Five ex-secretaries of state urge talks with Iran

[doughboyshredder]

Didn't Obama get crucified for suggesting this?

Again his judgement proves correct.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_advice

[rideit]

America...Fuck Yeah!!!!

(Talkin' ain't 'merican.
Fag.)

[carpathian]

What is there to talk about again? Oh yeah, why he and his country are stuck in the 7th century and how he pledges and promotes hate towards anything minutely liberal in regards to law, religion and the 21st century? How he also pledges to wipe Israel off the map along with all the other infidel pigs? You could say Iran is as far right wing as you could get, so why all the 'respect' abroad when you detest moderate conservative thinking at home? As soon as GW outlaws ice because Jesus didn't have ice in his drink, then you can complain about your liberties being taken away.

It is that consistency thing again.

Kind of like if there was some guy holding his family ransom in a house down the street after he already has killed a couple of his own kids and he says he's gonna kill the rest and then himself. (you know, the generic suicide bomber train of thought)

Maybe the neighbors should do something?!
You could either rush in with SWAT team or send in the psychologist to try and understand his child hood.

[rideit]

^^^^^because they have a shitton of oil, arms, and mutual friends, genious. It's got NOTHING to do with Ideology, but more about realpolitik.

[concretejungle]

What is there to talk about again? Oh yeah, why he and his country are stuck in the 7th century and how he pledges and promotes hate towards anything minutely liberal in regards to law, religion and the 21st century? How he also pledges to wipe Israel off the map along with all the other infidel pigs? You could say Iran is as far right wing as you could get, so why all the 'respect' abroad when you detest moderate conservative thinking at home? As soon as GW outlaws ice because Jesus didn't have ice in his drink, then you can complain about your liberties being taken away.

It is that consistency thing again.

Kind of like if there was some guy holding his family ransom in a house down the street after he already has killed a couple of his own kids and he says he's gonna kill the rest and then himself. (you know, the generic suicide bomber train of thought)

Maybe the neighbors should do something?!
You could either rush in with SWAT team or send in the psychologist to try and understand his child hood.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

[rideit]

He doesn't know, he's never been to Iran.

[Rubicon]

Two points:

1. It always irks me when former(fill in the blank) comment on various current situations and how they should be handled. They are not privy to the latest intelligence, they do not have all of the information.

2. The dateline for the story is today. Everything changed with the Georgian war. I wonder if they held the same view before the Georgian war? Without knowing that, their support for talks with Iran says nothing about Obama's judgment.

So, doughboy, this doesn't prove anything except that an outside observer agrees with Obama's assessment right now. Which makes it a comment on Obama's position, not his judgment. Don't get me wrong, having people who have formerly held high office agree with you is a noteworthy thing. Just don't try to make it out to be more than it is.

[splat]

I think it's one of those BIG PICTURE things.
They have a word for it.


oh, yeah....diplomacy.

[Cliff Huckable]

Send in Palin. Her sophistication and intelligence will win the day.

























Or she'll be eaten alive because she's nothing but a small-town bullshitter, and those guys can smell that ten time zones away. Most of the world's major power players spent their childhoods crushing fools like her for amusement.

[David Witherspoon]

It always irks me when former(fill in the blank) comment on various current situations and how they should be handled. They are not privy to the latest intelligence, they do not have all of the information.
This is why people in the know listen to judgements of third tier trolls like the one above?

They're not just correct because of their vast experience and knowledge. They're correct because the point they're making is dead obvious.

As for the "everything changed after X" line .... puhleeeeze. :rolleyes:

[Tippster]

1. It always irks me when former(fill in the blank) comment on various current situations and how they should be handled. They are not privy to the latest intelligence, they do not have all of the information.You're wrong about this. They just get paid a lot of money to do it for Think Tanks or other foundations now. Albright et al. still have regular meetings with State Dept. people and go on many trips to these countries to talk to their contacts there.

[Rubicon]

You're wrong about this. They just get paid a lot of money to do it for Think Tanks or other foundations now. Albright et al. still have regular meetings with State Dept. people and go on many trips to these countries to talk to their contacts there.

Really? Hmmm.

Would you say they are as up to date as the people currently occupying their former positions? If so, how long does this last? 15 years out do they still have the same kind of access to information/briefings that they had while they were in office?

[Rubicon]

They're not just correct because of their vast experience and knowledge. They're correct because the point they're making is dead obvious.

I'll ask again, did they hold this view before the Georgian conflict?


