At least 120 persons have been hanged in public in Iran since March, according to the state-owned press.
These are the people with whom Kerry and Edwards wish to negotiate? Read it all.
UPDATE: Regarding the mullahs, two events described in this article are worth noting: 1. claims by Iran that they have successfully test-fired a “strategic missile” with a range of 1200 miles. 2. the sale of 5000 smart bombs and 500 one-ton bunker busters by the United States to Israel.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
This is tragic and dreadful indeed, but there is other disturbing news about that country.
According to this report in the Jerusalem Post, Iran has just delivered to its army a “strategic missile,” long-range, that it had successfully test-fired.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1096112630189
This takes place after stories of Israel’s purchase of “bunker busters.”
What is going on?
Roger ó Yeah, but they’re not nice white Democratic-voting New Yorkers, remember? So according to that nice Mr. Kerry, it’s not our concern.
Oh, by the way, have you seen his latest whopper? Now Kerry is claiming he was at the ceasefire signing of Gulf I ó and he’s got the lucky burnoose Lawrence of Arabia gave him to prove it.
Itís truly unfortunate that President Bush doesnít have a larger lead in the polls. The present deteriorating situation might be ignored until after the election. Does anyone doubt that the Mullahs are taking advantage of the possibility of a Kerry victory? And this is also true of our other enemies? A tight election race will result in much bloodshed.
These are the people with whom Kerry and Edwards wish to negotiate?
Negotiations seem like a good idea to me, compared to the ineffectual responses advocated by the self-proclaimed Iran hawks.
The latter boil down to stamping one’s feet and saying, “Bad Iran! Bad Iran!” while helplessly watching the mullahs continue developing nukes — kind of like Bush’s North Korea policy, come to think of it.
Negotiations, are of course,simply horse trading,what horse has Kerry got to trade,the same one he sold to the North Vietnamese? The Mullahs of Iran already know the Democrat’s negotiating position,withdrawal from Iraq.Anyone who gives away their hand to an opponent is,to quote Ernest Bevin, “going naked into the conference chamber”
“Iran’s negotiating position is that of would be regional superpower,Iranian troops would be advancing into Iraq as fast as Coalition troops withdrew.
Iranian control of the southern Iraq oilfields would make Iran a formidable powerbroker in the world.
I denounce this act, as well. However, in 2003:
So should we a) break off relations with China; b) break off relations with ourselves; c) other?
I’m not clear that publically executing people is morally worse than executing them in secret, which is what we do — secret in the sense that almost no one is allowed to see the gruesome experience, or obtain even pictures. Do you believe that it’s the public aspect that makes Iran so much more evil?
To be clear, I’m sure Iran is executing people entirely unjustly, as well as for offenses we would never dream of executing them for, as well as without procedural safeguards we at least theoretically believe in, if don’t actually enforce very well.
And I denounce Iran. I’m just not clear that they’re on an entire other moral level in this regard than us, given how many innocent people the U.S. provably convicts and sentences the death penalty.
I certainly don’t see any reason to condemn the Iranians for the simple fact that they execute their capital criminals through public hangings rather than lethal injections. If we switched to public hangings, I don’t think that would place us outside the civilized world.
No, we’ve got plenty of other things to condemn the Iranians for. Among them is the fact that, while our capital crimes are limited to murder, theirs include such things as adultery. The method of execution (unless it involves torture) is rather insignificant compared to that.
Swopa:
People like you amuse me. The reason NK has nuclear weapons is because the Clinton administration gave them a deal exactly like the one Kerry proposes to give Iran. There is a difference between Kerry [and you], and Clinton. All Bill wanted to do was kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with the problem. Kerry [and you] want Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons so they can restrain US imperialism. Kerry [and you] support communist thugs and Islamic terrorists. Kerry [and you] think the later is just the latest incarnation of the progressive socialist revolution. Kerry [and you] are fools. The solution for Iran is for the US government to support a real peoples revolution based on democratic government and market economics. South Korea is solving the problem for us. They have recently been showing NK that they too can build nuclear weapons of much higher quality and better missiles to deliver them. I am sure that when the time comes the Israelis destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. Of course, Kerry [and you] will then decry another Zionist war crime because they will have once again interferred with the course of progressive socialist history.
Ken:
There is a difference between giving a lethal injection to Tim McVeigh and hanging a 16 year old girl in public for the sin of having sex.
And considering the complete failure of both Carter and Clinton to deal with the mullahs I have no faith in Kerry’s ability to do so. He will just come up with some silly plan that the mullahs will ignore.
Jerry,
I’m impressed by your ability to live in a dream universe.
