France and Germany Still View Iran As A Threat

I was going to complement VoyagerFilms until he mentioned Lybia. Notice they haven't blown up any airliners or disco's since the U.S. bombed them IN RETALIATION for killing American servicemen and inoccent civilians. And don't give me any crap about this because the Lybian Intelligence goons have been convicted of these crimes and Lybia has basically admitted it did those crimes. They killed more people with terror than the US did in the bombing. That wasn't about OIL, it was about protecting my fellow soldiers and Americans and if my government didn't take on these challenges, I'd lead the second revolution to replace the government. One more point. Everybody goes to war over resources and as the world population exploads, war will be the norm, not the exception.

Vierotchka makes the most sense and has the funniest comments, but you all miss the point. This is not about George Bush, who by the way did what the American people demanded after 9/11. Everybody wanted some ass kicking done.
An Iranian nuclear weapon may not be able to be used on America unless it is secretly loaded on a ship bound for an American port. Iran may not have nuclear weapons yet, or they may already have a dirty bomb capability. Delivery would be the problem as miniturization of nukes is the technalogical challenge. A truck could be used for delivery and driven accross arab land to the boarder with Isreal and detonated and it not be clear who did it. We would probably know (U.S.) but because most of the world has their heads in ignorance, they would probably say we did it and that we were blaming Iran.
Tell me this; Do you want a radical unaccountable and brutal government to have these weapons? What do they need them for?
By the way, remember the Iranians seek to restore the persian empire because they want to spread their power to their neighbors and the only thing in their way is the United States. And don't tell me they haven't said this publicly, they have.
You should all be happy that a democracy is the most powerful and accountable country in the world. We are one of the few countries I would trust with this terrible weapon.
Now try looking logically, instead of "Bush hate mongering" and see what conclusions you reach.
Greed? How about the Russians and Chinese selling nuclear technology just for the money. Irrisponsible and none of you mention this.

I love Angela Merkel and what she has been trying to do for the world.
I speak fluent German and have spent a lot of time in Germany.

Do I need to make a bilingual "Leave Angela Alone" video?

Ah, no Gunnar.

You are quite dense, VoyagerFilms.

Okay, and by referring to my reply as a "bizarre retort," that I "seem to lack the capacity for... empathetic debate," "so clouded with hate"... "fear", "loathe," what does this have to do with what we're talking about? If I am in fact all the things you say, is the world better off now? Do you feel better now? Did the bad guys go away?

How about explaining to us how these characterizations are constructive, purposeful and relevant to this discussion and the issue at hand. I'm sure if you did, you'd gain credibility and win a lot of support for your enlightened position.

On the other hand, if your response is what it seems - an expression of the degree of your fear; loathing; irrationality; extremism; hate; empathy; thoughtfulness and capacities; I'd scarcely think you are winning over anyone, but it clearly illustrates what informs your position and arguments on the topic of this posting.

Was that clear enough? Or, should I say your perspective is tainted and obscured by your particular shade of sunglasses? Or, your perception is subjective? Or, you are projecting or externalizing (choose one) rather than seeing things for what they are?

When you resort to finger pointing and casting aspersions, it's an attempt to win by force, by coercion, by intimidation. It's a wife beater who has to get his way. It's a leader who uses force to get what he wants - regardless of the wishes and desires of his constituents.

I think you've said all that you need to. My response to which you went off on addressed a lack of rigorous intellectual scrutiny - or critical thinking in reaching the conclusions you did, based upon the evidence you provided. I'm sorry it offended you or that you felt belittled.

Actually my previous commentary wasn't addressed to you VoyagerFilms. And I'm not "spouting" anything.

But in reading your rather bizarre retort, you seem to lack the capacity for thoughtful empathetic debate. Not everything the Bush Administration does is evil. And the same is true for the Iranian gov't.

But your opinions of Bush - and possibly these United States - seem so clouded with hate as to no longer be rational. One might conclude that you are as extreme and as irrational as the war mongering neocons you loathe and fear.

GunnarHeinrich, the above example you give are far from evidence of what you assert. It does not automatically follow that since the US allowed former President Mohammad Khatami to enter the US that Bush seeks a peaceful resolution.

There are actually thousands of possible reasons why Bush could have let him come, including nefarious and even evil reasons. There is nothing inherent in the fact he was allowed to enter that suggests it was benevolence. I would argue it was nefarious.

Moammar Qadhafi? Wow. That's going way back. Sorry, no credit to Bush - and had Lybia huge oil reserves, you can be sure that wouldn't be the case.

Sorry, I don't buy any propaganda offered up by either the Bush administration nor Faux News, and especially anything to do with Rupert Murduck.

And your last point, I am anything but black and white on any issue in this world.

You're appear to be spitting out argumentative phrases because they sound good to you rather than for their relevance to what's been said here.

Furthermore, you can not underestimate the US's manipulation of various countries in the middle east for more years than you've been alive. We've wronged Iraq and Iran, at various times providing one weapons and money to destroy the other, then switching sides and back again. The result? Destabilization of those countries, economies, death and suffering, stifled development and devastating effects on the psyche of the people.

The Iranians have a reason to hate us - that is our fault, not because they read the Koran - but for what we've done to them. Remember, there were more Saudis hijacker at work on 9/11 than from anything other country.

Vierotchka >

The world is not as black and white as you seem to describe it.

There's no denying that Iran (or the country former known as Persia) has had it bad with colonial powers for a long, long time. The U.S. government hasn't had a clean record and neither has the Iranian government.

If the Bush Administration were so evil, so opposed to peaceful resolution, why did they grant a Visa to former President Mohammad Khatami when he requested entry to the U.S. to speak in Washington about US-Iranian relations last year?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200608/ai_n16925185

And did the Bush Administration not reach a peaceful settlement with Moammar Qadhafi's Libya to normalize relations after decades of animosity?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/15/libya/

And has not the Bush Administration's Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill made such progress with talking the North Koreans into deactivating their nuclear program?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21994699/

The world - and indeed the Bush Administration who you so clearly revile - is not so black and white; good and evil as you make it out to be.

Yes, GunnarHeinrich, but Germany, France and Britain were under different leadership, and the diplomatic dialog they had with Iran was continuously being sabotaged by Bush. Iran's president is not the leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad's position as a president is largely a symbolic one. And again, Iran is not a danger to anyone. Iran does not support terrorists - it supports Shia liberation movements, yes. The USA also supports and finances terrorists against Iran. The USA and Britain have been meddling with Iran for decades, getting rid of a democratically elected and popular leader, Mossadegh, who had the audacity to nationalize Iran's oil, and they put a puppet dictator in his place, the son of a cossak adventurer who had placed himself as the king of Iran. I'm talking about the Shah of Iran who had as much royal blood in his veins as does a worm.

You do back the dark side, GunnarHeinrich, if you back the enemies of Iran who have for decades exploited (i.e. stolen) its natural resources or fought those Iranian leaders who took back control of said resources. Furthermore, Bush never had any foreign policy capital whatsoever to begin with, he has from the gitgo been universally reviled.

But VoyagerFilms - they France, Germany, Britain have together had years of (American supported) diplomatic dialog with Iran with no success.

Iran is still supporting terrorists in Iraq and their jackass president is still spouting hateful rhetoric towards Israel and the West.

Regrettably, President Bush burned all his foreign policy capital by insisting that Iraq was a threat. Now, few can believe his administration when it points to actual dangers.

That does not necessarily follow - GunnarHeinrich.

The two leaders above made a comment - that wasn't anywhere near the level of provocation of Bushenney's in the recent past.

I am disappointed that these leaders feel the need to speak publicly about such things rather than just have dialog with Iran. It's akin to a celebrity couple airing all their dirty laundry to the public in hopes of gaining some support for their position. It's not very intelligent, and it conveys an intellectual and psychological weakness on the part of the leader.

This is very common today, and perhaps it says something about the quality of the leaders we have. I want to be informed, and I want my elected representatives to represent me. This soap box that Bushenney & company uses is an attempt to sway, even manipulate the people to go along with what they don't want - because their position is weak.

sensibility

noun

1. The capacity for or an act of responding to a stimulus: feeling, sensation, sense, sensitiveness, sensitivity, sentiment. See awareness/unawareness.

2. The quality or condition of being emotionally and intuitively sensitive: feeling, sensitiveness, sensitivity. See awareness/unawareness.

And what makes you the disapproving rottweiler?

By Sarkozy and Merkel not sending troops to Iraq, they've sent a clear message on how far they're willing to support the Bush Administration's policies. And that means, they won't follow Bush off a bridge.

But that they're willing to see a danger in Iran - which is real - shows a real sensibility on their part.

vierotchka, I like your doggie analogies.

So? They may not have pledged troops for Iraq, but that doesn't make them any the less Bush's lackeys. And I think you meant "nein" instead of "nien". :)

Have Sarkozy or Merkel pledged troops for Iraq? Non. Nein.