Page 84 of 94 FirstFirst ... 3474808182838485868788 ... LastLast
Results 1,246 to 1,260 of 1401
  1. #1246
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Evontroy View Post
    It is one thing to be cynical it is another to not provide solutions. The sanctions have not worked; fine what's the alternative? Do you propose that we commit manpower and money into another misadventure into the Middle East i.e. by attacking Iran?

    Our previous President has left us in a feeble position with his crusade through Iraq. We are spread thin both economically and militarily and that is the real reason my friend that Iran is not being receptive to sanctions. The vast majority of American's do not have the stomach for a war with Iran.

    So while attacking Iran may make great daydream viewing in your head let's take a minute to think about the consequences:

    1. Iran will provide MORE material aide to Hezbollah who in turn will attack Israel.
    2. Iran will instigate Shia vs Sunni clashes in Iraq.
    3. Iran will attack US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    4. The price of oil will sky rocket.
    5.The economy will free fall for a short time.
    etc....
    Make no mistake a war with Iran will take longer than a decade if we're using the war with Iraq as a benchmark. It would be irresponsible for the current President to not talk to Iran and just ignore them childishly as the Bush administration did with North Korea and Iran (much good that has gotten us)....
    Get the feeling I'm talking to another of TLR's alter ego's. Whatever.

    First, try to get a better grip on the differences between being cynical and being critical. I'm not the president, Obama is. And while you spin on and on about my ideas, why not post up a few of your own. BTW: letting Iran get the bomb is not a "plan". Perhaps you should email the WH as they seem unaware of that factoid.

    Second, your habitual use of the "attack Iran" strawman is not going to gain any traction with me. Please discontinue the practice.

    Third, parroting Obama talking points nearly verbatum i.e.:

    another misadventure into the Middle East
    Our previous President has left us in a feeble position
    It would be irresponsible for the current President to not talk to Iran and just ignore them childishly as the Bush administration did with North Korea and Iran
    won't get you any better responses than those I'm giving you up to this point. You get what you give.

    The reason for my post was to highlight how Obama's inept and naive idea of middle east diplomacy has gotten us no more than the GW plan you call "childish and irresponsible". Odd I'm not seeing any critical thoughts about Obama in either of your 2 posts in TLR. You might have missed it... but OBAMA's policies were the topic of the story I posted. Meanwhile the centrifuges keep spinning, and the only person you seem to wanna be critical of is a guy who left office a year + ago. Common theme.

    Iran is not a problem of GW making. Iran has been a problem for decades and administrations from both parties have been unable to get cooperation.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #1247
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    WTG Mr. "Clear timetable"...

    Iran Pleased That US Has No Deadline To Start Talks

    Smart Diplomacy(tm) finally produces a win!

    Iran said Tuesday it welcomes Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's comments that there is no hard-and-fast deadline for starting nuclear dialogue.

    On Monday, Clinton said the Obama administration remained open to negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program, though it will move toward tougher sanctions if Iran does not respond positively. She stressed there was no hard-and-fast deadline for Iran.

    Responding Tuesday, Iran's foreign ministry welcomed the comments

    "We share the same idea with her. Deadlines are meaningless. We hope other countries return to their natural path, too," said Ramin Mehmanparast, a foreign ministry spokesman.

    The remarks were a rare positive response by the Iranians to U.S. comments on its nuclear program.
    The Iranians responded positively to the abject surrender of the US? Wow, I didn't see that coming. Obviously this lowering of tensions between are two nations shows just how wonderful Obama's engagement strategy has worked. This 'rare positive response' would never have taken place under the Bush-Cheney Regime.


    Flashback to May of last year and what Obama said as he was sitting next to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

    Sitting next to Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Obama said he hoped to begin negotiations with Tehran soon, after Iran holds elections next month. Iran's leaders have so far rebuffed his efforts to reach out to them and toughened their rhetoric.

    "The important thing is to make sure there is a clear timetable, at which we point we say these talks don't seem to be making any serious progress," Obama said.

    "By the end of the year we should have some sense whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we are starting to see serious movement on the part of Iranians," he said.
    But there's nothing to worry about, we have that NIE from '07 that assured everyone that Iran had given up its nuclear program. Oh, wait, not even the idiots in this administration believe in that fairy tale.

    Mr. Obama’s top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran, published a year before President George W. Bush left office, which said that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in late 2003.

