Rice talks language of diplomacy about Iran: Alarming echoes of Iraq

[bigtree]

Rice talks language of diplomacy - but it has alarming echoes
By Julian Coman, Colin Brown and Rupert Cornwell
05 February 2005


On Iraq- 'We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think one is possible' - 20 October 2002

On Iran- 'The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time. We have diplomatic means to do this' - Yesterday

She refused to utter the words "regime change". She declined to be drawn on future military adventures. But what Condoleezza Rice, the new US Secretary of State, did say yesterday in London was that Iranian "behaviour, internally and externally, is out of step with the direction and desires of the international community".

Asked directly whether the US planned an attack on Iran, Ms Rice said: "The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time. We have diplomatic missions to do this." It was an answer that had a familiar ring.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=607948

[Inland]

1. So Iran hears Rice and realizes no amount of diplomacy will keep US out

.
By making the exact same statements that the US made several months after determining it would attack Iraq, all she is doing is making Iran realize that nothing it can do diplomatically or by concessions is going to keep the US from attacking.

The only rational thing for Iran to do is engage in bad faith diplomacy while building up its conventional and nuclear deterrents.

Rice isn't stupid, but she must think everyone else is. Somebody tell her that Iran and Europe aren't the republican congressional caucus.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. Iran, NK, Pakistan, India, etc are NOT going to give up their nukes

.
.
.

They saw what the US will do to a country that doesn't have any.

You can bet the black market is scrambling to supply OTHER countries that watched the US destroy a country that would not bow to their wishes with nukes and WMD's.

The previously diminished proliferation of WMD's in ALL forms is in full swing as those that feel the bead of the US's War Machine eyeing them for one reason or another.

And the US's attack on Iraq is the "justification".

Way to go GeeDub,

AND the voters who put him in the "driver's seat" for another 4 years

(sigh)

[Inland]

6. Exactly. US attacked Iraq because it was weak, not because it dangerous

Look at the axis of evil. North Korea, actively making nukes and selling missile technology, occasionally threatening Seoul and Washington DC with incineration--ignored.

Iraq, gives up all its WMD, denies any hostile intentions--invaded.

Lesson: The US attacks countries that are weak and kowtows to countries that are strong. Nothing else matters. There is no sense cooperating in not making WMD because the Bushies are going to accuse you of having it anyway. There is no sense allowing some democracy because the Bushies will still lie about it. There is no sense trying diplomacy because the Bushies don't want concessions any more than they want peace.

The only rational response is to build nukes.

[mopaul]

2. ..."at THIS point in time.........

in other words, at a very near point in time, we invade and conquer.

it's not hard to see through the nazi's bullshit

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. "not on the agenda at this point in time"

.
.
.

"AT THIS POINT IN TIME"

I noticed that when I read a similar article yesterday

The attack plan is already on paper, and most likely part of the reason to be in, and remain in Iraq anyways.

Bet you that the subs in and around the Gulf are armed with nuclear - or so I have believed since shortly after the first missiles hit Baghdad from the Mediterranean

I also believe that on top of the oil issue, all the so called "shock and awe" and millions of tons of munitions fired from such distances was "target practice" for the US's GPS guided weapons, and unfortunately succeeded to hit most of their targets with devastating accuracy.

China and Russia are watching closely . . .

bet ur bippie on THAT GeeDub!

[supernova]

5. why qualify it?

if you're not going to attack? If you're not going to attack, you don't have to qualify it with "this point in time..."

Geez, CONdi. She obviously thinks we're that stupid.

[ConcernedCanuk]

7. "She obviously thinks we're that stupid" . . hmmm, . . WELL, .. .

.
.
.
Murikan voters DID put Junior in the driver's seat for the next 4 years

:shrug: