Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, February 15, 2010

Speaking to Arab students at Carnegie Mellon's Doha campus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that Iran is "moving toward a military dictatorship." Clinton said Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps appears to have gained so much power that it effectively is supplanting the government.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

LIVE_OR_DIE

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Busting Iranian gubmint balls...... Obama should be doing the same to Repubes.

Here's the LA Times take on the story.

www.latimes.com

Obama is too busy contemplating the use of executive power. Maybe we should worry more about the continuing Imperial Presidency here in the U.S. rather than being distracted by shit that happens in other countrties.

We need relief. We presidents, representatives, and senators that are not power hungry and who gang rap the Constitution all the time. But there is no relief in sight.

Jeffn voted CarrotTop for Pres by proxy from Dimark.

What do they call people who bitch and whine and moan and promote paranoid conspiracy theories while not providing any meaningful solutions?

Oh yeah. JeffnDimark.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-15 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag: Believes executive overrecah is OK if his side does it.

-executive overrecah

Overreach, one presumes. And that has what to do with this thread?

"And that has what to do with this thread?"

Instead of worrying about how other countries govern, let's worry about how we are governed. Something about glass houses and stones.

Granted, the U.S. not at the moment a military dictatorship, and we'd like to keep it that way.

Executive overreach is a term usually reserved for conflicts between our 3 branches of gubmint..... not about our dealings with foreign gubmints.

But, as it gives you a chance to try to dump on Obama, I understand your attempt at stretching the meaning completely out of shape.

And we can keep in mind your asinine assertion that we shouldn't meddle in Iran's bidness.

And we can keep in mind your asinine assertion that we shouldn't meddle in Iran's bidness.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-15 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: Neocon, or the equivalent of a Neocon in the left

And we can keep in mind your asinine assertion that we shouldn't meddle in Iran's bidness.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-15 11:20 AM

How dare you suggest it's asinine to ignore what goes on in the country that may be the next nuclear power.

A country that is becoming a military dictatorship AND may be the next nuclear power.

None of our bidness, no.

All this reminds of the whole WMD Iraq thing. Yeah, they have missiles that can reach Europe in half and hour of 45 minutes. Sure.

I've seen this movie before. I doesn't have a happy ending.

Riddle me this,
Did our policies push Iran closer to this
dictatorship?

Will economic sanctions strengthen the military's grip on the country?

Is this information even accurate at all?

One of my many reasons for not voting McCain being his creepy leprechaun song and dance about bomb, bomb, bombing Iran, is there any doubt that we'd have launched the country right into military rule had we done so?

As for the difference with Iraq thing...

Asked if the U.S. is planning a military attack on Iran, Clinton said "no."

"Busting Iranian gubmint balls...... Obama should be doing the same to Repubes."

Too bad both are playing Obama like the fiddle he is.

Oh yeah, sanctions worked so well for Cuba! Castro is out of power, don't you know?

-Too bad both are playing Obama like the fiddle he is.

Yep, the GNOP is really, really popular with the public for their obstructionism.... they are only third to Obama and the Dems in people blamed for US not getting any progress on issues people care about.

they are only third = only ahead of

#18...

I guess the GOP's unpopularity has given Obama's HC Reform the boost we see today. Not to mention his party losing three key elections.

Care to try and comment on the second party playing Obama and Hilary? Or are you still convinced they have Iran right where they want them?

Most of the industrialized world is trying to deal with Iran as a possible militant nuclear power..... but hey, Crispee or Sarah! should be in charge, roflmfao!!

Most of the industrialized world is trying to deal with Iran as a possible militant nuclear power..... but hey, Crispee or Sarah! should be in charge, roflmfao!!
#21 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-15 11:51 AM | Reply

You should be laughing. Seeing as you continue to tout both the WH and SD's handling of Iran for the last year. Of course in your eyes, Iran thumbing their nose and ignoring the pathetic, useless threats by this Administration is diplomacy. What happened to the last deadline in December 09 Iran ignored?

"Most of the industrialized world is trying to deal with Iran as a possible militant nuclear power....."

Oh...so that means Iran will be totally sensible and will be a peaceful addition to the nuclear power club...right? Whew! Thank goodness! I've been worried that they might do something crazy. I mean, after all, you have THIS guy to deal with:

www.matthiaskuentzel.de

Could the situation be similar at all in the way "most of the industrialized world" tried to deal with Germany and Japan in the last century?

To those complaining about Obama's / Clinton's handling of Iran, what should they change? I'm sure there's an easy answer to this situation.

Nuke em! It'll teach 'em a lesson! - Crispee OC (Obtuse Critter)

Will economic sanctions strengthen the military's grip on the country?

#14 | Posted by Salaryman at 2010-02-15 11:31 AM

That's a good question.

