Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/53612
Echoing the refrain of other Iranian officials, (Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani) said he would be perfectly happy to negotiate with the United States — as long as the U.S. recognized Iran’s right to go nuclear, discontinued its support for Israel, pulled all of its bases out of the Middle East, and apologized for a litany of historical sins ranging from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to the U.S. role in overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953. He even wanted the U.S. to apologize for actions it didn’t commit, such as “encouraging Saddam Hussein to attack Iran.” This led naturally into an anti-Israel diatribe complete with pictures that Larijani held up depicting Palestinian “victims” of Israeli “atrocities.”
Having recited a long litany of America’s supposed sins, Larijani demanded: “Now with a change in tone and a few media postures, do you honestly expect this pain to go away?” If you overlook his sophistry and his mendacity, he actually raises a good point: Why would anyone in the Obama administration expect that Iran will make substantial concessions to us based on nothing more than the new president’s willingness to negotiate?
Oooh, get her!
Chip, shoulder, anyone?
A hope of change and resolution of this conflict with peaceful means. But this looks like the start of WWIII or VI.
[URL]Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."
Meanwhile who is talking and what are they saying in private channels - where actual discussions are conducted without the hyperbole for public consumption.
OK, this Commentary place...are they mostly conservative or something? Because
He even wanted the U.S. to apologize for actions it didn’t commit, such as “encouraging Saddam Hussein to attack Iran.”
just isnt really true, at least depending on who is looking at and writing the history.
Meanwhile, because the US is not talking with belligerence, the Iranian Reformers are attempting to regain power. Khatami, the former reform President announced a bid for reelection.
The entire reform movement in Iran was devastated when George Jr all but declared war on Iran with his 'axis of evil' threats. For the Iranian reform movement, it has been downhill since. American threats have encouraged all Iranians to support wacko extremists and more military weapons. Iranians did exactly what any people would do when overtly threatened. Remove those threats and Iran may again embrace reformists.
Current Iranian comments come from those extremists who have the same attitude as Cheney. Can Khatami get reelected?
[youtube]3oKwg6W05MU[/youtube]
Meanwhile, because the US is not talking with belligerence, the Iranian Reformers are attempting to regain power. Khatami, the former reform President announced a bid for reelection.
The entire reform movement in Iran was devastated when George Jr all but declared war on Iran with his 'axis of evil' threats. For the Iranian reform movement, it has been downhill since. American threats have encouraged all Iranians to support wacko extremists and more military weapons. Iranians did exactly what any people would do when overtly threatened. Remove those threats and Iran may again embrace reformists.
Current Iranian comments come from those extremists who have the same attitude as Cheney. Can Khatami get reelected?
I agree and hope that they (reformists) can regain momentum. The Iranian people really do want a secular government. At least, most of them do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/middleeast/11iran.html?hp
After the icy mutual hostility of the Bush era, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran on Tuesday made a conditional offer of dialogue to the Obama administration, saying Tehran was ready for "talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere."
But he coupled the offer with an attack on former President Bush, calling for him to be "tried and punished" for his policies and actions in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region.
Someone refresh my memory, why is the neutron bomb frowned upon?
It killed people but not property. It was deemed inhumane. WTF?
Personally I thought it was a great idea.
Without a wacko extremists for a counterparty, even Iran's Ahmadinejad has conceded to what a responsible leader does. Without threats from Cheney, his position as an elected leader is further threatened by another moderate - Khatami. From the
Washington Post of 11 Feb 2009:
Iran is ready for dialogue with the United States, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday, directly addressing the U.S. administration in his most measured remarks to America since President Obama took office.
"The new U.S. government has announced that it wants to create change and follow the path of talks. It's very clear that true changes should be fundamental and not tactical," Ahmadinejad said during a massive rally in Tehran to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Islamic revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed shah of Iran.
"These talks should be held in a fair atmosphere in which there is mutual respect," he added. ...
Ahmadinejad's overtures are made under tight supervision by Iran's other leaders, analysts say. "When he speaks, he does so with the approval of the Supreme National Security Council," a group that includes representatives of the country's religious, military and other power centers, said Mohammad Marandi, head of the North American studies department at the University of Tehran.
"They will decide if Iran will really deal with the United States," Marandi said. "It's the United States that should send signals first. They need Iran more than we need them," he added. "Iran can help the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan. Pakistan is unraveling, Iran also wants security and stability in those nations. The fact that they now work separately makes it impossible to get things done."
George Jr did Cheney's bidding. Amadinejad answers to his supreme council of neocon clerics. But simply remove a neocon extremist and suddenly something, always necessary for peace, is possible. Talking.
It killed people but not property. It was deemed inhumane. WTF?
Personally I thought it was a great idea.
Me too. Especially since the half life of Tritium is about 12 years. Pretty clean environment in a couple of decades. After reading a wiki article on it there was this ominous quote:
"One significant drawback of the weapon is that not all targeted troops will die or be incapacitated immediately. After a brief bout of nausea, many of those hit with about
5-50 Sv of radiation will experience a temporary recovery (the latent or "
walking ghost phase"
[12]) lasting days to weeks. Moreover,
these victims would likely be aware of their inevitable fate and react accordingly."
Me too. Especially since the half life of Tritium is about 12 years. Pretty clean environment in a couple of decades. After reading a wiki article on it there was this ominous quote:
"One significant drawback of the weapon is that not all targeted troops will die or be incapacitated immediately. After a brief bout of nausea, many of those hit with about 5-50 Sv of radiation will experience a temporary recovery (the latent or "walking ghost phase"[12]) lasting days to weeks. Moreover, these victims would likely be aware of their inevitable fate and react accordingly."
Walking ghost phase?
So...they turn into zombies and start killing indescrimnately?
OMG, my worst nightmare. *shudders* I hate zombies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/middleeast/11iran.html?hp
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
After the icy mutual hostility of the Bush era, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran on Tuesday made a conditional offer of dialogue to the Obama administration, saying Tehran was ready for "talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere."
But he coupled the offer with an attack on former President Bush, calling for him to be "tried and punished" for his policies and actions in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region.
I agree with that. In fact, I think Bush should be investigated and tried for war crimes, among other things.
I just love the irony of our free society. M.A. calls America The Great Satan (and Israel, The Little Stan) and calls for the destruction of both. Yet, we spend our taxpayer dollars to protect his scrawny, Member's Only wearing ass when he's here to attend U.N. functions. The funny thing is that most Iranians don't know about that. Let some nut take a shot at him or kill him while he's here though......
And, as for trying Bush for war crimes? Sure...right after you remove the sitting Treasury Secretary for not paying taxes and charging Tom Daschle. Oh wait...they're Dems, so that's OK.
I just love the irony of our free society. M.A. calls America The Great Satan (and Israel, The Little Stan) and calls for the destruction of both. Yet, we spend our taxpayer dollars to protect his scrawny, Member's Only wearing ass when he's here to attend U.N. functions. The funny thing is that most Iranians don't know about that. Let some nut take a shot at him or kill him while he's here though......
And, as for trying Bush for war crimes? Sure...right after you remove the sitting Treasury Secretary for not paying taxes and charging Tom Daschle. Oh wait...they're Dems, so that's OK.
You are comparing not paying taxes to WAR CRIMES? WOW. Glad to see you have some perspective.
No, I am not comparing the two. And, that would be WAR CRIMES (in your skewed opinion). I just thought I would use the most recent examples of Dems getting a pass on their own wrong-doing. It just so happens that no matter what a Democrat seems to do...fellow Dems in power (and the Dem voters) give them a pass. Didn't pay your taxes? Well, you said you're sorry...it was an oversight, so all is well. It's disgusting. Marion Barry ring a bell?
Let us compare actual, prosecutable crimes to Bush-hater's fantasy crimes and see what comes of it. Sug, which *particular* war crime would you start with, and in which court?
Let us compare actual, prosecutable crimes to Bush-hater's fantasy crimes and see what comes of it. Sug, which *particular* war crime would you start with, and in which court?
Bush and Cheney have both admitted in interviews that they authorized waterboarding, which is defined as torture in the Geneva Conventions, which we helped put into place, and we have always agreed to until bush was in office. WE have tried and prosecuted people for waterboarding. Plus, we used other forms of torture as well.
So, I believe they should be tried in an International Court, by International Standards. If the international community decides to let them go, then so be it. But I do not believe we can just turn our backs on standards that we helped put in place, and that the international community has agreed to, for years, simply because we want to or because we all of a sudden decide, on our own, that what we do isn't torture, or that we are somehow above the law.
No, I am not comparing the two. And, that would be WAR CRIMES (in your skewed opinion). I just thought I would use the most recent examples of Dems getting a pass on their own wrong-doing. It just so happens that no matter what a Democrat seems to do...fellow Dems in power (and the Dem voters) give them a pass. Didn't pay your taxes? Well, you said you're sorry...it was an oversight, so all is well. It's disgusting. Marion Barry ring a bell?
OK. I do not know much about TGs case, so I can't really comment on that with any honesty, but in the case of TD, I do believe he made an honest mistake, and once he realized it, he corrected that mistake. Hell, I didn't pay my taxes once for several years. I knew I owed th money but I just didn't have it. I talked to the IRS periodically about it. I did eventually pay it, along with the interest and penalties. Does that make me a cheat?
I believe they should be tried in an International Court, by International Standards.
screw that. The leaders of the US would be foolish to ever allow International Courts the power to rule over the people who are elected to lead our nation.
screw that. The leaders of the US would be foolish to ever allow International Courts the power to rule over the people who are elected to lead our nation.
When they break International Law, they should be held accountable in an International Court.
When the international community can survive without the US they can start dictating what we can and cannot do. Our leaders are only accountable to us. The constitution is the rule book, the courts are the place to handle it, and the people are ultimately responsible for the leadership we have.
Bush and Cheney have both admitted in interviews that they authorized waterboarding, which is defined as torture in the Geneva Conventions
The people that were waterboarded were not prisoners of war in
any of the
numerous ways defined by Geneva, and so, Geneva doesn't apply.
Those laws are there for a reason. They are to protect OUR SOLDIERS as much as to protect people in our custody. If the shoe were on the other foot, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. You are using a double standard. If we are going condone torture by our government, regardless of whether the prisoners are POWs as defined by the Geneva Conventions or not, then we can't expect anyone to take us seriously when our guys are tortured, and we want justice for them.
you don't honestly believe our POW's have been handled according to the Geneva Conventions do you?
If you want to prosecute someone, you go by the law, not what you hope might be the law.
Do you want to try again?
We cannot have a double standard simply because it's convenient.
If we refuse to abide by laws that we helped write, then we can't expect anyone else to treat us with any kind of respect.
Torture is NOT an acceptable way to treat people, I don't give a shit who they are or bad they are. It doesn't work anyway. It never has.
Did we help write the part that designates who a prisoner of war is?
You can't have a double standard - ignore the section of the law you don't want to apply - simply because it's convenient.
This isn't about torture, it's about law.
Torture is unacceptable, no matter who the prisoners are.
And ftr, I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the prisoners at GITMO ARE entitled to the rules and laws of Justice under the Constitution, regardless of whether they are actual "prisoners of war" or not.
The waterboardings didn't happen at Gitmo. They happened elsewhere.
You wanted to prosecute Bush for war crimes. You have failed. Would you like to try again?
I may be wrong but I believe Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) apply to both POWs and civilians held in detention. The Bush interpretation was that prisoners held at Gitmo (and other black holes) were neither and he created his own new designation to circumvent treaty obligations.
I doubt that Bush could be tried for war crimes, however I do think there was compelling evidence that he may have committed impeachable offenses, including authorizing harsh interrogation techniques that met the standards of torture in the above treaties that the US signed.
One question for an impeachment trial might have been if Bush had the unilateral legal and constitutional authority to interpret Geneva and CAT simply based on a DoJ "finding" and w/o congressional or judicial review. I think there is a Supreme Court case that ruled that it is the legislative branch that is responsible for implementing legislation when there are questions of interpretation of treaty obligations...not the executive branch.
Water under the bridge...but all the more reason why I think we need an independent commission to review practices like the above and, IMO, the equally serious issues and questionable practices associated with Bush's interpretation of a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) giving himself broader "war powers" than those designated in an AUMF.
The waterboardings didn't happen at Gitmo. They happened elsewhere.
You wanted to prosecute Bush for war crimes. You have failed. Would you like to try again?
So what. We have still been in charge of prisons where torture occurred. Can you say Abu Ghraib (sp)? Bush and Cheney have both admitted in interviews that we used waterboarding. That is from the horses mouth. How can you argue with that? It doesn't matter WHERE it occurred, it matters that WE DID IT.
And are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure that's not what has been reported.
There should be an independent investigation(s) into the bush administration and things they did over the course of their 8 years in power. I think they have seriously abused their power and should be held accountable.
The Senate Armed Services Committee (Carl Levin/John McCain) issued a pretty scathing bi-partisan report last year.
The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. This report is a product of the Committee’s inquiry into how those unfortunate results came about.
...
On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention. The President’s order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. While the President’s order stated that, as “a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions,” the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e., legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
...
Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President’s determination, techniques such as waterboarding..., used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody
..
Conclusion 6: The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) interrogation program included at least one SERE training technique, waterboarding. Senior Administration lawyers, including Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, were consulted on the development of legal analysis of CIA interrogation techniques. Legal opinions subsequently issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted legal obligations under U.S. anti-torture laws and determined the legality of CIA interrogation techniques. Those OLC opinions distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws, rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody and influenced Department of Defense determinations as to what interrogation techniques were legal for use during interrogations conducted by U.S. military personnel.
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY (pdf)
The brunt of the report's criticism is leveled against Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Addington, Woo, et al. (plausible deniabilityfor Bush/Cheney?)
But the question that needs to be asked and answered is if the president/Executive Branch can act unilaterally, w/o consultation with Congress and/or Judiciary, and "redefine the law" creating their own justification to circumvent US treaty obligations.
The Senate Armed Services Committee (Carl Levin/John McCain) issued a pretty scathing bi-partisan report last year.
The brunt of the report's criticism is leveled against Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Addington, Woo, et al. (plausible deniabilityfor Bush/Cheney?)
But the question that needs to be asked and answered is if the president/Executive Branch can act unilaterally, w/o consultation with Congress and/or Judiciary, and "redefine the law" creating their own justification to circumvent US treaty obligations.
Well that is really unconstitutional. I mean, we have different branches of government to balance the power and keep abuse of power at bay, right? If the executive branch can just do whatever it feels like, why do we even need the other ones?
And are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure that's not what has been reported.
Yes, I did extensive reading. There has been much confusion due to Bush Derangement Syndrome. But all of the three waterboardings happened elsewhere. They did not transport KSM to Gitmo for example.
The [COLOR=Gray]torture[/COLOR] that happened at Gitmo was "B" level stuff: sleep deprivation, holding people in awkward positions, controlling the temperature of their cells, that sort of thing. We know this because of FOIA'd memos from the FBI. None of those memos reference waterboarding.
There should be an independent investigation(s) into the bush administration and things they did over the course of their 8 years in power. I think they have seriously abused their power and should be held accountable.
This thread is about that now, and has been for some time. A partisan fishing expedition would seriously hurt Obama's ability to get things done.
You think they have seriously abused their power because you have paid attention to people who have been fishing all along. They have allowed the facts to get flimsy, because they're not critical thinkers and because it's more fun that way. I know you're a victim of this, because my attempts to get you to think in a straight line have failed. When we examine just the verifiable facts, which is no fun at all, things generally fall apart.
I just love the irony of our free society. M.A. calls America The Great Satan (and Israel, The Little Stan) and calls for the destruction of both. Yet, we spend our taxpayer dollars to protect his scrawny, Member's Only wearing ass when he's here to attend U.N. functions. The funny thing is that most Iranians don't know about that. Let some nut take a shot at him or kill him while he's here though......
And, as for trying Bush for war crimes? Sure...right after you remove the sitting Treasury Secretary for not paying taxes and charging Tom Daschle. Oh wait...they're Dems, so that's OK.
Don't worry. We've tried to assassinate foreign leaders before and we'll do it again. But if we use very expensive bombs and missiles fired by guys wearing uniforms, it doesn't count as an assassination attempt.
We bombed the
presidential palace in Libya in response to what we thought was Libyan involvement in a disco bombing. Since our air force can pretty much send a plane or a cruise missile with impunity against any country in the Middle East, we can take them out at will on their home territory and call it an 'act of undeclared war'.
1986 - US bombs Libyan military facilities, residential areas of Tripoli and Benghazi, killing 101 people, and Gaddafi's house, killing his adopted daughter. USsays raids were in response to alleged Libyan involvement in bombing of Berlin disco frequented by US military personnel.
....This thread is about that now, and has been for some time. A partisan fishing expedition would seriously hurt Obama's ability to get things done.
You think they have seriously abused their power because you have paid attention to people who have been fishing all along. They have allowed the facts to get flimsy, because they're not critical thinkers and because it's more fun that way. I know you're a victim of this, because my attempts to get you to think in a straight line have failed. When we examine just the verifiable facts, which is no fun at all, things generally fall apart.
Undertoad...I'm curious....do you include Bruce Fein as part of that "partisan fishing expedition" or "someone who allowed facts to get flimsy" because he is not a critical thinker?
President Barack Obama promised to restore the rule of law and to prevent future wrongdoing by high-level government officials.
To honor that promise, Mr. Obama should investigate, among others, former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former White House political adviser Karl Rove. The crimes to be investigated should include complicity in torture, illegal surveillance, illegal detention, perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Prosecutions should follow if the evidence convinces a grand jury to indict. ...
FEIN: The rule of law
Fein was a deputy AG under Reagan and later wrote one of the articles of impeachment against Clinton.
He is one of numerous Constitutional lawyers from across the legal spectrum who have "examined the verifiable facts" as least as much as you or I have and believe there are serious questions of law and possible abuse of power by Bush/Cheney.
The issue of whether or not it would get in the way of "Obama's ability to get things done" is a separate question unrelated to the rule of law.
He is one of numerous Constitutional lawyers from across the legal spectrum who have "examined the verifiable facts" as least as much as you or I have and believe there are serious questions of law and presidential abuse of power by Bush/Cheney.
This is an
Appeal to Authority, a classic fallacy of logic. It doesn't really prove anything and Mr. Fein's column gave us no new information.
Obama continued the Bush policies on FISA immunity and rendition secrets. Creeping fascism? Disregard of rule of law? Or an attempt to keep the country safe by using all available tools to do so? I don't know, let's just prosecute and figure that out during trials. Is that what you want? That's what Fein wants:
Mr. Obama should investigate, among others, former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former White House political adviser Karl Rove. The crimes to be investigated should include complicity in torture, illegal surveillance, illegal detention, perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Prosecutions should follow if the evidence convinces...
"I don't have any evidence. But
if the court finds something..."
Or if somebody perjures themselves during trial... we're back to prosecuting blowjobs.
Undertoad...what I want to know and, IMO, what every American should want to know, is if a president can unilaterally and legally justify a Congressional Authorization of Military Force (AUMF)to use "any tools available" to keep American safe.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Many constitutional scholars believe that an AUMF does not authorize unlimited "war powers" or "any tool" that a president wants.
Yet this AUMF is what Bush used as a legal foundation for all of his actions....to have the NSA (since when is the NSA part of the US Armed Forces?) bypass the FISA courts...to have the DOJ determine that US treaty obligations may be circumvented.....
That is a different question than "should we prosecute all the administration officials we can think of?"
I sounds to me like you are willing to ignore the rule of law to allow a president to use "any tool necessary" to protect us.
Straw Man fallacy.
Obama continued the Bush policies on FISA immunity and rendition secrets. Creeping fascism? Disregard of rule of law? Or an attempt to keep the country safe by using all available tools to do so? I don't know, let's just prosecute and figure that out during trials. Is that what you want?
BTW....Bush used the AUMF to authorize the NSA to bypass the FISA courts or perhaps you forgot that little fact.
Obama has put in an multi-agency oversight panel for rendition....providing at least some level of accountable to the law.
What I want is not to allow Obama or any future president to use the ihghly questionable Bush policies and practices to put "protecting" America over the rule of law.
That is a different question than "should we prosecute all the administration officials we can think of?"
I dont know who suggested that.
Another straw man?
Bush used the AUMF to authorize the NSA to bypass the FISA courts or perhaps you forgot that little fact.
Does the AUMF give him that ability, or doesn't it? Imagine that I don't know and am just asking.
I dont know who suggested that. Another straw man?
Mr. Obama should investigate, among others, former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former White House counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former White House political adviser Karl Rove.
You can drop the snark any time, BTW.
Bush used the AUMF to authorize the NSA to bypass the FISA courts or perhaps you forgot that little fact.
Does the AUMF give him that ability, or doesn't it? Imagine that I don't know and am just asking.
I dont know who suggested that. Another straw man?
You can drop the snark any time, BTW.
Ashcroft (DoJ)/Gonzales (WH) provided the memo or "finding" to justify (or provide cover for)using the AUMF to give the president the unilateral power to authorize the NSA to bypass FISA.
Rumsfeld (DoD)/Woo(DoJ)/Addington (WH) provided the memo or "finding" to justifying (or provide cover for) using the AUMF to give the president the unilateral power to authorize the circumvention of Geneva Conventions and US Convention on Torture, both of which the US is a signator.
Bush and/or Cheney signed off on both of the above.
No one has suggested going after "all the administration officials." IMO, the decision makers are the ones that should be held accountable and those, for the most part, are limited to the above individuals....not the hundreds of government officials who carried out the activities.
I dont know if those actions are legal...many constitutional scholars believe the actions represented an abuse of power.
IMO, that is why we need an investigation... so that the limits of executive power are clear to Obama and all future presidents.
Snark for snark.
I was snarky to sugarpop, and I apologize for that. Any snark you read in my comments to you is strictly your reading of it.
My question is on the table: does the AUMF authorize the bypassing of FISA? I don't know; my guess is that it does, based on some of the Wiki entry on the controversy. But the length of the entry, and its 156 citations, tell us it's a very complex question, at least. The signing of memos taking a position on it (or cover for it) does not alter the question.
My instinctive take on it is from a letter in that article:
The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks.
That sounds reasonable.
As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.
I was snarky to sugarpop, and I apologize for that. Any snark you read in my comments to you is strictly your reading of it.
My question is on the table: does the AUMF authorize the bypassing of FISA? I don't know; my guess is that it does, based on some of the Wiki entry on the controversy. But the length of the entry, and its 156 citations, tell us it's a very complex question, at least. The signing of memos taking a position on it (or cover for it) does not alter the question.
My instinctive take on it is from a letter in that article:
That sounds reasonable.
As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.
We obviously disagree but the bottom line is neither of our opinions on the AUMF and the extent of presidential powers it authorizes, or our different perspectives on which branch of our government has the legal authority to interpret US treaty obligations, will carry over to any rule of law. It is an interesting discussion and we can keep it going, but it wont bring clarity to the issue for future presidents.
And when it comes to the extent of presidential "war powers" independent of checks and balances, I would like to see clarity.
That is why I believe further investigation by a bi-partisan independent Commission and a resolution of these issues is in the best interest of the country....and if as a result of such an investigation, compelling evidence emerges that those past actions may have constituted a willful abuse of power, then, IMO, DoJ should consider criminal proceeding against the top decision makers.
In fact, I think Bush should be investigated and tried for war crimes, among other things.
:rolleyes:
Perhaps Redux should be investigated, have all his "everything" checked out, his email, under his bed, savings, checking & investments.
Interrogate or question all his friends and coworkers, then...if, [SIZE="4"]IF[/SIZE], the authorities think something is amiss, he should be charged. :headshake
I'm probably misreading something in what you are posting here Redux, but I don't think that is the course of action you want to endorse, is it? :eyebrow:
Only for anyone in office before Obama and after Clinton. Other than that I don't think he believes anyone should be invesigated for anything.
So far the Demoncrats are off to a grand start. At least they really get complete ownership this time.
Perhaps Redux should be investigated, have all his "everything" checked out, his email, under his bed, savings, checking & investments.
Interrogate or question all his friends and coworkers, then...if, [SIZE="4"]IF[/SIZE], the authorities think something is amiss, he should be charged. :headshake
I'm probably misreading something in what you are posting here Redux, but I don't think that is the course of action you want to endorse, is it? :eyebrow:
I never took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
And no one is talking about checking under the bed etc.
The issue at stake is a serious national policy issue...how far do the rights of executive power extend, particularly when a president claims we are in a "state of war" and no such proclamation has been issued by Congress. Does a president have the right to unilaterally interpret that an AUMF provides the same executive authority as a War Powers Resolution or Declaration of War. I dont think so, nor do many constitutional scholars.
If that is not serious shit that affects all the American people (much more than lying about a blow job), then I dont know what is.
The secondary question is if there sufficient evidence that Bush/Cheney and a small handful of top advisers willfully and intentionally took those executive powers beyond the Constitutional limits.
Or we would just do away with the oath of office and Constitutional checks and balances and Obama and future presidents can use whatever power they want, as long as they say we are in a "state of war" and their actions are to protect America.
I never took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Boy I never would have guessed that.:rolleyes:
Boy I never would have guessed that.:rolleyes:
Thanks for responding to the substance of my post! :eek:
The secondary question is if there sufficient evidence that Bush/Cheney and a small handful of top advisers willfully and intentionally took those executive powers beyond the Constitutional limits.
I don't think that's even secondary. They did what they did, "willfully and intentionally";
1- because they thought it was their right, maybe I should say the right of their offices.
2- because nobody stopped them, reinforcing their beliefs.
So while I agree the issue should be investigated and resolved as to exactly what the limits are, I'd rather it not be a witch hunt.
Ahem. Moving the topic back to the OP...watch the Iranian elections. If Ali Khamenei throws his weight behind Mohammad Khatami's or Mehdi Karroubi's challenge to Ahmadinejad's Presidency, things could get interesting. It could be that they intend to use the nuclear issue to hang him in the elections, let him be the face of the rejectionist camp and take the fall for it at a time when many states are willing to consider rapprochment with the US, North Korea nonwithstanding.
It seems the main worry among Iran's diplomatic corps is that Obama's change in tack is purely tactical and done to shore up world opinion - in other words to get them into talks, make unreasonable demands that Iran could never accept, have the talks collapse and let world opinion hang them. I don't think that is his intention here, but international politics is not a game where loser's get off easy.
For his part, Obama is almost certainly aware of the poisonous levels of infighting among the Iranian leadership, and wishes to proceed cautiously, for fear of insulting one or favouring another to the degree it sets the factions off into another round of infighting. In a country where there is no single, unified command of the armed forces, that is usually a bad idea.
Isn't diplomacy fun?
Thanks for responding to the substance of my post! :eek:
You are welcome. I see that your understanding of those who have taken such an oath is limited. It really puts things in perspective for me.
You are welcome. I see that your understanding of those who have taken such an oath is limited. It really puts things in perspective for me.
You're the man! ;)
But your personal attacks wont change the facts or my opinions.
Ahem. Moving the topic back to the OP...watch the Iranian elections. If Ali Khamenei throws his weight behind Mohammad Khatami's or Mehdi Karroubi's challenge to Ahmadinejad's Presidency, things could get interesting. It could be that they intend to use the nuclear issue to hang him in the elections, let him be the face of the rejectionist camp and take the fall for it at a time when many states are willing to consider rapprochment with the US, North Korea nonwithstanding.
It seems the main worry among Iran's diplomatic corps is that Obama's change in tack is purely tactical and done to shore up world opinion - in other words to get them into talks, make unreasonable demands that Iran could never accept, have the talks collapse and let world opinion hang them. I don't think that is his intention here, but international politics is not a game where loser's get off easy.
For his part, Obama is almost certainly aware of the poisonous levels of infighting among the Iranian leadership, and wishes to proceed cautiously, for fear of insulting one or favouring another to the degree it sets the factions off into another round of infighting. In a country where there is no single, unified command of the armed forces, that is usually a bad idea.
Isn't diplomacy fun?
I think Obama might proceed on multiple diplomatic tracks to subtlety pressure Iran.
Working with the Russians by showing a willingness to abandon Bush's plan for US missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republican in return for more Russian pressure and/or stiffer economic sanctions on Iran.
Opening discussion with Syria to persuade them, perhaps with incentives, that it is not in their interest to be a Iranian puppet state.
And working quietly and behind the scenes through these renewed external relations with the more "moderate" elements in the Iranian government.
Diplomacy can be fun and productive if applied more effectively than the bullying approach of the last eight years.
You're the man! ;)
But your personal attacks wont change the facts or my opinions.
Back at ya! :D
Yes, I did extensive reading. There has been much confusion due to Bush Derangement Syndrome. But all of the three waterboardings happened elsewhere. They did not transport KSM to Gitmo for example.
The [COLOR=Gray]torture[/COLOR] that happened at Gitmo was "B" level stuff: sleep deprivation, holding people in awkward positions, controlling the temperature of their cells, that sort of thing. We know this because of FOIA'd memos from the FBI. None of those memos reference waterboarding.
And all of that stuff is also considered torture.
This thread is about that now, and has been for some time. A partisan fishing expedition would seriously hurt Obama's ability to get things done.
You think they have seriously abused their power because you have paid attention to people who have been fishing all along. They have allowed the facts to get flimsy, because they're not critical thinkers and because it's more fun that way. I know you're a victim of this, because my attempts to get you to think in a straight line have failed. When we examine just the verifiable facts, which is no fun at all, things generally fall apart.
Excuse me? You KNOW I'm a victim because I haven't followed YOUR LOGIC? Are you
kidding me? I would hardly say John Dean is not a critical thinker, nor many of the other people who have written books about Bush (Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Kevin Phillips, etc.), or spoken out against him, many of them fellow republicans.
Why do you defend him so much? I believe he was a terrible president, and I believe he broke laws in order to serve himself. I just hope he is one day held accountable for what he's done.
There is only one logic /Spock
I was snarky to sugarpop, and I apologize for that. Any snark you read in my comments to you is strictly your reading of it.
My question is on the table: does the AUMF authorize the bypassing of FISA? I don't know; my guess is that it does, based on some of the Wiki entry on the controversy. But the length of the entry, and its 156 citations, tell us it's a very complex question, at least. The signing of memos taking a position on it (or cover for it) does not alter the question.
My instinctive take on it is from a letter in that article:
Quote:
The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks.
That sounds reasonable.
So how does that justify spying on ordinary Americans who are not thought to be "in league" with the enemy? Because according to a lot of information out there, they didn't just intercept enemy communications, or communications of suspicious people. Don't you want to know how far bush et. al. went in their spy games? I know I do. When we just allow our government to do whatever they want, because
they say they are keeping us safe, we give up our freedom, in when we do that, we no longer deserve it. I do not think we should ever just take a politician at his word, especially when they have proven to be untrustworthy, which Bush has, over and over and over again my friend.
As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.
Well that may be YOUR position, but is that the lawful position? It bears investigation. Again, when we allow our government to do whatever they want, because they say it is in our best interest, and they are just keeping us safe, we lose our freedom. That is MY opinion. :p
Oh, and thanks for the apology.
Why do you defend him so much? I believe he was a terrible president, and I believe he broke laws in order to serve himself. I just hope he is one day held accountable for what he's done.
One day I woke up to find that nearly everybody decides what they believe by picking a side or a group or a clique and sticking to it relentlessly. In this view of the world, sides are "defended", where each side trots out its narrative of the world and we are urged to pick one size to fit all.
I don't care about any of that nonsense, I just try to figure out the truth. I'm as scientific as I can be, trying to recall and research actual facts and real, direct information, and trying to understand context as much as is possible for any one simpleton like myself. I find picking sides means you are dragged away from truth as you consume your favorite version of reality.
FWIW I didn't vote for Bush and for the last two elections I have voted straight D.
Quote:
The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks.
That sounds reasonable.
Congress did not declare war in the constitutional sense of issuing a war powers resolution or declaration of war.
They took a lesser step...an Authorization for Use of Military Force
Does an AUMF = a Constitutional (Authorized) Declaration of War?
It certainly doesnt look to me like that an AUMF has the same broad authority...but I'm not a constitutional lawyer.
IMO, the precedent is dangerous.
And it screams for the judiciary to make a judgement...not the past, present or future presidents.
Congress did not declare war in the constitutional sense of issuing a war powers resolution or declaration of war.
What a frigging apologist.
One day I woke up to find that nearly everybody decides what they believe by picking a side or a group or a clique and sticking to it relentlessly. In this view of the world, sides are "defended", where each side trots out its narrative of the world and we are urged to pick one size to fit all.
I don't care about any of that nonsense, I just try to figure out the truth. I'm as scientific as I can be, trying to recall and research actual facts and real, direct information, and trying to understand context as much as is possible for any one simpleton like myself. I find picking sides means you are dragged away from truth as you consume your favorite version of reality.
FWIW I didn't vote for Bush and for the last two elections I have voted straight D.
OK. Thanks for clarifying that. But since so many serious allegations have surfaced over the past 6 years, don't you think we should investigate and find out what the truth really is? and IF any laws have been broken, do you not think people should be held accountable and tried for their crimes? (notice I did say IF they were guilty...)
and ftr, I almost always vote independent. I HATE the 2 party system.
What a frigging apologist.
huh? Why would you say that?
Because he acts as if the Demoncrats had no part in it. Fuck that. Dress up your pig.
As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.
Undertoad...your position appears to be pretty much in line with the DoJ attorneys who wrote the "torture" memos, but not in line with the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility who suggest that they may have been politically motivated.
I have no argument with those holding your position..other than, IMO, it should be resolved by an independent third party before it is codified into law or a precedent as an acceptable practice.
Why should the benefit of doubt be given to one side or the other?
An internal Justice Department report on the conduct of senior lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials. H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the department's ethics watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whether the legal advice in crucial interrogation memos "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."
...the OPR probe began after Jack Goldsmith, a Bush appointee who took over OLC in 2003, protested the legal arguments made in the memos. Goldsmith resigned the following year after withdrawing the memos, and later wrote that he was "astonished" by the "deeply flawed" and "sloppily reasoned" legal analysis in the memos by Yoo and Bybee, including their assertion (challenged by many scholars) that the president could unilaterally disregard a law passed by Congress banning torture.
OPR investigators focused on whether the memo's authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted, according to three former Bush lawyers who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe. One of the lawyers said he was stunned to discover how much material the investigators had gathered, including internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/184801
The DoJ attorneys in question should absolutely have the right to include their side in the report.
But, IMO, again, the issue should ultimately be resolved by the judiciary so that clear legal standards are in place for the future.
OK. Thanks for clarifying that. But since so many serious allegations have surfaced over the past 6 years, don't you think we should investigate and find out what the truth really is? and IF any laws have been broken, do you not think people should be held accountable and tried for their crimes?
As soon as the Vince Foster case is closed, and we know for certain that Bill Clinton wasn't running cocaine deals as Governor, and that Obama is a US citizen legal to be President, sure.
Allegations are easy -- just throw shit until it sticks. People love throwing shit -- people love to be in the game, getting attention, running plays for their side and feeling important. You got an unpopular Pres, more shit will be thrown and more will stick. Pretty soon you believe a lot of shit, and are calling for a Whitewater investigation, and when you don't find any real shit, you turn to prosecuting blowjobs.
Former Sen. Fritz Hollings at HuffPost:
Why Are We in Afghanistan? Right in the middle of his piece...
Yesterday I read an article that it won't be long before charging President George W. Bush with war crimes for killing civilians in Pakistan with drones. Now the same charge could be made against President Obama.
Wheeeeeeeeee
Allegations are easy -- just throw shit until it sticks. People love throwing shit -- people love to be in the game, getting attention, running plays for their side and feeling important. You got an unpopular Pres, more shit will be thrown and more will stick. Pretty soon you believe a lot of shit, and are calling for a Whitewater investigation, and when you don't find any real shit, you turn to prosecuting blowjobs.
I'm not sure how a DoJ internal investigation of the Bush DoJ questionable "torture" memos by the Bush DoJ is "throwing shit" rather than the DoJ OPR and IG carrying out their legislatively mandated responsibilities.
Former Sen. Fritz Hollings at HuffPost: Why Are We in Afghanistan? Right in the middle of his piece...
Wheeeeeeeeee
Rut row. Obama may want to rethink sending those 17,000 toops.
As soon as the Vince Foster case is closed, and we know for certain that Bill Clinton wasn't running cocaine deals as Governor, and that Obama is a US citizen legal to be President, sure.
Allegations are easy -- just throw shit until it sticks. People love throwing shit -- people love to be in the game, getting attention, running plays for their side and feeling important. You got an unpopular Pres, more shit will be thrown and more will stick. Pretty soon you believe a lot of shit, and are calling for a Whitewater investigation, and when you don't find any real shit, you turn to prosecuting blowjobs.
OK, so we should forget everything everyone has said, and go about our merry business, because the republicans mishandled an investigation and kept it going for years, when it should have been dropped? I'm sick of the corruption in Washington, and I want something done about it. I'm sorry to hear you don't. I don't like powerful (or rich) people getting away with stuff simply because they are powerful (or rich). That is not what our system of government is supposed to be about.
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
Allegations are easy -- just throw shit until it sticks. People love throwing shit -- people love to be in the game, getting attention, running plays for their side and feeling important. You got an unpopular Pres, more shit will be thrown and more will stick. Pretty soon you believe a lot of shit, and are calling for a Whitewater investigation, and when you don't find any real shit, you turn to prosecuting blowjobs.
I'm not sure how a DoJ internal investigation of the Bush DoJ questionable "torture" memos by the Bush DoJ is "throwing shit" rather than the DoJ OPR and IG carrying out their legislatively mandated responsibilities.
Especially since Cheney has admitted on TV that they waterboarded people...
I don't like powerful (or rich) people getting away with stuff simply because they are powerful (or rich). That is not what our system of government is supposed to be about.
Why don't you like the democrats? :D
I don't like powerful (or rich) people getting away with stuff simply because they are powerful (or rich).
You hate everyone in Hollywood too? Geez and I thought they were your brethren. :rolleyes:
No. And I don't hate all poweful/rich people. Only the ones who are corrupt and unethical and step on those less fortunate in order to gain more for themselves.
No. And I don't hate all poweful/rich people. Only the ones who are corrupt and unethical and step on those less fortunate in order to gain more for themselves.
You hate everyone in Hollywood too? Geez and I thought they were your brethren.
:rolleyes:
You hate everyone in Hollywood too? Geez and I thought they were your brethren. :rolleyes:
Zinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng.... :p
You know, Hollywood gets a really bad rap. I worked in the industry for years. A lot of the people you love to hate are really good people who actually walk their talk.
Who cares, those rich people out there need to pay their fair share, not walk down red carpets while people get laid off. Screw Hollywood and those rich people in their big houses. :D
You know, Hollywood gets a really bad rap. I worked in the industry for years.
I don't like them using their celebrity for political purposes.
They are mini corps you so love to hate. The rich!
I don't hate rich people.
I'd like to be one some day. lol
Why? What makes their opinion any more valid than anyone elses? Why should they get to be on TV espousing their political points when the average person whose points are just as valid cannot?
Why should Sean Penn be allowed to go off at the award ceremony about his feelings regarding same sex marriage?
Who cares, those rich people out there need to pay their fair share, not walk down red carpets while people get laid off. Screw Hollywood and those rich people in their big houses. :D
Hollywood doesn't pay bonuses. They pay backend percentages on PROFITS. In other words, if the movie makes money, people make more than their salary. If it doesn't, they don't. Isn't that how bonuses are supposed to work? Most actors are very public about their beliefs that they should be paying higher taxes (at least the democrats do). They really mean it.
As far as under the line people being laid off while above the line people make more money, I have been ranting about THAT for YEARS, and you
know that about me.
It's not that he's allowed to. It's that he has the opportunity to.
The thing to consider is that he's not the only one to have those views, so he's speaking on behalf of all the others who don't have the same opportunity to do so.
That's why celebrities are able to get away with it.
Why? What makes their opinion any more valid than anyone elses? Why should they get to be on TV espousing their political points when the average person whose points are just as valid cannot?
Why should Sean Penn be allowed to go off at the award ceremony about his feelings regarding same sex marriage?
What makes their opinion any LESS valid? If you were well-known, wouldn't you want to use your voice to support things or causes you believe in? I know I would...
And ftr, Sean Penn did that because the ROLE he won the award for was that of a gay man who was murdered. The things he said were very relevant.
I would just add, the Academy Awards, while watched by the world, are INDUSTRY AWARDS. There is no reason why he shouldn't have made the speech he made.
There is no reason why he should have.
Well they have to talk about something. What's wrong with talking about the theme of the movie?
Hollywood doesn't pay bonuses. They pay backend percentages on PROFITS. In other words, if the movie makes money, people make more than their salary. If it doesn't, they don't. Isn't that how bonuses are supposed to work? Most actors are very public about their beliefs that they should be paying higher taxes (at least the democrats do). They really mean it.
As far as under the line people being laid off while above the line people make more money, I have been ranting about THAT for YEARS, and you know that about me.
We call them royalties.
Same thing. Makes more sense than paying bonuses to people when the company is going down in flames...
Well they have to talk about something. What's wrong with talking about the theme of the movie?
Nothing - keep it to that - all of them. I used him as the latest example and perhaps a poor one. Oh well.
Take the award say thank and go away. I don't think its right for them to use that setting to espouse their political beliefs. Put it on a blog.
That would be akin to me talking politics to every client I speak to, or when someone calls in for IT help, or the pizza delivery guy or your auto mechanic...
You and the pizza guy and the mechanic can talk politics, or whatever, but you risk losing your customer. So do actors.
They live in a fantasy world 99.99999% of us can only dream of.
Whatevah.
I wouldn't pay money to go see a Tom Cruise movie.
I would just add, the Academy Awards, while watched by the world, are INDUSTRY AWARDS. There is no reason why he shouldn't have made the speech he made.
There is no reason why he should have.
One reason he should have is that he wanted to. What is the reason he shouldn't have?
If someone ends up with an audience, I applaud any efforts on their part to say something important, even at the risk of losing some people from their fanbase. If you don't want celebrities to say anything meaningful, why listen to them talk? And if you don't listen to them talk, why care about whether they're saying anything meaningful?
okie dokie - mums the word.
There is no reason why he should have.
1) Because he has the right to defined by the Constitution and as an honorary member of the Academy.
2) Because he has further earned the right to by his accomplishments and respect of his peers.
3) Because that is the principle behind the movie.
4) Because his opinions have more validity than yours.
5) Because he is doing what is his job - promoting the movie.
5) Because far more people are interested in his opinions and few are interested in yours.
6) Because if you don't like it, then you could have changed the channel.
7) Because principles that make America great were defined in his speech.
8) Because those who promote hate would so dislike his comments as to divulge the hate that they champion.
Just a few reasons that justify his comments.
Well I think you might have had about half right there tw.
Well I think you might have had about half right there tw.
Anyone reason completely justifies his comments. Meanwhile, criticizing without reasons why state that you really cannot disagree but choose to anyway.
You have a problem with any one? Then say why or waste bandwidth. Which one is wrong ... and why?
Well 4 and the second 5 weren't very valid. Just gratuitous insults on your behalf really.
Yeah yeah, I'm sure there was no emotion involved on your part. If so, stop making emotive comments.
You would have had a much better post without that BS in there.
1) Because he has the right to defined by the Constitution and as an honorary member of the Academy.
2) Because he has further earned the right to by his accomplishments and respect of his peers.
3) Because that is the principle behind the movie.
4) Because his opinions have more validity than yours.
5) Because he is doing what is his job - promoting the movie.
5) Because far more people are interested in his opinions and few are interested in yours.
6) Because if you don't like it, then you could have changed the channel.
7) Because principles that make America great were defined in his speech.
8) Because those who promote hate would so dislike his comments as to divulge the hate that they champion.
Just a few reasons that justify his comments.
Well isn't that special? Looks like Tommy gets an F in math this week. Cannot even count to 7 correctly.
Oh and I think the bold ones would be proof that you are attacking the poster and not the post. Something we all know only a wacko extremist like tw would do.
He was just one example and whether I agree or disagree with his opinions is irrelevant. The overall point was of the argument, as usual, missed by tw - again.
Because if you don't like it, then you could have changed the channel.
Ratings were up for the first time in years. The trend is that people have been tuning away from it.
Nothing - keep it to that - all of them. I used him as the latest example and perhaps a poor one. Oh well.
Take the award say thank and go away. I don't think its right for them to use that setting to espouse their political beliefs. Put it on a blog.
That would be akin to me talking politics to every client I speak to, or when someone calls in for IT help, or the pizza delivery guy or your auto mechanic...
No, it isn't really the same thing at all. It is an
award show for
industry people. While it may be broadcast to the masses, it is still an industry show awarding excellence in
that industry. And most of the people in that industry happen to support gay rights, which is partly what the movie was about. See the difference? ;)
Not really - If it weren't for the tv ad revenue the awards, I don't think they would even exist.
Not really - If it weren't for the tv ad revenue the awards, I don't think they would even exist.
Of course they would. Most industries have events like this where they honor their "stars" or best producers, best workers, etc. The reason why they broadcast it is because it is the entertainment industry, and a lot of people want to see it, because to them it is entertainment. They
want to see stars. (And of course, it helps promote their product.)
Hollywood: "We, the correct-thinking people of Hollywood, are ready to meet with your cultural elites on a completely private initiative for educational and creative exchange and with no political agenda."
Iran: "
Fuck you."
"(Iranian) cinema officials will only have the right to have official sessions with... Hollywood movie makers when they apologise to the Iranians for their 30 years of insults and slanders," Javad Shamaghdari said.
"The Iranian people and our revolution has been repeatedly unjustly attacked by Hollywood," he said, citing '300' and recent Oscar nominated movie 'The Wrestler' as among offending films.
In 2007, the war epic '300', a smash hit in the United States for its gory portrayal of the Greco-Persian wars, drew the wrath of Iranians for showing their ancestors as bloodthirsty.
UT that is hairlarious. :lol2:
Iran: Fuck you.
Which proves that all Americans also want to nuke Iran because Cheney said so. Amazing how wackos become the opinion of all others.
Next paragraph will tell us how god is on our side.
Next paragraph will tell us how god is on our side.
Don't all religious people think God is on "their" side?
You mean he isn't. Shit! then I'm really fooked.
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu F'thagn, P'nglui M'wagalnath R'lyeh... Ia! Ia! Shub-Niggurath!
What a cool pic. Where did it come from?
U.S. ambassador calls findings on Iran nuclear program 'troubling'
"Iran also still refuses to respond constructively to IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] questions about its past work to develop a nuclear weapons capability," the ambassador, Susan Rice, told a U.N. Security Council subcommittee that deals with ensuring sanctions against Iran are being enforced.
"The United States urges its fellow Security Council members not only to take note of the IAEA's serious findings but also to vigorously support the IAEA in its continuing investigations of these critical matters."
The IAEA is the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency that is charged with inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities.
Rice said Tuesday's meeting was "the Security Council's first session on Iran since the release of the IAEA director general's most recent report on Iran -- a report that makes it clear that Iran is still not complying with its international nuclear obligations, including resolutions of this council."
In February, the Institute for Science and International Security released a report based on the latest IAEA data. The Washington think tank said the data indicated that Iran has reached "nuclear weapons breakout capability."
However, an IAEA official who asked not to be named cautioned against drawing such dramatic conclusions from the data, saying Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium would have to be turned into highly enriched uranium to qualify as weapons-grade material. That hasn't been done, the official said.
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.
And why do they arm terrorists?
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.
Why can't they be trusted?
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.
Who armed that part of the world in the first place? Who sold technology to other countries? We...
...didn't.
And, how can you say with a straight face that America is in favor of limiting proliferation when we are still developing new weapons?
Which nuclear weapons in particular, can you name one?
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.
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
[youtube]ixG55tWAebg[/youtube]
Here they are. You be the judge
[youtube]ixG55tWAebg[/youtube]
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.
[youtube]ej9Tnn3hlLM[/youtube]
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.
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.info/article8740.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1412.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
TEHRAN, March 13 (RIA Novosti) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday that pressure from Western powers trying to keep Iran in economic isolation have in fact spurred the country to become a space and nuclear power.
"Had you not been bad-tempered and blocked the way, the Iranian nation would not have been present in space, and would not have become a nuclear power," Fars news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying at the inauguration ceremony of a natural gas deposit in the Bushehr province.
Iran put its first communications satellite, Omid (Hope), into a near-Earth orbit on February 2. The research satellite was carried into orbit by a home-made launch vehicle, Safir (Messenger). Iranian Communications Minister Mohammad Soleimani earlier said that the country's scientists were working on the creation of four new satellites to be placed into near-Earth orbit.
The Iranian president said Western powers are unable to stop Iran's technological and scientific progress with their "spiteful actions." He also called the international economic sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program a "grave blunder."
"Of course, we believe that the Iranian nation can tread the path to progress under God's mercy," he said.
Western powers led by the United States, along with Israel, have accused Tehran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology for their delivery. Iran says it needs its nuclear program for electric power generation, and its missile program for space exploration.
Maybe that plan didn't work out so well.
Meanwhile, because the US is not talking with belligerence, the Iranian Reformers are attempting to regain power. Khatami, the former reform President announced a bid for reelection.
So much for that notion, Khatami annouces he is out
I blame you and your belligerence UT.
This article suggests Khatami withdrew to support another gent, Mousavi, who might have more ability to stand up to the mullahs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ tw, different time, different place, different politics, different mindsets and you know that.
:dedhorse:
@ tw, different time, different place, different politics, different mindsets and you know that.
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:
Invoking art, history and “the common humanity that binds us,” President Obama offered a “new day” in America’s relationship with Iran, using a videotaped message released on the Internet to make an unusual appeal directly to Iranians for a shift away from decades of confrontation.
Iran: FUCK
But in the first government reaction to the video, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's press adviser said "minor changes will not end the differences" between Tehran and Washington.
"Obama has talked of change but has taken no practical measures to address America's past mistakes in Iran. If Mr. Obama takes concrete actions and makes fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy toward other nations including Iran, the Iranian government and people will not turn their back on him," Ali Akbar Javanfekr told the Iranian state-run English-language Press TV satellite station.
YOU
In an almost simultaneous announcement, from Iran's energy minister, Parviz Fattah, said that the country would "finish and operate" its controversial Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant by the end of the year.
"Iran has chosen a direction for achieving peaceful nuclear energy. We have mainly reached this aim," he said at the World Water Forum in Istanbul.
"Exactly 20 days from now we will have another celebration for celebrating the achievements we have gained for peaceful nuclear energy. You will hear about the news," he said.
"Iran will finish and operate the Bushehr nuclear plant by the end of this year."
Eh...lets see what happens after the Iranian elections. Hopefully Ahmadinejad will bust.
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 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.
The State Department hopes to dispatch 51 civilians to Afghanistan while other government agencies also plan to send people there to boost its political and economic development, department spokesman Robert Wood said.....
....under the soon-to-be-complete review on Afghan policy hundreds of civilians will be sent to the central Asian country, and that Obama will announce the move next week.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcxKtc79WmB_LIY3HzleN7SSy9LA
With the Brits agreeing to join in that approach as well
British officials have played a central role in helping President Obama's National Security Council devise the plan, designed to win the allegiance of local Afghan leaders by showing that Nato countries are committed to rebuilding the country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5028442/Britain-to-join-civilian-surge-in-Afghanistan.html
there might be hope for some level of success.
History suggests that Afghanistan is a near impossible place for outside invaders/occupiers to "win."
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.
But I do like the Obama approach of a "civilian surge" to "boost its political and economic development" in addition to more troops.
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.
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.
Iran Supreme Leader mullah Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "
In case my underlings weren't totally clear yesterday, fuck you."
"He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."
[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 dont know anyone calling it the Obama plan other than you.
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.
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 your post of how "special" it was that Obama was basically using Petreaus's idea.
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.
Iran Supreme Leader mullah Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "In case my underlings weren't totally clear yesterday, fuck you."
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.
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?
All Iran is saying is that they wont trust us on our word,
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.
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.
Only the Shia part. As I stated about 6 years ago, split it up into three parts.
Privately, Turkey's president Abdullah Gul is talking to Iran about a new American attitude.
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.
Its been reported for over a week. No surprise - not private at all.
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.
Privately, Turkey's president Abdullah Gul is talking to Iran...
Your writing style implied that it was some private information you were relaying, I corrected that.
Its been reported for over a week. No surprise.
But on that subject, What discussions that any representatives have are public? Discussions of this nature are always done in a private forum.
Public statements are to keep the extermists in line. But you are so better informed Their discussions are in private. Or are you again replying only to argue more Rush Limbaugh rhetoric?
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.
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.
Great. Now we are the world's security force. *heavy sigh*
I think Pakistan is more of a problem, actually.
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?
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/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/15/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
If this info was on Limbaugh, I certainly wouldn't know as I have repeatedly said, I don't listen to him.
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.
Israel used unmanned drones to attack clandestine Iranian convoys in Sudan that were attempting to smuggle rockets into Gaza, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported.
The paper said that western diplomats confirmed that Israel attacked the Iranian truck convoys in late January and the first week of February in the remote Sudan desert, just outside the Red Sea town of Port Sudan.
The convoys had been tracked by agents from Mossad, Israel's overseas intelligence agency, the report added.
The Sudanese government said this week it was investigating the possibility that Israel was behind the deadly air strikes, but so far had found no proof.
Foreign ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq said there were two separate bombing raids against smugglers, killing about 40 people.
The Sunday Times said that had the rockets been delivered to Hamas, the militant Islamic group that controls Gaza, they would have raised the stakes in the conflict with Israel.
It quoted defence sources as saying the convoys were carrying Fajr-3 rockets, which have a range of more than 40 miles (65 kilometres), and were split into sections to be smuggled through tunnels into Gaza from Egypt.
"They built the Fajr in parts so it would be easy to smuggle them into Gaza, then reassemble them with Hamas experts who learnt the job in Syria and Iran," a source told the paper.
The main reason for using drones instead of manned aircraft to attack was that a convoy forms a "slippery" target, a source said.
"When you attack a fixed target, especially a big one, you are better off using jet aircraft. But with a moving target with no definite time for the move UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) are best, as they can hover extremely high and remain unseen until the target is on the move," the source said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9849350f816804a357829631f0fd7a21.bc1&show_article=1Looks like the Israeli's have learned a few things from us. The use of drones.
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
ASTANA (AFP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out on Monday at capitalism as a "failed" economic system and called for the creation of a new global financial order.
"I want to say that capitalist economics is false economics. Now they are trying to reform the system, the very system that caused the crisis," Ahmadinejad told reporters during a visit to Kazakhstan.
"We are interested in a new financial system based on justice. A real economic system."
In a fiery speech, the Iranian leader, speaking through a translator in Kazakhstan's capital Astana where he is on a state visit, accused the world's economic powers of burdening the world with their economic mistakes.
In a surprise move, Ahmadinejad became the first major world leader to back a plan put forward by Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev last month to create a single world currency.
"It's a wonderful proposal. We consider it a good and correct idea. The world needs a single currency, a real currency."
Nazarbayev first called publicly for the creation of a new global currency, the "acmetal," in an article published in Russia's official daily Rossiskaya Gazeta in February.
