Comments on: Decent interval

By: Wadeusaf

Wadeusaf — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:27:30 +0000

Well, that was a pretty stupid thing to do, to extend an olive branch when a shoe would do better. With the shoe, there is no mistaking the intent and as the shoe is expected of a man, would leave a favorable impression. An olive branch, well, lets just say it does not focus anybodies attention. It will not earn our president any respect however.

By: Winston's Cousin's Grandson

Winston's Cousin's Grandson — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:33:52 +0000

Let me fly this one by you. If Bambi cosies up to the mullahs, it allows Israel to attack and bomb with their new bunker-busters the Iranian nuke facilities, without the U.S. Army getting attacked and over-run in Iraq. The U.S. can ‘scold’ Israel about it all, but basically mission accomplished – by the Israelis. That would also allow the U.S. to focus on North Korea. Get all cosey with everyone and then WHAM, Israel bombs the hell out of the Iranian facilities while the U.S. attacks North Korea, putting THEIR facilities back to the stone age. Mission accomplished – Nuclear Proliferation stopped in its tracks.
It may seem unlikely, but it could be argued its the safest course for the world. Stop ‘em now before it gets to where its too late.

By: Fletcher Christian

Fletcher Christian — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:19:10 +0000

sirius_sir – One probably ought to correct the spelling of the name Ahmadinejad. Perhaps it ought to be corrected to Ahmadinejihad. Sounds right to me.

Of course, we could also acknowledge the very existence of the 1350-year war, and end it forever. It wouldn’t take more than half an hour. As long as we were thorough about it.

Or to put it another way, acknowledge the truth of the Three Conjectures and make them manifest – but remove the 5E6 or so from one side of the inequality.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:04:12 +0000

Professor Richard Landes provides a counterpoint to Professor Joshua Landis.

By: Fat Man

Fat Man — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:22:59 +0000

“Understand that he is not the decision maker when it comes to foreign policy and defense policy in Iran,”

BO fails to understand that AMadrasDinnerJacket is not the messenger he is the message, and the message from the powers that be in Iran to the entire waiting world, BO, and their own people is an upraised middle finger.

Tom Friedman writes a lot of dreadful rubbish, presumably to humor his bosses back at HQ, but he does from time to time, make an insightful comment. Here is one of them:

“Rule 1: What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language. Anything said to you in English, in private, doesn’t count. In Washington, officials lie in public and tell the truth off the record. In the Mideast, officials say what they really believe in public and tell you what you want to hear in private.”

“Mideast Rules to Live By” by Thomas L. Friedman in the NYTimes on December 20, 2006

This rule is deeply rooted in the honor-shame culture of the Middle East (Best explained by Professor Landes). Bo and his minions do not understand it. Because they are so foolish, they will get taken to the cleaners.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:37:58 +0000

Chuckie Schumer may not be in the big leagues of Big Bucks, but he was running the show deciding what would be said, and who would get Party Money for the Congressional elections.
He tripped the wire and kicked the piggybank by illegally leaking information which led to the run on IndyMac Bank, which started the dominoes falling.

By: Eggplant

Eggplant — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:50:26 +0000

F said:

“We in this readership keep focusing on Obama. But suppose for a minute that he’s only a pretty face, a novelty candidate put forward by 3 or 5 or 10 politicos and financial types to do their bidding.”

I believe this is a reasonable assumption.

“So the task now is, name the people in the cabal.”

The quick and emotive response would be George Soros. However Soros could only be part of the cabal. The timing of the collapse of the US economy back in September 2008 was extremely favorable towards Obama’s election. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that people with some influence in high finance were part of the cabal. Likewise the fawning by the MSM over Obama was obviously orchestrated. It’s reasonable to assume that more than one editor/media owner of the MSM is/was part of the cabal. Finally, during his term in office, George W. Bush was constantly being plagued with orchestrated leaks to the MSM by people highly placed in the intelligence community. It’s probable that some of those folks were also involved in getting Obama elected. That’s a formidable Praetorian Guard who put Obama in power and now working behind the scenes. If you cross those people you could easily end up:

1) dead
2) financially ruined
3) every financial and/or sexual indiscretion you ever made appearing on the front page of the New York Times and/or on CNN.

By: F

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:13:51 +0000

We in this readership keep focusing on Obama. But suppose for a minute that he’s only a pretty face, a novelty candidate put forward by 3 or 5 or 10 politicos and financial types to do their bidding. Imagine that the morning briefings are not people giving Obama intelligence and waiting for him to pronounce his policy for the day, rather they are a meeting during which Rahm Emanuel and a few others tell him what position he’s going to take on various topics. Who would they pick as the figurehead for their cabal? Someone who has no track record and who has voted “present” on most of the bills he voted on in the Illinois Senate. Someone who doesn’t believe in anything more than redistributing income and buying votes with promises of health care, housing, etc. And surely someone who can walk away from campaign promises without looking back. Sound like Obama? I would say so. So the task now is, name the people in the cabal. F

By: CPT. Charles

CPT. Charles — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:03:42 +0000

Alexis [1930hrs] Short answer: no.

I have more ‘good will’ and friendship towards Israel in my left big toe than the entire current administration put together.

You should take the time to hear some of the sermons that came out of the church Obama sat in for twenty years. Then examine the views of the ME ‘advisors’ he’s surrounded himself with.

That might clear up some of your questions.

By: nelson

nelson — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:00:51 +0000

Let’s take a “realist” look at the Israeli problem.

America’s elite has always been quite divided about Israel, with rather a minority being for it, and a smaller faction inside that minority backing Israel for reasons of principle, not just electoral opportunism.

Now, if one believes, like I do, that in a globalized world modernity and fanatic traditionalism cannot live together (not because modernity doesn’t want it, but because it is infectious and, thus, enrages and endangers the traditionalists)and that they will eventually clash — and only one will win… if one thinks like this and sees Islam as the abode of hardcore traditionalism, well, then one will back Israel as an important ally that happens to be on the forefront of the fight.

On the other hand, if one is transnationalist, multi-culti, believes all can get along together, and that this clash of civilizations thing is just a war and fear mongering invention of the Bushitler gang, then one will have to find out what is annoying our peace loving Arab and Muslim brothers.

According to this latter way of thinking, the sooner the world gets rid of the colonialist, land-grabing, child-killing, racist, apartheid Jewish state, the better. There’s one obstacle, however: even if Ahmadinejad would be happy to see Israel exiting the stage with a bang that would destroy much of the world’s oil supply, the “realists” would rather have Israel going gentle into that goodnight but with a whimper.

Thus, the problem for the American “realists” is how in part to force and in part to trick Israel into allowing itself to be defanged.