War with Iran in 2 months?

Maybe he plays with explosives and only had one finger or something.

Here's a thought. Insert pencil in mouth, use to hold shift key down while typing with remaining digit.

That or, use one finger to hit caps lock. Then type first letter of new sentence. Then hit caps lock again with one finger, and type remaining letters until capitalization is required again; repeat procedure.

 

now you just sound desperate

 

That's your opinion. Why don't you back it up with some facts that can be verified by independent third parties (such as news articles, White House press briefings and government documents)? Just saying someone is wrong doesn't make it so. You need evidence in order to do that.

Was that a personal attack directed at me? Last I checked the forum rules here expressly prohibit such behavior. However, I'll let it slide this time. Iran-Contra STARTED (as in its root cause can be traced back to) in Carter's administration. I'm not talking about the arms deals or the Nicaragua situation - specifically. I'm talking about what led to those bungles (remember my prior statement about nobody being perfect?) - in this case the overthrow of the Shah which led to the Iranians taking the diplomats hostage, which in turn led to Reagan & Co. deciding it'd be a good idea to sell weapons to pro-Western Iranians and then take the money to raise an army to raise havoc in Nicaragua.

If you remember, the Iranian Revolution occured in 1979 - the year I was born. Shortly after the revolution, 52 American diplomats were taken hostage by Iranian demonstrators and held there for 444 days. During this time Carter did ALMOST NOTHING to resolve the crisis, save for an aborted (read: failed) military rescue attempt that resulted in the deaths of eight American soldiers while bringing about no results. Had Carter shown some backbone, those lives would not have been lost, and the diplomats would have been able to return home much sooner while also weakening Ayatollah Khomeini's political power in Iran (remember, Carter's agreement to the Algiers Accords? - I doubt the Ayatollah or his supporters would have honored it had Carter been re-elected; the fact that Reagan was elected and the signing of the accords the day before Reagan's inauguration, plus the release of the hostages the very next day indicates that Khomeini knew that Reagan wasn't going to mess around).

Had Carter been a real chief executive, I doubt he would have been as laid-back with the whole revolution as he was - if I was in his position at the time, I would have garnered international support (probably through the UN) to restore the Shah to power, or at least find a replacement.

All Obama's done is proven that he can market himself to an audience. Marketing and leading a nation are two completely different things. Hell, shoemoney (for instance) can make millions selling ice to Eskimos in a single night if he wanted to - and that's without global warming entering the picture. Just because you can do one thing well doesn't mean you can do another thing well - especially if your track record doesn't even come close to indicating that you can (as is the case here with Obama - and for the record, I'm using the word "you" in a general, non-specific sense).

Turn on the evening news then. All you see these days as far as political news goes are how great Obama is, how weak Hillary's position is and why she hasn't given up yet, McCain's age being a liability and how he's "the next Bush" and of course the typical Bush bashing.

And please, try to keep an open mind when you do.

Dead men tell no tales. Just ask the people who suffered under Hitler, Lenin, Pol-Pot, Mao, and so on. Many (but not all) of the famous despots and dictators of the past 150 years were elected to office (either legitimately or otherwise - but that's a topic for another thread), while others literally took what they wanted.

What South American foreign policy failure? We can't be held responsible for EVERYTHING in the world. ("Oh noes, there was a solar eclipse today! Blame the Americans!") As far as the credit problems and the housing market goes, that has NOTHING to do with South America and EVERYTHING to do with people not learning how to live within their means and save money for the future. The only ones to blame are the ones who felt they had to "keep up with the Jonses" by buying homes they knew they could ill-afford and live a lifestyle they could also not afford by drowning themselves up to their eyeballs in debt.

The Venezuelans elected Chavez to power, not Bush or the conservatives holding power in the halls of Congress.

Another internal matter.

The Russians elected Putin, not us. The United States also has a strong desire to avoid another Cold War while also establishing a strong relationship with the Kremlin - something Putin (and his puppet "successor") could care less about seeing as how he's mor einterested in a return to the "old days" of Soviet power and political influence.

By and large it's not our problem, and the United States wasn't responsible for their coming into being.

See above.

See my comments about Carter. As for the present situation - Bush is doing the right thing. Playing hard-ball while seeking a diplomatic and non-military solution by working with the international community.

What about it? Yeah, we went in. But remember, we're there - and we're not leaving until the job (securing the country so the new Iraqi government can survive on its own and chart its own course for the future) is done. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Iraqis have been under foreign occupation for more or less the past 5,000 years and they're sick and tired of it. They may not like us being there, but at least they know that we're the only hope they've got right now. Furthermore, the so called "insurgency" is actually a campaign of terror being waged by fighters from OTHER COUNTRIES (otherwise why would the Iraqis be fighting against them, both with us and on their own? Hmm???).

