Obama is a Marxist Statist, he leans more to the side of the radical regime than he does the moderates
Marxists tend to dislike theocracies.
IRAN-Deja vu all over again?
by JWdaughter 318 Replies latest social current
-
hamilcarr
-
llbh
hamilcar- spot on.
Happy Guy I agree with much of what you say in the last 3 paragraphs of your post, the difference between is that I honestly believe that the Iranians have the will and the courage to change, and will on this we differ.That accounts for the ranting of the hardliners ( at least in part) on this we differ too.
Obama has been decisive in putting in placing the missile shield at four strategic points, that sends a very clear message imo.
As for the Chinese -yes your military is superior - for now, and i hope it stays that way too, though I do not think it will.
BTW no i do not count Kurds as Iranians, neither do they. Kurdistan covers parts of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Therein lies another part of the jigsaw, which the UK, in part helped create in the days if its empire.
David
-
HappyGuy
Marxists tend to dislike theocracies.
Marxists dislike free societies even more,so they will side with the fellow dictator over the capitalist, democracy sympathizers every time.
-
HappyGuy
As for the Chinese -yes your military is superior - for now, and i hope it stays that way too, though I do not think it will.
The US mililtary is at least 25 years ahead of everyone except the Brits and the Israelis.
We have technologies in the most important areas that are so far ahead of everyone else they are not even on their way to the ballpark.
These areas are cyber warfare and robotics. Imagine that you are a pilot in a Chinese squadron and you are confident because your numbers so outnumber the numbers of US planes and then on your radar screen you see hundreds of thousands of blips and then the last thing you see is small flying robots smashing into your cockpit. No one else is even close to having that capability.
China does not innovate, they copy. They also have some really serious problems in access to critical resources. No, China is not going to war with the US anytime soon.
-
llbh
And America is not going to war with China either.
Why the need to go on the attack all the time btw? War rarely if ever achieves its objective.
I agree with you about Marxists and dictators , different sides of the same coin. That is why I believe that the west can and does show the way forward.
David
-
HappyGuy
llbh,
you were the one who said that China will go to war with the US when we take out the Iranian nuclear program. So now you are disputing your own point?
Why the need to go on the attack "all the time"? I didn't say "all the time", I said we should soundly defeat our enemies, the enemies that started this war with us, and are now threatening a war of genocide with nuclear weapons which they are making a gargantuan effort to obtain.
Why do you twist everything I say?
The west does show the way forward? Dude, put down the crack pipe. The Obama regime has repudiated everything that the west stands for, we no longer have anyone promoting what the US stands for.
Like it or not, the way forward with Iran was put into motion by their insane president when he called for a nuclear war as soon as he can get the means to launch it.
-
llbh
My point about China, is that the Chinese may well support Iran for a number of reasons, just as the US supported Saddam, that would be very dangerous if they did.
You need to separate the rhetoric from intention of Iranian regime, and if that is not possible, take precautions, as Obama has done, in placing the missile carriers in the Gulf, this sends a very strong message to Iran. What more do you think Obama should do, unless you think a tactical srtike is called for?
Your enemies also hailed from Saudi Arabia, any thoughts there?
Do not forget that the Iranian regime actually helped the US invade Afghanistan, their loathing of the Taliban matches the US, except that they are at least consistent, in that they have always loathed them, unlike the US whose allies they were.
David
-
HappyGuy
our enemies also hailed from Saudi Arabia, any thoughts there?
The Sauidis are the biggest supporters of the global Jihad movement as that is where Wahabiism is strongest and where it originates from. Not sure what your point is. I don't view Saudi Arabia as America's friend, the Bush family has been in bed with the Saudis since the Prescott Bush days.
We should take the war against our enemies wherever it leads us and it definitely leads to Saudi Arabia.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Iran, their nuclear weapons program and their insane leaders which is what I was talking about and which is the topic of this thread.
-
llbh
HG we agree about Saudi Arabia too, though the US will not take action against it, though why not impose some sanctions?