Ahmadinejad blamed Western immorality and shady financial instruments - he described their use as "selling paper" - for the global economic crisis.
"I want to say that this is a moral crisis and not a crisis of finances," he said.
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.
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.
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.
BREAKING: Chinese financier Le Fang Wei indicted in plot to send nuclear materials to Iran.
The Manhattan district attorney's office has smashed a sinister plot to smuggle nuclear weapons materials to Iran through unwitting New York banks, the Daily News has learned.
Officials plan to unseal a 118-count indictment Tuesday accusing a Chinese national of setting up a handful of fake companies to hide that he was selling millions of dollars in potential nuclear materials to Tehran.
"This case will cut off a major source of supply to Iran and it shows how they are going ahead full steam to get a nuclear bomb. Long-range missiles they pretty much have already," a law enforcement source close to the case said.
"We think it is one of the largest suppliers of weapons of mass destruction to Iran."
Experts say Iran, under the leadership of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears close to amassing enough nuclear material to make an atom bomb. A United Nations embargo bans Iran from acquiring the high-tech metals needed to make a long-range nuclear weapon a reality.
The indictment will outline the financial conspiracy behind 58 different transactions, including shipments of various banned materials from China to Iran between 2006 and late 2008.
Among them:
33,000 pounds of a specialized aluminum alloy used almost exclusively in long-range missile production.
66,000 pounds of tungsten copper plate, which is used in missile guidance systems.
53,900 pounds of maraging steel rods, a superhard metal used in uranium enrichment and to make the casings for nuclear bombs.
The recipient is believed to have been a subsidiary of the Iranian Defense Ministry.
The suspect, who is not believed to be in the U.S., set up four bogus import-export companies that did business with six Iranian shell firms, one source said.
"They took elaborate steps to conceal the identity of the shipper and the recipient," the source said.
The deals went through "several" New York banks, which cooperated when the alleged plot was uncovered.
"The New York banks were completely unaware," the source said.
Authorities first stumbled over the scheme seven months ago in an unrelated probe into Iranian money-laundering through Lloyd's, a British bank.
In January, Lloyd's paid a $350 million fine to settle accusations it "stripped" information from Iranian money transfers to New York banks, hiding where the cash came from.
Officials said they suspected that money was also used to finance Iran's nuke program.
"The important thing is to put sunlight on these deals," the law enforcement source said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/04/07/2009-04-07_iranian_nuke_plot_vaporized_in_the_city_-2.htmlSTOP it Merc. You know damn well its 85% mental midget, mission accomplished tinfoil hatted, beancounter Bush's fault.
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.
Not to take up for that whacko, but he has a point about capitalism and the damage we have caused worldwide with this crisis.
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.
Ahmadinejad does have intelligent views on some issues...
Such as? His quasi-intelligent views are motivated and influenced by his wacky views.
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.
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
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's president on Wednesday sent the clearest signal yet that the Islamic Republic wants warmer ties with the U.S., just one day after Washington spoke of new strategies to address the country's disputed nuclear program. Taken together, the developments indicate that the longtime adversaries are seeking ways to return to the negotiating table and ease a nearly 30-year-old diplomatic standoff.
President Barack Obama's administration has sought to start a dialogue with Iran — a departure from the Bush administration's tough talk.
Iran's uranium enrichment program has been the key point of contention. The Bush administration had insisted that Iran scrap enrichment before talks could begin — a demand Iran repeatedly rejected. On Wednesday, a senior official said the U.S. would be prepared to let Tehran continue enriching uranium at the current level for some time.
Two years ago, Washington briefly softened its position, and its negotiating partners told Tehran that they could accept a continuation of enrichment for a limited time as they moved toward talks. But Iran insisted it be allowed to enrich as part of its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, ending the effort.
A decision by the U.S. to return to the negotiating table last year also did not bear fruit.
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."
Prior to this month's disputed presidential election in Iran, the Obama administration sent a letter to the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself.
Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed the letter toward the end of a lengthy sermon last week, in which he accused the United States of fomenting protests in his country in the aftermath of the disputed June 12 presidential election.
...
"The American president was quoted as saying that he expected the people of Iran to take to the streets," Ayatollah Khamenei misquoted Mr. Obama as saying, according to a translation by Mideastwire.com.
"On the one hand, they [the Obama administration] write a letter to us to express their respect for the Islamic Republic and for re-establishment of ties, and on the other hand they make these remarks. Which one of these remarks are we supposed to believe? Inside the country, their agents were activated. Vandalism started. Sabotaging and setting fires on the streets started. Some shops were looted. They wanted to create chaos. Public security was violated. The violators are not the public or the supporters of the candidates. They are the ill-wishers, mercenaries and agents of the Western intelligence services and the Zionists."
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.
North Korea threatened Wednesday to wipe the United States off the map as Washington and its allies watched for signs the regime will launch a series of missiles in the coming days.
The new U.N. Security Council resolution requires member states to seek permission to inspect suspicious cargo. North Korea has said it would consider interception a declaration of war and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to provoke another Korean War.
"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.
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.
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.
assassination?
Assassinations can easily backfire.
Of course, dead dictators are still improved dictators, not so?
Until they get replaced by someone/something worse...
Assassinations can easily backfire.
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...
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.
:D I would love to give Kim Jong-il a good discliplining. :Flush:
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...
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].
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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].
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
Do you remember that 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate which concluded -- to virtually everyone's astonishment -- that four years earlier Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program?
Publication of that NIE cut the ground out from under the Bush administration's efforts to prevent Iran from getting its hands on a nuclear bomb. After all, why pressure the mullahs in Teheran to stop a program they'd already abandoned? And, of course, the NIE's conclusion was cited by President Bush's political enemies as (further) evidence that the President and his team were so driven by their hard-line ideology that they (as usual) ignored the evidence provided by our country's senior intelligence analysts.
Now, thanks to a brilliant piece of journalism by German investigative reporter Bruno Schirra published in the July 20 edition of The Wall Street Journal Europe, we have evidence to suggest that the 2007 NIE's conclusion about Iran's nuclear bomb program wasn't merely wrong, but corrupt.
Here's a summary of Schirra's explosive article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/did_the_cia_cook_the_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
The Obama administration said Friday that the United States would accept Iran’s offer to meet, fulfilling President Obama’s pledge to hold unconditional talks despite the Iranian government’s insistence that it would not negotiate over the future of its nuclear program.
The decision to engage directly with Iran would put a senior representative of the Obama administration at the bargaining table, along with emissaries from five other nations, for the first time since Mr. Obama took office.
The decision is bound to raise protests from conservatives who contend that unconditional talks are naïve, and from human rights groups that say the United States should not legitimize an Iranian government that appears to have manipulated its presidential election in June and crushed protests after the vote.
In advance of Friday’s announcement, senior administration officials said that their offer to negotiate directly with the Iranians, for what could turn into the first substantive talks since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, was, as a senior official had earlier put it, a “bona fide offer.”
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
The United States is laying the groundwork for sanctions against Iran after having become increasingly disenchanted with the strategy of engagement, two senior administration officials told Jewish leaders in Washington on Thursday.
William Burns, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, said the Obama administration wants to prepare for sanctions now, so that it will be ready to implement them at the end of the year if it comes to that, and not have to start from scratch at that point.
Top White House Middle East adviser Dennis Ross, appearing beside Burns at the panel discussion with the Jewish leaders, explained that the administration's focus on diplomatic engagement had shifted following the Iranian elections, and indicated that the White House now had a more skeptical view of that approach which could give way to sanctions.
Making one more attempt to talk first to determine the seriousness of Iran's interest in negotiation seems reasonable.
n coordination with allies, Washington said today it would accept Iran's offer of comprehensive talks, to test out if Iran was serious about negotiations.
The U.S. announcement came as China and Russia said they weren't prepared to support new sanctions on Iran at this time given Tehran's written proposal this week. Iran's offer for comprehensive talks was made in a formal, five-page written response delivered to ambassadors in Tehran this week.
"The United States and five partner countries have decided to accept Iran's new offer to hold talks, even though Iran insists it will not negotiate over its disputed nuclear program," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said at the State Department briefing today, as cited by the AP.
"The ball is in Iran’s court whether it is prepared to seriously engage in the nuclear issue, as well as others," Crowley said in a further statement by email. "We are following a two-track strategy along with our partners in the P5+1 process – engagement and pressure. Iran’s response will feed into the stock-taking that the President indicated we will make. If Iran refuses to engage seriously, we will take that into account."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0909/Breaking_Iranian_talks_accepted_AP_reports.html?showall
If talks are unproductive...proceed with sanctions.
Makes sense to me.
"Look, I actually think there is some stuff in there … a small opening," said the National Iranian American Council's Trita Parsi. "Fundamentally," he added, he thinks the administration is "not seeing it as a complete rejection. But at the same time, I am not going to characterize it as a positive opening per se. There is a small crack there, [and] there seems to be a willingness to explore it."
Parsi noted that the White House seems to have negotiated an extra couple weeks -- into October -- in which to test out the seriousness of the engagement offer before key Congress members push through Congressional legislation further sanctioning Iran.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0909/Irans_response_the_document.html?showall
Makes sense to me too. The dance is being danced, and being danced well.
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.
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?
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/world/middleeast/30nuke.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rssThey 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.
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."
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.
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/world/middleeast/30nuke.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
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.
Sanctions have always worked with Iran and Iraq.
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.
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.
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
Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.
The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.
An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.
The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.
“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”
The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.
A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”
Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.”
The revelation coincides with growing international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran insists that it wants to build a civilian nuclear industry to generate power, but critics suspect that the regime is intent on diverting the technology to build an atomic bomb.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.eceAssociated Press Writer= TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — A Taiwanese company agreed to a request from a firm in China to procure sensitive components with nuclear uses, then shipped them to Iran, the firm's head said Friday. Such transactions violate U.N. sanctions imposed on the Middle Eastern nation.
The admission by Steven Lin of Hsinchu-based Heli-Ocean Technology Co. Ltd. comes amid an international effort led by the United States to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. While Lin said he didn't know whether the parts — a vital component in the production of weapons-grade uranium — were eventually used by Iran militarily, he did acknowledge that they have nuclear applications.
U.N. sanctions to prevent Iran from expanding its uranium enrichment program have led it to the black market to obtain sophisticated nuclear-related equipment. Aided by these illegal purchases, the program has grown to the stage where thousands of centrifuges are churning out enriched material, which can be used both for fuel or as the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
Iran insists that it wants to enrich uranium to generate nuclear power, but its attempts to evade probes by the International Atomic Energy Agency and its refusal to stop enrichment are increasing suspicions it actually seeks weapons capabilities.
Over the past several years China has been accused of directly aiding the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development on a number of occasions. Washington has enacted sanctions against several Chinese companies. China has denied involvement in Iran's nuclear programs.
At the same time, Beijing has courted close relations with Iran, with Chinese state companies purchasing Iranian oil and investing in Iran's energy industry.
Link
Guess we can add China to the list. :greenface:greenface
Ouch! Iran gets a taste of it's own medicine..
Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran said U.S. and Israeli spy agencies may have conspired with dissident Iranians to kill a nuclear scientist in a bomb attack today in Tehran.
Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, a professor of nuclear physics, was killed by a remote-controlled device planted on a motorcycle in front of his home in the Qeytarieh neighborhood, state-run Press TV said. The Kingdom Assembly of Iran, a political group that seeks to end Iran’s religious rule, took responsibility for the bombing in a statement, the state-run Fars news agency said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aT3gNEy3PnhQIts 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
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.
The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran. After months of unsuccessful diplomatic outreach, the administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Western nations say control a covert nuclear arms program.
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:
[SIZE=1]j/k
[SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Obama (overtly): "Guys, meeting with Iran isn't going to actually work... get ready to fuck them."
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.
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 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!
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/world/asia/01plane.html?hp Intelligent leadership has to challenge big dic thinking to avoid the end of civilization.
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'
Well, did anyone have any doubt that this was a fact? Ignore the Axis behind the Curtain!
:)
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.
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 .....
skysidhe - your quotes are cited only to engage everyone.
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
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
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.
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
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers during this week's 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.
"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei, who is also Iran's commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel.
The country's top cleric was marking the occasion when Iran's air force gave its support to revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a key event which led to the toppling of the US-backed shah on February 11, 1979.
His comments came as Iran said it would begin to produce higher enriched uranium from Tuesday, in defiance of Western powers trying to ensure the country's nuclear drive is peaceful.
That's a rather hearty "Fuck You"
Eh...they punch as hard as Chavez...
Obama said he was sticking to a two-track approach: offering to negotiate, while threatening further pressure. He said the world would welcome an Iranian decision to accept U.N. demands that it live up to its nuclear control obligations.
"And if not, then the next step is sanctions," the president said. "They have made their choice so far, although the door is still open. And what we are going to be working on over the next several weeks is developing a significant regime of sanctions that will indicate to them how isolated they are from the international community as a whole."
Obama said work to broaden economic sanctions applied by the U.N. Security Council is moving along quickly, but he gave no specific timeline. He hinted at a trouble spot, saying China's crucial vote was not assured. As one of five permanent members of the Security Council,
China, which has increasingly close economic ties to Iran, can block a resolution by itself.
Obama also said the United Nations penalties are only one part of an international squeeze on Iran, a reference to a sequence of economic strictures that could be applied by the European Union and individual countries over the next several months.
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.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates' spokesman said Gates thinks the United Nations should slap sanctions on Iran in "weeks, not months."
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.
At the State Department, spokesman P.J. Crowley said the administration was setting no timetable for imposing new sanctions. Administration officials, Crowley said, are "continuing to put together our ideas," along with allies and friends.
One such idea, Crowley said, is for Iran to accept an alternative to the October proposal for swapping Iran's low-enriched uranium for higher-enriched material produced in Russia. The U.S. would be willing, alternatively, to help Iran acquire medical isotopes from abroad, thus bypassing the need for it to obtain or produce 20-percent enriched uranium.
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.
Iran anniversary 'punch' will stun West: Khamenei
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'
The presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East "without Zionists," combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region's defining alliances.
... The United States also recently announced that it will send an ambassador to Damascus after a five-year absence, part of an effort to weaken Syria's relations with Iran and discourage the country's support for militant groups antagonistic to Israel.
But the message delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a joint news conference was sharp and spoke to a shared sense that Iran is gaining influence in the region despite U.S. efforts. Until the outcome of the broader struggle over Iran's nuclear program becomes clear, analysts here say, it is unlikely Syria will change direction -- or that progress can be made toward an Israel-Syria peace agreement.
Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, spoke of Israel's eventual "demise and annihilation" and said the countries of the region could create a future "without Zionists and without colonialists."
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
The U.S. administration has asked Syrian President Bashar Assad to immediately stop transferring arms to Hezbollah. American officials made the request during a meeting Friday with the Syrian ambassador to Washington.
...
During [Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William] Burns' meeting with Assad, the Syrian leader denied all American claims that his regime was providing military aid to terrorists in Iraq, or to Hezbollah and Palestinian terror groups.
Assad essentially told Burns that he had no idea what the American was talking about.
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.
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Sunday it has launched a new production line of highly accurate, short range cruise missiles, which would add a new element to the country's already imposing arsenal.
The world is already concerned about Iran's military capabilities, especially the implications of its nuclear program. The U.S. and some of its allies, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency, say Iran is apparently trying to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.
The West is considering stiffer sanctions against Iran to try to force it to halt uranium enrichment, a process that has civilian uses but can be also used for nuclear arms if the uranium is enriched over 90 percent.
LinkThere 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.
As the Obama administration struggles to devise a strategy for dealing with Iran's intransigence on the uranium enrichment issue, it appears to be gravitating toward the imposition of an international embargo on gasoline sales to that country. Such a ban would be enacted if Iranian officials fail to come up with an acceptable negotiating plan by the time the UN General Assembly meets in late September — the deadline given by the White House for a constructive Iranian move.
Iran, of course, is a major oil producer, pumping out some 4.3 million barrels per day in 2008. But it is also a major petroleum consumer. And its oil industry has a significant structural weakness: Its refinery capacity is too constricted to satisfy the nation's gasoline requirements. As a result, Iran must import about 40% of its refined products. Government officials are attempting to reduce this dependency through rationing and other measures, but the country remains highly vulnerable to any cutoff in gasoline imports.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/iran_gas_ban_step_toward_war_with_iranHow is that diplomacy thing working out anyway....
Tehran said Monday it had banned two U.N. nuclear inspectors from entering the country because they had leaked "false" information about Iran's disputed nuclear program.
The ban is the latest twist in Iran's deepening tussle with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and the West over its nuclear program. The United States and its allies warn that Iran's program is geared toward making nuclear weapons.
Tehran denies the charge saying its nuclear activities are only for peaceful purposes like power generation.
The IAEA report in question stated that in January Iran announced it had conducted certain experiments to purify uranium, which could theoretically be used to produce a nuclear warhead. Iran then denied the experiments had taken place a few months later.
When the inspectors in May visited the Jaber Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory in Tehran, where the alleged high temperature pyroprocessing experiments were conducted, they said the equipment involved had been removed.
Link
Now what?
Countering the new US embargo on petroleum and oil distillates embargo on Iran, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko and Iranian Oil Minister Masud Mir-Kazemi Wednesday, July 14 signed a series of far-reaching energy-related agreements, including a deal to sell Tehran Russian petroleum products and petrochemicals.
debkafile's Moscow sources report that the pacts aim squarely at the law signed by President Barack Obama on July 2 to hit Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps' prime source of income, imported refined oil products including gasoline. The Russian and Iranian energy ministers contracted specifically to "increase cooperation in transit, swaps and marketing of natural gas as well as sales of petroleum products and petrochemicals."
The accords also set up "a joint bank to help fund bilateral energy projects."
This latter provision bypasses the US ban on the banks and insurance companies involved in funding refined oil supplies to Iran by creating a shared banking instrument for handling the funding of fuel purchases. Russian insurance firms connected with the new joint bank may insure shipments.
By this step, Moscow moved to offset the penalties America imposed on Iran in the wake of UN Security Council sanctions of June 9 and challenged the United States to blacklist Russian firms by invoking the new US law closing American markets to companies and banks doing energy business with Iran.
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
Russia says it will undertake a key step next week towards starting up a reactor at Iran's first nuclear power station.
Russia's state atomic corporation, which is building the plant, said engineers will begin loading the Bushehr reactor with fuel.
The fuel will be charged in the reactor on 21 August. From this moment, Bushehr will be considered a nuclear installation," spokesman Sergei Novikov said.
Russia will run the plant, supply the fuel and take away the fuel waste.
For that reason, nuclear experts say there is little immediate danger of the reactor being used to build nuclear weapons.
Iran has said it is prepared to return to talks with major world powers but the exact nature of such negotiations has yet to be defined.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week Iran would not talk to the United States unless sanctions and military threats were lifted.
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/archive/2010/09/living-with-a-nuclear-iran/8193/
This one is a bit longer but worth the read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-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.....
Afghan private security forces with ties to the Taliban, criminal networks and Iranian intelligence have been hired to guard American military bases in Afghanistan, exposing United States soldiers to surprise attack and confounding the fight against insurgents, according to a Senate investigation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/world/asia/08contractor.htmlBlasts hit secret Iranian missile launching-pad for US, Israeli targets
Iranian military installation was struck by a triple blast Tues. Oct. 12 the day before Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Lebanon. debkafile's military and intelligence sources report the site held most of the Shehab-3 medium-range missile launchers Iran had stocked for striking US forces in Iraq and Israel in the event of war - some set to deliver triple warheads (tri-conic nosecones).
The 18 soldiers officially reported killed in the blasts and 14 injured belonged to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) main missile arm, the Al-Hadid Brigades.
The Imam Ali Base where the explosion occurred is situated in lofty Zagros mountain country near the town of Khorramabad in the western Iranian province of Lorestan. This site was selected for an altitude which eases precise targeting and the difficulty of reaching it for air or ground attack. It lies 400 kilometers from Baghdad and primary American bases in central Iraq and 1,250 kilometers from Tel Aviv and central Israel. Both are well within the Shehab-3 missile's 1,800-2,500-kilometer operational range.
Our Iranian sources report that Tehran spent hundreds of millions to build one of the largest subterranean missile launching facilities of its kind in the Middle East or Europe. Burrowed under the Imam Ali Base is a whole network of wide tunnels deep underground. Somehow, a mysterious hand rigged three blasts in quick succession deep inside those tunnels, destroying a large number of launchers and causing enough damage to render the facility unfit for use.
In its official statement on the incident, Tehran denied it was the result of "a terrorist attack" and claimed the explosion "was caused by a nearby fire that spread to the munitions storage area of the base." In the same way, the regime went to great lengths to cover up the ravages wrought to their nuclear and military control systems by the Stuxnet virus - which is still at work.
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'
In one cable dated June 2009 quoted Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a U.S. diplomat says Barak told visiting officials that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was viable until the end of 2010, saying that after :any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage"
"He also expressed concern that should Iran develop nuclear capabilities, other rogue states and/or terrorist groups would not be far behind," the U.S. diplomat said.
The cable also quoted Barak as describing the Iranian leadership "chess, not backgammon players," with the U.S. diplomat quoting the defense minister saying would "attempt to avoid any hook to hang accusations on, and look to Pakistan and North Korea as models to emulate in terms of acquiring nuclear weapons while defying the international community."
Another cable, from later 2009, the U.S.-Israel Joint Political Military Group, Mossad representatives said Iran was using repeated attempts to resolve the nuclear issue through diplomacy to "play for time" and evade sanctions, "while pursuing its strategic objective to obtain a military nuclear capability."
"From Mossad's perspective, there is no reason to believe Iran will do anything but use negotiations to stall for time so that by 2010-2011, Iran will have the technological capability to build a nuclear weapon -- essentially reducing the question of weaponizing to a political decision," the cable said.
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/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.
The leaked US cables also reveal that:
• Officials in Jordan and Bahrain have openly called for Iran's nuclear programme to be stopped by any means, including military.
• Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war".
• Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, warned in February that if diplomatic efforts failed, "we risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, war prompted by an Israeli strike, or both".
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.
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.
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.
Wikileaks: Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
wheeeeeee
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.
No matter what happens it will be "our" fault.
Does that mean that we can then blame "Bush"? :lol2:
Don't start that again!
I mean that no matter whether it is or isn't, it will be portrayed as America's fault.
In that regard we are such an easy target.
1. Wikileaks information says
A 2009 American government cable released Sunday by the WikiLeaks website quotes Defense Minister Ehud Barak as telling visiting American officials that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was viable until the end of 2010, but after that "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage."
But that can now be delayed, because
2. Wired reports that
In what appears to be the first confirmation that the Stuxnet malware hit Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday that malicious computer code launched by “enemies” of the state had sabotaged centrifuges used in Iran’s nuclear-enrichment program.
And how! The code was written to slowly change centrifuge speeds, so that nobody would notice until it was too late:
Stuxnet targets only frequency drives from these two companies that are also running at high speeds — between 807 Hz and 1210 Hz.
Frequency-converter drives are used to control the speed of a device. Although it’s not known what device Stuxnet aimed to control, it was designed to vary the speed of the device wildly but intermittently over a span of weeks, suggesting the aim was subtle sabotage meant to ruin a process over time but not in a way that would attract suspicion.
“Using nuclear enrichment as an example, the centrifuges need to spin at a precise speed for long periods of time in order to extract the pure uranium,” Symantec’s Liam O Murchu told Threat Level earlier this month. “If those centrifuges stop to spin at that high speed, then it can disrupt the process of isolating the heavier isotopes in those centrifuges … and the final grade of uranium you would get out would be a lower quality.”
Could this also be why N.K.'s tests have fizzled so nicely?
3. Wired also repeats the earlier news from today about a Bond-esque assassination:
...assassinations on Monday could indicate that whoever targeted Iran felt the malware was insufficient to halt Iran’s nuclear program.
According to news reports, the scientists were targeted in separate but nearly simultaneous car bomb attacks near Shahid Beheshti University. Majid Shahriari and Fereydoun Abbasi, along with their wives, were driving to work when assailants on motorcycles zipped by their vehicles and slapped magnetized explosives to the cars, which were detonated within seconds.
Shahriari, who was head of an unnamed Iranian nuclear program, was killed. Abbasi, a high-ranking Ministry of Defense official who reportedly holds a Ph.D. in nuclear physics, was wounded. Both wives were wounded in the attacks.
Two other Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in recent years. A senior physics professor at Tehran University was killed in January, when a bomb attached to a motorcycle exploded near his car as he was leaving for work. A second nuclear scientist died in 2007 from gas poisoning.
Ahmadinejad blamed it on the US. The rest of the world yawned.
similar deaths were carried out in the previous weeks against targets elsewhere in the world. I posted the links somewhere on here...
I was thinking that the others were sort of like practice for these two.
Remember, the Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Persians and traditional enemies.
I'm sure economic incentive is lower on the list, if on at all, of reasons why Arab countries would want to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Being surrounded by nuclear power Israel and a probably soon to be nuclear power Iran is not making them feel secure. I'm just curious if there is any economic incentive behind it.
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.
Good point. Despite how their politicians come off, I don't see Iran as a suicidal country but I do feel they could do some damage if they really wanted too. We could easily beat them one on one but I really doubt they would choose to fight that way.
Iran is already doing damage through their support of Al-Qaeda, The Taliban, Hezbollah, and who knows how many other terrorists.
During a conversation with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in 2008 about encouraging China to sign a resolution condemning Iran, Gates said the Saudis "always want to 'fight the Iranians to the last American,' but that now it is time for them to get into the game," according the cable.
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah repeatedly urges the U.S. to "cut the head off the snake." The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates says "Ahmadinejad is Hitler" and told one U.S. top State Department official that "the threat from al Qaeda would be minor if Iran has nukes."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/official-wikileaks-greatest-danger-loss-trust/story?id=12263971Iran is already doing damage through their support of Al-Qaeda, The Taliban, Hezbollah, and who knows how many other terrorists.
True, but this all a balancing act on a very unstable board. Yes, Iran is doing damage right now and yes it will be bad for US and other interests if they get the bomb. But we have no idea how they will react to an attack or if we can actually stop their nuclear bomb program and that needs to be taken into consideration.
If I had my druthers, I'd druther we not attack Iran.
The government had to know WAY before toppling Hussein ,that Iran was always,THE problem.
If I stopped to think about it, I could get very pissed off. I could see this could be a problem for our future,and the future is upon us, to waste our resources going on a wild goose chase, and have nothing, for when the time came to clamp down on Iran, but I am a simple minded person, and apparently great minds call the shots.
What, Bruce? Are you actually happy, rather than enraged, that the Mullahcracy exists and is a despotic oligarchy?
No wonder I think you need a better set of values than one that would permit you to write such drivel as that.
Totalitarian regimes do have one great value to democratic Mankind...
Yeah yeah, we already know you made up your mind when you were eight years old. :rolleyes:
30 years after the Iran hostage crisis, we're still fighting Reagan's war
Ted Koppel, in his usual insightful manner, reminds us how we got here. How many times we literally encouraged the Iranian relationship that 'we all but wanted'.
In their approach to the United States in the decade that followed, the mullahs provided chilling evidence of how closely they had studied the influence of the media and public opinion on U.S. foreign policy. ...
Iran watched and learned. They realized that the fixations of the American media could lead to shifts in U.S. policy. ...
Far from punishing the Iranians, Washington arranged for Israel to sell weapons to Iran. The Israeli stockpiles would be secretly replenished by the United States, which was legally prohibited from selling directly to Iran. In return, Iran would free some hostages. ...
Ultimately, Reagan's broad-shouldered bravado was no more effective in dealing with Tehran than Carter's mild-mannered diplomacy. ...
Here we are, 30 years after what we thought was the conclusion of a crisis, still wondering if the end will ever be in sight.
ISTANBUL – Talks meant to nudge Iran toward meeting U.N. Security Council demands to stop uranium enrichment collapsed Saturday, with Tehran shrugging off calls by six world powers to cease the activity that could be harnessed to make nuclear weapons.
Announcing the failure of two days of negotiations, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said no new date for another meeting had been set. She blamed what the six consider unrealistic demands by Iran — an end to U.N. sanctions and agreement that Iran can continue to enrich — for the disappointing results.
Proposals by the six for improved U.N. monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities were rejected by Tehran, as were attempts to kickstart dialogue by reviving discussions on Iran's shipping out a limited amount of its enriched uranium in exchange for fuel for its research reactor, Ashton said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110122/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear"She blamed what the six consider unrealistic demands by Iran"
Imagine that.
What, Bruce? Are you actually happy, rather than enraged, that the Mullahcracy exists and is a despotic oligarchy?
No wonder I think you need a better set of values than one that would permit you to write such drivel as that.
Totalitarian regimes do have one great value to democratic Mankind...
from what i've gathered here YOU are the one that needs Totalitarian regimes. ffs you are telling the godfather of the cellar to check himself? UG? FUCK THE HELL OFF AND DIE! yeah i said that! are you for real? do you not realize that because of "freedom of speech" that you are able to voice your opinion? and yes i realize the double standard in this post. far as i'm concerned.....never mind you wouldn't get it. or you would ACT like you didn't and argue. joke off and die dude.
TEHRAN—Iran's elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has transferred lethal new munitions to its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent months, according to senior U.S. officials, in a bid to accelerate the U.S. withdrawals from these countries.
The Revolutionary Guard has smuggled rocket-assisted exploding projectiles to its militia allies in Iraq, weapons that have already resulted in the deaths of American troops, defense officials said. They said Iranians have also given long-range rockets to the Taliban in Afghanistan, increasing the insurgents' ability to hit U.S. and other coalition positions from a safer distance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303763404576420080640167182.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStoriesfrom what i've gathered here YOU are the one that needs Totalitarian regimes. ffs you are telling the godfather of the cellar to check himself? UG? FUCK THE HELL OFF AND DIE! yeah i said that! are you for real? do you not realize that because of "freedom of speech" that you are able to voice your opinion? and yes i realize the double standard in this post. far as i'm concerned.....never mind you wouldn't get it. or you would ACT like you didn't and argue. joke off and die dude.
I need them?? When every post I've ever addressed the point in states that I do not need them?
Plthijinx, that is what a conservative
does. Antitotalitarianism is what we think, and why we say the things we do.
That is the more intelligent road than the one you tell me you've taken -- and scream at me for not joining you on.
Being generally brighter than yourself, I can readily get any idea you care to express. The problem with the leftward folk is how bankrupt their ideas keep showing themselves to be. They thus retreat from the contest of ideas in shame and incapacity, even inanition.
Not me.
I'm not even dishonest enough to run by a double standard.
Yeah yeah, we already know you made up your mind when you were eight years old. :rolleyes:
And the Left has confirmed this view unfailingly through the forty-seven years since -- forty-seven years which have seen the young grow up to abandon the Left. Hey, when you get it, you get it, whenever you do. What is right and accurately understood isn't going to change even with personal maturing, is it? One may have, in immaturity and inexperience, been misled about what things are right and what are wrong. But then comes the dawn, and the people which have struggled in darkness have seen a great light.
I'm the hero, the progressives the goats. And/or the sheeple. Fools, tools, and children. Faced with such, can one other than condescend? After all, thoughtcrime is not yet made illegal, so hanging and shooting are out.
An antitotalitarian view is one not to your taste, Bruce. You've been for years rather pathetically trying to give me grief for having one, in accordance with good, humane values which do not resonate with you.
UG is the wind beneath my wings. ;)
Nice, nothing to worry about, just move along and don't break your neck while your head is in the sand.....
China and Iran plan oil barter
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2082e954-b604-11e0-8bed-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1T4L1NkWhWhat's the problem?
Iran blames Israel for killing nuke scientists
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4125133,00.htmlBREAKING
Iran 'Directed' Washington, D.C., Terror Plot
FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States" tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.
The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an announcement today that the plan was "conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran" by a faction of the government and called it a "flagrant" violation of U.S. and international law.
I hate to say it but we really need these people to be successful in carrying out one of their attacks, obviously the American Public thinks the 9/11 attacks were a one off....
And who would that benefit?
And who would that benefit?
IMHO, The American Public. But hell, I thought they would have learned that after the last attack apparently not.
It makes me want to shrink further and further into a hole of self protection and tell everyone else to fuck off, you are on your own... my fear is I am not alone.
What are you talking about? What do you want to see from "the American Public" that you aren't seeing?
What are you talking about? What do you want to see from "the American Public" that you aren't seeing?
I want people to wake up and realize that the BS protests on Wall Street are meaningless compared to the larger issues of this country. They are a nice liberal touchy-feely distraction, but they do NOT address the larger issues.
When you have ass-holes like Mike Moore showing up and spouting off solidarity with the protestors, or some stupid ass rap star, all of whom make millions of dollars of the Capitalistic system that these idiots are protesting against it puts it all in perspective. Why are they not protesting in front of the Hollywood studios? Why are they not protesting in front of Huffington's house, or Al Gore's house? These mother fuckers all got rich off the same Capitalistic system these idiots are protesting against.
I will gather up some telling video of the solidarity of these fools and let you be the judge.....
They only protest against the "rich" they don't know or despise, not those that they admire....
Oh, I thought you had a point to make about terrorism.
I skimmed an interesting article the other day. It was basically saying that when we shifted our homeland security resources to preventing terrorism, we shifted them away from inspecting incoming cargo for pests, and in the last decade we have had a handful of pests that could cost a couple different agriculture industries hundreds of millions of dollars.
I skimmed another story that was making the point that drug violence from Mexico was a much bigger potential threat to the US than Muslim terrorists.
So I agree with your statement that the larger issues are being ignored. But it has nothing to do with the Wall Street protesters.
Oh, I thought you had a point to make about terrorism.
I skimmed an interesting article the other day. It was basically saying that when we shifted our homeland security resources to preventing terrorism, we shifted them away from inspecting incoming cargo for pests, and in the last decade we have had a handful of pests that could cost a couple different agriculture industries hundreds of millions of dollars.
I skimmed another story that was making the point that drug violence from Mexico was a much bigger potential threat to the US than Muslim terrorists.
So I agree with your statement that the larger issues are being ignored. But it has nothing to do with the Wall Street protesters.
I guess my bottom line is that the whole Wall Street protesters have become a circus side show of the bigger issues of what ails us. And the deeper you look into the protest movement the more comical it becomes.
I want people to wake up and realize that the BS protests on Wall Street are meaningless compared to the larger issues of this country. They are a nice liberal touchy-feely distraction, but they do NOT address the larger issues.
You seriously want Americans to die since a few Americans are not focusing on the issues YOU want them to focus on? No offense, but that's fucked up. Very fucked up.
Populations in general will never focus on the most important issues at hand for multiple reasons. One, there will always be disagreements about what the most important issues are. There are multiple issues that can legitimately argued to be the "most important" (income disparity is one of them BTW), but we will never know which one is really the "most important" without hindsight and ability to travel multiple parallel universes.
Two, people are emotional and biased creatures. Populations will always focus on issues that appeal to their biased nature instead of issues that will actually help them most. This is seen throughout history. It is not just Americans, but EVERYONE. Also, our emotions gives us a biased perspective of the world around us, making some issues, ones that appeal to us, seem more (or less) important than they really are by concentrating on certain factors which may or may not be what you think they are.
Remember, a lot of these OWSers are people that are jobless. The most pertinent and emotional issue to them right now is the economy and employment and they are using Wall Street as the lone scapegoat.
Also, a terrorist attack won't do shit to shift American's attention to "important" issues. All a terrorist attack will do is cause a panic and make us spend MORE money on precautions that will make us feel more safe, but actually not do much. Our government should have a better idea of how to protect our country and will do what is necessary whether it has public support or not.
You seriously want Americans to die since a few Americans are not focusing on the issues YOU want them to focus on? No offense, but that's fucked up. Very fucked up.
Not what I said. Certainly not what I was trying to convey.
Populations in general will never focus on the most important issues at hand for multiple reasons. One, there will always be disagreements about what the most important issues are. There are multiple issues that can legitimately argued to be the "most important" (income disparity is one of them BTW), but we will never know which one is really the "most important" without hindsight and ability to travel multiple parallel universes.
No need to "travel multiple parallel universes." The big problems are pretty obvious.
Two, people are emotional and biased creatures. Populations will always focus on issues that appeal to their biased nature instead of issues that will actually help them most. This is seen throughout history. It is not just Americans, but EVERYONE. Also, our emotions gives us a biased perspective of the world around us, making some issues, ones that appeal to us, seem more (or less) important than they really are by concentrating on certain factors which may or may not be what you think they are.
I guess if you want to get all esoteric about it.... is this psychology class? :p: {joking already!}
Remember, a lot of these OWSers are people that are jobless. The most pertinent and emotional issue to them right now is the economy and employment and they are using Wall Street as the lone scapegoat.
No doubt, but they have their weapon pointed in the wrong direction.
Also, a terrorist attack won't do shit to shift American's attention to "important" issues. All a terrorist attack will do is cause a panic and make us spend MORE money on precautions that will make us feel more safe, but actually not do much. Our government should have a better idea of how to protect our country and will do what is necessary whether it has public support or not.
The point is that we have already lost sight of 9/11, since that was the last time we were actually unified about anything. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, relax.
The point is that we have already lost sight of 9/11, since that was the last time we were actually unified about anything.
Ideally, I do seriously agree with you. But for unification to occur, something really bad usually has to happen. There is a reason we have an evolutionary response to unify in threatening situations and that unification isn't going to remain after the threat is gone though. I would prefer our country not be constantly threatened by some outside source and sacrifice the sense of unification.
I don't see terrorist threats as something that should unify the country anyways. I'm not downplaying the threat in general, I do realize the seriousness of it, but I see unification over a terrorist threat as something that can only backfire. Terrorist threats should be dealt with by CT measures, which seem to be Black Ops, drones (maybe), etc, not armies and definitely not by the general population. Once the general population and congress gets into it, CT seems to get much less effective.
Fuck unification, ideally. Monocultures are dangerously fragile. They're productive in direct proportion to their narrowness. They're susceptible to catastrophic failure from a single threat. They're rigid (How did that Maginot Line work out? Certainly a well defined unitary defense against an direct threat) You want unification of thought, of action? That's the Borg. Humans don't function well or long that way.
I pass.
Unification doesn't have to mean a single train of thought, but more just a strong sense of community.
The unity after 9/11 wasn't lost, it was squandered.
And here is where I think a lot of Americans are making a very bad assessment of the relative importance of things.
Assume the goal is to ensure the life, liberty and (opportunity to pursue) happiness of the US people.
Terrorists have killed ... ten thousand, in total, ever? How many have cigarettes killed? Car crashes?
Meanwhile, multinational corporations have effectively bought control of your government and are manipulating it for their own benefit. They send you to war, pillage your treasury. Your government now routinely spies on you and strip-searches you, and are taking more and more steps towards detention without trial, torture and killing.
I don't know about you guys, but I am FAR more scared of the trend toward corruption of the US government than I ever have been of any terrorist organisation.
Oh I actually came in to say, man, those Iranians are a bunch of dickheads. That is the sort of thing that happens when a group of religious fundamentalists get control of a government.
Our economic situation is a much greater threat to the life, liberty, and property of most Americans than terrorists in Yemen or nutters in tar baby of the day Uganda. Is Presidential power too heady for restraint? After a while it just seems hard to say no.
And here is where I think a lot of Americans are making a very bad assessment of the relative importance of things.
Assume the goal is to ensure the life, liberty and (opportunity to pursue) happiness of the US people.
Well, it is, but understand that it is only about "the US people". The rest can fend for themselves.
Terrorists have killed ... ten thousand, in total, ever? How many have cigarettes killed? Car crashes?
Less than most all other countries. Ciggarette smoking has significantly been reduced in the US; Our car crash requirements are among the highest in the world. So yea, as long as we are free to manipulate statistics, we are doing quite well compared to other countries.
Meanwhile, multinational corporations have effectively bought control of your government and are manipulating it for their own benefit.
Democracy is a bitch.
They send you to war
Well, no, politicians did that. Not Corporations. I don't know where you got that idea, but our government made all that happen, not some mystery shadow corporation..
pillage your treasury.
The God Damm Government is doing that for us.... not some mystery Corp....
Your government now routinely spies on you and strip-searches you, and are taking more and more steps towards detention without trial, torture and killing.
Horse shit. I travel all the time. None of that has happened to me or anyone I know. You are focusing on 0.00001% of any person who travels.
I don't know about you guys, but I am FAR more scared of the trend toward corruption of the US government than I ever have been of any terrorist organisation.
I am much more fearful of a runaway government, unchecked and un-regulated.
Well, no, politicians did that. Not Corporations. I don't know where you got that idea, but our government made all that happen, not some mystery shadow corporation..
The God Damm Government is doing that for us.... not some mystery Corp....
Sir, corporations have long since taken more-or-less control of your government. They have nibbled your country out from under you while you (personally) were defending it from terrorists.
Funny how pretty much every thread about Libya, Iran, Iraq, etc ends up arguing US politics. It's a mostly American board here.
The God Damm Government is doing that for us.... not some mystery Corp....
Strange how he never said that when wacko extremists - the worst type of conservative - were the government that was massacring American soldiers in Mission Accomplished for political aspirations. When wackos all but surrendered to the Taliban in Afghanistan. When wackos were kidnapping foreigners and justifying it using pretty expressions such as extraordinary rendition. When wackos were enriching the richest at the expense of all other Americans. When wackos refuse to prosecute Enron until all but embarrassed by the state of Oklahoma. When wackos refused to prosecute those who intentionally created a CA energy crisis. When wackos let First Energy operate a nuclear power plant with a potential Three Mile Island problem only because they ran a $400,000 Bush Cheney fund raiser. Same plant that was so mismanaged as to eat through its critically important containment dome. When wackos undermined what makes America great - science and research - by even destroying stem cell, quantum physics, space and advance energy research. Obama finally had to rescue the AMS experiment. And stop having White House lawyers rewriting science papers. These guys so hated American workers as to even stifle hybrid automobile products. Because profits are more important that things that once made America great.
Why did wackos destroy the US Space program by first not making any decisions, and then creating a disaster - Constellation, Orion, and Ares? Why did wackos attack so many space research projects? Why did wackos promote an obvious disaster only for political purposes - Man to Mars. And almost destroy the Hubble until a near revolt among the astronaut corp reversed that decision. Why did wackos says "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". And therefore create today's economic calamity. Why did wackos all but protect bin Laden? All but protect Madoff. Why did wackos try to create a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane? Why did wackos do exactly what the Norwegian foreign minister predicted - destroy the Oslo Accords? Why did wackos make America's popularity throughout the world the lowest in post WWII history? Even turn a 90% popularity number in one of America's closest allies to less than 10% - and wackos said this was good.
Why does TheMercenary ignore all this to blame those who are not wacko extremists? Because Limbaugh et al tell him how to think. We have met the enemy and he is us. Forty years later, that same problem still exists. Those who most created all these problems are now blaming all others rather than look in a mirror.
Repeatedly ask TheMercenary to explain all these disasters. He will do everything to avoid your questions. So keep asking. Get him to admit to those mistakes. Or let him show all why most of America's problems are directly traceable to wackos who call everyone else a liberal.
Just because Beck, Hannity, et al are proven right by insulting all others does not mean TheMercenary is also right. Why do many disaster traceable to wacko extremists? Because "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
We must cut spending by $1 trillion because wackos lied about Mission Accomplished - which then cost $1 trillion. So everyone but wackos (who lied about Saddam's WMDs) created our budget problems. We who are not wacko extremists should feel so guilty.
most of America's problems are directly traceable to wackos who call everyone else a liberal.
What happened to the 85%?
Just because Beck, Hannity, et al are proven right
wait whaaat?
Shall we start a pool on the date/time Israeli stealth's will leave a package on Iran's doorstep.
[COLOR="Black"]You Sir, have been warned.[/COLOR] :eyebrow:
Voice of America
Nov 19, 2011
US to Slap Isolated Iran With New Sanctions
The United States is getting ready to hit Iran with new, tougher sanctions,
with one top official saying Tehran now faces an "unprecedented" degree of isolation.
U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity late Friday,
said the sanctions could be unveiled as early as Monday and
would target Iran's petrochemical industry.
They said the new sanctions would seek to stop foreign companies
from investing in ventures like oil refineries.
The officials said foreign companies that violate the ban
would be cut off from access to the U.S. market,
and that European countries could introduce similar sanctions later next week.
<snip>
Iran has dismissed the IAEA report.
The country's IAEA envoy, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, said the measure will only strengthen
Iran's determination to continue its uranium enrichment activities
The country's IAEA envoy, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, said the measure will only strengthen Iran's determination to continue its uranium enrichment activities
Woopdie dooo! Like anything has really changed. Turn the place into a parking lot. Some people cannot be negotiated with.
[SIZE="1"]
(yes, I realize its an immediate emotional reaction)[/SIZE]
Yeah, careful UG. ;) If we pave the place, the more liberal minded die with the theocrats. I'd prefer we wait for the implosion of an untenable society.
Shall we start a pool on the date/time Israeli stealth's will leave a package on Iran's doorstep.
I usually go with 'not going to happen' since an Israeli attack on Iran has been predicted every 1 to 2 years since 2005, but the idea is becoming more and more mainstream (in discussion terms, not agreement terms). There was a recent boom in discussion of the probability and strategy behind an attack since the IAEA report came out.
If Israel does bomb Iran, I'm guessing it will be after US leaves Iraq since the Iraqis won't be able to detect Israeli planes illegally flying over their airspace (unless SA gives Israel permission).
Yes, I too am usually not paranoid/conspiratorial about such things.
But it was an article several days ago, similar to the one below,
that came to my mind when I read the "new sanctions" article.
I remember thinking, why are they making this (Israeli refusal)
public ... unless something
is in the works ?
Now, announcement of the new sanctions... :3_eyes:
The Telegraph
Nov 19,2011
Israel refuses to tell US its Iran intentions
Israel has refused to reassure President Barack Obama that
it would warn him in advance of any pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities,
raising fears that it may be planning a go-it-alone attack as early as next summer.
The disclosure, made by insiders briefed on a top-secret meeting between
America's most senior defence chief and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's hawkish
prime minister, comes amid concerns that Iran's continuing progress
towards nuclear weapons capability means the Jewish state has all
but lost hope for a diplomatic solution.
<snip>
"They [the Israelis] did not suggest that military action was being planned or was imminent,
but neither did they give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington's permission,
or even inform the White House in advance that a mission was underway," one said.
That's what I've been hearing as well. It is pretty clear that Obama is against a pre-emptive attack on Iran so if Israel wanted to go through with it, they would have to go alone. That is why they are forced to wait until after the US leaves Iraq if they can't go through SA.
The main reason why I believe Israel would not go through with an attack is that there is very little chance it will make their situation any better. But then again, I am feeling that Israel's pragmatism has been dwindling lately.
It seems as long as Iran can keep the talking (diplomacy) going,
there is not sufficient motivation to react to threats of more UN sanctions.
But when Israel starts scurrying about it does get their attention.
Reuters
By Parisa Hafezi
Tue Nov 22, 2011
Iran misjudged West's resolve in nuclear standoff
It is unclear how Iran's hardline conservative leadership will act,
with hard calculation, national pride and Islamic outlook all part of the equation.
But senior officials have repeatedly hinted that diplomacy would be the first recourse.
"The regime is very worried about a military strike.
They have mishandled the issue and it is now very difficult for them to reach any kind of compromise,"
said a senior European diplomat in Tehran, who asked not to be named.
"Also they are worried about a spread of the Arab Spring (popular protests) into Iran
and cannot risk more economic pressure that can cause street protests."<snip>
However, a lack of stability in the Middle East, combined with Iran's
ability to stir up trouble in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan,
do weigh on Western policymakers' minds when contemplating
tougher action against Tehran, officials say.
"Their (Americans) hands are sufficiently tied down in the region ...
The American nation cannot tolerate another overseas military flashpoint,"
said an Iranian official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Iran can also draw comfort from the anti-sanctions posture of veto-wielding
Security Council members Russia and China, but by pursuing its confrontational stance
it may overplay its hand.
Yeah, careful UG. ;) If we pave the place, the more liberal minded die with the theocrats. I'd prefer we wait for the implosion of an untenable society.
Why wait? Why should we not, say,
help? Régime change can be successful... that's the lesson of the early twenty-first century.
What is it we can expect from the present Iranian government?
___ More of the same damn crap, plus undermining of democratic republics
___ Radical change and a Good Neighbor Policy
That's what I've been hearing as well. It is pretty clear that Obama is against a pre-emptive attack on Iran so if Israel wanted to go through with it, they would have to go alone. That is why they are forced to wait until after the US leaves Iraq if they can't go through SA.
The problem with that thinking is that a counter attack by Iran would draw the US in by a MOU. Signed in 1968 and re-signed by Clinton and Netanyhau in 1998.
Maybe if Iran attacked Israel directly, which I doubt they would do. Their missile capability is extremely weak while Israel's (and the US's) is very strong. Iran would play to their strengths and use Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist/insurgency cells if they decided to respond along with other non-direct methods. The US wouldn't be drawn in with an MOU if that happened.
Israel stirring up trouble? Maybe, maybe not. Turkey certainly is closer than Israel.....
A senior commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard says the country will target NATO's missile defense shield in Turkey if the U.S.¬ or Israel attacks the Islamic Republic.
Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the Guards' aerospace division, is quoted by the semiofficial Mehr news agency as saying the warning is part of a new defense strategy to counter what it sees as an increase in threats from the U.S.¬ and Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-to-hit-turkey-if-nuclear-program-targeted-by-israel-u-s-general-says-1.397862Hmmm The first one I can buy was some sort of mistake or accident. Whatever.
But now another one?
A second Iranian nuclear facility has exploded,
as diplomatic tensions rise between the West and Tehran
AN IRANIAN nuclear facility has been hit by a huge explosion, the second such blast in a month, prompting speculation that Tehran's military and atomic sites are under attack.
Satellite imagery seen by The Times confirmed that a blast that rocked the city of Isfahan on Monday struck the uranium enrichment facility there, despite denials by Tehran.
The images clearly showed billowing smoke and destruction, negating Iranian claims yesterday that no such explosion had taken place. Israeli intelligence officials told The Times that there was "no doubt" that the blast struck the nuclear facilities at Isfahan and that it was "no accident".
The explosion at Iran's third-largest city came as satellite images emerged of the damage caused by one at a military base outside Tehran two weeks ago that killed about 30 members of the Revolutionary Guard, including General Hassan Moghaddam, the head of the Iranian missile defence program.
linkTheir subscription to Norton Anti-virus and Anti-spyware ran out.
Lets see if Hezbollah becomes active again soon...
Yes, they are rumbling. A few rockets were fired at northern Israel last week for the first time in years.
And they have had a few explosions happen in Lebanon,
one of which they blamed on Israel detonating a spy device, and one of which they blamed on a leftover Israeli bomb. Neither explanation is all that credible. The first happened near a Hizb arms depot. Here's guessing they were really "work accidents" of the type that happen often in Gaza, where inexperienced bomb handlers routinely blow themselves up. These things happen when there is hasty gearing up for activity...
The previous week
they hinted they would take over Beirut if Assad falls in Syria.
And they have been systematically dismantling our spy ring in their midst. Hezbollah has been too successful lately.
The British Embassy in Tehran was attacked by a rent-a-crowd this Tuesday following notice of EU sanctions. Result, all staff sent home. And William Hague (Foreign Minister) gave the Iranians 48 hours to leave their London Embassy .
Not sure this helps anyone, but I suppose we get to say "They started it!" because at least we didn't storm their Embassy. This time ;)
I'm a little more concerned about the American sanctions proposed. Controlling much?
"Experts" here suggest refusing to allow foreign companies to trade with the Iranian Central bank might lead to further disruption in the markets and higher oil prices. Which would benefit Iran, at least short term.
What with this and killing Pakistani soldiers by mistake, it's not a golden time for American diplomacy at present.
It might end up being good for Iranian banks to be isolated from the next monetary bubble...
This won't help relations right now....
The Iranian government says it shot down an unmanned U.S. plane that violated the country's airspace. The result could be a further chilling of Iran's relationship with the West.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/12/iran-shoots-down-us-drone-and-threatens-retaliation/45708/US response: "What drone?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45541622/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.Ttwo-WMr2nA
A U.S. official said Sunday that Washington had no indication that a drone that had crashed in Iran had actually been shot down.
In Tehran, state television quoted a military source as saying that Iran's military had shot down a U.S. reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran.
"There is absolutely no indication up to this point that Iranians shot down this drone," the official told NBC News.
The NATO-led force in Afghanistan said the drone the Iranians claim to have shot down may be an unarmed surveillance drone that was lost last week while flying over western Afghanistan. A surveillance drone flying over western Afghanistan had gone out of control late last week and may be the one Iran said it had shot down over its own airspace, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said on Sunday.
"The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a U.S. unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status," an ISAF statement said.
:eyebrow:
Sure it was. Like a lost puppy.
Color me skeptical.
US response: "OK, it's a drone. But have fun trying to learn anything from it."
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/05/what_could_iran_learn_from_the_beast_of_kandahar
The Iranian media reported today, and U.S. officials are now confirming, that a U.S. stealth spy drone was shot down over Iran. The Iranians claim the drone sustained only minor damage.
...
So if it turns out to be true that the RQ-170 has fallen into Iranian hands, how big an intelligence coup is that for them?
I shouldn't think so. Under the skin, this is a fairly simple airplane. I doubt if there's anything radical in terms of reconnaissance equipment on board. There aren't that many examples of a huge intelligence haul of that kind coming from one particular aircraft.
A major concern for the U.S. government is that the Iranians might be able salvage highly sensitive technology, such as cameras or sensors, from the RQ-170, or even stealth features, and try to copy it for their own systems.
and yet from Wiki ...
The design lacks several elements common to stealth engineering, namely notched landing gear doors and sharp leading edges. It has a curved wing planform, and the exhaust is not shielded by the wing. Aviation Week postulates that these elements suggest the designers have avoided 'highly sensitive technologies' due to the near certainty of eventual operational loss inherent with a single engine design and a desire to avoid the risk of compromising leading edge technology.
hmm
Stealth can mean a lot of things.
Have you ever seen one of those unmarked state patrol cars? It screams "COP" but it's not black and white (or blue and white or whatever your local coloration may be). That's stealth. Low profile light bar? Stealth technology. It doesn't mean invisible or flying ninjas or HP's cloak, necessarily. It may be that all sides are telling the "truth". I am curious if it was downed by hostile action or not.
US response: "OK, it's a drone. But have fun trying to learn anything from it."
Are you kidding me?!?!? The god damm Chinese or Russians are writing them a check for 1 billion US dollars for it right now. The Iranians can't make heads or tails of it but there are a few others out there that would sell your sister to get at it.
That was the news at the time Merc. Information of this story was released in intervals...
US response: "OK, it's a drone. But have fun trying to learn anything from it."
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/05/what_could_iran_learn_from_the_beast_of_kandahar
Maybe Iran does not have that much to learn from the drone.
They may already know a great deal....
Tonight on CNN, the Iranian Ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee,
was being interviewed and answering questions about the drone.
The TV showed an Iranian solder standing in front of what appeared
to be an undamaged "flying wing" kind of aircraft with very smooth contours.
When asked directly "Did Iran shoot down the drown" his reply was quite startling.
He said
"Well, they did not directly shoot it down. They brought it down"
He refrained from saying how they brought it down, stating simply "
They have their ways."
I think this may well be major revelation for the US.
For example, if Iran can electronically gain control of the US stealth drones
and bring them to ground without extensive damage,
it would be a remarkable achievement by Iran and setback for the US.
.
It was also reported that they fly similar to a radio controlled airplane. The US knew of this weakness and intentionally did not put anything in them that would be compromised "when" one went down. According to the US.
Also - from PH's link:
this is a fairly simple airplane. I doubt if there's anything radical in terms of reconnaissance equipment on board. There aren't that many examples of a huge intelligence haul of that kind coming from one particular aircraft.
And another
linkFor example, if Iran can electronically gain control of the US stealth drones
and bring them to ground without extensive damage,
it would be a remarkable achievement by Iran and setback for the US.
If we are to avoid war with these assholes, we need to remember that what seems like sociopathic bravado and lying is actually a cultural difference.
Iran: "We shot down your drone."
US: "What drone?"
Iran: "The one we shot down."
US: "We have no evidence of a drone being shot down... we did lose one. That happens from time to time, they are flown by people 4000 miles away."
Iran: "Well we shot it down."
US: "Can we see it?"
Iran: "Here it is."
US: "But... that's obviously not shot down, there's no damage to it. If a drone got hit by any proper anti-aircraft gun there would be practically nothing left of it!"
Iran: "I didn't say we shot it down. We have ways."
:rolleyes:
Pretty interesting read.
Downed US drone: How Iran caught the 'beast'
A senior US military source "with intimate knowledge of the Sentinel drone" was paraphrased by Fox News days ago as saying that the lost craft was "presumed to be intact since it is programmed to fly level and find a place to land, rather than crashing."
If we are to avoid war with these assholes, we need to remember that what seems like sociopathic bravado and lying is actually a cultural difference.
Based on more information in Merc's link above, UT's dialog needs to be extended
Iran: "We shot down your drone."
US: "What drone?"
Iran: "The one we shot down."
US: "We have no evidence of a drone being shot down... we did lose one. That happens from time to time, they are flown by people 4000 miles away."
Iran: "Well we shot it down."
US: "Can we see it?"
Iran: "Here it is."
US: "But... that's obviously not shot down, there's no damage to it. If a drone got hit by any proper anti-aircraft gun there would be practically nothing left of it!"
Iran: "I didn't say we shot it down. We have ways."
US: "Of course it's not damaged. We programmed it to fly level and find a flat place to land"
:rolleyes:
Don't miss the bit at the end
But there are also limits, as evidenced by the launch of Iran's first Omid (Hope) satellite in 2009. While that event put Iran into an elite scientific club of just nine nations, the innards of the satellite appeared to be rudimentary.
State TV showed footage at the time of the satellite being assembled into a square silver box, its guts similar to those of a 1950s transistor radio, with D-size batteries and wires held in place with black electrical tape.
I think they had help from the Russians. Either the Chinese or the Russians would pay a pretty penny to have Iran sell it to them.
Well, for the good for everyone, we are lucky it was unmanned drone and not a manned aircraft. If so, we would probably be on the brink of war right now...
After Action Review comment: Damn why didn't we put a self destruct thingy on those drones...you mean that if they loose contact with the operator they just fly level and land themselves????
After Action Review comment: Damn why didn't we put a self destruct thingy on those drones...you mean that if they loose contact with the operator they just fly level and land themselves????
I was thinking that too but I'm guessing they don't want to put a self-destruct device on a $6 million drone in case they lose contact in airspace where the drone could easily be recovered.
Voice of America
12/12/11
US Asks Iran to Return Lost Drone
Based on more information in the link above, UT's dialog needs to be extended yet again.
Iran: "We shot down your drone."
US: "What drone?"
Iran: "The one we shot down."
US: "We have no evidence of a drone being shot down... we did lose one. That happens from time to time, they are flown by people 4000 miles away."
Iran: "Well we shot it down."
US: "Can we see it?"
Iran: "Here it is."
US: "But... that's obviously not shot down, there's no damage to it. If a drone got hit by any proper anti-aircraft gun there would be practically nothing left of it!"
Iran: "I didn't say we shot it down. We have ways."
US: "Of course it's not damaged. We programmed it to fly level and find a flat place to land"
Iran: "Here's a nice picture for you"
US: "Please give it back. Pretty please... Pretty please, with sugar on it." :rolleyes:
They should have dropped a freaking cruise missile on it when they had a chance.
Why destroy it when we've laced it with malware for them to download that will hibernate in their systems until we're ready for activation. Operation Trojan Drone is proceeding as planned, we just let them think they won a prize 'cause we knew they'd be suspicious of a gift. Now, they're too full of themselves to ever believe that we let them have it. Asking for it back was not only part of the ruse, it indemnifies us from claims of subsequent damage to their property. We expended one drone to "stray" over their border and land completely intact, able to deliver its virtual payload, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayers as these things go.
That said, who'd like to buy some beachfront property in Nevada for when California falls into the ocean?
Why destroy it when we've laced it with malware for them to download that will hibernate in their systems until we're ready for activation. <snip>
Iran: "We shot down your drone."
US: "What drone?"
Iran: "The one we shot down."
US: "We have no evidence of a drone being shot down... we did lose one. That happens from time to time, they are flown by people 4000 miles away."
Iran: "Well we shot it down."
US: "Can we see it?"
Iran: "Here it is."
US: "But... that's obviously not shot down, there's no damage to it. If a drone got hit by any proper anti-aircraft gun there would be practically nothing left of it!"
Iran: "I didn't say we shot it down. We have ways."
US: "Of course it's not damaged. We programmed it to fly level and find a flat place to land"
Iran: "Here's a nice picture for you"
US: "Please give it back. Pretty please... Pretty please, with sugar on it."
Iran: Hey, be careful with that thing. There's this Dwellar guy saying that...
Iran: "We shot down your drone."
US: "What drone?"
Iran: "The one we shot down."
US: "We have no evidence of a drone being shot down... we did lose one. That happens from time to time, they are flown by people 4000 miles away."
Iran: "Well we shot it down."
US: "Can we see it?"
Iran: "Here it is."
US: "But... that's obviously not shot down, there's no damage to it. If a drone got hit by any proper anti-aircraft gun there would be practically nothing left of it!"
Iran: "I didn't say we shot it down. We have ways."
US: "Of course it's not damaged. We programmed it to fly level and find a flat place to land"
Iran: "Here's a nice picture for you"
US: "Please give it back. Pretty please... Pretty please, with sugar on it."
Iran: "
Before we even consider your request, you must say you're sorry. ...
But our final decision will be no, we're keeping it."
“The least expectation from us is an apology by the U.S. president,” Boroujerdi said. He added that the United States also must compensate Iran for the expenses it has incurred in retrieving the drone. “We have spent a lot of energy on this,” he said.
snickered at this part.
Yeh, we got it and its costing us money to get all the info out of it so we want you to pay for that too.
We could have paid with a laser guided missile. That would have been great.
Now, I’m a bleeding heart social liberal when it comes to marriage and believe gay people have every bit the right to get married that straight people have. If Newt Gingrich can get married three times and then get to decide who is or who is not destroying the sanctity of marriage, well that says something about letting our political leaders make these decisions for us.
What a great quote....
Iran's navy chief warned Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic strait at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows.
It was the second such warning in two days. On Tuesday, Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.
"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces," Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV. "Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway," the navy chief said.
In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet's spokeswoman warned that any disruption "will not be tolerated." The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."
CBSNews
OK - now what?
Interesting. Whether Iran is bluffing or not, this proves that sanctions are starting to take it's toll against Iran. Also, by threatening to take the Straight of Hormuz, it implies that Iran would prefer conflict, or threat of conflict, with the West over giving up it's nuclear weapon program. Since neither Israel and the US or Iran is going to back off the nuclear weapon standoff, this could mean there is a higher probability that some larger conflict may erupt in the future.
My guess is that Iran is bluffing. Iran really has no means to hold the straight and the US Navy would quickly retake it by military force. It would cause chaotic oil prices for a bit, pissing everyone off, but I doubt would have any lasting effect. I just don't see the point.
Either sanctions are really hurting Iran or politicians are just beating their chests for the upcoming elections in March.
Either sanctions are really hurting Iran or politicians are just beating their chests for the upcoming elections in March.
Which Iran made that statement? A common mistake by many is to assume same military officer making an off hand comment represents Iranian power brokers.
Newt Gringrich also said he would nuke Iran. Maybe Iran is replying with the same empty threat? Maybe Iran is mocking Newts?
Report is about as important as an article in People Magazine since required and relevant facts were not provided. Hearsay, reported because it was a slow newsday, is better ignored.
Newt Gringrich also said he would nuke Iran. Maybe Iran is replying with the same empty threat? Maybe Iran is mocking Newts?
Lots of Republican dick waving going on, seems like Paul is the only one with confidence in his manhood.
Which Iran made that statement? A common mistake by many is to assume same military officer making an off hand comment represents Iranian power brokers.
It was Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.
Newt Gringrich also said he would nuke Iran.
Close but no cookie there Otis, he said he would bomb Iran's nukes.
you just got the words in the wrong order or something
easy mistake to make
he said he would bomb Iran's nukes.
And the only weapon available to do that is a nuke. To keep the naive naive, Newt just forgot to mention that action is called a unilateral nuclear surprise attack. Something more despicable than the attack on Pearl Harbor. So why is Newt dic waving while forgetting to mention that important little fact. He wants to Pearl Harbor Iran with nukes?
The Iranian VP does not represent opinions of those who hold the power. Even Ahmadinejad depends on those power brokers to remain in office. The VP is a minor player who does not represent the opinion of Iran's major power brokers.
Griff has accurately summarized the topic.
Lots of Republican dick waving going on,
Inventing bogeymen gains Tea party to support. Honesty is not relevant here. Be more worried about extremists on both sides using fear and military taunting to manipulate the most naive among us.
Most serious threats are not so obvious. That naval threat was long too obvious to be a concern.
Obama and Clinton seem to have a strong hand to play in 2012,
as a result of Obama signing US sanctions on Iran and it's
nuclear program into law on New Years Day.
Reuters
By Robin Pomeroy
TEHRAN | Thu Jan 5, 2012
Screws tighten on Iran as big buyers shun its oil
(Reuters) -
Iran faced the prospect of cutbacks in its oil sales
to China and Japan as new measures to block Tehran's crude exports
over its nuclear program appeared to be driving its economy to the wall.
The developments in Asia on Thursday followed news 24 hours earlier
that EU leaders had agreed to halt European purchases of Iranian crude.
China, Iran's biggest trade partner, had already cut its purchases of Iranian oil
by more than half this month and would extend the cuts to February,
a Beijing-based trader who deals with Iranian oil said.
Japan would consider cutbacks in its Iranian oil purchases to secure a waiver from new U.S. sanctions
Between them, China, the EU and Japan buy about half of Iran's exports of 2.6 million barrels of oil per day.a<snip>
The new U.S. law allows Obama to offer waivers to prevent havoc in oil markets,
but to receive the permits countries are expected to demonstrate that
they are reducing ties with Tehran.
Washington has said it is discussing with allies how to apply the law gradually
to tighten the screws on Tehran without causing an oil supply shock.
Iran's neighbors may appear to be going along with the US sanctions,
but push back may be just behind a curtain.
MIDDLE EAST NEWS
MARC CHAMPION
JANUARY 6, 2012
Turkish Visit Aims to Smooth Ties With Tehran
Caught Between Neighbor and the West, Ankara Seeks to Avoid Sunni-Shia Conflict
ISTANBUL—Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Thursday
reassured Iran that Ankara wouldn't allow Turkish soil to be used for any attack against a neighbor,
during a trip to Tehran focused on averting a Sunni-Shia "cold war" in the region.<snip>
Though not binding on Turkey, the U.S. sanctions would penalize Turkish companies
that buy Iranian oil, unless they can secure a special waiver.
Turkey gets 30% of its oil from Iran and is among Iran's top consumers of crude,
at just over 200,000 barrels a day. Halting those purchases would severely antagonize Tehran,
which says its nuclear program is purely civilian, analysts say.<snip>
As U.S. forces leave Iraq, Turkish diplomats say they have become increasingly concerned
over the risk that sectarian conflicts could partition the country among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
A partitioned Iraq could also inflame Turkey's troubles with its own Kurdish militants
from the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, analysts say.
Iran, Iraq and Syria all border Turkey.
Obama and Clinton seem to have a strong hand to play in 2012,
as a result of Obama signing US sanctions on Iran and it's
nuclear program into law on New Years Day.
Really? How is this any different than all the other times all the other presidents did this type of thing. China is more than willing to buy their oil & France probably, I'm sure.
Really? How is this any different than all the other times all the other presidents did this type of thing.
This one sanction is painful. Nobody wanted to stop 10% of the world's oil. Especially since so much of it is needed in places such as Japan.
All oil transactions go through Iran's Central Bank. So all previous sanctions averted that bank. Placing a world wide embargo on Iran's central bank, essentially, stops oil trade. Something that was not done previously due to objections by so many close American allies who need that oil.
Not reported is an apparent wide world agreement to do something. What most nations previously did not want to do. For example, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, many Persian Gulf states, obviously Britain and France, and maybe even Switzerland would be in on the planning. For these sanctions to work, then countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAW and Oman had to be planning for what would result months ago. News reports give almost no indication of what must be major negotiations, cooperation, and agreements made covertly.
We don’t know if all that was planned. We only know that Iran is truly concerned about this one painful sanction. Many have discussed it previously. But nobody previously had enough willpower to act.
We only know that Iran is reportedly truly concerned about this one.
FTFY ... we'll see.
We'll see...
Maybe we are already seeing....
Bloomberg
January 06, 2012, 4:46 AM EST
Iran Central Bank Moves to Rescue Rial as Allies Tighten Net
Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Iran’s central bank moved to avert a slide in the value of the rial
as the U.S. and allies prepared for further sanctions that may include an oil embargo.<snip>
Today, foreign-currency traders in Tehran were ignoring instructions issued yesterday
by the central bank for them to sell the dollar at the rate of 14,000 rials, Fars said.
They refused to trade at that rate or were only using the rate of 16,000 rials, Fars said.
Directors of Iran’s banks were asked to meet central bank Governor Mahmoud Bahmani
today to address the rial’s volatility. The bank will host a meeting of economists on Jan. 9
to discuss management of the exchange rate, Fars said.
The currency has plunged because “Iranians are seeking safer havens in internationally traded currencies
and gold as the country faces the prospect of dealing with tougher international sanctions,”
said Jarmo Kotilaine, chief economist at National Commercial Bank in Saudi Arabia.<snip>
Iran’s inflation rate has surged as the government removed subsidies on staple goods.
It may reach 22 percent by the end of the current calendar year in March,
Deputy Economy Minister Mohammad-Reza Farzin said last month.
“Inflation is a big problem as it is, and a devaluation would obviously
fuel imported inflation even further,” Kotilaine said. <snip>
Shipping
Iran has warned it may halt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,
the passageway for about a third of the world’s seaborne-traded crude,
in response to curbs on its oil sales.
That’s probably “a bluff,” Paul Sullivan, a political scientist specializing in Middle East security
at Georgetown University in Washington, said in an e-mailed response to questions.
“They would strangle their economy and Iraq’s, their ally.
It could also be seen as an act of war.”
The U.K. would be willing to join a military action aimed at keeping the strait open,
Defense Secretary Philip Hammond will say in a speech in Washington today,
according to extracts released by his office.
Soft power is looking good so far.
(Backed up by hard power, carrier to Arabian Sea.)
I hope the carrier group missile defense systems are up to snuff.
I hope the carrier group missile defense systems are up to snuff.
That continues to worry me. The Chinese and Iran have close ties.
http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/07/15/china-confirms-carrier-killer/
I think they should send another carrier group in addition to the one already in the area, just as back up.
I think they should send another carrier group in addition to the one already in the area, just as back up.
already on their way, I would suspect.
That continues to worry me. The Chinese and Iran have close ties.
http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/07/15/china-confirms-carrier-killer/
I think they should send another carrier group in addition to the one already in the area, just as back up.
That would be extremely bold of China plus I don't think it is in their best interest. I understand the importance of Iranian gas and oil to China, which explains most of their actions, but I really doubt they would arm Iran with something so powerful because of the repercussions.
Basically, if Iran did use one of those on a US aircraft carrier, it is all-out-war and Iran would lose. Hard. If that happens then
no one is getting Iranian gas and oil. China's "loyalty" to Iran is based on Iran's natural resources, not anti-western worldview.
That would be extremely bold of China plus I don't think it is in their best interest. I understand the importance of Iranian gas and oil to China, which explains most of their actions, but I really doubt they would arm Iran with something so powerful because of the repercussions.
Basically, if Iran did use one of those on a US aircraft carrier, it is all-out-war and Iran would lose. Hard. If that happens then no one is getting Iranian gas and oil. China's "loyalty" to Iran is based on Iran's natural resources, not anti-western worldview.
They don't need to actually provide the missile, just the technology as they have done so with the info from Khan and the North Koreans in their nuke program.
Iran has very little ability to produce gas. Hit their refineries and the country would come to a halt in a matter of days.
There continues to be a huge disconnect between Iran's civilian power, military power, and the ruling clerics. That is why it is unstable, unpredictable, and dangerous in it's current form.
We only know that Iran is truly concerned about this one painful sanction.
That requoted sentence was incorrectly quoted. We know they are concerned. No doubt about it. And no reason to believe otherwise.
Their concern was never in doubt. That quote reposted to subvert reality.
The unknown is what 'they' are willing to do about it. Who 'they' are. And how committed other parties are to those sanctions. We don't even know if and by how much others (ie Russia, Turkmenistan, Pakistan) are onboard. All three questions need be answered.
Military strikes on Iranian refineries would not cause "the country would come to a halt in a matter of days." Those numbers and conclusion are obviously wrong.
UT is 100% on target. Amazing how the most militaristic demonstrate no grasp of basic military concepts. UT has defined how all great powers operate (as opposed to dying powers so ‘George Jr’ and ‘Nixon’ dumb as to waste resources in 'Nam or "Mission Accomplished").
Soft power is looking good so far.
Meanwhile, bad military deployment would have a second carrier enroute to the Gulf. Foolish military deployment would have any carrier task force in the Persian Gulf. Even dumbest are those politicians who advocate a unilateral (Pearl Harbor) attack on Iran with nuclear weapons. Yes, a few that dumb are even trying to become president.
Currently happening is posturing. Rooster huffing up its feathers to intimidate another rooster.
Now, what should concern everyone is 'who in Iran' is actually in power. Again, which "Iran" is capable of converting 'huffed feathers' into action. I still do not see a single post that says 'who in Iran' has the power. There is no monolithic Iran as so many posts assume.
Just another reason why those with better grasp understand well proven concepts from 2,500 years ago - soft power.
Soft power turns out useful -- especially to one Iranian fishing boat taken over by pirates.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/06/world/meast/iran-us-navy-rescue/Jumping late in this thread, but I say hit Iran and enable a revolution. Also I would seize oil assets to pay for recent war ependitures. Iran is a major supplier of IED technology, components, and training even to Sunnis.
What if the post-revolution Iranian government is worse than the current? How would the Iranian population react to the US taking over oil assets? How would the world react?
What if the post-revolution Iranian government is worse than the current? How would the Iranian population react to the US taking over oil assets? How would the world react?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theoryjust my thoughts, destabilize iran and affect global terrorism. seize the oil, like we should have in iraq. the more oil we control, the less power the wahhabist have. if we gained control and held southwest asia, we would restore our economy and stabilize most of the world.
you know, i have given this topic much thought...
a chinese hagmoney presents problems that the american hagmoney doesn't.
the way companies and organizations lobby the chinese isn't by lobbying them (there's really no campaign money issues), but by lobbyings others [markets] for them.
in receant years the decline in oversea markets (from china's POV) have allowed them to go nationalistic - favoring chinese companies and organizations over international. this might be temporary setback of the current financial world, but it might also be a sign of what's to come as the chinese economy keeps growing.
say what you will about the US as a police force, if you have money you don't need to be american to finance who gets the vote, and as much as we'd like to think that its evil corporations (and us jews), the reality is that almost everyone in the world has an interest group in washington. and its actually not that expansive to lobby congress at all - policies have being passed for as low as 5 grand.
america makes for a better world police because it actually gets to be controled by everyone in the world.in china, the chinese economy is the only interest that is of anyone's concern.
so... yes, what big sarge said. its not a fair world but it is the lesser evil world.
This strategy may have worked....100 years ago. It won't work today, in my opinion.
Joe, who are you responding to?
I think joe is referring to mine. I admit the world is too globalist now for it to be realistic. Sometimes I feel like we should act like the super power we are. Let's at least invade Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
So you are assuming that if take out Iran's current regime that it will become a true democratic country? Given the history of western intervention in Iran that is a small to none probability. What is
more likely to happen is that rouge Revolutionary Guard soldiers will step up terrorism in the region and on the west if we intervene and the population will get behind an even more extreme government.
Unless you want to go trillions of dollars even more in debt and invade Iran, facing even more resistance than Iraq or Afghanistan on a endeavor that is certain to fail. Sounds like a cakewalk
Sometimes I feel like we should act like the super power we are. Let's at least invade Canada
Agreed.
So you are assuming that if take out Iran's current regime that it will become a true democratic country? Given the history of western intervention in Iran that is a small to none probability. What is more likely to happen is that rouge Revolutionary Guard soldiers will step up terrorism in the region and on the west if we intervene and the population will get behind an even more extreme government.
Unless you want to go trillions of dollars even more in debt and invade Iran, facing even more resistance than Iraq or Afghanistan on a endeavor that is certain to fail. Sounds like a cakewalk
take out? i thought you where talking about an internal revolution. my guess is that right now the oposition in iran is a democratic one, one that is pissed at what happened at the last "elections" and got disilusioned.
actually taking down the trade sunctions is likely going to make it much harder for the iranian government to control its people, including everything from information access to home made firepower. that's the best western intervention i think the US can do.
I was talking about an internal revolution that is sparked by external forces. If there was a purely internal Iranian revolution, referencing other Arab Spring countries in the Middle East, especially Egypt, there is no guarantee that a democratic government will arise even when a regime is overthrown by democratic protestors. The clerics and revolutionary guard in Iran are not going to give up their power easily.
If the internal revolution is sparked by external forces, considering the history of western intervention in Iran (Operation Ajax, etc), there is a good chance the resulting regime could be even more anti-western and more nuclear prone than the current. I'm sure Iran is convinced that once they get a nuclear weapon they will have much more power and be safer from attack and sparking a revolution from external forces when they do not have the bomb will only solidify that view, making their drive for nuclear weapons even stronger.
I'm not sure taking down trade sanctions would help start a revolution in Iran. Many Iranians are unhappy with the current regime, but many others are happy as well. Also, assuming the clerics in Iran are rational, they will most likely liberalize before allowing a revolution to happen.
Oh hell, lets throw this into the mix as well
Iran Sentences U.S. 'Spy' to Death
Iran's Revolutionary Court found 28-year-old Amir Hekmati "Corrupt on Earth," and sentenced him to death "for cooperating with the hostile country . . . and spying for the CIA." Under Iranian law, Hekmati has 20 days to appeal. His trial and death sentence came as Iran announced that it had enriched uranium at an underground facility and as the U.S. imposed harsher economic sanctions on Iran to stop its nuclear program.
Hekmati's mother Behnaz Hekmati said she and her husband Ali were "shocked and terrified by the news that our son, Amir, has been sentenced to death. We believe that this verdict is a result of a process that was neither transparent nor fair."
"Amir did not engage in any acts of spying, or 'fighting against God,' as the convicting judge has claimed in his sentence," said the statement. "Amir is not a criminal. His life is being exploited for political gain."
The U.S. State Department has asked the Iranian government repeatedly to allow Swiss diplomats, who represent U.S. interests in Iran, to meet with Hekmati. Iran has refused, according to the State Department.
"Allegations that Mr. Hekmati either worked for, or was sent to Iran by the CIA are simply untrue. The Iranian regime has a history of falsely accusing people of being spies, of eliciting forced confessions, and of holding innocent Americans for political reasons," she said.
Hekmati's family also said they had been rebuffed in all attempts to speak with the Iranian government.
"A grave error has been committed," said Hekmati's parents Monday. "We pray that Iran will show compassion and not murder our son, Amir, a natural born American citizen, who was visiting Iran and his relatives for the first time."
Hekmati, an Arizona-born Iranian-American who served the U.S. Marines as a rifleman from 2001 to 2005, was arrested while visiting his extended family, including two elderly grandmothers, in Tehran on Aug. 29, 2011, according to the family. The family said they were urged by the Iranian government to keep quiet about his arrest with the promise of later release, but then in December, Hekmati was shown on Iranian television allegedly confessing to being an undercover agent of the Central Intelligence Agency on a mission to infiltrate the Iranian Intelligence Ministry.
"It was their [the CIA's] plan to first burn some useful information, give it to them [the Iranians] and let Iran's Intelligence Ministry think that this is good material," Hekmati says calmly in the video.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News shortly after the broadcast, Hekmati's father strongly denied his son was a spy and said the confession was forced.
ABC
He has been sentenced to death by hanging and his sentence should be carried out within a week.
Last time we save their fisherman from pirates. :rolleyes:
"We pray that Iran will show compassion and not murder our son, Amir, a natural born American citizen, who was visiting Iran and his relatives for the first time."
Not fucking likely. Kid's as good as dead. And this is why my aunt can never go back to Iran, and why her sister had to literally kidnap her mother to get her out of there a few years ago. Honestly, I don't know what the hell the parents were thinking, taking their son there. Almost makes me think he
is a spy.
I'm thinking that I don't want to leave my country. In fact, I don't really want to go to some parts of my country.
I'm REALLY beginning to wonder about their threat to close the Strait with sailors like this :eyebrow:
I'm REALLY beginning to wonder about their threat to hose the Straight sailors like this :eyebrow:
FTFY
Death to another nuke scientist. They are slowly picking them off.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.Tw1npphLLHN
In general, the American covert war against Iran is extraordinarily dangerous and probably illegal (it’s certainly unauthorized), but in particular, the assassination of Iran’s scientists is just reprehensible. Now that it’s actually happening, one wishes the reaction to it were even partially as aggressive as it was when a right-wing blogger suggested it.
Here's another article on it.
the angriest reactions came from progressive bloggers, who widely denounced Reynolds as “contemptible” for suggesting this; one progressive writer, Lindsay Beyerstein, was horrified that one could even suggest such a thing, explaining that she ”despair[s] for our society when it’s necessary to supply a rigorous analytical exposition of why our government shouldn’t have scientists and religious leaders whacked.” Scott Lemieux railed against what he called Reynolds’ “kooky scheme for illegal death squads” as “crackpot,” “dumb” and “nuttier than a Planters factory.” And Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, went the furthest of all — in a post he entitled “Terrorism” — branding the killing of Iran’s scientists as “Terrorism”:
I imagine a lot of people agree with [Reynolds], but his recommendation really demonstrates the moral knot caused by George Bush’s insistence that we’re fighting a “war on terror.” After all, killing civilian scientists and civilian leaders, even if you do it quietly, is unquestionably terrorism. That’s certainly what we’d consider it if Hezbollah fighters tried to kill cabinet undersecretaries and planted bombs at the homes of Los Alamos engineers.
If you think Iran is a mortal enemy that needs to be dealt with via military force, you can certainly make that case. But if you’re going to claim that terrorism is a barbaric tactic that has to be stamped out, you can hardly endorse its use by the United States just because it’s convenient in this particular case.
What is most amazing about all this is that, a mere three years later, some combination of Israel and the U.S. are doing exactly that which Reynolds recommended. Numerous Iranian nuclear scientists are indeed being murdered.
Its Bush's fau... wai what?
linkIts Bush's fau... wai what?
Don't be silly.
Nothing is Bush's fault.:rolleyes:
I vow to kill you, but this gun I'm buying is merely for target shooting.
We really don't know who is behind this. Yes, it's in our interests to cripple Iran's nuke program, so we have motive. But it's also in Iran's interests to make us look bad. Perhaps this person is not really a nuke scientist. May it was just some guy who worked in the program and was not essential. And Iran killed him to blame it on us.
Maybe we did it.
Maybe Israel did it.
Maybe Iran did it.
Maybe some other Western nation did it.
Who knows?
I'm going for the plausible deniability scenario: Israel did it, but we eagerly looked the other way, and maybe even accidentally left some magnetic bombs in a cabinet with the door unlocked.
And it's all very effective at getting the gas prices up again.
Which hurts the workers who have less to spend which affects the economy and this is the house that Bush...I mean Jack... built. :p:
if you’re going to claim that terrorism is a barbaric tactic that has to be stamped out, you can hardly endorse its use by the United States just because it’s convenient in this particular case.
This. And the same thing applies to torture.
I'm going for the plausible deniability scenario: Israel did it, but we eagerly looked the other way, and maybe even accidentally left some magnetic bombs in a cabinet with the door unlocked.
I think this is the most likely as well. In fact we are probably denying it with a wink.
Coincidentally, on Tuesday, Israeli military chief of staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told a closed-door parliamentary panel that, "for Iran, 2012 is a critical year" in the effort to enrich uranium to bomb-grade quality. Pressure will grow from the international community, he warned, and Iran can expect events similar to 2011 acts of sabotage and other "unnatural" occurrences.
Hmmm.
I assumed it was Israelis, or a stunt by the Iranians.
The style is a bit too hands-on / man-on-the-ground for the US. Just my perception.
Israelis, with a wink from the US, is quite possible.
Next time you guys hand Iranian sailors back, give one of them SARS first. :D
Probably Israel but no it can't be terrorism™ cuz that is only for bad guys.
I'm going for the plausible deniability scenario: Israel did it, but we eagerly looked the other way, and maybe even accidentally left some magnetic bombs in a cabinet with the door unlocked.
My guess as well. But I bet they have their own magnetic bomb department.
The U.S. military said on Wednesday that a new aircraft carrier strike group had arrived in the Arabian Sea and that another was on its way to the region, but denied any link to recent tensions with Iran and portrayed the movements as routine.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/11/us-usa-iran-military-idUSTRE80A29L20120111A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag?page=0,0
WTF. This needs to stop.
Beyond this current headline about sending a msg to Iran, the rest of this article has some interesting discussion of the history and politics of the upcoming military budget.
Military.com
January 22, 2012
Associated Press
|by Lolita C. Baldor
US to Keep 11 Aircraft Carriers to Show Sea Power
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told sailors aboard the country's oldest aircraft carrier
that the U.S. is committed to maintaining a fleet of 11 of the formidable warships despite budget pressures,
in part to project sea power against Iran.
Panetta also told the crowd of 1,700 gathered in the hangar bay of the USS Enterprise that the ship is heading
to the Persian Gulf region and will steam through the Strait of Hormuz in a direct message to Tehran.
Iran has warned it will block the Strait, a major transit point for global oil supplies, and
bluntly told the U.S. not to send carriers into the Gulf.
The U.S. has said it would continue to deploy ships there.
The US will probably deploy a carrier to the Gulf when ready to draw a clear red line. America did that during Clinton's reign when China needed to learn of America's support of Taiwan. The message probably caused the Communist Party to finally demand their military explain what they were doing. And put a stop to it. Those two carriers were a necessary political message. Since wars happen when politics and politicians fail to understand what is really happening.
Carriers actually have little military significance especially compared to their political purpose.
Carriers actually have little military significance especially compared to their political purpose.
hmm
Good news today as the EU began sanctions and will not import Iranian oil. Credit may go to Clinton's State Dept, I imagine. Soft power applied...
...backed up with hard power, the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Gulf. (Without incident. And with Brit and French vessels tagging along.)
Russia is lining up stridently with Iran, and says they will veto future UNSC resolutions.
Really? The Iranians didn't have the nerve to attak a US carrier group? Bah, pansies, especially when Allah is clearly on their side.
I guess this just means China can buy Iranian oil cheaper.
This is the second article I've read that gives a completely different perspective on Iran's regional intentions....and how they failed. Very interesting.
Basically, the perspective states Iran's goal is to become a regional power and in order to be a regional power, one must have influence in the surrounding countries (Arab countries in this situation). Iran felt there was two options at hand: side with the US and unpopular Arab dictators or side with the unhappy but powerless Arab population. Iran felt, in time, that other Arab countries would revolt and start their own 'Islamic Revolution' and naturally look to Iran for leadership. So that explains why, along with many other historical and political reasons, Iran would seem irrational in dealing with the west and US.
Now that their prediction somewhat came true, they are finding out that the Arab population in fact does not want to follow Iran but distrusting at their own hypocritical actions. This puts Iran in a very bad spot.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/24/supremely_irrelevant?page=0,0I've been thinking lately. Has anyone thought of telling the Iranians, "ok, no problem we believe you when you tell us that you are not developing nukes." Let them go on their merry way. Then if they develop nukes we can cut their balls off? I mean cut off their supply of everything else. And Israel can do what ever they feel they need to do.
If they get nukes then it would be extremely difficult to cut their balls off. The rule of thumb is that you don't attack a nuclear armed country.
I'm just making the point that in the open court of public and world opinion even China and Russia would be hard pressed to go against any sanctions and military intervention if Iran someday possessed a nuclear bomb after all of their honest and sincere foot stomping about developing nuclear technology only for their energy grid. They won't crank them out in a quick fashion I'm sure and a couple of JDAMs and cruise missile strikes would surely even the score, and be welcome by most at that point in time.
They know.
At one point an
offer was made to Iran: just send your uranium to Turkey, and France and Russia will exchange it for ready-made fuel rods in the same quantity, for free. In return we will end the sanctions.
Iran turned this offer down. So, it was game on at that point. So now China and Russia are playing chess. Maybe they want a different balance of power. Maybe they figure Iran is rational, and will test their first weapon in a bunker in their mountains, and not in Tel Aviv.
They're probably rational enough to do that, but not rational enough to avoid having their second or third weapon fall off a truck in the neighborhood of a non-state actor.
What is this, the Warm War?
Gee, I'd just come to terms with the cold one.
They're probably rational enough to do that, but not rational enough to avoid having their second or third weapon fall off a truck in the neighborhood of a non-state actor.
I'm curious where that assumption comes from?
First, both Pakistan and NK are not going to give non-state actors nuclear technology so that quickly limits down the possibilities of where that nuke came from.
Second, which non-state actor would nuke Israel? Hamas? Hezbollah? The West Bank is around 20 miles away from Tel Aviv and Lebanon is maybe 50. If Israel goes, Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza get radiation poisoning. Hamas wants to destroy the Israeli state, not the land. Hezbollah controls the southern Lebanon. Their problems would exponentially multiply if a nuke went off in Israel.
Honestly, I have great doubts that Iran as a whole will do anything that stupid. They want to become a regional power and are paranoid of being attacked, therefore a nuclear bomb is the perfect solution. What worries me is the chance that some rogue Revolutionary Guard soldier gets control of the bomb.
I worded it too strongly. The "probably" should only apply to the first bit, and a "possibly" should be added to the second. I generally agree with your analysis.
But I think the theocratic side of Iran's government is stronger than in the other countries, and a True Believer can easily throw rationalism to the wind.
toss this into your analysis hats
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010175602
Wife of Assassinated Scientist: Annihilation of Israel "Mostafa's Ultimate Goal"
The wife of Martyr Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast, who was assassinated by Mossad agents in Tehran in January, reiterated on Tuesday that her husband sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly.
"Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel," Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani told FNA on Tuesday.
They know.
At one point an offer was made to Iran: just send your uranium to Turkey, and France and Russia will exchange it for ready-made fuel rods in the same quantity, for free. In return we will end the sanctions.
Iran turned this offer down. So, it was game on at that point. So now China and Russia are playing chess. Maybe they want a different balance of power. Maybe they figure Iran is rational, and will test their first weapon in a bunker in their mountains, and not in Tel Aviv.
China wants one thing from this, to corner the worlds market on natural resources, including Iran's oil, and they want first shot at it. Their ability to consume all of the natural resources is unlimited. I would guess that Russia is more interested in the power issue since this is a close neighbor.
Apparently Iran is using other proxies besides Hamas to launch rocket attacks on Israel.
Israeli jets pounded the Gaza Strip on March 12 in the latest volley of fire since violence broke out late last week. But they were not fighting Hamas, Israel's traditional bête noire in Gaza. Though radical factions have now fired more than 200 rockets into Israel, the self-described Islamic Resistance Movement has yet to claim responsibility for a single attack. It may be the first time the organization has refused to lead the charge to battle against Israel.
Hamas has a different fight on its hands. Iran, through the use of its proxies, is fomenting instability in Gaza that it is ill-equipped to handle. Indeed, Tehran is punishing Gaza's de facto rulers for leaving their long-standing alliance.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/13/iran_s_war_in_gaza?page=0,0