IRAN'S Nuclear Capability

[miditek]

Now this whole situation with the British sailors. Quite funny I think. Ahmedineijajdiajdnaindiadinnaiaidaindanjad is really grasping at straws here. Despite the UK trying to maintain civilised relations with Tehran, he's really just trying to hype stuff up.

The UK government won't sink to their level. Iran doesn't dare harm those sailors. They gain nothing from this whole fiasco. They've already had a unanimous UN Security Council resolution against them over the nuclear issue, how much more international credibility can they afford to lose?

Real screwup guys, back off.

I personally don't think that kidnapping the British sailors and marines was funny at all. If you'll recall, they did this very same thing a few years ago, as well as to the US hostages at the Tehran embassy back in the 1970s.

Did you by chance happen to hear about that loudmouthed talk show host Rosie O'Donnell praising Iran for doing this and saying that this was a false flag operation by the RN? She also said that the Brits are providing a sort of service to Bush for a new Gulf of Tonkin type of incident(!) That Marxist moonbat freak never ceases to amaze me. My only retort to her would be, "Hey, Shamu! STFU!"

BTW- why try and maintain civilized relations with a gang that is little more than a death cult?

[NeonVomit]

Anyone who takes Rosie O'donell as anything more than a hot air balloon deserves what they get.

BTW- why try and maintain civilized relations with a gang that is little more than a death cult?

And there is the biggest weakness of all.

[NeonVomit]

Not Found
The requested URL /articles/march007/270307iranwar.htm was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Yeah, I get super paranoid whenever I see that screen

It works now, NV, I had left out the 2. Just leaving out one element in an URL renders it useless.
Kinda like leaving one wheel off a car, I guess.

It took too long to load so I didn't bother reading it.

[miditek]

A cool quote that I just got from a friend:

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else." -Churchill

[NeonVomit]

Somehow, I think that was more of a backhanded compliment than anything Probably something to do with Woodrow Wilson's presidency (the worst US president in history, bar none)

[miditek]

Somehow, I think that was more of a backhanded compliment than anything Probably something to do with Woodrow Wilson's presidency (the worst US president in history, bar none)

Of course it was, but Churchill did not mean it maliciously, more like, mischievously, I'd say.

I don't know- I think that President Wilson was a very bright guy, and did not endorse Versailles. Much like Marshal Foch of France, he knew that war would happen again soon.

Personally, I think that Jimmah Cahtuh was the absolute worst president in US history.

[stratobabius]

Another "optimistic" article. I guess the net's flooding with these...

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

[browneyedgirl]

Another "optimistic" article. I guess the net's flooding with these...

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

Thats pretty much what the article I posted said.
You know, I wish people would not report something unless its true, because there is such a thing as "self-fulfilling prophecy".
Spreading rumors&making mountains out of molehills from such a possibly volatile situation is not a good idea, IMO.

[stratobabius]

Another "optimistic" article. I guess the net's flooding with these...

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

Thats pretty much what the article I posted said.

I know, I just found it on the news here.

Spreading rumors&making mountains out of molehills from such a possibly volatile situation is not a good idea, IMO.

I agree again.

[browneyedgirl]

Another "optimistic" article. I guess the net's flooding with these...

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

Thats pretty much what the article I posted said.

I know, I just found it on the news here.

Spreading rumors&making mountains out of molehills from such a possibly volatile situation is not a good idea, IMO.

I agree again.

It's just that some people actually get seriously frightened when they read an article like that&although it does give food for thought, unless its the truth Why make a tempest in a teacup?

Also, it makes me wonder where they get such information--who is telling such stories? Who started circulating it? And do they know something that we (the public) don't know?

I guess we will all know in a few days if the story had merit, won't we?

[miditek]

Another "optimistic" article. I guess the net's flooding with these...

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

Thats pretty much what the article I posted said.

I know, I just found it on the news here.

Spreading rumors&making mountains out of molehills from such a possibly volatile situation is not a good idea, IMO.

It's just that some people actually get seriously frightened when they read an article like that&although it does give food for thought, unless its the truth Why make a tempest in a teacup?

Russians, like Americans, love drama. However, international intrigue would be far more interesting to many Russians than, let's say, Britney Spears or Anna Nicole Smith are to Americans.

