Read it RIGHT now and you were EXACTLY right. Wow, whatta essay.

Thanks, I would not have found that on my own.

Could our Congress start off with the chant "Death to Imbeciles?"

Just curious!

Wonderful and sensible. Right on the money.

Could our Congress start off with the chant "Death to Imbeciles?"--GMRoper

Now that is something I could get behind.I would even tune in each and every day just to hear it.
Maybe I will start using it in my comments here.
I even have some imbeciles firmly in mind.
1/2 of :-)

This article hit me hard right in the gut. I have children who have presented me with grandchildren and I worry they will not have as good a life as I have had. Now they are in danger of not living at all. Atomics in the hands a country run by zealots and fanatics gives me cold chills. For them, it is nothing to send young people on suicide charges; it is a fact that this is what happened during the Iran/Irag war. Why will not the "diplomats" get some common sense and get this issue off the table and into action. Fanatics lie, cheat, steal & kill with no conscience so any negotiations must be covered with a check for truth rule. Self-preservation comes with a price. Can we pay it??

Gene

Right on target... and brings me back to how much responsibility Jimmy Carter bears for having chickened out, dropped the ball, lost his nerve, whatever you want to call it when the hostages were taken back in 1979. Even then, young and on the left, I couldn't understand why he didn't say: "Set them free or we will consider it an act of war."

That was the beginning of it all as far as I'm concerned.

I dutifully read Callimachus's post per your instructions :) and of course one word comes to mind vis a vis his European "friend's" communications:

Eurabia.

I know you think its overwrought and hysterical. I suppose time will tell. In the meantime who is 'Callimachus'? Where is VDH when you need him?

What's most nauseating for me is that Britons can't take responsibility for their part in the creation of Iran and stick us with all the blame. It was they and the Russians who carved Iran up and trounced upon it's land and it's people for the better part of 100 years. It was they who exploited the indescretions of Reza Shah Pahlahvi to gain the favorable end of oil, land and tariff concessions. And it was they who trained his military; the same which he used to force upon his people his own brand of semi-fascist totalitarianism.

The U.S.'s hands are far from clean in this matter, but Iran's abuse began well before we got there. In Iran as well as in Palestine and Iraq, it is the U.S. who is left to pick up the wreckage of their failed Empire and frivolous Anglo-Russo conflicts.

Those who live in glass houses.....

I wonder why I've never seen this guys blog linked before, not just here I mean anywhere. I would have thought that with that kind of writing I would have seen him being linked to all over the place.

I am shocked to hear indications that the mullahs are probably still trying to make a nuke. Surely our quick victory against Saadam's feared military, and our steadfast determination to build a democratic order in this part of the world, has them given them reason to fear a full-scale US invasion and overthrow? Surely they know that the bankrupt ideology of liberalism has been rejected in America, and Jimmy Carter is no longer in the White House? I suppose they might be thinking that our remarkable wartime and post-war success in Iraq cannot be duplicated in a country three times larger in population, and four times larger in land size. If so, they underestimate our President's and our people's resolve, as well as the yearning of all people for liberty.

For people genuinely interested in the problem at hand, instead of lame euro-bashing, there is a much more informative and insightful post here.

Markus -

See miklos rosza's comment above. Part of the reason war with Iraq was necessary is because we were no longer taken seriously in the region - we had a long history in the ME of delivering ultimatums and then backing down. Many of those decisions may have seemed wise at the time (e.g., Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983), but the real world consequence is that prior to Iraq II, dictators felt free to ignore us. Much to Saddam's sorrow, Iraq II is the first step in reversing that impression. Hopefully, a step 2 will be unnecessary; if it is, however, we must be prepared to take it.

Any difficulties we may or may not be having in Iraq at the present time are not the essential point of reference for the Mullahs of Iran. For them, what matters is that Saddam is sitting in a jail cell waiting for trial, and that they may be next. What happens in Iraq post-Saddam is far less important than the reality that Saddam is out of power.

I think Markus has a point. But what he can't acknowledge is that even though our hands are currently tied in the short run, if we succeed in Iraq, then Iran's long-term prospects don't look so rosy. With Iraq as our ally and our presence assured in that region, Iran will have no choice but to play ball. They are basically surrounded by U.S. allies now, and becoming increasingly isolated. And that explains their desperation in seeing Iraq fail. But the Iranians will eventually have to stand down; unfortunately I see a long and drawn out process. Sorry Libs, no quick easy solutions for you!

Ben -- the current and likely future responsibilities of our military in Iraq make the invasion and occupation of Iran an impossibility, if in fact such an action is necessary.

The mullahs know this. They also that a democratic Iraq will be a pro-Iranian Iraq.

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this. I'm just noting what I see.

novakant -

I read the article at Crooked Timber and added a comment. The author there is right about Iran not willingly giving up its nuclear program, and, for the most part, his post really is not in conflict with the post identified by Michael.

As to the issue of "lame euro-bashing," I am afraid that Euro-bashing is quite appropriate in the case of a nuclear-armed Iran. Many in Europe really do want to see Iran get nuclear weapons - because they see a nuclear-armed Iran as placing limitations on the US and Israel. Certainly it would be bad for the US and Israel if Iran got "the Bomb," but I am disappointed that they are not more concerned about whether the mullahs are people who are to be trusted with nukes. After all, I feel a lot better about the typical 80 year old grandma having a gun than I do about Charles Manson being similarly armed.

From the left:

First, I don't have any problem with spying or with contingency plans. What Hersh suggests is that there are those pushing to implement those plans. Whatever you think about the wisdom of that, you have to accept that it's different then just being prepared.

Second, haven't we now reached that crucial credibility question? I know the right doesn't like to talk about it, but the administration was wrong about the presence of WMD. So shouldn't we be at least a little skeptical of their insistence that they know exactly where to bomb?

I'm not trying to tell you that invading is wrong or that our intelligence is necessarily inaccurate, I'm just suggesting that it's more complicated than you allow.

Mavis -

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure how you comment changes anything on a strategic level. Our best information is that Iran is attempting to get nukes. This may or may not be accurate, but we still have to make the decision of whether or not to act. If the decision to act is taken, then intelligence becomes purely tactical. If the level of certainty is high, bombing might work - if not, boots on the ground may be the only alternative.

Markus -

We don't need to occupy Iran to depose the mullahs. We can put together an invasion force large enough to ruin their day, then withdraw and let the chips fall where they may. The mullahs know this. They also know that once they are removed from power, they are not likely to get back in and that if we aren't there to put them on trial they are more likely to be lined up against a wall and shot. Hence the utility of showing that we say what we mean and mean what we say.

Invading Iran is simply not an option. It just isn't. What's more is the likelihood of a successful effort to destroy their progress toward going nucular (just kidding :) is all but none. So we have no choice, but to turn Iran's own weapon against them, ideology.

Specifically an unseen, non-negotiable, and ever-present enemy against which they cannot launch artillary salvos and suicide bombers. We must force them to face their greatest enemy, their own people. The fractures are there, we just need to apply the right amount of pressure, in the right places, to bring the whole thing down.

David is right, but so is Markus. This Iraq deal could go either way; however if we succeed in instituting a secular government which satisifies the Shiite majority, and adequately tolerates the Sunni, Kurdish, and Christian minorities, then we stand a good chance of creating a "base" from which we can launch our "artillery" of progress.

That and a democratic, and economically viable Palestinian State, can ensure the battlefront of Radical Islam must relocate itself within the borders of it's greatest sponsor.

Unfortunately though it must be noted that such a solution would never have a prayer of success if Iran isn't convinced there is a possibility of a full U.S. military onslaught.

Divide and you will Conquer.

The invasion of Iraq and the difficult occupation have made the overthrow of the mullahs much less likely. It has also made US reapproachment with the mullahs more likely as well. This is good. Yes, I too would like to see them overthrown eventually. But not by us. Even Bush acknowledges that our lack of diplomatic relations with Iran hamstrings us. I wouldn't be surprised about if there isn't a strong effort behind the scenes to foster some type of a Gaddafi-type deal.

Ben -- Do you have any evidence for the following two assertions? They seem to be based on hope and wishful thinking, rather than any facts that I've come across.

"We don't need to occupy Iran to depose the mullahs. We can put together an invasion force large enough to ruin their day, then withdraw and let the chips fall where they may."

"Any difficulties we may or may not be having in Iraq at the present time are not the essential point of reference for the Mullahs of Iran. For them, what matters is that Saddam is sitting in a jail cell waiting for trial, and that they may be next."

Markus -

Re the assertions you identify:

The first assertion is based on common sense and military history. It takes a much smaller force to invade a country for the purpose of deposing its leadership than it does to invade a country, occupy it, and then install your preferred leadership. With the first scenario, you only need to kill the leaders and their supporters (not all, just enough to cause the regime to topple) and destroy things (the institutions that support the current leadership and communicate its message); with the second, you need sufficient troops to pacify the population and support the new structure you are building. The distinction is that with the first scenario your goal is much more limited, and does not even involve conquest of the entire country - it simply involves going where the mullahs are and killing them or removing enough of the supports to cause the regime to topple.

Assertion #2 is an extension of Assertion #1. If you are the mullahs, you are just as dead whether you are followed by democracy or dictatorship - from this perspective, what follows the fall of your regime is sort of beside the point.

Ben -- It certainly is common sense that it is easier to break something than to put it back together. But why on earth would anyone want to overthrow the mullah's and "let the chips fall where they may"? Any reason to believe things would turn out any better there than they would if we listened to the antiwar extreme left and "let the chips fall where they may" in Iraq, by immediately withdrawing now that that we have deposed Saadam?

You don't seem to appreciate that things could happen in Iraq that will leave the U.S. as bad or much worse off than when Saadam was in power. (Such as a weak Iraqi government that allows Al-Qaeda to set up base in the Sunni Triangle.) We also could do worse than have to deal with the present mullahs in Iran.

Ben, do you have any evidence for the contention that "many in Europe want to see a nuclear-armed Iran"? I have never heard anyone make that point and I have been living in Europe for a while.

A nuclear-armed Iran would effectively end the current non-proliferation framework and it is hard to see how europeans could have any interest in that happening. And apart from uttering strong words once in a while the Bush admin has been quite content in passively watching the europeans do the diplomacy. I'm not sure if these diplomatic efforts will lead to anything and I have a feeling that if Iran really wants to pursue nuclear arms, there is nothing short of war that can stop them, but there is no harm in trying, is there? And it would indeed help if the US got engaged in this process in some way.

As for deposing of the Iranian leadership and letting the chips fall where they may, I simply don't think that is a feasible option. And even if this could be achieved without major bloodshed, civil war or a destabilization of the whole region, it seems that the vast majority of the Iranians favor nuclear armament (very similar to the Pakistanis in that respect), so with respect to non-proliferation probably not much would have been gained by regime-change.

Markus -

Iraq and Iran are different because there are different sets of objectives. We did not invade Iraq solely to depose Saddam. In the hypothetical scenario I was discussing, the sole purpose would be to overthrow (i.e., punish) the Iranian regime. And no, there is no reason to believe things would work out well in Iran if we left a power vacuum - under various sets of circumstances, however, it would work out better than leaving the mullahs in power. I was originally responding to your contention that we did not have the means effectively to threaten the mullahs -- clearly we do have those means. There would be one hell of a mess that would probably have to be cleaned up later, but you do what you can with what you have.

I certainly do appreciate that things could turn out badly in Iraq. I believed in 2003 and still believe today that the invasion of Iraq was the best of a set of bad alternatives (including doing nothing). Success is not guaranteed, but the stakes are very high.

