Posted on 12/19/2006 11:57:50 PM PST by DTAD
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a farewell news conference, urged the Security Council on Dec. 19 to push for a negotiated end to the Iranian nuclear crisis, saying military action would be a disaster.
"I believe that the council, which is discussing the issue, will proceed cautiously and try and do whatever it can to get a negotiated settlement for the sake of the region and for the sake of the world," Annan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at defencetalk.com ...
lies
If Kofi says it, it must not be true.
Ditto.
The CIA thinks Iran won't have the bomb until 2010. Mossad just came out and even they don't think Iran will have it until 2009-2010. I'm in favor of confronting Iran but we can be judicious about the timing. Right now our troops are spread thin in Iraq. And by all accounts, we need a greater presence in Afghanistan to consolidate our democratic gains there. The Taliban has grown in strength to the point where stability of its government is questionable. At the present time, it just doesn't make sense to fight three battles at once. Given that Iran won't go nuclear until 3-4 years, we ought to be wise about how we deploy the military most effectively over that timeframe.
Disasterous for whom ?
....And Kofi knows diasters like nobody else.
If there's no military solution, then there's nothing to be negotiated. That's like telling a kid that if he doesn't stop misbehaving he's going to get a talking-to.
Yes, military action against Iran would be disasterous, which is why we should nuke `em from orbit. It`s the only way to be sure.
bush is doing such a great job in Iraq,
that he should try something three times
more difficult.
-sarcasm
Damn right! That´s exactly how the "international community" f***ed up Iraq. If there had been a world speaking with one voice against Saddam, the war could have been prevented, I´m sure.
No way! Iran's military is paper thin. We could send 20 Rangers
and defeat this gas bag.
We don't need to occupy Iran. Strategic bombing
could destroy their nuke plants. Their standing army is no good.
We should do this now. In 2008 we could have a Hillary or Barack as president. Do you think Barack Hussein Obama
would destroy a fellow Muslim? Not on a bet!
Now...
My sentiments exactly.
I agree that strategic bombing could do the job, but I disagree that it should be done now. The timeframe for negotiations is still open.
Negotiate with Iran or North Korea?
Same as negotiations with Hitler, futile.
Take out both nuke programs.
Right, we need to be careful. I would call for financing opposition groups within Iran for regime change.
Iran is just another third world third rate military power like Saddam's Iraq, and could be crushed like an eggshell in a conventional war. As long as we don't make a stupid mistake like trying to occupy the place - as we did in Iraq, our losses would be minimal - if we act before they get a nuke.
Blast 'em, kill 'em, wreck 'em, then pull out.
If they act up again - repeat dosage.
actually, kofi the klown is correct. a military strike against iran would be extremely disasterous for ahmadinejad and the mullahs...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.