The Revolutionary Guard has long been a pillar of Iran's regime as a force separate from the ordinary armed forces. The Guard now has a hand in every critical area, including missile development, oil resources, dam building, road construction, telecommunications and nuclear technology.

It also has absorbed the paramilitary Basij as a full-fledged part of its command structure giving the militia greater funding and a stronger presence in Iran's internal politics.
...

The U.S. is focused on gaining international support for sanctions "that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, which we believe is in effect supplanting the government of Iran," she said.

Anyone know specifically what sanctions are being proposed?

Nuke em! It'll teach 'em a lesson! - Crispee OC (Obtuse Critter)

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-15 12:06 PM

Why are you running from your claim Obama and Hilary's diplomacy has been working? Worried it makes you look like some pathetic, partisan hack? Come on Corky, bring up how they have convinced Iran to stop enriching uranium. Show a link where Iran is cooperating because of the brilliant job Hilary is doing.

While Clinton and Obama condemed Bush's policy towards the Iranian government last year, they are a now using it.

The newspeak of these two is extraordinary, and the ability of the masses to slurp it up and think it is "change" is without reproach.
gatewaypundit.firstthings.com

The scary difference is if Bush uttered these words the left would have screamed Bush was getting ready to invade, but now with the most intelligent man on the planet in charge, all is good.

With Isreal and Syria on the verge of a bar brawl, and Clinton throwing our the "renengagment" routine to the wolves, by all appearances that war is coming.....
www.state.gov

The United States, Britain, France and Germany are mulling a fourth round of U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran to persuade it to rein in its nuclear program.

Russia has indicated that it would not oppose new sanctions against Tehran for defying five U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that it halt its nuclear enrichment program, but diplomats say China's position is less clear.

Israel, which is assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the existence of the Jewish state.

Western officials involved in the six-power negotiations say Russia has been losing patience with Tehran and will likely support new sanctions, though it will oppose measures that it deems too tough, such as sanctions on Iran's energy sector.

BLACKLIST

The proposed sanctions include blacklisting Iran's central bank and more big banks, adding more Iranian individuals to a travel ban list, expanding an asset freeze to include more Iranian companies and imposing an arms imports ban.

www.reuters.com

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-15 12:19 PM
Thanks.

Clinton seeks Saudi help to win China's backing on Iran sanctions

Monday, February 15, 2010

www.dailystar.com.lb

China appears to be the hold-out on new sanctions.

To those complaining about Obama's / Clinton's handling of Iran, what should they change? I'm sure there's an easy answer to this situation.

#24 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-02-15 12:04 PM

*crickets*

To those complaining about Obama's / Clinton's handling of Iran, what should they change? I'm sure there's an easy answer to this situation.

#24 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-02-15 12:04 PM

According to Corky, they are doing a fine job and have Iran right where they want them because of their brilliant diplomacy.

According to Corky, they are doing a fine job and have Iran right where they want them because of their brilliant diplomacy.

#33 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 12:32 PM

Non-answer. We're not getting the results we want (yet anyway), but if you think Obama / Clinton are doing a bad job, perhaps you could explain what they're doing wrong and what they could be doing differently.

#27 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Whines and moans but has no constructive solutions.

What country have fucked over more than Iran? Iraq?

They have every reason to be paranoid and arm defensively. Leave these people alone.

You know... After watching Hillary in this video... www.state.gov, I am starting to think that Old Bill is Still Hitting That........ LOL...

She looks totally relaxed and has that twinkle in her eye when she mentions Bill......

Guess opening up the clogged arteries restored functionality to the old little willy Unit.... LOL

You Go Bill!

You know he's on the phone with some chick as Hillary is making the speech though...

"Honestly darlin.... It's working fine now.... Wanna come over and see?"

#37

Old Clinton Haters never die, they just post like it.

'Speaking to Arab students at Carnegie Mellon's Doha campus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that Iran is "moving toward a military dictatorship." '

That's pretty controversial. I hope she didn't have to dodge sniper fire on her way out of there....

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris

...do you even read the articles you post or do you just twist and lie about what they mean? Clinton is talking about continued engagement with Iran...and you say she is throwing engagement to the wolves. Either you are stupid or a liar....or both I suppose.

#27 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Whines and moans but has no constructive solutions.

As opposed to foolishly touting this Administration's record on Iran, Russia, North Korea...?

At this point Iran knows Obama does not have the guts to stop them. He arrogantly and ignorantly thought he could trust Iran to comply. Obviously the apology tour and blaming the past Administration has proven futile. Until an actual threat of military intervention is on the table, Iran, China, the EU will continue to play Obama like the fiddle he is.

It's funny how Clinton was fanning the fires of war at on a campus of a university that receives a lot of money for military research....

Crispee-
What would "military intervention" in Iran accomplish?

Well actually America is becoming a military dictatorship too. We see the legislative branch ceding more authority over to the executive branch. That's an ominous trend to those who know their history.

Some of my Conservative friends have proposed following the Bush doctrine for dealing with countries developing nuclear weapons: Bomb someone completely unrelated.

Canada.

Crispee-
What would "military intervention" in Iran accomplish?

Not sure, but at this point diplomacy has done nothing to stop them the last few years. Sanctions are worthless without any real threat. Isolate them and cut them off ala Cuba. Then work on a diplomatic solution.

What would "military intervention" in Iran accomplish?

#43 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 01:33 PM

You mean besides wreck our economy and further embolden the Revolutionary Guard?

This is Hope and Change? I thought we were supposed to be having dialogue, not trolling Iran?

I guess the libs were simply flapping their gums in mock outrage when their Idol wasn't in office.

"You mean besides wreck our economy and further embolden the Revolutionary Guard?"

You seem interested in other ideas, what about your thoughts? Are you comfortable with Iran's reaction to the rest of the world in the last few years? Do you consider them a threat if they obtain nukes?

You seem interested in other ideas, what about your thoughts?
#50 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 01:44 PM
I don't have any. That's my point. While I'm not happy with the results so far, I'm not going to bash Obama or Clinton for it when realistically I don't see what else we can do. I certainly don't support military action or any sanctions that would leave the more pro-America Iranians out in the cold.
Are you comfortable with Iran's reaction to the rest of the world in the last few years? Do you consider them a threat if they obtain nukes?
#50 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 01:44 PM
No, I'm not comfortable with it, and yes I consider them a threat. If you think Obama and Clinton are doing a bad job responding, what do you think they should do differently?

re: Not sure, but at this point diplomacy has done nothing to stop them the last few years. Sanctions are worthless without any real threat. Isolate them and cut them off ala Cuba. Then work on a diplomatic solution.

#47 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, you're agnostic on military intervention in Iran.

#51...

I explained my thoughts in post #47.

Crispee-
re: #53-

So, you are against military intervention in Iran.

Right?

But you feel it would strengthen the pro-democracy forces and weaken the regime if we threatened military action?

I'm trying to understand your position.

So, you're agnostic on military intervention in Iran.

#52 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 01:50 PM

Depends on your definition of military intervention. The only way to isolate them and cut them off is by using the military. As for invading? Yes I have doubts the world would accept that option.

I explained my thoughts in post #47.

#53 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 01:51 PM

Fair enough. What would that do to oil prices?

re: The only way to isolate them and cut them off is by using the military. As for invading? Yes I have doubts the world would accept that option.

#55 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. The only way to isolate them and cut them off is by using the military.

No, it's not. Unless you mean that we are going to unplausibly tell Russia and China that we will respond with aggression to our unworkable blockade. You speak nonsense.

2.As for invading? Yes I have doubts the world would accept that option.

But "the world" would accept a military quarantine, and this would help the pro-democracy forces in Iran?

You really have little idea what you are talking about.

Fuck with Iran in the wrong way and we'll end up getting exactly what we want to avoid. A nuclear armed country dominated by militants and religious extremists.

I'm for targeted sanctions, as the Obama administration is pursuing, but it's a razor's edge. You want to strengthen the pro-democratic forces and hurt the Revolutionary Guard and regime, but you can't be obviously seen as doing that or it would have the opposite effect. Any visible military muscle or even rhetoric will play into the regime's hands and strengthen them.

Fortunately, foreign policy is no longer determined by what plays well to the average FoxNews bobble-head pundit in the interest of the next election.

I hope.

#57: Well said BetelG. My thoughts exactly. Being a public board and all, ignoramuses like Crispee can post their absurd ideas and pretend they are intelligent and make sense. Problem is, other ignoramuses reading such posts don't always realize how ridiculous those ideas really are.

#57...

By all means, show your expertise and explain what should be done. You are in no position to call anyone a fool expecting Irans top trading partners like China and the EU to back anything. I guess you suggest the world just allow Iran to continue, and "hope" they are for peaceful purposes?

Crispee-
Your alternatives are simplistic nonsense. It is the Bush/Cheney approach of bluster and effete posturing, which got us to where we are today. In addition, Bush/Cheney removed the most immediate check on Iran's domination of the region.

To even hear such drivel still treated seriously is beyond comprehension, though people seem to be paid to spout it, and you seem to listen to it.

China has overtaken the European Union to become Iran's largest trading partner, according to a new analysis of the commercial ties between the two countries.

The growing business links between Beijing and Tehran underline China's reluctance to agree to any further economic sanctions on Iran as western countries escalate their campaign to contain the country's nuclear ambitions.

The announcement by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the Iranian president, that Iran will start enriching uranium to 20 per cent purity a step closer to the 90 per cent required to build nuclear weapons has given renewed impetus to western calls for the United Nations Security Council to impose more sanctions.

The Iranian atomic energy authority announced on Monday that further enrichment would begin on Tuesday.

While Russia has softened its opposition to placing more pressure on the Iranian economy, China has not done the same.

Official figures say the EU remains Tehran's largest commercial partner, with trade totalling $35bn in 2008, compared with $29bn with China.

But this number disguises the fact that much of Iran's trade with the United Arab Emirates consists of goods channelled to or from China. Majid-Reza Hariri, deputy head of the Iran-China Chamber of Commerce, said that transhipments to China accounted for more than half of Tehran's $15bn (10.9bn, 9.6bn) trade with the UAE.

When this is taken into account, China's trade with Iran totals at least $36.5bn, which could be more than with the entire EU bloc. No definite conclusion is possible because it is unclear how much of Iran's trade with Europe is channelled via the UAE.

Iran imports consumer goods and machinery from China and exports oil, gas, and petrochemicals.

Today, China depends on Iran for 11 per cent of its energy needs, according to the chamber.

In the past, China has allowed the passage of three UN resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran. But the country's ambassador emphasised the need for talks.

"Our approach is that dialogue and negotiations always produce better results," said Xie Xiaoyan, the Chinese ambassador to Tehran. "Sanctions will not produce the results set up [by the west], no matter how crippling."

However, some analysts believe this stance may change. Yin Gang, a Middle East expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said: "China is extremely cautious in dealing with Iran, even over trade and energy.

"China would not keep a very close relationship with Iran because this could damage its relationships with lots of other countries."

If China were to prevent the Security Council from passing UN sanctions, the US and the EU would retain the option of imposing their own unilateral measures. The question is whether Iran's links with China would cushion the blow.

Already, American and EU energy companies have withheld investment in Iran's vital oil and gas industries. China has sought to fill the gap by signing multi-billion-dollar agreements to develop oil and gas fields.

But hardly any of these projects have gone on stream. A senior Iranian oil official has publicly complained about the poor quality of Chinese-made equipment.

A western diplomat in Tehran said: "If the international community is united, sanctions will be more effective, but nevertheless China is not the complete answer to Iran's problems."

www.ft.com

Yeah, let's try more sanctions. It's no wonder you fools are behind this Administrations "hope" that Iran will comply.

- Isolate them and cut them off ala Cuba. Then work on a diplomatic solution.

#47 | Posted by crispee_oc

Gee... what? You mean use sanctions?

Glad you finally thought of something constructive... roflmfao!

To even hear such drivel still treated seriously is beyond comprehension, though people seem to be paid to spout it, and you seem to listen to it.

#62 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 02:23 PM

Which is why you invoke Bush and Cheney as though they have anything to do with this Administrations policy of wishful thinking? Talk about beyond comprehension. Oh that's right, you are for razor sanctions. lol

Crispee-
If you had the courage of your convictions, I would at least admit that you are honest, if stupid. Everything you present is aimed at a military conflict with Iran, yet you are afraid to state it because on some level you know how stupid and counterproductive it would be.

Gee... what? You mean use sanctions?

Glad you finally thought of something constructive... roflmfao!

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-15 02:26 PM

No different than anyone else laughing at your belief Clinton and Obama have Iran right where they want them. Afterall Iran has followed through with our deadlines and are now increasing their output.

Crispee-
You are much like the gasbags I hear on TV and on the radio; know-nothings full of bluster and ignorance who want to sound tough as if it somehow attenuates their ignorance and inadequacy - but still afraid to call for the action to which their incendiary rhetoric inexorably leads.

Crispee: For one instant be honest. NOBODY is claiming that Clinton or Obama "have Iran right where they want them:. That is just rhetorical nonsense. What BetelG is saying may be too nuanced or intelligent for you to grasp, but at least don't wilfully mischaracterize.

On a separate note, I personally still won't be surprised nor even blame Israel if they take unilateral military action. I do buy into the notion that Iran's nuclear program is a direct threat to their security.

Crispee-
If you had the courage of your convictions, I would at least admit that you are honest, if stupid. Everything you present is aimed at a military conflict with Iran, yet you are afraid to state it because on some level you know how stupid and counterproductive it would be.

What is stupid is thinking weak sanctions will stop Iran from obtaining their goal. Which has been proven the last few years.

Was Kennedy stupid isolating Cuba? Or should he have trusted diplomacy and hoped that Castro wouldn't allow missiles?

Crispee-
re: Which is why you invoke Bush and Cheney as though they have anything to do with this Administrations policy of wishful thinking?

No. I did not invoke Bush/Cheney. The approach you recommend is the Bush/Cheney approach which was an abject failure on so many levels it's embarrassing.

Again, Crispee, "Everything you present is aimed at a military conflict with Iran, yet you are afraid to state it because on some level you know how stupid and counterproductive it would be."

