One has to feel sorry for the majority of the Iranian people. It mustn't be fun to live with the threat of retaliatory or preemptive air strikes hanging over one's head on a daily basis.

To: Iran
Re: Article V, North Atlantic Treaty

Nice knowing you.

One has to feel sorry for the majority of Wizbang readers. It mustn't be fun to live with the threat of moronic comments by lefty trolls hanging over one's head on a daily basis.

Does anyone have any info on the Iranian shp that was captured by the Somali pirates? Could that be part of the plan of the Iranian plan and could other ships with similar cargo be out on the open ocean today?

I amazed by the silence on this topic.

Sorry Thatguy, won't happen.

Messiah > North Atlantic Treaty

Master Shake, you feel no pity for the Iranians who would prefer not live under the shit-caked sandal of the mullahocracy? Empathy only for the Arabic Iraqi people (once it was determined that they had no WMDs) but not for the Persian Iranians? Do you consider yourself to be a decent human being?

I guess the CIA probably shouldn't have taught the Mossad how to torture students that spoke against the Shah. Or deposed their democratically elected prime minister.

Oh well. Hindsight, and all that.

Maybe getting tough with them will work this time.

i feel sorry for anyone who allows themselves to be worked up into a fearful lather by boo-scared-ya stories like these. iran must not be allowed to develop weapons, and counter-productive saber rattling like the bu$h admin engages in will only spur them further. force is not yet the best option. negotiation is. maybe it works, maybe not, but its not realistic to believe that iran wants to launch a missile attack against the west, or take any other hostile action that it and everyone else knows it could not survive

ODA, thanks for crapping in my cornflakes.

"iran must not be allowed to develop weapons, and counter-productive saber rattling like the bu$h admin engages in will only spur them further."

Iran is gonna do what they're gonna do, "saber rattling" or not. They have every intention of wiping Israel off the map. Negotiation will do nothing to stop it.

lamedusa - you and the whole nuke'em crowd represent the exact same thing you are afraid of from iran

Hyper, the correct phrase is: "no WMD's were found." Such a difference with a little honesty thrown in. ww

Iran has no financial interest in attacking the UK. The UK exported $225 million pounds in goods to Iran in 2007, and Iran imported $38.1 million pounds of goods to the UK in 2007 despite a trade embargo on many items due to Iran's nuclear program. But major trade partners simply don't threaten each other. The economic ties are too close.

I don't expect any nation to test Obama as Biden suggested, which was a typical Biden gaffe. Biden was long overdue for such a silly comment.

Democrats always rule from the center when elected and haven't hesitated to use military force during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or against Yugoslavia when they were in the White House. Many even started voting Republican because in elections because some thought that Democrats were too willing to use military power at one time.

No WMDs in Iraq, Willie, whereas genuine threats to American allies and interests--North Korea, Iran--flaunt them.

But whatever, Saddam's gone so it's all good, nothin' but cupcakes and sprinkles, right friendo?

hyper - "One has to feel sorry for the majority of the Iranian people. It mustn't be fun to live with the threat of retaliatory or preemptive air strikes hanging over one's head on a daily basis."

Yeah imagine...

... what it must have been like to live with the threat of "preemptive" pizza parlor/bus bombings "hanging over one's head on a daily basis" if you were an Israeli or American on Israeli
soil as Saddam "Not a Threat to Anyone" Hussein paid "compensation" money to suicide bombers families for successful missions.

Just imagine.

But whatever, Saddam's gone so it's all good, nothin' but cupcakes and sprinkles, right friendo?

So, you are saying we (the U.S.) would be better off with Saddam and his sons still in power in Iraq. You say that knowing that Saddam was well along in his process of bribing his way out from under UN sanctions. You say that knowing Saddam was a vindictive mass murderer bent on revenging his humiliating defeat in the first gulf war. You say that knowing Saddam would have billions of oil dollars to buy weapons and fund terrorists groups. Do you consider yourself to be a decent human being?

Do you care more about innocent Israelis than innocent Iranians, marc? If so, care to explain why? Bear in mind that Iranians do not choose their government and thus cannot be held morally responsible for its actions.

They did choose a government, but Eisenhower didn't care for Prime Minister Massadegh and so replaced him with an autocrat. So yes, many Iranians hate America (for a historically valid reason), but that doesn't mean they all want to nuke Israel and conquer the West.

marc, why are you talking about iraq and what does any of that have to do with iran?

hooson - "But major trade partners simply don't threaten each other. The economic ties are too close."

Since 2004, U.S.-Russian bilateral trade has grown an average of 22 percent per year topping $26 billion in 2007.

Yet we know Russia would never, I say never threaten the U.S.

Except when they do.

And please hooson, spare us any more diatribes on the missile shield, you've already proven to be less than clueless on the subject.

Mac, you're smart enough to extend your reasoning beyond oversimplified dichotomies like that. The following two statements are not mutually exclusive of one another:

1) Saddam was a horrible person, and Iraqis deserved better; and

2) Iraqis deserved better than what America gave them.

pea[brain]3000 "marc, why are you talking about iraq and what does any of that have to do with iran?"

Better question, why are you here? The shear enjoyment at being a Blog Roach?

hyper - "Do you care more about innocent Israelis than innocent Iranians, marc? If so, care to explain why? Bear in mind that Iranians do not choose their government and thus cannot be held morally responsible for its actions."

Yeah, that's it. You *caught* me the jig is up.

Funny thing is, I care even less for you.

Hyper, it would have been nice if canada sent their jeep to Iraq to help liberate 25 million people.

So, your intell says there is absolutely no WMD that are in Iraq or were? Interesting. For a canadian, you are really plugged in. Do you like throwing stones over the border? ww

BTW hyper "Iranians do not choose their government" bolist - Did you forget something?

Or just ignorant?

marc:

why are you here when you can only make simpleton points that you are unable to debate?

i have to wonder..........

1) Saddam was a horrible person, and Iraqis deserved better; and

2) Iraqis deserved better than what America gave them.

The two statements may not be mutually exclusive, but they're both irrelevant. It's simple, those who oppose the removal of Saddam, giving what we now know, have to take responsibility for what it would mean to have left him and his sons in power. That would be bad for all the people of the world, not just the U.S., Israel or the Iraqi people.

pea[brain]3000 - "why are you here when you can only make simpleton points that you are unable to debate?"

And you know this how? From a history here of less than 2 weeks?

As compared to at least 3 years, if not 4, of my comment history here?

Historical references aside, you've proven by a propensity to substitute "S's" for $ signs, refs to discredited "downing street memos," and various and sundry other nonsense you're far from anyone that's worth the time to get too serious about.

It's simple, those who oppose the removal of Saddam, giving what we now know, have to take responsibility for what it would mean to have left him and his sons in power.

Does that mean you, Mac, personally take responsibility for not supporting the removal of Kim Jong-Il? Omar al-Bashir? Robert Mugabe? Etc.? Or is it only after the fact? And does that mean that for supporting the removal of Hussein, you take responsibility for all deaths caused by the invasion? Or just those that died on the other end of American rifles and bombs?

marc: im trying to get you to explain something logically rather than just regurgitating as you have probably usually done over the last 3, if not 4 years. LOL

but really i was only trying to prove that you cant, and it was a lot easier than i imagined

=]

pea[brain]3000 - you're proven nothing except my decision taken not to wa$te time on you. Nothing more, nothing le$$.

Does that mean you, Mac, personally take responsibility for not supporting the removal of Kim Jong-Il? Omar al-Bashir? Robert Mugabe? Etc.?

What makes you think I wouldn't support removal of such despots?

Or is it only after the fact?

Some have claimed that there was no need to invade Iraq because of the UN sanctions. We know now that Saddam had bribed so many UN and government officials that it would have been unlikely the sanctions could have been maintained.

And does that mean that for supporting the removal of Hussein, you take responsibility for all deaths caused by the invasion? Or just those that died on the other end of American rifles and bombs?

Only if you take responsibility for all the deaths Saddam caused to his own people and for those he went to war with in the past and would likely kill in the future.

We did learn an important lesson from Iraq. The American Electorate has no stomach for a protracted conflict. We can never again go into a nation as liberators, as occupiers, or even as conquers. The only role left to us, should we be faced with such a threat, is that of destroyer.

marc: get ready for president obama

=]

Marc, Russia's main competition with the U.S. is in economic terms such as their huge oil economy or their largest steel company buying out Oregon Steel here in Oregon.

Russia likes a huge military for national pride and other self-image issues more than anything. But in the end it would be a complete waste for the U.S and Russia to destroy each other when have so much trade or business dealings.

As far as the missile defense notion, if the U.S. has only the ability to stop just 5 nuclear missiles after spending $100 billion on nearly 30 years of mostly failed military experiments, then it isn't very much of an argument to say that, "well only 5,513 of 5,518 Russian missiles got through and hit American cities and towns".

As far as the missile defense notion, if the U.S. has only the ability to stop just 5 nuclear missiles after spending $100 billion on nearly 30 years of mostly failed military experiments, then it isn't very much of an argument to say that, "well only 5,513 of 5,518 Russian missiles got through and hit American cities and towns".

I'm sure that after Thomas Edison first installed electricity in New York someone complained about all the money and time spent just to power a few eclectic lights.

Stopping 5 missiles is no threat to Russia, but they know that once the technology is further developed the capability will go up. Turns out the impactor missile is not all that expensive compared to an ICBM and the closer the intercept takes place the ICBM launch site the less defenses the ICBM can deploy. Now you know why Russia is making such a stink about the U.S. putting its missile shield in eastern Europe. Once we got our foot in the door than Russia's part of MAD is in jeopardy. Right now Putin is waiting to see if Obama gets elected. If so, I expect Putin to issue an ultimatum to the US to abandon putting any part of it's missile shield in eastern Europe, and I expect Obama to capitulate, but in a way to save face (blame Bush).

Mac Lorry, placing missiles anywhere close to the Russian borders only invites a paranoid reaction from Putin or other nationalists in Russia just as the 1962 U.S. missiles in Turkey provoked the Soviets towards attempting to place missiles in Cuba only 90 miles from the U.S.

Both nations need to respect the border security fears that both share and not provoke tensions by placing missiles close to each other's borders. The U.S. certainly does not need a new experience with Russian missiles located in Cuba or in a place like Venezuela.

The larger picture of constructive relations should dictate that no new missiles of any type will be deployed near the borders of either the U.S. or Russia.

peabody

So now you are an expert on Iranian affairs including the mullah takeover, right? And you suggest that the Iranian people benefited from that takeover, right?

Hmmm.

Well, here is a fact. Jimmy Carter's CIA decided that bankrolling the mullahs was a bad idea. This was an ideological decision. We were paying them to keep quite and study the Koran and leave politics alone.

The Shah ruled.

The Mullahs got all pissy about their loss of income and decided to do something about it.

They now rule.

They were so mad about it, that after they took over, they decided to humiliate Carter a bit more; Embassy deal.

So how have they done?

Ask women.

Ask the survivors of the way the Iranians decided to clear minefields. In case you forgot that little bit of history, they pumped up teenagers, among others, to run across minefields, promising heaven for those killed.

Nice people those Mullahs. Yea, far better than the Shah. /Sarcasm alert.

peabody, are you really that ignorant of history? I have been reading your stuff with shock. Who have you been reading?

And speaking of reading, how are you coming along reading Audacity by BHO? Got to Page 11 yet? Want to comment on his remarks on that page?

Hooson

An even more likely scenario is that Putin is trying to convince the world that his missiles are still in good shape and ready to fly.

Are they?

pea[brain]3000 - "marc: get ready for president obama"

Been ready for that for far longer than you can imagine.

hooson - "As far as the missile defense notion, if the U.S. has only the ability to stop just 5 nuclear missiles after spending $100 billion..........."

I asked nicely to spare us your crap on this subject. Your ignorance may be bliss to you, but those that HAVE experience and knowledge on the subject just find you tiresome.

larry - the iranian islamic revolution was the result of the US installing a brutal dictator

but you arent mentioning the point you wanted to discuss? are you disagreeing with a point of mine? or were you just trying to prove that youve read up on the subject of iran, albeit from questionable sources?

hooson - "Both nations need to respect the border security fears that both share and not provoke tensions by placing missiles close to each other's borders."

Specifically, what missiles are the U.S. aiming at Russia and again, specifically what border are they located or will be located on?

(note to self, this spin should be fun to watch)

marc, Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran in title only, you idiot. The Ayatollahs control the governmental mechanisms of the country. By the way, when you tell someone that you're not going to waste time on them, and then proceed to reply to their every comment, you look like a moron.

Willie: you're awfully obsessed with my country considering this blog has nothing to do with it. Anyway, our military is fighting in Afghanistan in a war caused by an unprovoked attack on New York City and the Pentagon. Even after four of our troops were murdered by a doped-up American Air Force pilot early in the conflict, and even after it's become clear that there is no clear strategy for victory in that hell-hole of a country, we have maintained a sizable contingent of troops who kill Taliban forces and attempt to impose an element of stability in a destitute nation run by religious fanatics and drug lords. So, for the fifteenth f*cking time, you ungrateful P.O.S.: you're welcome.

Mac: I'd like your country's leadership to admit that it did a very poor job carrying out an occupation, and to apologize to the Iraqi people. That would be nice. Also, if I were an American taxpayer, I'd want to know where the billions of unaccounted dollars have gone--which gangsters' and terrorists' pockets have been lined with my money. Parthenon (@#28) saved me the trouble of replying to the moral implication you tried to raise. There are worse people alive today than Saddam Hussein. North Korea is a worse place to live than Iraq pre-invasion, and (until L'il Kim dies) it's a far graver threat to world peace and stability.

Larry: Eisenhower should have respected the democratic will of the Iranian people in 1953, and I'm glad you agree. Toppling democratically elected governments (e.g. Massadegh in Iran or Allende in Chile) is stupid foreign policy and furthermore it's invariably the wrong thing to do from a moral perspective.

hyper - "marc, Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran in title only, you idiot. The Ayatollahs control the governmental mechanisms of the country."

Thanks but I got that "newsflash" several years ago. That changes nothing with regards to obama saying then denying he ever said he would meet with Iran's president.

Sorry, the Ayatollahs & Mullahs never entered into the equation. *Nice* diversion though, I must say.

But in the end it would be a complete waste for the U.S and Russia to destroy each other when have so much trade or business dealings.

Paul: I agree with you - but you're looking at it from a relatively sane point of view. YOU are aware there's a lot more to be lost by going to war, but you're overlooking Russian pride. The dissolution of the USSR was a BIG blow to that, and they're not going to be shrugging it off. You've NEVER known someone to do something self-destructive out of stupid pride?

marc: when obama said he was willing to negotiate with iran, he did not personally commit to be at the table himself. he was saying he would be willing for our country to negotiate with theirs

....and you know it

hyper

Larry: Eisenhower should have respected the democratic will of the Iranian people in 1953, and I'm glad you agree. Toppling democratically elected governments (e.g. Massadegh in Iran or Allende in Chile) is stupid foreign policy and furthermore it's invariably the wrong thing to do from a moral perspective.

Yea, terrible decision, about as bad as the one Carter made. Or so it seems. While I am aware of what Ike did, I haven't seen any authoritative discussion as to why. It doesn't really make sense from a macroworldview.

The Shah was a pussycat compared to the rule of the Mullahs though. And he DID get run out of the country because of Carter. Just look at what the Mullahs have done to women, for example. Under the Shah, women had many opportunities they no longer have.

Allende is another subject about which I am not prepared to agree with you. Internally, Chileans did it themselves, or rather the military did and it was for economic reasons and was backed by a majority of the country. The reality is that Chile has done very well for itself because Allende was taken out. And prior to that point was an economic basket case based on failed policy by Allende. I know a heckofa lot more about Chile than I do about Iran.

peabody. Have you read Obama's book Audacity?

hyper

There are worse people alive today than Saddam Hussein. North Korea is a worse place to live than Iraq pre-invasion, and (until L'il Kim dies) it's a far graver threat to world peace and stability.

Not a chance. North Korea doesn't sit on a sea of oil, nor does it threaten the several seas of oil in surrounding countries. Our economy depends on oil to maintain its standard of living, as does the rest of the world. Saddam was taken out because he forgot how to go along and get along. He was successful in convincing those in the world who count, like the Saudis, that he had WMD. Bye bye Saddam.

The occupation of Iraq would have gone a lot smoother if Al Queda hadn't decided to go get them some Americans. Let me ask you a question hyper, do you really understand the mentality of those sucked into Al Queda?

larry:
you want to discuss obamas comment about being relatively new to the national stage? or do you want to make that tired suggestion that he will turn out to be some unstoppable libmonster and nobody saw it coming due to the projection issue he describes? if so, i can only say its a very sensible comment from when the book was published, over 2 years ago. since then, america has realized that he is superior to mccain in his judgement and political sensibilities. thats why he wins in nov

Under the Shah, women had many opportunities they no longer have.

I know, it sucks. The Middle East is a horrible place to be a woman. You could replace "the Shah" with Saddam, though, and the sentence would remain valid. The world: a complicated place!

Pinochet was backed by the CIA and he murdered political dissidents. Castro is a bad person for having done that, and Pinochet was too, except Pinochet was a right-wing authoritarian and Castro is (was) left-wing and so there is a lot of moral equivocation from the right wing of the punditocracy and it makes me sick.

Larry: a very honest point. I do think it's all about the oil and that caring for oppressed Arabs is a bullshit line bought only by those who were 100% convinced by Colin Powell's vial of baking powder (or whatever it was). I could never empathize with someone in Al Qaeda, if that's what you're asking, but I'm aware of their motivations and their twisted sense of morality. Do you think the invasion of Iraq was harmful or helpful to Al Qaeda, Larry? And as Al Qaeda has certainly been harmful to the occupying Western forces in Iraq, do you think maybe someone should have foreseen the country devolving into a terrorist training camp?

Yea peabody. The problem with that comment is "Who is gonna be disappointed?" I call it a fraud. Now it is that I kinda doubt if Obama thought of it himself. Or if he did, then Axelrod stole it fair and square because the now Governor of Mass used some of the same lines as Obama. And the Governor of Mass has run head on into intrenched interests, mostly from the Democratic Party and had to back waaaaay off. It is one thing to say you are a reformer and be for change, and another thing to actually DO something. Of course Obama has never been interested in change except as a campaign slogan, so not too much worries there.

Wonder if that is what he meant by "Be dissapointed?" What do you think he meant by that statement, peabody?

Paul. I don't think anyone believed that Al Queda would be dumb enough to take on the US military. I don't think Bush thought it or Cheney, or even Obama today; any of them completely understand or understood the mindset of muslim fanatics. And neither did Colin Powell.

As I have said before, the unintended consequences of Iraq is that the US military has had a very fortuitious opportunity to kill off a bunch of lunatics. And most of them deserved to be killed off under the general theory that it is better to do it there than in shootouts in our malls. And make no mistake about it, the malls were coming and might get there yet. Our Mexican and Canadian borders are very, very porous. Were it not for the Iraq magnet, the iron filings would be right here at home with their "Convert or die," mentality, women and children included.

Another unintended consequences is that we now have a whole bunch of military types who are trained as urban specialists, a not so easy lesson to learn. IN spite of the fact that the terrorists used civilians as human shields, our military knows how to get them anyway with a minimum of collateral damage. If we had used conventional warfare, there would have been hundreds of thousands of civilian losses instead of a few thousands.

A final unintended consequences is that our military has had to focus on micro wars instead of macro for the projection of force. If we had run the Iraq war as a conventional one, we would have lost ten times as many troops, slaughtered civilians like we did in WWII and Korea, and that turned out to be something we learned how not to do.

The bottom line is that we now have the capability to bomb someone to the point where our troops can go in and dig out the nutcases and kill them on the spot if they resist.

That is a very, very strong message for the loonies of the world. Frankly, if we had a few more pragmatists in the media and our Universities instead of people with a discredited worldview, all one of our Presidents would have to do to shut down the likes of the pig in Venezuela would be rattle a few sabers and look at him with a frown.

The real problem we have in the world today is that way too many sources of oil have nutcases in charge. This means that they reject the qualified help they need to maintain their production. Without production, they get declines in revenue. This destabilizes their country, which means saber rattling and the usual drivel about big bad US. But more important, less production means a lower standard of living, especially for the lowest of the low, the poor and the poor countries.

Peabody3000 said, "when obama said he was willing to negotiate with iran, he did not personally commit to be at the table himself. he was saying he would be willing for our country to negotiate with theirs"

That's not what he said.

Paul:

Pinochet was backed by the CIA and he murdered political dissidents. Castro is a bad person for having done that, and Pinochet was too, except Pinochet was a right-wing authoritarian and Castro is (was) left-wing and so there is a lot of moral equivocation from the right wing of the punditocracy and it makes me sick.

Well, we meddled in Cuba to the point where at one point in time, much of the US thought we were on the way to making in one of the States. I am serious. A couple of things happened and we decided not to go that route. See Ed Wallace's Backside of History - google it and read the free books.

JFK bungled Cuba like he bungled Vietnam. This is a couple of examples why true, blue ideologs don't do well as Presidents. Frankly, as many left wing political decisions has resulted in human misery and death as have right wing courses of action. Pragmatic approaches always seem to steer a course to maximise results and minimise collateral damage to folks who are just trying to get on with their lives.

Of course Liberals and Conservatives always think THEIR way is the best way. Besides Ed Wallace's history lessons, try reading Thomas Sowell for world view. Yea, I know, he is a conservative. BUT, he is a highly educated and practical conservative who is more pragmatic than ideological.

peabody, you complete expletive, Obama made a slip of the tongue and has been modifying his statement ever since. See, the "One" cannot admit his mistakes. And neither can his brain washed obamanuts.

he meant that a few people, after witnessing the ravages of the bu$h administration upon the US, would hope he could fix and change anything and everything... once again proving that barack is a down to earth fella with sound judgement. meanwhile mccain is promising everyone the moon these days... shameful....

Larry - "And neither can his brain washed obamanuts."

Damn Larry, you nailed pea300o as precise as it can get.

I gave him/her/it the video complete with the "I would" quote. He/she/it spent the next few hours looking the fool claiming "nothing to see there," not to mention not once making the effort to seek out ALL the other cases since where The Messiah has denied saying it.

pea - "once again proving that barack is a down to earth fella with sound judgement."

How sound is it to lie in the face of bulletproof evidence?

peabody - oh boy, where did you get your lessons in critical thinking?

he meant that a few people, after witnessing the ravages of the bu$h administration upon the US, would hope he could fix and change anything and everything... once again proving that barack is a down to earth fella with sound judgement. meanwhile mccain is promising everyone the moon these days... shameful....

Uh, when was Audacity written? Do you know the copyright date? Do you know how long it took him to write it? Do you really think he (ego) was writing anything to do with Bush?

Glad you made those points though.

P. T. Barnum would have loved you, er, uh, just like Obama does. ROFLMAO

You ARE the perfect example of who he was talking about besides himself.

To prove the point, here is a little test I have been using for about six months to see how people think. You can take it or leave it, at your option.

Teacher says to 7th greade students:

"How do you think the Indians felt when the Europeans came over here and took their lands away from them?"

Want to try answering that one peabody? BTW, this is a real question posed by a real teacher.

"peabody - oh boy, where did you get your lessons in critical thinking?"

Um... here.

And to think he calls himself a "republican." Yet he has used every harebrained anti-Bush prattle and invective known to every BDS sufferer since Nov. 2000.

larry - you poor neocons are grasping at such wispy, trivial straws that its hard to tell what youre actually freaking out about. as the link that oyster posted says...

