Day by Day (5-17)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/05/17/>
Yet this one seems almost too perfect . . .:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs>
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Dann
news:jim1349ru4gl5a3ns...@4ax.com.
> So many ways to respond to this . . .:
>
> <http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/05/17/>
>
> Yet this one seems almost too perfect . . .:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs>
>
I'm on dial up....very....very....slow....dial up. Any chance for a
summary or a transcript on the second link?
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Detox
> In article <Xns9AA34E95A95F3detox665hotmail...@64.209.0.81>,
>
> Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18 May 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
> >news:jim1349ru4gl5a3ns...@4ax.com.
>
> > > So many ways to respond to this . . .:
>
> > > <http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/05/17/>
>
> > > Yet this one seems almost too perfect . . .:
>
> > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs>
>
> > I'm on dial up....very....very....slow....dial up. Any chance for a
> > summary or a transcript on the second link?
>
>
> Has the video embedded, but also has a summary and commentary.
>
> In short: Kevin James didn't know what Neville Chamberlain did in 1938,
> and tried to bluff his way through the host asking him directly what
> he did via saying "appeasement" over and over again.
>
> Money quote: the left-wing talking head saying, "Kevin, when you're in a
> hole, stop digging."
Thanks for the synopsis. I'd actually seen that one previously.
There are side benefits to working late!!
I'm always a little amazed at the criteria used by some to determine
who is and who is not allowed to speak about the war. Apparently one
now needs to have a more than modest knowledge regarding incusions
into Austria and the Sudetenland at the ready before one is qualified
to speak on the subject of 'appeasement'.
Perhaps 'Quisling' is next on the list requiring special
qualifications.
--
Regards,
Dann
racs...@gmail.com
>
> I'm always a little amazed at the criteria used by some to determine
> who is and who is not allowed to speak about the war. Apparently one
> now needs to have a more than modest knowledge regarding incusions
> into Austria and the Sudetenland at the ready before one is qualified
> to speak on the subject of 'appeasement'.
I don't think the criteria are that esoteric. If you're going to
comment on what Bush said about how appeasement led to the Holocaust,
you ought to find out how the hell appeasement led to the Holocaust.
"Neville Chamberlain" has become a nice shorthand phrase, but those
who throw phrases around in public ought to know what they mean, even
if they don't intend to use them in a strictly accurate context. This
guy is paid to say things. He ought to earn his money by knowing that
he's saying.
> Perhaps 'Quisling' is next on the list requiring special
> qualifications.
Oh, I think you can discuss the current Iraqi government without
knowing the details of this particular gentleman's career.
On the other hand, Ahmad Chalabi isn't a quisling. I'm not sure what
historic figure to compare him to. Aaron Burr had far too long a
record of service to be a parallel to this opportunistic bloodsucker.
Apparently he's back on the no-fly list now, which is pretty funny
considering Bush/Cheney and gang were gonna let him be the pilot.
Rather than figure out who he's like, I'd like to find a historic
model for the double-talking empty suit who plonks him down in the
gallery behind the First Lady for the State of the Union Address for
the classic January photo op and then, a few weeks later, claims he
doesn't know him. Maybe the parallel is Billy Martin and George
Steinbrenner, except that Martin could win games.
Yeah, this administration would be pretty amusing if it weren't for
the sounds of people dying that sometimes threatens to drown out the
laugh track.
Meanwhile, if you're going to accuse someone of appeasement, yes, I
think you ought to know what the hell it means. It doesn't mean
talking to people you disagree with. It means making actual,
unconscionable concessions. Like a situation where a highly placed
official in a nation sells freaking nuclear secrets to Iran and North
Korea and we pretend we didn't notice.
This isn't an intellectual exercise. People are dying, and more are
going to die. Dumb bastards like this talk show host are helping kill
people simply through their ignorant support of things they haven't
bothered to look into.
I'd rather deal with out-and-out liars like the Swift Boat people than
this kind of ignorant jackass -- talk about a "useful idiot"!!!
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
Well, I guess that *is* one way to describe Oliver North.
Especially, by those who subscribe to the whole "Iranian weapons are
killing US troops in Iraq" bit . . . I mean, those could literally be
weapons Ollie sold 'em himself!
Dann
news:5bc1ba95-7e5a-4975...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> On May 19, 5:30 pm, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm always a little amazed at the criteria used by some to determine
>> who is and who is not allowed to speak about the war. Apparently one
>> now needs to have a more than modest knowledge regarding incusions
>> into Austria and the Sudetenland at the ready before one is qualified
>> to speak on the subject of 'appeasement'.
>
> I don't think the criteria are that esoteric. If you're going to
> comment on what Bush said about how appeasement led to the Holocaust,
> you ought to find out how the hell appeasement led to the Holocaust.
> "Neville Chamberlain" has become a nice shorthand phrase, but those
> who throw phrases around in public ought to know what they mean, even
> if they don't intend to use them in a strictly accurate context. This
> guy is paid to say things. He ought to earn his money by knowing that
> he's saying.
Well sure.
> Meanwhile, if you're going to accuse someone of appeasement, yes, I
> think you ought to know what the hell it means. It doesn't mean
> talking to people you disagree with. It means making actual,
> unconscionable concessions. Like a situation where a highly placed
> official in a nation sells freaking nuclear secrets to Iran and North
> Korea and we pretend we didn't notice.
I agree. Unfortunately, the issue isn't talking with people we disagree
with. It is the question of whether or not to hand over the keys to the
candy store and walk away.
And even Mr. Kennedy had the sense to know that there is no purpose is
meeting to "talk" at the highest levels if preliminary contacts haven't
already paved the way for meaningful progress.
racs...@gmail.com
> And even Mr. Kennedy had the sense to know that there is no purpose is
> meeting to "talk" at the highest levels if preliminary contacts haven't
> already paved the way for meaningful progress.
>
You do understand, though, that, even if Kennedy hadn't been killed in
1963, he still wouldn't have gone to the moon, even though he said
"we" would go to the moon.
Similarly, saying you will meet with such-and-such a leader doesn't
mean you're just going to get on a plane, fly there and call them from
the airport to let'em know you're in town. A certain amount of advance
work and preparation is understood.
Mind you, there's a fair amount of purposeful misunderstanding going
on.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:82bf7b0e-003f-435a...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com.
By some, perhaps.
The bottom line, IMO, is that talking only makes sense when concessions
are going to be made by both sides and if the concessions that we make
aren't going to harm our national interests or others in the region. At
the very least, the other side has got to give up something.....
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/05/15/
I've yet to see a list of concessions that Mr. Obama plans on wringing
out of Mr. Ahmadinejad.
racs...@gmail.com
> On 24 May 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following innews:82bf7b0e-003f-435a...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com.
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 8:53 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And even Mr. Kennedy had the sense to know that there is no purpose
> >> is meeting to "talk" at the highest levels if preliminary contacts
> >> haven't already paved the way for meaningful progress.
>
> > You do understand, though, that, even if Kennedy hadn't been killed in
> > 1963, he still wouldn't have gone to the moon, even though he said
> > "we" would go to the moon.
>
> > Similarly, saying you will meet with such-and-such a leader doesn't
> > mean you're just going to get on a plane, fly there and call them from
> > the airport to let'em know you're in town. A certain amount of advance
> > work and preparation is understood.
>
> > Mind you, there's a fair amount of purposeful misunderstanding going
> > on.
>
> By some, perhaps.
>
> The bottom line, IMO, is that talking only makes sense when concessions
> are going to be made by both sides and if the concessions that we make
> aren't going to harm our national interests or others in the region. At
> the very least, the other side has got to give up something.....
>
> http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/05/15/
Yes, very amusing. Irrelevant and willfully ignorant, but amusing.
> I've yet to see a list of concessions that Mr. Obama plans on wringing
> out of Mr. Ahmadinejad.
You don't go into talks with a checklist of things you must come away
with, but you don't go in blind, either. If you have no expectations,
and you have not to some extent telegraphed your expectations and had
some indication that there's a chance of coming home with something to
show.
Before going to Tehran, the first step is to set a baseline -- given
the distortions and distractions that have come out in the last two or
three years, it's necessary to find out what the hell is going on over
there before you barge in and start telling them what you'd like
changed. For instance, they don't seem to have a nuclear weapons
program going on after all. Whoops! And Ahmadinejad isn't actually the
guy in charge. Whoops!
Of course, you could simply fly out of Andrews, go hang out somewhere
for a few days, come back and announce that you've forced Ahmadinejad
to hand over power to the Supreme Council and halt the weapons
program. Then you say, "And I'm going back next week to do more!"
At that point, you could talk about free and fair elections, in which
the Supreme Council isn't disqualifying reformers from running. You
could, of course, talk about aid to various overseas militant groups.
The question would be, what are you willing to put on the table? In
the former case, it might be some kind of aid package, probably more
in a technical than a financial side.
In the latter, it might be an offer to alleviate some issues their
little buddies are concerned about -- for instance, you could quietly
get Israel to step up the moves to withdraw their settlements from the
West Bank. But that's not the sort of thing you come home and wave as
a trophy. For one thing, if you did get the Israelis to quit talking
about the settlements and actually do something about them, you've got
to let it look it was their idea and not yours. And whatever Iran
stops doing in that arena is something they aren't too public about
doing anyway, so you can't make a big deal about them stopping.
The problem with Iran right now is that the rise of Ahmadinejad has
been part of a move since the elections that put him in power that has
stifled a very substantial and popular reform movement in Iran. The
reformers and their followers are still there, but they're out of
power in the legislature, and, more important, Bush has gone
swaggering into the middle of things and it's like interfering in a
domestic dispute -- they were quarrelling with each other until Mr.
Busybody showed up and now they're pissed at him. Smooth move, Ex-Lax.
You managed to make Ahmadinejad much more popular than he was, and
you've handed more power to the hardliners.
Example: When some British marines were grabbed in the Shatt-al-Arab a
few years ago, they were released fairly quickly. The trick is, they
were seized by a sort of border patrol run by the Revolutionary Guard,
and freed because the actual security was under the military, which at
the time was not controlled by the hardliners. When the same thing
happened more recently, it was a much more dicey situation, because
now the Iranian forces are more unified under the hardliners. Instead
of quietly waiting for the Iranians to work it out, there was a
greater need for pressure -- and the more you use pressure, the more
you unite them.
Given all that, it's not as simple as walking in with a set list of
specific things you expect to accomplish and then coming out and
waving it in the air like a trophy. After eight years of really simple-
minded thinking in the White House, we're going to have to go back to
a more nuanced approach to foreign affairs, and the question is, will
a nation that is used to watching models open briefcases and people
get tossed off islands be able to rationally understand that real life
isn't like a reality show?
We'll see, I guess.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
> On May 24, 9:54 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24 May 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following
>> innews:82bf7
> b0e-003f-435a-9...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 24, 8:53 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And even Mr. Kennedy had the sense to know that there is no
>> >> purpose is meeting to "talk" at the highest levels if preliminary
>> >> contacts haven't already paved the way for meaningful progress.
>>
>> > You do understand, though, that, even if Kennedy hadn't been killed
>> > in 1963, he still wouldn't have gone to the moon, even though he
>> > said "we" would go to the moon.
>>
>> > Similarly, saying you will meet with such-and-such a leader doesn't
>> > mean you're just going to get on a plane, fly there and call them
>> > from the airport to let'em know you're in town. A certain amount of
>> > advance work and preparation is understood.
>>
>> > Mind you, there's a fair amount of purposeful misunderstanding
>> > going on.
>>
>> By some, perhaps.
>>
>> The bottom line, IMO, is that talking only makes sense when
>> concessions are going to be made by both sides and if the concessions
>> that we make aren't going to harm our national interests or others in
>> the region. At
>
>> the very least, the other side has got to give up something.....
>>
>> http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/05/15/
>
> Yes, very amusing. Irrelevant and willfully ignorant, but amusing.
How so? And not the "amusing" component.
Isn't the purpose of diplomatic negotiations to persuade the other side
to change their behavior in some way? A literal reading of that strip
is silly, but a figurative reading where the Iranian government becomes
a bit less theocratic would be a legitimate objective for negotiations.
>> I've yet to see a list of concessions that Mr. Obama plans on
>> wringing out of Mr. Ahmadinejad.
>
> You don't go into talks with a checklist of things you must come away
> with, but you don't go in blind, either. If you have no expectations,
> and you have not to some extent telegraphed your expectations and had
> some indication that there's a chance of coming home with something to
> show.
<snip>
I'm learning more and more that delaying a bit in responding can be a
good thing.
Mr. Obama's campaign website currently includes the following statement:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran
"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct
presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
Without preconditions.
All that stuff you posted about lower level diplomacy....stuff that is
real world and stuff that I agree with....has nothing to do with what Mr.
Obama is publicly claiming will be his policy with Iran.
He thinks carrots like...
"If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will
offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization."
...will mean something to Iran. But Iran has abandoned the path to WTO
membership because Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the WTO is full of
Zionist and American conspiracies.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121193151568724469.html?
mod=rss_opinion_main>
It is pretty hard to negotiate with a country that is led by an
individual that says:
"You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a
relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with
powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the
United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We
. . . do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in
various parts of the world."
Also within that link are further examples of how Mr. Bush HAS been
attempting to work with Iran on the diplomatic front precisely in the
manner you describe.
Everything you claim to want, Mr. Bush and his team are already doing.
It isn't working because the leaders of Iran have no interest in
negotiations.
And since it the Kevin James/Chris Matthews kerfuffle appeared upthread,
I'd like to point out that later on in the same segment, Chris Matthews
was unable to accurately identify the timeframe for the bombing of the
USS Cole. He first claimed that it was in 1993 under President GWH Bush.
http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/05/2008-05-15MSNBCHBJames.wmv
Perhaps Mr. Matthews' opinions ought to be discounted due to his
insufficient acquaintance with recent history?
The bottom line...and my last word in this thread unless you come up with
something worth talking about....is that there appears to be two
different views of this conflict.
In one view, the bombing of the USS Cole is a Yemeni problem. The Khobar
Towers bombing is a Saudi problem. The trouble caused Hezbollah in South
Lebanon is a Lebanese problem. The bombing of our embassies in Africa
are problems associated with the respective host countries.
In that view, each of those incidents is separable and unique.
In the other view, each of those events are linked* as part of a larger
ideological war against the US and the west. There isn't a single head
to cut off of this beast. There are many heads...sometimes in
competition for leadership....sometimes cooperating towards their shared
objective of a world submissive to their generally shared theocratic
point of view.
*As an example, either the Khobar Towers or the USS Cole bomb was made by
a Hezbollah operative out of Lebanon. Hezbollah is funded by Iran*.
Coincidentally, I recently read a story about how Iran is missing
billions of rials due to Mr. Ahmadinejad having failed to deposit the
proceeds of oil sales into the proper accounts. No one knows where the
money is, but the government is going broke. Care to guess where the
money has been going?
nickelshrink
I don't know whether you'll consider this to be a trivial focus, or
a veering back on topic, but all you've done with this interesting
and knowledgeable post is make it look like a potential
presidential meeting with Iran is pointless. Let's, for the sake
of argument, say you're right. It's not the complaint. The
complaint leveled at Obama is that it would be appeasement.
You haven't made me understand why that that type of meeting
-- not particular concessions, which no one on either side has
claimed will be made by the US, but the fruitless meeting itself --
meets the definition of appeasement.
I get the strong feeling that Obama opponents are contorting like
Gymnast Barbies for something to bitch about. It looks like that
whole dumb-it-down mentality: "Explaining the more complex
reasons why negotiations are a dumb idea takes too many words
and most Amurkans can't grasp it. The ones that do might notice
that we're bitching about Obama doing something pointless while
we just admitted that the B.AD is ...um ... doing something
pointless. So we have to drag the idea back to a more simpleminded
level, and make *that* look evil, even though at that level the idea
is benign."
If it's not, you didn't address it here.
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Dann
news:dnq6345u8ierbbhfn...@4ax.com.
I think the weapons in question were consumed in the 1980s during the
Iran/Iraq war. AAUI, the current round of weapons being used against our
forces in Iraq are actually being manufactured in Iran. They are also
one of a small group of countries that manufacture a version of the
explosive C4. That explosive gets used an awful lot in car bombs, bomb
vests, and other implements of war within the terrorists' tool box.
racs...@gmail.com
> > Well, I guess that *is* one way to describe Oliver North.
> > Especially, by those who subscribe to the whole "Iranian weapons are
> > killing US troops in Iraq" bit . . . I mean, those could literally be
> > weapons Ollie sold 'em himself!
>
> I think the weapons in question were consumed in the 1980s during the
> Iran/Iraq war. AAUI, the current round of weapons being used against our
> forces in Iraq are actually being manufactured in Iran. They are also
> one of a small group of countries that manufacture a version of the
> explosive C4. That explosive gets used an awful lot in car bombs, bomb
> vests, and other implements of war within the terrorists' tool box.
First of all, on the topic of talking to Ahmadinijad, that's a good
example of how McCain fails to even grasp the basics of the situation.
He's been drinking too much White House Kool-Aid.
http://tinyurl.com/3nywbu
And you may want to hold off on the topic of Iran arming Al Qaeda or
Shiites or Sunnis or whoever the hell they're supposed to be arming.
The White House Talking Point is beginning to fall apart ...
http://tinyurl.com/486v2l
Nothing is definitive, but when somebody is already on record as lying
to make policy, well, then I'd say the burden of proof shifts a
little, wouldn't you?"
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
> --
> Regards,
> Dann
>
> blogging athttp://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Dann
news:af06a5cb-94e0-4479...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com.
> On May 31, 5:22 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Well, I guess that *is* one way to describe Oliver North.
>> > Especially, by those who subscribe to the whole "Iranian weapons
>> > are killing US troops in Iraq" bit . . . I mean, those could
>> > literally be weapons Ollie sold 'em himself!
>>
>> I think the weapons in question were consumed in the 1980s during the
>> Iran/Iraq war. AAUI, the current round of weapons being used against
>> our forces in Iraq are actually being manufactured in Iran. They are
>> also one of a small group of countries that manufacture a version of
>> the explosive C4. That explosive gets used an awful lot in car
>> bombs, bomb vests, and other implements of war within the terrorists'
>> tool box.
>
>
> First of all, on the topic of talking to Ahmadinijad, that's a good
> example of how McCain fails to even grasp the basics of the situation.
> He's been drinking too much White House Kool-Aid.
> http://tinyurl.com/3nywbu
I was reading earlier this week about a new head of the Iranian
legislature. He's close to Ayatollah Ali Khameini and a bit of a
conservative within the Iranian scheme of things.
He's also willing to negotiate with the west. Something Mr. Ahmadinejad
is loath to do. Many Iranians aren't happy with Mr. Ahmadinejad's
leadership and approach to dealing with the west.
I am reminded of the absolutely f-ing brilliant manner that Mr. Reagan
handled the Soviets. Responding to their confrontational position with
resolution and determination until they finally elected someone that was
open to real diplomacy.
And yes, I am aware that some folks disagree with that reading of history.
But sometimes, you have to let the otherside figure out that
confrontation...and perhaps violence...are losing strategies against the
US before they will be ready to begin productive negotiations.
> And you may want to hold off on the topic of Iran arming Al Qaeda or
> Shiites or Sunnis or whoever the hell they're supposed to be arming.
> The White House Talking Point is beginning to fall apart ...
> http://tinyurl.com/486v2l
We keep talking about that whole "nuance" thing. Wouldn't a public
display of Iranian made arms be a more confrontational step? Right now,
if the Iranians pull their governmental heads out of their collective
backsides and stop supporting Shiite militias, we can sweep the past
under the rug and begin some more fruitful diplomacy.
Once the proof is in the open, everyone has a harder time backing away
from the issue. I thought you were in favor of de-escalation of
tensions with Iran?
From what I hear via longwarsjournal.com and strategypage.com and other
sites, the boots on the ground are finding arms that have Iranian
markings on them. Everything else is diplomacy.
> Nothing is definitive, but when somebody is already on record as lying
> to make policy, well, then I'd say the burden of proof shifts a
> little, wouldn't you?"
Sure. But making a judgement call based on the intelligence available
at the moment isn't lying. But we already knew that we disagree on that
point.
Besides, the source for claims that we are finding Iranian arms is our
military. Not the White House.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Dann
news:6adikfF...@mid.individual.net.
<snip>
> I don't know whether you'll consider this to be a trivial focus, or
> a veering back on topic, but all you've done with this interesting
> and knowledgeable post is make it look like a potential
> presidential meeting with Iran is pointless. Let's, for the sake
> of argument, say you're right. It's not the complaint. The
> complaint leveled at Obama is that it would be appeasement.
>
> You haven't made me understand why that that type of meeting
> -- not particular concessions, which no one on either side has
> claimed will be made by the US, but the fruitless meeting itself --
> meets the definition of appeasement.
>
> I get the strong feeling that Obama opponents are contorting like
> Gymnast Barbies for something to bitch about. It looks like that
> whole dumb-it-down mentality: "Explaining the more complex
> reasons why negotiations are a dumb idea takes too many words
> and most Amurkans can't grasp it. The ones that do might notice
> that we're bitching about Obama doing something pointless while
> we just admitted that the B.AD is ...um ... doing something
> pointless. So we have to drag the idea back to a more simpleminded
> level, and make *that* look evil, even though at that level the idea
> is benign."
There are a couple of 'big picture' factors that come into play, IMO.
One is that such an unconditional meeting would allow Mr. Ahmadinejad to
claim a diplomatic victory to his nation via their tightly controlled
media. That sort of cost free victory would strengthen his political
hand as much...if not more than...our current diplomacy.
It isn't a bad idea that won't work. It isn't a bad idea that is benign.
It is a bad idea that moves the US backwards in our relationship with
Iran.
The second factor is that the US has been engaged in a shooting war with
Iran since 1979. We have been engaged in a shooting war with extremist
Islam for a little bit longer. In both cases, we are talking about a war
that isn't of our choosing.
IMO, Mr. Obama either doesn't understand this simple truth or is working
very hard to ignore it out of a demonstrably ill advised preference for
peace at any cost.
War is awful. War is terrible. My personal preference would be peace
among all nations.
But to paraphrase John Stuart Mill, there are worse things than war.
Iran....along with Al Qaida and similar organizations...has stated that
they want to attack the US and our interests overseas. They have done
so.
They continue to make claims of wanting to "bring us to our knees".
I'm willing to take them at their word as I believe that the other
option....surrendering the rights and freedoms that I think we both
desire....is unacceptable.
Until there is a palpable shift in the Iranian approach to the west that
results in their desire of engagement in productive diplomacy, such an
open ended offer is to our detriment.
IMO.
Jack Kennedy had far more military and government experience than Mr.
Obama currently possesses. Yet even he got his pocket picked in Vienna.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?partner=rssnyt
and if Rovian mind beams don't offend you too greatly
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121141264811412395.html
Antonio E. Gonzalez
to get to work . . .
Nope, just meeting one another is a victory for no one, it's just a
meeting; still, it's a step forward . . .
That sort of cost free victory would strengthen his political
>hand as much...if not more than...our current diplomacy.
>
If there were "current diplomacy," there wouldn't be a need for
meetings . . .
>It isn't a bad idea that won't work. It isn't a bad idea that is benign.
>
So it's a good idea that will work, and good idea that is benign .
. .
>It is a bad idea that moves the US backwards in our relationship with
>Iran.
>
. . . and a good idea that moves the US forward in our relationship
with Iran . . . Bonus!
>The second factor is that the US has been engaged in a shooting war with
>Iran since 1979.
Wow, I was expecting bullshit, not outright lies! I'd wait for
examples of this "shooiting war," but have a feeling Haley's Comet
will return before anything happens . . .
We have been engaged in a shooting war with extremist
>Islam for a little bit longer. In both cases, we are talking about a war
>that isn't of our choosing.
>
>IMO, Mr. Obama either doesn't understand this simple truth or is working
>very hard to ignore it out of a demonstrably ill advised preference for
>peace at any cost.
>
There's a lot of ignorance alright, but not from Obama . . .
>War is awful. War is terrible. My personal preference would be peace
>among all nations.
>
Then you must agree that giving Saddam Hussein $1 billion to leave
Iraq (as has been recently revealed he'd have been willing to accept)
would have been preferable to the crrent mess, war being awfully
terrible and everything . . .
>But to paraphrase John Stuart Mill, there are worse things than war.
>
Well, everyone has "moments of retardation," including John Stuart
Mill . . .
>Iran....along with Al Qaida and similar organizations...
Not that these are related (Iran - Shi'ite/Persian; Al Qaida -
Sunni/Arab), I'm sure metioning them together is just a coincidence,
no attempt at deception at all . . .
has stated that
>they want to attack the US and our interests overseas. They have done
>so.
>
I'm sure there is some reality where Iran has attacked the US; in
this reality the US has helped depose their democratically elected
government, and shot down one of their commercial passenger planes,
among other little things . . .
>They continue to make claims of wanting to "bring us to our knees".
>
. . . and I wanna date Nicole Kidman; "want" has a way being just
that . . .
>I'm willing to take them at their word as I believe that the other
>option....surrendering the rights and freedoms that I think we both
>desire....is unacceptable.
>
>Until there is a palpable shift in the Iranian approach to the west that
>results in their desire of engagement in productive diplomacy, such an
>open ended offer is to our detriment.
>
As the saying goes, "the time is now" . . .
>IMO.
>
Looks more like CYA . . .
>Jack Kennedy had far more military and government experience than Mr.
>Obama currently possesses. Yet even he got his pocket picked in Vienna.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?partner=rssnyt
>
>and if Rovian mind beams don't offend you too greatly
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121141264811412395.html
Funny how all that ended with Kenedy on top anyway . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
On 1 Jun 2008 02:58:17 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 31 May 2008, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following in
>news:af06a5cb-94e0-4479...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com.
>
>> On May 31, 5:22 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Well, I guess that *is* one way to describe Oliver North.
>>> > Especially, by those who subscribe to the whole "Iranian weapons
>>> > are killing US troops in Iraq" bit . . . I mean, those could
>>> > literally be weapons Ollie sold 'em himself!
>>>
>>> I think the weapons in question were consumed in the 1980s during the
>>> Iran/Iraq war. AAUI, the current round of weapons being used against
>>> our forces in Iraq are actually being manufactured in Iran. They are
>>> also one of a small group of countries that manufacture a version of
>>> the explosive C4. That explosive gets used an awful lot in car
>>> bombs, bomb vests, and other implements of war within the terrorists'
>>> tool box.
>>
>>
>> First of all, on the topic of talking to Ahmadinijad, that's a good
>> example of how McCain fails to even grasp the basics of the situation.
>> He's been drinking too much White House Kool-Aid.
>> http://tinyurl.com/3nywbu
>
>I was reading earlier this week about a new head of the Iranian
>legislature. He's close to Ayatollah Ali Khameini and a bit of a
>conservative within the Iranian scheme of things.
>
All I'm seeing is excuses to avoid talking . . .
>He's also willing to negotiate with the west. Something Mr. Ahmadinejad
>is loath to do. Many Iranians aren't happy with Mr. Ahmadinejad's
>leadership and approach to dealing with the west.
>
>I am reminded of the absolutely f-ing brilliant manner that Mr. Reagan
>handled the Soviets. Responding to their confrontational position with
>resolution and determination until they finally elected someone that was
>open to real diplomacy.
>
>And yes, I am aware that some folks disagree with that reading of history.
>
>But sometimes, you have to let the otherside figure out that
>confrontation...and perhaps violence...are losing strategies against the
>US before they will be ready to begin productive negotiations.
>
. . . and sometimes you have to swallow your pride, do the right
thing, and talk. As some Churchill guy once said, "it is better to
jaw-jaw, than to war-war."
>> And you may want to hold off on the topic of Iran arming Al Qaeda or
>> Shiites or Sunnis or whoever the hell they're supposed to be arming.
>> The White House Talking Point is beginning to fall apart ...
>> http://tinyurl.com/486v2l
>
>We keep talking about that whole "nuance" thing. Wouldn't a public
>display of Iranian made arms be a more confrontational step? Right now,
>if the Iranians pull their governmental heads out of their collective
>backsides and stop supporting Shiite militias, we can sweep the past
>under the rug and begin some more fruitful diplomacy.
>
Here's a better idea: pull out of Iraq, and make the Shiite
militias irrelevant! I'm sure if Iran had 140,000 soldiers in Mexico
or Canada, we might relate a little better . . .
>Once the proof is in the open, everyone has a harder time backing away
>from the issue. I thought you were in favor of de-escalation of
>tensions with Iran?
>
>From what I hear via longwarsjournal.com and strategypage.com and other
>sites, the boots on the ground are finding arms that have Iranian
>markings on them. Everything else is diplomacy.
>
Proof? Oh that's right, it's all just talk . . .
>> Nothing is definitive, but when somebody is already on record as lying
>> to make policy, well, then I'd say the burden of proof shifts a
>> little, wouldn't you?"
>
>Sure. But making a judgement call based on the intelligence available
>at the moment isn't lying. But we already knew that we disagree on that
>point.
>
>Besides, the source for claims that we are finding Iranian arms is our
>military. Not the White House.
. . . and even the military admits they can't prove the arms are
actually Iranian, hence why the won't go public, or at least more
public . . .
nickelshrink
I had written a nice (believe it or not) reply thanking you
for answering the previously unanswered question, and for
the links. I'm troubled by freeze-ups, and other weird
computer behavior and the post never left the launch pad.
Time passed and i thought i'd let sleeping threads lie, but
since Antonio has revived this one -- and because i'm going
to ream you in another thread 8~) -- i'll say it now. Thanks
for the info.
Detox
>
> I had written a nice (believe it or not) reply thanking you
> for answering the previously unanswered question, and for
> the links. I'm troubled by freeze-ups, and other weird
> computer behavior and the post never left the launch pad.
> Time passed and i thought i'd let sleeping threads lie, but
> since Antonio has revived this one -- and because i'm going
> to ream you in another thread 8~) -- i'll say it now. Thanks
> for the info.
That's too bad. You're more likely to provide an argument rather than
a contradition.
http://www.intriguing.com/MP/_scripts/argument.asp
<grin>
--
Regards,
Dann
nickelshrink
But i'd choose Mr. Bakely!
8~)