BTW, Crispee, in comparing the USSR and its arsenal of thousands of ICBMs to either Iran or your nebulous fear of terrorism in general you have done the PR wing of al Qaeda quite proud. They have been successful at their main goal of making you wet your pants and do stupid things.

Crispee-
You are much like the gasbags I hear on TV and on the radio; know-nothings full of bluster and ignorance who want to sound tough as if it somehow attenuates their ignorance and inadequacy - but still afraid to call for the action to which their incendiary rhetoric inexorably leads.
#68 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 02:33 PM |

I don't watch or listen to the so called blusters you deflect to when you aren't invoking Bush or Cheney. I offered my opinion and it had nothing to do with ignorance, inadequacy or sounding tough. The fact you impy that, seems to speak more about your shortfalls and weak kneed approach to Iran, not to mention ignorantly thinking China or the EU will back applying meaningful sanctions.

Later blog.

#73...

As opposed to you being afraid to confront the problem and hope it goes away? Are you really that fucking stupid to think Iran will give up their ambitions? Why don't you explain how China and the EU are going to back your razor sanctions? Or how they will be written in a way to have any effect?

Not to worry...the solution is on the way :-)

www.lifesitenews.com

Again, Crispee, "Everything you present is aimed at a military conflict with Iran, yet you are afraid to state it because on some level you know how stupid and counterproductive it would be."
#72 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 02:41 PM

Afraid to state what? How else could we "isolate" the country without using the navy and air force?

This is something new, or at least now you are stating it openly, so I guess it's worth returning to the blog.

You wish to "isolate" Iran with the navy and the air force.

"Crispee: For one instant be honest. NOBODY is claiming that Clinton or Obama "have Iran right where they want them:. That is just rhetorical nonsense. What BetelG is saying may be too nuanced or intelligent for you to grasp, but at least don't wilfully mischaracterize."

If you go back and look again, you will notice I mentioned Corky's consistent rant about Obama and Clinton over the last year. As for Betleg, there is nothing to mischaracterize, his posts prove he is afraid to confront a growing problem. Or naive to believe sanctions are the answer.

What impact do you think this would have on the pro-democracy forces in Iran, and would this strengthen or weaken the regime?

It's a ridiculous question to begin with, because we are in no position, logistically, to do what you propose, or even credibly threaten it, but it sounds tough and stupid which I guess is all that matters.

You wish to "isolate" Iran with the navy and the air force.

#79 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 03:02 PM

That was said about 32 posts ago. Maybe you never bothered to read where it said "isolate" ala Cuba.

re: his posts prove he is afraid to confront a growing problem.

My posts prove the opposite. I am quite eager to confront the ignorance and militancy that has turned cowardly know-nothing blowhards into sages in our popular political discourse.

That was said about 32 posts ago. Maybe you never bothered to read where it said "isolate" ala Cuba.

#82 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gotcha. You are even more of a fucking retard (satire!) than I had originally given you credit for.

Crispee-
Just out of morbid curiosity, do you ever maybe pay any attention to events inside Iran, or do you see Iran as like one really big swarthy guy you are scared of?

My posts prove the opposite. I am quite eager to confront the ignorance and militancy that has turned cowardly know-nothing blowhards into sages in our popular political discourse.

Your only contentions are about the so called pro democracy crowd which has ZERO power and no hope of running the Government. Again relying on "hope" and sanctions is foolish and ignorant. Not to mention thinking China or the EU will back anything worthy of stopping Iran's ambitions.

Like I thought.

"Just out of morbid curiosity, do you ever maybe pay any attention to events inside Iran, or do you see Iran as like one really big swarthy guy you are scared of?"

What is it with you and your pathetic lines about tough, or being scared? Why in the fuck would I be scared of Iran? How does my "opinion" warrant you acting like some 4th grader and resorting to name calling as though that makes you some hard ass? Am I supposed to call you a fucking whining little bitch after every post? So far I have honestly answered what I think should done. You on the other hand have stated nothing but some ignorant razor sanction approach. If you don't like what I think, ignore it asshole.

Why in the fuck would I be scared of Iran?

Got me.

Gotcha. You are even more of a fucking retard (satire!) than I had originally given you credit for.

#84 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 03:12 PM

Be that as it may...

Explain how Iran's two largest trading partners will impose sanctions in your so called nunaced approach? Or are going to ignore that question for the fourth time?

I think it's worth trying. Your approach, however, was tried over the last eight years and earned a big fail. The Cheney/Bush team strengthened Iran and left us with the situation where fucking retards (it's satire, so it's okay) such as yourself talk of militarily encircling Iran thereby strengthening the regime and crushing the pro-democracy forces with troops we don't have available due to our commitments in Iraq, which didn't attack us and had no WMD, and Afghanistan, which the Bush/Cheney team bungled in order to invade Iraq.

The circle-jerk of nonsense you call thought or stratregy is truly boggling to any functioning mind.

BetelG: What is your response to my statement above about Israel. I'm curious.

"On a separate note, I personally still won't be surprised nor even blame Israel if they take unilateral military action. I do buy into the notion that Iran's nuclear program is a direct threat to their security."

And why are you afraid of Iran?

I mean, it would seem that if you are willing to commit thousands of people (not you, and they're otherwise occupied anyway) to encircling Iran in an effort that would cement the regime that you claim to despise (as much as you are capable of that complexity), you must feel that Iran is a threat to the US. But you claim it is not?

Moder8-
What would happen to Iran if they launched a nuke at Israel, with its thousands of nukes; and Israel is an ally of the US, which has the firepower to level the planet. Each nation could turn Iran into an uninhabitable field of glass several times over.

The best hope is to help the democratic movement in Iran without giving the regime any ammunition, which is a difficult task, but worth pursuing with every effort.

I agreethat promoting democracy within Iran is the preferred method. But at the point in time when the Theocratic government of Iran has a nuclear weapon, and a President advocating that Israel be wiped off the map, I think Israel has a real problem which justifies military preemptive action.

The "President" of Iran has no control over the military, either officially or effectively. His statements do make good fodder for the Sean Hannity radio show, though.

"I think it's worth trying. Your approach, however, was tried over the last eight years and earned a big fail."

That is just pure BS. Bush imposed the same type of worthless sanctions you are suggesting, including the same thing Hilary says in regards to isolation.

"The circle-jerk of nonsense you call thought or stratregy is truly boggling to any functioning mind."

Then explain your brilliant post about razor sanctions and for the fifth time, how China and the EU will back effective sanctions. You have no problem criticizing my opinion, why can't you back up yours?
#90 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 03:45 PM

If Israel does launch an all-out attack on Syria as I'm reading, I interpret that as preparation for an attack on Iran. They don't want to have to deal with Syria coming to Iran's defense.

"If Israel does launch an all-out attack on Syria as I'm reading, I interpret that as preparation for an attack on Iran. They don't want to have to deal with Syria coming to Iran's defense"

sooner or later someone will nuke israel. most of those who don't die from the blast will die from the radiation.

they'd still have the chutzpah afterward to bill the US tazpayer to bury their dead.

BetelG: I disagree. If the elected President of Iran is claiming Israel should be wiped off the map, and if he is the official mouth piece for that nation's government, Israel HAS to take that at face value if/when Iran obtains nuclear weaponry.

I agreethat promoting democracy within Iran is the preferred method.

I'm pretty sure that as an Islamic nation, that cannot happen.

re: You have no problem criticizing my opinion, why can't you back up yours?
#90 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 03:45

Because your opinion is war with other peoples corpses for an end that is strategically nonsensical, geopolitically ignorant, and logistically impossible while logging the greatest body count, and my opinion tries to avoid the scattered body parts, widows, bereaved husbands and orphaned children for an end that is preferable in every way.

Talk of militarily encircling Iran thereby strengthening the regime and crushing the pro-democracy forces with troops we don't have available due to our commitments in Iraq,
#90 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 03:45 PM

You really think it requires thousands of troops we don't have because of Iraq, to put up a blockade in the Straits of Hormuz, which leads to the Persian Gulf?

www.lib.utexas.edu

www.lib.utexas.edu

#57...

By all means, show your expertise and explain what should be done. You are in no position to call anyone a fool expecting Irans top trading partners like China and the EU to back anything. I guess you suggest the world just allow Iran to continue, and "hope" they are for peaceful purposes?

#60 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 02:13 PM

Now you're just being retarded.

I didn't call you a fool (I am now).

I didn't say I was an expert who knows what should be done. In fact I said the opposite, and asked for anyone bashing Obama or Clinton to fill us in on what should be done differently.

I also didn't say we should just allow Iran to continue, I only said it's a delicate situation that handled wrongly would have the opposite effect from what we're seeking.

Now, feel free to explain how your suggestion on isolating Iran will have a better effect than the sanctions proposed by the U.S. when you said yourself that their top trading partners are the EU and China.

sooner or later someone will nuke israel. most of those who don't die from the blast will die from the radiation.

#99 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2010-02-15 04:39 PM | Reply

Wow, that would be horrible...
We'd have billions of dollars of our own money to keep and not give to a non-existant Israel, and at least 3 or 4 muslim nations (assuming one of them nukes israel) will be glass parking lots due to the obvious and assured one upsmanship of the Israeli's.

Sanctions will NOT work. Iran will just raise the price of oil to compensate.

#102 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-02-15 04:42 PM

In other words you can't explain your own post? You were talking out of your ass about worthless sanctions which China and the EU would never allow to have any real teeth. Figures, yet you continue to rip on me despite your stupid claim? Laughable.

BetelG: I disagree. If the elected President of Iran is claiming Israel should be wiped off the map, and if he is the official mouth piece for that nation's government, Israel HAS to take that at face value if/when Iran obtains nuclear weaponry.

#100 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-15 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

That would be stupid, wouldn't it. I mean they would be stupid to take the words of a politician with no control over the military as some indication of what the military would do, especially given that Israel can wipe Iran off the map several times over.

I think what you meant to say was that people who want to get elected use the rhetoric of the president of Iran - who's trying to get elected as well- to drum up support with their tough rhetoric that matches the tough rhetoric from the politician from Iran.

It is impossible to stop a country from going nuclear in today's world. North Korea showed every country that you get further by starting your program and then negotiating rather than never starting it at all. The only logical options in dealing with Iran are negotiation or full-out war. There is no other option.

Now you're just being retarded.

I didn't call you a fool (I am now).
#105 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-02-15 04:43 PM

For whatever it is worth, I errored by listing you instead of Betleg. My bad.

Iran's prediction that Israel will be wiped off the map came true. Some enterprizing map maker is making globes with Palestine in place of Israel.

For whatever it is worth, I errored by listing you instead of Betleg. My bad.

#111 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-02-15 04:52 PM

Fair enough.

Some enterprizing map maker is making globes with Palestine in place of Israel.

Probably Jewish too.

If Iran gets nuclear weaponry, I sadly, distastefully, and in a state of nauseation, believe that Israel must attack. They can not assume the Iranian cries for their elimination are empty political rhetoric. That same mistake was made with Hitler in the '30s. When someone calls for your death, and has the means to kill you, you take that as a true threat and respond accordingly. Or else you probably die.

I dosagree. Preemption only works for those who can see the future with 100% certainty. You can defend yourself,but if you attack first, you are the aggressor; the villain.

Which begs the question: At what point is a threat so imminent and so trustworthy as to be the provocative act of aggression in itself? If I point a gun at your head and tell you I am going to shoot you in five seconds, does that somehow make you the aggressor if you whip out your own weapon and kill me first?

If Iran gets nuclear weaponry, I sadly, distastefully, and in a state of nauseation, believe that Israel must attack.

The ultimate catch-22: Iran is convinced Israel will attack them.

Personally, I believe that if Israel does attack Iran, it will be a fatal mistake in a non-nuclear way. Not to mention the blowback we'll get.

Ray, you may be correct. But I think it is where we are currently headed.
And I don't think the United States has the power/leverage to prevent it. There is no approach (partisan or otherwise) which will dissuade Iran from proceeding with it's nuclear arms program. The only real question is whether or not the US stays out of any Israeli-Iranian armed conflict altogether, or whether we somehow choose to get involved. While I would hope thatwe choose to stay on the sidelines, that may not be politically feasible. Too much is at stake if the MidEast flares up into ongoing war between Iran and Israel.

Did the second smartest Democrat in office just figure this out?

#4 post I said " Fuck Bill Clinton, He's a new world order peice of CFR shit" And Rcade deleted my post.
And right underneath Dorky Corky called me a conspiracy nut.
If Im such a nut then am I imagining my post being deleted, and my right to free speech being pissed on.
Americans are the most brainwashed people on the planet. You're worse than the German people during the Nazi era.

What part of "Well, Duh," doesn't anyone get about Iran "becoming" a Military Dictatorship.....well, actually, a Theocratic military dictatorship....

Iran was a democracy before the CIA overthew their deocractically elected leader and installed the Shah of Iran, and Savak.

Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt, Jr. (February 16, 1916 June 8, 2000), was a Special Activities Division political action officer who coordinated the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Operation Ajax, which orchestrated the coup d'tat against Iran's democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, and returned Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, to Iran's Peacock Throne in August 1953. He was also the grandson of American president Theodore Roosevelt.
en.wikipedia.org

[edit] 1957-1970
After removing the left-leaning government of Mohammad Mosaddeq, (which had nationalized Iran's oil industry and weakened the Shah's power), from power on 19 August 1953, in a coup, supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments, the Shah decided he wanted an effective internal security service[5] to strengthen his regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repress dissident movements. According to Encyclopdia Iranica:

A U.S. Army colonel working for the CIA was sent to Persia in September 1953 to work with General Teymur Bakhtiar, who was appointed military governor of Tehran in December 1953 and immediately began to assemble the nucleus of a new intelligence organization. The U.S. Army colonel worked closely with Bakhtīār and his subordinates, commanding the new intelligence organization and training its members in basic intelligence techniques, such as surveillance and interrogation methods, the use of intelligence networks, and organizational security. This organization was the first modern, effective intelligence service to operate in Persia. Its main achievement occurred in September 1954, when it discovered and destroyed a large communist Tudeh Party network that had been established in the Persian armed forces[6][7]
en.wikipedia.org

What has happened to America? You have become a country of cowardly morons.

Old news Jeff,did you hear about reagan,iran and the contras,ollie north?

hear about halliburton,dick cheney and neo-cons?

FTA: Asked if the U.S. was planning a military attack on Iran, Clinton said "no."

The United States is focused on gaining international support for sanctions "that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, which we believe is in effect supplanting the government of Iran," she said.

Both parties have been committed to the idea of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear armed nation for a while now. The major difference being that the Reps are much more likely to rattle sabres and actually move towards armed conflict than the Dems.

While Spud supports sanctions specially designed to impact the draconian IRGC Spud also recognizes that getting China aboard will be a pretty tough sell.

Hard question at this point is how best to support the moderates who want an end to the hypocritical and cruel religious rule they suffer under?

Harder yet how to do so without creating a rationale fer the illegitimate regime (who had to steal the last election) to further harden their stance and their grip on the people of Iran.

No easy answers but one thing fer sure Israel using American supplied, nuclear-tipped daisy cutter/ bunker buster type bombs in an ill-fated attempt to destroy the Iranian nuclear program would be a recipe fer disaster.

Luckily not even Dumbya was st00pid enuff to sell them those despite repeated requests. Obama has likewise indicated that them bombs is out of bounds. Since the Iranian nuclear program is widely acknowledged as being deep underground and in several locations it would require a number of these bombs to even have half a chance of eliminating the program altogether and would practically guarantee a nuclear response against Israel within ten years.

Also worth noting... an Iranian first strike against Israel would be grounds fer turning that country into a sheet of radioactive glass.

Tricky stuff.

Be Well.

Iran has apparently hit back at Hillary's subtle calls fer a second Iranian revolution.

Mostly Whaargarbl.

Sommat about "modern deceit" and "fake words" and "disguised intentions"

FTA: But, at a news conference in Tehran on Tuesday, Mr. Mottaki said: "We are regretful that the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tries to conceal facts about the stance of the U.S. administration through fake words," Press TV said. He also accused Washington of interfering in the internal affairs of other states, by undermining their "scientific and technological achievements," an apparent reference to Iran's nuclear program which the United States and its allies suspect is designed to build nuclear weapons.

Is inna NYT.

www.nytimes.com

Be Well.

My, my, my.

This is a news flash?

Hillary is late to the party. Of course, Iran is just a little country that isn't a threat to us or anyone else. I know that to be a fact because Obama told us so.

Hillary is late to the party.

Actually, Hill is ahead of the curve here.

Iran has been a theocratic dictatorship fer a whole now but since the last stolen elections the populace and many moderate religious authorities are being increasingly ruled directly by the military seemingly independent of the usual religious authorities. That's a new twist and it deserves some recognition and contemplation and action.

Of course, Iran is just a little country that isn't a threat to us or anyone else. I know that to be a fact because Obama told us so.

Is Iran a threat to the United States, militarily?

No.

Is Iran a potential threat to Israel and the stability of the region?

Yes.

Partisan bickering aside do you think Hillary's assessment is correct or incorrect here? Do you think the targeted sanction are a good idea or a bad idea? Wot would you do differently?

Do you have any ideas at all here or are you content to just play "Gotcha" all day long?

Continually dismissing other people's opinion without proffering yer own is a cowardly act worthy of derision.

Be Well.

Commentary from a 3rd person talking freak is about as useless as "AdultFinder.com" in Spud's house.

She better dumb that statement down if she wants Obama to understand it.

Like we are going to believe CLINTON?

sheesh.

How do you spell IT?

If clinton said it, then it is a setup for something else..

I read that Israel wants to go to war by summer, so suddenly clinton says Iran is bad.

I wonder if clinton serves tables at at the local bar-mizvah.

Like who cares what clinton says anyway.

And who believes her anyway?

Deterrence worked throughout the Cold War and there is no reason to believe it will not work against Iran.

I am not sure I agree Grumpy. Iran is a lot less sane in it's pronouncements than even Nikita "We Will Bury You" Khruschev was during the Cold War.

Some people just says what she is told to say, kind of like a lap puppet.
Somone is trying to get into a war with Iran and that is the talking point this month.

I hope they don't make that mistake, it will be a bad decision.

Eisenhower and Jefferson had it totally correct. We have a military Industrial complex run amok and entangling alliances that only hurt our credibility.

To discuss Iran as an existential threat is the height of hypocrisy. Iran never invaded another nation over anything, let alone based it upon false pretenses made up by neocon shills in our government. We (the USA government) has troops stationed in every corner of the world, and we are running around the globe constantly stirring up trouble and keeping the representatives of our military industrial complex well compensated.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable