Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDoes President Obama have the strategic patience he'll need to deal with Iran?
It isn't clear.
Things are exceedingly unsettled inside Iran, and it's not likely that Iranian leaders will respond any time soon to US overtures or to the multilateral effort to restart serious talks with Iran over its nuclear program. The opposition in Iran isn't going away. Yesterday, the leaders of the Green Movement called for a silent rally of mourning for the death of Neda Agha-Soltan on Thursday at Mosalla, the gigantic, half-finished prayer hall in central Tehran, and although permission for the event was denied, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and other leaders of the movement have called for it to take place anyway. Instead of Mosalla, Mousavi and Karroubi plan to hold the memorial at Tehran's main cemetery, which is heavy with symbolism because it was used in 1978-79 as a rallying point for the revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The Thursday protest is likely to result in new clashes between security forces and protesters. There've been scattered protests in Tehran recently, and the opposition movement is trying other, quieter tactics too, such as boycotts. Meanwhile, outrage is building over the treatment of those arrested, tortured, and killed by the regime's security forces. Some detainees (including one of the most prominent, Saeed Hajjarian, a key adviser and strategist for Mousavi) have been or will soon be freed, although hundreds (or thousands) remain in prison. And Iran's radical-right court system has announced plans to begin trials of protesters, charging, according to the BBC, that they committed crimes "including bombings, carrying weapons and attacking security forces." Outrage over the treatment of prisoners spans the Iranian political spectrum, from liberal reformists to hardliners to several outspoken clergy, including grand ayatollahs.
Meanwhile, among the hardliners, there is a growing, increasingly bitter dispute between Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Leader, and President Ahmadinejad, that could have explosive consequences. It began last week, when Ahmadinejad appointed Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, a controversial rightist who had infuriated hardliners by once saying that Iran has no quarrel with the Israeli people, as his deputy. For a time, Ahmadinejad defied Khamenei's demands to dump Mashaie, finally relenting -- and then naming Mashaie to the presidential staff. (Mashaie happens to be Ahmadinejad's son-in-law.) Then, perhaps in response, Ahmadinejad fired several members of the Cabinet, including the minister of intelligence, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, and the minister of culture and Islamic guidance, Mohammad Hossein Saffar-Harandi. It's gotten so rough that some hardliners, including a group close to Ali Larijani, the speaker of the parliament and a key conservative, are warning that Ahmadinejad could be deposed, i.e., ousted. Another bloc of hardliners, including Mohsen Rezai, the founder of the Revolutionary Guard, and his allies -- among them, the former mayor of Tehran, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, and Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Khamenei -- continue to oppose Ahmadinejad. On June 12, Rezai ran against Ahmadinejad, and he's keeping his powder dry: two weeks ago, Rezai appeared silently beside Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president and billionaire, when he delivered a blistering, opposition sermon at Friday Prayer in the presence of Mousavi and Karroubi.
Bottom line: the opposition is staying strong and organized, and pressure is building on all sides against Ahmadinejad. Though it's unlikely, it isn't impossible that Khamenei could decide to dump Ahmadinejad in order to placate the opposition. At the very least, it isn't clear in Iran who has the upper hand: Ahmadinejad or Khamenei. It isn't clear to Iranian analysts who really controls the security forces and the Revolutionary Guard. In other words, Iran remains in grave turmoil.
That's why it's especially troubling that the drumbeat of US and Israeli confrontation with Iran is getting louder.
Iran is too unsettled to respond intelligently, if at all, to US diplomatic overtures. The Associated Press reports today: "The U.S. is hearing only silence from Iran on its offers of dialogue. Iran's leaders, who initially seemed to welcome engagement, are turning inward to deal with the post-election crisis. ... Too much is in flux to answer the two main questions: Whether Khamenei and the rest of the leadership even want a dialogue -- and, if they do, whether they are in a position to pursue it."
But that doesn't stop hardliners -- and some Israelis -- from pushing for a showdown. The always reliable John Bolton, writing from his perch at the American Enterprise Institute, blasts Defense Secretary Robert Gates for his efforts during his trip to Israeli this week to "dissuade Israel from carrying out military strikes against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities." And Bolton orgasms:
"Striking Iran's nuclear program will not be precipitous or poorly thought out. Israel's attack, if it happens, will have followed enormously difficult deliberation over terrible imponderables, and years of patiently waiting on innumerable failed diplomatic efforts. Absent Israeli action, prepare for a nuclear Iran."
Other hardliners are weighing in, too, and in response both Gates and Hillary Clinton have started making more and more noises about supposed "deadlines" for the US overture toward Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama has fed that fire, first with his talk in May -- during his news conference with Bibi Netanyahu -- about a December timetable for measuring progress with Iran, and then during the G-8 meeting in Europe when there was talk about setting a deadline of September for the start of talks. In fact, neither deadline will be met. Perhaps September will come and go, with no talks. So what? By moving toward a harder line -- say, unilateral Western sanctions or a gasoline blockade -- Obama will strengthen the hardliners in Iran. He'll undo a lot of the progress made by the opposition in Tehran, and he'll give Khamenei and Ahmadinejad a justification for a tougher attitude toward the West -- and a more violent crackdown on the opposition.
That's why Obama will need to exercise strategic patience. And he needs to start making that case now, to the American public.
The Wall Street Journal reports on what it calls the "simmering dispute between the U.S. and Israel over Iran's nuclear program," and other US hardliners.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
"The always reliable John Bolton, writing from his perch at the American Enterprise Institute, blasts Defense Secretary Robert Gates for his efforts during his trip to Israeli this week to "dissuade Israel from carrying out military strikes against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities."
Obviously, John Bolton isn't a mainstream conservative.
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Iran's Twitter Revolution posted by Ari Berman on 06/15/2009 @ 12:15pm
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 10:59am
On the Other Side...
who's going to be the first to step up and claim all this "negative talk about Ahmadinejad that Mr Dreyfuss is buying into" is...
"sponsored by Israel and AIPAC"?
OV?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 11:00am
i wonder if mr. cheney's lobbying for mr. ahmadinejad's job.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 11:17am
OV?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 11:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
Nice segue Maskie - thank you.
Our foreign policy analysts should all be shown the door. This is very similar to assessment of the Soviet Union, on the eve of its disintegration. Now, you have to ask yourself. How can we spend billions on foregin intelligence and miss something so blatantly obvious? We've got spies, Israel has got spies, but no intelligence on the potential for regime change and how that might affect "relations." Have we been secretly trying to foment regime change in Irag? Of course. US greenlights Israeli support for Kurdish guerilla attacks in NW Iran, and support for Baluchistan separatists. Israeli operatives are acknowledged to carrying out assassination of Iranian nuclear personnel and sabotage.
So why is our intelligence so poor? Because the war mongers want a reason to attack. Patience, allowing regime change to occur "democratically" - heaven forbid, isn't the goal - it is the fallback plan if Russia and China protest too loudly about direct attack on Iran.
Patience is indeed called for. But concern for Iranian process isn't the issue - it is the security concern of Israel, who wants to keep on with their ethnic cleansing program and building in occupied territory. Iran is the most visible sponsor of this - according to Israel - and if they got the bomb - well, we might have to curtail our atrocity a tad given the risk of Iran nuking Tel Aviv. Funny how Israel knows all about Iranian arm supply to Hezbollah and Hamas, but nothing about Iranian political tensions.
So - now is a perfect time for the war mongers to try to create insurrection and confusion, and maybe even to strike. Creative Chaos lives on. Never doubt it.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 11:26am
Obviously, John Bolton isn't a mainstream conservative.
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Iran's Twitter Revolution posted by Ari Berman on 06/15/2009 @ 12:15pm
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 10:59am
Seems my comment was correct. Last time I counted, one person was within the definition of "few".
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 11:36am
Seems my comment was correct. Last time I counted, one person was within the definition of "few".
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 11:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
How many conservatives would you say infest AEI?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 11:41am
Who here believes Israel can affect Iran's nuclear program with a conventional strike force, or by what means they could cause an effect to said program?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 11:26am
Sorry, OV...but you failed to defend Ahmadinejad who is being besmirched by pro-Israel provocateurs....
so you are obviously a Zionist stooge.
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 11:36am
Exactly my point, Larry. Bolton obviously "out of the mainstream" of most conservatives....right?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 11:57am
AEI OUTLOOKS & On the ISSUES
Iran's Presidential Election: A Predictable Victory for Khamenei By Ali Alfoneh AEI Online Thursday, May 21, 2009;
Keypoints:
The elections in Iran are more about style than substance because the supreme leader constrains the election process to maintain the status quo.
Iranian leadership and some Western diplomats extol Iranian elections, but public interest inside Iran may be waning.
Regardless of who wins the election, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the true victor because the president is subservient to him.
followed by................
AEI OUTLOOK SERIES Supremely Undemocratic: The Revolutionary Guards Engineer Iran's Elections By Ali Alfoneh | AEI Online (June 2009;
Elections in Iran offer the illusion of democracy, but candidates must be approved by the unelected Guardian Council.
In its support of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 presidential election, the IRGC is assuming an unprecedented role in politics.
Emboldened by their activity in this election, IRGC commanders will not likely relinquish their newfound power. ****************************************
Surprise Surprise. Conservatives have no clue either, and are just winging it. Nice call on Iranian elections - and we should give at rat's ass about your op-ed pieces?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 12:01pm
so you are obviously a Zionist stooge.
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 11:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
caught red faced and red handed.....damn!
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 12:02pm
Mask,
Bolton is a hero to most conservatives. You will seldom if ever find conservatives including myself criticizing his viewpoint.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:06pm
Let's review-
"The always reliable John Bolton, writing from his perch at the American Enterprise Institute, blasts Defense Secretary Robert Gates for his efforts during his trip to Israeli this week to "dissuade Israel from carrying out military strikes against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities."
"Bolton is a hero to most conservatives. You will seldom if ever find conservatives including myself criticizing his viewpoint."----Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:06pm
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
So....is THIS one of those "seldom" times or not???
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 12:10pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 12:02pm
Remember, OV...you may be a 9/11 Truther and a "AIPAC has mind control lasers in orbit" guy?...
but there's always somebody crazier than you!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 12:11pm
So....is THIS one of those "seldom" times or not???
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 12:10pm
Why would I criticize him for voicing his opinion?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:14pm
gotcha
no you didn't
gotcha now
still don't
ok, now I gotcha
not even close
hold on...gotcha!
haha, no way
wait a second, what's that? oh yeah--gotcha! heheh
still don't
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:16pm
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:16pm
Great translation of a Mask v other bloggers interchange
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:19pm
but there's always somebody crazier than you!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 12:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"Aye Doctor - and I think I am lookin at him"
hehehe............
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 12:26pm
Why would I criticize him for voicing his opinion?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
because it is APE SHIT wrong perhaps?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 12:28pm
Why would I criticize him for voicing his opinion?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
because it is APE SHIT wrong perhaps?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 12:28pm
I don't find anything wrong with it if Israel develops the intel that justifies going forward.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:29pm
I don't find anything wrong with it if Israel develops the intel that justifies going forward.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
love the word "develops" Larry. so reminiscent of days gone by.........
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 12:37pm
If OneVote is crazy it's only because he / she is silly enough to argue with the pretzel logic of some posters here and expect them to get over their fundamentalist ambition.
Posted by DejaVu at 07/29/2009 @ 12:49pm
netanyahu and ahmadinejad sitting in a tree,
B - L - U - S - T - E - R - I - N - G
first comes sqwaks, the comes jets,
next comes little kids blown up with larry's bombs.
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 12:52pm
Bolton is a hero to most conservatives. You will seldom if ever find conservatives including myself criticizing his viewpoint.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:06pm
you seem to confuse "conservative" with "warmongrel".
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 12:53pm
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:16pm
heheh!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 12:54pm
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:16pm
Great translation of a Mask v other bloggers interchange
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I agree with Mask's politics more than yours Antisocialist; but Mask's "debating" style is really just an endless tired 'gotcha' routine (that must make him feel smart, I guess) whereas, I have to give you credit, you're much fairer with you're debating style. I think you're wrong most times, but at least you engage in debate more than he does (although i will say that on some topics, especially religion, you're merely a brick wall, and when valid points refute your point, you refuse to engage in honest further debate or you merely stop posting about it).
frostyzoom is also a "gotcha" poster; but at least he's funny. he's more of a cluster-sniper. one liners meant to refute and humor.
mask only thinks he's funny, hence the "heheh" at the end of most of his posts (the "heheh" is a self-congratulatory "I got 'em moment" for him).
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:59pm
If OneVote is crazy it's only because he / she is silly enough to argue with the pretzel logic of some posters here and expect them to get over their fundamentalist ambition.
Posted by DejaVu at 07/29/2009 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I plead Guilty DJ. What was that definition of insanity - continually banging your head against a wall and expecting a different outcome. I forget that these characters programed, and are not here with an open mind, but rather with a closed one.
"Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
Kyle Reese - T-1
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 1:01pm
urmy, is showing an inate contradiction in what a person posts "gotcha'ism"?
For instance-
"I don't find anything wrong with it if Israel develops the intel that justifies going forward. ("with an attack on Iran" implied)"----Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:29pm
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
If Larry said "All apples are green"...and then says "I enjoy a nice Red Delicious from Wash. State"....do we comment on it, or live in fear of being accused of being "unfair in our debating style"???
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 1:01pm
AIPAC built the Terminators!!!!
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:11pm
mask only thinks he's funny, hence the "heheh" at the end of most of his posts (the "heheh" is a self-congratulatory "I got 'em moment" for him).
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh boy...another self-appointed editor.
Style over substance.
How about a little hypcrisy UG? You defend Anti's right to express his opinion and then castigate and criticize Judy on the healthcare debate for actually posting factual support for her arguments. Today, you are critical of blogging styles - which in effect is an attack on a person's right to express themselves in the manner in which they see fit.
At least Mask isn't a blatant hypocrite.
Got an opinion on point - welcome. Here to criticize style over substance - get lost.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 1:12pm
AIPAC built the Terminators!!!!
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Out of the mouth of babes!
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 1:15pm
AIPAC built the Terminators!!!!
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
To wit:
Israel's secret drone revealed Pilotless aircraft latest response to Hamas mortars, rockets
Posted: June 03, 2005 1:00 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily.com
Israel the past two weeks has been utilizing a secret device to counter the growing threat of mortars and Qassam rockets Hamas regularly launches at the Jewish communities of Gaza a pilotless drone that identifies and takes out militants and their equipment before they can fire the rockets, senior Israeli security sources told WND....
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 1:21pm
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Now Masked One - who is instrumental in making sure that all our military technology is given to Israel just as soon as it is developed? That would be AIPAC of course. And what lobby group has a very big say in the objectives of our military spending - such as rapid deployment forces and other neo-conia wet dreams for the future? That would be AIPAC of course.
In a very real sense, you are spot on.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 1:27pm
If Larry said "All apples are green"...and then says "I enjoy a nice Red Delicious from Wash. State"....do we comment on it, or live in fear of being accused of being "unfair in our debating style"???
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
are you really living in fear of what me or any other anonymous blog commenter will say to/about you?
just kidding.
heheh.
but seriously, you save posts from months/years ago and attempt to catch people in contradictions. that's your m.o. you're a "gotcha" poster. and I pointed it out. If you don't like that I pointed that out than don't do that; or ignore that I said it.
and by the way, to discuss the specific example from thsi thread--you're taking a sentence (coudl be out of context for all I know) from an old thread and cmoparing it to ssomething antisocialist posted today. and the comparison you're making, from what I can tell, does not necessarily even "prove" the gotcha point you're trying to make (which antisocialist also pointed out on this thread).
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 1:29pm
Oh boy...another self-appointed editor.
Style over substance.
How about a little hypcrisy UG? You defend Anti's right to express his opinion and then castigate and criticize Judy on the healthcare debate for actually posting factual support for her arguments. Today, you are critical of blogging styles - which in effect is an attack on a person's right to express themselves in the manner in which they see fit.
At least Mask isn't a blatant hypocrite.
Got an opinion on point - welcome. Here to criticize style over substance - get lost.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
style matters. mask loses credibility b/c he's focused on trapping people in "gotcha" moments. i agree with mask, politically, on most topics, and I'm not telling him not to post. i'm not telling him he cna't express his opinoin. i'm criticizing how he chooses to express his opinion (like you just did of me). browni the tsunami is moe than welcome to express her opinion. bombarding the post board with copy-and-paste jobs is the lowest form of posting. i'm merely trying to get her to express her opinion in her own words. she, forthe most part, refuses to do that (out of laziness or whatever).
you are right taht i am attacking a person for expressing themselves on how they see fit. just b/c i'm doing that doesn't mean they hav eto stop.
the hypocrisy is you telling me to "get lost" for expressing my opinion in the way i see fit while defending other people for expressing their opinions in the way they see fit.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 1:37pm
first comes sqwaks, the comes jets,
next comes little kids blown up with larry's bombs.
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 12:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
FZ,
Do you think the Iranians are employing children as nuclear scientists, working in underground bunkers?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 1:38pm
"...working in underground bunkers?"
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 1:38pm
Just for curiosity's sake, how do you propose Israel to get a little high order Octol detonation to occur in such a place?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 1:51pm
the hypocrisy is you telling me to "get lost" for expressing my opinion in the way i see fit while defending other people for expressing their opinions in the way they see fit.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
An "opinion" or an unrelated agenda? I don't see any opinion - have you got one, or are you here to settle a score or two with your school marm critiques?
Frankly, your interposing yourself as quality control officer on this blog is more obnoxious than that of which you complain.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 1:55pm
frostyzoom is also a "gotcha" poster; but at least he's funny. he's more of a cluster-sniper. one liners meant to refute and humor.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 12:59pm
i don't try to "get" anyone (except mask, of course)
i continually go after larry and happy because i think that deep inside both are good people and i would like them to be nicer.
well, i do try to get people like larry blankfein and timmy geithner but we all know that's hopeless.
SPOCK/UHURA '012 -- Logic and Love with Save Us All.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:01pm
Do you think the Iranians are employing children as nuclear scientists, working in underground bunkers?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Geez Larry now they will. I thought all "them Muslims" used innocent women and children as human shields as a reprehensible defensive strategy. You sayin that Iranians won't and Bolton & Bibi can gurarantee us there won't be any civilian casualties?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 2:02pm
oops, lloyd.
larry summers, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:02pm
"Frankly, your interposing yourself as quality control officer on this blog is more obnoxious than that of which you complain."
you mean what you're doing now?
"heheh"
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 2:05pm
SPOCK/UHURA '012 -- Logic and Love with Save Us All.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:01pm
You take Uhura.
I'll take 7 of 9.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 2:06pm
AIPAC built the Terminators!!!!
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 1:11pm
no, aipac wasted america's money.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:06pm
DREYFUSS: "At the very least, it isn't clear in Iran who has the upper hand: Ahmadinejad or Khamenei....and in response both Gates and Hillary Clinton have started making more and more noises about supposed "deadlines" for the US overture toward Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama has fed that fire,...In fact, neither deadline will be met."
From his long campaign for the Presidency to his 6-months in office, BHO has been pretty consistent in one respect: He is always wrong with his first reactions, what we call `instinct'!
Just consider foreign policy and spare everyone more `stuff' on race-Gates....
He never acknowledged he was wrong on the Iraq Surge, was behind McCain in responding to the Russian/Georgia flareup, he was trigger-HAPPY on NAFTA and had to walk it back down, he told the world Israel can keep all of Jerusalem, he wanted Israel to stop all constructions (for internal growth) in the West Bank, he backed AhmaDineinYourJeans in the face of int'l sympathy for the protesters, and he backed the deposed Honduran would-be-dictator.
Should anyone here who follow global events have ANY reason to have ANY confidence that Obama will solve the major geopolitical events AND make America the `beloved'?
Other than apologizing for America, what exactly has Magic done of any substance on anything in the foreign policy arena?
Mirage-builder, now, that's Magic!
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 2:08pm
"...working in underground bunkers?"
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 1:38pm
Just for curiosity's sake, how do you propose Israel to get a little high order Octol detonation to occur in such a place?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 1:51pm
bunker busters. We have sold some to the Israelis
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:08pm
Who here believes Israel can affect Iran's nuclear program with a conventional strike force....?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 11:54am
I do!
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 2:10pm
Geez Larry now they will. I thought all "them Muslims" used innocent women and children as human shields as a reprehensible defensive strategy. You sayin that Iranians won't and Bolton & Bibi can gurarantee us there won't be any civilian casualties?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 2:02pm
I have never said that "all" Muslims use innocent women and children as human shields.
I maintain and the data is pretty good that it is solely the jihadist element that does so and they constitute a small percentage of Muslims. But a small percentage is still a lot of people..
I don't think that the Iranian govt would do so, but if they did, they would bear the responsibility under international law.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:11pm
bunker busters. We have sold some to the Israelis
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:08pm
That requires a strike aircraft to deliver.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 2:12pm
Do you think the Iranians are employing children as nuclear scientists, working in underground bunkers?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 1:38pm
ah, yes.
smart bombs.
how stupid of me to think that little kids could possibly get hurt in all this.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:12pm
ah, yes.
smart bombs.
how stupid of me to think that little kids could possibly get hurt in all this.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:12pm
There are no children there FZ. The Iranian nuke sites are very remote and underground.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:20pm
He never acknowledged he was wrong on the Iraq Surge,
the surge? what a cheesy name. anyhoo, baghdad had already been ethnically decimated.
was behind McCain in responding to the Russian/Georgia flareup,
you mean the one mccain paid for? please.
he was trigger-HAPPY on NAFTA and had to walk it back down,
you support the same NAFTA that has flooded the u.s. with mexicans? oops, i forgot you appreciate lowest wage labour.
he told the world Israel can keep all of Jerusalem,
stupid humans.
he wanted Israel to stop all constructions (for internal growth) in the West Bank,
i hear the canadians are starting "settlements" in sugarland
he backed AhmaDineinYourJeans in the face of int'l sympathy for the protesters,
no he didn't.
and he backed the deposed Honduran would-be-dictator.
you mean the one the people elected? the shame.
Should anyone here who follow global events have ANY reason to have ANY confidence that Obama will solve the major geopolitical events AND make America the `beloved'?
after all these years of manyfist destiny, that's a nearly impossible task.
Other than apologizing for America, what exactly has Magic done of any substance on anything in the foreign policy arena?
he hasn't started any economy crushing wars.
Mirage-builder, now, that's Magic!
oh, boy. and mr. mccain would have saved the world.
BTW WHAT THE FORK WOULD SEC. GRAMM BE DOING ABOUT THE COLLAPSED HOUSE OF CARDS?
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 2:08pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:21pm
The Iranian nuke sites are very remote and underground.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:20pm
i see.
and the israelis would stop there?
just like they did in lebanon?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:22pm
bunker busters. We have sold some to the Israelis
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:08pm
cluster bombs, too.
just ask the armless lebanese kids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:24pm
Maybe Israel wants to take advantage of the turmoil to hit Iran. One excuse Hitler used within his inner circle to invade the USSR when he did was the perceived weakness of Soviet defenses following the chaos of Stalinist purges.
Posted by Communard115 at 07/29/2009 @ 2:24pm
bunker buster........
such stupid names.
how about "little kid eviscerator"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:25pm
I don't think that the Iranian govt would do so, but if they did, they would bear the responsibility under international law.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh..okay Liv...you have warned them.
How about this scenario. Nuclear scientist assistant's child is sick and is spending the day at nuclear facility cafeteria where her mom works on the day of the "surprise" attack?
Under International Law - what is the permissible number of civilian casualties, or in this instance, would you revert to the US military's guidelines for acceptable collateral damage per attack - what was it 30 or so before the decision to attack has to be approved at upper levels?
I assume that under your attack scenario, you don't plan to give Iran advance warning as to date and time of attack because of your fear that they would protect their technology.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 2:25pm
There are no children there FZ. The Iranian nuke sites are very remote and underground.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:20pm
Yep.
Pretty much untouchable (conventionally) by Israel.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 2:26pm
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 1:29pm
Well, 1. "living in fear" more ironic than actual phobic.
2. I save posts because it is a truism of the Right that they live in a "Winston Smith memory hole" world. By which their pundits say one thing...and then the opposite when needed or for political purposes. Ref: Limbaugh's "tough on drugs" stance BEFORE his arrest for "doctor shopping"...or their demands for unwavering loyalty to the President (under Bush) or charges of "wanting to see America fail" or "not supporting the troops"....the opposite of course when the President is Obama.
Larry contradicts himself often. Warmonger/radical liberatarian most of the time...when called on it, feigns moderation. When his own words are thrown at him, he cries "Twisting my words" or (as you attempt) "taken out of context".
Problem with that charge is...I'll happily present the "Nation" article the post was on...and anybody is free to judge for themselves if it was "taken out of context".
For instance...Larry supports allowing 10 year olds to work in un-regulated coal mines...a la the "good ol' days" of the late 19th Century.
The Link-
William Polk on Afghanistan posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/26/2009 @ 12:09pm
Please avail yourself to that article and the posts...and tell me it is "out of context" or "unfair".
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:30pm
BTW, urmy....I have no posts saved of yours.
If for the fact, there is very little substance to save.
Can I get a "heheh"?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:31pm
I don't think that the Iranian govt would do so, but if they did, they would bear the responsibility under international law.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:11pm
so you agree the u.s. military should be prosecuted for melting little kids in fallujah with phosphorus?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:32pm
And again--
"bunker busters. We have sold some to the Israelis"-----Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:08pm
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
As they would say on "Sesame Street"...."One of these Larrys is not like the others, One of these Larrys just doesn't belong, Can you tell which Larry is not like the others ...."
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:35pm
There are no children there FZ. The Iranian nuke sites are very remote and underground.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Natanz has a population of 40,000 and the nuclear facility is 30 km (18 miles) from Natanz. The facility is located near a major highway.
Nice job Anti. So, what if the school bus is on the highway at the time of the attack?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 2:36pm
Mask--here's the thing...
what are you getting out of your playing "gotcha" with antisocialist?
i've been signed up with the nation for about 5 years or so.
here's how it works.
antisocialist/lvliberty/larry says something substantive about the blog. you sling mud at him. he defends himself to you.
that's how it works 99% of the time b/w you two.
he doesn't really seek you out. you attack him; he defends himself. you rarely give a substantive stance on the blog; you merely bash the politics of people like antisocialist.
so again, what are you getting out of it?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 2:38pm
worse,
what if it's a windy day?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:39pm
BTW, urmy....I have no posts saved of yours.
If for the fact, there is very little substance to save.
Can I get a "heheh"?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
that's nonsense. i post substance about blogs very often. but you wouldn't save mine b/c we have basically the same political beliefs mask, so naturally you're not going to save my posts and try to catch me in a "gotcha" moment later on.
"heheh"
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 2:40pm
Did the USA lease an Aircraft Carrier Battle Group to Israel or something that I am unaware of?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 2:41pm
I don't find anything wrong with it if Israel develops the intel that justifies going forward.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:29pm I don't find anything wrong with it if Israel develops the intel that justifies going forward.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
love the word "develops" Larry. so reminiscent of days gone by.........
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 12:37pm
I think the term you're looking for is "sexing up".
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/29/2009 @ 2:41pm
Can I get a "heheh"?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Pretty good Mask. The school marm apparently doesn't think that using past statements compared to present statements as a means to flesh out hypocrisy is a "substantive" style to cut through the bullshit. A 'technique' BTW that is sadly lacking in our journalism today because it has the tendency to make our "illustrious leaders" look exactly as they are - lying, specious, hypocrites.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 2:42pm
I think the term you're looking for is "sexing up".
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/29/2009 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thank you! I was looking for a synonym and got stuck. spot on schnellerheinz...keep up the good work....lol.....
WARNING! THIS INTELLIGENCE MAY CONTAIN CONTAIN SEX HORMONES AND OTHER HUMAN GROWTH FACTORS. CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE CONSUMPTION.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 2:46pm
by the way--the fact that you go to the effort to save people's posts so you can use them against them later should there be a contradiction in something they say--that's plenty of proof of your "gotcha" m.o.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 2:49pm
P.S. To no one in particular:
I don't think the role of "gotcha" artist is unavoidable when the person on the other end of the "gotcha" is an absolutist. They are not nuancers, and as such their refutation lies in highlighting contradiction.
There is no middle turf to argue over.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/29/2009 @ 2:50pm
There is no middle turf to argue over.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/29/2009 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
my point on mask's attacks on antisocialist. he's not looking to debate or have his mind changed any more than the one he's trying to catch in a "gotcha" moment.
so yet again, i ask, what are people getting out of this?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 2:59pm
"I do!"
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 2:10pm
Sorry HAP.
Missed your post.
How do they do it?
Just fly over there and drop some ordinance?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 2:42pm
I guess urmy wants me to argue against the "merits" of Larry's newfound (since June 15th) endorsement of bombing Iran....and ignore the fact Larry denied conservatives supposedly weren't calling for that.
BTW, urmy my "substantive" position is....try to negotiate with Iran and stop sabre-rattling and giving Netanyahu a nod and wink.
and....have you posted ONE (concerning Iran and Israel) on this thread yet?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 3:05pm
BTW, did a little Archive digging...
Does this sound like ME or what?
"LL wrote: "Conversely, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush understood that lowering taxes helps the enconomy. When each of these presidents cut taxes, revenues increased and jobs were created."--Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:23pm
Extraneous asked LL: "I must be missing something. If Bush's tax cuts increased revenues and created jobs, why has the median income adjusted for inflation declined since 2001?"--Posted by Extraneous at 12/09/2008 @ 1:36pm |
Allow me to repeat Extraneous' question to you LL:
If Bush's tax cuts increased revenues and created jobs - why has the median income adjusted for inflation declined since 2001?"-----Posted by urmygyro at 12/09/2008 @ 7:04pm
LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 3:10pm
Let's wait INDEFINITELY, Mr. Dreyfuss. After all, Iran will be so much easier to deal with...and much less of a threat...AFTER it gets nuclear weapons.
Don'tcha think?
Posted by JackDavis1 at 07/29/2009 @ 3:21pm
Larry contradicts himself often. Warmonger/radical liberatarian most of the time...when called on it, feigns moderation. When his own words are thrown at him, he cries "Twisting my words" or (as you attempt) "taken out of context".
Problem with that charge is...I'll happily present the "Nation" article the post was on...and anybody is free to judge for themselves if it was "taken out of context".
For instance...Larry supports allowing 10 year olds to work in un-regulated coal mines...a la the "good ol' days" of the late 19th Century.
The Link-
William Polk on Afghanistan posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/26/2009 @ 12:09pm
Please avail yourself to that article and the posts...and tell me it is "out of context" or "unfair".
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:30pm
What I correct is your oft used method of then restating what you "think" I meant.
For instance, I have no complaint about the notion that I would allow 10 yr olds to work in a mine if they and their parents were agreeable. That is part of a free society. Something you are inclined against unless it is abortion or gay marriage.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:29pm
Bunker Busters Larry.
How does Israel deliver them?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 3:33pm
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Every day is a new day, and we all get a clean slate upon which to write. How nice. Not much continuity of substantive debate, but a very nice "style." Count me out.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 3:33pm
and the israelis would stop there?
just like they did in lebanon?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 2:22pm
1. There are no nuke facilities in Lebanon.
2. The fault lies with Hezbollah, not Israel.
But then you seldom if ever criticize the terrorists. Just America, Israel, Jews and Christians
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:34pm
(to me) How do they do it?
Just fly over there and drop some ordinance?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 3:05pm
(to Anti) Bunker Busters Larry.
How does Israel deliver them?
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 3:33pm
None of us knows exactly what kinda assets the Israelis have, nor what sort of defensive measures Iran has. The lack of knowledge is presumed to be a lot less for the Israelis.
What I do believe is that Israelis have multiple plans and if they should act, they will choose the one with the highest probability of achieving their key goal with the least collateral political fallouts.
What I also KNOW, is that the Israelis' track record is pretty damned good when they do take decisive action. Frankly, if my own survival is at stake, when I `strike', I have to believe I'll be very, very effective.
For me or Anti to speculate on military strategies would be....for when I'm truly bored and wish there were just 12 hours per day & want to open myself up for endless hole-punching by you folks....:)
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 3:46pm
BTW, urmy my "substantive" position is....try to negotiate with Iran and stop sabre-rattling and giving Netanyahu a nod and wink.
and....have you posted ONE (concerning Iran and Israel) on this thread yet?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
my position is the paelestinians and jews will never find middle ground to agree (just like you and antisocialist)...but at least you two are anonymous, harmless blog commenters.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 3:49pm
And again--
"bunker busters. We have sold some to the Israelis"-----Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:08pm
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
As they would say on "Sesame Street"...."One of these Larrys is not like the others, One of these Larrys just doesn't belong, Can you tell which Larry is not like the others ...."
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 2:35pm
And this again under the "guise" of supposed exposing contradictions just shows you really don't.
Saying we have sold bunker busters to the Israelis doesn't equate to conservatives calling for bombing Iran in June of this year.
Saying that if the intelligence develops in the future that Israel may need to bomb Iranian nuke facilities does not equate to conservatives calling for bombing Iran in June of this year.
John Bolton saying that Israel may deternmine in the future that they need to take out Iranian nuke facilities does not equate to conservatives calling for bombing Iran in June of this year.
This is so typical of your supposed "gotcha's".
And BTW, like Urmy, I wonder if you ever consider actually posting opinions over seeking your supposed "gotcha" moments.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:49pm
A qualification of "free society" on the issue of child labor doesn't let you off the hook for carrying the baggage of such position. So - Johnny goes to the coal mine at age 10 because his old man wants the extra money. Johnny gets no schooling because he is exhausted, and his father doesn't think an education is important. Your "free society" is the exploitation of children both by the mine and by the parent. What a load of crap! Your free society is somebody else's indentured servitude. What the f_ck is somebody suppose to think about your children as chattel anachronistic attitude that does in fact date you back to the 19th century and earlier. So - Thai father wants to prostitute 12 year od daughter to earn some extra cash, and perhaps sell her into sexual slavery should a good offer be made. Is this a "free society" to you as well.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
only took you a couple hours to find something! time well spent. ;)
my point remains valid--you do that all the time. it's your m.o. i'm not attempting to invalidate the idea of making someone eat their words. but that's most of what you attempt to do here, especially with antisocialist.
so my question that you've repeatedly ignored: what are you getting out of it?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 3:56pm
A qualification of "free society" on the issue of child labor doesn't let you off the hook for carrying the baggage of such position. So - Johnny goes to the coal mine at age 10 because his old man wants the extra money. Johnny gets no schooling because he is exhausted, and his father doesn't think an education is important. Your "free society" is the exploitation of children both by the mine and by the parent. What a load of crap! Your free society is somebody else's indentured servitude. What the f_ck is somebody suppose to think about your children as chattel anachronistic attitude that does in fact date you back to the 19th century and earlier. So - Thai father wants to prostitute 12 year od daughter to earn some extra cash, and perhaps sell her into sexual slavery should a good offer be made. Is this a "free society" to you as well.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 3:54pm
You are leaving out that Johnny wants to work which was one of my criteria.
Nowhere did I cite that a parent could force their child to work.
I started working at age 10 because I wanted to. By Age 15 I was supporting my mother and siblings. By age 17 I owned 4 cars and was an assistant manager in a restaurant prior to entering the service.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:01pm
my position is the paelestinians and jews will never find middle ground to agree (just like you and antisocialist)...but at least you two are anonymous, harmless blog commenters.
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 3:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
ah....huh?
BTW, urmy my "substantive" position is....try to negotiate with Iran and stop sabre-rattling and giving Netanyahu a nod and wink.
and....have you posted ONE (concerning Iran and Israel) on this thread yet?
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2009 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 4:01pm
So - Thai father wants to prostitute 12 year od daughter to earn some extra cash, and perhaps sell her into sexual slavery should a good offer be made. Is this a "free society" to you as well.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 3:54pm
First of all, my position is regarding the US. Countries, especially those who have strong reincarnation beliefs have a different cultural value of life itself.
Here, prostitution is illegal. So the idea of a parent being able to put a child into an illegal activity is not applicable to the argument.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:05pm
You are leaving out that Johnny wants to work which was one of my criteria.
Nowhere did I cite that a parent could force their child to work.
I started working at age 10 because I wanted to. By Age 15 I was supporting my mother and siblings. By age 17 I owned 4 cars and was an assistant manager in a restaurant prior to entering the service.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So - why do you suppose we have laws that relate to minimum age at which a person is considered to have capacity to form contract? (I am guessing you are against this too). If the child wants to prostitute themselves, and the parent agrees, then by all means - right Liv?)
You are really scary. A parent doesn't have undue influence over a child. What kind of nitwit are you?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 4:08pm
"None of us knows exactly what kinda assets the Israelis have, nor what sort of defensive measures Iran has."
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 3:46pm
Sure we do.
And Israel can't do diddly relative to Iran's nuclear program with conventional warfare unless they receive direct assistance from us.
More to the point, Israel sitting on the sidelines feeding us "intelligence" while we go in and kick Iran's ass at the cost of hundreds of our best.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 4:14pm
onevote--nothing you own was made in asia or south america huh?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 4:16pm
If the child wants to prostitute themselves, and the parent agrees, then by all means - right Liv?)
You are really scary. A parent doesn't have undue influence over a child. What kind of nitwit are you?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 4:08pm
Again, prostitution is an illegal activity. Why would I find that acceptable to commit a crime?
What kind of person prevents someone who knows that they want to earn money in a legitimate activity from being able to do so in a free country?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:18pm
Mask and One Vote, I have a question for you both on your challenge to me regarding children working.
Is it your position that children should be prevented from working as actors or other kinds of entertainers?
Do you think we should ban all of the children under age 10 who are working as actors, singers, dancers, etc, and making a future for themselves?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:21pm
onevote--nothing you own was made in asia or south america huh?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 4:16pm
Great question. Have these folks look at their clothing labels for made in Vietnam, Dominican, Haiti, India, and elsewhere.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:23pm
onevote--nothing you own was made in asia or south america huh?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I try to buy USA or European whenever I can these days. Damn difficult isn't it when the assholes have shipped all our manufacturing (and choices) to venues that exploit workers, including children.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 4:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I have yet to hear one word from you that you find child prostitution morally repugnant.
Let us hear it from you. And don't give me your pedophilic equivocation on moral sematics.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 4:32pm
What kind of person prevents someone who knows that they want to earn money in a legitimate activity from being able to do so in a free country?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Who are you refering to - the coal mine or Johnny's alcoholic father?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 4:38pm
Let's wait INDEFINITELY, Mr. Dreyfuss. After all, Iran will be so much easier to deal with...and much less of a threat...AFTER it gets nuclear weapons. Don'tcha think? Posted by JackDavis1 at 07/29/2009 @ 3:21p
well, look how well that worked with israel.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 4:39pm
But then you seldom if ever criticize the terrorists. Just America, Israel, Jews and Christians
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:34pm
i'm not talking to terrorists, larry.
'cept you, of course.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 4:42pm
You are really scary. A parent doesn't have undue influence over a child. What kind of nitwit are you?
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't know...most Sundays I didn't want to wake up and go to mass, but at least brunch afterwards was always fun
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 4:44pm
satan's warming a nice spot for you, larry.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 4:45pm
More to the point, Israel sitting on the sidelines feeding us "intelligence" while we go in and kick Iran's ass at the cost of hundreds of our best.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 4:14pm
I am absolutely certain, the Magic administration will NOT "go in and kick Iran's ass at the cost of hundreds of our best", nor dozens, nor thousands...
I don't even believe this admin. will provide active assistance to Israel. What this admin. will do, and very actively, is to figure out their plausible deniability if Israel does take action against Iran.
Iran is tied into the Palestinian/Israelis issue, and Magic just ain't got the magic to solve this. What he gained in `goodwill' from the Arab/Palestinian side (a huge IF), he more than lost on the Israeli side.
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 4:53pm
I have yet to hear one word from you that you find child prostitution morally repugnant.
Let us hear it from you. And don't give me your pedophilic equivocation on moral sematics.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 4:32pm
Of course it's morally repugnant. What kind of person thinks that point has to be explicitly stated?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:57pm
I don't know...most Sundays I didn't want to wake up and go to mass, but at least brunch afterwards was always fun
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You got brunch? Man - those Catholics and their doggie treats.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:02pm
Of course it's morally repugnant. What kind of person thinks that point has to be explicitly stated?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
A person having a discussion with one who discusses differing cultural and spiritual values instead of coming flat out and saying it. Those differing cultural and spiritual values play very nicely to the sex trade whose patrons come from countries where child prostitution is considered morally repugnant - no ifs ands or buts, and illegal.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:07pm
Frosty Zoom, please just shut up. antisocialist is a brick wall sometimes, but he is obviously far more intelligent than you brain-dead know-nothings.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 5:07pm
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 4:53pm
My point is Israel doesn't have the capability to affect Iran's nuclear program, unless they leave the conventional realm.
Why, you ask?
Because the only way to halt Iran's nuclear program militarily is boots on the ground.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 5:07pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 5:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Please feel free to provide us with a specific example.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:22pm
I don't even believe this admin. will provide active assistance to Israel. What this admin. will do, and very actively, is to figure out their plausible deniability if Israel does take action against Iran.
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Curious about how they are going to do that when we provided Israel with the aircraft and munitions to do it? Curious about the clause on military aid being used for defensive purposes as well. Only way this is going to happen is with a "manufactured incident." Maybe that is what you are refering to.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:29pm
Frosty Zoom posts illiterate, uncapitalized one-sentence personal attacks. He just told AS that he is going to Hell. He also said he couldn't denounce terrorists because he doesn't talk to them. Then, he called AS a terrorist. He is known to randomly post "stupid humans" over and over again in different posts on the same thread.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 5:34pm
I started working at age 10 because I wanted to. By Age 15 I was supporting my mother and siblings. By age 17 I owned 4 cars and was an assistant manager in a restaurant prior to entering the service.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
One triumph doesn't justify a thousand tragedies................
You ought to know better than to peddle this crapola.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:37pm
Frosty Zoom posts illiterate, uncapitalized one-sentence personal attacks. He just told AS that he is going to Hell. He also said he couldn't denounce terrorists because he doesn't talk to them. Then, he called AS a terrorist. He is known to randomly post "stupid humans" over and over again in different posts on the same thread.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 5:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Frosty is a 'stream of consciousness' kind of poster, kind of like William S. Burroughs was to the literary world. It is his unique style - unconventional yes, but "brain dead" - no. Try his style sometime and see how difficult it is to pull off? Alot of people think jazz is just random notes played fast. But that opinion is based on ignorance, and an unwillingness to be open to something new.
Frosty believes that Anti attitudes don't follow Christ's teachings. While I am not sure about Frosty's religious beliefs, he is using Anti's own concept of purgatory from transgressions against Christ's teachings. Anti turns a blind eye to Israeli atrocity, adovocates military force to get want we want (not what we need), does not believe in social welfare except when it for religious proselytizing. Many, many Christian scholars would agree with Frosty. Surely, a man of the cloth betrays the word of Christ, is destined to suffer purgatory - by whatever concept.
As to terrorists, Frosty's point is likely that because we call them terrorists, doesn't make them terrorists per se. Palestinians think Israeli are terrorists. George Bush wanted to usurp the ability to classify people as terrorists "enemy combatants." How many at Gitmo have been imprisioned on false pretense and without defense? Stupid humans - well, aren't we at times??
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:55pm
Because the only way to halt Iran's nuclear program militarily is boots on the ground.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 5:07pm
To completely halt Iran's nuke program, I'd tend to agree with you; but I don't think that could/would/will be Israel's goal.
It will put Iran's program back by quite a number of years and make it ever more difficult to continue. Times do change....and Iran could be at a turning point......Hopey and Changey, huh?
I'm sure most Iranians want nuke for energy, but I don't think most necessarily want to have nuke warheads. Cooler heads among them have to know that if they have them, the Sunnis & Arabs will have them too.....guaranteed!
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 6:16pm
Curious about how they are going to do that when we provided Israel with the aircraft and munitions to do it? Curious about the clause on military aid being used for defensive purposes as well. Only way this is going to happen is with a "manufactured incident." Maybe that is what you are refering to.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:29pm
China provides the money for us to do a lot of `evil' things.....trust I don't need to continue!
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 6:17pm
"I'm sure most Iranians want nuke for energy, but I don't think most necessarily want to have nuke warheads. Cooler heads among them..."
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 6:16pm
I hope.
Otherwise....
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 6:27pm
One triumph doesn't justify a thousand tragedies................
You ought to know better than to peddle this crapola.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:37pm
Not in my family. At age 16 my father was told he was too young to join the military so he travelled by bus to Vancouver and joined the Merchant Marines. He sailed for 1 1/2 years out in the Pacific supplying the military and then joined the Army shortly before he was 18.
Our family believes in working. By age 12 I had to buy my own clothes and I did the same with my kids. Just as with me, I told them if they wanted something, they had to go out and earn the money themselves.
You cannot prepare for adulthood by being pampered. That's the problem with most Americans today. They are lazy and pampered and most have no real work ethic.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 6:42pm
China provides the money for us to do a lot of `evil' things.....trust I don't need to continue!
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
We shall see.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 7:00pm
Bolton is a hero to most conservatives. You will seldom if ever find conservatives including myself criticizing his viewpoint. Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 12:06pm
libertyfortheoppressed, you just stated that antisocialist is intelligent, yet this post could only be made by an ignoramus.
If Bolton was such a hero to most conservatives, then why did he fail (twice) to be confirmed for the position of ambassador to the UN by a Republican controller Senate?
Antisocialist then goes n to cite the fact the he has no criticized Bolton as proof of something.
Face it, the guy's an idiot.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 7:10pm
There are no children there FZ. The Iranian nuke sites are very remote and underground.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 2:20pm
This is another moronic statement by Larry. While the US 2007 NIE states that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, Larry insists he knows where they are and that they are very remote and underground.
Even Israel have stated that Iran has the potential to make nukes, not that they are producing them.
More evidence that the guy's an idiot.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 7:12pm
1. There are no nuke facilities in Lebanon. 2. The fault lies with Hezbollah, not Israel. But then you seldom if ever criticize the terrorists. Just America, Israel, Jews and Christians Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:34pm
1. There are no nuke facilities in Iran either. 2. Hezbollah woudl not exist were it not for Israel's 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon.
There have been America, Israeli, Jewish and Christian terrorists. Should we not criticize them too?
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 7:14pm
You cannot prepare for adulthood by being pampered. That's the problem with most Americans today. They are lazy and pampered and most have no real work ethic.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh my g-d. Anti can you differentiate between your situation and the plight of poverty of a 10 year old in a company town that owns everything, including the house you live in and the grocery store where you buy your food. Your Horatio Algiers story is an inspiration to us all, but really, your ideas are as dated as an old Packard. 16 years old is not 10 years old. Most responsible parents don't want their children working in mines except out of dire necessity. For instance, in Bolivian silver mines, the vast majority of children are either orphaned, or come from a family that has no father around. The mother can't make enough to feed the family, and so the children, like you, go to work in mine to feed the family - rather than saving up for that bicycle they saw in storefront window. When a family is headed by a father, the incidence of children working in the mine is virtually unknown, and in fact, school children make fun of children that work in the mine as sort of social outcasts. The dangers of mine work are well known, and these children are suffering damage to their health from dust and gases, and it is not uncommon for them to die or be injured in mine accidents. These children also live in fear of going into the mine. They pay homage to Satanic idols that supposedly rule over the underworld, and pray that the idol protect them from accident. These are Catholics mind you. Chances are that when a child starts working the mine, he will a miner till retirement. Death from lung disease awaits.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 7:18pm
John Bolton saying that Israel may deternmine in the future that they need to take out Iranian nuke facilities does not equate to conservatives calling for bombing Iran in June of this year.
This is so typical of your supposed "gotcha's".
And BTW, like Urmy, I wonder if you ever consider actually posting opinions over seeking your supposed "gotcha" moments. Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:49pm
Leave it to Larry to ignore the elephant in the room.
Conservatives like Bolton and Norman Podhoretz have openly called for the Us to bomb Iran.
In the Washington Post today, screw-loose wingnut extraordinaire John Bolton has a column in which he advocates an Israeli strike against Iran. This would be shocking, except that...
On June 26, Bolton had an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in which he advocated bombing Iran. And, well, er...
On June 12, he had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he advocated bombing Iran.
One wonders which op-ed page editor will succumb to this dangerous and demented guy's wiles next week.
update: For those seeking some sane commentary about Iran, here's Roger Cohen--still there, incredibly.
update2: Max Boot just loves Bolton's "analysis." Especially, Bolton's public diplomacy gambit: we're bombing you, but we're not as bad as your government. That should work wonders.
As for Podhoretz, there are countless articles he's written calling for th bombing of Iran. he was famous for saying he hoped and prayed Bush woudl bomb Iran.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 7:22pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 7:18pm
We are not talking about Bolivia or Thailand. We are talking about the US. I am not advocating my lifestyle and libertarian philosophy on other countries.
It is a strawman to bring these up. they have nothing to do with life in the US.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 7:24pm
he doesn't really seek you out. you attack him; he defends himself. you rarely give a substantive stance on the blog; you merely bash the politics of people like antisocialist.
so again, what are you getting out of it?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 2:38pm |
How's this for an explanation?
Larry posts a comment that is:
a) based on lies and/or b) proposes an extreme and fringe position and/or c) is factually wrong
That leaves 2 options. We can let him get away with it or debunk his argument.
What do you propose?
