Read Andy McCarthy: So now comes James Baker’s Iraq Study Group, riding in on its bipartisan white horse to save the day. The democracy project having failed, this blue-ribbon panel’s solution is: Let’s talk. Let’s talk with our enemies, Iran…..

Iran is actually more at ease and comforted by the fact that the US Armed Forces and allies sit in countries bordering both sides of them now. Back in the days when the Taliban and Mr. Hussein and his nice boys were the neighbors, now there were the times when they spent every day quaking in their boots. The three would have always chosen leaving us mean-spirited Americans alone rather than covertly aligning against the Great Satin. We’ve probably made Iran more dangerous by ousting their enemy!

And there were no terrorists in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan before we went there and started the problem, either… right?

It would make sense like having three types of cancer in the body and leaving them all there. The three will not kill off eachother, just keep eachother “in check”, not spread nor attack other parts of the body.

Honora, how do you rationalize this? Seriously? Do you truly believe that Iraq and Iran hate eachother more than they do us? I can’t help it, I just have to take your bait…

Also, with reference to one of the above posts, Israel doesn’t have the technology to take out the sort of bunkers the Iranians supposedly have.

OK, the feminine side of our collective conscious should now be clear! We tried. Unleash the Dogs of War so we can put them back in their cage and get on with the work of evolving civilization!

The majority of the Iranian civilian population hates the leadership, but after approaching 30 years of totalitarian rule, they are oppressed into submission. A widespread, protracted sequence of bomb drops could cripple their nuclear advances and return the mullahs to dust form in hours. That would change the face of the future within Iran.

Direct talks are just more diplomatic fodder. We will surely now be roundly criticized by the lefties for not including the “global community”. The Rice/Bush offer once again reveals our weakness in dealing with these lunatics.

If you must continue with diplomacy (that will never go anywhere with these insane leaders) at least stick to your original insistence that it be a unified effort. It won’t do crappola… just ‘buy’ (waste?) more time. Time we may not have. But constantly changing your position to one you earlier said was off the table simply proves that anything might be on the table. Lovely.

Plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities are still active and ready to go.

Let’s look at the big picture:

The Europeans, America and Israel will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

That is a standard policy that will never change. That is the goal.

Course of action to implement that goal:

1 – Exhaust peaceful negociations. If they fail, go to step two.

2 – Give a warning. Dismantle or else. If the warning fails, go to step three.

3 – Attack. A swift, rapid, precise bombing of suspicious nuclear facilities.

4 – Before, during and after the attack: Protecting the oil fields in the Arabian Gulf, positioning Patriot and other interceptors.

5 – Regime change in Iran is out of the question, because invasion is out of the question. Regime change must come from the inside.

The attack will be modeled on the one made by the Israelis years ago when they attacked Iraq’s nuclear plant. No invasion, no collateral damage if possible.

They already have big underground facilities, I wonder if bunker busters could even get to where the goods would be?

Time is not on our side.

Enrichment of U235 is not for bomb making. It takes a very big centrifuge plant a long time to produce weapon grade U235. Iranian needs the U235, usually at 3% enrichment only, for their power plants to convert U238 into Pu239.

they could be building power plants under ground.

They could obtain sufficient Pu239 within a year or two and use Pu239 to make bombs.

I think time is not on our side.

I hope Bush knows what he is doing.

Easy87us

Sorry about being off-topic.

Bush did the right thing with Iraq, but he has been acting like a Democrat ever since.

Ummmm… so, like, are we EVER going to bring back the whole TREASON thing???

Part of me thinks the spineless Ninnies running Europe need a good hard wake-up call more than we need to whoop Iran’s ass. Plus those Iranian Missles will be in range of the EU, not the US.

Hehe… stupid Europeans.

The AP is reporting:In a major policy shift, the United States said Wednesday it will join other nations in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program if Tehran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West…

The United States has had no official direct talks with the Iranians since the two countries cut diplomatic ties following the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by radicals in 1979. Fox News AP-Breitbart reports: U.S. Says It’s Prepared t ……

Click to Download (.wmv) In a press conference this morning, Secretary of State Condi Rice said the U.S. would be willing to enter into direct talks with Iran if it suspends its enrichment of uranium. I’m in total agreement……

Obviously conditions are appropriate, although it seems rather irrelevant as they have absolutely no intention of stopping the uranium enrichment. I guess some sort of communication is necessary, if for no other reason but to show that at least we are …

This also reminds me of a point DenBeste made a while ago about the six-party talks with N. Korean, and how we had refused direct bilateral talks. He made a comparison to the endless disagreements during the Korean War (if I remember correctly) about the SHAPE of the negotiating table (round vs rectangular vs hexagon). Of course, the table shape was simply a sign for who was more desparate for negotiations. Whoever gave in on the table shape was signaling their greater desire for negotiations, which put them at a weaker position from the beginning. This stuff with bilateral Iran and N. Korean talks is exactly the same, in which we are signaling how desparate we are for a deal. Which of course means we will never get a deal to our liking.