Novakant -

I have heard and read the opinions of numerous experts who claim that some in Europe want Iran to get nukes. In addition, both France and Germany have been selling nuclear technology to Iran for several years now. It's hard to argue that the French and Germans are interested in keeping Iran from joining the "nuclear club" as those countries continue to sell dual use technology to Iran (particularly because it is well known that the Iranians are using that technology in their nuclear programs).

The Bush Administration been deeply involved in the diplomatic process with Iran - by playing the "bad cop." With no credible threat of force lurking in the background, there would be no chance whatsoever of a negotiated solution.

As for deposing the mullahs and letting the chips fall where they may, obviously that is not a first choice. Under certain sets of circumstances, however, it may be preferrable to the alternatives.

It's hard to argue that the French and Germans are interested in keeping Iran from joining the "nuclear club" as those countries continue to sell dual use technology to Iran

Wow, that's quite an allegation, would you care to back that up with a few links please?
Note that neither Germany, nor France are mentioned in this list regarding nuclear exports to Iran. They don't appear here either and, for what it's worth, they belong to the NSG. Now I wouldn't be surprised if there has been some illicit trading going on, but to conclude that the governments of these countries actively undermine non-proliferation efforts is a bit rich.

Novakant -

Both links you provided contradict the point you are making. In addition, as I said above, I have heard and read the opinions of numerous experts on this topic. I did not take not of them at the time, and I am not going to hunt for them now. It is an explicit policy of the EU that Iran should be permitted to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Believing that Iran is developing nuclear power out of a need for electricity is ludicrous - Iran is sitting on top of enough oil to keep the lights on for the foreseeable future. Given that fuel shortages are not going to become a problem for Iran anytime soon, how likely is it that all Iran really wants to do is produce electricity?

Come on, Ben. Like novakant said, put up or shut up. None of this, "I'm not telling cause it's not worth my time," bullshit.

Mavis -

Both of the links novakant supplied contradict his point. Enough said.

I'm not trying to tell you that invading is wrong or that our intelligence is necessarily inaccurate, I'm just suggesting that it's more complicated than you allow.

Good grief. If our discourse is reduced to this, then God help the United States of America.

The President and his entire Cabinet are on record endorsing a case for war which has since been proved dead, wrong, stupid, misguided, catastrophic.

No mushroom cloud over St. Louis, at least not one fashioned in Baghdad.

There is no complication here: our President and his entire staff have already lied in our faces. Is there a free citizen of this Republic so gullible as to rely on them again, as we contemplate the conquest of Persia?

Well, perhaps: Alexander did it, and so did the Moslems, but since then it's been kind of a dry run for invaders. Ask Emperor Valerian about that.

Both of the links novakant supplied contradict his point.

How?

The claim that "let the chips fall where they may" would be unlikely to give a worse result that leaving the mullahs to fight it out with their people actually works if you accept some particular assumptions.

Here's one: If it's unacceptable to american voters not to act, then doing something decisive -- anything -- is better than doing nothing. Because whatever the result, the voters consider flexing our muscles and demonstrating american power an end goal in itself.

Remember, to a lot of voters it doesn't matter nearly as much what actually happens as how it looks.

Like, say Carter had told the iranians it was an act of war to keep our diplomats. Their natural response would have been to storm the building. They could then return the surviving diplomats and the bodies. "We saved 3 of them before the terrorists could kill them. But at least we killed all the students." We could then argue about whether they really killed the terrorists etc. It wasn't unreasonable for Carter to instead try to get our diplomats out alive. The iranians acted like they were ready to make a deal, but somehow they never got around to it. The story that Bush Sr made a deal with them not to release the hostages until after the election has never been completely proven, it could even be wrong. Finally Carter bet everything on a US rescue. I don't have the details but it seems we were going to use a poison gas that's quick to knock people out but slow to kill them. So the terrorists might fail to kill the hostages, and we could then give the antidote to the hostages and pull out. But the rescue failed. If it had worked Carter might have won and things would be very different today.

Thank you for the information!
Geburtstag Archiv -

Songtexte -

Versicherungsvergleich -

Routenplaner -

Geburtstag -

Apotheke -

Gratisproben -

Sofort Kredite -

Kredit -

Hochzeit -

Computerspiele -Ausgefallene
Geschenkideen -

IQ Test -

Lotto spielen -

Gewinnspiel -

Arcor DSL -

Gewinnspiele

Check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick :: Other Sites Index :: Past Featured Sites :: Other Sites :: Other Sites 2 :: Partner Sites

Also check out 100 Best Poker Rooms for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

And How to Gamble Online for all the best up to date online gambling sites.

klimatyzacja
projektowanie wnętrz
jiddu
3d
reklama
projektowanie stron
nieruchomości
forum ludzkie
poezja
swietlica
psycholog
agroturystyka
opony

praca za granicą

18 latki bita grupowo @ 18 latki bita latwo @ 18 latki bita lesbijki @ 18 latki bita lesby @ 18 latki bita lezbijki @ 18 latki bita lezby @ 18 latki bita na zywo @ 18 latki bita nietrzezwe @ 18 latki bita niewolnice sexualne @ 18 latki bita od tylu @ 18 latki bita odurzone @ 18 latki bita ostro @ 18 latki bita ostry @ 18 latki bita pieniadze @ 18 latki bita pijane @ 18 latki bita pizda @ 18 latki bita pizdy @ 18 latki bita podryw @ 18 latki bita podrywacze @ 18 latki bita podwiazki @ 18 latki bita podwojnie @ 18 latki bita przerosniete @ 18 latki bita przystojne @ 18 latki bita przystojny @ 18 latki bita rajstopy @ 18 latki bita rozjebane @ 18 latki bita siksy @ 18 latki bita szybko @ 18 latki bita w 2 osoby @ 18 latki bita w cipe @ 18 latki bita w cipke @ 18 latki bita w dupe @ 18 latki bita w dziurke @ 18 latki bita w kakao @ 18 latki bita w pupe @ 18 latki bita w szparke @ 18 latki bita we dwoje @ 18 latki bita wyrosniete @ 18 latki bita za forse @ 18 latki bita za kase @ 18 latki bita za pieniadze @ 18 latki bita zgabnie @ 18 latki bita zgrabne @ 18 latki brutalnie @ 18 latki bzykanie @ 18 latki bzykanie 2 pary @ 18 latki bzykanie 2pary @ 18 latki bzykanie brutalnie @ 18 latki bzykanie cycate @ 18 latki bzykanie darmo

Greetings From NY !

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino

asc
kraob
eves
akupunktura
freesz
puz
domy opieki
mopinsite
oppin

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪

过滤器
强磁水处理器
自清洗过滤器
自动反冲洗过滤器

澳大利亚
澳大利亚移民
澳洲移民

网站优化
Printer parts

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas
Achat DOFUS Kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
陈楚生

卫星电视上海卫星电视卫星电视安装安装卫星电视圣诞树网站建设google优化Google左侧优化google排名Google左侧排名GOOGE左侧优化排名 上海google优化google优化排名上海google左侧排名上海google排名上海google左侧优化google优化Google左侧优化短信群发短信群发器短信群发群发短信短信群发器小灵通群发器小灵通短信群发器短信群发软件手机短信群发软件短信群发设备手机短信群发设备手机短信群发器网站建设网站设计网站制作美女图片美女写真性感美女制服美腿西洋美女走光偷拍网友自拍包装印刷上海包装印刷免费电影免费下载电影免费在线电影上海印刷上海包装弯管弯管上海hp笔记本维修上海惠普笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修上海DELL笔记本维修上海联想笔记本维修上海东芝笔记本维修上海acer笔记本维修上海华硕笔记本维修上海索尼笔记本维修上海sony笔记本维修上海hp笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修弯管 弯管加工 路灯节能路灯监控 合同能源管理google优化google左侧优化google排名google左侧排名卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视安装卫星电视安装卫星电视卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk