners drum up a lot of propaganda like wiping Israel off the map in order to maintain nationalist sentiment and political support. Its empty rhetoric. They cannot wipe Israel off the map any more than they can wipe us off the map.



Who said anything about liking us? I dont care if they like us, international affairs does not deal in such trivial notions of like/dislike. It has to do with cooperation and compound interest. We enhanced Iran's power in the region by our invasion of Iraq...plain and simple. Iraq was Iran's check in the region and we obliterated it. Now we cannot operate in the ME without the appearance of imperialism. Iraq was a weak nation, but it still offered a buffer against Iranian hegemony.



And they will continue to be wrong. And it will lead us straight to war. We have real world issues that we need to deal with. In two generations, China will surpass our economy. I cannot possibly think of a more pressing matter than this. yet we wallow in quicksand of the ME.