Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. says Iran will Get Incentives "Very Quickly"
AP ^ | May 5, 2008 | Sue Pleming

Posted on 05/05/2008 1:19:05 PM PDT by freerepublic_or_die

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: All
Reuters seems to have changed the link so I've provided this update so as there is no doubt about the initial link


US Says Iran Will Get Incentives "very Quickly"

21 posted on 05/05/2008 2:27:47 PM PDT by freerepublic_or_die (Islam:Truly the opium of the morons with apologies to Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublic_or_die

Yes, INCENTIVES preferable to INCINERATION by INFIDELS.


22 posted on 05/05/2008 2:38:49 PM PDT by Dick Bachert (INCENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublic_or_die

This administration seems to be doing about as well handling Iran as it is North Korea.
Condi Rice is the most stupid intelligent person around.
SO, lets send more aid to both these countries? Hell no, send them cruise missiles nuclear armed and send them a real message that America isn’t a paper pussy.


23 posted on 05/05/2008 2:44:09 PM PDT by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Then you have more faith in the career State Department diplomats than I do.

...diplomats -- whose job is to negotiate settlements short of war...

My worry is,...negotiate at what cost?

Pardon my cynicism. But I've seen this scenario before. North Korea ended up with nuclear reactors to avoid a confrontation. And we all see how that worked out.

24 posted on 05/05/2008 3:41:32 PM PDT by airborne (LETS GO PENS!!! LETS GO PENS!!! LETS GO PENS!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: airborne
My worry is,...negotiate at what cost? Pardon my cynicism. But I've seen this scenario before. North Korea ended up with nuclear reactors to avoid a confrontation. And we all see how that worked out.

Mine, too. It all depends on who is president at the time things begin to get really interesting.

Which is why the stakes for this presidential election are probably higher than they've been since 1980.

Of the three candidates, McCain is the only one who has a reasonable likelihood of handling this situation with the seriousness it deserves.

Of the two Democrats, Hillary! would be a far better choice than Obama. Not for any good and serious reasons; rather, she would be forced to take an aggressive stance simply to prove that being a woman is not an obstacle to protecting our interests. She'd do a terrible job as Commander in Chief, but with regard to Iran the requirements of her personal ambitions would be in roughly the same direction as what is needed to deal with Iran.

Obama, of course, would be an utter disaster. I have no sense that he would do anything other than out-Carter Carter -- senseless and counter-productive negotiations and sell-outs of allies in the name of "peace." The only reason Jimmuh was not fully our Neville chamberlain was because there were still enough Scoop Jackson Democrats to keep an eye on the threats. Obama would have no such luxury to fall back on: he'd simply give in, and Pelosi and Reid would support him -- until the Iranian threat became so great that our only choice would be to engage them in a truly expensive war.

25 posted on 05/05/2008 3:54:39 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve

We’re making them an offer they can’t refuse. We shouldn’t bother, they will simply agree citing hudna (temporary truce) under Islamic law. Then, they will continue building nukes like North Korea did. But unlike North Korea that “startled the world” with there nuclear test, Iran will attack Israel. Israel will win but the West as a whole loses economically and the puppeteer Russia is going to be most pleased.


26 posted on 05/05/2008 4:06:00 PM PDT by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I tend to agree with your post.

McCain will stand a better chance of keeping things from getting completely out of control when (not if) the feces hits the propeller.


27 posted on 05/05/2008 4:12:39 PM PDT by airborne (LETS GO PENS!!! LETS GO PENS!!! LETS GO PENS!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: elpadre

“...the best incentive would be a ring of steel (US and British Navy ships)....”

The Royal Navy is not the powerful force it was in the past. Today’s Royal Navy is but a sad shadow of its once awesome self. The Royal Navy is fast becoming a coast guard force rather than the all-reaching blue water dynamo it once was.


28 posted on 05/05/2008 4:31:08 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freerepublic_or_die

Incentive: you blow up Natanz or we will do it for you.


29 posted on 05/05/2008 5:11:03 PM PDT by HardStarboard (Take No Prisoners - We're Out Of Qurans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; gonzo
>>>Of the three candidates, McCain is the only one who has a reasonable likelihood of handling this situation with the seriousness it deserves. <<<

I agree...and hesitate to say out loud what has run through my head for some time now...

you don't suppose that Bush's delay in bringing the Iran situation to a head is to time it so that it is abundantly clear what you suggest is true...just about election time?

30 posted on 05/05/2008 5:18:23 PM PDT by HardStarboard (Take No Prisoners - We're Out Of Qurans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
you don't suppose that Bush's delay in bringing the Iran situation to a head is to time it so that it is abundantly clear what you suggest is true...just about election time?

He very well could have done so. As a matter of war strategy, the winner of this election is of crucial importance.

I tend to think not, though. Sometimes things just take a long time.

31 posted on 05/05/2008 6:44:20 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard; r9etb
"...you don't suppose that Bush's delay in bringing the Iran situation to a head is to time it so that it is abundantly clear what you suggest is true...just about election time?..."

That's the detestable part - action based on political motives and timing, while our Forces are taking-fire from an obvious enemy.

We need more 'Patton', and less 'Powell' ............. FRegards

32 posted on 05/05/2008 9:30:50 PM PDT by gonzo ( What Part Of "Shall Not Be Infringed" does anyone have a problem with? The USSC will soon wonder ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
That's the detestable part - action based on political motives and timing, while our Forces are taking-fire from an obvious enemy.

As I said above, I doubt that Bush is delaying action on Iran for reasons related to the presidential race.

OTOH, suppose he is: given that the Iran problem will most likely come to a head during the next administration, isn't it a matter of war strategy to ensure that the best person running, is in office when it happens?

Not that I think that's what's going on -- but if it is, it's far from "detestable." In fact, it would be a damned good thing!

33 posted on 05/06/2008 6:12:24 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson