published Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

Summit of the symbiotic

China hosted a unique summit of sorts last week.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Beijing Thursday to discuss the nuclear pursuits of Iran, according to a Kremlin spokesman.

This prelude to a series of meetings scheduled for June 18 and 19 hosted by Russia of the globe's major powers in Moscow may have been a last true option for cornering the Iranian dictator.

Putin, re-elected president after three terms and a four-year run as prime minister, has warned against military action against Iran with the foretold "catastrophe in the Middle East." Russia recently participated in a meeting with the U.S., Britain, China, France and Germany to confront the Iranians on the rogue nation's uranium enrichment program. The Russian assessment, along that of the other five world powers, was described as "not too happy" by a foreign policy aide to Moscow, Yury Ushakov.

The gathering in China featured not only the much-tenured, "elected" Putin, but also "all the major names of Russian business," according to Ushakov. This Russian delegation's forceful show hopefully will be effective with Iran, which is dependent upon its economic ties and trade with both Russia and China in a symbiotic relationship.

As Putin criticizes the recent action of the U.S. Congress to increase economic sanctions on Iran, he also is expressing displeasure with Iran's rebellious continued pursuit.

If Russia and China are unsuccessful in slowing Iran's uranium enrichment program that will boost its ability to weaponize its current arsenal, expect Iran's stubbornness to be matched with equal determination by Israel to act.

The repeated, unsuccessful efforts to deal with Iran's Ahmadinejad may result in a situation that's summarized by humorist Will Rogers' quote about diplomacy:

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

If the nations with nuclear weapons insist on keeping them, there is no moral imperative to prevent other countries from seeking the same counter-balancing military weaponry.

Iran is just as entitled to nuclear weapons as those currently so armed.

If we want Iran to refrain from nuclear weapons, then the US should be leading the way toward nuclear disarmament. We are not.

June 13, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
conservative said...

I'm thankful to God that the U.S. didn't take the same kind of advice that Nucanuck is offering to the U.S. today during the Second World War!

June 13, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
Easy123 said...

I'm sure your god would be proud that the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and killed thousands of innocent people. Your god always was a big proponent of mass murder.

June 13, 2012 at 11:09 a.m.
chatt_man said...

If we follow nucanuck's logic, we should issue driver's licences to people that have multiple seizures each day, it is immoral to exclude them from driving like the rest of us.

We should also, before each disagreement, or at the beginning of each conflict, get together both sides armaments and divide them equally, it is immoral for one side to have an advantage over the other.

I guess that means if Israel goes to war with Iran, we should equip Iran with some nukes. After all, it's the moral thing to do.

June 13, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You can't derive any of those things from what nucanuck said.

June 13, 2012 at 1 p.m.
nucanuck said...

If we want a better world, we first have to be able to imagine how we would want it.

June 13, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
conservative said...

Oh, the wonderful world of childish imagination. Let's imagine with some words and music of John Lennon.....

you may say I'm a dreamer

but I'm not the only one

come join us in Canada

where dreaming is such silly fun

June 13, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.

Easy123 said, I'm sure your god would be proud that the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and killed thousands of innocent people. Your god always was a big proponent of mass murder.

The estimate for lives saved by killing these thousands ran into the millions. The japanese of the time gladly suicided themselves to kill others. It was considered an honorable thing to do. Sound familiar at all in regard to a group we are dealing with in the middle east? What if they could strap nuclear bombs on instead of nail bombs or use nukes in their car bombs instead of the boring fertilizer kind? What if every missle fired at Israel was topped with a nuke? It's interesting how you are for gun control but against nuke control.

June 13, 2012 at 3:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You are a warmonger. It our nation could only adopt some of the peace sung by John Lennon, we would be much better off. Canada is a great example.


Those aren't statistical estimates. They are estimates by Truman and Churchill. Biased estimates at best. Many high ranking officers believed that the war could be won without dropping the 2 bombs.

I don't think the women and children were doing any dive bombing.

I support total disarmament. We can't expect anyone else to give up their nuclear capabilities while we still have ours.

June 13, 2012 at 4:08 p.m.
nucanuck said...


...against nuke control? That would be the militarists wanting to be the only ones with the capacity to end life on earth. The point that you must have missed is that this should not be a discussion about who has nukes, but rather, how do work toward a nuclear-free world.

June 13, 2012 at 5 p.m.

The problem is, you can only really control what YOU do. Just like gun control doesn't work because criminals by definition ignore laws, disarming our country would only open us up to attack and domination by people who don't agree to disarm. Criminals don't attack police stations and despots and fascists don't attack well-armed nations. Iran won't see the U.S. destroying all of it's nukes as an opportunity to drop their weapons program. They will see it as an opportunity to hit us while our pants are down. The world isn't a hippie commune where everyone holds hands and sings folk songs.

June 13, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

How could you possibly know what would happen if we disarmed? How do you know they would hit us with our pants down? The only country to ever drop a nuclear bomb is the U.S. How can you speak for Iran? I think you have been reading too much Tom Clancy.

All of this is assumption on your part. And we can take steps to make it a "hippie commune where everyone holds hands and sings folk songs" if we try. We don't because we want to be the dominate power in the world. We like to tell everyone else what to do but we never reciprocate.

June 13, 2012 at 5:20 p.m.
chatt_man said...

This thread has been a real eye opener for me... they really are out there!

Easy, you don't have to be a warmonger to know that disarming is not the thing to do.

June 13, 2012 at 10:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

How could you possibly know that? Disarmament helped end the Cold War and our standoff with Russia. Name another country that has dropped a nuclear bomb other than the US! You can't because there are none. If every country with nuclear capabilities agreed to disarm, the world would be safer by far. And yes, only warmongers want a big military and nuclear capabilities. You're scared. Stop watching "The Sum of All Fears". Total disarmament is the best option possible for EVERYONE.

June 13, 2012 at 11:08 p.m.

Easy123, while I agree that your vision of the world would be great, it is just a drug induced dream. Not everyone is nice or wants to hold your hand and sing songs. There are people out there who want to kill you for any reason at all or no reason at all and no amount of disarmament is going to change their mind. Before there were any man made weapons, there were big rocks used as weapons. People are going to kill people with or without weapons no matter what and for whatever reason they can find. Disarmament just makes the killing take longer and ensures even more people die.

June 14, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
hixsondave said...

Easy123: I am glad my Dad didn't become one of those Truman and Churchill contrived statistics you refer to. He was on a ship headed to Japan for the invasion. You are right we would probably won without the bombs...BUT me and you may never have had the chance to be statistics. Were the "high ranking officers" you mention Japanese?

June 14, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Easy - The disarmament that came during the Cold War was not a result of the US going first in doing away with arms, it was the frequent summit-meetings between Gorbachev and Reagan and Gorbachev and Bush.

You may call me scared, I call it ensuring peace. Total disarmament may be the best option for everyone as you say, I just don't agree that the other parties would be truthful in their actions as your "we all get along" world suggests.

June 14, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.