Iran

[justplugit]

In his news conference today, Gibbs said Iran needs to stop their nuclear program
in order to join the world in a "meaningful relationship."

Wow, that should change their minds.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

In his news conference today, Gibbs said Iran needs to stop their nuclear program
in order to join the world in a "meaningful relationship."

Wow, that should change their minds.

I believe they also stated that severe economic sanctions were next... This will not get a free pass...

[spence]

I think Obama is playing this one pretty well...

He reached out to the people and in doing so exposed how weak the central authority really is.

Iran probably felt they were going to get exposed, but they screwed up. Instead of jumping too soon, Obama let Iran make a big mistake by stating they did have a facility in violation of the UN and exposing their lie. Probably a little luck was involved in the timing right around the UN meeting.

If he can negotiate some support from Russia, they may actually get stiffer measures passed, but China will be a major roadblock.

People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship. Isolation has just made things worse.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I think Obama is playing this one pretty well...

He reached out to the people and in doing so exposed how weak the central authority really is.

Iran probably felt they were going to get exposed, but they screwed up. Instead of jumping too soon, Obama let Iran make a big mistake by stating they did have a facility in violation of the UN and exposing their lie. Probably a little luck was involved in the timing right around the UN meeting.

If he can negotiate some support from Russia, they may actually get stiffer measures passed, but China will be a major roadblock.

People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship. Isolation has just made things worse.

-spence

you are too funny. Obama stood on the sidelines while Iranians were being killed after the elections and in normal Obama fashion, his response was too little, too late. And you say he "reached out to the people", you think the average Iranian gives too $hits about Obama? The iron hand rules there and thats not changing anytime soon. As far as UN Sanctions.....OOOOOOHHHH Scary....... how'd those pan out for Iraq? I guess if they dont we can just pass another, and another and another and another and another......

[scottw]

Iran will nuke Israel and Spence will say..."Obama did everything perfectly and brilliantly.....it was Bush's fault that all of those Israelies are dead"...what a dope....


"People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship."
-spence

I think Neville Chaimberlain said the same thing about Hitler...


today...
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran tested its most advanced missiles Monday to cap two days of war games, raising more international concern and stronger pressure to quickly come clean on the newly revealed nuclear site Tehran was secretly constructing.
State television said the powerful Revolutionary Guard, which controls Iran's missile program, successfully tested upgraded versions of the medium-range Shahab-3 and Sajjil missiles. Both can carry warheads and reach up to 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers), putting Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe within striking distance.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you are too funny. Obama stood on the sidelines while Iranians were being killed after the elections and in normal Obama fashion, his response was too little, too late. And you say he "reached out to the people", you think the average Iranian gives too $hits about Obama? The iron hand rules there and thats not changing anytime soon. As far as UN Sanctions.....OOOOOOHHHH Scary....... how'd those pan out for Iraq? I guess if they dont we can just pass another, and another and another and another and another......

What was Obama to do, invade?

UN sanctions were quite effective in stopping Saddam's production of WMD's.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship. Isolation has just made things worse.

-spence

Do you really believe that there can be productive dialogue with Ahmadinejad? This is the same guy that believes that the Holocaust never happened and wants to blow Israel off the map. He also claimed that the global economic crisis was a good thing because it collapsed liberalism.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Do you really believe that there can be productive dialogue with Ahmadinejad? This is the same guy that believes that the Holocaust never happened and wants to blow Israel off the map. He also claimed that the global economic crisis was a good thing because it collapsed liberalism.

But the President is only a bit player, it's the Ayatollah and military who have the real authority. What we saw this summer was that the circle of clerics is not as tight as we once believed.

I don't buy the idea that Iran is going to nuke Israel.

Iran has interests, everybody has a price...

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

But the President is only a bit player, it's the Ayatollah and military who have the real authority. What we saw this summer was that the circle of clerics is not as tight as we once believed.

I don't buy the idea that Iran is going to nuke Israel.

Iran has interests, everybody has a price...

-spence

Exactly, Spence. Ahmadinejad really isn't supposed to have authority over the nuclear weapons program in Iran, yet he's the one making the most noise about it. He's kind of like another President who likes to be involved in everything.

Just because he won't nuke Isreal, doesn't mean that he's someone who other world leaders should trust. Time and time again, he's made comments that point to him as being a loose cannon.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't buy the idea that Iran is going to nuke Israel.

-spence

easy for you to say, your children don't live in Israel...

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Exactly, Spence. Ahmadinejad really isn't supposed to have authority over the nuclear weapons program in Iran, yet he's the one making the most noise about it. He's kind of like another President who likes to be involved in everything.

Yes, that's exactly it. He makes "noise"...

This isn't rocket science. The more the rest of the world think's he is a whack job the more power he has. He has no legal authority to order any Iranian forces to move.

You do know the game of poker was invented by Persians don't you?

Just because he won't nuke Isreal, doesn't mean that he's someone who other world leaders should trust. Time and time again, he's made comments that point to him as being a loose cannon.

Trust? Hell no...he's extremely manipulative.

But it's not like Obama is going to sit down for a little chat. Any negotiation would be between his people and our people. If there is any concession we need to have clear and easily verifiable benchmarks. We need to have the G5 on our side before we sit at the table.

There is another way you know. We could call Iran a bunch of names, insult the rest of the World, cry foul when they didn't show us their cards and refuse to speak with them until they agreed to give up their position before we met.

If it comes to it, we need to bring some pain.

Yes, the Bush strategy...look where it got us in 8 years. The irony is that before the "Axis of Evil" speech, Iran was helping us after 9/11. We even had a mutual interest!

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

I think Obama is playing this one pretty well...

He reached out to the people and in doing so exposed how weak the central authority really is.

Iran probably felt they were going to get exposed, but they screwed up. Instead of jumping too soon, Obama let Iran make a big mistake by stating they did have a facility in violation of the UN and exposing their lie. Probably a little luck was involved in the timing right around the UN meeting.

If he can negotiate some support from Russia, they may actually get stiffer measures passed, but China will be a major roadblock.

People can laugh all they want about the prospects of a dialogue, but ultimately we do need a closer relationship. Isolation has just made things worse.

-spence

RIJIMMY
Very well said.

Be exposed! The Jewish intellegent service probably already knew

Stalin and Hitler had dialogue and a close relationship too, that is until Hitler attacked.

The UN has starved the North Koreans and and strict sanctions for years and plenty of dialogue, dialogue, dialogue and they still got materials for rockets. What makes Iran any different?

It's time to unleash the Jewish Air Force

[buckman]

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.

Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.

While I don't have an opinion on the Iran situation because, quite frankly, I don't care.

But based on your above comments, what exactly should be done about Iran then? Should we extend the military and embark on fighting wars on three separate fronts, all against Islamic countries?

Eventually, the world will have no choice but to believe the US hates Islam - and then you'll see how much "unsafer than a year ago" we will be.

[Fly Rod]

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins.

From a utube video that I don't know how to link:
A birth rate of 2.11 children per family is required to sustain a culture. A 1.9 ratio has never been reversed. A 1.3 ratio is "impossible" to reverse as it would take 80-100 years.
Fertility rates:
France 1.8
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1
European Union 1.38

England's Muslim population has increased 30 fold in a short time from 82,000 to 2.5 million. In the Netherlands, 50% of newborns are Muslim. In 15 years ½ of the Dutch will be Muslim. Since 1990, 90% of immigration to Europe is Islamic. France with a birth rate of 1.8 for native French, has a Muslim birth rate of 8.1. South France which had been a stronghold for Christian churches, now has more mosques than churches. 30% of that regions 20 year olds or younger are Islamic. In Nice, Marseille, Paris, that age group is 40% Muslim. By 2027 1/5 of Frenchmen will be Islamic. There are 23 million Muslims in Russia and 1 out of 5 Russians are Islamic. 40% of the Russian Army will soon be Islamic. 25% of the Belgian population is Islamic and 50% of newborns there are Islamic. Belgian gov. says that 1/3 of Europe's children will be Muslim by 2025. The German gov. says the fall in birth rate cannot be stopped and Germany will be a Muslim state by 2050. Gaddafi says Europe will be a Muslim continent in a few dacades without guns, swords, or conquest. There are over 52 million Muslims now in Europe and that number will double in 20 years.

Canada has a birth rate of 1.6. Islam is its fastest growing religion. Its population increased by 1.6 million between 2001-06, 1.2 million of that was by immigration. The U.S. birth rate is 1.6 which is boosted to 2.11 (the bare minimum) by the Latino influx. In 1970 we had 100,000 Muslims. Today there are over 9 million. Several Islamic organizations met in Chicago to plan how to evangelize America. In 5-7 years, Islam will be the dominant religion in the world.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

From a utube video that I don't know how to link:
A birth rate of 2.11 children per family is required to sustain a culture. A 1.9 ratio has never been reversed. A 1.3 ratio is "impossible" to reverse as it would take 80-100 years.
Fertility rates:
France 1.8
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1
European Union 1.38

England's Muslim population has increased 30 fold in a short time from 82,000 to 2.5 million. In the Netherlands, 50% of newborns are Muslim. In 15 years ½ of the Dutch will be Muslim. Since 1990, 90% of immigration to Europe is Islamic. France with a birth rate of 1.8 for native French, has a Muslim birth rate of 8.1. South France which had been a stronghold for Christian churches, now has more mosques than churches. 30% of that regions 20 year olds or younger are Islamic. In Nice, Marseille, Paris, that age group is 40% Muslim. By 2027 1/5 of Frenchmen will be Islamic. There are 23 million Muslims in Russia and 1 out of 5 Russians are Islamic. 40% of the Russian Army will soon be Islamic. 25% of the Belgian population is Islamic and 50% of newborns there are Islamic. Belgian gov. says that 1/3 of Europe's children will be Muslim by 2025. The German gov. says the fall in birth rate cannot be stopped and Germany will be a Muslim state by 2050. Gaddafi says Europe will be a Muslim continent in a few dacades without guns, swords, or conquest. There are over 52 million Muslims now in Europe and that number will double in 20 years.

Canada has a birth rate of 1.6. Islam is its fastest growing religion. Its population increased by 1.6 million between 2001-06, 1.2 million of that was by immigration. The U.S. birth rate is 1.6 which is boosted to 2.11 (the bare minimum) by the Latino influx. In 1970 we had 100,000 Muslims. Today there are over 9 million. Several Islamic organizations met in Chicago to plan how to evangelize America. In 5-7 years, Islam will be the dominant religion in the world.

This all echos the "Every child in America should learn Spanish because Spanish with become the dominant language in America with in 5-10 years" saying that was prominent in the late-90s.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

-spence

Now I know why your a nut
Let's see. Obama puts Iran on" notice", and the next day they fire off two rockets.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Now I know why your a nut
Let's see. Obama puts Iran on" notice", and the next day they fire off two rockets.

I'm curious, did you skip high school?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins.

Posts like this lead me to believe you fear Islam because you don't understand it.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Posts like this lead me to believe you fear Islam because you don't understand it.

-spence

I can't believe I have to actually agree with Spence. Islam isn't the problem in Iran or anywhere else. The problem is with extremists, of which every religion has some.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

What was Obama to do, invade?



-spence

What could he have done? How about one of those teleprompter passionate speeches THE VERY DAY of the reports of civilians being killed? How about calling for an IMMMEDIATE meeting of the UN Security Council? How about LEADING !!!!!!!

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I can't believe I have to actually agree with Spence. Islam isn't the problem in Iran or anywhere else. The problem is with extremists, of which every religion has some.

i dont agree 100%. Islam is not the problem, but enough of Islam, as an entity, is not speaking up enough about the extremists nor taking any action. Its pretty telling when you see the polls on who caused 9/11 and a large majority of muslims beleive it was the jews. They need to get over the palestinian thing. Muslims countries do NOTHING to help the palestinians other than condemn the jews. Spread the wealth.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This all echos the "Every child in America should learn Spanish because Spanish with become the dominant language in America with in 5-10 years" saying that was prominent in the late-90s.

No, it "echos" evidence for demographic predictions. Some predictions actually occur. Some don't. The statitistics on fertility rates for various countries is not new. Nor are those on the rapidly growing Muslim populations, way out of proportion to their starting points. The predictions are based on demographic data. As far as I know, no one has disputed them. Whether they mean anything to you or not is up to you

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

How about calling for an IMMMEDIATE meeting of the UN Security Council? How about LEADING !!!!!!!

To what end? Invasion?

They certainly didn't want to look like we were meddling in their affairs, which is a stigma the US has among the Iranian people.

Also, given the situation had we taken a harder line it would have most likely just empowered the Iranian hardliners. By showing their true colors they revealed their weakness. The clerics are not all on the same page.

A knee-jerk reaction might have impressed the neocons, but the goal is to win the long-term struggle.

It's looking like the Administration has worked to find some common ground among the G5 which is necessary to apply any real pressure.

The Iranian issue will be solved via incremental success, of which the past 8 years have seen none.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

To what end? Invasion?

They certainly didn't want to look like we were meddling in their affairs, which is a stigma the US has among the Iranian people.

Also, given the situation had we taken a harder line it would have most likely just empowered the Iranian hardliners. By showing their true colors they revealed their weakness. The clerics are not all on the same page.

A knee-jerk reaction might have impressed the neocons, but the goal is to win the long-term struggle.

It's looking like the Administration has worked to find some common ground among the G5 which is necessary to apply any real pressure.

The Iranian issue will be solved via incremental success, of which the past 8 years have seen none.

-spence

huh? Do you actually think before you post or is this an automated reply which pulls together a bunch of pro-obama talking points? You think the PEOPLE of Iran didnt want the support of the American President because it would be seen as meddling during the election aftermath, yet you think the PEOPLE of Iran are behind Obama because he is meddling in their nuclear effort? You come up with some wacky rationalization for everything. Common sense needs to prevail at some point.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

You think the PEOPLE of Iran didnt want the support of the American President because it would be seen as meddling during the election aftermath, yet you think the PEOPLE of Iran are behind Obama because he is meddling in their nuclear effort? You come up with some wacky rationalization for everything. Common sense needs to prevail at some point.

These are different issues.

The election issue is one where Obama didn't want to de-legitimize the opposition by giving the hardliners an out to write it off as US led subversion of Iranian sovereignty. Considering we have a history of meddling in Iranian politics, this is a serious concern.

The nuclear issue is a national security concern where the Iranian government appears to be in violation of International Law. From what we saw of the last election, the people clearly don't think the current government is serving their interests.

I'm not sure how you think this is a wacky rationalization. I'm watching how the Administration appears to be feeling the situation out, and so far it looks like they might have a workable strategy in play.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

-spence

Zakaria says "the speech was well received all over the world, except one place--Americas's right-wing netherworld . . ." So only the U.S. "right-wing netherworld" had objections? Really?

He says "This is the discourse of American conservatism today: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler." Hardly--this minute and partisan distillation of American conservative discourse is silly--like JohnnyD's oft rants against conservatives.

He says that "there is a serious case to be made that it's not worth taking the United Nations seriously, that it's an anachronistic institution based on 60-year-old geopolitics and a platform for tyrants and weirdos. But while much of that is true, the United Nations is the only organization in the world to which all countries belong, and as such, it does have considerable legitimacy." He tries to sound objective by slanting both ways, but then abandons the "serious case" against the UN and abandons objectivity by fully getting on board with its "considerable ligitmacy."

He goes on about Obama's "calculated strategy"--"a central task of diplomacy is to explore those areas of agreement, build on them, and thus create a more stable world. That's why we have treaties on everthing from trade to taxation." He says that "there is a phony realism brandished on the right these days that says no one will ever cooperate with America." Further on "for decades, it's been thought deadly for an American Politician to be seen as seeking international cooperation. Denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries was a cheap and easy way to seem strong." And then "Obama is gambling that America is now mature enough to understand that machismo is not foreign policy . . ."

He is full of smart sounding phrases and generalizations that not only contradict each other but contradict history. America has been in the diplomacy game for well over 200 years. How did all those treaties that he glosses come about? No one even on "the right these days" said or says that "no one will ever cooperate with America" Certainly not Bush. Didn't he reach out to Putin? I don't recall him "denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries." Rather, it was he who received the insults. We have cooperated and are cooperating with more countries than most if not more than any other country. Hell, we helped create the UN. We host it, have been influential and involved with it as anybody, we sponsor it, help pay for it, donate soldiers, go to summits, have behind the scenes tete-a-tetes, create coalitions, all these even under right wingers. And, yes, many do believe that the UN has lost or never achieved its intention to solve world problems (much as the league of nations didn't), but nobody has abandoned it. Obama can go ahead and gamble on the old tried and tried and tried diplomacy gig. It may work. Zakaria sure does "hope" it will. But he could have said that without his twisted insulting verbiage.

[scottw]

Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post, has finally noticed that Barack Obama is not leading as chief executive but is still stuck in campaign mode - as if he is still running for the office:


The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health-care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health-care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town . . . " -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.