    After reviewing new documents that have leaked out of Iran and debriefing defectors lured to the West, Mr. Obama’s advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale -- the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel.
    If it wasn't clear before, it surely is now...the US is officially out of the Stop Iran From Getting Nukes business. The only outstanding questions are, will the mullahs survive long enough to build one and will the Israelis do anything to stop or even slow the program?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #1248
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post

    The reason for my post was to highlight how Obama's inept and naive idea of middle east diplomacy has gotten us no more than the GW plan you call "childish and irresponsible". Odd I'm not seeing any critical thoughts about Obama in either of your 2 posts in TLR. You might have missed it... but OBAMA's policies were the topic of the story I posted. Meanwhile the centrifuges keep spinning, and the only person you seem to wanna be critical of is a guy who left office a year + ago. Common theme.

    Iran is not a problem of GW making. Iran has been a problem for decades and administrations from both parties have been unable to get cooperation.
    For the record the art that you chose to illustrate your previous posts painted you as a cynic. But let's be honest here the President has very few options.

    Option 1:

    Try and fail/succeed at diplomacy.

    Option 2:

    Do nothing.

    Option 3:


    Declare war on Iran to rid it of it's nuclear program

    With blood and treasure at stake I would rather a President try and fail at diplomacy than not try at all e.g. the previous administration. I fail to understand how the current President is inept because he would like to use diplomacy before using force; is he really the first President to cite military force as a last resort? President's before the 44th have all cited military force as a last resort (guess they we're all talking heads).

    Iran is a huge problem and that problem will plague the current president throughout his tenure. How about we provide constructive suggestions as opposed to one-dimensional criticism.

  4. #1249
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Evontroy View Post
    It is one thing to be cynical it is another to not provide solutions. The sanctions have not worked; fine what's the alternative? Do you propose that we commit manpower and money into another misadventure into the Middle East i.e. by attacking Iran?

    Our previous President has left us in a feeble position with his crusade through Iraq. We are spread thin both economically and militarily and that is the real reason my friend that Iran is not being receptive to sanctions. The vast majority of American's do not have the stomach for a war with Iran.

    So while attacking Iran may make great daydream viewing in your head let's take a minute to think about the consequences:

    1. Iran will provide MORE material aide to Hezbollah who in turn will attack Israel.
    2. Iran will instigate Shia vs Sunni clashes in Iraq.
    3. Iran will attack US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    4. The price of oil will sky rocket.
    5.The economy will free fall for a short time.
    etc....
    Make no mistake a war with Iran will take longer than a decade if we're using the war with Iraq as a benchmark. It would be irresponsible for the current President to not talk to Iran and just ignore them childishly as the Bush administration did with North Korea and Iran (much good that has gotten us)....
    Consequences of attacking Iran eh?

    1. Iran will provide MORE material aide to Hezbollah who in turn will attack Israel.
    Been there done that.

    2. Iran will instigate Shia vs Sunni clashes in Iraq.
    Been there done that too.

    3. Iran will attack US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Do ya think? Already doing that too.

    4. The price of oil will sky rocket.
    Let's see you're batting 1000% - wasn't that just before the economy tanked back in '08?

    5.The economy will free fall for a short time.
    Well another bullseye!

    etc....

    "Our previous President has left us in a feeble position with his crusade through Iraq. We are spread thin both economically and militarily and that is the real reason my friend that Iran is not being receptive to sanctions."

    Let's give credit here where credit is due:

    Back in '89 when the SU collapsed - GB Sr. downsized our military to a Fight and win one Theatre, and hold a second theatre until the first is finished, then move forces and finsih up the second theatre. Back then we had 1/2 million troops in Europe. (before the post USSR collapse downsize)

    Well, after GB sr. downsized the US military to a post cold war posture came along an idiot named Mr. Slick Willie Clinton whom in his infinite wisdom, devastated the US armed forces to what they are today - an empty shell of what they once were. Back in the day, our Eurpoean forces could have wasted Iran, Iraq and Afghansitan combined - yes, just the Eurpoean forces...........


    "The vast majority of American's do not have the stomach for a war with Iran."

    They haven't since Korea my friend and the enemy knows it.
    Last edited by SteveW; 01-06-2010 at 01:34 AM.

  5. #1250
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveW View Post
    Consequences of attacking Iran eh?

    1. Iran will provide MORE material aide to Hezbollah who in turn will attack Israel.
    Been there done that.

    2. Iran will instigate Shia vs Sunni clashes in Iraq.
    Been there done that too.

    3. Iran will attack US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Do ya think? Already doing that too.

    4. The price of oil will sky rocket.
    Let's see you're batting 1000% - wasn't that just before the economy tanked back in '08?

    5.The economy will free fall for a short time.
    Well another bullseye!

    etc....

    "Our previous President has left us in a feeble position with his crusade through Iraq. We are spread thin both economically and militarily and that is the real reason my friend that Iran is not being receptive to sanctions."

    Let's give credit here where credit is due:

    Back in '89 when the SU collapsed - GB Sr. downsized our military to a Fight and win one Theatre, and hold a second theatre until the first is finished, then move forces and finsih up the second theatre. Back then we had 1/2 million troops in Europe. (before the post USSR collapse downsize)

    Well, after GB sr. downsized the US military to a post cold war posture came along an idiot named Mr. Slick Willie Clinton whom in his infinite wisdom, devastated the US armed forces to what they are today - an empty shell of what they once were. Back in the day, our Eurpoean forces could have wasted Iran, Iraq and Afghansitan combined - yes, just the Eurpoean forces...........


    "The vast majority of American's do not have the stomach for a war with Iran."

    They haven't since Korea my friend and the enemy knows it.
    After the fall of the wall military downsizing has been rampant and apexed during Donald Rumsfeld's first tenure with Bush 43. I was merely stating a fact that our current military commitments have left our military spread thin and logistically makes partaking in another conflict more difficult. There's plenty of blame to go around in that regard.
    Last edited by Evontroy; 01-06-2010 at 01:57 AM.

  6. #1251
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Evontroy View Post
    After the fall of the wall military downsizing has been rampant and apexed during Donald Rumsfeld's first tenure with Bush 43. I was merely stating a fact that our current military commitments have left our military spread thin and logistically makes partaking in another conflict more difficult. There's plenty of blame to go around in that regard.
    Agreed. Mr. Robert Gates also is deserving of credit for our current condition.

  7. #1252
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Evontroy View Post
    For the record the art that you chose to illustrate your previous posts painted you as a cynic. But let's be honest here the President has very few options.

    Option 1:

    Try and fail/succeed at diplomacy.

    Option 2:

    Do nothing.

    Option 3:


    Declare war on Iran to rid it of it's nuclear program

    With blood and treasure at stake I would rather a President try and fail at diplomacy than not try at all e.g. the previous administration. I fail to understand how the current President is inept because he would like to use diplomacy before using force; is he really the first President to cite military force as a last resort? President's before the 44th have all cited military force as a last resort (guess they we're all talking heads).

    Iran is a huge problem and that problem will plague the current president throughout his tenure. How about we provide constructive suggestions as opposed to one-dimensional criticism.
    For the record.. your rhetoric "it's Bush's fault" & the strawman tactics you are employing are simply too familiar. Want some "constructive suggestions"? How about a lil less Obama CYA and a lil more demanding some accountability from him? I know my criticisms must be rough for someone whom seems as committed to Obama as yourself. If being right is "one dimensional" then I'm OK with that. Honestly, what has he done to deserve anything but criticism in regard to Iran? The president has many more options than the 3 you listed. Though you seem focused only on discussing a military option he'll never use.

    I see you have abandoned your "attack Iran" strawman in favor of a new one. Which is essentially the same strawman built from the other side of the same coin:

    I would rather a President try and fail at diplomacy than not try at all e.g. the previous administration. I fail to understand how the current President is inept because he would like to use diplomacy before using force; is he really the first President to cite military force as a last resort? President's before the 44th have all cited military force as a last resort (guess they we're all talking heads).
    Pointing out Obama has for a year proved himself too be a limpd*ck empty threat unable to stand by his own words -Or- me pointing out his absolute failure (i.e. inept and naive) as admitted by his own Sec. Of State in regard to Iran does not = me disagreeing that military force should be a last resort. You continually trying to attribute arguments to me then knocking them down is simply not going to work. Please, cease and desist these obvious strawman constructs.

