[mike777]

pbleighton, on Apr 2 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

"Is the EU doing anything to help out the British in this standoff with Iran? Are they saying anything? What are the British saying or asking of the EU?"

The EU is not a military body. NATO would be the applicable entity.

"Does the majority of the EU ultimately blame the USA and its policies and actions?"

Perhaps not solely, but it's obvious that if Bush hadn't started this lunacy (and if Blair hadn't gone along for the ride), which most Western European nations disagreed with, this incident wouldn't have happened.

Peter

EU is very applicable, they may call for trade sanctions or do nothing.

[pbleighton]

"EU is very applicable, they may call for trade sanctions or do nothing."

Given the U.N.'s lead on sanctions, not very applicable.

Peter

[luke warm]

mike777, on Apr 2 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

Is the EU doing anything to help out the British in this standoff with Iran? Are they saying anything? What are the British saying or asking of the EU?

Does the majority of the EU ultimately blame the USA and its policies and actions?

i think the EU is pissed about the pound and the euro... they don't seem very... well, unified

[Gerben42]

Quote

Chuck Hagel has mentioned impeachment if Bush attacks Iran without Congress approval - like that will ever happen.

At what point did we become a nation with only one political party?

December 2000, when G.W.Bush bought his way into the presidency.

BTW, why should the EU help Britain with this mess they got themselves into? First of all it's NATO business, second what where they doing that close to Iran in the first place? Let's assume that they were really in international waters and didn't mess up, then I don't think they were kidnapped by direct order from the government, instead by some subgroup who want escalation.

If we ignore Iran, Ahmadinejad will run out of steam because he will notice that no one listens to him. He feeds on his diplomatic game with Bush.

And trade sanctions is about the second worst plan (the #1 worst plan is military action) since any government who applies these sanctions is in my opinion actively hurting the people of Iran.

[mike777]

Thanks Gerben for your viewpoint. I was hoping to get some responses, more I hope, from EU members. Was interested in hearing what you guys and gals think.

[Al_U_Card]

Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did they start a war over Jenkin's ear? Just who was Gavrilo Princips? Its all about provocation and prevarication.

Times change, people don't.

[pbleighton]

"If we ignore Iran, Ahmadinejad will run out of steam because he will notice that no one listens to him. He feeds on his diplomatic game with Bush."

I firmly believe that Cuba would be (at least partially) reformed if the U.S. government had stopped treating Castro as the next whatever.

A foreign threat is a huge boon to any dictator.

Peter

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Apr 3 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

"If we ignore Iran, Ahmadinejad will run out of steam because he will notice that no one listens to him. He feeds on his diplomatic game with Bush."

I firmly believe that Cuba would be (at least partially) reformed if the U.S. government had stopped treating Castro as the next whatever.

A foreign threat is a huge boon to any dictator.

Peter

And from what I have read he is having conflicts within Iran with Khameni (spelling?), who is the real boss, the Supreme Leader. There has been a distinct change of directions the past couple of days and an easing of tensions - mostly because the Brittish didn't try to sound like John Wayne like some in this country are want to do.

[pbleighton]

So Iran is pardoning and releasing the Brits.

Any winner here?

It looks like a lot of smoke to me, but don't drink the bong water, Mike

Peter

[Gerben42]

The winners are the 15 soldiers and of course their family.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Apr 5 2007, 12:59 AM, said:

The winners are the 15 soldiers and of course their family.

I'm going to reserve my comments for a couple more days. (I'm still worried that the US's "Naval Exercises" are a cover for a bombing campaign)

BTW, there are some interest rumors that the US will "coincidentially" release the Iranian diplomats that we seized in Erbil

[Winstonm]

Quote

hrothgar I'm going to reserve my comments for a couple more days.  (I'm still worried that the US's "Naval Exercises" are a cover for a bombing campaign)

There is also this tidbit - Good Friday, when the stock market it closed..hmmm. And it would be nice to have the 15 Brits out of harm's way first.

Quote

'US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday'

JERUSALEM POST STAFF AND AP
Sunday April 1, 2007

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf

[mike777]

Of course the USA has plans to bomb Iran, we have plans to bomb london, that is what the Pentagon does, it makes plans.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 5 2007, 02:00 AM, said:

Of course the USA has plans to bomb Iran, we have plans to bomb london, that is what the Pentagon does, it makes plans.

The issue is whether or not the US has "plans" to bomb Iran. I think that is prudent to develop such plans.

Acting on them is another story.

[mike777]

Yes, and it is surprising how little debate or outcry there is from Congress on that question of action.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 5 2007, 02:12 AM, said:

Yes, and it is surprising how little debate or outcry there is from Congress on that question of action.

As I mentioned the last time you made this same claim, there was extensive debate within in the Democratic party on this topic.

When the Democrats originally submitted the supplmental spending authorization for Iraq it contained language that explictly required President to Bush to ask for Congressional approval before instituting any military attacks on Iran. This ammendment was subsequently withdrawn after heavy lobbying during the AIPAC conference in DC.

There was quite a lot of debate about this. I think that a lot of folks believe - or at least hope - that Bush isn't stupid enough to double down on Iran.

[mike777]

Yep I call this little debate and discussion, but I understand some may disagree with that characterzation. I hope for much much more discussion and debate on this issue.

[pbleighton]

"Yes, and it is surprising how little debate or outcry there is from Congress on that question of action."

Well, there's debate and outcry about Iraq now. And of course Bush is squealing like a pig.

Four years too late to stop his vile, self-destructive butchery, but better late than never.

Peter

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 4 2007, 06:26 PM, said:

Yep I call this little debate and discussion, but I understand some may disagree with that characterzation. I hope for much much more discussion and debate on this issue.

Mike, I'm not sure how much "debate" there can be about Iran - it seems more of a judgement call, and the people in high places, i.e., the CIA and Pentagon would hopefully have more informed knowledge upon which to make that judgement.

I may be like many in the U.S. - I do not know who I can trust to make these judgments (certainly not Bush or Cheney).

I can only voice my own personal opion: I think Iran, due to their having signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, have a perfect right to nuclear reactors. Other countries did not sign the agreement (Israel and Pakistan, I believe), yet no one interfered in their pursuits.

[mike777]

I know we hashed this before, but I am a bit taken back by how many, esp Democrats seem to say that Iran getting the bomb would cross the line. I guess one fear is that non Shia countries would want the bomb then and start an arms race.