As for the "everything changed after X" line .... puhleeeeze. :rolleyes:


So you are saying that you believe the Georgian conflict was inconsequential to the dynamic in the Middle East? It didn't really change anything?

[splat]

Really? Hmmm.

Would you say they are as up to date as the people currently occupying their former positions? If so, how long does this last? 15 years out do they still have the same kind of access to information/briefings that they had while they were in office?

Where do you think the people currently in office get their info?
They don't walk in and say, "Ummmm, hey, I'm, like, the new prez and I need all the inside information you won't give me."



They have a word for it.
Oh, yeah....intelligence.

[splat]

I'll ask again, did they hold this view before the Georgian conflict?




So you are saying that you believe the Georgian conflict was inconsequential to the dynamic in the Middle East? It didn't really change anything?

The Georgian conflict will inspire nouveau riche Russia to be rushin to the aid of Iraq and Afghanistan when we pull out after blowing the wages of five generations on blowing those countries all to hell, creating the foundation for a Middle East/Russian stranglehold on oil worldwide. This is something that would happen whether we stay or not. We're fucked because you elected Bush.

[Rasputin]

I'll ask again, did they hold this view before the Georgian conflict?

So you are saying that you believe the Georgian conflict was inconsequential to the dynamic in the Middle East? It didn't really change anything?

You are grasping at straws.

Do you really think that diplomacy changed in its relative merits because of Georgia? Iran didn't become a fundamentally changed nation because of Russia's troop movements, and our state of relations to them hasn't resolved itself.

Sorry, no market for red herrings here. :rolleyes2

Edit: If anything, the Russian incursion into Georgia increases the need to normalize relations with Iran into something other than emnity. Iran was sympathetic to the US after 9/11, and and Bush whipped them into a frenzy by first branding them as evil, and then by refusing to even acknowledge a peace treaty they proposed. This treatment by the Bush administration fueled the ouster of the moderate government in favor of the current fundamentalist whackos.

Paranoid neocon puppets like you have supported the creation an enemy where there could have been an ally.

[tarkman1]

Iran has changed much since any of the former Secretaries left their post nor has the relationship between US and Iran change. Yeah, circumstance may have changed a bit. In short, their opinions are still relevant.

A war with Iran would be very difficult. Straits of Hormuz is pretty tight. You don't have to be Mahan to recognize its strategic importance. The terrain is rugged for the most part. I don't know the latest intelligence, but can say for sure that any armed conflict with Iran poses significantly different challenges than Iraq.

IMO, anybody who discounts the importance of diplomacy probably hasn't fully considered all of the alternative. Sure, we could send in the Vincennes if would really want to get Iran all worked up. Yeah, I spent a fair amount of time on aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.

[13]

Two points:

1. It always irks me when former(fill in the blank) comment on various current situations and how they should be handled. They are not privy to the latest intelligence, they do not have all of the information.

are you really naive enough to believe that history has no bearing on the present?!

[Trackhead]

This is something that would happen whether we stay or not. We're fucked because you elected Bush.

No doubt Bush is a tool who has set us back on all fronts. But thinking that our problems lie solely from the last 8 years of administration is ridiculous.

We are a nation (world) addicted to oil. This is hardly a news flash. We've fucked ourselves for the past 30 years.

[carpathian]

Alright... big picture, history, context... here it goes. This conflict has been going on for a while. I'm not trying to change the subject from Iran to Jerusalem, but it is all related. And once again, WAR IS BAD!

It would behoove anyone who cares for such matters to research their history and see what has led to this current situation in the Middle East. I’ve mentioned in brief that Jerusalem belonged to the Jews in the first place and that the Muslims should be happy with Mecca or Medina. Why are they so riled up about Jerusalem and how does that city fit into their religion?

In the first year and a half of Islamic religion, Mohammed instructed his followers to pray towards Jerusalem (qiblah: direction of prayer). This was the same city that the Jews prayed towards and the politicians were trying to win converts to their new gig. The Jews made fun of the Muslims and basically told them to find their own holy city to pray towards. So around 624 Mohammed turns around and tells his people that they should actually be praying towards Mecca, the Holy Mosque. When questioned about the sudden change of direction he responds (2:142-149) by saying that it was the first test of his followers and that only the people of truth will know that Mecca is the true holy city. Anyone who still prays towards Jerusalem must be evil and we must distance ourselves from them.

The Damascus based rulers of the Umayyads dynasty were at conflict with the rulers over in Mecca. In a way to establish their own holy city and recruit troops, they began a massive campaign to glorify Jerusalem and its place in Islam tradition. In 690 they build the Dome on the Rock temple on the very site of the destroyed Jewish temple. 25 years later they did a most auspicious thing that requires a look at the Koranic text of 17:1.

It refers to the Night Journey of Mohammed. In his dream state he was said to have gone
“from the Sacred Temple (Mecca) to the furthest Temple” which at the time of the writing of the text (621) could only have been Medina if not a turn of phrase. There were no holy sites outside of Arabia at the time. So in 715, the Umayyad rulers built a second temple and called it the Furthest Temple (Al-Aqsa, aka The Temple on the Mount) so that it would be relevant to the Koranic text post hoc.

That is crazy. Either way, the Umayyad dynasty dissolved and their political program that sanctified Jerusalem to the Muslims became unpopular. The Muslim capital was moved to Baghdad and for the next 350 years Jerusalem fell into sad disrepair having no political or religious significance. Even the gold from the Dome on the Rock was removed for other projects.

In 1099 the Christian Crusades took the city to little response from the Islamic capital. 50-60 years later, the Muslim leaders launched a campaign to once again sanctify Jerusalem. The Dome on the Rock was now said to be the lift off point for Mohammed on his Night Journey to heaven and the Al-Aqsa (Furthest temple) was where he ascended on subsequent trips to heaven. It is funny because one of Mohammed’s own relatives made the remark that “those damned Syrians (meaning Umayyad) pretend that God himself sat foot on that rock when the only person to do so was Abraham.”

After the infidel invaders were kicked out of Jerusalem, it once again fell into obscurity. It became a political backwater in the Muslim world up until 1229 when the city was traded to the Germans for aide in battling a rival Muslim king.

Once word got out that Jerusalem was back in the hands of the Christians, people got all pissed and retook the city in 1239. Soon after, another Muslim king traded it back to the Europeans for aide in fighting another war with another rival king. 5 years later the Muslims took the city again with the understanding that it be traded at a moments notice as soon as Egypt became threatened. The city basically became a political trading chip.

It is funny though, because the Muslims saw these Christian knights traveling from far away lands to be in Jerusalem so it became, in effect, that much more coveted in the Muslim world and soon was seen as the 3rd most holy city in Islam.

But alas, from 1250-1516 the city once again became an unimportant backwater town with a dwindling population of 4000 people. It barely retained its Islam tradition but that too, soon lost footing. Temples and houses and fell apart and the town basically became a shit hole that political exiles were sent to do time.

In 1516 he Ottomans started off strong by rebuilding the city walls, which had been razed back in 1219, and supplying water to the town. But it soon fell into obscurity again. The Muslims could afford to ignore the city because it was assumed that it would always be under Muslim rule (oh how short our memory is!) In 1917 the British were negotiating with the failing Ottomans. It was clear that Jerusalem was not vital to the Muslim spirit so it was not included in the land to be given to the Arabs. The Turks agreed and gave the city away, even with the intent to destroy it before they left. So the story goes, a Jewish artillery captain in the Austrian army saw the significance in destroying any of the temples and surrendered to the incoming British troops.

So with the British troops in the area, this galvanized the Muslims passion for Jerusalem.
There was massive fund raising for the rebuilding of the Dome of the Rock and the Temple on the Mount. There were even new claims that Mohammed had once tied his horse to the western wall of the temple. This info coincides with the distinct disinformation campaign aimed at disconnecting Jews to the area whatsoever. The western wall is also known as the Wailing Wall and is known to be the remains of the original Jewish temple that was destroyed way back when.

Doesn’t matter because Jerusalem came under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967 and the city AGAIN became unimportant. The king went so far as to try and make Amman more of a holy city so they moved the daily prayer radio-broadcast from Jerusalem to Amman. They closed schools and mosques etc. Jerusalem was going derelict. The original PLO document (Palestinian National Covenant written in 1964) does not even mention Jerusalem anywhere.

As soon as the Israelis took power of the city in 1968, the PLO changed their seat of governance to Jerusalem and in 1969 rewrote their National Covenant to include verbose appeals for the return of Jerusalem and it became a rally cry for Muslims everywhere. It is funny because the only thing that has ever unified Muslims to any extent has been this passion for their beloved Jerusalem.

There are three points to consider out of this recollection of history.

1) Belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem cannot be said to be widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam.
2) Muslim interest lays not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control of the city to anyone else.
3) The Islamic connection to the city is weaker then the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

Koran itself states in 2:145 that the Jews “would not follow your qiblah, nor are you going to follow their qiblah,” indicating a recognition that the Temple on the Mount is the Jews direction of prayer and that Mecca is the direction for Muslims.

So if the Muslims are allowed to rule an undivided Mecca why can’t the Jews rule an undivided Jerusalem?

I don’t know who is more the dupe, the Muslims who don’t know their own history or the rest of the western world who is falling for a sly PR campaign that has been tested over the centuries?

Maybe this information is all part of the Zionist conspiracy to rewrite history to make the Jews look better then most people think they are?

I have to give credit to www.danielpipes.org. This short essay is basically a summarization/paraphrase of one of his articles.

[Rubicon]

You are grasping at straws.

You are failing to understand the dynamics at work in the Middle East and on the greater world stage.


Do you really think that diplomacy changed in its relative merits because of Georgia? Iran didn't become a fundamentally changed nation because of Russia's troop movements, and our state of relations to them hasn't resolved itself.

Edit: Sorry, I think I misread this the first time. In answer to your question: Yes. The relative merits of diplomacy with Iran changed after the Georgian invasion.

We need Russian help in the UN security counsel in order for there to be any meaningful sanctions imposed against Iran. We need the help of Iran in maintaining the progress and the peace in Iraq. We need the US military free to put the threat of force behind any warning we issue to Russia about their military action. Otherwise they have no reason not to say one thing with their mouth while their hands are doing something else, just like they did in Georgia.

We can't have all three of these at the same time. We are now forced to choose between confronting Russia or confronting Iran. We cannot do both. At least not in our current state.

Russia is a much bigger threat than is Iran and whatever agenda bush had for Iran got thrown out the window when Russia went into Georgia. So saying that you are for holding open talks with Iran now is something very different from being in favor of them a couple of years ago. The situation has changed.

Novosti, the Russian government's mouthpiece was reporting that Ukrainian diplomatic vehicles full of weapons were seized in Georgia, implicating Ukraine in arming the Georgians to fight the Russians. At the same time Novosti reported that the CIA was very active in Ukraine trying to turn the government against Russia. Could just be typical belligerent Russian speech or they could be leaving the door open for military action there as well. Ukraine is within their "Privileged Sphere of Influence" they are now claiming. With our military tied up in Iraq we can do nothing but use harsh language against the Russians if they decide to start stomping on their neighbors, and they know this.

To add context to all this we have:

"Russian President Dmitri Medvedev recently laid claim to what he calls a "privileged” sphere of influence in the world. And he rejected the idea of a "unipolar” world, where one superpower – namely, the United States – dominates world affairs. "

http://www.voanews.com/english/NewsAnalysis/2008-09-15-voa28.cfm


Russia is back on the world stage and has every intent of challenging the US. Which means we need to make nice with Iran, and quick.





Edit: If anything, the Russian incursion into Georgia increases the need to normalize relations with Iran into something other than emnity.

I'm glad to see that you are agreeing with me.

[Rubicon]

are you really naive enough to believe that history has no bearing on the present?!

Wrong assumptions.

Better question: Do I believe that the five ex secretaries of state advocating a certain course of action now, adds weight to Obama's words several years ago.

The answer: no. The world has changed. Just because something is right today doesn't mean that it would have been the best course of action a couple of years ago. Which is why I asked if the 5 ex's were in favor of open talks with Iran before the Georgian invasion. If they were, that lends credibility to Obama's position(but the fact that Obama said that the Georgian situation should be brought before the UN security counsel, on which Russia sits and holds veto power, forever tarnishes his judgment on this matter).

[Rubicon]

Everything changed with the Georgian war.




As for the "everything changed after X" line .... puhleeeeze. :rolleyes:


Tue Sep 23, 6:41 PM ET

NEW YORK - Russia and China are blocking U.S. and European efforts to slap new sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program.

The clearest manifestation of the Georgia spillover is Russia's role in the six-nation effort to get Iran to stop enriching uranium that could fuel an atomic bomb in exchange for an incentives package it was offered by the group earlier this year.

The foreign ministers of the six countries were to have met in New York on Thursday to continue those discussions but on Tuesday, Russia's Foreign Ministry said it saw no reason for such a gathering, which the U.S. and the Europeans believe is key to showing a unified front.

"We do not see any sort of 'fire' that requires us to toss everything aside and meet to discuss Iran's nuclear program in the middle of a packed week at the United Nations General Assembly," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iran_nuclear





Anyone want to form a pool and short the ruble?

[David Witherspoon]

Too late.

BTW - the Cold War (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48P7KF20080926) is not a new development.

[splat]

Hated by Russia and China, a good chunk of Europe, slices of Central and South America and all of Islam.

We've come a long way, baby!

[Lizhnik]

Anyone want to form a pool and short the ruble?

Against what, in what size, and over what time frame? Because, depending on your answers, I might be willing to take the other side of your trade. Btw, Stratfor disagrees with you about Russia being more of a threat than Iran. So do I, but what do I know?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

For more enjoyable reading about the possible consequences of the United States' boneheaded foreign policy of antagonizing just about everyone:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20080915_russian_resurgence_and_new_old_front

[Rubicon]

Btw, Stratfor disagrees with you about Russia being more of a threat than Iran. So do I, but what do I know?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

Good question. From the article:

"The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. "

Caucasus ≠ Russia


If, as you say, Stratfor disagrees with me about Russia being more of a threat than Iran, what do you do with this?

"At the time, we regarded these threats by the United States as bluffs, but the possibility of sanctions against Iran as very real. And then Georgia intervened. Now, bluffing the Russians on Georgia took precedence over bluffing the Iranians and the U.S. administration went quiet on Iran."

http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/georgian_russian_conflict_and_return_iran


As well as:

"Continuing the war in the Islamic world has a much higher cost now than it did when it began, and Russia potentially poses a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world does. "

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/medvedev_doctrine_and_american_strategy

[Rubicon]

For more enjoyable reading about the possible consequences of the United States' boneheaded foreign policy of antagonizing just about everyone:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20080915_russian_resurgence_and_new_old_front


Your statement doesn't make any sense. The entire article was about the cancer that is Russian ambition, America's attempt to contain them and the differences between this cold war and the last one. Did you even read the article before you posted a link to it?

[Lizhnik]

Against what, in what size, and over what time frame?

Why didn't you answer this question? I could go point for point with you like you do with Tim, but really, why bother? You, yourself have devised the perfect solution to end the argument.

Btw, I've skied in several different spots in the Caucasus, and not once did I leave Russia to do it. I suggest looking at a map if you are geographically challenged.

[Rubicon]

Why didn't you answer this question?

Because the question was tongue-in-cheek. It was not meant to be taken seriously.


I could go point for point with you like you do with Tim, but really, why bother? You, yourself have devised the perfect solution to end the argument.

All I did was quote from the site you referenced. If that is the perfect solution, so be it.

[Lizhnik]

Because the question was tongue-in-cheek. It was not meant to be taken seriously.

The question was not tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to be taken seriously. You want to short the ruble, I want the other side.

[Rubicon]

The question was not tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to be taken seriously. You want to short the ruble, I want the other side.

Your confidence in the Russian economy is admirable. But betting money to the ruble is not something I would be interested in right now.

[Lizhnik]

Your confidence in the Russian economy is admirable. But betting money to the ruble is not something I would be interested in right now.

Well, I don't find your lack of confidence in the Russian economy particularly admirable. I find it even less admirable that you stated yesterday you wanted to short the ruble, but somehow it is something you are not interested in right now. Let me know if you change your mind. Again.

[Rubicon]

Well, I don't find your lack of confidence in the Russian economy particularly admirable. I find it even less admirable that you stated yesterday you wanted to short the ruble, but somehow it is something you are not interested in right now. Let me know if you change your mind. Again.


I love the Russian people who I have known. But I do not believe that the government has the best interest of the people at heart. You should take my opinion as a statement on the government, not the people.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[timvwcom]

I love the American people who I know. But I do not believe that their government has the best interest of the people at heart. You should take my opinion as a statement on the government, not the people...

Fixed it for you... :p

[Lizhnik]

I love the Russian people who I have known. But I do not believe that the government has the best interest of the people at heart. You should take my opinion as a statement on the government, not the people.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

So, when you say things like, "the cancer that is Russian ambition," what you really mean is that it is in Russians' best interest to not have ambition? Something tells me that Russian people would treat your claim as highly dubious. I know I sure do. I think Iraqis also tend to wonder about America's sincerity when we tell them we invaded their country for their own best interests, as well.

And, who the fuck are you, anyway, to determine what's in another country's best interest? I give the same answer to the phrase I hear all the time that, hey, we don't have a problem with the United States, just with their government. It's the same thing. And, unlike in the United States, Russians are quite satisfied with their government. Strangely enough, the more Americans protest about the Russian government's actions, the more the Russian people see them as in their own best interests. And Russia isn't the only country like this, there are more and more of them, and that number will continue to grow as long as the US chooses confrontation over compromise. This is the problem with a unipolar world.

You call yourself a libertarian, but your views on foreign policy are run-of-the-mill American imperialist apologist. Oh, and I like your "I have friends who are..." line. Very classy!

[Rubicon]

So, when you say things like, "the cancer that is Russian ambition," what you really mean is that it is in Russians' best interest to not have ambition? Something tells me that Russian people would treat your claim as highly dubious. I know I sure do. I think Iraqis also tend to wonder about America's sincerity when we tell them we invaded their country for their own best interests, as well.

And, who the fuck are you, anyway, to determine what's in another country's best interest? I give the same answer to the phrase I hear all the time that, hey, we don't have a problem with the United States, just with their government. It's the same thing. And, unlike in the United States, Russians are quite satisfied with their government. Strangely enough, the more Americans protest about the Russian government's actions, the more the Russian people see them as in their own best interests. And Russia isn't the only country like this, there are more and more of them, and that number will continue to grow as long as the US chooses confrontation over compromise. This is the problem with a unipolar world.

You call yourself a libertarian, but your views on foreign policy are run-of-the-mill American imperialist apologist. Oh, and I like your "I have friends who are..." line. Very classy!


Listen buttercup, if you don't want people commenting on your country don't:

1. Go to a place where you know there are a lot of Americans and start badmouthing America, regardless of whether or not they are doing it themselves.

2. Post a link to an article examining the cancerous tendencies of your own country and tell everyone to go read it.

3. Grow belligerent when one of the people who you have offended by badmouthing his country apologizes to you for causing a misunderstanding and tries to clear it up.


Go fuck yourself. I'm done with this conversation.

[AstroPax]

A war with Iran would be very difficult. Straits of Hormuz is pretty tight.

To occupy Iran, yes. Very difficult, if not impossible.

However, the US acting unilaterally could decimate the Iranian military within a matter of days, if not hours (to include controlling the straights), not to mention the short amount of time it would take to destroy their primary source of revenue...the oil production facilities.

[AstroPax]

And, unlike in the United States, Russians are quite satisfied with their government.

So like, what's new??? Americans, well, we have never been very satisfied with our government. It's sort of like a pastime.

But why are so many Russian millionaire's moving to other countries?

[concretejungle]

To occupy Iran, yes. Very difficult, if not impossible.

However, the US acting unilaterally could decimate the Iranian military within a matter of days, if not hours (to include controlling the straights), not to mention the short amount of time it would take to destroy their primary source of revenue...the oil production facilities.

Sounds like the war in Iraq just a little.

[David Witherspoon]

Listen buttercup, if you don't want people commenting on your country ...
http://www.islamicboard.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

[Lizhnik]

Listen buttercup, if you don't want people commenting on your country don't:

1. Go to a place where you know there are a lot of Americans and start badmouthing America, regardless of whether or not they are doing it themselves.

2. Post a link to an article examining the cancerous tendencies of your own country and tell everyone to go read it.

3. Grow belligerent when one of the people who you have offended by badmouthing his country apologizes to you for causing a misunderstanding and tries to clear it up.


Go fuck yourself. I'm done with this conversation.

Let me get this straight. I offended you, but you apologized? How does that work, exactly?

And you need to revise your theories and assumptions because you are lacking in reading comprehension. I am a citizen of the United States, it is the only country of which I have ever been a citizen. I was born in the US, as were my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. I am not ethnically Russian, nor do I have any Russian family roots. I know, it's probably downright shocking to you to find an American with such a radically diverse view point.

I'm glad you are done with the conversation because you seem to always have a need to get the last word. I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, also, but you already did that in this thread.

[Rasputin]

And you need to revise your theories and assumptions because you are lacking in reading comprehension. I am a citizen of the United States, it is the only country of which I have ever been a citizen. I was born in the US, as were my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. I am not ethnically Russian, nor do I have any Russian family roots. I know, it's probably downright shocking to you to find an American with such a radically diverse view point.



Damn you, and your lack of ethnocentrism! :wink: