The Iranians will do their best to come up with an agreement that lets them develop or buy nuclear weapons, while lulling the west.

Even with a good agreement, there’s the possibility of development that we don’t detect. If they are willing to spend the money, they could build centrifuge alls under cities. They may have already done that. Note that North Korea developed uranium enrichment facilities that we never spotted and still don’t know the locations.

Also, Iran has the Bushehr reactor just about ready to be fueld. It can produce huge amounts of plutonium, which can be processed much more easily.

Since a terrorist with a nuke is probably at the top of US national security threats, and Al Qaeda just got religious sanction for using nukes against us, this is extremely serious.

There are some good reason to overthrow the iranian regime – freeing the people, ending all kinds of terrorist threats, ending the Iranian meddling in Iraq, and taking out their nuclear capabilities.

I think we should do it.

Iran planned to assassinate Bremer

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/041122/usnews/22iran.htm

Actually, one of the unspoken (and, if we’re to count on the MSM, never to be spoken about) advantages of Bush’s reelection is that it will actually help reduce the chances of potential conflict around the world. Kerry’s election would have been seen as a green light for Iranians, North Koreans, Iraqi terrorists, Old Europeans, Palestinians, Saudis, Syrians etc. to try out their old tricks again. Maybe Kerry would in the end be as tough as Bush or tougher (though I wouldn’t bet on this), but he would have to prove clearly and openly that he meant business.

This is one of the primary reasons I voted for Bush. He and his administration understand the importance of the American posture towards potential enemies.

Do you want those potential enemies making choices about ChemBioNukesSuppoortforTerror in a context in which America will suborn its response to world opinion? Or would you rather they make their choices knowing full well that there will be (almost literal) hell to pay for not keeping a clean nose.

Our posture can’t be soft and talky. It isn’t enough to carry a big stick – people have to believe that you are willing to use it.

Do I trust the mullahs? No, not as far as a donkey can fly, but I think they’re rational. If they’re sure they can get away with it, they’ll go forward with their plans.

But with Bush as president, they’ll have to be damn sure.

Briefly.

The mullahs agree to a “suspension”. The EU promises to assist, at an unspecified later date, in the development of a nuclear energy program for a nation that will be selling oil (and even more natural gas) when our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren are retiring.

No access. No inspections. No inventories. No mention of being out of compliance with non-proliferation agreements for over a decade. No mention of that sticky terror-master state-entity thing that is the regime controlling Iran.

Chamberlin got his ‘peace in our time’, too, didn’t he? This setup has more holes than Rathergate, and would be MORE credible if the letter had been faxed from a Kinko’s.

Axis of Evil. One down, two to go.

Khadafi may have been more impressed by what happened to Uday abd Qusay than what happened to Saddam. Just as the moolahmullahs will be paying closer attention to what happens next rather than to the reduction of Falluja itself. If we don’t maintain tempo and continue this for the next eight weeks, constantly chasing and killing the terrorists then Iran will relax a bit. I read today that Ramadi has been cordoned, don’t know if it’s loose or tight but if it’s loose then it better get tight tomorrow. I hope that the Pesh Merga are turned loose in Mosul in short order. I also wouldn’t mind it a bit if they were promised Tikrit as soon as they finished in Mosul. The al-Tikriti clan needs to be annihilated. You won’t see peace in Iraq until that happens.

Both Iran and Syria need to be served notice that the coalition is going to pursue a policy of “hot pursuit” and if the terrorists run to Teheran or Damascus, well, US forces will be there shortly. No promises to rebuild, no offers of assistance, just “Cough ‘em up, or we’ll come and get ‘em”.

Actually, one of the unspoken (and, if we’re to count on the MSM, never to be spoken about) advantages of Bush’s reelection is that it will actually help reduce the chances of potential conflict around the world. Kerry’s election would have been seen as a green light for Iranians, North Koreans, Iraqi terrorists, Old Europeans, Palestinians, Saudis, Syrians etc. to try out their old tricks again. Maybe Kerry would in the end be as tough as Bush or tougher (though I wouldn’t bet on this), but he would have to prove clearly and openly that he meant business.

If the Iranian leaders have a single rational cell left in their collectively derranged brains they should know that the greatest risk or danger for their hold on power is exactly a nuclear program. While they don’t have nukes, they have only their people to fear. Once they get them, they become America’s and Israel’s target number one.

Throughout the years they’ve shown a strange blend of fanaticism and pragmatism. It’s up to the CIA (after the coming purges) and the Mossad to evaluate which trend is predominant there right now and to act accordingly.

We have no reason to believe that the EU has actually gotten such an agreement. All we have so far is a “more or less” agreement of no details. A “suspension” while “negotiations” continue. In short, nothing.

Now the real divide is between the faux multilateralists like Carter and Clinton who would be thrilled at a vapid, substanceless “agreement” and the harder-edged policymakers of the current administration.

It depends on what you’re defining here and what the agreements are and who they’re with.

“Liberal” and “conservative” are not “parties”, they are belief systems. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. So which are you talking about?

And what kind of “agreement” are you talking about? An agreement about trade? Or an agreement based on pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo (like Kyoto)?

And do both sides of a given agreement still exist? I remember the hoo-raw about certain nuclear treaties with the old Soviet Union after they went under. Why should anyone be bound by treaties when only one of the sides that signed still exist? If the treaties in question were general, signed by numberous countries, I could see the point, but when the US and USSR were the only signatories? Please…

Conservatives, in general, are about practical results.