Obama Demands Action
“I don’t see how another year of negotiations would help.”
Oh, I though he was talking about Iran. Nevermind.
Great article in the Wall Street Journal on Obamacare:
And another one on votes for sale - our president at work…
http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 2016 hrs
Just curious - what action do you wish Obama was taking on Iran?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 2142 hrs
We already have large numbers of troops in the region, so what we need is a Gulf of Tonkin-type resolution to justify an all-out war.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 2208 hrs
blockade
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 2211 hrs
What on earth would a blockade accomplish?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 2253 hrs
Just curious - what action do you wish Obama was taking on Iran?
Any action which might prevent them from getting their grubby little mitts on a nuclear bomb….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 0711 hrs
Military action? I think the U.S. should sit that one out…We already have one war going on for the search of weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 0833 hrs
The intention of a blockade would be to get Iran to stop it’s nuke program.
One can look up any number of sources to determine how it would potentially accomplish this…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1007 hrs
Clearly Iran must be made to end it’s search for nuclear weapons… ok, maybe not so clearly to amateur politicians from Chicago, but clear to anyone who’s given to rational thought.
America should have been organizing allies for a serious embargo of fuel, food, and trade goods to Iran until it disavowed weapons research and allowed open inspection. Barring success with that, a blockade would be a logical next step. The Iranian government is already having to deal with a weak pro-democracy movement. Applying the added pressure of having no gasoline and a goods shortage might have bolstered the fledgling anti-mullah movement. If not, then it would at least have degraded the Iranian governments ability to research and produce weapons.
For those Obama supporters who disagree, offer a reasonable and effective alternative.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1025 hrs
As if the guy you put into office Family Guy knew what the hell he was doing. He couldn’t even run a successful business. And his VP never did a damned thing right in his whole career.
Here is a reasonable and effective alternative—http://tinyurl.com/yhw87za—from a Democrat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 2128 hrs
BTW—It may turn out that Iran is in fact more reasonable to deal with than the Senate GOP.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 2131 hrs
BTW—It may turn out that Iran is in fact more reasonable to deal with than the Senate GOP.
... or the voters or Massachusetts…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 2156 hrs
At least Obama is not trading arms with Iran as the proposed president for the $50 bill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 2228 hrs
The intention of a blockade would be to get Iran to stop it’s nuke program.
One can look up any number of sources to determine how it would potentially accomplish this…
The intention is clear. But why don’t you tell me your logic for how it would be accomplished, rather than hiding behind “one can look up any number of sources” bullshit. Perhaps an example of other blockades that convinced leaders to abandon nuclear programs?
And how exactly would such a blockade be accomplished? What of Iran’s substantial land borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan? Do you suggest we send troops to “blockade” those land borders?
Enlighten me, Smeety, as to your seemingly infinite and infallible wisdom.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 2309 hrs
Perhaps an example of other blockades that convinced leaders to abandon nuclear programs?
Easy enough: http://go.hrw.com/hrw.nd/gohrw_rls1/pKeywordResults?keyword=st9+cuban+missiles
And how exactly would such a blockade be accomplished?
A naval blockade would be easy to accomplish as all of Iran’s import and export traffic is through the Gulf of Oman. Shutting off oil exports and ending gasoline imports would bring Iran to it’s knees quite quickly, as Iran imports 40% of it’s gasoline and 80% of it’s export income is from petroleum. It’s border with Iraq is clearly secure and much of the rest of it’s borders are very mountainous.
The main problem for a blockade would be our blockhead of a teleprompter reader. Obama does not have the skills to create a multinational coalition, nor has he earned the respect of other world leaders so far by showing leadership on this issue. Likely he will allow the insane mullahs to create thermonuclear weapon. If (or when) it is detonated in Israel, those who ignored this issue will have much to answer for. If it happens before his regime topples, Barack will have a truly indelible legacy. He’ll go down in history as the American Chamberlain who’s policy of appeasement allowed the second holocaust. A quite possible outcome if we do nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 2343 hrs
It was the threat of invasion and nuclear attack that ended the Cuban missile crisis, not the quarantine.
If a blockade is such an obvious and easy solution, why didn’t previous administrations do it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 0134 hrs
Because Americans don’t want to pay $7/gallon for gas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 0604 hrs
If a blockade is such an obvious and easy solution, why didn’t previous administrations do it?
Obviously military action is a last resort. First you try diplomacy and non-military pressure. If that fails, then you must escalate the level of your reaction until you have the desired effect.
What would you have us do George? Do you have some thoughts of your own on the matter, or do you support our regimes policy of doing nothing and simply hoping everything will be ok?
Oh, and it wasn’t the threat of invasion that changed Kruschev’s mind. It was the blockade that stopped the nukes from arriving, and intense diplomatic pressure that offered an alternate solution to the Soviets. When they saw that we were willing to use force, it changed the dynamic of the situation. I suspect Iran’s leaders are even less stable that the Soviet Union was. That will makes things harder, and it also makes the idea of a nuclear Iran more dangerous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 0800 hrs
If a blockade is such an obvious and easy solution, why didn’t previous administrations do it?
There was never a need. At it’s most belligerent Iran took American hostages, and held them for 444 days while a do-nothing president struggled with how to deal with the problem. They were released the moment Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.
