jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...Name=topNew s

If you've been tracking info on Iran, you know the president is more
figurehead than executive and has a weak hand in dictating politics.
If the clerics who run the country thinks it's in their best interest
to engage, they will.

He does what the clerics tell him to do, he isn't a lose cannon, he is
on a short leash.

This is bluster and what was expected from Ahmadinigad, his rhetoric
is very predictable and a show for the region. Has little to do with
what will happen through diplomacy.

His rhetoric is calculated and controlled.

Did you expect them to bow down as say "Yes, sahib, whatever you
say!"?

No. And, I don't expect us to role over and expose our belly to every
petty dictator, the head cleric in Iran, in the region.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.

Yes I prefer Bush's approach to Obama's approach of throw away the stick
and then sit down and talk.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...Name=topNew s

If you've been tracking info on Iran, you know the president is more
figurehead than executive and has a weak hand in dictating politics.
If the clerics who run the country thinks it's in their best interest
to engage, they will.

He does what the clerics tell him to do, he isn't a lose cannon, he is
on a short leash.

This is bluster and what was expected from Ahmadinigad, his rhetoric
is very predictable and a show for the region. Has little to do with
what will happen through diplomacy.

His rhetoric is calculated and controlled.

Did you expect them to bow down as say "Yes, sahib, whatever you
say!"?

No. And, I don't expect us to role over and expose our belly to every
petty dictator, the head cleric in Iran, in the region.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.

Yes I prefer Bush's approach to Obama's approach of throw away the stick
and then sit down and talk.

He is anything but controlled. A large percentage of his countrymen
think he's a lunatic.

GW spouted the same kind of crap in their direction. Do you expect
them to now trust us with open arms?

Stupid is as stupid does.

Obama is a lot smarter than Bush and will engage them in order to
affect the situtation. We can't starve them out, they have the oil
and will likely have more influence over Iraq once we leave.

On Jan 28, 10:31*am, jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...andIrankicked it open.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...90128?feedType....

If you've been tracking info onIran, you know the president is more
figurehead than executive and has a weak hand in dictating politics.
If the clerics who run the country thinks it's in their best interest
to engage, they will.

He does what the clerics tell him to do, he isn't a lose cannon, he is
on a short leash.

This is bluster and what was expected from Ahmadinigad, his rhetoric
is very predictable and a show for the region. *Has little to do with
what will happen through diplomacy.

His rhetoric is calculated and controlled.

Did you expect them to bow down as say "Yes, sahib, whatever you
say!"?

No. And, I don't expect us to role over and expose our belly to every
petty dictator, the head cleric inIran, in the region.

I love how you useObama'soffer of diplomacy to belittle him. *You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.

Yes I prefer Bush's approach toObama'sapproach of throw away the stick
and then sit down and talk.

He is anything but controlled. *A large percentage of his countrymen
think he's a lunatic.

GW spouted the same kind of crap in their direction. *Do you expect
them to now trust us with open arms?

Stupid is as stupid does.

Obamais a lot smarter than Bush and will engage them in order to
affect the situtation. *We can't starve them out, they have the oil
and will likely have more influence over Iraq once we leave.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...ons/obama5.jpg

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...Name=topNew s
If you've been tracking info on Iran, you know the president is more
figurehead than executive and has a weak hand in dictating politics.
If the clerics who run the country thinks it's in their best interest
to engage, they will.
He does what the clerics tell him to do, he isn't a lose cannon, he is
on a short leash.

This is bluster and what was expected from Ahmadinigad, his rhetoric
is very predictable and a show for the region. Has little to do with
what will happen through diplomacy.
His rhetoric is calculated and controlled.

Did you expect them to bow down as say "Yes, sahib, whatever you
say!"?
No. And, I don't expect us to role over and expose our belly to every
petty dictator, the head cleric in Iran, in the region.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.
Yes I prefer Bush's approach to Obama's approach of throw away the stick
and then sit down and talk.

He is anything but controlled. A large percentage of his countrymen
think he's a lunatic.

Who is in charge in Iran? It isn't the people, it is the clerics.

GW spouted the same kind of crap in their direction. Do you expect
them to now trust us with open arms?

The clerics in Iran, through their mouth piece, are going to walk all
over Obama.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Obama sure is stupid, dumb and out of his league on the world stage.

Obama is a lot smarter than Bush and will engage them in order to
affect the situtation. We can't starve them out, they have the oil
and will likely have more influence over Iraq once we leave.

