63% of Americans say - Talk with Iran
Johnny Asia
While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
+
Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
lab~rat >:-)
<bayin...@mypacks.net> puked:
>63% - Talk with Iran
>
>While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
>directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
>political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
>direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
>Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
Well, we've talked with them. I mean, what's the alternatives?
Bombing them? I think we have imposed sanctions on them already.
Why can't we nudge Israel into nuking them? That might be fun to
watch from the comfort of the US...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
W Spilman
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
news:c9pvh5d6h486a92vu...@4ax.com...
Well we should certainly have no other foreign policy goal than
to provide you with a bit of fun.
WS
lab~rat >:-)
Hey, I pay taxes for SOMETHING. Maybe the government could make money
showing it on PPV...
RichTravsky
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:36 -0500, Johnny Asia
> <bayin...@mypacks.net> puked:
>
> >63% - Talk with Iran
> >
> >While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
> >directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
> >political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
> >direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
> >Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
>
> Well, we've talked with them. I mean, what's the alternatives?
> Bombing them? I think we have imposed sanctions on them already.
No, there's still a slate of sanctions that can be imposed.
> Why can't we nudge Israel into nuking them? That might be fun to
> watch from the comfort of the US...
As if things would stop there.
RT
lab~rat >:-)
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> puked:
>"lab~rat >:-)" wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:36 -0500, Johnny Asia
>> <bayin...@mypacks.net> puked:
>>
>> >63% - Talk with Iran
>> >
>> >While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
>> >directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
>> >political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
>> >direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
>> >Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
>>
>> Well, we've talked with them. I mean, what's the alternatives?
>> Bombing them? I think we have imposed sanctions on them already.
>
>No, there's still a slate of sanctions that can be imposed.
I realize that, but from what I've read about Iran, the citizenship
differs substantially from the ruling government. A large portion of
them are young and want to see change in the way the country conducts
itself. I'm afraid that implementing more sanctions would alienate
the Iranians, causing the opposite effect that would be in our
interests.
RichTravsky
Or it could push the people into watering the tree of liberty...
lab~rat >:-)
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> puked:
Maybe. I'm not gonna pretend to be able to think like an Iranian.
snakehawk
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:36 -0500, Johnny Asia
>
> >63% - Talk with Iran
>
> >While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
> >directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
> >political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
> >direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
> >Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
>
> Well, we've talked with them. I mean, what's the alternatives?
> Bombing them? I think we have imposed sanctions on them already.
>
> Why can't we nudge Israel into nuking them? That might be fun to
> watch from the comfort of the US...
> --
I'm coming around to favoring an Israeli attack on Iran. But only on
the condition that the United States stay strictly out of the ensuing
conflict--no US troops, no US naval support, no US air support, no US
intelligence support, and no further munitions to Israel--all
Americans just sit and watch from the comfort of the United States
mainland.
Iran just launched a new missile capable of reaching Israel easily and
capable of carrying a massive conventional warhead. Iran can match
Israel in jet fighters and maintains the latest in Russian anti-
aircraft defenses. And must as important, Iranian ground troops can
reach Israel in a day. It should be good television.
And the best part is at the end of the show, all the problems that
have plagued the middle east for the last hafl-century will have
disappeared in smoke. Israel will be no more. We won't have to worry
about Israeli refugees--the Jews in Israel have no way out. To the
west is Gaza teeming with irate Palestinians; to the north, Lebanon
and the fearsome Hizbullah, going east would simply hasten the end.
So the only place for the Jews to go would be south to the Sinai then
to Egypt. It would be a sort of reverse of the mythical Exodus. We
in America could write new songs and send greeting cards to the long
lines of Jewish refugees making their way to Egypt, led by the new
Moses, Netanyahu.
RichTravsky
> On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:36 -0500, Johnny Asia
> > <baying46...@mypacks.net> puked:
> >
> > >63% - Talk with Iran
> >
> > >While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
> > >directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
> > >political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
> > >direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
> > >Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
> >
> > Well, we've talked with them. I mean, what's the alternatives?
> > Bombing them? I think we have imposed sanctions on them already.
> >
> > Why can't we nudge Israel into nuking them? That might be fun to
> > watch from the comfort of the US...
>
Not feasible. They would not be allowed to fly over Iraq - or any other
country - to get there.
They do not have the long range force projection capabilities or infrastructure
to fly around. When we hit Libya, the planes took off from Britain and were
not given over fly rights from our allies.
snakehawk
> snakehawk wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:36 -0500, Johnny Asia
> > > <baying46...@mypacks.net> puked:
>
> > > >63% - Talk with Iran
>
> > > >While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
> > > >directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
> > > >political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
> > > >direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
> > > >Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
>
> > > Well, we've talked with them. I mean, what's the alternatives?
> > > Bombing them? I think we have imposed sanctions on them already.
>
> > > Why can't we nudge Israel into nuking them? That might be fun to
> > > watch from the comfort of the US...
>
> > I'm coming around to favoring an Israeli attack on Iran. But only on
>
> Not feasible. They would not be allowed to fly over Iraq - or any other
> country - to get there.
Oh sure . . . like Israel would never violate international rules,
right? What a bunch of horseshit.
The real reason Israel will not attack Iran as long as Obama is in
office is because they know Obama will not send in American troops to
fight Israel's war. The Israeli's are good at sneak attacks against
poorly armed neighbors, but not so good at actually fighting--hell,
sparsely-armed Hizbullah wiped the floor with the inept Jews in
Lebanon. Israel wouldn't last a week against Iran.
lab~rat >:-)
<snak...@MailAndNews.com> puked:
>On Dec 9, 12:59ÔøΩpm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:36 -0500, Johnny Asia
>> <baying46...@mypacks.net> puked:
>>
>> >63% - Talk with Iran
>>
>> >While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
>> >directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
>> >political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
>> >direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
>> >Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
>>
>> Well, we've talked with them. ÔøΩI mean, what's the alternatives?
>> Bombing them? ÔøΩI think we have imposed sanctions on them already.
>>
>> Why can't we nudge Israel into nuking them? ÔøΩThat might be fun to
>> watch from the comfort of the US...
>> --
>
>I'm coming around to favoring an Israeli attack on Iran. But only on
>the condition that the United States stay strictly out of the ensuing
>conflict--no US troops, no US naval support, no US air support, no US
>intelligence support, and no further munitions to Israel--all
>Americans just sit and watch from the comfort of the United States
>mainland.
If you want that, no time like the present. Obama seems to have
little regard for Israel. Unfortunately, I think whoever is elected
president in 2012 will probably involve us in some manner.
It would be nice to see some dirt kicking over there without us
involved, though.
>
>Iran just launched a new missile capable of reaching Israel easily and
>capable of carrying a massive conventional warhead. Iran can match
>Israel in jet fighters and maintains the latest in Russian anti-
>aircraft defenses. And must as important, Iranian ground troops can
>reach Israel in a day. It should be good television.
>
>And the best part is at the end of the show, all the problems that
>have plagued the middle east for the last hafl-century will have
>disappeared in smoke. Israel will be no more. We won't have to worry
>about Israeli refugees--the Jews in Israel have no way out. To the
>west is Gaza teeming with irate Palestinians; to the north, Lebanon
>and the fearsome Hizbullah, going east would simply hasten the end.
>
>So the only place for the Jews to go would be south to the Sinai then
>to Egypt. It would be a sort of reverse of the mythical Exodus. We
>in America could write new songs and send greeting cards to the long
>lines of Jewish refugees making their way to Egypt, led by the new
>Moses, Netanyahu.
I hate to point out the painfully obvious, but none of this would be
so bad without religion.
RichTravsky
You already did. The whole preceding paragraph.
RT
RichTravsky
> On Dec 16, 6:10 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
> > snakehawk wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 12:59 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:36 -0500, Johnny Asia
> > > > <baying46...@mypacks.net> puked:
> >
> > > > >63% - Talk with Iran
> >
> > > > >While it has been the subject of divisive political debates, talking
> > > > >directly with Iran about its nuclear program is supported across the
> > > > >political spectrum. More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) support
> > > > >direct negotiations with Iran, with equal measures of support from
> > > > >Republicans (63%), Democrats (64%) and political independents (64%).
> >
> > > > Well, we've talked with them. I mean, what's the alternatives?
> > > > Bombing them? I think we have imposed sanctions on them already.
> >
> > > > Why can't we nudge Israel into nuking them? That might be fun to
> > > > watch from the comfort of the US...
> >
> > > I'm coming around to favoring an Israeli attack on Iran. But only on
> >
> > Not feasible. They would not be allowed to fly over Iraq - or any other
> > country - to get there.
>
> Oh sure . . . like Israel would never violate international rules,
> right? What a bunch of horseshit.
This would be a "rule" whose violation involves flying hundreds of miles
through foreign airspaces without support. And that support would not be
forthcoming.