Blame that one on hedge fund investment speculators and people living beyond their means. Bush had nothing to do with the fall of the dollar - he just happened to be in office when it happened. And remember, the Federal Reserve (even under Alan Greenspan) slashed interest rates to stave off inflation (which had the effect of weakening the value of the dollar) - now they're talking about raising them not only to ward off inflation, but to prevent staglfation as well in addition to strengthening the value of the dollar.

He tried providing affordable health care to Americans. The Democrats opposed it (probably because they coudln't claim credit for an idea that would have actually WORKED).

How is this Bush's fault? The media was becoming more and more concentrated since the early 90s (when Clinton was in office).

Huh? What are you talking about? I couldn't find ANYTHING on a return to power by Noriega other than fears and speculation.

Proof, please.

What does that have to do with Bush?

Again, prove it. Don't make claims if you can't back them up with facts and evidence. Personal opinion is not acceptable documentation.

Blame that on Putin, not Bush.

Oh come on now, that's just uncalled for. I'm sure he has all his fingers and thumbs - not everyone can (or wants to) type properly. Heck, even I don't do it all the time. Personal preference and all. (Heck, my brother doesn't even type properly, despite knowing how to.)

 

i have to go home now i will post a reply as soon as i get home in a few hours.
i will respond later i just wanted to say i meant return of ortega not noriega.

 

Did he not claim to type with only one finger?

 

That he did. But typing with one finger and only having one finger are two completely different things.

 

That would be like a bumble bee attacking an elephant.

 

Are you just avoiding the question because you know you put words into someone's mouth, and now are unable to back it up? (as if not blatantly obvious?)

 

Sounds far more like a political power-play than anything - let Hamas win the election, then force them to lay down their arms if they want to be seen as a legitimate political party in the eyes of the world. Too bad it was never followed up with political pressure on Hamas though.

 

whatever his reason might be he has failed
edit: if he wanted to involve them in the govt then why all the pressure right after the election, pushing them in the hand of iranians,?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185662,00.html
take a look at this article here.i read this in the subway a while back.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0501200...sts/irans_winning_latin_power_play_108972.htm

 

Dude, I know you are not as bad as your fellow PC Rambo mate GTech but you do sound a lot like him lol.

The CIA create these bullshit Al-CIAda videos to keep the sheeple scared. Ain't you figured that one out yet?

 

In regard to the Contras and Carter, who knows what the hell Obama will do to foul up South America.

Mr. Obama told Walter Pacheco of the Orlando Sentinel last Thursday he'd personally meet with Mr. Chavez: "One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of (Marxist narco-terrorists) FARC in Colombia, and other issues he would want to talk about," Sen. Obama said then. "It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests." But in a speech in Miami the very next day, Mr. Obama said any Latin American government that supports FARC (the Spanish acronym for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) should be isolated.

ABC's Jake Tapper was confused. "So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080528/cm_rcp/obama_obfuscates_on_chavez_far

 

Sure people in iran don't like the current regime but they are educated enough to avoide such mistakes.

also what it has to do with you? Iran is not your land, correct?
why you should care about it too much? its iranian problem to deal with their goverment not yours.

btw just for the record pakistan is not officially in middle east Mr.Einstein.

 

I think you mean this by word constractive?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

 

Going back to the original question 'War with Iran in 2 months?'

The CIA seem to be lining up a war with Iran nicely. They claim to have defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Pakistan and now the only problem is Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7427176.stm

Now you have one oil state, why not grab another

 

Ron Paul vs. Condi Rice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQ9TKiQRHc

You have to love the number of half truths she tells.

The end where she dodges the question on Tehran is hilarious. I posted an article about it ages ago.

The Iranians have agreed to meet with and negotiate a new, positive relationship with the US, twice since 9/11. Both times, they have been turned down. The way the Administration spins it, the blame is on Tehran because they won't accept the terms of diplomacy, but anyone who knows anything about diplomacy and negotiation will tell you, you don't set ultimatums before you get to the table.

By basically issuing Tehran an ultimatum, that ensures that there is never a negotiation, and Condi Rice can speak to the irrationality of the the Iranians.

Imagine if someone said, let's talk this over. But first, give me your money, your guns and put this blindfold on.

Would you call that a good faith negotiation?

 

Because in your world, everything is BS...
Speaking of BS, why on earth do you still have that lame as RP avatar? Your probably one of those people that still has the RP sign in their yard too...

 

'nuff said.