Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf

[PLC1]

His level of support doesn't matter - it's a DICTATORSHIP, einstein.

Before posting your insults and smilies, maybe you should go back and see just what point I was making.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Lib I am still waiting, or was that really your whole plan to deal with Iran...Lets here you show your knowledge about Iran and how to deal with it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Pocket and PLC

You both seem very keen on "talking" to Iran... I have no problem with that BUT what gives you ANY reason to believe its not a one sided conversation? We have been "talking" to them for YEARS and offered plenty in the way of "carrots" but they have nothing to say but: "Death to America!"

Unless you can provide me with some kind of proof they really do want to talk to us and change their ways... Explain how you would go about your one sided conversation with Iran.

"Death to America!" Whats your rebuttal to that?

PLC, you mention Ahmadinajad as not being the real power and we should ignore his rhetoric.... Do you honestly believe, after acknowledging that he has little real power, that he would be ALLOWED to use heated rhetoric and rattle sabers if thats NOT what the mullahs wanted?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Pocket and PLC

You both seem very keen on "talking" to Iran... I have no problem with that BUT what gives you ANY reason to believe its not a one sided conversation? We have been "talking" to them for YEARS and offered plenty in the way of "carrots" but they have nothing to say but: "Death to America!"

Unless you can provide me with some kind of proof they really do want to talk to us and change their ways... Explain how you would go about your one sided conversation with Iran.

"Death to America!" Whats your rebuttal to that?

PLC, you mention Ahmadinejad as not being the real power and we should ignore his rhetoric.... Do you honestly believe, after acknowledging that he has little real power, that he would be ALLOWED to use heated rhetoric and rattle sabers if that's NOT what the mullahs wanted?

First you must know know how the power structure in Iran goes, Just because he is president, does not mean he is the highest ranking...the Religious leaders still have power over him, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the Supreme Leader and
the Highest Ranking leader of Iran, above the President. They basically also pick who can even run for office. When Muhammad Khatami was in office, he angered the ruling Religious Leaders with his Reforms and thus they made sure that he and others like him where not put back into office. They cracked down on his supporters, and made sure someone like Ahmadinejad would win. Its not a real Election. They never thought Khatami was going to win, that's the only reason he was able to run.

And you say its one sides, but I talked about how both sides have already in fact worked with each other on things like stopping the Taliban where both sides talked and shared info. And I dont know how you can call it one sides, Bush will not talk with them at all. And even if He did, Bush has Zero Credibility with anyone in Iran to talk anyway. A new face can help with that at least some.Fact is there are things Iran needs and wants that we can office, that Bush would not even talk about, that could be put on the table. If we can make deals with North Korea, we can deal with Iran. What little Bush did have, he killed with Iraq and the Now WMD and his calling Iran a axis of evil...And like I said you hit the lower level people , people who are more in tune with the people, and less forced to be radical, and you work them , and then hope they can help you make a deal for all sides.

If we just say we cant talk...what option does that leave..war....and trust me that's the last thing we need or should want as a way to deal with this. Like I said the idea of small strikes , puts a lot on hoping that Iran just sits back and takes it...and that has never been Iran's style. But Iran's people have shown that they can be on out side, and we have to use that to our advantage.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Also you dont ignore the Retorich, but you at least have to understand it for what it is. Iran is a nation that is Hungry for Change, and blames its leaders for its problems...If you cant make changes the people want, and you want to keep power what do you do? You blame someone else and you try to direct that anger and hate at someone else, IE the US or Israel...if you can shift the focus , you can keep working to undercut the leaders of the groups calling for change chance of it working against you. And yes while some yell Death to America....they are also not wanting to get in a shooting war with us, even though I can tell you we could never win it , unless the people of Iran sided with us and not against us. But as a nation , even though they like Western culture and are far more Pro US then others....the people are also proud of Iran and would fight for it against us. So that is not something we should count on.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you cant make changes the people want, and you want to keep power what do you do? You blame someone else and you try to direct that anger and hate at someone else

Must have lifted that from the Democrat Party Playbook.

both sides have already in fact worked with each other on things like stopping the Taliban where both sides talked and shared info

We had indirect talks post 9/11 but PRE Iraq. Since Iraq, they have shut down all diplomacy and have been actively funding, training and supplying the insurgency.

Having our president meet theirs is an honor they do not yet deserve. They need to make the changes that bring them into international compliance before we have a face to face. Meeting them without that taking place just rewards them and it would be a HUGE propaganda victory for Iran.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If you cant make changes the people want, and you want to keep power what do you do? You blame someone else and you try to direct that anger and hate at someone else

Must have lifted that from the Democrat Party Playbook.

both sides have already in fact worked with each other on things like stopping the Taliban where both sides talked and shared info

We had indirect talks post 9/11 but PRE Iraq. Since Iraq, they have shut down all diplomacy and have been actively funding, training and supplying the insurgency.

Having our president meet theirs is an honor they do not yet deserve. They need to make the changes that bring them into international compliance before we have a face to face. Meeting them without that taking place just rewards them and it would be a HUGE propaganda victory for Iran.

No thats actuly a Republican play....the Econ sucks? war going bad....look GAYS!!!!!!

And actuly we are meeting with them , and name one part where I said the presidents meet....1 you set that stuff up at lover levals when you feel the time is right, and 2 like I said you dont even know who is in charge soon.

And I see your plan is still dont talk...so 1 you bomb or 2 you plan to just hope they change there mind?

and given huge propaganda victory for them...vs they dont have nukes...they can have there propaganda

 

[GenSeneca]

No thats actuly a Republican play....the Econ sucks? war going bad....look GAYS!!!!!!

Gay's are not BLAMED for our problems (Unless your Fred Phepls) but Republicans are.

And I see your plan is still dont talk...so 1 you bomb or 2 you plan to just hope they change there mind?

NAME WHERE I SAID WE SHOULDN'T TALK AND SHOULD JUST BOMB!

I give up on you... Where's PLC? It would be nice to talk to a mature adult who can read.

 

[PLC1]

Bush agrees with Obama on this one.

It seems that Bush has gone over to the dark side on this issue:

Bush has done a flip on North Korea already, and that might well be a wise policy. But the decision to send Undersecretary of State William Burns, the No. 3 ranking official in the State Department, to talks with Iran is an even greater reversal.

It represents the highest-level official contact with Iran since the 1979 hostage crisis, and even more of a reversal for an administration that has vowed not to deal with Tehran at all until it renounced its program to enrich uranium.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opklu175765985jul17,0,3505576.column

Maybe the Obama camp convinced him. Sure, that's it.

The fact is, open communications with the enemy is generally better than no communication.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Gay's are not BLAMED for our problems (Unless your Fred Phepls) but Republicans are.




NAME WHERE I SAID WE SHOULDN'T TALK AND SHOULD JUST BOMB!

I give up on you... Where's PLC? It would be nice to talk to a mature adult who can read.

If you dont belive that talking can work, then realy what are you suggesting then?

 

[PLC1]

Gay's are not BLAMED for our problems (Unless your Fred Phepls) but Republicans are.




NAME WHERE I SAID WE SHOULDN'T TALK AND SHOULD JUST BOMB!

I give up on you... Where's PLC? It would be nice to talk to a mature adult who can read.

Thank you.

I believe the "gays" comment was meant as an example of an irrelevant distraction.

what do you think of Bush's turn around on the subject under discussion?

 

[GenSeneca]

Welcome PLC, I am very glad you asked that Q...

There has to be something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, namely: Iran backing down. They cannot of course do this publicly because they want to save face.. but so do we... So this sounds like there is finally a two way conversation going on between the two sides.
ca
We wouldn't change policy if they didn't relent, they wouldn't relent until we changed policy, the old diplomatic Catch 22. With Isreal's capability in the region and the international pressure mounting on Iran, things were coming to a climax.

What happened was anti-climatic. The world now knows that many, possibly even all, the Iranian Missile tests, were 100% faked. They look pretty damn silly right now, like Baghdad Bob did when he stood in front of the cameras swearing on his eyes that the American Invaders were being slaughtered and Iraq was winning the War.

So caught in this bold face lie, the Iranians have probably softened their stance and opened up communication under the condition we not admit they approached us.

Thats my opinion and it changes as the facts change, not as the political winds blow. Thanks PLC, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Bush Co sent the highest ranking member of the US government to meet in Iran to meet with them...but dont worry people its not negotiating...Its clear they will get there, not talk, and then leave....

Sounds like Bush is the "Appeaser" now...odd how when he does its sound politics when Obama said do the same thing.......its Horrible supporting of Terrorism.

Also today it was talked about setting goals to get US troops out with Iraq...with the Iraqi Government....God you know when the Dems talk about it its called timetables and defetist and letting not supporting the troops ....and more

 

[GenSeneca]

The Bush Co sent the highest ranking member of the US government to meet in Iran to meet with them...but dont worry people its not negotiating...Its clear they will get there, not talk, and then leave....

This could be true but I'm not naive enough to think I know for sure one way or the other. With the recent developments, I think the Iranians are looking for alternatives to being attacked... Sure they can hurt us economically, but they Iranians would certainly face greater hardships - like all the other "paper tiger" dictatorships before them.

Also today it was talked about setting goals to get US troops out with Iraq...with the Iraqi Government....God you know when the Dems talk about it its called timetables and defetist and letting not supporting the troops ....and more

The US Military, The Iraqi Military, The Iraqi Pairlement and PM ALL want timetables based on - Conditions on the Ground.

Democrats - Set any old arbitrary date, 16 mo for Obama: Who gives a crap about "conditions on the ground"?

Since I'm quite sure you haven't watched the PM or the Pairlement of Iraq commenting on this outside of soundbites and cherry picked quotes; Iraq does want us gone and they do want a timetable (This much Democrats their their constituents) BUT Iraq is projecting to be able to take care of its internal security by 2012 and external security by 2031. <--Democrats don't mentions these pesky little facts about withdrawal and timetables in relation to what Iraq is actually asking for.

Now for the simpltonvillian who use phrases like "McSame", I'll break this down even farther:

Timetable:

Iraqi's ideal timeframe for US withdrawal: 4 years (as discussed with all persons involved)
Democrats plan for Withdrawal: 16 months. (discussed with nobody from either side and a competely arbitrary number thats not even logistically possible according to our military)

 

[mr universe]

http://gizmodo.com/5023775/iran-sta...op-to-make-missile-tests-look-more-impressive