Fast forward twenty nine years…..
GWB didn’t enact any major foreign policy initiatives in the final months of his second term, because he was deferring to the incoming administration. Although it seems to me that Iran has ramped up the BS over the course of the last year, almost exactly as Joe Biden predicted. Despite all this the Obama administration seems to be doing its best to ignore foreign policy with it’s single minded focus on blowing as much political capital as possible on the healthcare bill. Unfortunately the political piggy bank is nearly tapped out, and now we are staring down the barrel of a potential international crisis…. ANY attention from this administration would be much appreciated by Americans who are in fact concerned about the real potential of another world war.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 0802 hrs
Do you have some thoughts of your own on the matter, or do you support our regimes policy of doing nothing and simply hoping everything will be ok?
I think we are consulting with our bankers.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LC04Ad02.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 0958 hrs
This foundation of this topic is whether one view’s Iran as an imminent threat, ie., a clear and present danger.
I get the feeling George does not view Iran as such. I hope George is correct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 1330 hrs
There are many reasons we sell our best military hardware to Jerusalem. One of which is an expectation they’ll be able to properly address regional threats without our having to intervene. Have you any proof Iran is any closer to a nuclear device than they were 10 years ago…beside the bluster of their unstable leadership?
This really is a non-starter. If there was a legitimate threat, the Jews would deal with it with their US-made F-16s and smartbombs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 2207 hrs
And a gold star for Joe Mamma!!!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC05Ak01.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2010 at 1011 hrs
Yeah, you can always trust a Chinese news service for honest and spin free insight on the issues. lol
This explains much about you that I did not understand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2010 at 1130 hrs
Perhaps you would like to offer an alternative perspective?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2010 at 1237 hrs
I believe I already have quite clearly stated my perspective throughout this thread. If you’d like, I can see if Pravda is still publishing for your linking convenience…
... oh look, Pravda IS still publishing
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2010 at 2258 hrs
Oh, I see, as usual you appear to have nothing of substance to offer?
Joi gin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2010 at 2345 hrs
If you are having trouble scrolling back to #s 9, 15, and 18, then I suggest a new mouse. If you are having a problem understanding what I wrote, feel free to ask. I think I spelled out what I think the Obamateur should be doing… I’m not sure what is confusing you. Nothing of substance? Did you want me to come up with the TO&E for the blockading force?
If you have some reasonable question regarding my stated position, feel free to ask, if not, I’ll bid you ????? (Gao bie yu mei ren)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1138 hrs
Always with the compliments TFG, zìj? qù t? m? de.
I do not see any difference between your pronouncements and what the administration has been doing?
Are you advocating for a unilateral decision and immediate commencement of the blockade?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 2001 hrs
What has the administration been doing? A bit of chatter that has been easily ignored by Iran. BHO and his gang have come down like a ton of bricks on Isreal, leaving that nation largely isolated and surrounded by hostiles. Heck, I think the Obamateur has spent more effort trying to stop Israeli settlements than trying to stop the Atomic Mullahs.
It may be too late to form a strong coalition now. Big O has wasted more than a year while Iran certainly has not. Once they have a test detonation, the world changes forever, and our options all become terrible. The Obamateur needs to get to work on the fumbled economy at home and serious foreign policy abroad rather than pushing this VERY unpopular health care mess that seems to be the only issue on his radar.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 2018 hrs
What has the administration been doing? A bit of chatter that has been easily ignored by Iran.
Not according to the source I offered.
Maybe you have a source that backs your rhetoric up?
BHO and his gang have come down like a ton of bricks on Isreal, leaving that nation largely isolated and surrounded by hostiles.
Maybe you should reread my second link.
Unless you have one that presents another perspective?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 2059 hrs
Not according to the source I offered.
I’ve never been one to consider the Chinese government to be a reputable source on anything. Any news published in China is tainted.
From January of this year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/world/middleeast/03iran.htmlMr. Obama’s top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran, published a year before President George W. Bush left office, which said that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in late 2003.
Yeah, that’s where we are at. Obama’s advisers, after a year, now think Iran might actually be going after a nuke. Apparently they were not operating on that assumption before.
As for the Obamateurs sanctions, from the same pravda article:
Sanctions will be a difficult balancing act for the administration, since it acknowledges that three previous rounds of sanctions have failed to deter Iran, and it also wants to avoid angering Iranians protesting in the streets by depriving them of Western goods.
So, they want to start sanctions now… during the end game… but not any sanctions that will deprive the Iranians of anything. Yeah, that’ll bring them to their knees. What are we planning… a massive Hello Kitty embargo, or perhaps no more frapucinos… no wait, that might be depriving them of western goods… let’s ban Mexican Sombreros and imported polish hams. That should work, eh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1008 hrs
I’ve never been one to consider the Chinese government to be a reputable source on anything.
A lot of American consumers would disagree with you.
Any news published in China is tainted.
AT is hq’d in Hong Kong and brings together content from all over the world.
Now I know why you always seem so happy.
Let me get this straight.
You are criticizing the current administration for taking a whole year to begin to discount the NIE that the previous administration believed for 5+ years?
It seems the only sense you have is one of humor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1104 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 11:28 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).