Also, it makes me wonder where they get such information--who is telling such stories? Who started circulating it? And do they know something that we (the public) don't know?

Well, it's certain that Russia has a great deal of both technical and military personnel in Iran, as well as in the region. Their military intelligence agency certainly, observes, documents, and then reports what they have seen to the Kremlin. Regarding the news agencies, in this day and age, most news anchors and reporters would probably prefer to avoid any run-ins with Putin's masked "tax police", so it's important to read any story with at least a little skepticism.

An American viewpoint might consider this to be mere war games, while the Russians would prefer to interpret the same series of events (at least in public)as a military buildup. Stories such as this either embarrass the White House (if not true), or irritates it (if true).

Russian intelligence has also been accused of giving Saddam Hussein's military information in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration angered the Kremlin by calling for the Russians to stand down and respect human rights in Chechnya- which is their own territory, after all.

This sort of diplomatic tit for tat has gone on for decades, regardless of which administration was occupying the White House or the Kremlin. This story was interesting, because there is wide latitude here for interpretation. Another story that caught my attention

Russia warns Iran of 'irreversible consequences'
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070313/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_070313121925

So, is Russia really angry with Iran for falling behind on their nuclear lease payments, or is Moscow simply doing its classic, and often impressive I might add, public disinformation sketches?

I guess we will all know in a few days if the story had merit, won't we?

If for no other reason than to discredit the Kremlin on this story, I think it's safe to say that the Russian predictions may prove to be a lot like the local TV weatherman, sometimes wrong.

[NeonVomit]

Remember, Russia voted for the resolution condemning Iran's nuclear activities at the UN. At the same time, supplying Iran with nuclear technology. Maybe they sold it to them thinking Iran would only want it for peaceful purposes? Strange response. Or maybe.. whatever.

Anyway.

I will never understand what Putin is up to, but I know he has a plan, and it is about looking after Russia's interests and Russia's alone. And you cannot blame him for doing that, can you? Why should he care about Europe or anyone else's interests unless they're tied to Russia's?

Every nation does the same.

He's far more intelligent and crafty than any Western leader you could mention, in any case.

[NeonVomit]

Well, UK navy personell released unharmed, the UK government did not admit they strayed into Iranian waters, issue closed.

Diplomacy works sometimes...

[miditek]

Well, UK navy personell released unharmed, the UK government did not admit they strayed into Iranian waters, issue closed.

Diplomacy works sometimes...

Diplomacy and kidnapping, at least for me, really don't belong in the same sentence. I wonder why the Revolutionary Naval Guards didn't try this kind of game of chicken with the US Navy or Marines? IMO, if Iran had tried this with US forces, I believe that our response would have been significantly different than Britain's, and hence that is exactly why Iran chose to bully the UK as opposed to the US.

Iran is playing the international press like a fiddle- "we're giving the UK people a 'gift' by releasing the UK sailors that were 'spying' on us.", and nearly everyone (except the US) bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

[NeonVomit]

Well, UK navy personell released unharmed, the UK government did not admit they strayed into Iranian waters, issue closed.

Diplomacy works sometimes...

Diplomacy and kidnapping, at least for me, really don't belong in the same sentence. I wonder why the Revolutionary Naval Guards didn't try this kind of game of chicken with the US Navy or Marines? IMO, if Iran had tried this with US forces, I believe that our response would have been significantly different than Britain's, and hence that is exactly why Iran chose to bully the UK as opposed to the US.

Iran is playing the international press like a fiddle- "we're giving the UK people a 'gift' by releasing the UK sailors that were 'spying' on us.", and nearly everyone (except the US) bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

Have you even read any international press?

[miditek]

Well, UK navy personell released unharmed, the UK government did not admit they strayed into Iranian waters, issue closed.

Diplomacy works sometimes...

Diplomacy and kidnapping, at least for me, really don't belong in the same sentence. I wonder why the Revolutionary Naval Guards didn't try this kind of game of chicken with the US Navy or Marines? IMO, if Iran had tried this with US forces, I believe that our response would have been significantly different than Britain's, and hence that is exactly why Iran chose to bully the UK as opposed to the US.