BTW I have never said that i believe that there will be a Sino - US war, my point was that Iran has been supported by it.
Mary Dejevsky in the article above makes many of the points I have already made and shows why misreading Iran would be very dangerous, as was invading the Westward looking Iraq was.
David
-
leavingwt
This seems like good news. . .
Ahmadinejad backs deal to remove bulk of enriched uranium from Iran
A long-dormant proposal to remove the bulk of Iran's enriched uranium from the Islamic republic appeared to be revived Tuesday as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had "no problem" with a deal initially brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The deal, which Iran formally rejected weeks ago, would swap low-enriched uranium for fuel for a research reactor that produces medical isotopes. "If we allow them to take it, there is no problem," Ahmadinejad said on state TV. "We sign a contract to give 3.5 percent enriched uranium and receive 20 percent enriched ones after four or five months."
U.S. officials reacted cautiously to Ahmadinejad's remarks, which came a day after France assumed the presidency of the U.N. Security Council. France, along with the United States, Britain and Germany, are pushing hard for additional Security Council sanctions against Tehran for failing to agree to talks on its nuclear ambitions; any sudden interest in diplomacy by Iran might be intended to persuade China, a skeptic of sanctions, to block them, diplomats said. U.S. officials had viewed the proposal involving the research reactor as a test of whether a broader diplomatic deal could be broached on Iran's nuclear programs.
"There is a still a deal on the table. The question is: Is he prepared to say yes," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. He noted that when Iranian diplomats met with U.S. officials in Geneva in October, "they said yes, and then they said no."
Crowley said he was "unaware of a formal response" by Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency changing its stance. "If Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments reflect an updated Iranian position, we look forward to Iran informing the IAEA," said White House spokesman Mike Hammer.
Iran's shift in tone came as Vice President Biden escalated U.S. rhetoric against Iran after a year of outreach. Biden said Tuesday that Iran's leaders are "sowing the seeds of their own destruction" by cracking down harshly on political opponents.
Asked in an MSNBC interview whether it is time to think about regime change in Iran, Biden said that "the very people marching" in anti-government demonstrations are "thinking about regime change."
The United States has "moved in the right direction in a measured way" to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Biden said. "We're going to end up much better off than we would have if we tried to go in there and just physically changed the regime."
Meanwhile, Iran responded angrily to U.S. moves to expand land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Persian Gulf to deter any Iranian attack, calling the rationale "an excuse" to widen U.S. influence in the region. Iranian officials accused the United States of creating "Iran-phobia" in the region and emphasized Iran's good relations with neighboring countries.
Ahmadinejad has made positive remarks before about the nuclear swap, which was initially supported by Iranian nuclear negotiators -- who officially report to him as head of the Supreme National Security Council. In October, after the Geneva meeting, Ahmadinejad called the negotiations "positive" and "a step forward," according to Iranian state television's Web site.
After the proposal was made public, it was severely criticized by influential lawmakers, the leading pro-government newspaper and the former top nuclear negotiator, who said the West would keep the low-enriched nuclear material to sabotage Iran's atomic progress.
In response, the Foreign Ministry asked the United States, France and Russia -- the countries involved in the deal -- for more guarantees that the enriched fuel would be delivered. Iran first said it wanted to swap the material inside Iran. Later it proposed sending a smaller amount of low-enriched uranium in batches to third countries.
After the Security Council reprimanded Iran in November, saying it had been slow to report a second nuclear enrichment site, Ahmadinejad called the initial swap idea "a lost opportunity" and demanded a trade inside Iran. "We cannot trade the prestige of the Islamic Republic and squander it," Ahmadinejad said during a TV interview broadcast on state television.
The fuel is needed to operate a 40-year-old U.S.-supplied nuclear research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes crucial for diagnosis and treatment for an estimated 850,000 kidney, heart and cancer patients. Doctors, nuclear scientists and officials in Iran warn that domestic production will dry up when the research reactor runs out of fuel, perhaps as soon as this spring.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020200640.html