Obama hasn't got a clue as to what he is doing.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...Name=topNew s
If you've been tracking info on Iran, you know the president is more
figurehead than executive and has a weak hand in dictating politics.
If the clerics who run the country thinks it's in their best interest
to engage, they will.
He does what the clerics tell him to do, he isn't a lose cannon, he is
on a short leash.

This is bluster and what was expected from Ahmadinigad, his rhetoric
is very predictable and a show for the region. Has little to do with
what will happen through diplomacy.
His rhetoric is calculated and controlled.

Did you expect them to bow down as say "Yes, sahib, whatever you
say!"?
No. And, I don't expect us to role over and expose our belly to every
petty dictator, the head cleric in Iran, in the region.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.
Yes I prefer Bush's approach to Obama's approach of throw away the stick
and then sit down and talk.

He is anything but controlled. A large percentage of his countrymen
think he's a lunatic.

Who is in charge in Iran? It isn't the people, it is the clerics.

GW spouted the same kind of crap in their direction. Do you expect
them to now trust us with open arms?

The clerics in Iran, through their mouth piece, are going to walk all
over Obama.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Obama sure is stupid, dumb and out of his league on the world stage.

Obama is a lot smarter than Bush and will engage them in order to
affect the situtation. We can't starve them out, they have the oil
and will likely have more influence over Iraq once we leave.

Obama hasn't got a clue as to what he is doing.

There's no sense in your responses, not backed up by any reasoning.

We are the leaders of the free world and Obama dispatched all comers
in free and open elections.

And you think he's out of his league?

You're obviously not a believer in America or Americans.

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...Name=topNew s
If you've been tracking info on Iran, you know the president is more
figurehead than executive and has a weak hand in dictating politics.
If the clerics who run the country thinks it's in their best interest
to engage, they will.
He does what the clerics tell him to do, he isn't a lose cannon, he is
on a short leash.

This is bluster and what was expected from Ahmadinigad, his rhetoric
is very predictable and a show for the region. Has little to do with
what will happen through diplomacy.
His rhetoric is calculated and controlled.

Did you expect them to bow down as say "Yes, sahib, whatever you
say!"?
No. And, I don't expect us to role over and expose our belly to every
petty dictator, the head cleric in Iran, in the region.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.
Yes I prefer Bush's approach to Obama's approach of throw away the stick
and then sit down and talk.
He is anything but controlled. A large percentage of his countrymen
think he's a lunatic.
Who is in charge in Iran? It isn't the people, it is the clerics.

GW spouted the same kind of crap in their direction. Do you expect
them to now trust us with open arms?
The clerics in Iran, through their mouth piece, are going to walk all
over Obama.

Stupid is as stupid does.
Obama sure is stupid, dumb and out of his league on the world stage.

Obama is a lot smarter than Bush and will engage them in order to
affect the situtation. We can't starve them out, they have the oil
and will likely have more influence over Iraq once we leave.
Obama hasn't got a clue as to what he is doing.

There's no sense in your responses, not backed up by any reasoning.

We are the leaders of the free world and Obama dispatched all comers
in free and open elections.

And you think he's out of his league?

You're obviously not a believer in America or Americans.


Bertie (BAR) is a product of bad indoctrination.

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...Name=topNew s
If you've been tracking info on Iran, you know the president is more
figurehead than executive and has a weak hand in dictating politics.
If the clerics who run the country thinks it's in their best interest
to engage, they will.
He does what the clerics tell him to do, he isn't a lose cannon, he is
on a short leash.

This is bluster and what was expected from Ahmadinigad, his rhetoric
is very predictable and a show for the region. Has little to do with
what will happen through diplomacy.
His rhetoric is calculated and controlled.

Did you expect them to bow down as say "Yes, sahib, whatever you
say!"?
No. And, I don't expect us to role over and expose our belly to every
petty dictator, the head cleric in Iran, in the region.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.
Yes I prefer Bush's approach to Obama's approach of throw away the stick
and then sit down and talk.
He is anything but controlled. A large percentage of his countrymen
think he's a lunatic.
Who is in charge in Iran? It isn't the people, it is the clerics.

GW spouted the same kind of crap in their direction. Do you expect
them to now trust us with open arms?
The clerics in Iran, through their mouth piece, are going to walk all
over Obama.

Stupid is as stupid does.
Obama sure is stupid, dumb and out of his league on the world stage.

Obama is a lot smarter than Bush and will engage them in order to
affect the situtation. We can't starve them out, they have the oil
and will likely have more influence over Iraq once we leave.
Obama hasn't got a clue as to what he is doing.

There's no sense in your responses, not backed up by any reasoning.

We are the leaders of the free world and Obama dispatched all comers
in free and open elections.

And you think he's out of his league?

You're obviously not a believer in America or Americans.

We'll see.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:42:40 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...Name=topNew s
If you've been tracking info on Iran, you know the president is more
figurehead than executive and has a weak hand in dictating politics.
If the clerics who run the country thinks it's in their best interest
to engage, they will.
He does what the clerics tell him to do, he isn't a lose cannon, he is
on a short leash.

This is bluster and what was expected from Ahmadinigad, his rhetoric
is very predictable and a show for the region. Has little to do with
what will happen through diplomacy.
His rhetoric is calculated and controlled.

Did you expect them to bow down as say "Yes, sahib, whatever you
say!"?
No. And, I don't expect us to role over and expose our belly to every
petty dictator, the head cleric in Iran, in the region.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.
Yes I prefer Bush's approach to Obama's approach of throw away the stick
and then sit down and talk.
He is anything but controlled. A large percentage of his countrymen
think he's a lunatic.
Who is in charge in Iran? It isn't the people, it is the clerics.

GW spouted the same kind of crap in their direction. Do you expect
them to now trust us with open arms?
The clerics in Iran, through their mouth piece, are going to walk all
over Obama.

Stupid is as stupid does.
Obama sure is stupid, dumb and out of his league on the world stage.

Obama is a lot smarter than Bush and will engage them in order to
affect the situtation. We can't starve them out, they have the oil
and will likely have more influence over Iraq once we leave.
Obama hasn't got a clue as to what he is doing.

There's no sense in your responses, not backed up by any reasoning.

We are the leaders of the free world and Obama dispatched all comers
in free and open elections.

And you think he's out of his league?

You're obviously not a believer in America or Americans.

We'll see.

Whatever happens, you'll attempt to color it as defeat.

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.
Yes I prefer
And you think he's out of his league?

You're obviously not a believer in America or Americans.

The situation in Iran could be compared to the situation in 1909. Japan
was a militaristic society. In 1905 they had just defeat Russia. Teddy
Roosevelt understanding the situation in the western Pacific sent the
Great White fleet into the areas in and around Japan in 1907 - 1909.
Because of this action, Japan did not act on her militaristic plans for
near thirty years until the pacifist gained the upper hand in the late
1930.

The pacifist policies toward Hitler's German encouraged Hitler and
within 6 years, we were in WWII.

I would rather have a President like President Bush who takes positive
actions to restrain a militaristic power that one who panders to them.
If left unrestrained Iran will reach a point where the World will have
to act, and that will be significantly more costly that it is today.

Iraq and Iran are not the first time the US has taken a positive roll in
restrain a rogue nation. I believe the first was in Tripoli in 1805,
Because of the militaristic action, that area of the world was in
relative peace for nearly 150 years.

If you are interested all of this information can be found with a google
search.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:55:03 -0500, Keith nuttle
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:21:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0500, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:55:44 -0500, BAR wrote:

...and Iran kicked it open.

I love how you use Obama's offer of diplomacy to belittle him. You'd
obviously prefer Bush's "dead or alive" approach.
Yes I prefer
And you think he's out of his league?

You're obviously not a believer in America or Americans.

The situation in Iran could be compared to the situation in 1909. Japan
was a militaristic society. In 1905 they had just defeat Russia. Teddy
Roosevelt understanding the situation in the western Pacific sent the
Great White fleet into the areas in and around Japan in 1907 - 1909.
Because of this action, Japan did not act on her militaristic plans for
near thirty years until the pacifist gained the upper hand in the late
1930.

The pacifist policies toward Hitler's German encouraged Hitler and
within 6 years, we were in WWII.

I would rather have a President like President Bush who takes positive
actions to restrain a militaristic power that one who panders to them.
If left unrestrained Iran will reach a point where the World will have
to act, and that will be significantly more costly that it is today.

Iraq and Iran are not the first time the US has taken a positive roll in
restrain a rogue nation. I believe the first was in Tripoli in 1805,
Because of the militaristic action, that area of the world was in
relative peace for nearly 150 years.

If you are interested all of this information can be found with a google
search.

Bush wasn't taking action in Iraq because we were threatened. He
wanted the oil for his family friends and business partners. Besides,
those Islamic folks needed some of GW's christian values.

Afghanistan is something else, what I'm not sure. We could either be
there for the right reason (squash al Qaeda/Taliban) or the wrong
reason (force western democracy on areas steeped in religious/tribal
cultures).

Afghanistan didn't go well for the Soviets and I don't expect it will
go well for us if our ambitions get the better of us.