Iran is playing the international press like a fiddle- "we're giving the UK people a 'gift' by releasing the UK sailors that were 'spying' on us.", and nearly everyone (except the US) bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

Have you even read any international press?

Yup- reading al-Jazeera's news site at this very moment. They were more objective regarding the hostage thing than CNN was!

[miditek]

"And the prince who bases his power entirely on...words, finding himself completely without other preparations, comes to ruin..." - Machiavelli

Words that some would do well to heed when presented with the question of Iran. Is it better to be respected or feared? Since Iran does obviously does not respect the West, then the latter is of course, much more preferable than the former. Unfortunately, that is the current distinction between the US and the UK in the eyes of Tehran.

Iran realizes that it is no match for the US in conventional warfare, and if it's military gets caught out in the open, that US forces would have one of the most target rich environments in history. It's vaunted ground forces would be demolished, and its air and naval forces would be of little, if any help.

Since taking prisoners is their favorite pastime, then perhaps having 10,000 or 20,000 of their own in the POW cages in Iraq just might teach them a lesson.

It is a pity that Downing Street did not send Ahmandinejad a message via it's military, that kidnapping troops is an act of war. I personally find it almost unbelievable that one of the world's most vaunted and experienced naval powers has come to this.

An aerial and naval blockade should immediately be imposed upon them for this act of treachery- no oil goes out, and no gasoline comes in.

[Carcass]

Yup- reading al-Jazeera's news site at this very moment. They were more objective regarding the hostage thing than CNN was!

NV's point was, I believe, that absolutely nobody bought that crap coming from Ahma's big mouth.

[NeonVomit]

Well, UK navy personell released unharmed, the UK government did not admit they strayed into Iranian waters, issue closed.

Diplomacy works sometimes...

Diplomacy and kidnapping, at least for me, really don't belong in the same sentence. I wonder why the Revolutionary Naval Guards didn't try this kind of game of chicken with the US Navy or Marines? IMO, if Iran had tried this with US forces, I believe that our response would have been significantly different than Britain's, and hence that is exactly why Iran chose to bully the UK as opposed to the US.

Iran is playing the international press like a fiddle- "we're giving the UK people a 'gift' by releasing the UK sailors that were 'spying' on us.", and nearly everyone (except the US) bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

Have you even read any international press?

Yup- reading al-Jazeera's news site at this very moment. They were more objective regarding the hostage thing than CNN was!

I don't get why everyone says al-Jazeera is some sort of terrorist-mouthpiece. They're very professional and balanced. Of course, their news is from an Arab perspective, but they are actually very good.

And yes, I think most people realise that Ahma usually just talks a lot of hot air. I think the Iranian government realised they'd made a major mistake.

However, it did bring focus back on their 5 nationals/spies/whatever currently in US custody.

As my uncle put it, 'ine mia fatsoua kai ena stoma, tipote parapanw', or translated, he's just a face and a mouth and nothing more.

And yes, one of the world's finest and most experienced naval forces reacted properly, I believe. If there is a solution to a problem via diplomatic means, then why attack anyone? Why use force as anything other than an absolute last resort? No one can know what sort of chatter went on behind the scenes between the UK and Iranian governments, but it worked. The UK got their people back unharmed and made no apology of any sort to Iran.

A better solution all round than to immediately declare war, no?

[miditek]

And yes, one of the world's finest and most experienced naval forces reacted properly, I believe. If there is a solution to a problem via diplomatic means, then why attack anyone? Why use force as anything other than an absolute last resort? No one can know what sort of chatter went on behind the scenes between the UK and Iranian governments, but it worked. The UK got their people back unharmed and made no apology of any sort to Iran.

A better solution all round than to immediately declare war, no?

The reason why UK personnel were seized was so the UK would plead their case (via back channels) to the US to release IRG's (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) operatives that were caught on the ground inside of Iraq. It's really as simple as that.

As I stated previously, Iran knew what would happen if they tried that kind of shit with US forces- they would have had their heads handed to them, followed by watching the destruction of their surface fleet.

Why is it that kidnapping troops at gunpoint now seems to be not really a big deal? Do you believe that this is the last time that Iran will pull this kind of caper?

Why resort to diplomatic means when blowing their little speedboats out of the water is a great way to show Iran what happens when it tries to play the terror card. Iran is playing the role of a child that is attempting to test its boundaries, and to see how far it can go without being punished. Kids do it all the time, obviously, and it is also quite obvious that Herr Ahmandinejad and his gang of imams are doing the same thing.

My $0.02- fuck them! Don't give them anything. I'm sick and tired of hearing about what they want, and what they are pissed off about, now they are going to destroy Israel and the US. Fuck them, and the horse they rode in on!

I can speak from experience that bullies do not stop bullying unless they get their ass kicked in front of their friends. I used to get bullied a lot in school (for having long hair at the time, I suppose), and sometimes it is necessary to make examples out of some people before they actually learn.

I had to do it myself on a number of occasions, but eventually the bullies and the rednecks learn the lesson of who and who not to fuck with! The way that I was raised by my parents was to avoid trouble, if at all possible, but to never, ever allow yourself to be bullied. In fact, I could expect to get my ass kicked by my father if I didn't defend myself.

This was not a blank check to stir up trouble, but most parents in the neighborhood and schools knew who the troublemakers were by reputation.

If the current trend with Iran continues, they will only become more emboldened, and the risk of all out war with them continues to grow.

[Carcass]

Foreign policy is not a schoolyard.

[miditek]

Foreign policy is not a schoolyard.

I'll agree that this is maybe not the best analogy, but if the UK wishes to allow Iran to push them around now, then they most definitely can expect more of the same in the future. Persians do not respect "diplomacy".

[NeonVomit]

Persians do not respect "diplomacy".

Nice. Watched 300 recently? Same way that 1 billion people in the world want to see everyone else either convert, or die, correct?

Careful how you put things. Not only can it potentially be racist and offensive, but simply inaccurate.

(Oh and for the record, they refer to themselves as 'Iranians'. They speak Persian. Just a little detail there.)

Foreign policy is a lot more complicated than you're making it out. There are many, many things that go on behind the scenes that we will never know of.

And why do you continue to believe that Ahmandinejad is in charge when it has been clearly explained that he is not? You seem to want him to be a figurehead, and he's playing his role perfectly as far as you're concerned, getting all the attention while the Ayatollah and the council are pretty much ignored. They keep quiet and get along running the country.

Before you say it, I'm not excusing anyone of anything, but how different was the whole situation from the way human rights are clearly being violated at Guantanamo Bay? Perhaps they believe they were justified in doing something similar, if for no other reason than to prove a point.

Much as you want to believe, the world is not cleanly divided into good and evil, right and wrong or black and white. If only things were that simple...

[browneyedgirl]

And yes, one of the world's finest and most experienced naval forces reacted properly, I believe. If there is a solution to a problem via diplomatic means, then why attack anyone? Why use force as anything other than an absolute last resort? No one can know what sort of chatter went on behind the scenes between the UK and Iranian governments, but it worked. The UK got their people back unharmed and made no apology of any sort to Iran.

A better solution all round than to immediately declare war, no?

The reason why UK personnel were seized was so the UK would plead their case (via back channels) to the US to release IRG's (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) operatives that were caught on the ground inside of Iraq. It's really as simple as that.

As I stated previously, Iran knew what would happen if they tried that kind of shit with US forces- they would have had their heads handed to them, followed by watching the destruction of their surface fleet.

Why is it that kidnapping troops at gunpoint now seems to be not really a big deal? Do you believe that this is the last time that Iran will pull this kind of caper?

Why resort to diplomatic means when blowing their little speedboats out of the water is a great way to show Iran what happens when it tries to play the terror card. Iran is playing the role of a child that is attempting to test its boundaries, and to see how far it can go without being punished. Kids do it all the time, obviously, and it is also quite obvious that Herr Ahmandinejad and his gang of imams are doing the same thing.

My $0.02- fuck them! Don't give them anything. I'm sick and tired of hearing about what they want, and what they are pissed off about, now they are going to destroy Israel and the US. Fuck them, and the horse they rode in on!

I can speak from experience that bullies do not stop bullying unless they get their ass kicked in front of their friends. I used to get bullied a lot in school (for having long hair at the time, I suppose), and sometimes it is necessary to make examples out of some people before they actually learn.

I had to do it myself on a number of occasions, but eventually the bullies and the rednecks learn the lesson of who and who not to fuck with! The way that I was raised by my parents was to avoid trouble, if at all possible, but to never, ever allow yourself to be bullied. In fact, I could expect to get my ass kicked by my father if I didn't defend myself.

This was not a blank check to stir up trouble, but most parents in the neighborhood and schools knew who the troublemakers were by reputation.

If the current trend with Iran continues, they will only become more emboldened, and the risk of all out war with them continues to grow.

AMEN, miditek!

When are people going to learn that in the REAL world, the ignore function simply does not work. However, when hostages are involved it is best to be cautious in dealing with hostage takers, but this is how these hostage-takers use psychology. They know that no one is going to take a risk that the hostages are going to be harmed. In other words, these "terrorists" play upon&use people's sense of humanity.
And, why is it so important who is pulling the strings in Iran? What they do is what they do regardless of who is in charge!

And who has ever given the choice of anyone converting or dying?
300 is just a movie&experts have stated there are many inaccuracies in it, just as Kingdom of Heaven, which was clearly Ridley Scott's attempt to push his own political beliefs.

And, I don't think miditek is saying the world is just black&white, I think he is simply saying pacifists in the world usually get trampled on, again&again. Its fine to turn the other cheek to keep the peace a few times, but after awhile being a doormat(in any life situation) is just plain stupid, and once this type of thing starts it's hard to stop it.
Miditek's analogy was very accurate---just ask anyone who has lived through that kind of undeserved bullshit bullying themselves, whether its military, in marriage, socially, or on forums. Contrary to the Strato-philosophy, in the REAL world people many, many times get back treatment they do not ask for. (I guess now someone is going to give Iraq as an example). Anyway, thanks miditek, at least I know what you REALLY meant.

[Carcass]

This thing was sorted out just perfectly, in my opinion. No lives were lost. What would've been a better outcome? Getting sick and tired has no place in foreign policy, patience is very much needed in issues like this. If you don't have it, you will indeed find yourself on a global schoolyard giving "lessons".

Don't know about you lot, but for me Iranian lives are worth something too. Sending Iranian sailors to Davy Jones' Locker as a response would've been a catastrophy.

[miditek]

Persians do not respect "diplomacy".

Nice. Watched 300 recently? Same way that 1 billion people in the world want to see everyone else either convert, or die, correct?

Careful how you put things. Not only can it potentially be racist and offensive, but simply inaccurate.

Neither Persians nor Arabs respect weakness, or the perception of weakness. Why did Tehran hold American hostages for 444 days during the Carter Administration, only to release them moments before the Reagan Administration took power? The answer there is simple: they knew very well what Reagan was likely to do. If this were not the case, then the hostages would have still been held, and this was based on Teheran's perception of Reagan, and they elected not to take any chances.

Just like the here and now; Iran seized British sailors as opposed to Americans- since they (correctly) perceived what the likely outcome would be. Iran will do this, and worse, again in the future. You'll see.

(Oh and for the record, they refer to themselves as 'Iranians'. They speak Persian. Just a little detail there.)

In America, they refer to themselves as "Persians", I should know since my cousin is married to one, and I also have several business partners in Philadelphia that would say the same thing. In other words, it can be a little hazardous to your health in some areas to openly admit to being an Iranian. Also, they refer to their native language as "Farsi" rather than Persian. My cousin speaks to her daughters in English, while their dad typically addresses them in Farsi.

Foreign policy is a lot more complicated than you're making it out. There are many, many things that go on behind the scenes that we will never know of.

Like convoys of trucks sneaking across the border to Iran and Syria on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Such as Iran's and Syria's continued interference in Iraq? Russia continuing to arm Iran?
Oh yes, it's complex alright. However, the fact remains that, like a dog, if an enemy sees weakness or fear, he will exploit the situation to his advantage. Some facets of human nature do not change, even when ran through PC (political correctness) filters.

And why do you continue to believe that Ahmandinejad is in charge when it has been clearly explained that he is not? You seem to want him to be a figurehead, and he's playing his role perfectly as far as you're concerned, getting all the attention while the Ayatollah and the council are pretty much ignored. They keep quiet and get along running the country.

What difference does it make by whom is running the country- officially or unofficially? It is a rogue regime, and the US State Department has been doing its best to isolate the regime over the years, but if you look at the numbers, it appears that the EU is Iran's biggest trading partner. (Thanks, Brussels!)

Before you say it, I'm not excusing anyone of anything, but how different was the whole situation from the way human rights are clearly being violated at Guantanamo Bay? Perhaps they believe they were justified in doing something similar, if for no other reason than to prove a point.

Why should anyone give a flying fuck about what's going on at Guantanamo? These are enemies of the west being held there, and they are lucky to still have their heads attached to their bodies! Geneva does not offer any protection to irregulars, not to mention spies, saboteurs, etc.

You seem to believe that this is a gulag or a stalag, which is not a completely accurate statement. So, you are more concerned with the "rights" of terrorists than you are with stopping them from doing their handiwork? What would you say if Gitmo was filled with Turks rather than Arabs? Would your opinion be, perhaps, somewhat different?

Also, why no complaints about Iranian, Syrian, or Egyptian jails? Why is it always Gitmo? Does everyone else get a pass since they are not American?

Food for thought, I reckon.

[browneyedgirl]

Don't know about you lot, but for me Iranian lives are worth something too.

Please don't play that "guilt-trip" card. I think everybody knows probably 99% of Iranians are good, decent people carrying on with the everyday process of living. It's the remaining 1% that we all should worry about, and that 1% can make everyone's world a nightmare!

Sending Iranian sailors to Davy Jones' Locker as a response would've been a catastrophy.

I don't think it would have got to that point because odds are the British sailors would have been killed in the process&that would've been really counterproductive, don't ya think.

I remember very well the hostage incident during Carter administration, and even Democrats grew very disgusted with Carter's response&gave him the title, "Pussy/Wimp". The first month or so was understandable, but after MONTHS&MONTHS of indecision even pacifists were saying they wish Carter would do something!
And, once again, Miditek is correct! The Iranians knew better than to hold the hostages after Reagan was elected! Just ask Colonel Moe Kadaffy what can happen when you get smartass and defy a "strong" President like Reagan.

As to the incident being sorted out well, maybe this was entirely a game by the Iranians. Maybe they knew how long they would hold the sailors, how they would be treated, and everything. IMO, it looked too cut&dry. I know that sounds paranoid, or weird, but it could've been totally thought out and arranged. Releasing the sailors was a "gift"? That sounds kind of creepy.

[Carcass]

I don't believe miditek meant that the crafts the Brits were on should've been sunk. He said something about giving a lesson, and it's this statment (to which you gave your amen) that I'm opposing.

As if Iran had freed the sailors after few of their speedboats had been blown to pieces. I fail to see how that would've helped anybody.

It amazes me how some people just raise their shoulders and say "sure, why not, let's bomb them fuckers", this proves a total incapacity to empathy and to value a human life other than your neighbours. I'm not saying this applies to miditek, but his posts certainly reminded me of this kind of disgusting mentality.

Put some ice in your hats, folks.

[browneyedgirl]

And, some nations need to put a spine in their back, too, but thats beside the point.
That part about being taught a lesson is not such a big deal. It is one of those selective things that if we don't like a person or group&what they say, people want to teach them a lesson/put them in the place we think they should be. Familiar?
However, the lesson miditek is referring to is that whenever someone gets "too big for their britches" and tries to hurt someone else, they need to be taught better. He is just using that analogy to apply to nations, and he is right.
I don't personally think going into and bombing every nation that crosses the USA&its allies is the answer, but a country has to show it has a backbone and will not be raked over. Otherwise, it will be shit on time&time again in various ways.

[Carcass]

...a country has to show it has a backbone and will not be raked over.

Of course, but the time for that is not now. Put things in perspective. Some sailors got kidnapped. Would you start a war for that? UK lost little if any of it's credibility. As NeonVomit pointed out, no apologies were made. There is a difference between being a worm and reasonably patient.

He is just using that analogy to apply to nations, and he is right.

Using simple analogies like that on nations takes us back 100 years in history. Giving lessons... there is too much at stake for that.