Tons of Iranians are muslims by force rather than by choice. Regardless of what I think about your argument regarding muslims, I don’t think it applies to Iranians.

How many Iranians (in the US) do you know that still care about being muslim?

They only respect strength. ‘Talking’ is weekness. We look like fools to them whe we want “direct talks”. They are only stalling for time till they get strong enough to defeat us. When will 95% of us in the west wake up and realize this fact.

Which propagandist would you like to hear? I am willing to collect links for you. I want to know though that you’re genuinely interested, and will not discard everything I say outright because you don’t know anything anyway, and yet already have a preconceived opinion. One that is perfectly summarized by the picture that Ed had accompanied this thread with.

freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM

You asserted that “every Russian nationalist and propagandist prefers McCain”. I would like to see the facts that support that assertion. Was it a survey? Is there an exhaustive accounting of Russion nationalists and propagandists and their preferences in US politicians? How can you be sure that there isn’t one (remember, you said every) nationalist somewhere who does not support McCain?

I suspect it’s going to be impossible to demonstrate that every such person supports McCain, so perhaps you’d like to just provide evidence that it’s a majority.
Again, is this information from a survey? How many people were surveyed? Who conducted the survey? When was it conducted?

Or maybe you mean that every Russian propagandist and nationalist that you listen to has those views? Sort of like the global warming “consensus” among scientists: it’s a consensus as long as you don’t listen to the tens of thousands scientists who don’t agree?

Well, I responded to your assertion that “every Russian nationalist and propagandist prefers McCain.” I was hoping you might substantiate that claim, so I’m not really interested in opinion, but rather in facts. If opinion is all you have to offer, providing the links may help those of us who like to think for ourselves get to the facts (or lack thereof) behind your assertion.

Which propagandist would you like to hear? I am willing to collect links for you. I want to know though that you’re genuinely interested, and will not discard everything I say outright because you don’t know anything anyway, and yet already have a preconceived opinion. One that is perfectly summarized by the picture that Ed had accompanied this thread with.

It’s an unquestionable fact that Georgia started the war by using Grad launchers to bombard the city of Tskhinvali. Russia of course had no option but to respond overwhelmingly. However, they should have stopped at the border and not go any further. What they did beyond a justified response is wrong and puts them in a difficult position.

That being said, I listen to the anti-government Echo of Moscow now. Every opponent to the current policy of Medvedev/Putin concedes that it is impossible to talk with a straight face about the West’s commitment to the territorial integrity. Instead they argue, as I would, that the Russian foreign policy will ultimately hurt Russia regardless what the hypocrites in the US or elsewhere think.

There’s absolutely no question that every Russian nationalist and propagandist prefers McCain. I watch and read about it every day.

freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM

So could you provide some links?

Then we’re double Cartered via Obama/Biden.

smaller brains
bigger mouths

Leaving twice the teeth & appetite,
wave so long to Puerto Rico and Hawaii,
if they gnaw off their own limbs like wolves.

It’s a bit like negociating with the low level car salesman instead of the real manager.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM

You actually see the Ayatollah puppeteer of Iran directly accommodating any American politician, particularly the POTUS?

Dream on.

If you are so smug as to think that those who accomplished our 9-11 tragedy had no affiliation whatsoever with the Ayatollah Khomeini, that in their individual entities Islamic fascists have nothing in common and no means of communications and accommodations, no matter then to attempt further communication with you; because beyond what differentiates separate entities is what similitude exists and what alliance does exist whether overt or covert amongst Muslim terrorists.

It’s an opinion based upon decades of experience of professional contact amongst Muslims in America from Iran, Iraq, Libya, and the United Arab Emirates.

Think as you like.

Giving Khomeini’s regime ANY opportunity when we wouldn’t lift a Good Samaritan finger to alleviate our ally the Shah’s last days on earth would not make sense, particularly when COMPROMISE is all that diplomacy regards, and why the hell should WE formally compromise ourselves to the damned Islamofascists?

So it seems.

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Our ally the Shah? The guy that was torturing and imprisoning people? Great ally! (Of course nothing beats the fact we sold arms to Iran in the 80s, well after the Shah was gone.)

Though US via UN dialogue forever flows ad nauseum with Iran, yet we hear:
time to start having serious talks with the Iranians and the Iranian government.

We hear that because we haven’t had serious direct discussions. Discussions via the US is not the same as direct discussions. It’s a bit like negociating with the low level car salesman instead of the real manager.

It appears we agree more than not.

per ‘holding Iran at bay’ as regards attacks on US soil.

per Iraq being Iran’s war front, that’s exactly what Bush has been saying all along–better to fight over there than here.

But get real. You need a solid front at your back or you face destruction from an enemy ready to surround you in their back yard on the other side of the earth from ours. We don’t even have Turkey’s willingness to accommodate US military traffic yet. Iraq had better sign on to military alliance treaty with the USA, or more than shit’s gonna hit every global fan.

The Europeans have been trying for several years to have these serious discussions.

I’m not surprised that you weren’t aware of them.

MarkTheGreat on August 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM

I guess you think Europe is the equal of the US, but I don’t. We are the ones that can make a difference in this situation.

1. Holding Iran at bay.

…while they continue their nuclear ambitions.

2. No additional 9-11 attacks on US soil.
…
maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM

2. Wow, that’s a new one. Iran and 9/11. We had already heard the “Iraq 9/11″ talking point from the administration, but this is a new one.

Though US via UN dialogue forever flows ad nauseum with Iran, yet we hear:

time to start having serious talks with the Iranians and the Iranian government.

Sorry, but the noise from the peanut gallery demanding a direct US/IRAN declaration of war prior to wrapping up Iraqi alliance as a strength from behind seems aligned with the voices chanting that we never belonged in Iraq, throwing Iran into the argument as though the chanting voices wouldn’t say the same thing once we commit to a military response to the Iranian war against the USA evidenced in Iraq.

Talk turned dirt cheap so long ago,
talk is older than the hills and twice as dusty.

like, umm:
“Which way should we bend over, Khomeini?”
“We aims to please, merci beau coup.”

Someone’s been sent to the corner for “time out” so frequently that talking to the wall ’til you’re blue in the face makes all the sense in the world.

Speaking of talking yourself blue in the face, no wonder it’s Obama’s only color. Get used to his required change to please Lord Marx’s Chosen and Ayers’ Anointed One.

The idea of “talking” with Iran is too obtuse for words.

Actions speak louder than words.

Giving Khomeini’s regime ANY opportunity when we wouldn’t lift a Good Samaritan finger to alleviate our ally the Shah’s last days on earth would not make sense, particularly when COMPROMISE is all that diplomacy regards, and why the hell should WE formally compromise ourselves to the damned Islamofascists?

So it seems.

don’t see how bush has held iran at bay at all. he’s tried the ‘obama route’ talk to iran, what a waste of time. they’ve been at war with us since 79, we’re just too stupid, or cowardly, to fight back.

the Bush admistration has been in charge for the last 7 years, and haven’t achieved anything with Iran…

1. Holding Iran at bay.
2. No additional 9-11 attacks on US soil.

Who’s counting, or NOT as the case may be?

I think it’s time to start having serious talks with the Iranians and the Iranian government.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM

The Europeans have been trying for several years to have these serious discussions.

I’m not surprised that you weren’t aware of them.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM Are you claiming the current approach is working?

My apologies; I think I may not have made my point sufficiently clear. And I’m not sure where you get the impression I’m “scared of direct negoctiations.” Please allow me to try again.

A rational person will not experiment at random (“try” things) without some reason to believe that the new approach is going to produce a measurably better outcome than the old (conducting an argument in the comments section of a blog notwithstanding); especially when the stakes are high and blunders cannot be undone. Even people who are so irrational as to stand at a slot machine feeding in dollars will offer some rationale (however illogical it may be) as to why the next pull of the lever is going to differ from the hundreds of others that preceded.

You will not hear me take issue with the proposition that our President should not agree to a deal that is counter to America’s interests. But I’m afraid I just can’t get to the blind faith part. I want to know precisely why Obama thinks his approach would produce a better outcome, particularly considering a well-known precedent that produced a spectacular failure.

If the strength and charisma of Obama’s personality is such that he can work some magic in the minds of our enemies, why does he not work the same magic in the minds of the 50% (or so) of the electorate (and even his own party!) who doubt his credentials to be President? Is it because those people are obtuse and ill-willed? Well, if you want an example of obtuse and ill-willed, you need only look at Ahmadinejad. Is it because they don’t have America’s best interest at heart? Does Putin? Sorry, without seeing this magic in action, I find it hard to believe that Obama’s saving it up for exclusive use on our enemies.

You can probably see where I’m a little confused. So do you think you might be able to explain, in terms simple enough for me to understand, why I should believe that Obama should negotiate directly on our behalf with despotic dictators?

Hoodwinked,
Flim-Flammed,
Bamboozled,
Hohey-Doked