http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6649053.stm
"US Vice-President Dick Cheney has issued a warning to Iran from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf."
See. Now, I'm not saying that I'm a highranking official in some foreign office, but this probably isn't the best location to do your diplomatic press releases from...
"He said Washington and its allies would keep Tehran both from restricting sea traffic and developing nuclear arms."
Amusingly enough this is what social workers call "Bad news message." When giving a message of bad news to someone (like they're being detained, or removed, or someone's died), you start with the bad news and then you start the damage control.
I quite like the directness of this message.
However...a bad news message can't be used to threaten in advance. That actually has the reverse effect on what you're trying to achieve...
"He added that the presence of the American navy in the region sent a clear message to Iran.
"We'll keep the sea lanes open," Mr Cheney said.
"We'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region." "
Yeah... this is really going to make them open up and become prone to accepting your message. It's sort of like smacking someone on the face and saying: "Lick my boots." and then expect them to not-overcharge your car repairs...
Mr Cheney told the aircraft carrier's sailors and marines: "It's not easy to serve in this part of the world. It's a place of tension and many conflicts."
Oh the irony. He should have started this part of the message with the bad news: "Hey boys...we've created a bit of a situation in this region..."
Originally posted by lepomisWell, obviously I disagree with you there. I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons as their sole purpose is to kill civilians.
Who are we to say who can and who can not have nuclear weapons? Iran is its own country and if they have the means they should be allowed to have them.
But, this thread is about how succesful US diplomacy is going to be, considering their current course. What do you think?
Originally posted by shavixmirI hope it is not successful... let the UN do it... no matter what happen it will be a black mark against the US... its getting old... I say let them have the weapons.
Well, obviously I disagree with you there. I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons as their sole purpose is to kill civilians.
But, this thread is about how succesful US diplomacy is going to be, considering their current course. What do you think?
Originally posted by shavixmirShav, while I agree that bluster is almost always bad, (the sole exception being the Nork bluster against the U.S.- that seems to work just fine for some reason) the other side of this coin is that the troops like to here that we have confidence in them. A badly needed message now that Washington is telling them that we don't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6649053.stm
"US Vice-President Dick Cheney has issued a warning to Iran from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf."
See. Now, I'm not saying that I'm a highranking official in some foreign office, but this probably isn't the best location to do your diplomatic press releases from...
[i]"He said Washington a ...[text shortened]... Hey boys...we've created a bit of a situation in this region..."
Also, that message isn't bluster. He's making sure that Iran and the rest of the world know ahead of time that's its the truth.
Iran backs Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has killed many Americans. For example, the FBI has Iran cold on Khobar Towers. (That's a quote from then FBI director Louis Freeh)
For such a prolific backer of terrorism to acquire a nuclear weapon would be the pinnacle problem for America. While I disagree with Bush on a number of things, including parts of the WoT, I agree with him on this. Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon is best dealt with before the fact. Call it preemption or stupid or whatever you will, but America cannot allow a rogue terror state to obtain this threat.
Actually Cheney was in the area because he had to talk the bone headed Iraqi parliament out of going on vacation. Messages from a warship off of the coast is the same as standing there with your middle finger up and showing them that they can't do anything about it. This message unfortunately is necessary in this case. The real meaning of the speech is "Hey Iran, don't think because the democrat party in the US is waving the white flag that we are going anywhere. The democrats do not dictate foreign policy but they are sending a message of weakness to the region and the message has to be countered.
Originally posted by shavixmirAre you still whining about the School of the Americas?
http://www.soaw.org/
They taught Guerilla tactics to some South American allies of questionable motive decades ago. The School of the Americas is a different schoold today.
Regardless, the School of the Americas has nothing to do with case against Iran.
Shav, you're trying a moral equivalency arguement. I think you know how I feel about that. Moral equivalency doesn't mean a nation shouldn't defend itself.