From: "Robert G Lewis" 

No we don't and we should not.

The article was about a speech given by a  former CIA director ( under
Clinton) . The speech raises valid concerns over our dependence on foreign
oil and where the money for that oil goes . It doesn't seem to advocate
FORCE.

In this case it would not be the US that would stop selling the refined
products but India and the EU.

What actions would YOU take to ensure Iran  addresses international
concerns over their Nuclear Weapons programs ?

And why should ANY nation not use non violent measures to get another to do
things their way ?


"Phil Payne"  wrote in
message news:4457a6c8{at}w3....
> No, I would prefer the USA to stop talking about forcing other soveriegn
> nationsn to do what it wants - whether by violence, economic measures or
> any
> other method.
>
> You don't rule the world.
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:4457a265{at}w3....
>> You would prefer military force instead of an embargo to deal with
> concerns
>> over Iran's Nuclear program ?
>>
>>
>> "Phil Payne" 
wrote in message
>> news:44579c1c{at}w3....
>> > It utterly permeates US thought on how to deal with the world - let's
>> > FORCE
>> > them!
>> >
>> >
> http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_449468.html
>> >
>> > "'And I think the thing that would bring the Iranian
government and
>> > economy
>> > to its knees, quite quickly, would not be a cut-off of their exports of
>> > unrefined petroleum (but to ban) their imports of refined petroleum
>> > products,' Woolsey said."
>> >
>> > Go ahead - keep forcing people.  There's no future in this attitude.
>> >
>> > --
>> >  Phil Payne
>> >  http://www.isham-research.co.uk
>> >  +44 7833 654 800
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5