# Wake up Barack..



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520779,00.html

these folks don't seem too motivated regarding peaceful initiatives?

i don't think Obama's community organizing skills will be of much value here when dealing with the Iranians. giving them more time to come around is giving them more time to "lock and load". Israel will eventually respond....they will do it out of necessity and account of the US foot-dragging on sanctions.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think Obama will wait for Israel to make a strike then condemn them for it. Sort of like voting present. He will wait for someone else to do what he hasn't got the guts to do. Then like every good backstabber he will ridicule Israel for it. He will perhaps say this is so bad we can't stand behind Israel any longer. They are war mongers (a favorite liberal term if we do anything in our best interest, but not if we go to Mogadishu and die for nothing). That will leave the door open for Obama's Muslim friends to attack Israel.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i don't think Obama will ever get the American people to abandon Israel.
that will be the breaking point for him, his fatal mistake. i just don't think he can "spin it" enough to avoid huge criticism, with Israel as our only true ally in the Mideast......he will catch hell if he does.


----------



## pintailtim (Apr 6, 2007)

the problem here is most people voting these days are ignorant to the whole Isreali issue....they don't even know where it is on a map


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

hunter9494 said:


> i don't think Obama's community organizing skills will be of much value here when dealing with the Iranians.


:roll: Probably more useful than Bush's cheerleading skills were when dealing with them.

Plainsman, do you remember why we kept Israel out of the first Gulf War? Their presence would have caused a ****storm.

God forbid we try talking to them before we start dropping bombs, apparently.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> God forbid we try talking to them before we start dropping bombs, apparently.


Well I have a question we have been talking to them since the early 70's and their position for almost forty years has been kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea

NOW that they are in reach of having nukes and the possibility of threatening our allies including all of Europe and Israel so when does the talking stop?????????????

In my mind its already overdue.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

omegax said:


> hunter9494 said:
> 
> 
> > i don't think Obama's community organizing skills will be of much value here when dealing with the Iranians.
> ...


Wow, you're getting slow. You actually had 4 words before "Bush". You're slipping. (Don't worry I won't tell Nancy just remember you start the sentence," Bush did it, it's his fault") I actually heard he created the H1N1 flu virus.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

My point isn't to blame Bush. I'm pointing out how lame it is to cherry-pick some piece of a president's past to make them look foolish. It poisons rational debate about the issue at hand.

You think I blame things on Bush being a cheerleader at Yale?!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

omegax said:


> My point isn't to blame Bush. I'm pointing out how lame it is to cherry-pick some piece of a president's past to make them look foolish. It poisons rational debate about the issue at hand.
> 
> You think I blame things on Bush being a cheerleader at Yale?!


Dave, I agree about cherry picking its a good point...

but respond to my point please about "talking to the islamist"


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

It's a bit above my pay grade...

The problem is that if you saber-rattle, you strengthen the government's position that the big, bad Americans are out to get us. Iran's got a unique situation in that their population is pretty young, and surprisingly moderate. The ideology of the revolution isn't their generation's thing. The government's also in danger of toppling because they can't afford to buy the affections of their people when the oil prices are low.

The Iranian government is in a pretty precarious place, on its own. They are following the old dictator playbook: if you don't have a traditional enemy, manufacture one. That way you can blame all your government's problems on the "enemy", and distract your people. I don't want to help them do it. I think they're going to fall on their own, and a stable, secular Iran would be great thing. I just think we need to take a slow, pragmatic approach with them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> if you don't have a traditional enemy, manufacture one. That way you can blame all your government's problems on the "enemy", and distract your people. I don't want to help them do it. I think they're going to fall on their own, and a stable, secular Iran would be great thing. I just think we need to take a slow, pragmatic approach with them.


Isn't since 1970 as Bob asked slow enough for you? As you indicated the government of Iran has already told the people we are the "Great Satan". Do you think what we do will make them hate us more than they already do? When will they fall on their own, 40 years after they destroy Israel, sneak a bomb into the United States, and support suicide bombing for two decades in this country? We should have kicked their *** ten years ago. We should not have wasted a single American foot soldier we should have bombed their behind back to the stone age. Make an example of one jerk and the rest will back off. P!ss on what the world thinks. They are just a bunch of pansies like our liberals.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Number one, the revolution was in 1979. A couple of years is one thing, but giving them an extra decade needs to be corrected.

Number two, Reagan was giving them weapons in the 80's. By your logic, he should have been dropping bombs on them.

In the meantime, the bulk of the generation that made up the revolution died fighting Saddam. Things have only escalated fairly recently, and the internal politics of Iran are FAR different in than they were in 1979. So, yes, we need to take it easy _now_.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Number one, the revolution was in 1979. A couple of years is one thing, but giving them an extra decade needs to be corrected.


*Yes under Carter because they recognized that all he would do is "talk"*

Sorry about the mistake I'm getting old it was unintentional, so lets go with 30 years in stead of 40 just to be accurate

So how long do you bluster and when do you get down to business?

If they get the nukes finalized this is going to be alot harder, expensive and alot more bloody not to mention possibly irradiating a big chunk of the worlds oil fields



> Speculation about the involvement of Reagan, Vice President George Bush and the administration at large ran rampant.
> 
> Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh investigated the affair for the next eight years. Fourteen people were charged with either operational or "cover-up" crimes. In the end, North's conviction was overturned on a technicality, and President Bush issued six pardons, including one to McFarlane, who had already been convicted, and one to Weinberger before he stood trial.
> 
> ...


personally I think he knew and made a good decision you have to remember the soviets were attmepting to help the commies and make south america communist allies at that point in history that was a bigger fish than the islamist


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

omegax said:


> It's a bit above my pay grade...
> 
> The problem is that if you saber-rattle, you strengthen the government's position that the big, bad Americans are out to get us. Iran's got a unique situation in that their population is pretty young, and surprisingly moderate. The ideology of the revolution isn't their generation's thing. The government's also in danger of toppling because they can't afford to buy the affections of their people when the oil prices are low.
> 
> The Iranian government is in a pretty precarious place, on its own. They are following the old dictator playbook: if you don't have a traditional enemy, manufacture one. That way you can blame all your government's problems on the "enemy", and distract your people. I don't want to help them do it. I think they're going to fall on their own, and a stable, secular Iran would be great thing. I just think we need to take a slow, pragmatic approach with them.


and while we are waiting for that to happen, Israel gets inihilated...the Obama tactic of give it time is a loser, plain and simple. in fact, Obama employs the "do nothing" card whenever he can, when it comes to tough decisions, he doesn't make them...votes "present"......it's his history.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

No doubt about it, them finishing the nukes would be bad. However, Libya gave their program up with some coaxing. So did South Africa.

The more you threaten, the more they dig in and work furiously on a bomb. They see North Korea as protected by their nuclear capability. I don't think we have the will to smash their program in one decisive move, and frankly, I sincerely doubt we have the ability. They've got centrifuges dug in all over that country. We'd get most with bombs, but for others we'd need boots on the ground and that would get UGLY. Even if we smash the facilities, the knowhow is still there.

Regime change happening organically seems a lot more likely than us causing it, at this point. You can't bomb them into throwing out a dictator, and we can't afford ANOTHER war.

Do you guys think this is urgent enough to wage a ground war over, right now?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

as for N. Korea, you can forget regime change, same thing for Iran....it won't happen. wonder what would have happened if we would have waited for regime change in Japan or Germany?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Regime change happening organically seems a lot more likely


Organically????? Well, if that is the term you intended to use I agree. Shoot them between the eyes and compost the bast**&&%^ds.



> wonder what would have happened if we would have waited for regime change in Japan or Germany?


Bingo.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

omegax you are assuming these people are making decisions they way you or I would

they are not

they are fanatics, people that will support and encourage blowing their own children up or chasing young girls back in a burning school building to their deaths because their heads aren't covered.

If they get nukes they will use them, period, and it will be the fault of people that hold your position.

the Jews understand this

Time will tell


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Associated press today another article about this topic

Iran Says It Test Fired Missile That Could Hit Israel, U.S. Bases in Mideast
Wednesday, May 20, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran -

Iran test-fired a new missile it claimed had a range capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East, sending a provocative message days after President Barack Obama pressured Tehran to accept his offer for dialogue.

The announcement by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes less than a month before Iran's presidential election. The vote could determine how Tehran responds to Washington's threat of further international sanctions if Iran does not respond positively by year-end to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program.

Analysts said the launch was likely intended for domestic consumption ahead of the June 12 elections and not as a message to the U.S., which has criticized past missile launches as stoking instability in the Middle East.

"But I don't think the Obama administration and other nations will look at this as a constructive sign," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Two U.S. officials confirmed the missile launch, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.

"It appears the test was a success," one official said. "It appears they launched a medium-range missile."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not confirm the launch but said the U.S. is aware of Iran's pursuit of ballistic missiles.

"Our concerns are obviously based on nuclear ambitions and the implications that long- and medium-range missiles have with respect to that," Whitman told reporters at the Pentagon. "Iran is at a bit of a crossroads. They have a choice to make. They can either continue on this path of continued destabilization in the region or they can decide that they want to pursue relationships with the counties in the region and the United States that are more normalized."

After the missile test, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that if Iran manages to produce nuclear weapons, it would "spark an arms race" in the Middle East.

Iran said the solid-fuel Sajjil-2 surface-to-surface missile has a range of about 1,200 miles. It is a new version of the Sajjil missile, which the country said it successfully tested late last year and has a similar range. Many analysts said the launch of the solid-fuel Sajjil was significant because such missiles are more accurate than liquid fuel missiles of similar range, such as Iran's Shahab-3.

"Defense Minister (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar) has informed me that the Sajjil-2 missile, which has very advanced technology, was launched from Semnan and it landed precisely on the target," state radio quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. He did not name any targets for the missile when he spoke during a visit to the city of Semnan, 125 miles east of the capital Tehran, where Iran's space program is centered.

Italy said its foreign minister, Franco Frattini, canceled a planned trip to Iran on Wednesday because Ahmadinejad wanted to meet in Semnan rather than in Tehran.

Najjar said the Sajjil-2 differs from the Sajjil missile because it "is equipped with a new navigation system as well as precise and sophisticated sensors," according to Iran's official news agency.

Sajjil means "baked clay." It is a reference to a story in the Quran, Islam's holy book, in which birds sent by God drive off an enemy army attacking the holy city of Mecca by pelting them with stones of baked clay.

Iran's nuclear and missile programs have alarmed Israel. The country's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pressed Obama to step up pressure on Tehran when the two met in Washington on Monday. Israeli officials had no immediate comment on the Iranian missile launch.

Moshe Arens, a former Israeli defense minister who trained in the U.S. as an aerospace engineer, said Wednesday's test was apparently part of Iran's broader quest to develop more advanced missiles and nuclear capability.

"They're increasing their abilities to launch rockets of longer and longer range that go beyond Israel and into Europe and eventually will carry nuclear weapons," he said. "They're troublemakers and you have to deal with troublemakers."

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's elimination, and the Jewish state has not ruled out a military strike to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. The Israeli government has been skeptical of U.S. overtures to Iran, which have received a mixed response from Ahmadinejad.

Many Western experts have expressed skepticism about Iran's professed military achievements, saying the country provides no transparency to verify its claims. Most believe Iran does not yet have the technology to produce nuclear weapons, including warheads for long-range missiles.

The U.S. released an intelligence report about 18 months ago that said Iran abandoned a secret nuclear weapons program in 2003 under international pressure and has not restarted it.

Israel and several other countries have disputed the finding. But many in the West at least agree that Iran is seeking to develop the capability to develop weapons at some point. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists said in a report issued Tuesday that Iran could produce a simple nuclear device in one to three years and a nuclear warhead in another five years after that.

The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles "in perhaps six to eight years."

Iran says its missile program is merely for defense and its space program is for scientific and surveillance purposes. It maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian energy uses only.

After the testing of the Sajjil in November, a senior U.S. military official said Washington believed Iran was testing the first stage of what would be a two-stage rocket. Multiple stages allow long-range missiles to use less fuel.

Ahmadinejad touted the launch in the final weeks of a presidential campaign that could influence Iran's response to the U.S. outreach. Two of the three candidates approved by Iran's constitutional watchdog to run in the June election are reformists who favor improving ties with the West.

The hard-line president has been criticized by his opponents and others for antagonizing the U.S. and mismanaging the country's faltering economy. On Wednesday, the constitutional watchdog approved three candidates to challenge Ahmadinejad, setting up a showdown between reformists and hard-liners.

Hard-liners have used the Guardian Council in the past to block reformist candidates, but Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi were likely too high-profile to reject. The watchdog also approved a well known conservative candidate, Mohsen Rezaei, a former leader of Iraq's elite Revolutionary Guards who has joined his reformist competitors in criticizing Ahmadinejad for mismanaging Iran's economy.

The group rejected 471 other candidates who wanted to run, including illiterate peasants, a 12-year-old boy and 42 women, the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Reformists, who believe they have a strong chance of defeating Ahmadinejad, have criticized the president for spending an inordinate amount of time and energy slamming the West. They say his behavior has isolated Iran and believe he should have focused on battling rising unemployment and inflation in the country.

Mousavi, a former prime minister who is seen as the leading challenger to Ahmadinejad, has said he would reshape Iran's policies and restore the country's dignity.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

We've got a nuclear-armed Pakistan with what's quickly becoming a civil war with the Taliban on their hands. I certainly wouldn't want to commit ourselves in Iran, before we absolutely have to with that storm a-brewin'.

Last I heard, Iran was pretty far away from getting the weapons ready. In terms of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists, Pakistan scares me worse. At the very least, try to talk to Iran, while holding whatever military capacity we have in reserve to see how it all shakes out in Pakistan.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yes, of course, the Israelis are concerned with Pakistan as well....didn't they threaten to wipe them from the face of the earth too?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know what I think? I think you liberal fellows and your inept messiah are going to get a nuke right here in the United States in our lap. To bad innocent people have to suffer for the naivety of others. I'm betting the partisanship runs so deep in liberals they will remain in denial even with the reflection of a nuclear mushroom in their eyes.



> US Senators press Obama on 'risk' for Israel
> 1 day ago
> 
> WASHINGTON (AFP) - A vast majority of US senators on Tuesday urged President Barack Obama to mind the "risks" to Israel in any Middle East peace accord as he presses for a two-state solution to the six-decade conflict.
> ...





> Iran tests missile with range that can hit Israel
> 
> May 20 01:05 PM US/Eastern
> By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
> ...





> Iran tests missile as election race starts
> Wed May 20, 2009 7:14pm EDT
> Clinton warns of Mideast arms race
> 
> ...





> By Ori Lewis
> 
> JERUSALEM, May 19 (Reuters) - Jewish settler leaders on Tuesday shrugged off U.S. President Barack Obama's call for Israel to halt settlement building in the occupied West Bank, saying Palestinians needed to "halt terror first".





> May 20 11:01 AM US/Eastern
> By AMY TEIBEL
> 
> JERUSALEM (AP) - Media focus on the idea of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, favored by President Barack Obama, is "childish and stupid," said an aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday
> The aide's statement reflected efforts by Netanyahu to deflect attention away from the issue during his just-completed trip to Washington.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

hunter9494 said:


> yes, of course, the Israelis are concerned with Pakistan as well....didn't they threaten to wipe them from the face of the earth too?


Nope... but the people currently handing an inept nuclear armed Pakistan it's own a** are the Taliban and Al Qaeda... In the meantime Iran is 10 years from building a nuclear warhead for their shiny new missile.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Nope... but the people currently handing an inept nuclear armed Pakistan it's own a** are the Taliban and Al Qaeda


The Pentagon is saying that if it looks like the government is in trouble they will move special forces to secure the nuclear arsenal. I hope Obama is on board with that plan.



> In the meantime Iran is 10 years from building a nuclear warhead for their shiny new missile.


If you have access to that classified information I would like to see it.  Everything else is somebodies guesstimate right? Conservatives will guesstimate a year like we hear from some of the military, while liberals who distrust intelligence will guesstimate 20 years. Just ask Nancy about those lying CIA.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

That was an estimate I heard a while back based on what we knew they could do, and the sorts of information that AQ Kahn was selling.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think today's headlines moved that date up significantly. My memory is killing me again because I can't remember and I just read it this evening. As a matter of fact I think I already posted something on it. Old timers disease. 

Oh, here is one. It makes your estimate about right. 


> Israel and several other countries have disputed the finding. But many in the West at least agree that Iran is seeking to develop the capability to develop weapons at some point. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists said in a report issued Tuesday that Iran could produce a simple nuclear device in one to three years and a nuclear warhead in another five years after that.





> The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles "in perhaps six to eight years."


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I double checked where I'd heard that before: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html

It was from a CIA National Intelligence Estimate.

They just tested missiles today. It just looks like they didn't have to Photoshop it this time around. That sort of missile technology is pretty widely available. North Korea's been selling them for a long time.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

> The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles "in perhaps six to eight years."


That can only be based on above ground intelligence, no one can be sure where they are in developement until the egg hatches.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think Iran will use Hezbolla to deliver a nuke by truck to Israel long before they use a missile. I'm glad I don't live in a sea port.


----------



## jacobsol80 (Aug 12, 2008)

omegax said:


> Number one, the revolution was in 1979. A couple of years is one thing, but giving them an extra decade needs to be corrected.
> 
> Number two, Reagan was giving them weapons in the 80's. By your logic, he should have been dropping bombs on them.
> 
> I really miss Ole Ron. What a brilliant strategy to arm both Iran and Iraq and have them fight each other. While they fought each other, they didn't have time to bother anyone else. Reagan was charmingly self deprecating but he understood human nature to a T. How great would it be to actually have a leader again in the Whitehouse?


----------