"We could find no public statements where Obama neatly says, "I will meet with Ahmadinejad." But we believe there are some instances where that was the substance of Obama's words."

thats pretty succinct, and the desperate attempts of right-wingnuts to turn this into some kind of controversey is pointless. in all his comments, weighed together, obama has shown a clear and sensible philosophy regarding diplomacy in touchy areas. thats what the record shows. mccain has a bu$h-like wingnut philosophy of bluster-and-bully of the same brand that has gotten the US nowhere for the last 8 yrs

placing missiles anywhere close to the Russian borders only invites a paranoid reaction from Putin or other nationalists in Russia just as the 1962 U.S. missiles in Turkey provoked the Soviets towards attempting to place missiles in Cuba only 90 miles from the U.S.

Why do you ignore the difference between offensive missiles with nuclear warheads and defensive missiles with no warhead at all? The one and only reason Putin doesn't what the U.S. to place its missile shield in eastern Europe is because they expect the technology to develop to a point that if located close to the launch points, the missile shield could threaten the effectiveness of even 6,000 ICBM's. Russia can't allow that and said so.

My point is not that we should threaten Russia's ability to achieve MAD, but that the missile defense technology is far more effective than is publicly claimed. No need for the despots of the world to worry though, Obama will pull the plug on missile defense.

hehe.. youre a silly guy larry... silly guy. im quite accustomed to asking neocons real questions, and only getting only sarcasm and fantasy-based mockery in response, so i dont take it personally

so you ask me about publish dates and native americans eh... yeah. instead of trying to trip me into making some vague point of yours for you, why dont you just (for once) make a concrete point of your own? and then... check this out... then we can discuss it intelligently! i promise to go easy on you

peanut I gave you the video link, why continue to look so dense?

Transcript. Again:

Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.

CLINTON: I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy.

marc: the anti-bu$h republican is a thriving species these days. once again you freak out over a puzzlingly small issue. why would i even bother lying about my party? you have plenty of national GOP-affiliated figures like chris buckley, jim leach, lincoln chaffee, colin powell, richard lugar etc etc etc etc to make yer little head go *POP!*.... haha

peabody *sigh* this is my last attempt to see if you have a brain. I do not say that with any animosity. I seriously think that you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed on Obama's Flavor Aid. So here it is, question and answer exactly as it happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

Listen carefully to the question. Listen carefully to Obama's answer.

Then, more importantly, listen carefully to what Hillary Clinto had to say.

In point of fact, Barack H. Obama made a spur of the moment slip of the tongue. At the time, he was playing to the far left of his party and that was his mindset. So he said in his first two words in answer to the question, "I would."

After he heard Hillary's response, I suspect he was wishing that he had thought for a moment before he answered. Either that or at the time, he was playing to the fringe element of his party so he just went with the first thought that crossed his mind that would cater to their worldview. I dunno, but what I do know is that he has hemmed and hawed and backtracked and poked at the statement enough so I really believe it was just a mistake.

And Obama is not real good at admiting mistakes.

marc: yes obama has said the US will meet with iranian leaders. so what exactly are you quibbling about now? youre like an angry girlfriend who tries to turn everything you say backwards and use it against you... LOL

I'd like your country's leadership to admit that it did a very poor job carrying out an occupation, and to apologize to the Iraqi people. That would be nice.

Sure, right after the Iraqi people thank the U.S. for their freedom and admit that their own hatred of each other caused the vast majority of death and destruction during the liberation and nation building.

Also, if I were an American taxpayer, I'd want to know where the billions of unaccounted dollars have gone--which gangsters' and terrorists' pockets have been lined with my money.

Well a lot of it was paid to the Iraqi people. In many cases butter works better than bullets. Last think we need is some bean counter causing strife and getting our troops killed.

Parthenon (@#28) saved me the trouble of replying to the moral implication you tried to raise. There are worse people alive today than Saddam Hussein. North Korea is a worse place to live than Iraq pre-invasion, and (until L'il Kim dies) it's a far graver threat to world peace and stability.

Parthenon's points were debunked in post #31. The moral implications I raised are alive and well.

Yea peabrain, I was trying to trick you into actually thinking for a change instead of throwing out strawmen and regurgitating talking points. Since I failed to get you to think, I give up. Frankly, you are not worth the effort.

Oh, and the Indian test was intended to show if you could think critically. Guess that is why you avoided it. *smirk*

I will now return to debating with Paul, Steve and others who have a working brain.

pea - "marc: yes obama has said the US will meet with iranian leaders. so what exactly are you quibbling about now?"

The "quibble mask" is plainly on your face. YOU are the one who refuses to admit he meant the Iranian president, just as your master obama has done.

And BTW, in additon to the ayers lie his spokesman uttered concerning the ayers book, note the obama lie in the last line of the quote I just gave you: "And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them,m" meaning Iran.

That's flatout horsesh*t.

Bush along with several EU members have been in constant negotiation with lower level Iranians for the last few years on the nuclear issue in addition to meeting with them for the last decade.

So which is it pea, is obama just ignorant of history.. or a two-faced political liar?

larry - if obama answers an ill-formed question without properly correcting its premise, he doesnt need to publicly acknowlege that he said something he never intended. its silly to expect someone to admit that they 'said' they beat their wife just because they attempt to answer a 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind of question

pea... what's "ill-formed about the question? For ref it follows:

Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

marc: your side's political debate has descended into pure word games. it really does say more about the mccain campaign than about obama

obama will make sure the US meets with iranian decision-makers, not diplomatic lackeys as has been happening. when you want to discuss business with your competition, you dont have meetings with their receptionist

marc: im not referring to that question. larry was, by the looks of it, pointing out that a reporter had asked if obama was still willing to see the US meet with n korea, ahmadinejad etc and he said his position had not changed, he'll meet them, which allows one to infer that obmama said he wants to meet directly with ahmadinejad even though he had never explicitly said that before

you all have some kind of vague quibbles on this but wont be specific about them. make some concretes point about it and youll get a more satisfying counter-point from me even if youll 100% disagree

pea - "obama will make sure the US meets with iranian decision-makers, not diplomatic lackeys as has been happening."

Well now, I certainly hope Mr Hope and Change has a bit more sense than you in calling Iranian diplomats "diplomatic lackeys." Not to mention while under "the auspices of the United Nations" as my link suggests HAS been happening for 10 years.

And... you didn't answer the question posed, is obama a liar or a piss-poor student of history when he claims "that we have not spoken to" Iran.

pea - "marc: im not referring to that question. larry was, by the looks of it, pointing out that a reporter had asked if obama was still willing to see the US meet with n korea, ahmadinejad etc and he said his position had not changed"

Jesus H. Christ on a unicycle you really ARE that stupid! (APOD - "a perfect obama dupe")

Did you even view the vid Larry linked to? And if so how do you conclude that was a reporter asking the question?

CLUE: That question was asked by a U.S. voter via video link NOT a reporter you raving lunatic.

i think obamas statement is valid if we refuse to have high-level negotiations with iran without pre-conditions. we need to talk to decision-makers, and low-level diplomats are not decision-makers

reagan personally met with the soviet leadership at the height of the cold war. this isnt a revolutionary idea

marc: instead of having your umpteenth freakout today, just make a specific point that can be discussed. BTW - i cant watch youtube from my web phone and none of you guys seem willing to lay out a single solitary point.. youre all just saying "what about what obama said?" over and over again... be specific instead of jacking each other off in neocon frenzy... LOL

sorry pea. its been "fun" but gotta run.

I have a 10 gauge shotgun to hug, a fake religious idol to kiss and about a hundred "I hate the Messiah" bumper stickers to put on my 5-mpg gas guzzler!

"i cant watch youtube from my web phone and none of you guys seem willing to lay out a single solitary point.. "

That does it... I gave you the printed text and explained who asked the question.

And you come back with that sorry excuse for avoiding the patently obvious.

Two words fer ya: fu*k off.

marc: the shotgun sounds fun.. but yeah that jesus nonsense is for the birds

and yeah you quoted a question:
Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

well? whats the beef you have? i guess youll never say without couching it in doublespeak.. the national neocon pastime. lipsticked piggies anyone?

=)

The problem with Obama's statements in regard to meeting with dictators like Ahmadinejad is that he always uses *I*. "*I* will meet with the leaders. The words are always *I* and *me*. Which is either simply his megalomania speaking and he means *I*, as *we*, as in an American contingent of diplomats meeting with other diplomats of another countries - or he really means *I* as in *me*. I really think that he thinks *he* is the only One that can solve these issues with his super-duper diplo-speak.

That's why *we* need to beware that if he makes an unpopular decision, *we* should remain supportive. So if he does indeed decide he needs to talk to some dictator himself, *we* need to know when to butt out and remain loyal. Now if someone else makes an unpopular decision (one that Obama doesn't agree with in particular) *we* need to argue with people and "get in their faces".

See? It's all so easy.

marc

The webphone was the give away. Don't bother. He is just trying to stir up stuff to get attention; something that will make him feel better about himself while he waits for his next check in the mail. Someone being deliberately obtuse is probably better than the dolts who think Palin is VP nominee with Obama, but not by much.

oyster: i already directly addressed the "I" word and my thoughts on its true meaning... and marc seems to be on a totally separate tangent anyway.. and larry on another as far as i can tell (and as far as they will divulge)

larry: i spent a few hours today only connected on a pocket pc phone. you guys are too much fun to leave be when im away from my desk!

peabody3000

lamedusa - you and the whole nuke'em crowd represent the exact same thing you are afraid of from iran

Sorry I didn't reply to your rhetorical nonsense sooner, but what makes you think I want to nuke anybody? Refresh my memory: What am I afraid of?

