Condi: "What we need to do is, we need to get a change in Iranian behavior"

[sabra]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/09/24/rice-questions-ability-to-reach-ahmadinejad/

<snip>

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice played down any hopes of political accommodation with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying she doesn’t believe there is a way to “reach” the leader.

“I really don’t think there’s a way to reach Ahmadinejad,” Rice said today on CNBC. She reiterated the Bush administration’s desire that elements in Iran’s government will respond to U.S. efforts to change its policies. “Hopefully at some point there will be leaders in Iran who say we really shouldn’t be in a position of being this isolated and they will start to change their policy.”

Rice said while Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, is clearly the power in the country, “we have to treat the Iranian government as a whole. We can’t say well, perhaps Khamenei thinks something different or whatever. What we need to do is, we need to get a change in Iranian behavior. The regime needs to change its behavior.”

[goclark]

1. And she and her "date" need to change their behavior

:puke:

[Amonester]

6. But... but... but... They don't recall the results of the 2006 elections.

They don't recall them, so why would they change the course? :puke:

[babylonsister]

2. This doesn't bode well; wasn't she the voice countering Cheney's? nt

[BOSSHOG]

3. What a fucking ignorant c%^t

Why do we have a state department? An ignorant, incompetent buffoon running our foreign policy who has a fucking idiot for a boss.

[PDenton]

20. Condi is a moron

She's like a bubble-headed blond, only she isn't blond. Sure, she is "clean and articulate", but she is just a yes-woman for the neo-cons.

There are some smart neo-cons (though most are rather embarassed now days because their policies have failed to bring peace or stability to the Middle East). Condoleeza Rice is not one of them.

[madokie]

4. when you don't want to conda you won't

who pays her salary anyway surely not us people of America.

[Waya]

5. Broader Middle East: What we need to do is,

we need to get a change in US behavior.....

Next question.........

[blondeatlast]

8. Exactly. Please don't hold your breath though. nt

[shain from kane]

7. All that blather means one thing: she pleading for another regime change war. n/t

[Supersedeas]

16. After telling the IAEA to shove its facts -- now, no hope in diplomacy - pattern?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. "What we need to do, what we want is Iran to move to the other side of the

gulf, but leave their oil for us."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I think she's right.

There aren't many things I agree with Rice about, but that the Iranian government is an exceptionally bad one, and that a change in its behaviour would be a very good thing, is one of them.

The Iranian government *is* fairly obviously trying to aquire nuclear weapons. It doing so *will* be a very bad thing indeed, because it's significantly less unlikely than any of the current nuclear powers to use them.

Too many DUers are far too ready to forgive the Iranian government its sins just because Bush is hostile to it.

That does not justify starting a war with Iran, of course.

[Waya]

11. The Iranian government *is* fairly obviously trying to aquire nuclear weapons.

It doing so *will* be a very bad thing indeed, because it's significantly less unlikely than any of the current nuclear powers to use them.


So, far there is no proof that Iran is trying to aquire Nuclear Weapons - but, if they are, can we really blame them? I mean, we got them, China has them, India has them, Pakistan has them, Israel has them - so does Russia.....and who knows who else. Why are some allowed and others aren't?
After all, the United States is the only Nation which has ever used Nuclear Weapons on another Country - twice.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Yes, we can.

Any country having nuclear weapons is a bad thing.

Countries that do not have nuclear weapons aquiring them is an even worse thing than countries that currently have them maintaining them, because proliferation sets an even more dangerous precedent (but note the word "even").

Iran aquiring nuclear weapons is an especially bad thing, because it has an especially immoral, irrational and belligerent government which would have few if any qualms about using nuclear weapons on civilians, or - more likely, I fear - supplying them to proxies to do so.

[Waya]

17. Hmmmmmm.........

....because it has an especially immoral, irrational and belligerent government which would have few if any qualms about using nuclear weapons on civilians, or - more likely, I fear - supplying them to proxies to do so.....


Again, WE are the only ones who have ever used it.....and what you're describing above - is a perfect fit for, well, you know, at the moment - US.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Try and apply some perspective.

The US government is undeniably bad compared with the governments of most other Western nations, and with other past and (hopefully) future US governments, but compared with the governments of the rest of the world it's a model of probity and rectitude.

Iran, by consequence, is one of the worse functional governments (although by no means one of the worse governments if you admit in the rulers of totally failed states in Africa and Asia) out there.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

19. The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

That means that "the land of the free" locks up in cages a higher percentage of its citizens than does Iran, Pakistan, Syria or any other country on the fuckin' planet.

What was the definition of "police state" once again?

[Aristus]

14. Against civilians, don't forget.

n/t

[PDenton]

21. there is no proof

"Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons". Given the neo-cons propensity to lie, why should we believe this statement? Especially as faith in neo-cons in the past has brought disaster?

Iran may want to be a nuclear power, even an adversary with the US. That doesn't mean it is a pariah state or is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Even if they were pursuing nukes... can you blame them? What motivation has the US given Iran NOT to pursue nuclear weapons? Welcome them into the family of nations stepping out of the third world? No. The rabid Zionists in control of US foreign policy will never allow any challenge to Israeli hegemony in the region. THe Holocaust denial charge is just a red herring... what the Neo-Cons really don't like is challenging the fairy-tale of Zionism, that Israel is a righteous country built with only the best intentions.

[bdamomma]

13. oh condi, shut the fuck up, and stop kissing *ies a$$

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Uh-huh. That's all we wanted from Iraq. And, they sure gave it to us.

And, they still are.