"Dave" wrote:

Tacit backing = backing. And how tacit is that backing when they are willing to pickup an 8 billion dollar tip? Frankly I don't care about the student's side of the story, their actions were terrorist in nature with the backing of the state. Any attempt to rationalize their "mindset" to me smacks of excuse.

And your attempt to rationalise the bombing of 200, 000 people is not an excuse?

Why is the explanation of one not an excuse and the explanation of another an excuse?

"Dave" wrote:

Yea, why should we care about what the Iranians who are the present all-grown-up leaders of the modern regime did when they were in college?

I am sure they have matured greatly since their civilian capturing, ransoming, terrorist days. - We all go through that rebellious kick after all. And precisely when did this "ancient history" go [i]away[/i] I don't recall if you have ever actually been to this side of the Atlantic, but that one's been fresh in our minds since the beginning, you see we in our irrational little way understood the attack on our embassy to be a declaration of war. The attack, in conjunction with Iran's support of terrorist organizations are precisely the reasons we do not normalize relations with Iran.

The student hostage-takers are not the rulers of Iran today.
George Bush smoked dope and was an alcoholic. Should this still be held against him?
But Bush, during his presidency, has led a war on false pretences. This seriously damages his credibility. This dent to his credibility is not because of what he did over a quarter of a decade ago, but what he is currently doing.

"Dave" wrote:

I don't exactly see where you are getting this information from since I cannot find any statement confirming the Shah's immunity upon US soldiers. And I find that a bit strange since... WE NEVER COMMITTED TROOPS TO IRAN. In 1953 the CIA backed a coup to keep the Shah in power (at the request of the Shah). Seeing as I cannot find (and you can help me here) where this immunity from legal action was given to "US troops" anywhere online, and the US military never actually deployed anything to Iran I find that a dubious claim.

It was in [i]In The Name of God[/i] by Robin Wright.

"Dave" wrote:

I don't see how anybody can compare the noble struggle against fascism and genocide in World War II, to the Iranian Revolution but hey, it's your argument.

The struggle against a tyrannical ruler and his sponsors is noble.

"Dave" wrote:

Why does religion or political ideology matter when they are supporting them anyway? They are giving them the tools of destruction money, weapons, and training facilities (as the report notes) that's not precisely what I would call "restraint" wrt. support. Besides you said yourself Hezballah is very close to the Iranian regime and you even played with the idea they could be given nukes. I don't suppose you have any evidence that shows Iran's lack of interest in supporting the aforementioned groups in the past based on their ideology - or what is far more relevant - [i]their decision that the group is too dangerous to recieve weapons[/i]?

E. g. Osama bin Laden is using his CIA funding and training or whatever to now act against the Americans. It would be wise to limit any form of ‘support’ to the level that it can’t one day be used against you.

"Dave" wrote:

Yea, seeing as the US doesn't back the IRA (Is there something I am missing here with the IRA vein?)

I was only using the IRA to explain the ridiculousness of the idea that Iran would give nukes to terrorists.

"Dave" wrote:

I never heard anything about that... he's been out of office for some time now, perhaps you are thinking of the Russian's announcement of a new more sophistocated nuclear weapon the US doesn't have in it's arsenal? I really couldn't say... see if you could find a link.

It seems like the Russians lose nukes on a near hourly basis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2036705.stm

"Dave" wrote:

No, it is perfectly reasonable to say that constitutional liberal democracy has yielded greater liberty than any other form of government. And to keep this localised to the middle east, can you seriously argue that American or British style democracy with it's limits on power, structures for accountability, democratic institutions, et cetera are NOT a better alternative than the government presently in place in the middle east? A cohort of megalomaniac strongmen, dictatorial populists and religious fanatics? Is it racist to believe that it is not "just the way arabs are" that results in these tyranic regimes?

I very much disagree. I believe that there is nothing hotwired into arabs, or muslims that makes them seek out or want or accept these regimes.

Constitutional liberal democracy has its benefits, of course. But to say that America therefore should go out of its way to ensure that anyone it bombs also becomes a constitutional democracy smacks of arrogance.

Many Muslim countries are led by tyrants. But some wouldn’t be in power if the populace wasn’t hindered by the US’s need to maintain ‘stability’ wherever it deemed it had ‘interests’.

The Iranian Revolution and its consequences are a result in part of the US’s need to prop up ‘favourable’ tyrants.

"Dave" wrote:

So your point is that neocons are not, afterall, bloodsucking imperialists but rather informed political pundits with a complicated but sympathetic view of the world?

My how you have changed in the course of two posts?

But if you agree with Mr. Zakaria than you agree with this statement (from the same article)

[i]But however it looks from Tehran's perspective, a nuclear Iran would radically change the security atmosphere of the Middle East. It would also make Saudi Arabia and Egypt rethink their own security needs, leading to a potential nuclear spiral. All of which suggests that efforts to stop or at least delay the Iranian program are worth undertaking—intelligently.[/i]

In which case all you have been arguing about the united states not keeping "all options on the table" has been for naught.

Just like any good neocon Zakaria is shying away from stretching the American military, and advocates using diplomacy first - but nowhere is he saying we should give the Iranians a strong signal that should negotiations fail we wouldn't rely on force.

Quite the opposite, all he is saying is that we have nothing to lose from going first diplomatically because it would simply lead to where we are today.

I’m glad to see that there is such a thing as a ‘leftish’ Neocon.

I said I found that particular quote interesting. I do not necessarily agree with everything else that Zakaria ever said.

Had this been a Democratic administration I doubt that many leading Neocons would have been given the positions of power that Bush has granted them.

Having put the military option on the table, and having invaded two of Iran’s most immediate neighbours, IMO the US will see this threat through regardless of the results of diplomacy.

[size=18] Uranium checks 'will back Iran's nuclear arguments'[/size]

Iran claimed an important victory in its nuclear dispute with the West yesterday.

Teheran said international experts had backed its claim that traces of weapons-grade uranium found in Iran were not from a secret arms programme.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is reported to have matched the traces of highly enriched uranium with samples from Pakistan, concluding that they came from contaminated equipment imported from Pakistan.

The findings are said to be in an IAEA report due to be published next month.

If confirmed, they would remove a major piece of evidence supporting accusations that Iran's civil nuclear programme is being used to hide an attempt to build a nuclear weapon.

It would make it more difficult for America and European countries to act on threats to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions after Teheran partly reneged on a promise to freeze the most sensitive parts of its programme.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/24/wiran24....

[size=18]EU: Haul Iran before Security Council[/size]

The European Union has turned up the pressure on Iran with a draft resolution reporting Tehran's nuclear programme to the United Nations Security Council.

Russia and China have, however, said the UN nuclear watchdog can handle the issue.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator reacted angrily, warning that Tehran might pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and resume uranium enrichment if reported.

"If you use the language of force Iran will have no choice but to ... leave the framework of the NPT ... and to resume enrichment," Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told a news conference.

Although Iran resumed uranium processing at Isfahan last month, prompting the EU action, Tehran has yet to restart enrichment, the most sensitive part of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Larijani said the world's fourth biggest oil producer might link countries' access to its oil to whether they supported Iran.

The EU draft asks the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "to report to all members of the Agency and to the Security Council and General Assembly of the United Nations ... Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement".

Iran signed the NPT, the benchmark arms control treaty, in 1968.

[url=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F17EF0A1-5275-43A4-B42B-47223433E...