A_Wanderer said:
He isn't, and he isn't condemning the Iranians, but there are degrees of magnitude and to place them in the same category seems disengenous.
Not when I'm talking about comparisons in terms of the kinds of voters that support Bush and Ahmadinejad.
1) Both sets of voters voted for the religious candidate.
2) Both countries have a liberal/reformist movement perceived as lofty elitists out of touch with the masses.
3) Both countries have a rural poor that resoundedly voted for them.
4) Both talk in bombastic language about good and evil.
5) Both could care less about how the world views them.
6) Both want their nation to set the pace for the rest of the world.
7) Both have wide populist appeal.
If we're going to nitpick on every little specific detail, then you've missed my point. They are not identical people, nor do they operate in identical economies, cultures or circumstances.
But if things were reversed and Iran was the global nuclear power, I do imagine that the U.S. would clamor to be a nuclear power to say to the world, "I exist. Now treat me like the world power that I am."
With that, to approach Iran diplomatically, one has to convince them that they can be a world power without nuclear weapons. In addition, since Iran is talking about nuclear power, the world community could also beat them at their own game and insist on a reactor design that is incapable of creating weapons-grade materials. As such, they get their nuclear power as they claim to want, while being incapable of creating nuclear weapons. I do believe such reactors do exist, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Melon