If they are for Human Rights then they should be concerned about all Humans Rights, as in their own country of America, as well as Iran.

Well Henrietta22,
With their flavor of Christianity, they are allowed to choose what is important to them and disregard the rest. It’s the cafeteria thing.
I do agree with you though, either you’re for Human Rights, which is all or your simply not. Robertson and Colson pick and choose but i don’t have enough info other other two to make any kind of judgement.

What a bunch of power-hungry fools! Leave foreign policy to the experts. Clearly the world is better off if Iran doesn’t have nukes. Also true of a lot of other countries, including Israel.
And the reaction after the election shows it’s far from a democracy but it also showss there are a lot of freedom-hungry people there who would be the first to suffer with sanctions.
It’s a difficult situation, one Pat Robertson and his ilk can only make a little worse.

its just shocking that Iranian government has no respect for human rights it is just another political tricks. it is not any difficult situation i think these people know to how to handle the situation

Hey, how about a Nuclear Free WORLD?! They seem to be working – once more – from the I-got-mine-you-can’t-have-yours mentality. It is consistent with much of what this gang preaches and teaches – in economy, sexuality, and life in general. Not much credibility there.

As Henrietta says…how about human rights here in the USA…such as ending the condemnation of homosexuals by those Robertson and his pals?
Those folks need to just let our government handle things…”W” is no longer in power (thank goodness) so slowly things will get better. “W” would probably (with the conservative folks OK) want to nuke Iran….

If McCain/Palin had been elected we’d be at war in Iran as well as Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan. And Iran would be a lot harder.

Hey liberals how about letting the Iranian government continue to import heroin so that our junkies can pay for even more holy nukes for the upcoming holy reign of terror from a guy that can’t wait to push the button. Or we can stop buying his dope and oil and maybe limit Iran’s nuclear progress.

I’m not familiar with the dope importing but all our administrations have fought the more or less futile battle against drugs. Why single out liberals?
Why not ask William Bennett, who was drug czar under GWHB? Yes, there were czars then, too but I doubt Bennett mentions that when he’s complaining about President Obama’s czars. And of course he did no better than the others.

cknuck…I have a feeling that sanctions against Iran would be just as effective as the efforts to stop the drugs from Mexico, Columbia etc….which would be none. If there were no market in this country for drugs, then the flow would stop. No buyers, no market. Unfortunately there is a market.

Also..the best effort to stop the use of drugs is education…but even with that….there are always those who will go to drugs for whatever reason, cknuck. Wish it weren’t so…

I agree pagan but I also think that some of the same powers that claim to have our best interest also know and perhaps profit from the drug trade. Way too much drugs move in and through this country to go unnoticed and without permission. That’s just my thoughts.

You could be right too, cknuck. It is probably more complex than we know.

Drugs and the money made from them have corrupted a lot of people and perhaps some US institutions. And harmed a lot of people here and abroad. It’s hard for me to believe it would be worse if a few were legalized and taxed a bunch.

Is it true that 90% of money tests positive for cocaine presense on the bills?

We’ll just send the Westboro Baptist church members over there…they’re nasty enough to take care of Iran …Iran would be praying to Allah to save them from Phelps!

Here’s an article by Glen Greenwald which points out that some people are trying to get us to go down the same disastrous road that got us into Iraq, mistakenly and at immense cost. Evidence justifying an attack just does not seem to be there.
And going to war with Iran would be far, far more costly to us than Iraq. It’s a larger and more sophisticated country and between its agents and the sympathy an attack would generate over much of the world I predict it could cut off flow of a lot of our oil.
And let’s remember the freedom-loving people of Iraq we watched protest the likely-stolen election; those people would be the first to suffer.
I don’t know what to do but I do know rushing into steps leading to a war has been shown to be stupid over and over. But powerful people and organizations either are stupid or want us to act stupidly yet again.

The best way out of this dilemma, which will avoid war, is to allow Iran to do as it wishes and then, if they test weapons successfully, we will act to contain them. Much like the Cold War all over again.
What still worries some is the idea that the leaders of Iran seem to be of the same Islamic persuasion as those who willingly blow themselves up to destroy their enemies. How can containment contain those who are so willing to die? For example; a central tenet of our Cold War practice was “Mutual Assured Destruction”, or MAD. It was madness, but it worked, however marginally. MAD cannot succeed if used to contain Iran. They simply are not afraid to deal a death-blow to, say, Israel or to mortally wound the US. They will, I believe, gladly absorb retaliation against themselves after they have accomplished their prime goals.

I do not think the leaders of Iran are of that stripe. Probably not nearly that much courage, perhaps not nearly that much belief.

Perhaps you are correct; it is all a matter of degree. We have seen this before, though, in Imperial Japan.