“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”


French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not “stand” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”
According to a Monday report in the French website “Arret sur Images,” after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.
The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.
The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
AND IF YOU NEED ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY…

98 comments:

  1. Why does the President of the United States have to be dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu every day?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why doesn’t Obama tell Netanyahu he has bigger American problems to deal with? Or is Netanyahu expecting an “Oh all right, we will start bombing Iran just to shut you up.”

    Does Obama have any backbone at all?

    ReplyDelete
  3. On Monday, The Washington Post revealed that Russian scientists have been assisting Iran in designing and developing a nuclear weapon. Israel has consistently claimed over the years that Iran’s work on a nuclear weapon never stopped.

    Russian assistance to Iran’s nuclear program has always been a contentious issue between Jerusalem and Moscow, and Israeli officials said Monday they were not surprised by the reports.

    “Russia has always played this role and there is very little that we, a small country called Israel, could have done to stop it,” one official said.


    ---------------------

    Are you ready for another Middle Eastern war? How will that affect your financial welfare and your security?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Russia and China would love nothing more than to see the US fall for this insanity and foolishness, going broke in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe we've danced this jig, before.

    I have no problem with working with Israel on their Missile Defense, and in letting it be known, in no uncertain terms, that Israel is "Under Our Nuclear Umbrella."

    I have no problem with telling the Ayatollahs that if Israel is attacked that they are as Dead as any phony-assed religious hypocrite can possibly be.

    I have no problem with informing them all that for every Missile aimed at Israel, Ten Major Cities, starting with Tehran, become shiny, glassified, parking lots.

    Other than that, . . . . well, there ain't no "other than that."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Netanyahou wanted to embarrass our Vice President while he was in their country. He wanted to lecture our President at a photo Op in the White House. He wanted to keep "picking at the scab," and building apt.s where we asked him not to. Fine.

    Now, he wants those Iranian sites taken out? Okey, dokey, asshole, have at it. Good Luck, and thanks for the fish.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The oil markets seem to be considering this. Oil is up, overseas, while the stock futures are down.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rules regarding treatment of workers and protections for the environment are among the most difficult in those talks, Kirk said yesterday. Obama pledged in his 2008 campaign for president to pursue those issues in future trade negotiations.

    The current Trans-Pacific Partnership talks are with Australia, Chile, Peru and Singapore, all of which already have separate free-trade agreements with the U.S., as well as with Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Brunei. China’s commerce ministry said yesterday that such regional agreements shouldn’t replace wider trade regimes.

    “TPP has set very high benchmarks, whether or not all these members will reach that high benchmark we’ll have to wait and see,” Assistant Commerce Minister Yu Jianhua said at the briefing in Beijing.


    Brunei? Oh well, at least they're trying.

    Plans for APEC

    ReplyDelete
  9. Holy shit, that victim in the Penn State mess was a 10 yr. old boy.

    (I just assumed it was an assistant coach banging, or being banged by, a college jock stuff-muffin, or something. Someone of legal age, just in a subordinate position.)

    Yikes. That's serial sick shit. And, Felony, big-time.

    Aww, man.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Aww, shit, shit, shit

    And as one reads more of the Grand Jury testimony involving this case, it is also stated that Coach Joe Paterno was made aware of these alleged behaviors and merely reported the incident to his athletics director.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Failure to report viscous acts by sexual predators, rufus, it is not a "small" thing.

    Not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. While the Israeli may have been upset by the Russians working on the Iranian nuclear program, it did not stop the Israelis from selling Russia UAV avionics and assorted other military technologies.

    They've been sleeping with dogs, now it seems they are shocked to learn, they have fleas.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This will not shock some who know better, the truth be known, there are a great many liberal American Jews who can’t stand Netanyahu either.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't know why That would shock anyone. There are a great many sane Christians that can't stand Jimmy Falwell, and whatever that other nutcase's name is. Oh yeah, Pat Robertson.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good point, why does the President of the most powerful nation on Earth have to deal with a small Middle Eastern country of 5 million people ( OK it's probably every second day) EVERYDAY. It just goes to show the power of Israel over America. All the same, Sarkozy, Obama and Netanyahu are politicians and thus lying is part of what they do, so it's basically a pointless accusation. So why is America and most Europeans so servile and sycophantic in their dealings with their zionist overlords? There should be more straight talking it clears the air.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't know; it has something to do with longing for the Rapture, or something like that. Something about "end times," and going to heaven. Or not.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And, shitloads of money from an outfit called AIPAC.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rufus II said... I don't know; it has something to do with longing for the Rapture, or something like that. Something about "end times," and going to heaven. Or not.

    I'm a Christian (there are no atheists in the Big C foxholes, after all) but I have to admit the Big Guy has done a pretty bang-up job of hiding his tracks these days. Christians who want to believe look for signs of God's interference in human history, and about the only thing they have going is the 1967 Six Day War.

    The IDF sort of prodded God along a little bit, of course, by initiating hostilities and taking out 180 Egyptian war planes in a sort of desert "Pearl Harbor"

    President Nasser helped God a little bit too. He told King Hussein of Jordan nothing of the sudden loss of his entire air force. He said it was the Israeli air force, rather, that had been completely destroyed. Proceeding on the basis of this information, Jordan, Syria and Iraq invaded Israel, which had it's entire Air Force orbiting on CAP with the exception of a couple planes that were sent to Egypt to assess the damage of the first airstrike.

    Within two hours, Israeli warplanes drove back the invading forces and destroyed Syrian and Jordanian air assets in the air and on the ground. A grand total of four hundred Arab aircraft were destroyed in the first day of fighting. That fact alone decided the outcome of the war.

    But the David-vs.-Goliath narrative was so compelling that evangelical Christians latched onto it as the clearest sign of the existence of a meddling deity, one who is all about the brand name of "Israel" notwithstanding the fact that the first two Prime Ministers of the rebooted country were outright atheists, and the entire project was a secular one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Focus on living. Dying will take care of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why the assumption that it is Netanyahu who is initiating the calls? Oh, that's right.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It is usually the supplicant that is calling, allen.

    Thus the assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I am sure Obama is calling him asking him when is it OK to start the bombing, maybe getting further instructions on his daily to do list, helping him reload his teleprompter or asking his advice on how to correct a wicked slice.

    ReplyDelete
  24. .

    Netanyahu is a dick.

    But then, so is Sarkozy. So is Obama and so was Bush.

    It appears it comes with the territory.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  25. You have to be shitting me; it would have been more shocking if a world leader said what a nice man Netanyahu is. Can we move on before I do something truly regrettable to the cat?

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's the only hope Obama has in 2012. With only one exception (Truman), Americans don't like to replace Presidents in the middle of wars (Madison, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, W) unless they refuse to run (LBJ). So its wag the dog time.

    ReplyDelete
  27. When was the last time anyone here can recall Israel giving Mr Obama advice on foreign relations - say at the Mexican border. When you find that, please post it.

    Rarely does a day pass without someone in the Obama administration giving way to the urge to admonish Israel. That can be proven easily.

    As to supplication, Mr Obama would do just about anything to prevent Mr. Netanyahu's government from approving construction on the open plains of "Palestine".

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wrong, again, allen.

    The US will do no more to stop the Israelis from building, now, than the US has since 1967.

    The message of the US has been constant.

    The construction should cease.

    The message was never tied to the continued subsidies the US has provided Israel, since 1967.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Again,

    As to supplication, Mr Obama would do just about anything to prevent Mr. Netanyahu's government from approving construction on the open plains of "Palestine".

    Tue Nov 08, 01:04:00 PM EST


    This has nothing to do with success.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The US will not do anything, allen, to stop the Israeli.

    Nothing new, or Obamacentric, to that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. DR,

    Surely, you have some tidbit of information showing a time where Israel publically chastised the US for some element of its foreign policy?

    No?

    By the way, the French government signed onto an agreement that guaranteed that under French supervision Hiz would not rearm the southern border of Lebanon. How's that working out?

    ReplyDelete
  32. No, it does not especially interest me, allen.

    Bibi is running a con.
    He had 400,000 people in the streets.

    Talk about a politico needing to get the tail wagging the dog.

    ReplyDelete
  33. allen said...
    When was the last time anyone here can recall Israel giving Mr Obama advice on foreign relations - say at the Mexican border. When you find that, please post it.

    Rarely does a day pass without someone in the Obama administration giving way to the urge to admonish Israel. That can be proven easily.


    Israel has some of those brilliant minds on the planet, is hugely wealthy both internally and though its fraternal international community, a robust economy and has lethal military capabilities including a nuclear arsenal larger than France.

    Why does Israel not get off the US dole and do what is in its own internal interests? It is way past time for Israel to go its own way instead of the demeaning cajoling, begging and pleading uncle. Israel is a sovereign state and should quit acting like a client.

    ReplyDelete
  34. .

    It is way past time for Israel to go its own way instead of the demeaning cajoling, begging and pleading uncle. Israel is a sovereign state and should quit acting like a client...



    When I first came to the blog, I was hard pro-Israel. That has changed to the point that I am at best neutral on Israel. In fact, if the subject of Israel comes up on this blog I usually look for the negative first.

    That evolution is not because of anything said by rat or T some of which is downright silly; but instead because of things said by the Israel lobby here who often say things that are even sillier.

    If that makes me anti-semitic, well, blame it on the boys in the band. As they say, "With friends like these..."

    That being said, if we assume a nation has no friends only interests, and if you view the Israel/US relationship objectively, then net/net I would say the US received at least as much as it has given in the relationship and relatively speaking probably more than from many of our other relationships. If we are going to start cutting foreign aid, that's fine with me as long as everyone recognizes the whole picture. However, if we set any kind of priorities, Israel would not be the first country I would start with.

    I am more incensed by the neocons in Congress (GOP and Dem) who are IMO much too prone to go along with the saber rattling around the world than I am by Israel.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  35. LOL You people are getting funnier by the day.

    Teresita's comments on the 1967 war was like a street hooker describing true love.

    No mention from Teresita about the Egyptian's throwing out the UN troops out of the Sinai, the closing of the Straits of Tiran, violations of previous ceasefires (that gave back the entire Sinai to the war mongering Egyptians in 1956 after their loss to Israel in an Israeli defensive war.)

    No mention of Nasser publically calling for the burning of every Jew in Israel....

    No the village idiot re-writes history AGAIN....

    Teresita's says: "The IDF sort of prodded God along a little bit, of course, by initiating hostilities and taking out 180 Egyptian war planes in a sort of desert "Pearl Harbor"

    Nice rewrite of history...

    Let me say this to the Blog.

    We see what you write and trust me, WE KNOW how full of shit you are.

    But America is great at even allowing retarded people the freedom to speak. We have the same idiots here of course.

    But after we GAVE back the Sinai TWICE, Southern Lebanon and Gaza to the savages that call for our genocide on a daily basis?

    Our retarded anti-zionists have learned.

    Apparently Teresita and several others are too stupid to understand history or the Jihadi mind.

    Even the Moslems of my nation HATE the idea of a "Palestine", Hate the idea of an Islamic run Iran.

    Iran is an octopus with arms in Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria and now your President is supporting the Moslem Brotherhood in several arab nations....

    You fuckers are insane.

    Becareful with your new Jihadi friends, they will rip your throat out....

    But dont worry too much, Israel still has your back, even if you dont have ours....

    President Hussein Obama....

    He said he'd stand with the moslems and he is...

    ReplyDelete
  36. .

    Another Anonymous blending in with all the other anonymous Anonymi. Hard to take anyone serious when they haven't the balls to publish under a recognizable tag.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  37. No, anon, we're not insane, heavens, we're not even as paranoid as you are.

    Whooping up the fear factor, over Iran, a country that General P reported could be defeated, air force to air force, by the United Arab Emirates.

    There is nothing to fear ...
    ... but fear itself.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Quirk said...
    .

    Another Anonymous blending in with all the other anonymous Anonymi. Hard to take anyone serious when they haven't the balls to publish under a recognizable tag.


    truth doesnt have a made up handle...

    After all several of your "regulars" make up different names all the time. And they really are meaningless.

    Don't worry what my made up name is...

    But you could call me "The Hammer" if you wish.

    Ideas should stand on their own, not because of who delivers them.

    America funds islamic jihadis in Libya (thanks their weapons are now in Gaza and Southern Lebanon), Hamas (900 million last year), 10 billion to Pakistan in the last several years and they are no friend of the USA, even if the USA is to stupid to see a real enemy. Egypt, 3 billion a year, plus another billion in debt forgiveness, the PA 700 million a year (even though they have actually murdered American diplomats on purpure) But this blog complains about Israel and it's 3 billion in military aid.

    You guys are broken records.

    America is going broke buying jihadi oil and then getting a small amount back by selling them weapons. Then you give Israel 3 billion, (as compared to the TRILLIONS you spend on the Jihadis) and tell them to spend the money on American weapons that Israel would not have needed of America didnt sell Jihadis BILLIONS of dollars in weapons...

    Just remember my village idiots, Israel has your back even if you are too stupid to know it.

    We stand by you, even if you are sucking the dick of the Jihadi's and becoming Dhimmis...

    Learn to bow your head and take orders from the Jihadis you ballless wonders.

    We wish you were the superpower you used to be...

    Right now?

    You are... How do you say?

    Neutered.

    But we know the majority of Americans are our friends (they tell us on a daily basis) and we are your shared values friend.

    Maybe if some of our biggest enemies in this blog would come to Israel they could LEARN something.

    But I doubt that would be something you arm chair quarterbacks would be interested in.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Immediately after the Yalta Conference, FDR met with the King of Saudi Arabia

    The US has been allied with Saudi style Islam, after since.

    In 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt made Saudi Arabia eligible for Lend-Lease assistance by declaring the defense of Saudi Arabia of vital interest to the U.S. In 1945, King Abdel Aziz and President Roosevelt cemented the tacit oil-for-security relationship when they met aboard the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal.

    Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc/cron.html#ixzz1d9Z7KG2q

    ReplyDelete



  40. In November 1963, Egyptian aircraft bombed several villages inside Saudi territory. U.S. President John F. Kennedy responded by sending a squadron of F-100 fighter jets to protect Saudi Arabia.

    ReplyDelete
  41. desert rat said...
    No, anon, we're not insane, heavens, we're not even as paranoid as you are.

    Whooping up the fear factor, over Iran, a country that General P reported could be defeated, air force to air force, by the United Arab Emirates.

    There is nothing to fear ...
    ... but fear itself.



    You speak like someone who has never actually seen war, lost a loved one.

    You are just a protagonist. A jackass, a child, a naive piss-ant.

    To say that Iran is not real threat is just irresponsible.

    Just ask the THOUSANDS that have been murdered in Iran if they fear the Jihadis?

    Just ask the THOUSANDS of Americans in Iraq and now Afghanistan dead or wounded from Iranian IEDs

    Just ask the thousands of Israeli children growing up in bomb shelters...

    BUt you dismiss anything anyone says that runs contrary to your perverse point of view.

    Iran is a real threat. Dismiss if from the safety of your Arizona.

    A STATE that's square miles is 114006 square miles whereas Israel is 8,000 aquare miles and 9 miles wide at this skinniest.

    America if it cant be the super power it used to be then it should learn it's place. Just ask your President about where America should be I am sure he will be happy to shove America's face into the ass of the jihadis

    It took America HOW many months to defeat Libya?

    You you rate Iran as a walk in the part, when Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq

    ReplyDelete
  42. Should I find the video of George W Bush dancing with the Princes, in Saudi Arabia?

    The US has maintained course and speed, with regards Saudi style Islamic rule for over 70 years.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Iran may, or may not, be a threat to Israel, it matters not at all to the United States.

    Not until the threat actualy materializes.

    The Iranian Mullahs are no crazier that the Kims of North Korea, nor the Generals of Pakistan.

    MAD works.

    At least for the US.

    If you think, anon, that Israel should start a shooting war with Iran, advocate a way.

    If you think the US should, you're crazier than a bed bug.

    If you think that Iran poses a military threat to the US, you know nothing of the military nor of real threats.

    ReplyDelete




  44. Sanctions and Sabotage are Sufficient

    ReplyDelete
  45. I see WiO doesn't have the courage to post under his moniker anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The majority of the AK's used by the Islamoid insurgents, are Romanian, Russian or Chinese.

    Is it the fault of the Romania, Russia and China that their weapons are used against US?

    If the ManPads from Libya are used against commercial air traffic, do we blame the Russians or the Romanians?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Deuce said...
    Why does Israel not get off the US dole and do what is in its own internal interests?



    Even at the risk of further alienation of the fair minded, I do not disagree.

    But do recall, Israel has been a major buyer of American weaponry for decades. War takes an unbelievable toll on hardware, no matter how conscientiously maintained. Thus, it is very likely that spare parts etc would be needed either during or following any significant conflict. With that weakness (look at Iran) Israel is hard pressed to simply break away (my preference).

    Additionally, you may be certain that Israeli politicians, like their American, Russian, French...counterparts, will not turn down a free lunch.

    Anyone who could be turned "anti" Israel by some of the comments made on this blog, had never really thought through the "pro" position. Feelings, nothing more than feelings :-)
    a surefire kibbutz recruiter

    ReplyDelete
  48. Exactly the point, allen.

    There is a general "good feeling" towards Israel, in the United States.

    I certainly harbored one, Q seems to have. It was not until I was exposed to the rabid hatred expressed by those claiming to represent Israel's interests, that I actually investigated the contemporary history of the Levant.

    The reality of the Mandate's history, well, it does not measure up to the tall tales told by Mr Uris and portrayed on the silver screen by Paul Newman and Kirk Douglas.

    Not that the Arabfat crowd rates any better. Which has been my point, for the longest.

    There are two dancing that tango, both dirty as can be.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ash said...
    I see WiO doesn't have the courage to post under his moniker anymore.


    sure do jackass.................... just enjoying the show...

    why waste time with talking to anti semitic, anti israel self confessed murderers?

    allen is doing a nice job and ms t? still the fake cancer patient as always...

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  51. What is "Occupation" said...
    I will say my friends are laughing their asses off at you however...

    they cant believe that desert rodent, the divine ms lesbian christians jew hater actually exist.....

    it's really entertainment...

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'd have never believed there were the likes of you, "PR man for Allah", so it goes.

    Entertaining, certainly.

    More, it has been enlightening.
    To see the darkness. personified

    ReplyDelete
  54. .

    But you could call me "The Hammer" if you wish.

    :)

    Or I could call you "Dipshit". That's the point.

    However, that being said, it is good to know what happened to Tom Delay.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  55. .

    Anyone who could be turned "anti" Israel by some of the comments made on this blog, had never really thought through the "pro" position. Feelings, nothing more than feelings :-)
    a surefire kibbutz recruiter




    Probably true enough.

    While it may surprise some here, for the majority of Americans the questions of Israel, Jews, Zionism just don't come up that much.

    It wasn't until I visited this blog that I became aware of issues that would tend to make me question my previous position on Israel.

    When I'm not on the blog I go back to the real world sans discussions involving Israel.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  56. I do enjoy the honesty of opinion here. There is something to be said for Israel getting from under the US umbrella, but I think it is best for the US and Israel to maintain what has worked for both countries and have an honest dialogue about that which has not. It must be said though, Obama and Sarkozy are idiots. Just because you agree with their sentiments does not absolve them from their stupidity. This sort of gaffe undermines months maybe years of work at a stroke.

    ReplyDelete
  57. It is interesting that the more one learns about the middle east the less inclined you are to side with Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  58. .

    It is interesting that the more one learns about the middle east the less inclined you are to side with Israel.



    IMO, that's going too far.

    The more one learns, the more one realizes a country doesn't have friends but only interests that periodically allign with those of other countries.

    Dipshit says "To say that Iran is not real threat is just irresponsible."

    True enough on its face. However, the real questions are "how big a threat" and "to whom"?

    I subscribe to the "Powell (Weinberger, Clauswitch, et al) Doctrine", that we should go to war only as a last resort and then with overwhelming force.

    IMO Iran doesn't rise to that level for the US.

    If Israel considers Iran an existential threat they should do what they have to do. They shouldn't be worried about asking the US for permission.

    If the US is attacked in some manner by Iran, they should do what it takes to level the country in response. They should kick ass and leave. They shouldn't be concerned worrying about nation building or with the mess that is left behind.

    Unfortunately, few in OZ agree with that view these days.

    ,

    ReplyDelete
  59. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The Iranians do represent a threat, but not a military one. Not to the United States.

    They can project para-military muscle, all the way to the Eastern Mediterranean. But it is purely defensive muscle, not posing a threat to the US.

    They have influence with the Islamic Government of Iraq. That may represent a threat to US interests, but not a military one.

    The Iranians deliver bags of cash to Mr Karzai's office. Which is an interesting side bar to the Af/Pak War, but not a military threat to the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Question #1, unspoken, or otherwise, is: "Will Iran attempt to/be able to shut down the Straits of Hormuz?"

    In the real world, it all boils down to that.

    The answer(s) to that question is/are not simple.


    But, you can bet your sweet bippy on one thing: If they decided to attempt that, And were successful, the price of gasoline down at the corner will go higher, immediately, than you ever thought possible.

    What that would do to the World Economy can only be guessed at.

    ReplyDelete
  62. 1. In order to believe that Iran is an existential threat to Israel, one would have to believe that you have an irrational adversary in Iran. I challenge anyone to cite Iranian actions that are irrational.

    2. If Iran is rational, then you have to believe that Iran is willing to take a reprisal raid of over one hundred nuclear weapons for the privilege of attempting a nuclear attack on Israel. Think about that. Israel has some of the finest anti-missile systems on the planet. Iran would have no assurance that an attempted nuclear strike would be successful. Iran has every reason to know and understand that an attempted attack on Israel by Iran with nuclear weapons would effectively eliminate Iran as a society. You have to be totally ignorant of the long history of Iran to believe that.

    3. If Iran is irrational then you must believe that your only recourse is to totally destroy Iran. That is simply not going to happen.

    4. There is no predictable assurance that an Israeli strike against Iran would be effective. The consequences of either a successful or for that matter an unsuccessful attack would guarantee a serious rattling of the crazies. The risks are unpredictable and the consequences unknowable.

    5. Iran has four friends that have economic or cultural links with Iran and have nuclear weapons. Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea are capable of making Iran a nuclear power with one cargo flight.

    Talk of a US or Israeli attack against Iran is insane. How many more military fiascos do we need to experience before we realize that the best thing military power can do is deter. Nuclear weapons are the greatest deterrent weapons ever invented by mankind.

    ReplyDelete
  63. 5. Iran has four friends that have economic or cultural links with Iran and have nuclear weapons. Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea are capable of making Iran a nuclear power with one cargo flight.

    Russia and China won't because they signed the NPT. Pakistan could, but really, Deuce? Sunnis giving Shi'ites right next door their precious nukes? And the Norks don't have any. Those NK nuclear tests in the Naughties were just 400 tons of dynamite with some partially refined radioactive products stashed in the same cave to create the tell-tale signature of a “nuke”.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Extremely well-presented, Deuce.

    Extremely well-presented.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Obama has been a disappointment (as we are reminded daily by our host) but possibly there's hope for him (Obama) after all. Maybe in his embarrassment he will stop being so timorous and start acting like he has a pair. I am less optimistic about… :-)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Iran has Two Powerful Allies - Russia, and China.

    Here's the interesting part:

    Russia is a Major Oil Exporter. They would, secretly, at least, dance with glee over a conflict that shuts down the competition - Middleeast Oil Exporters.

    China, on the other hand, is a Major Oil Importer (Most of their imports come from the same oil fields that would be "shut in.")

    China might have the "upper hand" in that debate.

    However, it's likely that "Nationalism" would trump all.

    This is some really serious stuff we're talking about, here.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I meant to type: China, being Iran's No 1 Customer, might have the upper hand in that debate.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Rufus: the price of gasoline down at the corner will go higher, immediately, than you ever thought possible.

    What that would do to the World Economy can only be guessed at.


    Rufus is the sort of person who thinks the wolf population only goes up, and doesn't track the population of the prey they feed upon. Nothing but straight lines and linear algebra on his charts.

    The price of oil, when the distortion of speculation is filtered out, is the meeting point between supply and demand. But there is also a feedback loop involved. But that's Dynamics, and it's taught in the semester after Statics.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The bottom line, however, is "Do the Israeli People, really and truly, feel Existentially Threatened by Iran having Nukes?

    Or, is it just Bibi, and a few of his hawk cohorts?

    I don't pretend to have the slightest clue as to the answer to that question; but, it has to be, by far, the Most Important question.

    ReplyDelete
  70. T, I love you girl, but that post didn't make a bit of sense. :)

    ReplyDelete
  71. Okay, short version: The rate of change in demand is inversely proportional to the rate of change in price, and vice versa. If the economy goes to shit because gas is $10 a gallon, then $10 is not sustainable.

    ReplyDelete
  72. .

    The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

    1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
    2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
    3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
    4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
    5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
    6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
    7. Is the action supported by the American people?
    8. Do we have genuine broad international support?




    With regard to military action to negate Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    Answers:

    1. No, not at this point.
    2. No. We can say the objective is to take down Iran's nuclear capability; but the problem comes down to the question of "attainable". The most we could do without total war is set their nuclear efforts back for a while.
    3. Have the risks and costs been fully analyzed? It would be pleasant to think so; however, past experiance suggests they haven't been.
    4. No.
    5. You got to be kidding.
    6. Again, you would hope so; however, past experiance makes one skeptical.
    7. No.
    8. No.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  73. Rufus II said... The bottom line, however, is "Do the Israeli People, really and truly, feel Existentially Threatened by Iran having Nukes?

    Ever notice it's never the mullahs strap on the suicide bomb vests? That's what an Iranian nuke is. A suicide bomb vest for everyone, including the mullahs. So the bottom line is, do the Iranian People really and truly feel the afterlife is better than the here and now and want to rush things a bit?

    ReplyDelete
  74. T, you'd be taking about 25 Million Barrels/Day of Supply off the world market.

    $10.00 gasoline might, very well, be sustainable.

    Of course, after the whole world's economy goes into Depression, the price might fall back to $7.00 or $8.00/bbl

    BUT, in the meantime, the whole world has gone into Depression.

    ReplyDelete
  75. It's one thing for me to sit here, fat, and happy, and base all of my opinions on "the price of gasoline," but, that will mean little to the Israelis if they think their, and their childrens' lives, are truly at risk.

    Survival trumps Everything.

    ReplyDelete
  76. One thing I haven't seen is any type of seemingly accurate information on how "The People" view Bibi's preemptive strike.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Rufus:
    Of course, after the whole world's economy goes into Depression, the price might fall back to $7.00 or $8.00/bbl


    I have a site that says 8 million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf, but never mind.

    The US imports 11% of our oil from there, and we can make that up with fracking.

    China and Europe might be hurting a little bit, but gosh, if they'd quit vetoing our UN resolutions maybe we could get some traction on Iran, make them stop firing Silkworms and shit.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Well, your "site" is just flat full of shit.

    Saudi Arabia, itself, exports a little over 6 million bbl/day. By the time you add in Iran (yeah, their stuff wouldn't be going anywhere, either,) Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirites, and Oman . . . .

    We added an extra 100,000 bbl/day last year by frackin' like crazy. You're not making any sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Now, you would have China (with $2.8 Trillion, or so, in the bank,) bidding against us for what oil is coming out of Nigeria, Angola, the North Sea, Russia, and the Caucassus.

    You're sounding sillier, and siller, tonight, T.

    ReplyDelete
  80. DOE full of shit?


    Six months from Jan-Jun 2011, 1,588,961,000 barrels total.

    Divide by 180 to get days.

    8.82 million per day.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Down a factor of three from 25 mil, at any rate.

    ReplyDelete
  82. T, you're totally misreading, or intentionally misrepresenting, what you posted.

    That's just a list of what certain American Oil Co.s import from the Persian Gulf. It doesn't even mean that that oil comes to the U.S. It's a meaningless (for this discussion) listing.

    CNOOC probably imports more oil from the gulf than all of those companies, combined. Not to Mention the Indian Oil Co. Not to mention Japan. etc.

    Look, the fact of the matter is, approx. 85% of Persian Gulf Oil goes "East," not "West."

    BUT, Oil IS Fungible.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Rufus II said...

    Now, you would have China (with $2.8 Trillion, or so, in the bank,) bidding against us for what oil is coming out of Nigeria, Angola, the North Sea, Russia, and the Caucassus.

    I'm going to stick with just the 11% figure, with regard to how much of the US oil imports are from the Persian Gulf. I'm thinking a depression would shave that 11% close enough to zero that fracking would make up the difference, but China would come off much worse, because they get 58% of their oil from there.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Rufus: That's just a list of what certain American Oil Co.s import from the Persian Gulf.

    Okay, I will accept that rebuke from a most benevolent teacher.

    You're sounding sillier, and siller, tonight, T.

    That one I won't.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Blogger Quirk said...

    .

    It is interesting that the more one learns about the middle east the less inclined you are to side with Israel.



    IMO, that's going too far.

    The more one learns, the more one realizes a country doesn't have friends but only interests that periodically allign with those of other countries.



    while Quirk also wrote:

    It wasn't until I visited this blog that I became aware of issues that would tend to make me question my previous position on Israel.

    When I'm not on the blog I go back to the real world sans discussions involving Israel.





    Back around 1983 when the US occupied the Lebanese airport I started reading up on the middle east. Many of the discussions centered around East/West relations and the ME as a central axis in the cold war (what with the oil and all). I don't think one can separate Israel from the Middle East when considering the area yet I admit that we as Westerners relate to the ME primarily through Israel's relation to it. The Israelis are more like us. Yet the more one learns of Israel's policies the more one gets...disquieted by them, appalled even. The quest for Eretz Israel and the role of Zionism is central to the existence and expansion of Israel. I've tried to examine the issues from multiple sides - I've read Ariel Sharon's autobiography (twice) I've read translations of Arafat's writings (nonsense) and historical accounts of the birth of the Palestinian refugee crisis (the Irgun, led by Begin would blow up Palestinian homes, sometime while they were still in them, prompting them to flee) and yes, the Arab countries also urged the Palestinians to flee as they pushed Israel into the sea. The Arabs have acted badly as the Israelis have - i.e.the Israelis will not accept foreign/UN forces in the occupied territories and yes, the Palestinians have lobbed rockets and committed other acts of terror. Still, as one well read internet commenter wrote a few years back 'The Israelis have made their bed now they've got to sleep in it'.

    One can fall back on the dictum 'Countries have interests' but as individuals one must look to the morality of it all.

    ReplyDelete
  86. ms t wrote:

    "I'm going to stick with just the 11% figure, with regard to how much of the US oil imports are from the Persian Gulf. I'm thinking a depression would shave that 11% close enough to zero that fracking would make up the difference"

    Doesn't fracking yield natural gas and not oil?

    ReplyDelete
  87. .

    One can fall back on the dictum 'Countries have interests' but as individuals one must look to the morality of it all.


    Fine Ash, you have your personal opinion and I have mine.

    Your statement seemed to imply if you 'learned enough' you would eventually not side with Israel. That may be your personal view but not everyone agrees with it.

    While I might personally disagree with what Israel does or has done in certain instances, I still would expect my country to do what is in the best interest of my country.

    (Unfortunately, my opinion of what that is doesn't always coincide with the the opinion of the boys in OZ.)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  88. Certainly not everyone would agree with but I have noticed that the more one learns about the history and the situation the less one is likely to support the Israeli position as...wholeheartedly as one did.

    ReplyDelete
  89. A New YorK Republican is offended.

    “I find President Obama’s criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu highly offensive and call on him to issue a formal apology on behalf of the American people,” Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) said in a statement Tuesday. “Whether the microphones are on or off, the message to our allies in Israel should always remain the same: ‘We stand with you.’”

    ReplyDelete
  90. funny how in the days of yore that would have been the Democrats knee jerk response.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Just listen to you stupid fools. Do you not see muslims killing Christians, blowing up and burning churches in these countries, condemning to death those muslims who become Christians? Do you think that all problems in the middle-east would end if Israel did not exist there? The muslims want world domination and will stop at nothing to get it. They want to kill or convert all Christians almost as much as they want to kill all Jews. The Jewish people, who are a mere 0.2% of the world population have made contributions to society in medicine, science, law way beyond their numbers, including 20% of all Nobel prizes. God, are you people stupid beyond belief.

    ReplyDelete
  92. When does this ever end? Not only have we forgotton the sad lessons of the history of British and American involvement in the region in past generations, but we're now being asked to forget what we've learned in the last 20 years?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Depends on where you frack, Ash. Some formations, such as the Barnett Shale, or the Haynesville, or Marcellus Shale are almost entirely (or, are, entirely) Gas.

    In areas like the Bakken, you get mostly oil, with some gas.

    Areas that are, entirely, gas yield what is called Dry Gas.

    When you get gas in association with oil it's called "wet gas," or "associated" gas.

    Many (most?) of your drillers are mmoving out of the Dry Gas areas. $3.50 or $4.00 nat gas just won't "pay the freight." Most experts say you need prices in excess of, at the minimum, $6.00 per 1,000 cu ft to be profitable frackin' for dry gas.

    Fracking for oil in the Bakken, and Eagleford is just barely profitable at the prices they are currntly receiving. One reason it's not more profitable is not enough gas is yielded in many (most?) such plays as to warrant the cost of a pipeline to carry it out. As a result, a lot of it is "flared" at the wellhead.

    Fracking Is a good thing; and, it Is a help. But, it Is being tremendously over-hyped. An ex: There are 3, count'em three, platforms in the Gulf of Mexico that produce as much oil as the entire State of N. Dakota (The Bakken Play.)

    ReplyDelete
  94. .

    Will Obama Cite Exec-Privelege on Soloyndra?

    When the first accusation came out on Cain I suggested it would be smart to confront the charges directly and get his side of the story out in front of the media. Instead, he plead ignorance, then prejudice, then dirty tricks, then that the accusers were liars, finally he has started trying to do a hatchet job on the latest accuser. All he has really accomplished is to prove he is not ready for prime time.

    Now I'd offer the same advice to Obama on Solyndra. The more he hides on this issue the more he will be chased.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  95. The Republicans have a couple of problems on this Solyndra deal.

    1) The American Public overwhelmingly approve of the idea of Solar Energy.

    2) It's hard to make any mileage against someone for trying to do something of which the people overwhelmingly approve.

    ReplyDelete
  96. .

    The Republicans have a couple of problems on this Solyndra deal.

    Don't think so.

    People may like solar energy but "Solyndra" is only peripherally about solar energy.

    The GOP wants to make this about sweetheart deals and quid pro quo. If there is nothing there, Obama should come clean with whatever he's got. If there is something there it will come out anyway.

    It always does eventually.

    .

    ReplyDelete