Also, peabody3000, when you reply with the word "afraid", you are projecting your own fear. Maybe you want to explain that, too.

lamedusa:

when you replied to me, i was saying that diplomacy should come before force, and you seem to be in opposition to that, unless you werent really making a real point, which seems to be common on this board

most of the republican platform (as presented to the populace at least) is fear-based, i.e. lets invade iraq before we are hit with non-existant WMDs, chemical weapons drone planes, terrorist connections, mobile weapons labs, and oh yes the "mushroom cloud" that were all bu$h admin inventions

those fear-based politics have dominated the US government policies for too long

One has to feel sorry for the majority of the Iranian people. It mustn't be fun to live with the threat of retaliatory or preemptive air strikes hanging over one's head on a daily basis.

Why feel sorry? The US lived with the threat from the USSR for well over 40 years.

"when you replied to me, i was saying that diplomacy should come before force, and you seem to be in opposition to that,"

More rhetorical nonsense, but we'll have to make do for now. I have never been against negotiation where it is warranted. Let me try this again: Iran will not ever change their mind about destroying Israel. Iran is intent on wiping them off the map, and they have friends that are more than willing to help. Fear has nothing to do with something that has always been a fact.

"most of the republican platform (as presented to the populace at least) is fear-based,"

Where does it say that?

"i.e. lets invade iraq before we are hit with non-existant WMDs,"

Even Obama wanted to bomb Iran, the WMD's did exist.

"chemical weapons drone planes, terrorist connections, mobile weapons labs, and oh yes the "mushroom cloud" that were all bu$h admin inventions"

Jesus, what a bunch of blather, along with the trademark dollar sign. Yeah, let's talk about drones...You really have no idea what you are talking about. And I was right. Your fear is upsetting your Blue State buddies. If you start to see Obama as the closet muslim crook that he is, your bluies will notice and not let you play any of their reindeer games.

lamedusa, that was about as substance-free as ive ever seen, which is saying a LOT on this board. when you said "lets talk about drones" i thought, wow, a neocon is going to try and actually discuss something? ..and then you didnt. you say the WMDs did exist, even though hans blix himself says it was a fantasy. you say obama wanted to bomb iran, another unsupported patent falsehood

you arent talking to some neocon numbskull, numbskull. if you want to bother responding to me, at least make a real point SOMEWHERE, instead of just saying "nuh-uh, nuh-uh" and making your totally unsupported claims without even a hint of backup

How do you think the Indians felt when the Europeans came over here and took their lands away from them?

Probably felt the same way when those same Indians were taking over the lands of OTHER Indians.

marc: im not referring to that question. larry was, by the looks of it, pointing out that a reporter had asked if obama was still willing to see the US meet with n korea, ahmadinejad etc and he said his position had not changed, he'll meet them, which allows one to infer that obmama said he wants to meet directly with ahmadinejad even though he had never explicitly said that before

My only question is, will we be finding out the questioner's tax liens and previous addresses? Does the questioner have a journalist licence?

CLUE: That question was asked by a U.S. voter via video link NOT a reporter you raving lunatic.

Oh, then in THAT case, by all means this voter needs his full credit history reported AT ONCE!

You mustn't question the Messiah.

The Messiah is good.

The Messiah sees all.

The Messiah is Watching.

lamedusa, that was about as substance-free as ive ever seen, which is saying a LOT on this board.

I'm a libertarian, stupid. And you have no clue and no understanding. You are also ignorant and a liar. You can't even respond to what I said except for WMD's. Hans Blix, for chrissakes?!:

Saddam's WMD
have been found

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

Yes, you are ignorant and a liar.

And peabody3000, you are also a waste of bandwidth. Hopefully, you just burn out or fade away.

ahaha. i wont call you a liar, but youre just as gullible and delusional as the neocons you pretend to be different from. quoting timmerman is like quoting lush rumball. if you believe that kay, blix, and everyone else can dismiss the WMD fantasy and that this one activist author can blow the lid off while the whole world ignores him, well you just won the prize for dumbest post of the day. congratulations, dipstick. mommy is sooo very proud o' ya!

try, impeach, convict, and imprison the treasonous war criminal george w bu$h!

peabody3000, i will still call you a liar, as afraid of status quo as the republican you pretended to be. You're just a scared and lazy RINO who refuses to research anything, and would rather listen to his clueless bluies so he can be in that pseudo cool club. Good luck with that. Ahaha, yourself, I'm done with your idiocy.

oh you poor dupe... just get ready for president obama

2 weeks!

LaMedusa

YOU have been reading *grin*

Good for you!

James:

Well, I am not sure you said what you meant, but you got the idea and that counts.