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 7:33pm
I am not advocating my lifestyle and libertarian philosophy on other countries.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 7:24pm
Has anyone noticed how right wing conservatives started referring to themselves as libertarians when the right wing conservative began to be tainted?
Larry is not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. he believes in militarism and interventionism, which are anathema to Libertarians.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 7:37pm
The company town I described still exists in America if you ever get the gumption to travel to Appalachia from your sunny MIC sponsored paradise in Southern California. The socioeconomics aren't all that different are they.
Now for you to wax and wane about what you did when you were a kid - 50 odd years ago is the strawman of this argument. So - America is the same place as when you were growing up? Come on. What are the kids going to do today besides flip burgers - sell insurance? In your neighborhood, how many of the temporary kid type jobs are taken by illegals, recent immigrants, or longer term displaced workers from our own economy. When was the last time the merchant marine took in a kid with dream?
You remind of Gramps - 'why when I was a boy....' Anti - the kids are going to tune you out right quick with this junk, as will most socioeconomists.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 7:41pm
Most libertarians are doves, but not all, Shingo. I'm basically a libertarian hawk.
antisocialist, why wouldn't you wish the political views you advocate for this country on another country? As you favor the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems to me you already do. What is good for one country should be good for all of them.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 8:27pm
"That leaves 2 options. We can let him get away with it or debunk his argument.
What do you propose?"
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 7:33pm
here's one for ya....
"I don't participate. I practice natural, holistic health. I serve as my own physician.
I don't like doctors, and have more knowledge about nutritional and natural health than more than 90% of doctors. That isn't so much bragging as a sad commentary on American medicine. Doctors are not required to take courses in nutritional and natural health in order to become a MD.
And when it's my time, then it will be time to die. I don't believe in treatments for cancer or heart disease."
Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 5:35pm
anyhoo, larry the prophet has spoken.
Let all parents of children with leukemia seek him out for wise counsel.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 8:35pm
Frosty Zoom, please just shut up. antisocialist is a brick wall sometimes, but he is obviously far more intelligent than you brain-dead know-nothings.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 5:07pm
larry's great. i agree.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 8:54pm
Most libertarians are doves, but not all, Shingo. I'm basically a libertarian hawk.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 8:27pm
Sorry libertyfortheoppressed, but the expression "libertarian hawk" is a contradiction in terms.
Staying out of other states affairs is not being a dove, it's being non interventionist.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 8:55pm
antisocialist, why wouldn't you wish the political views you advocate for this country on another country? As you favor the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems to me you already do. What is good for one country should be good for all of them.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Great question. One that has puzzled me as well. I think the answer is that Larry's libertarian philosophy conflicts with his interventionist imperialist philosophy. Not all countries can be ruled with limited government such as the "new" Iraq, which of course needs our puppet government and military presence to fulfill their (Larry's) destiny. But this dual and conflicting philosophy is antithetical to Libertarian philosophy which is grounded on the universal rights of men to be free from government and self determining, not on universal rights of men in the US to be free from government and self determing.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 8:59pm
Frosty Zoom posts illiterate, uncapitalized one-sentence personal attacks.
that's not true, human.
He just told AS that he is going to Hell.
i'm sure larry's a little worried, too.
He also said he couldn't denounce terrorists because he doesn't talk to them.
my point is that they are not listening. you folks can affect u.s. policy at least .00000000000000012%
Then, he called AS a terrorist.
larry constructed cluster bombs and d.u. munitions. sounds like terror to me.
He is known to randomly post "stupid humans" over and over again in different posts on the same thread.
hardly random. humans can be very stupid. that's why we kill each other.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 5:34pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 9:00pm
As you favor the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems to me you already do. What is good for one country should be good for all of them.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 8:27pm
If you assume that Larry is honest, then his argument, does not make sense.
I suspect that this contradiction can be explained by Larry's ideology differs from what he claims to believe.
Larry favors the "liberation" of Afghanistan and Iraq, because he sees it as a means to defeating and Islam and subjugating Muslims.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 9:01pm
thanks, ov.
stream of semi-consciousness, however.
to me, anybody who harms his brothers and sisters is a terrorist.
and a very stupid human.
my church is the forest, meadow, desert or swamp, btw.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 9:03pm
Stupid humans - well, aren't we at times??
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
...some ^ more than others
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 9:18pm
You got brunch? Man - those Catholics and their doggie treats.
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm a "dog "b/c my parents are catholic and took me and my brothers to church with them when we were children?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 9:19pm
"larry's great. i agree."
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 8:54pm
Frosty, I don't think larry's bubble is level anymore.
Posted by Benchrest at 07/29/2009 @ 9:37pm
....antisocialist is a brick wall...obviously far more intelligent than you brain-dead know-nothings.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 5:07pm
larry's great. i agree.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 8:54pm
I don't know why, but this (FZ) does strike me as "brain-dead".....but funnier than any "know-nothings" I come across daily....in the 3-D world and here!
Posted by Happy at 07/29/2009 @ 9:50pm
"Larry favors the "liberation" of Afghanistan and Iraq,"
So you oppose the Afghan war? Why? As a matter of FACT, it has saved more lives than it has cost.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:09pm
"this dual and conflicting philosophy is antithetical to Libertarian philosophy which is grounded on the universal rights of men to be free from government and self determining"
No, it isn't. The contradiction is only in antisocialist's own words. If libertarians believe that all men everywhere in the world ought to be liberated from tyranny and given the blessing of democracy and freedom, then they reach common ground with neocons on that point.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:16pm
There are no children there FZ. The Iranian nuke sites are very remote and underground.
Damn! The WMDs were there ALL the TIME! We just didn't dig deep enough for 'em. Oh, well, now we know we always have a reason to return
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/29/2009 @ 10:25pm
So you oppose the Afghan war? Why? As a matter of FACT, it has saved more lives than it has cost.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:09pm
According to what yardstick? Had there been no Afghan war, there woudl have been no war casualties intended and otherwise.
Your maths is flawed
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 10:32pm
If libertarians believe that all men everywhere in the world ought to be liberated from tyranny and given the blessing of democracy and freedom, then they reach common ground with neocons on that point.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:16pm |
That's not what libertarians believe. Libertarians believe that all men should be free, but not that we should decide what is best fro them.
Neosons believed in permanent revolution, whcih is antithetical to both conservatism and libertarianism. Neocons don't believe in liberation, but in reshaping other states to benefit our needs.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 10:35pm
Damn! The WMDs were there ALL the TIME! We just didn't dig deep enough for 'em. Oh, well, now we know we always have a reason to return
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/29/2009 @ 10:25pm
Wow, who woudla believed it.
We'd better get Larry on the phone to Dennis Blair, who testified before the Senate 3 months ago that all 16 US intelligence agencies still stood behind the conclusion of the 2007 NIE.
Obviously Larry knows somethign they all missed. Seeing as God told Bush to attack Iraq, then maybe he told Larry about the Iranian nuke sites hidden very remotely and underground.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 10:38pm
" Had there been no Afghan war, there woudl have been no war casualties intended and otherwise. "
Duh.
From wiki:
Civilians killed by Afghan insurgents direct deaths: at least 2,839 - 4,389
Civilians killed as consequence of US military actions: direct & indirect deaths: 8,436 - 28,028
This is from 2002: "the Taliban were known for pushing aid organizations out of the country for such "violations" as being Christian. The World Food Program reports that food aid is now successfully reaching 6.6 million people in Afghanistan. According to UNICEF, who, coincidentally, also voiced opposition to the bombing campaign at first, the international aid agency is now able to go forward with the "biggest logistical operation for many years" in Afghanistan. In an aid update from January, UNICEF workers immunized 572,000 children in Kabul during the first two weeks of 2002, "six times higher than the total immunization coverage in 2001." They also vaccinated over 700,000 children against measles during the first two months of 2002, in a country where, as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in the Feb. 1 New York Times, "virtually no one had been vaccinated against the disease in the previous 10 years." That alone will save the lives of at least 35,000 children each year. Kristof also quotes Heidi J. Larson of UNICEF saying that she expects maternal mortality rates in Afghanistan will halve as a result of improved health care over the next five years. That's another 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women saved each year."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:48pm
Oh, well, now we know we always have a reason to return
Or dig our own ever remoter, deeper, more geriatric populated nuke sites...
drill, baby, drill
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/29/2009 @ 10:49pm
Here's the link: http://www.tcj.com/247/e_giuffo.html
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:50pm
"Libertarians believe that all men should be free, but not that we should decide what is best fro them. "
But you have decided what is best for them. You just said they ideally should be free. Neocons say the same thing. This is common ground. The only difference between you and them is that they believe freedom is worth fighting for.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:54pm
That alone will save the lives of at least 35,000 children each year. Kristof also quotes Heidi J. Larson of UNICEF saying that she expects maternal mortality rates in Afghanistan will halve as a result of improved health care over the next five years. That's another 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women saved each year."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:48pm
So by your logic, before the war, 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women were dying every year.
Do you have any evidence to support this?
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 11:02pm
But you have decided what is best for them. You just said they ideally should be free. Neocons say the same thing. This is common ground. The only difference between you and them is that they believe freedom is worth fighting for.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 10:54pm
All I have decided, is that they are free to choose their own destiny. Neocons and right wingers like yourself, say we are the answer.
After all, the Taliban are only there because of our previous interventions are they not?
Like the necons, what you are arguing is that it's legitimate to destroy a country in order to save it.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 11:05pm
so why don't the neocons want to liberate equitorial guinea?
oh, that's right. they still sell the u.s. oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 11:05pm
You think the New York Times and UNICEF are lying?
Afghanistan was like the Stone Age under Taliban rule! Millions were malnourished and desperate for food! They didn't have clean water! There was no health care! Almost no medicine was availible! Afghanistan's life expectancy was one of the lowest in the world! Everyone lived in extreme poverty and illiteracy!
And, by the way, this isn't even factoring in all the tens of thousands of Afghans directly killed by the Taliban.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:08pm
"So by your logic, before the war, 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women were dying every year."
Not MY logic. That's UNICEF's estimates. AT LEAST THAT MANY every year. Often more. Just from their lack of health care alone.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:12pm
"All I have decided, is that they are free to choose their own destiny."
So Iraqis under Saddam could have voted him out of office?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:15pm
"Just from their lack of health care alone."
As compared to their health care TODAY. When it improves more in the future, even more lives will be saved. The total annual loss of Afghans from health care under the Taliban was far higher, but not all of those lives have been yet saved.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:19pm
"Like the necons,"
Hell, I AM a neocon.
"what you are arguing is that it's legitimate to destroy a country in order to save it."
We've destroyed Afghanistan?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:21pm
Not MY logic. That's UNICEF's estimates. AT LEAST THAT MANY every year. Often more. Just from their lack of health care alone.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That's not what UNICEF said.
According to the preliminary results of a Johns Hopkins University study, the infant mortality rate has declined to about 135 per 1,000 live births in 2006, down from an estimated 165 per 1,000 in 2001.
So the number of children saved every year through vaccination is 30,000, not 112,000.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 11:22pm
We've destroyed Afghanistan?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:21pm
That's what bombing a country back to the stone age usually means.
In any case, if you want to argue that the Taliban is the problem, then you have to accept that the Taliban are there because of the last time we "liberated" Afghanistan.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 11:24pm
"So the number of children saved every year through vaccination is 30,000"
The article I quoted estimated 35,000 children each year from vaccination. 112,000 is not children. It's Afghan men, women, and children. It's not from vaccination, it's the net gain as a result of improved health care.
You didn't even understand that much, Shingo. And even if you were right, that would still mean that the number of Afghan children saved each year by the war is about as much as the war has cost in eight years.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:29pm
So it is frankly incontrovertible that the Afghan war has saved more lives than it has cost.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:31pm
"In any case,"
Oh, dear. Get ready for moralizing tripe.
"if you want to argue that the Taliban is the problem,"
The Taliban isn't a problem?
" then you have to accept that the Taliban are there because of the last time we "liberated" Afghanistan."
Don't feign moral outrage over "our" past crimes in the Middle East when they can be admitted and undone if you oppose undoing them.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:35pm
Don't feign moral outrage over "our" past crimes in the Middle East when they can be admitted and undone if you oppose undoing them.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:35pm
I'm not feigning moral outrage, just pointing out that had libertarian policies been in play, then there would be no Taliban.
That's what I admire about libertarian foreign policy and why neocon foreign policy is so flawed. Libertarian's understand that the intervention begets further intervention.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 11:43pm
So it is frankly incontrovertible that the Afghan war has saved more lives than it has cost.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:31pm |
So far I woudl have to agree, yes, so I stand corrected.
As for how this will play out in the end, that remains to be seen. Many of these estimates assume that the Taliban have been defeated, which is premature to say the least.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 11:46pm
The article I quoted estimated 35,000 children each year from vaccination. 112,000 is not children. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:29pm
From the last paragraph in your post.:
"That's another 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women saved each year."
Either the number is 30,000 -35,000 children are saved every year or it's 112,000. It's can't be both.
Don't blame me for inconsistencies in your source.
Posted by Shingo at 07/29/2009 @ 11:51pm
"In an aid update from January, UNICEF workers immunized 572,000 children in Kabul during the first two weeks of 2002, "six times higher than the total immunization coverage in 2001." They also vaccinated over 700,000 children against measles during the first two months of 2002, in a country where, as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in the Feb. 1 New York Times, "virtually no one had been vaccinated against the disease in the previous 10 years." That alone will save the lives of at least 35,000 children each year. "
30,000-35,000 saved each year FROM VACCINATION AGAINST MEASLES AND IMMUNIZATIONS IN KABUL ALONE. That can be true, and so can the 112,000 estimate for the total saved by improved health care each year.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:27am
That can be true, and so can the 112,000 estimate for the total saved by improved health care each year.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:27am
John Hopkins says 30,000 total.
Posted by Shingo at 07/30/2009 @ 12:31am
"So it is frankly incontrovertible that the Afghan war has saved more lives than it has cost.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/29/2009 @ 11:31pm |
So far I woudl have to agree, yes, so I stand corrected."
I'm certainly glad to hear you admit that.
"I'm not feigning moral outrage, just pointing out that had libertarian policies been in play, then there would be no Taliban."
You're right; my comment would have made more sense if you were a radical leftist. Radical leftists love to feign moral outrage over past American crimes while opposing actions that could admit and undo them, precisely because if they were undone, then they would have less of an excuse to hate America.
"Libertarian's understand that the intervention begets further intervention."
Assuming that that is always true is rigid, conformist and blind. That is the argument pacificists use about the "cycle of violence". Intervening against Nazi Germany sooner rather than later would have prevented a costlier intervention later on down the road. Does this mean you are glad Bush didn't stop the genocide in Darfur?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:36am
but china gets oil from sudan
and
china buys treasuries from the u.s. to finance neocon adventures.
nevermind.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 12:53am
Why let China get the oil? Evil Zionist imperialist Bush could have gone into Sudan and stolen all of its oil just for us to use. He would have had a better excuse than he did in Iraq.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:55am
Why let China get the oil? Evil Zionist imperialist Bush could have gone into Sudan and stolen all of its oil just for us to use. He would have had a better excuse than he did in Iraq.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:55am
Iraq has ore oil and Saddam would have threatened oil process by dumping oil on the market. Can't have that can we? What would have Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton have done without those record profits?
Posted by Shingo at 07/30/2009 @ 01:12am
Why let China get the oil? Evil Zionist imperialist Bush could have gone into Sudan and stolen all of its oil just for us to use. He would have had a better excuse than he did in Iraq.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:55am
saddam was removed because he was threatening to move to the euro.
sudan is left alone because china buys so many treasuries.
"I'm very pleased to welcome the president," Ms. Rice told reporters after the meeting. "Thank you very much for your presence here." Mr. Obiang purred back: "We are extremely pleased and hopeful that this relationship will continue to grow in friendship and cooperation."
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 06:55am
When thousands of people took to the streets of Kyrgyzstan's capital to protest the vote fraud, police attacked them with percussion grenades and tear gas, while firing live ammunition over their heads.
july, 2009
On June 23, 2009 a new deal was reached between the U.S. and Kyrgyz governments. It was ratified by the Kyrgyz parliament two days later, and signed into law by President Bakiyev on July 7th.[24][25] Under the terms of the new agreement, U.S. payment for use of the facilities will increase from $17.1 million to $60 million. An additional $117 million will be given to the Kyrgyz government, including $36 million for upgrading the airport with additional storage facilities and aircraft parking, $21 million for fighting drug trafficking in the country, and $20 million for economic development.
neoconjob.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 07:05am
my church is the forest, meadow, desert or swamp, btw.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2009 @ 9:03pm
me too!
Posted by OneVote at 07/30/2009 @ 07:51am
Posted by OneVote at 07/29/2009 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm a "dog "b/c my parents are catholic and took me and my brothers to church with them when we were children?
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 9:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
would you have gone willingly if you didn't get brunch?
I didn't hear you expound on the enlightenment of your faith - only on how much you looked forward to the brunch.
I remain hopeful that after more careful reflection, you will grasp what is meant by "doggie treats."
Posted by OneVote at 07/30/2009 @ 08:00am
"Saying we have sold bunker busters to the Israelis doesn't equate to conservatives calling for bombing Iran in June of this year. "----Posted by antisocialist at 07/29/2009 @ 3:49pm
Ohhhhhhhhh.....so when you said IN JUNE conservatives weren't calling for bombing Iran...you were correct.
But IN JULY you're calling for bombing Iran (else why the mention of Israeli bunker busters)....but since JUNE isn't JULY, you are STILL correct and no contradiction.
Makes total sense now....sorry for my confusion.
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 08:21am
Assuming that that is always true is rigid, conformist and blind. That is the argument pacificists use about the "cycle of violence". Intervening against Nazi Germany sooner rather than later would have prevented a costlier intervention later on down the road.... Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:36am
Yeah....then we would have had to fight Stalin and the "Bolsheviks."
Don't forget that Hitler's rise to power was greased by western anti-commie sentiment. The Jewish underpinnings of the Bolsheviks didn't help the cause for intervention. Nasty boy Stalin was a ticking bomb knocking at the door of Europe, and The Third Reich had support well outside the borders of Germany. Didn't Hitler say that he had no problem with Americans - even the British and French (laid the blame of Versailles on government, not people). Nelville Chamberlain was an interventionist too in the final analysis.
'This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.'
Nelville Chamberlain from 10 Downing Street. Sept. 1939
France declared war along with Britain.
Read the story of the evacuation of Dunkirk after Hitler kicked the butt of France and the BEF. Ya think Britain and France were ready to take on Germany?
Now if you don't think Stalin had future plans for Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other bordering states and territory, the Baltics (to control The Gulf of Finland), and beyond, you would be mistaken.
Remember - Hitler's historic or original world plan was to expand east and kick Russia's butt. Early interventionists changed his focus.
Posted by OneVote at 07/30/2009 @ 08:55am
Try reading the wiki article on Pierre Van Paassen for a little perspective libertyfortheop...especially the quotations of Mr. Van Paassen.
A little enlightenment & historical understanding for your neo-fascist soul.
Posted by Sorelish at 07/30/2009 @ 11:55am
"According to the preliminary results of a Johns Hopkins University study, the infant mortality rate has declined to about 135 per 1,000 live births in 2006, down from an estimated 165 per 1,000 in 2001. "
"Benjamin Loevinsohn, a World Bank health specialist, said the survey results probably underestimated the improvement in infant mortality.
"It's a conservative estimate. This is the situation two and a half to three years ago ... It should be better than that now," Mr Loevinsohn said."
Most sources estimate the real numbers are about 40,000 Afghan children per year since 2006. So, since 2006 alone, that is 120,000 Afghan children saved, not counting pregnant women saved or men saved from improved health care or anyone saved prior to 2006 by improved health care or any of the thousands or tens of thousands of Afghans the Taliban would have killed had they remained in power or the number of the 7 million Afghans reliant on Western food aid the Taliban blocked when it was in power that would have starved to death without an intervention. Nor is it counting thousands of Americans saved from another 9/11 or the tens of thousands that would have died in poor countries due to the shock the world economy would have suffered from in the event of such an attack. And only about 30,000 Afghan civilians have died from all causes in the war at most.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:09pm
"So, since 2006 alone, that is 120,000 Afghan children saved, not counting pregnant women saved or men saved from improved health care or anyone saved prior to 2006 by improved health care or any of the thousands..."---Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 12:09pm
Was that "private, market-based, freedom-loving" health care....or "totalitarian socialist Government-provided" health care?
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 12:52pm
Also, the Afghan government estimates that by the year 2020, infant mortality will fall to 400 from 1,600 for every 100,000 live births.
What I want to ask all of the peaceniks is this: if you had to look all those Afghan children that would have died absent our intervention in the eye, would you be able to say to them "I wish you were dead because saving you will only contribute to the cycle of violence"?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 2:23pm
when tyranny comes, it comes in the guise of liberation.
that ass libertyfortheop is an example of that.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/30/2009 @ 3:51pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 2:23pm
lib...want to answer my question?
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 3:57pm
This question, Mask?
"Was that "private, market-based, freedom-loving" health care....or "totalitarian socialist Government-provided" health care?"
I think America has a better health care system than Afghanistan.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:41pm
Posted by emile duBois at 07/30/2009 @ 3:51pm
Right, emile, so you do wish that the 120,000 Afghan children saved since 2006 were dead, along with 21,000 pregnant women since 2006, along with the tens of thousands the Taliban could have killed if they were still in power.
But, you still haven't answered: if you had to look all those Afghan children that would have died absent our intervention in the eye, would you be able to say to them "I wish you were dead because saving you will only contribute to the cycle of violence"?
Just admit that you don't give a damn about Afghan civilians. Then I'll respect the intellectual, but not moral, integrity of your position.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:48pm
"i'm a "dog "b/c my parents are catholic and took me and my brothers to church with them when we were children?"
Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2009 @ 9:19pm
No. You're still my beef and lamb w/tzatziki sauce on a pita.
Just curious; How did you get from explaining why we blog here on one post (bored, opinionated etc.) to asking people what they get out of posting here?
For me, it is the sound of the mouse clicking on submit. Oooooo <click> Ahhh!
Posted by Malcontent at 07/30/2009 @ 6:12pm
LFTOPPPPPPP:
any comments on equitorial guinea, sudan, or kyrgyzstan?
didn't think so.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 7:00pm
"any comments on equitorial guinea, sudan, or kyrgyzstan?
didn't think so."
Hmmm? What do you want me to say? I favor liberating Sudan? OK, I favor liberating Sudan. Happy?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 7:09pm
emile: care to answer my question?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 7:26pm
so why didn't bush do it?
china and treasuries.
what about equitorial guinea?
the hypocrisy is rampant.
saddam was removed to preserve the dollar's reserve status (for a bit longer).
my friend, you are being played like a pawn shop fiddle.
of course, liberty for the oppressed is an admirable goal. however, your choice of ideologues is nothing but gang of greedy manipulators.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 8:24pm
Dreyfuss is still unwilling to discuss the strategic implications of the stories from Haaretz on June 17 because of a Zionist censorship of the articles in all US and European news outlets. "Mossad: Iran Will Have Nuclear Bomb by 2014" and "Israel Can't Make up it's Mind About Iran Nuclear Timetable". If only some of the idiot posters on this site would read those stories by doing a Google search they would have something meaningful to talk about. The stories were reprinted in a US Army publication for Officers and no place else in the US. These two stories show how the intell has been falsified for years to manipulate and sway public opinion on behalf of the neo-cons and Zionists of the US and Israel. Sadly enough Obama and Clinton are still both groveling and kowtowing to the Zionist lobbyists of AIPAC. Obama now has Dennis Ross whispering in his ear everything that Netanyahu wants him to hear. The Iranians are probably not going to talk to us as long as they see Obama carrying out the same tactics against them as Bush did. Suggestions: Stop stating that the Iranians are building nuclear bombs (they are not); pull our Special Ops troops out of Iran and cancel the Bush secret program to destabilize their government; fire Dennis Ross and all othe Zionists who sabotage any meaningful talks with the Iranins; cancel most of the trade restrictions; stop screeching about civil rights (the Saudis are ten times worse); ask them to allow a US Interest Section in Tehran (they have one in Washington, D.C.); lastly, very publicly,tell the Israelis to shut up and stop BSing the world about Armageddan from Iran.
Posted by Aarky at 07/30/2009 @ 11:11pm
....Stop stating that the Iranians are building nuclear bombs (they are not)......lastly, very publicly,tell the Israelis to shut up and stop BSing the world about Armageddan from Iran.
Posted by Aarky at 07/30/2009 @ 11:11pm
You could be right....IF you can convince the BSers that Iran just purely by chance, happen to scatter its nuke sites all over the country and constructed many to be able to withstand, ahem, bombings...for no reason at all....just your basic jobs program to overprotect these `peaceful' facilities.
There are a number of countries with nuke power plants but do not enrich their own fuels....probably news to you. Like some countries have lots of refineries but import the crude oil for feedstock, like the US.
Iran is building nukes because its current leaders want them and need them....which I think they actually do if they intend to dominate the Mid-East and be immune from foreign attacks.
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 11:28pm
Posted by Malcontent at 07/30/2009 @ 6:12pm
Just curious; How did you get from explaining why we blog here on one post (bored, opinionated etc.) to asking people what they get out of posting here?
For me, it is the sound of the mouse clicking on submit. Oooooo <click> Ahhh!
Good one. I gotta do some soul-searching.
Thank you ever so. And BTW yes, I agree with Mr. Dreyfuss, patience is a virtue, especially for males when they orgas. (If thrown by this completely different reference please fe3el free to scroll up some 200 entries to the original post).
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/31/2009 @ 12:18am
Posted by Aarky at 07/30/2009 @ 11:11pm
Europe has offered to provide Iran with all the nuclear fuel it needs to meet its civilian energy requirements immediately. Iran has rejected this offer. The reason is obvious. Iran really isn't interested in civilian energy. If the Mullahs didn't leave Iran so backwards and underdeveloped, they wouldn't even need nuclear fuel. They have a sea of oil. They have repeatedly lied to the IAEA and have not always cooperated with inspectors. The reason should be obvious.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 12:42am
I think America has a better health care system than Afghanistan.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:41pm
You bet. MJ would surely agree, if he could. And so many Americans would be so much healthier if they didn't have to die in ERs or could afford the health insurance for normal health care like the fortunately insured (like myself and probably you, where-ever you live and whomever you may work for or employ).
But you have a morbid way with tallying statistics to justify the ending of a life by the pressing of a button.
Feh.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/31/2009 @ 01:08am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:41pm
But, didn't quite answer it.
Wasn't the health care system under the Taliban more "free market/capitalist"...given the lack of a "government-run, top-down, statist" health care system???
Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 07:50am
The report was commissioned by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who hand-picked McChrystal to take the helm of combat operations against Taliban insurgents that top defense officials have conceded are stalemated.
you heard it here first.
after eight years of war, all they can come up with is send more troops?
we need a peace process.
Obama has his head up his ass on this war.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/31/2009 @ 10:06am
"Wasn't the health care system under the Taliban"
Basically nonexistant? Yes, it was.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 12:15pm
"you have a morbid way with tallying statistics to justify the ending of a life by the pressing of a button."
You probably should add that conservatives have statistics instead of values and always need to quantify their argument. They are obssessed with trying to get firm numbers on how many lives have been saved by the Afghan war; they have no time for abstract moral relativist pacifist theology philosophy about the "cycle of violence".
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 12:27pm
With SCO help(Russia+China)Iran will just ignore these so called "sanctions" and even a sea based embargo. War becomes the only option. The countries conservative fanatic regine might actually be looking forward to it, and they are at the end of the day armed with Russian missile technology and Chinese petro dollars.
America eventually withdrew from Vietnam and excepted a nuclear armed China. Open war or tolerance? That is it all comes down to.
Posted by JonesHenry at 07/31/2009 @ 11:52pm
War becomes the only option. Posted by JonesHenry at 07/31/2009 @ 11:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
again?
grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:11am
With SCO help(Russia+China)Iran will just ignore these so called "sanctions" and even a sea based embargo. War becomes the only option.
Posted by JonesHenry at 07/31/2009 @ 11:52pm
Why, because not having war is not an option?
Iran is still a member of the NPT. If they were so oblivious to international pressure and the consequences of nukes,. why have they not withdrawn from the NPT?
One of the key conclusions of the 2007 NIE, was that Iran's leadership are persuaded by the cost benefit of a nuclear weapons program. As nasty as the mullah's might be, they are not determined to commit mass suicide.
Posted by Shingo at 08/03/2009 @ 8:58pm
Europe has offered to provide Iran with all the nuclear fuel it needs to meet its civilian energy requirements immediately. Iran has rejected this offer. The reason is obvious.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 12:42am
Yes the reason is indeed obvious. Ever since Iran became a signatory to the NPT, Europe, Britain and the US have violated their side of the bargain.
The NPT guarantees all signatories the inalienable right to nuclear power. However, Europe, the UK and the US have refused to provide Iran with any materials or equipment to that is nuclear related. Iran is often criticized for acquiring it's equipment from the black market (ie. Pakistan) but what option have they had?
This had taught the Iranians not to trust anyone. So when the Europeans offer to provide Iran with nuclear fuel, the Iranians know that this gives the Europeans control over them. Given that Europe has been complicit in denying Iran it's rights under the NPT, what's to stop Europe doing it in the future?
The se of oil argument is assinine. Oil is Iran's main export, and it makes perfect sense for Iran to diversify from oil so that they can maintain maximum revenues from oil exports. During the Shah's days, the US stated that it was wise and prudent for Iran to have it's own nuclear power program.
No the Iranians have NOT lied to the IAEA. The IAEA has stated that they can conclude with 100% certainty that Iran is not diverting nuclear material from declared programs.
Posted by Shingo at 08/03/2009 @ 9:09pm