    Again, If GW's dealings with Iran were:

    "childish and irresponsible"
    How does Obama's failure escape any criticism? Carrots and sticks?? Seriously? Mullah's gotta still be having a good gut laugh over that one.

    Where is Obama's "clear timetable"?

    It's the end of the year and discussions have yielded not "significant benefits" but instead Iran 1 year closer to the bomb. What's Obama's plan "B"?

    You worry of the "blood and treasure" at steak if military action were pursued? What if he takes your "he tried and failed" option and they deliver on their promise and wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Or supply some of their terrorist pals a few nukes for use against the US?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #1253
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Smart power cont....

    What Happened to “Crippling Sanctions?”
    Maybe after A'jad gets a bomb.


    Now that we’re two weeks into 2010 and the Obama administration’s end of 2009 deadline for progress with Iran is quickly disappearing in the rear view mirror, one would expect that the administration would be moving towards the “crippling sanctions” that Secretary of State Clinton threatened Iran with for most of 2009.

    Instead, there are reports that the administration is still flirting with a possible deal to transfer some of Iran’s low enriched uranium out of the country. As Laura Rozen at Politico notes, this comes as the vaunted P5+1 group of countries supposedly working together to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis is increasingly becoming a group of five rather than six. She writes that the Chinese may not be able to attend a meeting planned for Saturday in New York. It’s worth noting that the Chinese also bailed on a planned P5+1 meeting in December.

    Thus far, indications are that the administration seems to think “crippling sanctions” means whatever meaningless piece of paper they can force through the Security Council, but such sanctions will be far from “crippling.” The administration has slowed down legislation in Congress that some advocates argue would cripple the Iranian economy. The sanctions that are being openly discussed in the press these days are targeted actions against the Iranian regime including the increasingly powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. These are measures worth taking, but again are unlikely to “cripple” the regime enough to force a reconsideration of Iran’s nuclear weapons desires.

    Perhaps most troubling are the signs that any sanctions the administration pursues will be aimed at essentially sanctioning the regime back to the negotiating table. An exchange at Tuesday’s State Department press briefing between a skeptical reporter and Acting Deputy Spokesman Gordon Duguid reinforced this notion:

    “QUESTION: What kind of sanctions the P-5+1 political directors will discuss on Saturday in New York?

    MR. DUGUID: Well, I don’t know that anybody’s given in exact detail the agenda for the next P5+1 meeting, which will take place towards the end of this week. What will be discussed, of course, is ideas that any of the partners have on how we can get Iran to live up its international obligations, on which of the two tracks needs to be pushed at this time. We will be looking at specific measures, of course. I think we will bring our ideas to the table, as well as our other partners, and discuss those. But let’s let the meeting take place first before we start talking about what it is that they may come up with. This is going to be a very long process. We are starting our discussions. They will be deliberate. They will be deliberative. And we’ll move on from there.

    QUESTION: But this has already been a very long process. Numerous years. How much longer is it going to be?

    MR. DUGUID: We will continue –

    QUESTION: And in the meantime, while you guys have been talking away and chatting and not getting anywhere on the sanctions issue, the Iranians have continued to enrich. How much longer?

    MR. DUGUID: The Iranian nuclear program has continued, and we have continued to oppose it. It is our goal to get Iran to live up to its international obligations. To do that, we feel that the two-track approach is the best approach. We will continue to work at it as long as it takes to achieve the objective. And we will continue to look at both tracks, and seriously look at both tracks, in order to better target not only whatever sanctions might be effective but also to look at those other incentives. We have a very good deal on the table right now with the TRR. We continue to say that Iran should accept that deal and help build the confidence that we all need to accept that its nuclear program is, as it says, for peaceful means and not otherwise.”

    So, despite the fact that President Obama’s deadline has passed, the State Department is preparing for “deliberative discussions” and “a very long process.” And even though Iran has repeatedly slapped the President’s outstretched hand, the administration has still not abandoned its engagement strategy. The unfortunate reality is that a “dual track” approach won’t work because the Iranians realize that there is no sanctions track given that the Obama administration has nothing to show for its vaunted diplomatic skills.

    What we learned in 2009 was that engagement will not prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Our best hope now is change of the Iranian regime from within. The United States should be taking all necessary measures to make regime change a reality. This involves supporting the Iranian opposition both rhetorically and practically as well as implementing the broadest sanctions possible both unilaterally as well as with likeminded allies. These are “crippling” actions. Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems all too content to play footsie with Moscow and Beijing while Iran kills its own citizens and continues to make progress toward a nuclear weapon.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #1254
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Yea baby... carrots-n-sticks!!

    Iranian Official On Obama: “The Only Change Is That This N***er Talks About Regime Change”


    Iran drops the n-bomb on Obama.

    Iranian official Mohammad Javad Larijani dropped the n-word while attacking Barack Obama at a meeting with engineers.
    PBS reported:

    Mohammad Javad Larijani criticized the policies adopted by U.S. President Barack Obama and referred to him using a racial epithet.

    “When Barack Obama was sworn into office he talked of verbally engaging Iran,” the U.C. Berkeley graduate was quoted as saying. “What has changed is that today this [the equivalent of the N-word in Farsi] talks of regime change in Iran.”

    In a Saturday meeting at the Islamic Engineers Society, Larijani said, “I am not a racist, but I must respond to this man [Obama] in some way.”

    Larijani’s brother, Ali, is the speaker of Majles (Parliament). Another brother, Sadegh, is head of the judiciary.
    Hat Tip Winston

    Boy that first year of hope and change worked wonders, didn’t it?

    Do you suppose the NAACP will excuse the Iranian regime too?
    Anyone else get the impression Bamma's foreign policy ain't all that?

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #1255
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    "Carrots-n-sticks" paying off as expected..

    Iran Informs IAEA That They're Enriching Uranium
    Forget sanctions, Obama should go for the jugular.


    This week in Tehran, it's déjà vu, all over again:

    Iran has formally informed the UN nuclear agency that it will start on February 9 to further enrich uranium stockpiles to a level of 20 percent, further fueling Western concerns that Tehran is secretly seeking a nuclear bomb-making capacity.

    "We wrote a letter to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] that we shall start making 20-percent enriched fuel," the head of the Iranian Atomic Organization, Ali-Akbar Salehi, told Iran's Arabic-language state television channel, Al-Alam late on February 7. "We will hand over this official letter to the IAEA on [February 8] and shall start enrichment on [February 9] in the presence of IAEA monitors."

    The move essentially circumvents a UN compromise deal aimed at easing Western concerns Iran could use its uranium for a nuclear weapon.
    A couple of potential outcomes here. Iran could be playing its usual bait-and-switch diplomatic game, where they talk up their willingness to negotiate right before pulling the plug on a meaningful international compromise (same script the North Koreans used before detonating their own plutonium implosion weapons). Tehran was reaching another decision point with the UN, so -- per their usual routine -- the timing for their predictable egress from the negotiating table is just right.

    Second possibility: The Iranians could be prepping the world for the long awaited activation of their Bushehr nuclear power plant, which was expected to come online last year.

    Final possibility: It's almost impossible for international observers to differentiate between uranium enrichment for medical purposes and uranium enrichment for weapons purposes. Though the IAEA reports that Iran has already been spinning centrifuges for some time, this could signal Tehran's intention to boost their uranium enrichment to an industrial level. The bogus "20 percent medical purposes" line is simply convenient top cover -- unless IAEA observers were standing in the room, there's no real way to ascertain if Iranian nuke techs are spinning to 20 percent or the 90 percent necessary for a bomb core.

    Sanctions clearly won't work. Iran is a master of working the black market, plus sanctions are slow, costly to friendly Western powers, and will ultimately benefit two nations who are helping the Iranians along: Russia and China.

    President Obama must go for the jugular and get serious about fanning the flames of Iranian revolution. He can start by treating revolutionaries like Reagan treated the Polish Solidarity movement, recognizing an Iranian government in exile, and initiating an underground logistical line of techno gadgets like laptops and cell phones with encrypted uplinks, radio-broadcasting equipment, GPS transmitters, even iPods to assist in messaging -- anything that will ensure that a democratic revolution, not atomic devices, is the only thing that reaches critical mass.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #1256
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Good thang our reputation in the werld is restored and stuff. Those "carrots-n-sticks" doing a swell job as well..

    Iranian Regime Celebrates Revolution Day By Parading Effigy of Obama With Pi$$ Buckets In Azadi Square


    How’s that hopey changey stuff working out?
    The Iranian regime celebrated Revolution Day today by torching American flags and parading effigies of Barack Obama down the streets of Tehran.

