Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Commander Condi Puts Hammer Down On Ruskies and ChiComs

2006-03-24

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a veiled warning Thursday to holdouts in a diplomatic impasse at the United Nations over Iran's disputed nuclear program.

"There can't be any stalling," Rice said in response to a question about U.S. efforts to get Russia and China to sign on to a strongly worded rebuke to Tehran.

Russia and China have refused to back a U.N. Security Council statement proposed by Britain, France and the United States demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment.

Talks among the permanent members of the Security Council have bogged down over the statement, which traditional Iranian allies or trade partners see as a prelude to sanctions they do not support.

Rice planned to call her Russian counterpart Friday to try to break the deadlock.

The Security Council statement was intended to be an opening move in what could be lengthy talks at the powerful U.N. body over how to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

The statement was also meant to be an easier pill to swallow for Russia and China than would another option: A tough Security Council resolution.

A presidential statement requires consensus from the body's 15 members. A resolution would be put to an up-or-down vote, meaning Russia and China would have to approve, abstain or veto action against Iran.

Rice indicated that the United States will not wait long before taking another tack.

Posted by:Captain America

#19 What's sadder - that people think a "strongly worded letter" or "sanctions with more holes than a colander" actually mean something -- or that we waste time on the UN to have these pointless exercises?

Posted by: Jans Snomble4884 2006-03-24 18:19

#18 Poor Bordza , get educated , or you will always sound like a fool.

Posted by: MacNails 2006-03-24 15:38

#17 I would like to see a GPS coordinates sending device embedded on each of the Moolahs's heads and their goofy president's. Talk about pinhead, pin point bombing.

Seems like prez goofy gives numerous speeches. Timing?

Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-24 11:50

#16 a strongly worded rebuke to Tehran.

Boy, howdy. That'll put the fear into them.

Rice indicated that the United States will not wait long before taking another tack.

A little more like it. It's time to ~~fight or f&ck~~ fish or cut bait.

followed by C-5As spraying hydrofloric acid to dope the amorphous new desert glass

While certainly entertaining in principle, hydrofluoric acid is used as an etchant for silicon dioxide and polysilicon layers. Dopants, which affect conductivity of otherwise insulating materials, must be diffused into the bulk carrier via ion implantation or thermal diffusion. Mebbe a germanium device shroud could provide the doping as there would certainly be a sufficient thermal quotient (so to speak) to mobilize the dopant's diffusion.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-24 11:45

#15 Iran does not need to be partitioned, necessarily. But it does need to be Shermanized. Just like Japan. This means the people must suffer sufficiently that they no longer wish to be a threat. Jusat like the Japanese.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-24 11:12

#14 The big picture is that Iran is inherently a threat.

First of all, the development of nuclear weapons has become a national prerogative--publicly popular--a dangerous symbol of pride and virility that is felt will give them all that they desire.

Second, the Persians, like the Japanese prior to World War II, crave their "place in the sun" as a world economic, military and religious power. They think posession of nuclear weapons will give them all of this, which they have been unfairly denied by external forces.

Third, I do mean the "Persians", as in their heterogeneous society, Persians are everything and the minority Kurds, Arabs, Baluchs, and Tajiks are nothing, except hated peoples, some in resource-rich lands. And yet the Persians by dint of these lands are far more powerful then they would be otherwise.

So, all of this being said, Iran must be partitioned. If Iran's nuclear capability is destroyed, it just delays the inevitable; but if they are deprived of the means to pay for rebuilding, Persia will be denied for several generations at least.

Not only will Iran, or Persia, cease to be a threat, but a greater balance will be achieved with Kurdistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Iraq, the most likely beneficiaries of what had been Iranian territories.

For its part, Persia will not suffer overmuch, as it still has its people and its own resources. It will have the possibility to be a prosperous and successful nation, yet will no longer threaten the region, spread terrorism, or abuse those who are not Persian.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-24 10:58

#13 I recall a tounge-in-cheek analysis done for attacking Iran in 1979 by a few guys from Brunswick.

It went something like this:
H-Bombs over large areas of the desert
followed by C-5As spraying hydrofloric acid to dope the amorphous new desert glass
followed by C-5As spraying aluminum conductors
Resulting in the worlds largests solarcells.

Diplomatic cover was let the USSR have the power in return for looking the other way.

Posted by: 3dc 2006-03-24 10:33

#12 Since Imadinnerjacket has become president of Iran, let's review what has happened in his part of the world. Israel pulled out of Gaza. Iraq has had elections. Hamas has been offered control of the Paleos. Iranian influence in Iraq has contributed to civil unrest and delayed the formation of effective government there. Rumors about interrupting the flow of oil from the gulf.
Good things from our side matched by terrorism and disorder from the other side. And from Iran, border fights, crackdowns, threats against Israel, rumors about AQ in Iran, and blatant refusal to include the atomic watchdogs in their nuke development.
Iran is the source of so much trouble, both at home and in other sensitive areas, that something has to be done with them. Add to that the possibility of them developing nuclear weapons, and clearly, immediate action is required.
The only option about it is, do it now there or do it later here.

Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-24 10:17

#11 "So who wants diplomacy to succeed here? I sure don't."

It depends on what "succeed" means. If it just kicks the can down the road a few months, than no i dont want it to succeed. If it actually results in Iran, out of fear of sanctions, giving up on enrichment and their entire nuclear weapons program then I do want it to succeed. Much as I have many other problems with the islamofascists in Teheran, from their internal suppression of dissent, to their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and of Hamas and IJ against Israel - this is NOT the optimal time for a war against Iran, in terms of US force availability, the US diplomatic position worldwide, or the US position in the Islamic world. War MAY be necessary to stop Iranian nukes, but if there is another way, I want to pursue it.

Then there is yet another definition of diplomacy "succeeding" Our diplomacy with Russia and China could succeed in getting sanctions, and yet the islamofascists could refuse to give in, and the sanctions could lead to the downfall of their regime. That would be a very desirable outcome, IMHO.

Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-24 10:00

#10 Brodza,
As a veteran, I do not relish war, but do realize it is usually the best and cleanest means to handle terrorists and fascist scum like the leaders of Iran. Better billions spent and thousands dead rather than the other way around.
The problem with your moronic point about nuke plants is the fact that the countries that have them have never wanted a nuclear weapon and don't daily spew forth that they want Israel and the west buried in a sea of fire. Here is a free hint from the last 100 years of history. When a leader publicly states they want to kill you, they mean it. Iran has stated publicly, over and over, that nuclear weapons are their aim and they want to use them.
I tend to take them on their word.

Posted by: DarthVader 2006-03-24 09:36

#9 Could Condi be our Iron Lady?

Posted by: Perfessor 2006-03-24 08:55

#8 Have you been listening to what he says at all? Apparently not.

Why should Brodza listen to what the Iranians actualy say? He know what they want.

Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-24 08:39

#7 Bordza, please. Many RB'ers are veterans of our armed services who have seen combat. I've never met any combat vets who relished actual fighting.

As for that "Iran doesn't want an A-Bomb" statement....then explain why Ahmadinejad practically has wet dreams over the thought of wiping Israel off the map with nukes, or likes to threaten that Iranian missiles could reach Europe.

Have you been listening to what he says at all? Apparently not.

Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-03-24 08:31

#6 ... People. Think about it.
1. It is absoluteny not sure, that Iran want to build A-Bomb. There were Comisars for x years and found nothing. Also Baradei told to press that it can be misused but there is no evidence till yet. There are nuclear plants in Mid Europe, IndonesiaAfrica and nobody cares... Why Iran and why now?
2. Do you realy want a WAR! Probably you know war just from games and CNN report videos. But war is something commpletely different. Remember Katrina? War is 10000 time worser...

Please think before you pull the trigger. You are not only one who owe weapon.

Posted by: Bordza 2006-03-24 05:26

#5 This is fun to watch! I've hedged bets around the table, that Israel won't wait, as her 'neck hairs' stand to attention! No sweat on waiting for Iran to build the bomb, terrified however of the knowledge to do so!

Posted by: smn 2006-03-24 04:29

#4 Read account of Ahmadinutbar's state of the Islamic Asylum spew, on Iran's New Years Day: http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/12/29/index-e.htm#b1

Posted by: Listen to Dogs 2006-03-24 03:32

#3 So who wants diplomacy to succeed here? I sure don't.

Posted by: Listen to Dogs 2006-03-24 03:20

#2 She now has the nifty revelation of the Russky Amb giving the invasion plans to Saddam to play. This could be some funny shit, lol.

"another tack"

ROFL!

Posted by: Jans Snomble4884 2006-03-24 01:49

#1 The bell of the future resurgent NUCLEARIZED Persian/Ottoman Empire(s) tolls for thee, Russia-China, not just the USA-West.

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-03-24 00:18

00:00