Obama administration will talk directly to Iran

Well,

Everyone knows that the Jackets could whoop those no good Dawgs whenever they take a mind to do so. Tech usually just feels sorry for those dummies over in Athens and lets them win.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Bush administration had behind-the-scenes talks with Iran for years.

President Obama should thank him for leaving the door open. /snark/

• Link
• Report this comment

And yes, some will argue that talking is hopeless and that the only solution is military.

No telling who Jay B’s “some” is but the best argument for not talking to them lies in assuring a popular uprising within Iran that we don’t view their current government as legitimate.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.”

He wasn’t bowing, you stooges! He was grabbing his ankles!!

so, it was ok when Bush slipped him tongue, joined hands, and tiptoed thru the tulips? Just so long as he didn’t “bow” first?

got it!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“There is nothing more important than trying to convince Iran to cease its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Bwahahahahahahahahaha, oh that Bruno, what a card!

So the Euroweenies failed, eh?

European Official Reports Progress in Talks With Iran By JUDY DEMPSEY, Treason Times,
Published: September 29, 2006

Huh, huh?

Can anybody else imagine what would have happened to the common pinko, uh, let’s just use Bookman as an example, if Bushie had attacked Iran either by land, air or sea?

Puh-leeze.

Spastic?

Immediate hospitalization?

Great bubbly mountains of foam?

sarc

Well, anyway, now we get to see Obozo make an even bigger fool of himself, I guess it’s worth losing Israel for.

sarc/

• Link
• Report this comment

jay, I don’t know why you removed AmVet’s post from downstairs. It was directed at me and I took no offense.

FREE COMMUNISTAJC!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

if there was no offense, why make a big deal about it?

you do that a lot.

• Link
• Report this comment

Midori:

if there was no offense, why make a big deal about it?

Where did I make a big deal out of it?

My response to his post ended with reference to a past “sweet encounter”.

My questioning it’s removal was a protest, albeit mild.

FREE COMMUNISTAJC

and anyone else who’s been banned for that matter.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hah, the boogeyman the libs created was once fun to play with but now it rises up from it’s grave and gobbles up the dimwits that made it-

But according to a Pakistani newspaper, regional envoy Richard Holbrooke and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen came up empty-handed and received a “rude shock” when a proposal for joint operations against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the volatile tribal regions was rejected.

Dawn newspaper reported that Pakistan also asked the U.S. to turn over the unmanned drone missions over the territory to them, ~~~~~~~saying that the drone strikes were fueling extremism.~~~~~~~~

Hahahaha, the same savages that kill each other when there are no infidels handy, they speak your ignorant goony language, hahahahaha, bozos, freaking bozos.

• Link
• Report this comment

“GOOD NUCLEAR NEWS” declares Ahmadenijad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce Iran has mastered the final stage in the cycle for nuclear fuel production on April 9, Reuters reported April 8. Ahmadinejad promised in a televised speech “good nuclear news” for Iran’s National Nuclear Day celebration slated for April 9. An unnamed analyst said the announcement will likely involve the production of uranium pellets for the Arak heavy-water reactor and the production of fuel rods.

• Link
• Report this comment

Iran is so worried about Israel taking them out that they will certainly ask any negotiating team from the West to moderate Israel’s response to the threat to their security. I hope that Bozo recognizes that Israel is the only sensible voice of reason in the whole Middle East and that we can ill afford to loose the Jewish nation. The present Israeli premier is not about to sacrifice his nation for “world approval”. He would take out Iran in a heartbeat and the Iranians know it. Our president could take a good lesson from the Jews….. we are all fighting for our survival against the Islamic threat. The only difference between Israel and the US is that the Jews recognize it.

• Link
• Report this comment

There’s certainly no Change coming out of Iran:

Iran: Commission Sets Conditions On U.S. Talks

April 8, 2009 1319 GMT

The Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission said the issue of the United States’ willingness to improve ties with Iran could not be considered until the United States stops interfering in Iranian internal affairs and apologizes for previous acts against the country, Iranian news agency IRNA reported April 8. Mohammad Karami Rad, a member of the commission, said the Americans must apologize for supporting the 1980 Iraqi invasion of Iran and for the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988. He also said a condition of the initiation of U.S.-Iranian talks would be that the United States lifts its sanctions and releases Iranian frozen assets.

• Link
• Report this comment

RW:

I saw the exchange. As usual, you took the high road with that endearing humor of yours.

jay, on the other hand, came off as rather petulant.

I really do take issue with this banning free speech. I’ve never approved of it — never will.

I don’t like to see anyone call for banning nor do I like to see jay comply.

I feel as strongly about that as I do emoticons. Come to think of it…..

BAN THE EMOTICONS!!!!

(ISH)

• Link
• Report this comment

Well jay, things are slow over here so guess what?

Your liberal bloggers have gone back over to Wooten’s to see if they can taunt CommunistAJC some more.

Looks like he may be off for the evening, but they won’t rest until he responds. It’s what they do.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer:

You mean “Never Again” (Israel’s military motto) ??

• Link
• Report this comment

Some more Churchill quotes:

-There is no such thing as a good tax.

-The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

-We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

-Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

-If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

-You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

-We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

This my favorite:

-Yes I am drunk, Madam, but you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry to go off topic, but this has been bugging me all day. This was in the AJC today:
Peachtree Street wreck leaves 1 dead, 2 hurt
By CHRISTIAN BOONE

How the heck do you get killed in midtown in a car accident on Peachtree Street? I barely get out of 2nd gear between lights, and even if I ignored them, the steel plates would blow a tire before I got fast enough to do anything else.

• Link
• Report this comment

And ‘w’ did what in his first 90 days? Prepare the country to grab its ankles?

• Link
• Report this comment

Late breaking!

Karachi police chief Waseem Ahmed said April 8 that police had arrested 5 militants belonging to Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LJ) who reportedly were planning attacks on seven government buildings in Karachi, British newspaper the Telegraph reported. The targets included the home of the interior minister, police headquarters, Shiite religious centers and suppliers cooperating with NATO forces. LJ is a jihadist group based in Punjab province allied with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.

Outta here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yep, and Obama will probably “bow” to the Ayatollah just like he did to that depostic Saudi King. How embarrassing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gay marriage and illegal immigration, I guess you democrats didn’t get the message the first time around-

While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the country’s immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

Man, the libs are trotting out their own demise.

Cool.

• Link
• Report this comment

Historically Iran is perhaps the most non hostile nation on the planet. The last time they engaged in a war they started, the United States was still a British Colony, and they started it because as Shi’ites they were subject to extreme persecution by the Ottoman Empire, which was Sunni Muslim.

Irans current behavior is based on the fact that the last nation that interfered in their right to self government and to elect their own government was the United States, in 1954, and they had to deal with a government imposed on them again, by the United States, for an additional 25 years.

I think they have more reasons to be suspect of the United States than vice versa, but as usual, U.S. policy with regard to the Middle East has tended to revolve around the concept of “What is OUR oil doing under their SOIL”

After World War II, Harry Truman pretty much stuck to the original idea of self determination with regard to other countries when he insisted that for Britain to get American aid to rebuild after that war, they would have to give up their colonies, and give up their efforts to control other countries like Iran, particularly their natural resources. Truman was a true “free market” sort of guy, who beleived it would be cheaper to trade with other countries for their oil, than to try to use miltary power projection to get it. Basically everyone forgets that the cost of a gallon of gas includes the cost of the taxes that pays for the military presence in the Middle East.

And lets not forget, that most of the nuclear equipment that exists in Iran has the words “Made in America” on them. While the Shah was in power, the U.S. was selling him the equipment to do exactly what the Iranians are doing now. Setting up nuclear power stations so they would not have to use fifty percent of their own oil to generate electricity. So there would be more oil for export to the United States. So gasoline for Americans would get cheaper, not more expensive. When petroleum is Irans main export product, it is more sensible to them to sell it on the open market, than it is for them to use it inside their own country.

After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Islamic government shut down those plants because they decided using this American/Western technology was totally inappropriate for an Islamic country if they did not need to use it. At the time, they had enough oil to meet those needs, however the U.S. embargo of the new Islamic State changed that dynamic and in order to keep up their own way of life, they would have to sell more oil, which made the option of using nuclear power more necessary than it had previously been.

Oddly enough, after 30 years, American Conservative magazine finally admits that perhaps in 1980, American went in the wrong direction when they chose Reagan rather than Carter;

The American Conservative, April 6, 2009 Issue

…The new anti-malaise coalition, Left and Right, agreed on a nationalism that regarded an America with any kind of limits as a place that could never be America in any meaningful sense. They believed in the divine American mission and the rhetoric behind it: “leader of the free world,” “the last best hope for man on earth,” “the shining city on a hill.” Carter’s speech, to them, was heresy. Thus Reagan, with help from other former liberals, could transform conservatism from a traditional doctrine of prudence, caution, and sustainability—a tough sell politically—into a highly marketable brand of American exceptionalism.

Unfortunately, as Carter feared, the American mission and lifestyle proved unsustainable. In the short run, the Saudis and other OPEC nations and oil producers slaked America’s dependence on foreign oil. The Chinese and other emerging industrial nations were willing to provide cheap consumer goods and buy U.S. Treasuries so that American consumers could have plenty of choices at the marketplace. This cut the inflation that bedeviled the Carter administration. In return, the U.S. military provided protection and stability around the globe through deficit financing. The hoped-for reduction of government that was a part of Reagan’s rhetoric was junked because it threatened to shatter the “you can have it all” coalition. Instead, government grew, in part through a neat trick called supply-side economics in which the New Deal, the New Frontier, and even the Great Society could be offered at low cost to taxpayers through massive levels of borrowing. Wrapped around all of this was a nationalistic attitude. The launching of a few cruise missiles every now and then disguised the loss of American economic independence.

After what happened to Carter, no American politician today is brave enough to ask for limits. Bush I said that our way of life is non-negotiable. Bush II told Americans to go shopping after 9/11. President Obama says Americans “will not apologize for our way of life.” President Carter is remembered as a weak man—yet no politician now (outside of perhaps Ron Paul) has the guts to make a similarly bold speech during our current economic crisis.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/06/00014//

basically Carter, stated in 1979, that America had two choice and both of them had a price. We could give up dependence on foreign oil. This would allow America to continue to be the self reliant and self dependent nation created by the Founding Fathers. Or we could chose to rely on foreign oil as well as debt to foreign powers in order to borrow the money to pay for the military force that such reliance required. The path Carter suggested was harder, and would require a temporary sacrifice, but no nation would ever be able to economically threaten the United States by calling in the debt or by dumping the debt for pennies on the dollar in order to wreck the American economy. Its no mistake that the nation that America owes the most money to is one of the few large Communist countries to survive the Cold War, and its no mistake that Lenin said that when Capitalism dies, Communist will sell them the rope it hangs itself with.

It might have been more difficult for a few years to live under Carters vision. America has enough oil shale to make up 3 Saudi Arabias, and it was difficult to extract that oil cheaply back then, but Carter also beleived that there is nothing America cannot do when it sets its mind to it. That eventually America would find a way to extract that oil as cheaply or more cheaply than having to have it shipped half way across the world costs today.

However, the spoiled children of the greatest generation didnt want to sacrifice at all and Reagans promise of a big party for everyone, paid for on a national credit card was much more appealing. Reagan simply beleived that by the time the bill came in, someone else would be in the White House.

• Link
• Report this comment