    (ISNA)

    That new policy of reaching out to the killer regime has worked wonders this past year.

    (ISNA)

    Oops! There goes another effigy up in flames.

    (ISNA)

    The regime paraded a green effigy of Barack Obama with pi$$ buckets in Azadi Square.

    (ISNA)

    Obama = Liar

    (ISNA)

    Huh?

    (ISNA)

    The day would not be complete without a few torched US flags.

    (ISNA)
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #1257
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    More carrots-n-sticks anyone??

    Hillary: Iran Headed Towards Dictatorship

    From her undying fans at Al Jazeera:


    Clinton ramps up rhetoric on Iran

    Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has said that Iran is heading towards a "military dictatorship" and warned it poses an international threat.

    Clinton made her comments to students in Doha, the Qatari capital, on Monday as part of her Gulf tour seeking greater support for tough new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.

    "We see the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament is being supplanted and Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship," she said, speaking at the Qatari branch of Carnegie-Mellon University…

    Mohammad Marandi, a political analyst at the University of Tehran, dismissed Clinton’s comments.

    "If we give Hillary Clinton some more time she will be blaming Iran for global warming as well," he told Al Jazeera.
    Good one, Mr. Marandi.

    "Obviously the statements that she has been making over the past couple of days are quite dishonest, the fact is the United States has to deal with Iran on a rational basis otherwise it will get itself nowhere." …

    Her comments come a day after she told delegates at the US-Islamic World Forum, also in Qatar, that Iran had left the world powers little choice but to impose harsh penalties against it over its nuclear programme.

    She she told the forum, which is jointly organised by the Qatari foreign ministry and the US-based Brookings Institution, that "evidence is accumulating" that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.
    The hell you say!

    "Iran has consistently failed to live up to its responsibilities. It has refused to demonstrate to the international community that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful," she said.

    PJ Crowley, the US state department spokesman, later echoed that sentiment in an interview with Al Jazeera.

    "Given all the steps that Iran has taken and all the actions that Iran refuses to take, we can only begin to draw the conclusion that Iran’s intentions are less than peaceful," he said…
    Where have Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the State Department been — in a cave?

    Iran has been a military dictatorship since about 1979. It’s been in all the newspapers.

    Meanwhile, we have these cheerful tidings from Hillary’s bosom buddies in Russia, via Iran’s Fars News Agency:

    Russia to Deliver S-300 Missile System to Iran

    February 15, 2010

    TEHRAN (FNA) — Russia’s security council announced that it is committed to the delivery of the S-300 air defense systems to Iran, noting there is no reason for stalling the process.

    "There is the signed contract that we must fulfill, but supplies have not started yet. This deal is not restricted by any international sanctions, because these are merely defensive weapons," Russian Security Council Deputy Secretary Vladimir Nazarov said on Sunday.

    "Any of our actions must facilitate global and regional stability, respect for international law and international commitments, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and that is another matter," he added.

    The possible sale of Russian air defense hardware to the Islamic Republic is a major irritant for Israel and its close ally the United States. Both have pressed Moscow not to go ahead with a deal that may help protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from threats.

    "Russia has received and continues to receive many requests and even demands to supply or not to supply weapons. Those countries that are addressing such calls to us should better look at their own deals with Georgia," Nazarov noted.

    Nazarov also said a military strike on Iran would be a big mistake and the problems linked to Iran’s nuclear program should be resolved through diplomacy.

    "Any military action against Iran will explode the situation, will have extremely negative consequences for the entire world, including for Russia, which is a neighbor of Iran," he warned.
    Thank goodness we hit the reset button with the Russians.

    We certainly wouldn’t want them on the other side in our negotiations with the Iranians.

    Related Articles:
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #1258
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    So after a year plus of useless relationship building we're going to get those tough a$$ sanctions that will compel Iran to stop it's nuclear ambitions.... minus the Chinese and Russians?? Smart power..

    Obama trying to weaken sanctions against Iran?

    Barack Obama talks tougher these days about Iran, but actions speak louder than words. That’s why the White House request to provide waivers in a sanctions bill making its way through Congress has eyebrows raised on Capitol Hill. Eli Lake reports at the Washington Times that the exemptions would allow Chinese and Russian companies doing business with Iran off the hook:

    The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in “cooperating countries,” a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran.

    The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is in a House-Senate conference committee and is expected to reach President Obama’s desk by Memorial Day.

    “It’s incredible the administration is asking for exemptions, under the table and winking and nodding, before the legislation is signed into law,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and a conference committee member, said in an interview. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the administration was pushing the conference committee to adopt the exemption of “cooperating countries” in the legislation. …

    The “cooperating countries” language that the White House is pressing would allow the executive branch to designate countries as cooperating with the overall strategy to pressure Iran economically.

    According to three congressional staffers familiar with the White House proposal, once a country is on that list, the administration wouldn’t even have to identify companies from that country as selling gasoline or aiding Iran’s refinement industry.

    Even if, as current law allows, the administration can waive the penalties on named companies for various reasons, the “cooperating countries” language would deprive the sanctions of their “name-and-shame” power, the staffers said.
    The timing is interesting, to say the least. Jane’s Defense Weekly just reported that China broke ground on a manufacturing facility in Iran that will build anti-ship missiles. With American naval assets in the Persian Gulf, this would usually be a development that would concern American presidents. After all, whose ships would be the natural targets of the Nasr-1 missiles, if not the US? Why would we want to reward that with exemptions and waivers from sanctions?

    Obama needs to get China and Russia on board for any new sanctions regime to be effective. However, that only works if China and Russia actually obey the sanctions and stop doing business with Iran. This request makes the Obama effort look very much like a shell game, a way for the White House to claim victory on getting new sanctions while effectively giving China and Russia a pass from compliance.

    Has the White House forgotten that the entire point of the exercise is to force Iran to stop building nuclear weapons? Or has the Obama administration decided to just concern themselves with political game-playing, fiddling furiously while Tehran glows?


    ON a related note.. I'm sure there is a logical reason why the administration was mum on this issue also. Probably dun wanna upset the Mullah's...

    U.S. Mum During Iran Vote to U.N. Women's Commission

    Last edited by AMDScooter; 05-01-2010 at 01:33 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #1259
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    After 1.5+ years of "smart power"... "carrots-n-sticks"... and a whole lot more useless rhetoric. Ammadinnerjacket really looks scared that the Bamma/Clinton tag team are going to try more useless U.N. sanctions against him.





    Maybe the clueless one should have his state dept go make more demands of Israel as he still seems to think appeasement and apology are a winning strategy. Yup.. make demands of our allies and kiss the a$$ of wannabe rogue nations.. what could possibly go wrong ?

    I'm sure Iran is gonna slow their centrifuges once they get their hands on that Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense system not covered in the toothless sanctions being proposed.

    The Fruits of Weakness

    Brazil and Turkey realize there’s nothing to fear from Obama and everything to gain from ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries.

    It is perfectly obvious that Iran’s latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

    It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America’s proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak — no blacklisting of Iran’s central bank, no sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas industries, no non-consensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil — both current members of the Security Council — are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

    But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran’s program.

    The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

    That picture — a defiant, triumphant “take that” to Uncle Sam — is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there’s no cost to lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

    They’ve watched President Obama’s humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant, and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.


    They’ve watched America acquiesce to Russia’s reexerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured last month into extending for 25 years Russia’s lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol), and over Georgia (Russia’s de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama “reset” policy).

    They’ve watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran’s agent in the Arab Levant — sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds, and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the U.S. and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. “engagement.”

    They’ve observed the administration’s gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see more than mere passivity from the U.S. as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American “Bolivarian” coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

    This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying, and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

    Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It’s the perfect fulfillment of Obama’s adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect, and domination, from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” (guess who’s been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any “world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another.” (NATO? The West?)

    Given Obama’s policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There’s nothing to fear from Obama and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #1260
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,287

    Re: Iran: It's getting serious (merged)

    Get the party hats out again... After nearly 2 years of "smart power"... "carrots-n-sticks" Iran is now gonna get it's very first Nuke plant kick started with fuel from Russia...

    Russia: Iran's nuclear plant to get fuel next week

    MOSCOW – Russia announced Friday it will begin the startup next week of Iran's only atomic power plant, giving Tehran a boost as it struggles with international sanctions and highlighting differences between Moscow and Washington over pressuring the Islamic Republic to give up activities that could be used to make nuclear arms.

    Uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning a process that will last about a month and end with the reactor sending electricity to Iranian cities, Russian and Iranian officials said.
    "From that moment, the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear energy installation," said Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for the Russian nuclear agency.

    If Russia carries out its plan, it will end years of foot-dragging on Bushehr. While Moscow signed a $1 billion contract to build the plant in 1995, its completion has been put off for years.

    Moscow has cited technical reasons for the delays. But Bushehr has also been an ideal way to gain leverage with both Tehran and Washington.
    Delaying the project has given Russia continued influence with Tehran in international attempts to have it stop uranium enrichment — a program Iran says it needs to make fuel for an envisaged reactor network but which also can be used to create fissile warhead material. The delays also have served to placate the U.S., which opposes rewarding Iran while it continues to defy the U.N. Security Council with its nuclear activities.

    After Russia said in March that Bushehr would be launched this year, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that until Iran reassures the world it is not trying to build a nuclear weapon, "it would be premature to go ahead with any project at this time."

    Formally, the U.S. has no problem with Bushehr.

    Although at first opposed to Russian participation in the project, Washington and its allies agreed to remove any reference to it in the first set of Security Council sanctions passed in 2006 in exchange for Moscow's support for those penalties. Three subsequent sanctions resolutions also have no mention of Bushehr.

    The terms of the deal commit the Iranians to allow the Russians to retrieve all used reactor fuel for reprocessing. Spent fuel contains plutonium, which can be used to make atomic weapons. Additionally, Iran has said that International Atomic Energy Agency experts will be able to verify that none of the fresh fuel or waste is diverted.

    Still, the U.S. sees the Russian move as a false signal to Tehran as Washington strives to isolate Iran politically and economically to force it to compromise on enrichment.

    A senior diplomat from an IAEA member nation said Friday the Americans had "raised those concerns with the Russians" in recent weeks. The diplomat, who is familiar with the issue, spoke on condition of anonymity because his information was confidential.

    In Washington, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Bushehr "does not represent a proliferation risk. ... However, Bushehr underscores that Iran does not need its own indigenous enrichment capability. The fact that Russia is providing fuel is the very model the international community has offered Iran."

    Russia, in turn, argues that the Bushehr project is essential for persuading Iran to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog and fulfill its obligations under international nuclear nonproliferation agreements.

    Crowley added: "Our views on the Bushehr project should not be confused with the world's fundamental concerns with Iran's overall nuclear intentions, particularly its pursuit of uranium enrichment, and Iran's willful violation of its international obligations."

    Russian officials did not say why they had decided to move ahead with loading fuel into the Bushehr plant now. But the move could have been triggered in part by Moscow's desire show the Iranians it can act independently from Washington after its decision to support the fourth set of U.N. sanctions in June and its continued refusal to ship surface-to-air missile systems that it agreed to provide under a 2007 contract to sell the S-300s.

    The sophisticated S-300 anti-aircraft missiles would significantly boost Iran's ability to defend against airstrikes. Israel and the United States have strongly objected to the deal.

    Russia has walked a fine line on Iran for years. One of six world powers leading international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, it has strongly criticized the U.S. and the European Union for following up with separate sanctions after the latest U.N. penalties — which Moscow supported — were passed.

    Iran's semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying that the country had invited IAEA experts to watch the transfer of fuel, which was shipped about two years ago, into the Bushehr reactor.
    "Fuel complexes are sealed (and being monitored by IAEA). Naturally, IAEA inspectors will be there to watch the unsealing," ISNA quoted Salehi as saying.

    Russia has said the Bushehr project has been closely supervised by the IAEA. But the U.N. watchdog has no monitoring authority at the plant beyond ensuring that its nuclear fuel is accounted for, and U.S. and EU officials have expressed safety concerns.

    They note that Iran — leery of opening up its nuclear activities to outsiders — refuses to sign on to the Convention on Nuclear Safety, making it subject to international monitoring of its atomic safety standards.

    "We expect Iran to meet established international norms and practices to ensure the safe operation of the reactor under full safeguards monitoring" by the IAEA, Crowley said.
    I am soooooo relieved that Iran claims that the toothless and incompetent UN International Atomic Energy Agency experts will be able to verify that none of the fresh fuel or waste is diverted. I mean... what possible uses could highly enriched uranium have if it went missing despite all that UN scrutiny anyway??

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •