I am pleased with that report
 

I feel somewhat reassured that after Iraq we are not fully stymied and with thumbs in mouths merely sitting and waiting for the world to go to hell in a hand basket.

Oh wait... that's me! :smack:

j/k

Kennedy did same. First he attempted diplomacy. But with wackos on both sides striving for war, eventually a Cuban Missile Crisis had to occur. What was learned? A near destruction of the entire world because wackos had too much power. Both Kennedey and Krushchev were at great pains to reign in their wackos. Kennedy did that in a spectaculor confrontation with Gen Curtis LeMay in the Oval Office. And with McNamara literally riding herd on the Joint Chiefs. Less well known were similar confrontations between Krushchev and his wacko extremists.

Great leaders always first talk to the enemy. Only when diplomacy does not work (because the moderates are being subverted by extremsist), then military precautions are deployed.

One major difference between today and 1960. Iran has a massive reform movement that would be devestated again by doing the most stupid thing - George Jr's overt military threats. The axis of evil.

Obama is only deploying defensive weapons. Too many inspired with 'big dic' syndrome view war as the only solution.

A good defense is sometimes the best offense.

A good defense is also an ideal diplomacy tool. Using the military diplomatically is how to solve problems without overt warfare. Haiti. Bosnia and Kosovo. Just a few examples of how open warfare was averted using military power and intelligent leadership.

And let's not forget the Cuban Missile Crisis. Intelligent leadership had to challenge big dic thinking to avoid the end of civilization.

Well, did anyone have any doubt that this was a fact? Ignore the Axis behind the Curtain!

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.c...TheCurtain.jpg

Thais Say North Korea Arms Were Iran-Bound

BANGKOK — A large shipment of North Korean weapons seized here in December was bound for an airport in Iran, according to a Thai government report submitted to the United Nations and leaked to news agencies.

(and in the very next paragraph they retract their statement. It is the NYT or is it fact?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/wo...1plane.html?hp

I am sorry TW. I am not a serious with topical discussions to give feedback like you deserve. I appreciate you trying to engage me though.

I read things like that quote I highlighted and I go off thinking of the Mayans who were intelligent. They disappeared but their intelligence didn't save their civilization from disappearing so I am not so sure if intelligence is the panacea.

That's just to say that if it isn't one thing threatening the planets existence it's another and there aren't any givens but I do agree that wisdom is the best course of action regardless.

My example also serves to say that there are other factions and factors in the world that may succeed in the worlds demise where we have failed. Or did we just open a can of worms in the middle east? I am thinking we destabilized a region when we so called 'liberated a people.' Perhaps defense is our only option these days and in my opinion always should have been.

I love that physicians code. 'do no harm'

:)

Mayans did not have two militaries with nuclear weapons and a 'big dic' mentality. 'Big dic' thinking in both militaries believed use of nuclear weapons would solve all problems.

Civilizations die for other reasons. I believe the Mayans built cities adjacent to soils that eventually would no longer grow enough crops. The Spartans simply used war as a solution for all problems - therefore their numbers diminished to maybe 20,000. Rome may have been undermined by using so much lead water pipes and drinking glasses while their enemies learned Roman and other better techniques.

Intelligence alone does not guarantee survival. Nobody said that. But intelligent thinking is necessary for survival.

To overtly encourage and want war with Iran is just dumb. And yet here we are again confronting the same reasons that created "Mission Accomplished". From the same people. Some just never learn the lessons of history.


skysidhe - your quotes are cited only to engage everyone.

history repeats itself .....

This is remarkable to me. And I like it. It's the first time I've seen you post anything that could be construed as an effort to consider the feelings of the person you're responding to. You seems to want skysidhe to know that you're not attacking her. You're being kind to her. It's a little emotional of you, tw. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

I think you are flying to high off the radar glatt for any deducing to occur.

Plain and simple TW. It was a backhanded compliment...sort of strange I thought

It's the second time I got a "I wouldn't have ...only because blah blah....oh and not because of YOU ect ect" type of dismissal"

biotches

Feelings and emotions were never considered. What I read and replied to is nothing more than a logical statement. I saw no emotion or feeling posted. And I replied with same.

Posted was, "I appreciate you trying to engage me though."

Since that (a possible conclusion based only in facts) was not my intent, I posted a logical reply. "your quotes are cited only to engage everyone."

Nobody's emotions were considered, seen to be relevant, or inserted in any of those posts. skysidhe provided 'reasons why' for the scope and context of those replies. To better understand the underlying intent. To better understand what was being posted. That is only what I read.

I don't know why you saw any feelings in those posts. I saw none. I saw logic with reasons to better understand the reply. Nothing more.

Totally confuses me why you saw any emotion in my post. Let me restate that because that is literally the point. I have no idea why you saw emotions when I intended none to exist. I say this often. If you saw any emotion, you have installed your own biases into that post. When I chose to post with intent to hurt, et al, well, you knew it then AND you knew why.

A simple rule. If you perceive emotions, then you may have completely missed the logic. Keep rereading until you understand the text. Too many see emotions only because own biases or emotions were applied. Seek only what is stated. Too many use emotions to discover a hidden agenda.

Well, then I guess I was wrong.

I think you were right, not that it matters.

lol T'dub's channeling Spock again :P

and all is right with the world.

channeling Spock? hehehe

Live long and prosper.

My stars have realigned :p

Iran anniversary 'punch' will stun West: Khamenei
That's a rather hearty "Fuck You"

Eh...they punch as hard as Chavez...

Is anyone confident that more sanctions are really going to affect them? The sanctions affect the people of Iran more than the leadership further increasing the dissent against the US & the west.

IF that is the route we are taking I agree. This seems like more stall tactics for Iran to buy time so the can continue their enrichment program.
Link
Would that be the same idea that Iran has repeatedly refused already? Yup, I thought so.

Russia is calling for increased sanctions now also. Very unusual move for them.

Well it's 9pm in Iran so they have three more hours to throw a "punch" - but more likely it's just the same goddamn rhetoric they've been pulling over and over, the attention whoring twats.

I am actually quite interested to see if they have anything up their sleves. No, it is time for them to put up or shut up. If there is some direct action against the US I am quite sure that we could give them a response they wouldn't expect. Maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part.

There is no doubt we could, the issue is whether we should and more importantly . . . will we. The eyes of the world will certainly be on this administration if Iran pulls another stunt.

well i was a day early in my thinking but

Iran was successful, the US Government in Washington DC, is shut down tomorrow. :lol2:

US To Syria: "In a sign of openness, we are ready to initiate relations with you after a five-year absence."

Assad of Syria: "Wait for it...."

(flies to Tehran)

Ahmadinejad and Assad, in unison and harmony: "Fuuuuuuuck Yoooooooou".

WaPo: Iran, Syria mock U.S. policy; Ahmadinejad speaks of Israel's 'annihilation'

I wonder how much of this is nothing more than a saber rattle. They are certainly inviting a black eye from someone. I did note that Clinton was seeking support for further sanctions against the military industrial complex.

Yeah, Clinton has been pushing tough sanctions on Iran for a while. Also Merc, I'm guessing Iran are looking for external "threats" to take attention off their latest crackdowns. Too bad no one really knows what the hell is going on in that country.

Meanwhile Iran did something completely confusing. They moved all their nuclear material to the surface. Literally put a big target on their maybe 20% pure nuclear materials. In a country where it is never obvious who is really in control, this has only created even more confusion with analysts? Why would they make those nuclear materials a perfect target for an extremist Israeli government? And again, who really is in charge?

If anyone, ie: Israel attacks that one building, it will be the uniting force the Iranian Gov't so sorely needs. It will give them the common enemy they need and refocus all the energy, of those currently rallying against the Iranian leadership, back onto Israel or whatever other outside enemy.

US: "Syria, now that we have re-engaged diplomatic relations, the first thing we would like to talk about is Hezbollah. We would like you to stop sending them missiles."

Syria: "Missiles? Fuck you! What missiles?"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1152777.html

It seems like we've seen foreign policy play out like this before but for the life of me I just can't remember where.

Iran says it has started cruise missile production
 

There has been a re-newed discussion about the restriction of gasoline sales to Iran. I wonder what the black market response would be through Iraq or other friendly countries.


http://www.fpif.org/articles/iran_ga..._war_with_iran

How is that diplomacy thing working out anyway....

Link

Now what?

Link

Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you." ...
I guess we can add Russia & Turkey to the list.

This caught my eye... maybe it was the words "Bushehr reactor"
Does our friend, GWB, hold the trademark ?

BBC World News article
13 August 2010 Last updated at 07:00 ET
Iran nuclear plant start date set

Sounds like another hearty "Fuck You" to me.

..

I would like to bring to the attention of anyone interested in this subject to two articles from the Sept addition of the Atlantic, one of my two fav magazines subscriptions....

One is a bit long, the other not so much. Two interesting views. Please read and feel free to comment. I would be interested in your views.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ear-iran/8193/

This one is a bit longer but worth the read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...o-return/8186/

Kaplan goes over the line. "We must be more willing, not only to accept the prospect of limited war but, as Kissinger does in his book of a half century ago, to accept the prospect of a limited nuclear war between states."

I don't think there is such a thing as a limited nuclear war. Anyone using a nuke preemptively has to face total destruction. That is why the US needs to stand up against Iran. There should be aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf right now. This problem only gets bigger while we wait it out hoping it will go away.

I like Hitchens' point (in the video) that Iran is making a joke of international law. The world has told Iran this is unacceptable. Iran has thumbed its nose right back. There are no consequences other than the respect and admiration of Syria, Lebanon, and now Turkey, whose leaders need to suck up to the bully or live in terror of being the next victim.

You don't get nukes unless you are mature enough to understand your responsibilities in the world. This is like giving keys to a Ferrari to a 16 year old boy and telling him to drive safely and under the speed limit. It's almost not even the kid's fault when he wrecks it and kills a bunch of people. The world is responsible for this situation and the world should get on with addressing it.

I read a lot of the Iran debate on The Atlantic and the strongest point that sticks with me is what can we actually do about Iran getting the bomb and is it worth it? Ideally, I think is agreed across the board that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is hazardous to the interests of many countries in the area, notably Israel, but many of the disagreements lie on what we could actually accomplish and how Iran will react to our actions. Besides North Korea, Iran is possibly the country we have the least knowledge, or confidence in our knowledge, to predict a reaction. If we bomb them willl they curl up in a ball and play victim? Shut down the gulf and step up attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas? Go even further? If we bomb their nuclear facilities will they stop the program? Will it just be delayed and they try even harder to get the bombs? How will civilians in Iran act to an attack? etc.

Personally, I am against bombing Iran. Most people I've read have stated that there is nothing we can do stop the nuclear program and that Iran will most likely react violently and become more isolated after an attack. I can go into more detail but that is a more dangerous Iran in my opinion.

The unknowns are what makes it tough for any administration to make a good logical decision for this situation.

I am against the US bombing Iran. But I don't really care if someone else does it.

Further Developments

We'd be a lot more okay with Iranian uranium-fueled nuclear power were Iran a democratic republic instead of an anti-Western Islamofascistic oligarchy. Just sayin'... 'bout how many dead Islamofascists should it take? A tenth the total population or just a tenth of the ruling party?

Great, just frigging great.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/wo...ontractor.html

Blasts hit secret Iranian missile launching-pad for US, Israeli targets
From here

Has anyone heard anything about this? Can anyone confirm?

A little something on the missile type itself and its development. Clickable large pics.

You can describe the missile as a material expression of the Axis of Evil. I'm rather concerned about the CEP they cite of roughly 190 meters. That compares well with an ICBM, perhaps because of its shorter range and flight time.

'WikiLeaks shows U.S. dismissed Israel's warnings about Iran bomb'

Bold mine.

Heads are going to roll over this.

from here

Wikileaks: Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...es-saudis-iran

wheeeeeee

Time to water board Assange and send him to a third world country prison. I have about had enough.

Something I just thought of with Arab nations supporting the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities...

If the US bombs Iran's nuclear facilities and in response Iran cuts off the Strait of Hormuz, sky rocketing the price for oil, how much money would Arab nations make off that?

There is much more that goes into consideration for supporting an attack on Iran but I'm curious to know a ballpark prediction for that.

Remember, the Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Persians and traditional enemies.

Don't forget, Iran has very limited production for domestic oil by-products, specifically, gas. They would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. A few well placed cruise missiles would cripple their country in a matter of days.

We've seen them gang up on Israel, let them gang up on Iran. We don't need to get involved.

But they're proven to be inept at that ganging up shit.

A Gang-of-one. :lol:

If their neighbors had any balls they would do it for the rest of us. But isn't that the way of the Middle East? Convince the US that it is their problem and let us donate our lives for their shit problems?

I imagine the price will go up on day one due to the futures markets, but I've also read that if they try it, we can open up the Strait pretty damn quick.

No matter what happens it will be "our" fault.

Does that mean that we can then blame "Bush"? :lol2: