My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Families, sexual equality and liberal values | Main | Brazilian baby in the bag: How did they get that video? »

January 31, 2006

Comments

Kevin

She can only make statements that make America look like the bad guy. It's part of the documents you have to sign to win the nobel prize.

It's a happy thought to think that the Iranian youth could rise up and break free of the mullah shackles on their own. But that's all it is - wishful thinking. If I was in charge, I would not be comfortable risking all of the lives in Israel on it.

The Iranian kids chance to create a democratic state has passed, and now cannot succeed in time to avert disaster. Many people compare where we are now to 1933 Germany, when WWII could have been averted. I think we are closer to 1938 Germany. We can still minimize loss of life, but not with talk.

George

I agree with Kevin. It's all easier said than done -- with the likely false assumption that it can be done.

How do you negotiate with a country that doesn't abide by the treaties it already signed? Unfortunately, it is too late for the Iranian citizenry. Protecting the world is more important than protecting them. They will learn that life and death choices are made by their government and, unless they do something about it, they are forced to live (or die) with the results.

In Iraq, the world has seen that some are determined to bring democratic order to this world. That makes the remaining despots go to even further extremes. The sooner they go, the better for the world.

Frank Warner

The negotiating part of her proposal was the least interesting to me, as far as a direct "solution." However, talks with Iran might at least spotlight what madmen they have for Supreme Leader and president.

It's true that Ebadi says a few negative things about the United States only to guarantee a ride home to Iran. But in general, she knows what she's talking about.

Her point is that, if the U.S. attacks Iran, the action is likely to delay democracy in Iran. I think she's right. On other hand, if Europe sees fit to attack, that would be an entirely different story.

Neo

I would like to believe that she is right, but the 1991 uprising of the Shia in southern Iraq and the way the brutal suppression was all but been stricken from the record of history, has to give one great pause.

jj mollo

Wishful thinking. That's right. This situation is not going to get better on its own. Advocating an innocuous response, admirable and sensible though it may be, is merely a stalling tactic. Are we or are we not going to suffer in some major way as a result of Iran obtaining atomic weapons? If not, then I guess we can ignore it.

Frank Warner

I'd still leave Iran's nukes to the Europeans, and make it clear they are responsible for choosing what to do about the problem.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)