So you write for him?

Still a one trick pony tw? I was hoping the election would take some of the vinegar from your soul.

tw has no soul. Therein lies your mistake.

Looks like the Israeli's have learned a few things from us. The use of drones.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Actually you have it backwards. Israel was first in demonstrating the power and versatility of drones. The only America exception may have been a drone used by Missouri class battleships to help target their 18 inch guns.

Ahmadinejad rips capitalism

Hmm, ok. So is this a possibility? It seems like a strange and improbable idea. Could this actually work? What about all the varying inflation, recessions, and so on.

The United States won't jump on because it will just become a power issue. Whoever controls the currency can do whats best for their individual country or interests.

Yes, Israel used drones to get the anti-aircraft positions to reveal themselves in the 6 day war.

Ahmadinejad has nothing but the purest of intentions when it comes to Iran and nuclear development for peaceful purposes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009...e_city_-2.html

STOP it Merc. You know damn well its 85% mental midget, mission accomplished tinfoil hatted, beancounter Bush's fault.

Not to take up for that whacko, but he has a point about capitalism and the damage we have caused worldwide with this crisis.

Ahmadinejad does have intelligent views on some issues, but has completely idiotic views on others.

Such as? His quasi-intelligent views are motivated and influenced by his wacky views.

His views on American foreign policy aren't overly extreme in my opinion. I didn't see much but when he spoke at that university two years ago (big news event), I didn't find a problem with much what was said. It is just the US news only focused on his completely idiotic viewpoints. The questions following his speech, what got printed and shown on TV, at that university had nothing to do with the actual speech, just the common gay and Israel questions that will boost ratings.

Yea, I thought a lot of the speech had not been publicized. But you know when you stand in front of the world and say some pretty stupid stuff as a world leader it is hard to recover from that. Look at Bush.

I agree.

Iran willing to build new relationship with US

Well publicly anyway - I guess we'll see if this is an earnest attempt at diplomacy or a stall tactic so that they can continue to proceed.

The article seems to contradict itself a bit - see underlined (mine)

My guess is they have learned from the NK's or visa versa. Stall, delay, lie, cheat, do whatever the hell you want and then pull out of the talks and blame it on the otherside.

US Contacted Iran's Ayatollah Before Election

Obama: "I am using the Swiss to send a personal letter to you, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggesting an improvement in our relations."

Khamenei: "Fuck you."

It appears that no amount of friendly gesturing, no amount of precision wording put into diplomatic statements, is going to stop the Islamist fucks from making the West and Zionists the scapegoats for everything bad that happens to their regime. We screwed the pooch in 1953 and it is original sin no matter what happens since then. Now there are boogeyman Westerners with tire irons on every street corner. It seems clear now that the Obama approach will not bear fruit and so more friendly letters will be pointless, should the Ayatollahs survive the current revolutionary mood. Contacting them only reminds them who's convenient to blame.

As if N. Korea could accomplish that.

Its like that noisy little weedy kid who has gotten used to getting his own way by yelling and screaming and throwing tantrums.

It would be good if there were some way we could administer the equivalent of a good spanking to the tiny group of leaders responsible for this, without killing huge numbers of relatively innocent civillians.

assassination?

We don't assassinate foreign leaders. That's the policy. Even Saddam wasn't outright assassinated, he was deposed, tried and hung. I was thinking kidnapping, stripping them naked, a few good colon-cleanses followed by a thorough spanking by a professional disciplinarian, then recording the whole thing on tape, telling them that the video will hit YouTube the day after they get out of line.

Iran: "Now that I am in the weakest position ever, I am willing to negotiate with you in front of the international media."

Obama: (thinks silently) "Fuck you."

Assassinations can easily backfire.

Of course, dead dictators are still improved dictators, not so?

Until they get replaced by someone/something worse...

yes, yes, but it's cheaper than YEARS and YEARS of war... or... whatever it is when you engage in war, but Congress never approves it as a war...

:D I would love to give Kim Jong-il a good discliplining. :Flush:

Not necessarily. A lot of times society is not the product of a ruler but the ruler is a product of society. If it is the latter, an assassination will only bring in a new, most likely worse, [insert whatever].

Point taken.

FUUUUU.....hhh.
 

Eighteen-inch guns?? Missouri class???

I keep telling you, tw: copyedit, copyedit.

The name ship of the class was the IOWA (BB-61), you nonGoogling good example of a bad example! Your carelessness outside your specialty (about which you do not write) keeps your credibility in the negative numbers. And never, ever, do you clean up your act. Standards in your writing? Either you have none, or you leave them too low.

I'll leave you the chance to discover the actual size of the Iowa class' main battery on your own.

It's actually pretty fun. Battleships have an ominous yet undeniable beauty to them, like a fighter plane or a naked sword.

Better to look at Hugo Chavez. Bush said things that were pretty blunt. Blunt is not the same as stupid. Did bluntness get in the way of consensus? Perhaps so, but it only flaked off what would have been the weak sisters and other myopics insufficiently committed to democracy to see it emerge in places there hadn't been any recently. As you know, I regard such insufficiency with a very jaundiced eye.

Our foreign problems all come from places that don't have democracies running them. And those problems are general; they are not directed solely at America.

What happens if this equation changes and democracies run those places?

It's a war. Quacks like a duck, etcetera.

Congressionally declared states of war carry with them enlarged government authority, so declaration is heavy with internal political consequence: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the duration. Jane Fonda might be either in exile as long as Roman Polanski, or only recently out of prison after being convicted of treason per Article III, Section 3 para 1, US Constitution. Things like that.

But, since the Constitution does not forbid calling out the Army without a Congressional declaration, and it is clear that the option of sending troops, and quickly, without having to put the entire nation on a war footing each time has some real advantages in promoting national policy, the precedent runs about 150 shooting affrays with or in foreign places to 5 Congressional declarations -- and they're still wars. Just various sizes.

Come to 9-11, the feeling both nationwide and on Capitol Hill was that while a declaration of war would very much focus the nation's energies on beating the kaffiyehs off the foe, such a response was somehow misaimed or disproportionate. Not, in the end, right.

None of which tergiversation makes trying to win the fight illegal.

Were it illegal, we're, what? Not supposed to win? Keerist. What's up with that?

And when you really think about what's up with that, it gives you the creeps.

Which is why the exhausting, expensive business of being defeated in a war proves a better resetter of societal rules, viz., 1939-45 Germany, Italy, and Japan. Everyone has their nose rubbed in and-how'd-that-work-for-you? They realize it didn't, and make the necessary sweeping ruleset change.

Did the CIA 'Cook the Books' on Iran?
By Herbert E. Meyer
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._books_on.html


Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council. He is widely credited with being the first senior U.S. intelligence official to forecast the Soviet Union's collapse, for which he later was awarded the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. He is author of How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty.

Obama (out loud): "Iran, remember when you asked to meet... back in post #205? I'm ready to meet with you now."

NY Times: U.S. to Accept Iran’s Proposal to Hold Face-to-Face Talks

Obama (secretly): "Guys, meeting with Iran isn't going to actually work... get ready to fuck them."

Jerusalem Post: US shifting Iran policy toward sanctions

Making one more attempt to talk first to determine the seriousness of Iran's interest in negotiation seems reasonable.
If talks are unproductive...proceed with sanctions.

Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to me too. The dance is being danced, and being danced well.

Diplomacy is dancing and talking while keeping the big stick visible at your side. IMO, that is always a better approach then waving the big stick first and attempting to publicly bully and/or humiliate your adversary.

Yea, and when they drop a nuke on Israel or visa versa I will remind you of this.

So what would you prefer America to do in relation to Iran?

Negotiate. Force them to keep the Nukes they and everyone else knows they are making on the table. I would and think we need to continue to foster elements within their country who oppose the current radical elements.

In the end we may need to allow Israel to bomb the fuck out of the infrastructure and defense. They have one large gas refinery. They have lots of oil but one refinery. Bomb the hell out of it. Do not invade. Give them payback for the damage they did to US and UK troops in Iraq. Otherwise I would just sit on them. We owe the government nothing. I say we embrace the people.

Iran: "We're ready to cooperate with you."
UN: "If you ship your uranium to Russia, we will return to you uranium that's ready for use in nuclear power plants."
Iran: "Fuck you."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

They got more then plans for the bomb from Korea. They learned how to stall and duck and weave. In the end they will get their bomb and some free refinery for civilian power. And the rest will be left scratching their heads wondering how they got away with it. We should know better.

Which is the Rush Limbaugh soundbyte interpretation. Only wacko extremists see everything in "black and white". Iran1 - the most wacko (ie Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) Iranians - are the only Iranians according to your interpretation. How many times must we read George Jr and UG logic before we finally see through their bullshit. The world is not monolithic no matter how many times wackos say it is monolithic. Also existing are Iran2, Iran3, Iran4, and Iran5 who have other opinions. Whose political power (ie the reform movement) was quashed when America said we will also "Pearl Harbor" Iran with nukes.

"Pearl Harbor"? Remember when you were warned those many years ago about the consequences of "Pearl Harboring" a sovereign nation? Welcome to what you should have known back in 2002.

Iran is bartering. What American extremists call "Fuck you" is how the other side says, "No, we offer this alternative." An honest person sees an Iran with many opinions - the other power brokers - Iran2, Iran3 ... Only wacko Americans who see "Fuck You" also want war. That is UT's intent using the same logic that also proved Saddam had WMDs.

"Axis of Evil" made it almost impossible to be an Iranian moderate. Iran2, Iran3, Iran4, and Iran5 - the other power brokers - had completely different opinions. But those moderates could no longer speak because people such as UT regard war as routine and acceptable. This goes right back to how one thinks. Even when presented with facts and numbers that said otherwise, the politics told them to "Pearl Harbor" Iraq. Reality, the numbers, ethics, and education meant nothing. And here we are again. Deja vue.

Since America has so harmed the world's trust, why should anyone believe any offer that has an American name attached to it? They should not. We still have too many such as UG who hate the world - who would fix the world in their own image. The world has every right to not trust America. It will take years to restore that trust. It will take years to prove that UG and Rush Limbaugh are only clowns. That moderates now speak and mock those clowns.

What UT sees as "Fuck you" is how negotiations barter - because trust must be first established.

Why did it take the Paris peace talks so long to end the Nam war? Because first America had to learn reality. First America had to learn reality so that others could trust what America might agree to. A Nixon wacko America could not even admit their perspective was devoid of reality. UT should first learn why Iran also has no reason to trust anything America might propose. Goes right back to the many Americans who did not learn the lessons of Saddam's WMDs. Who did not learn why they could so easily be lied to – and who automatically believed every one of those lies.

Iran will probably have some crude nuclear weapons only because the time to avert that bomb was five years ago. Could have happened if the American administration was honest. What results from the destruction of trust and honesty typically appears years and sometimes a decade later. Moderates who know this stuff were warning of these consequences years ago. But too many only hear wacko extremist (Fox News and Hannity) drumbeats. So many still did not learn the lessons of Saddam's WMDs. Who cannot tell the difference between bartering and “Fuck You”. Who do not understand why most every country in the world has so much less trust of the US government since 2000.

Learn the different between wacko rhetoric and the what really happens when negotiators barter.

Well at least the Iranians now have an honest America to barter with. Now something positive can happen.

Diplomatic posturing.

For the first time, the US is fully engaged in the diplomatic process with Iran and the US, EU and Russia are on the same page.

Given that fact, I would be posturing as well if I were an Iranian political leader, particularly if my political foundation was shaky at home.

Continued diplomacy is in our favor...and if it fails, we are also on the same page now with the EU and Russia on sanctions.

The last thing we need is neo-con rhetoric like that recently espoused by former UN ambassador John Bolton that Israel must bomb Iran.

Sanctions have always worked with Iran and Iraq.:3eye:

[sarcasm]Toppling their governments has been an unqualified success as well.[/notification]

Ya know, if we could kick the oil habit and go to any other form of energy, we could walk away from the whole area. Why the hell do we care which tyrannical fruitcake is in charge of where. It is only their economic power, based almost entirely on oil, that forces the rest of the world to give a damn.
Oh, how many times have I heard people bewail how much it will cost to convert our energy infrastructure. Billions, hundreds of billions!
Which is chump bloody change compared to the cost of continued military deployment in these areas, not to mention the human suffering and environmental costs.

Sigh. I'm just fed up with this stupid shit.

As you said, sanctions worked perfectly with Saddam. He was a threat to no one. He was actively promoting myths about WMDs because many of his neighbors could easily conquer him. We learned after the fact how weak he was. Do to sanctions and Clinton's cruise missile strikes, those who know (especially after the Saddam interviews) realized Saddam could have probably been toppled even by a civil war in years. One consensus estimate gave him only a few more years in power if we had just let him stew.

Iran has yet to see any serious sanctions. With so much of the world more distrusting the US than Iran, Iran has easily subverted many sanctions. Sanctions worked on Saddam because the world believed what the US government said. After 2002, the world routinely distrusts American claims. Now demands massive supporting facts. Rightly so.

An American that was highly respected due to Desert Storm only saw a self serving power that loves war everywhere. Axis of Evil making it obvious how dangerous America was becoming. How many even in the Cellar believed lies rather than respect for the world.

Saddam was a threat to no one. Sanctions were that effective.

Truly. Without "military socialism" the expense of conversion begins to look reachable. High-tech work unrelated to pointless violence and destruction focused on strengthening our economy sorta seems optimistic, patriotic, and forward looking. You could run a Presidential campaign on such ideas.

Another bit of the puzzle. Iran is not just after power plants...

Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6955351.ece

I'm shocked! . . . NOT.

Taiwan firm: China got Iran part with nuke uses
 

Link

Guess we can add China to the list. :greenface:greenface

Ouch! Iran gets a taste of it's own medicine..


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aT3gNEy3PnhQ

Its Bush's faul . . . wait whaa???

The Fucks have been killing US troops in Iraq for years...

Obama (overtly): "Guys, meeting with Iran isn't going to actually work... get ready to fuck them."

NY Times: U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf