On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:44:51 -0500, HK wrote:

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:25:15 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:09:19 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:37:59 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...

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

Well, at least Bush offered an option. The Islamic fundamentalists
simply want you dead.

Eisboch

The islamic fundies comprise a tiny portion of islam. And if we were
opposed to dealing with islamic fundies, why was bush kissing butt
with the saudis?
Why is Obama kissing butt with Iran?

Eisboch
Because it is worthwhile trying to defuse Iran and by doing so making
life and the chances of re-election a bit more difficult for its insane
"leader."


Obama isn't kissing butt...he simply is opening up channels of
communication. That's what the dummies in the Bush admin could not
figure out.
Tell me something -just out of curiosity.

How do you open dialogue with a leader who views you as a apostate and
heretic? Are you going to send your female Secretary of State to a
Islamic country to "negotiate"? Is she going to wear a burka when she
does so?

Please - I'd really like to know.
Didn't you support the guy who introduced the "Axis of Evil"?

Did you embrace him as your leader?

Why should they feel any differently about their leader if he's seen
as defending his country?

Obama is smart enough to engage. You think that opening a dialogue is
a sign of weakness. I think not opening a dialogue is a sign of
stupidity.

Read and learn.

In particular the last paragraph.

http://tinyurl.com/akeyvo

There's more to the leadership of Iran than the crazy guy.

Uh huh.

Prove it.

--

If we aren't supposed to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:49:52 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:33:04 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:25:15 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:09:19 GMT, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:37:59 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...


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


Well, at least Bush offered an option. The Islamic fundamentalists
simply want you dead.

Eisboch


The islamic fundies comprise a tiny portion of islam. And if we were
opposed to dealing with islamic fundies, why was bush kissing butt
with the saudis?

Why is Obama kissing butt with Iran?

Eisboch

Because it is worthwhile trying to defuse Iran and by doing so making
life and the chances of re-election a bit more difficult for its insane
"leader."


Obama isn't kissing butt...he simply is opening up channels of
communication. That's what the dummies in the Bush admin could not
figure out.

Tell me something -just out of curiosity.

How do you open dialogue with a leader who views you as a apostate and
heretic? Are you going to send your female Secretary of State to a
Islamic country to "negotiate"? Is she going to wear a burka when she
does so?

Please - I'd really like to know.

Didn't you support the guy who introduced the "Axis of Evil"?

Did you embrace him as your leader?

Why should they feel any differently about their leader if he's seen
as defending his country?

Obama is smart enough to engage. You think that opening a dialogue is
a sign of weakness. I think not opening a dialogue is a sign of
stupidity.

You didn't answer my question. Allow me to reiterate.

How do you open dialogue with a leader who views you as a apostate and
heretic? Are you going to send your female Secretary of State to a
Islamic country to "negotiate"? Is she going to wear a burka when she
does so?

You have a misunderstanding of Iran if you think a woman requires a
burka. Iran deals with female diplomats from other parts of the
world, I'm sure they'll welcome ours with great hospitatlity.

Iran is among the most westernized of the mid-east nations. They're
closer to a free society than most of their neighbors. A great deal
of their population feels warmly towards the west but we've made it
very difficult to express that support by our invasion of Iraq and the
school yard approach to diplomacy.

Fortunately, Obama is an adult and will undoubtedly engage them in
meaningful dialogue. Hopefully, it'll result in a better
understanding and a better hand to play from. Invading and bombing
hasn't proven to be very effective in fomenting peace.

And before you say "let turn 'em to glass" know that it's not a
reasonable possibility. This isn't childs play.

Uh huh.

Well, I hope you are right.

You aren't, but I hope you are.

--

"Never fight an inanimate object."

P.J. O'Rourke

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.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:40:08 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:24:05 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
m...


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


Well, at least Bush offered an option. The Islamic fundamentalists
simply
want you dead.

Eisboch

You give them little credit and I think that's short sighted. If you
lived in their part of the world, you'd undoubtedly have a different
perspective.

There are folks over there as moderate in their thinking as you are in
yours. You should try and lean into a little more and perhaps you'd
understand why they posture the way they do.

It's complicated, don't think you can get away with simplifying it to
a bumper sticker.

Bush's swashbuckling was a ruse. Time proved it.

Where's bin Laden now? "I don't know, I don't pay much attention to
him anymore." paraphrase of GW two years after he announced "dead or
alive."

He's as credible in their eyes as Ahmadinegad is in ours.


When I refer to Islamic fundamentalists, I am speaking of those who use
religion to teach kids from the time they can walk that it is their duty
to
kill westerners, especially Israelis and Americans. Talking, teaching,
begging isn't going to change that for a very long time, if ever.

Hard, cruel lesson Number 1.

Eisboch

They got that way from our disengagement. If we put money into
schools like bin Laden does, we'd be in a better position to influence
the situation.

We project our power through force instead of enlightenment.

Sound like a good policy for changing "the enemies" mind?


I am afraid you are an idealistic, but unrealistic dreamer. Every country
on the face of this earth is out for themselves first, including us. It
would be nice to think otherwise and that handshakes, financial aid or
smiley faces can change that, but it won't happen.

Even some of the countries that we have supported for years will turn on us
in a moment if we back off on aid or other assistance programs.

Eisboch

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.