.

What a cool pic. Where did it come from?

the interwebz

U.S. ambassador calls findings on Iran nuclear program 'troubling'

There is more, but as I read it I heard a resounding F_ck You.

You know, in all honesty, why should Iran not be allowed nuclear weapons? WE have them. India has them. Pakistan has them. Israel. Russia. Britain. France. China. As long as WE possess them, who are we to say they can't? Honestly? If I lived in Iran, I would want them just in case the US decided to attack.

There really is an air of superiority when some countries have things, but systematically try to keep other countries from having those same things. Yes, they are dangerous weapons, but in all fairness, which countries are on record with actually using them?

Oh, and what about North Korea?

Maybe if we changed the way we interact with other countries, they wouldn't be such a danger to us.

Because they arm terrorists, literally by the boatload. Because they can't be trusted not to sell designs and equipment to every prick in the world. Because every sane person on the planet is in favor of limiting proliferation. Because they would use them.

And why do they arm terrorists? Why can't they be trusted? I mean really, let's look objectively at what this country, and other western countries, have done with regard to these kinds of things.

Why does Iran have need to fear us? Maybe because, along with Britain, we staged a coup d'etat and overthrew a democratically elected leader back in the 50s? Our actions DIRECTLY caused a backlash in that part of the world against us, and helped set off a revolution that allowed radical fundamentalists to gain power, and caused years of hatred and ill will against the west, simply because we coveted a resource that they had, but we wanted to control. What might have happened had we allowed them to develop on their own, without our interference? So we wouldn't have control of their oil. We seem to forget, it belonged to them.

Who armed that part of the world in the first place? Who sold technology to other countries? We, along with other western countries, armed Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons, which he used against Iran and the Kurds, because at the time it suited OUR interests. How much misery was caused to the Persian people because of OUR actions?

And let's not forget, Halliburton has been accused of selling nuclear technology to Iran, and they certainly operated there until recently.

The truth is, we do things we think are in our best interests, like supporting one tyrant over another because they are more "friendly" to our political or societal needs at the time, until, they aren't anymore. Then they become our enemies. Why do have the need to control the entire world? Why can't we be satisfied with controlling our little corner, and leave everyone else to control theirs?

And, how can you say with a straight face that America is in favor of limiting proliferation when we are still developing new weapons?

Honestly, I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to see things objectively from the other side.

Iran doesn't fear us because of what we did 60 years ago. Iran doesn't fear us period. If they truly feared us they wouldn't behave the way they do. And the youth of Iran and possibly the majority of the country loves the West and wants to be more a part of it.

Where there is less rule of law, the people with the guns and the will to use them have the most power. Iran projects its own force operating in Syria, in Lebanon, in Gaza.

They operate outside of the normal diplomatic ways, spit in the face of the UN, spit in the face of the civilized world, threaten their neighbors, and operate under a barbaric belief system from the 9th Century.

...didn't.

http://cellar.org/2004/iraqiweapons.jpg

Which nuclear weapons in particular, can you name one?

I think its quite a stretch to say that "the youth of Iran and possibly the majority of the country loves the West and wants to be more a part of it."

What the youth and the perhaps the majority of the population of Iran want is a more democratic, less theocratic government, within the context of their own culture and history.

IMO, to believe that they to be like US is what gets US in trouble.

Here they are. You be the judge

I could post vids of the hip hop culture or a religious youth camp or the jackass crowd and that wouldnt mean that most US kids want to be like any of them.

I'll say it again....its that arrogance that people of other cultures and beliefs want to be like US is what gets US in trouble.

They want free and more open societies....they want less religious extremism governing their lives. That doesnt equate to loving the West or wanting to emulate Western judeo-christian values.

Cool...I guess you have convinced yourself.

I dont share your conclusions.

You sure put a lot of deep consideration into that... posting 5 minutes after my 3.5 minute video, and 4 minutes after my 7 minute video.

LOL...probably very much like you reading the Rand report summary (or just a few sentences), rather than reading the full 250 page report, before stating your interpretation of the report.

I've seen the vids or other similar anecdotal vids and I've read reports on the "leanings" of the youth of Iran that offer a more comprehensive examination.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

http://www.counterpunch.com/green02242003.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8740.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1412.htm

And it wasn't just us, it was also Europe. Mainly I believe France and Germany.

All I am saying is, WE played a part in it. Maybe, in the future, it would behoove us to think twice about whether we should arm and train countries that aren't entirely friendly to us, simply so we can turn a profit, because in the end, that's what it always boils down to, money and greed.

I wonder if, 10-15 years from now, we find ourselves facing off with Iraqi soldiers we trained and armed, because they have decided we are the enemy again, if people like you will finally be willing to look at where some of it is our fault. I'm not saying I think that will happen, only that it might. And if it does, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Iranian president declares his country a space and nuclear power

Maybe that plan didn't work out so well.

I blame you and your belligerence UT.

I blame Bush.

This article suggests Khatami withdrew to support another gent, Mousavi, who might have more ability to stand up to the mullahs.

Mousavi seems to be a much better for everyone, but this is only one article.

We wiped the floor with the Iraqi Army twice in the last 19 years. Uppity states not even the size of Texas don't really stand a chance against our armed forces.
Lots of "if's" in that statement. And I doubt the country as a whole will "decide we are the enemy again" because like it or not, the ones causing trouble are by far the minority assholes whereas the general population wants nothing more than peace.

I know a lot of my opinions are not popular, and I am very opinionated, but all I am saying is that we should be more willing to examine our part in things that happen to us. Our actions in the past helped Saddam gain power, and also Osama bin Laden. Both of those people turned against us. That's all.

There is probably little to suggest that Iraq will "decide we are the enemy again" at least in the short term, but there is much to suggest that Iraq will be much closer politically to Iran than any time in its history.

For all of Sadam's horrific and barbaric acts against the people of Iraq, no can can deny that he provided a counter-force to Iran and the more fundamentalist Islamic interests in the region.

The largest political party in the Iraq Council of Representatives (parliament), the United Iraqi Alliance, is composed primarily of the former Dawa party and SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) party, both of which have long standing ties to Iran.

In addition, the fastest growing political movement in Iraq is led by the the extremist anti-American cleric al Sadr.

A stronger Iran in the region and a extremist cleric controlling the fastest growing political movement in Iraq certainly are not in the US interest.

Tell that to Vietnam.

You're right sugar we do need to be more careful about who's enemy's enemy we back in the future because we don't necessarily have the best track record in that field. And @redux, personally I think we should eliminate the domestic need for Arab oil so that we won't even have a real interest in that region's politics in the first place. Not so that we can become isolationist, but so that we are more self sufficient and the only real concern left is human rights among those people. @ tw, different time, different place, different politics, different mindsets and you know that.

:dedhorse:

I know the eact opposite because I learn rather than listen to extremist rhetoric. We are again paying heavily for those lies as we did after Nam. Extremists created Vietnam by saying, "different time, different place, different politics, different mindsets". A $trillion dollar bill must now be paid through American job losses and economic downturn. Show me that military victory. Deja vue Nam.

Meanwhile, "Mission Accomplished" was the cakewalk. Welcome to Afghanistan because same mentalities only understand military strength - not reality.

If Desert Storm was such a victory, then why was "Mission Accomplished" necessary? Fools who advocate military strength as the solution also subverted victory in Desert Storm and Afghanistan. If history lessons do not apply to "different time, different place ..." etc, then why are we refighting wars? Could not happen if military strength translates into automatic victory.

Westmoreland also said, "different time, different place, different politics, different mindsets and you know that." Therefore America was defeated. Those militarily as dumb as Cheney and Westmoreland advocated that "different ..." myth. A myth understood even 2500 years ago because they too learned lessons from history.

'Big dic' mentalities (ie Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) that subverted Desert Storm means an Afghan war also must be refought. Same mistake made by ignoring lessons from Nam. Ironic would be another Iraqi war only because 'big dics' believe military strength automatically translates into victory.

On a similar note, according to some military people assessing the situation in Afghanistan, in order to "win," we will have to be there for at least 8 more years and probably much longer. Rachel Maddow interviews retired Lt. Col., Dr. John Nagl, coauthor of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, along with General David Petraus.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#29729804

Do any of you think we can continue fighting for 8 more years or longer? I have war fatigue. In addition, since Afghanistan has never been beaten, should we really be trying to "win" a war there?

I saw the interview last night. Sharp guy, very guarded comments and he sees no out other than to put a lot more troops on the ground lie 10 to 15 times what we have there now. There is no way thats gonna happen. There is no real win.

Obama:

Iran: FUCK
YOU

Eh...lets see what happens after the Iranian elections. Hopefully Ahmadinejad will bust.

I think it can be won if they(we) don't make the mistake of thinking it's a conventional war, (which doesn't exist anymore)and use counter-insurgency tactics Petraus proved effective way back in the beginning of the Iraq war, then used later to break the stalemate nationwide. The key is not to try to lock down the country with military might, but win the support of the locals by providing security in exchange for their cooperation. Unlike Iraq, the locals already know what it's like to live under Taliban control.

Michael Yon.

McCain and Lieberman.

History suggests that Afghanistan is a near impossible place for outside invaders/occupiers to "win."

But I do like the Obama approach of a "civilian surge" to "boost its political and economic development" in addition to more troops.
With the Brits agreeing to join in that approach as well
there might be hope for some level of success.

I think you could safely remove the word "near" from that statement.:thumb:
That's why I think we have to empower the locals to win out over the Taliban.

I agree the "civilian surge" is necessary, but it won't do squat if the locals are not safe in their villages.

So Obama wants to basically use Patreus' idea and call it the Obama plan? Isn't that special.

I dont know anyone calling it the Obama plan other than you.

Obama campaigned on putting more troops in Afghanistan (I didnt agree with just more troops) and refocusing efforts against those who potentially pose the greatest threath to the US that are in the Afghan-Pakistan border regions...as opposed to six years of diverting resources from that front to engage in the "central front on the war on terrorism" in Iraq, which posed no direct threat to the US.

The idea of a "civilian surge" to accompany more troops deployed in a more targeted manner was developed jointly by the US in consultation with NATO allies.

So whats your beef? Stealing the terminology of "surge" from Petreaus?

In case you forgot, both Petreaus and Gates are now on the Obama team.

lol.

Iran Supreme Leader mullah Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "In case my underlings weren't totally clear yesterday, fuck you."

[quote=Redux;547900]I dont know anyone calling it the Obama plan other than you. /QUOTE]

Since I read this as a petty demeaning reply, I will respond to it.
Try Googling it and see what you get. From MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, Reuters, Bloomberg .... there are hundreds of relevant hits.

I stand corrected...the media is calling it Obama's plan in their story lines.

Obama is calling it a plan developed in consultation with his defense and national security team and NATO allies.

I honestly just didnt see the point of what I read as your cynical post of how "special" it was that Obama was basically using Petreaus' idea, particularly when most defense and national security experts and advisors said the Iraq type surge would not work in Afghanistan.

If I was wrong to interpret your post as being cynical about how 'special it was...using Petreaus' idea", perhaps you can expand on it.

cough/bullshit/cough - whatever dude.

Ok...so i guess you wont expand on your post.

The fact remains that most defense and national security advisors, including Petreaus, said the Iraq type surge would not work in Afghanistan.

If you think its "special" and "using Petreaus idea"....hey, that your interpretation.

I think such an interpretation is "cough/bullshit/cough"

yup - no surprise there.... We'll see.

NATO is going to stick it up our ass. Every country is going it's own way, some of which are going exactly the wrong way by pissing off the locals. Where's Ike when we need him.

Doesn't make any difference, we could kiss their ass and give them the world, but without the US as the enemy they can't justify cracking down on their people. Israel alone is not a big enough boogieman without the US.

I'm sorry, but I don't see their reluctance to trust us as inappropriate or questionable behavior.

Who said it was inappropriate or questionable? We've stated what it is, and that it was predictable.

Uh huh, then why make a whole thread about it. All Iran is saying is that they wont trust us on our word, they are going to react according to our actions. Sounds fairly reasonable to me.

They also specified what those actions must be, which is apologize and make reparations for every slight, real and imagined, ever. They only supplied a partial list though, they'll make up the rest as they go along.

Oh yes, one is we mustn't stand in their way of destroying Israel.

Unfortunately, we are knee deep involvedwhen it comes to Israel. Isnt it then unsurprising that Iran would consider us untrustworthy? Playing the game means understanding that and thus understanding Irans reaction. Time will tell whether Iran will sees playing with us means anything concrete to them. Will we actually ever make it so for them? Is it even really worth it for us to do so (considering the fact that Russia is willing) What do we really have to offer them?

And that is the public statement. Get away from the extremists who know Iran is always evil. Then appreciate what is really happening.

Privately, Turkey's president Abdullah Gul is talking to Iran about a new American attitude. Of course Iran will say the same things publically. Only relevant are what they are saying privately.

Turkey, once one of America's top 10 allies, has lost it respect for America. That despite wanting an America it can admire and support. That too will change when Obama makes a visit to Turkey without the prerequisite visit to Greece. Numerous little facts imply something is afoot. If true, our local extremists will either ignore or bad mouth it.

There never was an axis of evil no matter how often extremists declare it. Restored relations with Iran are a remote possibility. If it does happen, wacko extremist (ie Limbaugh) will be all hyped up in a tizzy.

Only the Shia part. As I stated about 6 years ago, split it up into three parts.

Its been reported for over a week. No surprise - not private at all. Rather common knowledge for one who wants to seek information and the truth instead of promote an agenda.

Public statements are to keep the extermists in line. But since you are so better informed (extremists always know more), then tell us what Turkey said to Iran and what Iran said to Turkey. Their discussions are in private. Since you know so much of those private discussions, then tell us what nobody else can report. Or are you again replying only to argue more Rush Limbaugh rhetoric?

Your post provides nothing useful or informative. Since it has been reported for over week, then you obviously know what was said? classicman has no idea what Turkey, Iran, Clinton, and others have said. He posted only to argue. What - 40 or 50 some posts every day?

So, why is Obama blamed for this? Wacko extremist politics are alive and well.

Your writing style implied that it was some private information you were relaying, I corrected that.
But on that subject, What discussions that any representatives have are public? Discussions of this nature are always done in a private forum.

And you are towing that line well. If this info was on Limbaugh, I certainly wouldn't know as I have repeatedly said, I don't listen to him. Apparently tw listens to Rush Limbaugh. tw knows all about what Rush thinks & says. Move on please. Your petty BS is getting quite tiresome - AGAIN.

Great. Now we are the world's security force. *heavy sigh*

I think Pakistan is more of a problem, actually.

Yes, and the person who might have actually gotten the government to take a more realistic view resigned from consideration last week. *sigh*

"Charles Freeman, a man with a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Foreign Service, withdrew his name from consideration to be the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, a key intelligence job. In doing so, he blamed -- and I quote here -- "the Israeli lobby," for his decision to pull his own nomination.

He accused the so-called Israel lobby of "character assassination," of "willful distortion of the record," and an "utter disregard of the truth." Strong charges."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../fzgps.01.html

Certain proZionist organizations are notorious for this kind of behavior, assassinate the character of anyone who questions their motives. It really pisses me off. grrrr