there might be an agreement. this sure seems to have defused the situation in regard to iran. i hope it all works out. it seems that obama was right. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8318258.stm
The Iranis are fooling the world again. The Iranis will get their bomb. The Nobel committee made sure that it will happen.
the plot gets thicker. i agree with you about the point that it is very hard to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon if they want to have it. the approach should be trying to stop the from wanting to have it. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122798.html
Amazing. We will never know what has been discussed in this meeting. Wouldn't I like to know.... Certainly it was not about a "nuclear-free" zone...
iranians(under khomaini) have cooperated with israel. iran and israel have a lot of mutual interest and as i have said before they are not crazy. if you want to see how they think just look at mofaz[i think he is of iranian family] and your xpresident.
what makes you say that? how did that "cooperation" express itself? Of course that they are not crazy. They are just kidding when they yell in the squares and on TV: "death to America". Its all just for fun ...
they provided israel with aerial photography of iraqi nuclear reactor. also it was the israelis that facilitated iran contra affair. i remember that i read somewhere that when their relationship started to go bad, it was natanyahu that wanted israel to keep a low profile with them while peres was going around and heating up the rhetoric. as far as the death to America, it is calculated, as i said look at how mofaz does things
Never have I heared of such stories. And I thought that I know whats going on. Do you have links from serious websites/sources (not just "somewhere" ) that corroborate these fairy tales? Mofaz is the Israeli politician I hate the most. Nothing he says/does represents Israel. He is just a small stinky fish. a C or even F-class politician. I wouldn't base my world-politics opinions on Mofaz if I were you....
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2006/October/Biblical/index.html read the iran contra affair section. i knew i had bookmarked this. oh welcome to my world. mofaz has iranian mentality. study him if you want to understand iranians.
LOL... I see....u're talking about almost 30 years ago..... I somehow read "khatami" instead of "khomaini". Buying weapons is not exactly "cooperation", you know. but anyway. Yea we sold arms to Iran, we are small and we need money money money to survive. At that time Iran did not declare war on us like it did after Achmedinejad was elected. Mofaz has "Iranian mentality"? He immigrated when he was 9. You are the founder of a new pacifist movement of racists? interesting. Are you even listening to yourself? I should "Study Him"? I hate him. For every detail you know about him, I know 100. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1122911.html looks like your joyfulness did not last for 24 hours. An exact translation of the 2nd paragraph: "Vice chairmain of the Iranian Parliament, Muhamed Raza Bahuner, was quoted today by the Iranian news agency, thus giving the first official Iranian response, although his position does not represent the position of the government. He said that enriching of Iranian Uranium outside of Iran is something that Iran can not accept and does not correspond with its interests" To remind you, in the original post of yours from yesterday, we also had this: Learn how to read between the lines. The Iranians are after the bomb and only military action / real effective sanctions / a revolution of the "green" forces can stop them. So, no thanks, I would like to stay out of your world and remain in the real world.
Well.. most obviously, I was right. Iran will never give up on the bomb. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/world/middleeast/30nuke.html?_r=2&ref=global-home But the Israel-Irani meeting sounds too perculiar to me to have really happened. The only reason why I don't dismiss the report you posted is: weird stuff.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124778.html i am not responsible for what iranians do. i hope you realize that, i was saying that this is a good plan if it works and it seems natanyahu agrees with me on that.
All tom dick and harry can have nuclear weapons but not a muslim country ? Ur location say israel and this is the best reply anyone can expect from u.
Superpower status The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status. "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power." This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release. "Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies." U.S. primacy The doctrine establishes the U.S’s leadership role within the new world order. "The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release. "One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result." Unilateralism The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions. "Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor." This was re-written with a change in emphasis in the April 16 release. "Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others." Pre-emptive intervention The doctrine stated the U.S’s right to intervene when and where it believed necessary. While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. This was softened slightly in the April 16 release. "While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests." Russian threat The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia. "We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States." This was removed from the April 16 release in favour of a more diplomatic approach. "The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union." Oil The doctrine clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia. "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." The April 16 release was much more circumspect and reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel. "In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
Yes it does - it tells us that chaos wants to live and doesn't want anyone who is hellbent on destroying him because of his location and relation, to kill him.