Since Bush took office in 2001, North Korea has kicked IAEA inspectors out of the country, removed 8,000 spent nuclear rods that had been under seal, and as far as anyone can tell has reprocessed them into plutonium for nuclear weapons — all while Bush stood helplessly by, saying “Bad North Korea! Bad North Korea!”
Only in the world of conservative talking points could this be Clinton’s fault. I suppose he caused the hurricanes in Florida this past month, too.
It’s going to be very interesting in the debates when Kerry points out that of the three nations in the “Axis of Evil,” we went after the one country that didn’t have an active nuclear program, tying down our army in ways that limited our ability to deal with the two nations that did.
No Swopa,that is exactly what you do,invade the country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons,a totally different approach is requred for nations that do.
If you look at the map carefully,preferably with North at the top,you will notice that next door to Iraq at number one is home of the Reverend Axis of Evil.Now you might be for charging up the beachhead,but isn’t it so much better to have a large army on dry land next door, a deep water port and airfields?
Can you prove that Clinton didn’t cause the hurricanes,he might say he didn’t but you know how he can parse words?
Swopa:
The North Koreans were renigging on that silly plan of Carter’s by 1998. Now if you think about it Clinton was still the President in 1998 and he did squat about it. By the time Bush came along he got stuck with that the same way he got stuck with Al
Qaida.
Now I realize that to good lefties the thing to do is talk and have meetings and make agreements that nobody pays nay attention to and just in general try to bs your way through this stuff but in reality it means you screw things up and blame the next guy.
Speaking of dream worlds….
… that is exactly what you do, invade the country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons, a totally different approach is requred for nations that do.
Well, that certainly explains why the mullahs looked at what we did to Iraq, and what we didn’t do with North Korea, and realized it would be to their advantage to develop nuclear weapons ASAP.
How wonderful of Bush to give them that incentive.
… isn’t it so much better to have a large army on dry land next door…
Well, it might be nice if we weren’t up to our eyeballs dealing with an insurgency that Iran has an extensive ability — and, as you note, every incentive — to support.
This just shows how utterly inept and naive the strategic thinking of Bush and the neocons was. What did they think, the mullahs would just sit patiently by until Iraq was stable and we could invade Iran? Why should anyone be surprised if they’re fighting us in Iraq so they don’t have to fight us at home?
Can you prove that Clinton didn’t cause the hurricanes,he might say he didn’t but you know how he can parse words?
Oh, I’d say the Bush folks are far superior at that. “We didn’t say the threat was ‘imminent,’ we said it was ‘grave and gathering,’” etc.
Swopa:
Talk is cheap. Can you think of one problem that Clinton or Carter or whatever progressive leader you can think of actually solved?
So far all I hear is bitch bitch bitch. But when it comes to solutions there is not a track record of success.
Clinton came into Office with the mullahs threatening to annihalate the Israelis first chance they got.
The US had to have a base in Saudi Arabia and spend billions to fly sorties [more than 350,000] over Iraq where Saddam was promising he would destroy America first chance he got. In 1993 there is the first attack on the WTC which can be tied to Saddam but what does Clinton do?
North Korea makes a joke out of the deal Carter worked out but what does Clinton do?
The Pals and Israelis are going at it and where is Clinton?
France? anyone?
Where are the successes?
Terrye,
Not surprisingly, you have an overly simplistic (and therefore erroneous) understanding of the North Korea situation.
The 1994 agreement put the clamps on the nuclear program NK had at that time. To get around it, a few years later they apparently started a separate program using a separate method of creating bombs.
Given enough time, perhaps they will develop nuclear weapons through that method someday. But in the meantime, the primary effect of Bush’s talk-tough-and-do-nothing policy has been to let North Korea reopen its old program and reprocess plutonium they can use to make bombs right now.
You better pray every night we don’t learn the hard way how important that difference is.
Speaking of which …
Where are the successes?
“The previous administration I give great credit to for freezing that plutonium site… Lots of nuclear weapons were not made because of the Agreed Framework and the work of President Clinton and his team.”
– Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of State, quoted in the Washington Post, January 9, 2003
What’s Swopa’s plan?
“Well, that certainly explains why the mullahs looked at what we did to Iraq, and what we didn’t do with North Korea, and realized it would be to their advantage to develop nuclear weapons ASAP.
How wonderful of Bush to give them that incentive”.
Swopa Iran has been seeking nuclear weapons for at least as long as Iraq and certainly before the war.
… isn’t it so much better to have a large army on dry land next door…
“Well, it might be nice if we weren’t up to our eyeballs dealing with an insurgency that Iran has an extensive ability — and, as you note, every incentive — to support.”
You are not up to your eyeballs against an insugency,the situation resembles Northern Ireland in many ways with the violence being localised in certain parts of the country.Note that Iran has been the enemy of the US since the fall of the Shah.
A lot of the so called “insurgency” is direct intervention by Iran and is largely based on territorial claims going back to before the Iran Iraq War.Iran wants to control the Southern Iraq oilfields to further its ambitions to be a regional superpower.This also is why they want nuclear weapons.There is probably sufficient evidence to declare Iranian intervention an act of war,the chosen course of action in this an election year would seem to be to encourage Iran’s internal opposition.No doubt elements of this are being armed and trained now.
“This just shows how utterly inept and naive the strategic thinking of Bush and the neocons was. What did they think, the mullahs would just sit patiently by until Iraq was stable and we could invade Iran? Why should anyone be surprised if they’re fighting us in Iraq so they don’t have to fight us at home?”
Naive? One way or another Irans nuclear capability will go,either the easy way or the hard way,the easy way will be to acquiesce to the demands to cease,the hard way is that Israel will decommission ther nuclear facility.It is a minute to midnight Swopa,I hope your nuance is Kevlar coated.
BTW Do gives us the benefit of your strategic thinking,if you were going to invade Iran where would you start from? After you had negotiated and been lead by the nose by a regime to whom you have nothing to give.
Swopa:
Don’t give me that oversimplistic crap. That is just swopatalk for I can’t answer your question so I will snow you with some crap about nuance.
Bottom line the North Koreans backed out on their deal and the Bush people did not chose to make the same mistake the Clinton people did.
Does not change the fact that if the Clinton administration had come up with a plan that worked we would not be talking about it today. Nor does it change the fact that other than making threats Kerry has not come up with anything remotely original.
Notice how this stuff is only complicated when a
Democrat screws up?
Swopa:
Although other have addressed your idiocy, I have a personal comment for you. NK never planned to abide by the agreement. They were going to develop nuclear weapons one way or another. They began cheating almost immediately, the Clinton administration knew all about it but chose to look the other way. It was hard problem that had no easy spinnable solution that could make Bill look like a hero. So he merely passed the problem off to his successor. By the way, he expected to be Gore. Only a fool would believe that NK kicked out the inspectors because GWB. Anybody who knows anything about Korea, which you obviously don’t, knows that Kim does what Kim wants to do. Nuclear blackmail is a game he plays when he wants attention. 9-11 stripped the attention from him and he wanted to get back on the radar screen.
If you knew anything you would know that the Mullahs are playing the same kabuki dance with the IAEA. Giving nuclear technology will not make them more peaceful. You know that and you support it, because in your fantasy world the only thing that stands between evil America and world war are your heros in Iran and NK.
Your plan is simply to repeat the mistakes the Clinton administration made in dealing with NK. Back then the appeasers argued that a war would cost a millions lives. Now as result of appeasement tens of millions of lives are at risk. Some people never learn the lessons of history. It?s pay me now, or pay me much more later. If foolish consistency is the mark of small minds your mind is tiny indeed.
Bottom line the North Koreans backed out on their deal and the Bush people did not chose to make the same mistake the Clinton people did.
No, Terrye, the bottom line is that North Korea has the opportunity right now to make actual nuclear bombs that they couldn’t make under Clinton’s policy.
The fact that you consider actual nuclear weapons to be less relevant than moral posturing just shows what a delusional universe you live in.
And Jerry apparently lives next door to you:
Giving nuclear technology will not make them more peaceful. You know that and you support it…
No, I don’t support it, which is why I’m here complaining about Bush’s do-nothing approach.
You see, in the real world, Bush has been president the past 3 1/2 years. And in those years, North Korea and Iran have aggressively expanded their nuclear development plans.
You’re not quite hard-headed enough to face those facts, so you make up airy hypotheses about “Well, the same thing would have happened under Gore.” But that’s just a guess on your part. We know for a fact that it did happen under Bush — and that your response has been to make excuses for his weakness and dithering:
Showing none of the alarm about North Korea’s growing arsenal that he once voiced about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that North Korea may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.
That’s not appeasement? I guess not — it’s more like surrender.
” North Korea has the opportunity right now to make actual nuclear bombs that they couldn’t make under Clinton’s policy.”
The word is ability not opportunity.Do you actually think that Clinton’s policy had one iota of influence on North Korean nuclear weapons development? Why was NK developing long range missiles, to celebrate Kim’a birthday? For a dirt poor nation long range missiles are a waste of resources unless they are used for nuclear,biological or chemical warheads,conventional warheads would just get you annihilated.
Swopa:
I surrender to you brilliance. I will come out of my dream world and sit at your feet an learn from you. In that spirit I make you the following offer. The next time I go to Korea to brief Generla LaPorte I want you to come with me so you he can be better informed on NK policy.