The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Obama didn't create this mess
I am amazed at the criticism directed at Obama regarding the current economic crisis.
1. Did he run up our huge debt with China?
2. Who blew billions on Wall Street without any oversight - Bush/Paulson - ring a bell?
3. Who gave us the stimulus checks last year that the government couldn't really afford to give?
4. Who got us into a $10 billion a month Iraq war when our allies and the UN Security Council could see that the "evidence" was total b.s.? Wasn't it McCain who said we would keep at it 100 years? How much has that and would that fiasco cost us?
I speak as a former Republican/turned independent. Both parties have sold us down the river to appeal to the interests of big multinationals interested in "free trade". How could we possibly hope to keep our economy healthy by allowing trade with people making pennies an hour? Our own profession is a microcosm of the maladies caused by the "global economy". We make far less and work much harder - finding it difficult to pay bills. It had to crash sometime.
I agree with you that this stimulus package will probably not do the trick, but to blame Obama for it is ridiculous. It would be the equivalent of having been sent in a barrel over the side of Niagara Falls, and halfway down Obama tries to figure out a way to soften the landing. He didn't put us in the situation - and maybe he can't get us out.
One thing is certain - McCain could not have done better. He would have kept us bleeding billions in Iraq that we simply do not have.
We are likely going to see runaway inflation. The government is committing itself to compounding the effects of the disaster - starting with Bush allowing Paulson to throw billions to his Wall Street buddies and the continuing effort to stave off the inevitable crash of our economy. The only way they can afford these megabillion plans is to print more money - and the money will become worth a lot less. Get ready for a $100 loaf of bread.
"New World Order," the phrase previously attributed to "whacky conspiracy theorists," is now being PUBLICLY advocated by this senile old man. I hope Obama is too smart and too reasonable for this "NWO" stuff because this is one of the reasons I voted for him.
Kissinger: Obama's 'task' is to help create a 'new world order'
RAW STORY Published: Tuesday January 6, 2009
President Nixon's Secretary of State, the aging Henry Kissinger, recently told CNBC that he believes the current world economic crisis is a "great opportunity" for President-elect Obama to help create a "new world order."
"What do you think the most important thing is for Barack Obama?" Kissinger was asked. "... If you had to say, this is going to be the country, or the conflict, or the place that will define the Obama administration, what would it be?"
Kissinger replied: "The President-elect is coming into office at a moment when there are upheavals in many part of the world simultaneously. You have India-Pakistan. You have, ah, a jihadist movement."
"But," continued Kissinger, "he can give new imputus to American foreign policy, partly because the ascension of him is so extraordinary and admirable.
"I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a "New World Order" can be created. It's a great opportunity. It isn't such a crisis."
In response to a parting question, Kissinger added that Obama's cabinet is an "extraordinarily able group of people."
"The phrase 'new world order' traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government," writes Drew Zahn. "The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used the phrase in a 1989 speech."
In that 1989 speech, the elder Bush told Congress, "A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective –– a new world order –– can emerge: A new era …… in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony."
It is a quote echoed across the Internet by those who believe a non-elected governing body is forming at the very top of the world's elite, and spreading.
Kissinger previously spoke at some length about this "new world order" during an interview with Charlie Rose.
"I think that when the new administration assess the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it," Kissinger told Rose in a Dec. 2008 conversation.
"The jihadist crisis is bringing it home to everybody, that international affairs cannot be conducted entirely by drawing borders and defining international politics by who crosses what borders with organized military force," he said. "This has now been reinforced by the financial crisis, which totally unexpectedly has spread around the world. It limits the resources that each country has for a foreign policy geared to an assertion of its own pure interests."
Kissinger publicly supported McCain for President in 2008.
The following video was aired on CNBC on Jan. 5, 2009.
Perhaps it was the social and community outreach
1. Can-Cer-Vive support to cancer patients and caregivers.
2. Churh school and youth church.
3. Counseling services, both individual and group.
4. Emmaus Road Ministry, which provides companions, prayer partners, helpers and friends for grieving persons, months after the passing of a loved one. Ongoing contact with the family is maintained.
5. Girl Scouts.
6. Teen choir.
7. Computer classes.
8. Assistance to physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped.
9. Marriage enrichment seminars.
10. Workshops on building and maintaining Christian homes.
11. Men's chorus.
12. Men's fellowship.
13. Bible study.
14. Sanctuary choir.
15. Stewardship.
16. Women's chorus.
17. Women's drill team.
18. Yoga.
19. Youth drill team.
20. Active seniors.
21. Adopt-a-Student.
22. Athletes for Christ.
23. Career development.
24. Church in the community.
25. Domestic violence advocacy and support.
26. Drug and alcohol recovery.
27. Food share.
28. Grandparent's ministry.
29. HIV/AIDS support.
30. Housing workshops.
31. Health and wellness.
32. Legal counseling.
33. Math tutors.
34. Prison ministry.
35. Reading tutors.
36. Drama.
37. Fine arts and literary guild.
38. Quilting.
39. Adult dance.
40. Music.
Compare these ministries with Obama's life experiences, political views and current campaign platform. That is explanation enough for me.
Iran warns US. Israel Livini Blasts O's Iran plan
0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
Who is this human being promised to all?
Their new messiah. The way this new messiah appears is by getting rid of little Satan and big Satan. Iran muslims,(I was told there are 2 type of muslims) believe when messiah appears, there has to be a lot of blood shed.
WHO IS THE LITTLE SATAN AND BIG SATAN?:
Israel's role is first of all to protect itself, but also to alert others to the danger of militant Islam. They intend to go after Israel, but for them Israel is merely the "little Satan," one stepping stone on the march to world domination. For Ahmadinejad's Iran, Europe is a "middle-sized Satan" and the United States is the "great Satan."
So, how can you reason and do talks with president Iran when he thinks this way and muslims think this way? It is not all muslims that do, but this one particular type. How can you reason with Ahmadinejad when United States in his eyes is Satan? He wants us dead so this new messiah will come to them.
0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
Who is this human being promised to all?
Their new messiah. The way this new messiah appears is by getting rid of little Satan and big Satan. Iran muslims,(I was told there are 2 type of muslims) believe when messiah appears, there has to be a lot of blood shed.
WHO IS THE LITTLE SATAN AND BIG SATAN?:
Israel's role is first of all to protect itself, but also to alert others to the danger of militant Islam. They intend to go after Israel, but for them Israel is merely the "little Satan," one stepping stone on the march to world domination. For Ahmadinejad's Iran, Europe is a "middle-sized Satan" and the United States is the "great Satan."
So, how can you reason and do talks with president Iran when he thinks this way and muslims think this way? It is not all muslims that do, but this one particular type. How can you reason with Ahmadinejad when United States in his eyes is Satan? He wants us dead so this new messiah will come to them.
So today we get these "conciliatory" advances from Ahmadinejad regarding their nuke program. Only someone living in fairyland will fail to recognize this old ploy from Iran for exactly what it is. Like Iran's invested $billions in their nukes and they're just going to throw it all away.
If Ahmadinejad can show that Washington is "negotiating" with him, he will shore up the position of his highly unpopular party for the elections in June. He can say "Look - for years we've taken it to America, and now they're coming our way."
It will also undercut the democratic opposition in Iran if Washington has any truck with this deceitful regime, which has never been any more trustworthy than the most psychopathic liar that you've ever known in your life. It will only give them more time to continue to work on their nukes, and will also undercut Israel.
Rope-a-dope is one thing, BO, but even Mohammad Ali's punch-stupid opponents weren't this easy. Your kumbaya fantasies are incredibly naive, and frighteningly dangerous.
Israel, looks like you'll have to do the job again.
U.S. officials are casting doubt over the results of Iran's election, in which the government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner Saturday.
U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini apparently has released a statement calling the results "final" and hailing the election as a legitimization of the regime and its elections.
Turnout appears to have reached 82 percent, an all-time high. But when asked if the turnout figures should be considered suspect, given the "not credible" counts for Mousavi and Karoubi, the official said: "Oh, it has to be [considered suspect]."
There are already reports of violence outside Mousavi's campaign headquarters, and of huge demonstrations for both sides in central Tehran, with Mousavi trying to make his way to the one in his behalf. Even if widespread violence occurs, analysts see no prospect that this event would lead to a full-scale attempt at revolution or the toppling of the regime.
The dominant view among Obama administration officials, though not uncontested, is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to President Obama's gestures of engagement.
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
create another board
You know, what this bulletin *system* needs is a bashing board. I used to post at a relatively calm board and some wanted to pick fights no matter what..The owner in her wisdom created a bashing board where those who have anger, upset, whatever and wanted to bash could and could also leave those other boards alone which did not want turmoil. Maybe the owners here could do that. I dont know who owns this board. I have been told it no longer is owned by the owner of MTstars..Maybe if the owner reads this, he or she will create another board for **Political wars**..
Please tell me, what did the "libs" create. sm
We have had a republican president for 8 years and a republican congress for 6 of those years, and 2 just barely on the dem side. When Bill Clinton's presidency was over, we had a multimillion dollar surplus and low unemployment; however, the republicans thought it was more important to impeach him for "sex crimes". Just think of all the good he could have done if time was not wasted in defending himself, not to mention all our tax dollars that were spent. Hello? Their marriage has obviously survived and it is no ones business but theirs. You are trying to create something that did not happen
His picture is colored in on the coins. You sure did misinterpret what she said and you turned it into a racial thing. This is not racial. These coins are colored/painted in and they are CHEAP!!!! Maybe you should take a look at them and you will see what she means. Your trying to make it a racial thing where there is no racial tendencies in her message.
I think you're the one who is bigoted, prejudice, etc. Give the race relations a break. There is no room for your kind of behavior on this board. Period!
You know if they want to create jobs
why aren't we drilling for oil? Why aren't we getting wind farms going? If our government would take more money to look into alternative fuels, not only would that stop our dependency on foreign oil but we will need workers to maintain those things, etc. Those will be jobs that will last. It won't be like construction work like Obama wants. Once the roads are repaired and bridges fixed, etc....then what? I just think we are going in the wrong direction and I just don't understand why. We need to tap our resources with offshore drilling. We need to drill Alaska. While we are doing that, we need to look for alternatives to oil. The sooner they do that, the sooner car companies can make environmentally safer cars and vehicles. I mean....come on.
In his address to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called on lawmakers to expand federally funded national service opportunities.
“To encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country — Sen. Edward Kennedy,” the president said.
Democrats say they may be able to respond to that call by the end of this month.
The Senate is working on the Kennedy/Hatch Serve America Act of 2008, and the House is working on a similar bill, called the Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education (GIVE) Act.
Iran....
But, governments do speak for their people in diplomatic circles and at the United Nations, regional conferences with other nations where they live, etc.
It is not possible for other countries to differentiate between the people of Iran and the government leaders. They deal with the leaders.
You know, we were fed a line in this country as far as back the first George Bush administration back in 1988-1992 that the people of Iraq did not support Hussein and that he would be overthrown by internal forces. That did not happen. We went in there 3 years ago to free the Iraqi people and it is now a huge mess that has cost thousands of lives, mostly Iraqi, and cost an unbelievable amount of money. Now Iran is making more noise. They hated the Shah because of his close ties to the West, so they put in a lunatic Islamic cleric and turned the country into a religious state. Islam teaches brotherhood and tolerance, so why are the leaders of this religious state so full of hate and spite?
Frankly, I think we should completely withdraw from the Middle East, including Israel. We should deport all Middle Easterners from this this country and from our American territories. We should quit buying your oil and anything else you produce. Leave us alone and we'll return the favor.
I think it is apparent that democracy is not possible in Arab Islamic countries. It works in other Muslim countries, like Turkey and some other places, but obviously the Middle East is not evolved enough to be able to tolerate other people's viewpoints and value systems. Until that happens, there can be no democracy.
Iran
" Rafsanjani, one of the most influential politicians in Iran, supports opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that June 12 elections were rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That puts him in conflict with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has approved of the electoral win. "
" In Washington, President Barack Obama urged an end to the crackdown. “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people,” he said in an e-mailed statement. "
Till now the verbal support of Obama suffice to give the protesters enough moral support to continue with their just protests. Khatami is detaining his own people and their relatives!
I did say in my post that Obama was no
different, maybe you missed that part. So yes I know Biden's son is or was a lobbyist. I just don't see how McCain can put that statement out there when he has all of them working for him, and expect us to believe in it. Do you believe everything he says or can you see that he does lie, or stretch the truth?
I don't believe everything Obama says and I have said many times that I am still undecided who to vote for, but even if I were voting for Obama I am objective enough to know that he can't follow through with everything he says, and stretches things/lies also.
it was a post about Obama
s
Iran is CLEARLY a threat and that was what he
was conveying. Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically. ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII.
FYI, even though born in Iran, she is....sm
a natural-born American citizen.
why to worry about Iran
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89476
Acorn is over in Iran too?
I was listening to a variety of news shows and visiting a number of news sites this morning for my "daily dose" when it struck me that the coverage about Iran is already diminishing - even on sites like Fox News.
Sometimes I think that we Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly...and I also think that people like the Ayatollah rely on the fact that after a brief period of outrage, Americans will forget that there may be thousands of Iranians either in hospitals or sitting in cells waiting to hear exactly how they will be executed.
Iran's increasingly isolated opposition leader effectively ended his role in street protests, saying he'll seek permits for future rallies. A leading cleric demanded in a nationally broadcast sermon Friday that leaders of the unrest be punished harshly and that some are "worthy of execution."
In reply to the Clinton’s had nothing to do with the last 8 years.This is absolutely correct, but the Clinton administration was just as bad before that.The Clinton years were the worst of my adult life (and my friends and family who are staunch democrats).So we’ve actually had 16 years of garbage for Presidents (20 if you consider Bush Sr.).Government grew and paychecks shrunk.Promises broken, tax increases (with the Clinton administration).The Clintons did nothing for the middle income people. Their “1% wealthiest” friends continued to receive more benefits.Our families friends were losing their houses and had to go back to living with their parents as they could no longer afford to live anymore.I think a lot of people forget the following:
Somalia – another unnecessary war
Kosovo – another unnecessary war
Elian Gonzales
Receiving money funded from china (treasonous tradeoffs I think it was called) for his re-election
Bill & Hillary stating they never heard of people (criminals who gave them money) when indeed they have pictures.
Hillary’s financial and other records sealed so nobody would find out the stuff she did (why?)
Monica Lewinski
Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Juanitta Broderick, etc, etc,
Vince Foster (untimely passing)
Ron Brown (untimely passing)
Hillary pulls Bill off of D. Morris as Bill is getting ready to punch him in the face yelling at him “Bill, think about what your doing”.Then walked around telling D. not to say anything to anyone.
Numerous times secret service had to pull Hillary of Bill
Hillary’s foul language
Hillary’s “female” relationships
Bill’s “female” relationships
Lying under oath
Impeached
Decimating our military within two weeks of being elected
Whitewater
Ban lifted on gays in the military
They destroyed and stole white house furniture and artifacts on their way out.Urinated on carpets, walls, etc.It was a real mess to clean up.
And those are only a few of the highlights of the Clinton administration.She wants to take credit for anything good that happened, then she better take credit for the bad too.Especially when she was running the show while Billy was off with his girlfriends.
They are both a couple of criminals and should have gone to jail for half the stuff they did.So while the last eight years have been bad, the previous eight were just as bad. - And all my MIL can say to me is.... "oh but he's so good looking".
and every post like this rains on Obama's....
what makes you think that all the families out there who vote by the way...have had this happen in their family or in the family of someone they know. Go ahead. Sink his campaign. Why do you think he asked his supporters to stop attacking her on this issue??
Geez. Why should I even care. Go ahead. Sink him. How unfortunate his own adoring throngs will help bring him down. Poor man. Bless his heart.
Did I mention Obama anywhere in that post?
can you even have a thought without him in it??
Obama the post turtle
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old PA farmer, whose hand was caught in a gate while working the garden , the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old farmer said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle'.' Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was. The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'.'
The old farmer saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb a$$ put him up there!
It appears to be "The Obama Way" only. Sounds very dictatorial to me. The GOP are now being told who they can and can't listen to on the radio, or "we won't get along."
====================
Post-Partisanship: The Obama Way
By Adam Graham
January 23, 2009
Barack Obama in a display of post-partisanship went to House Republicans and listened to their concerns and responded with a post-partisan/healing/bring us altogether response that we expect from our new President:
During his private meeting with congressional Democrats and Republicans on Friday, President Obama ended a philosophical debate over tax policy with the simple declaration that his opinion prevailed because "I won."
Democrats called it a light-hearted moment that drew laughs around the table. Republicans said there was laughter but couldn't recall if any of it came from their ranks.
Guys, could anyone imagine George W. Bush saying something like to Democrats in 2005? I can't. It's arrogance illustrated. And Keith Olbermann would name Bush "The Worst Person in the World" for it.
Also, Barack Obama had some interest in advising the GOP on their listening habits if they wanted good relations with the White House:
Washington -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
Thus we're beginning to see Barack Obama's big problem when it comes to bi-partisanship. He doesn't know where to begin. He has never worked with Republicans on substantive matters. During the year Republicans controlled the Illinois legislature, Obama was an irrelevant backbencher. In the Senate, the one issue he worked a Republican on was relatively minor (earmark transparency.) Comments like today's won't help. If Obama can't get serious Republican support for his stimulus plan, it could get it delayed, while vulnerable Democrats seek cover. If it doesn't work, Democrats could left holding the bag if it goes wrong.
Plus, what a difference a day makes. Or at least President Obama seems to think so. He was widely expected to lift the Mexico City Policy of funding International organizations that support abortions, yesterday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Instead, he demurred and issued a tepid statement about the need to reduce abortions. It looked like he was saving his political capital and avoiding too quickly dwindling the good will he had from most Americans, so he waits one day, but still does it:
WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Friday lifted restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush.
The Democratic president's decision was a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.
When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offered abortion services or counseling in other countries, even if the funds for those activities came from non-U.S. government sources.
Ah, it's so good to know that my tax dollars now go to organizations that are sending abortion missionaries overseas to spread abortion around the world.
Did waiting until January 23rd help Obama any? Slightly. Obama did it at 5 PM ET, buried on a Friday which is good for limiting media coverage, but the folks who were going to learn about this decision and understand it were never going to hear about it from the mainstream press. Plus, not doing it on January 22nd means not being engaged with a fight on the same day as the March for Life, but Obama's still fighting the culture war on the left side of the equation.
However, realistically, this is a decision that could have waited much longer-at least until after the stimulus was passed. Most of these dollars have already been designated as to where they're going. Obama spent political capital that he could have saved for a few more weeks which makes the move a mis-step.
Obama had no choice to do it eventually. He had to pay off his supporters in the abortion rights movement, who like many other industries are looking for a bailout. However, they could have waited a little longer.
I don't agree that we should protect a pedophile, I don't agree with a lot of other things listed in the OP's list, but that does not mean that I think people in America have the right to physically harm the people that practice those things, and if they are harmed, then the person doing the harm should be punished.
What about Dumbya nuking Iran
with his *bunker busters*?
Now THAT'S an example of why certain countries (and/or their leaders) shouldn't be let loose with nuclear weapons!
This is a shocking and frightening story, and I don't recall reading anything about Congress giving Bush this power.
Well, here it is, folks. The beginning of the end of humanity, as Congress sits paralyzed and watches it happen (unless they finally grow a backbone and say *ENOUGH* to Bush).
The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
That's the name they're using, the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.
A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.
The former intelligence officials depicts planning as enormous, hectic and operational, Hersh writes.
One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government, The New Yorker pointed out.
In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.
But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.
There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries, the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.
The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke a chain reaction of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.
If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle, the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
I believe he made the statement concerning Iran...
because Ahmadinejad has said publically that Israel should be wiped off the map and he had a vision of the world without the United States. Don't recall North Korea saying anything remotely like that. The big difference in Kim Jong IL and Ahmadinejad is that Ahmadinejad does not care what happen if he nuked Israel or the US...because to him, being martyred is the most wonderful thing that can happen to anyone. And if his attack ushered in the coming of the 12th Imam, mores the better. If you will look at his statements, especially the one about the 12th Imam...that will tell you why he could very well be the one to start a world war III if he had nukes. I believe that is what was meant.
And one could surmise he used that word to shock some out of their complacency.
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat. setting the stage for a war with iran
Maybe this will come to nothing, but the NYT reports today (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html?hp) that ''the amount of uranium that Tehran had now amassed — more than a ton — was sufficient, with added purification, to make an atom bomb.''
So here we go again, people nudging us towards war, with the complicity of the Times. We'll pretend that a nuclear weapon is something you can cook up in your kitchen, once you have the requisite number of atoms. We'll pretend that this is The Greatest Threat We Have Ever Known. Even bigger than Saddam, who ended up not having all the WMD the NYT said he did. We've already begun playing around with 2007's National Intelligence Estimate (see LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story) to make Iran seem more dangerous.
We really just can't leave *anyone* alone, can we?
marks the location of current message within thread!["](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/global/odot.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_tl.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_bl.gif"){kind=small}
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
