“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Why does Obama and Netanyahu refuse to take war against the Iranian people off the table?

Lets Skip a War With Iran

Lesson for foreign leaders who are in the doghouse with the U.S. government: Get a nuke.
Sheldon Richman | November 14, 2013

Look at recent history. In 2003 Iraq’s government had no nuclear weapons (or other WMD). The U.S. government invaded, and before long Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was hanging from a rope. In 2011 Libya’s government had no nuclear weapons. The U.S. government led NATO on a bombing campaign to help a group of rebels, and before long Libyan Col. Muammar Qaddafi lay dead on a roadside. Today Syria has no nuclear weapons. The U.S. government and NATO are currently aiding rebels seeking to overthrow (and likely kill) President Bashar al-Assad.
On the other hand, North Korea has nuclear weapons, and Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un appears safe from any regime change sponsored by the U.S. government and NATO.
Lesson for foreign leaders who are in the doghouse with the U.S. government: Get a nuke.
Therefore it follows that not threatening a foreign regime is a good way to keep it from following the yellowcake road. And it sure beats threatening war, which all too easily can become actual war.
Iran is not building a bomb. U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies have said so repeatedly. The Islamic Republic, unlike Israel, is a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is thus subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, the Islamic regime long ago issued a fatwa, invoked many times since, condemning WMD as immoral.
Furthermore, a nuke would be useless as an offensive weapon for Iran. (Iran has not attacked another nation in hundreds of years, but it was attacked by U.S.-backed Iraq in 1980.) Israel has an arsenal of at least 200 nuclear warheads, some mounted on submarines for a second-strike capability. The U.S. government has thousands. Say what you want about the Iranian leadership, but it is not suicidal.
Thus, the only value for Iran in having a nuclear weapon would be in deterring an attack. Stop threatening an attack, and that value vanishes.
Why then do President Obama and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, refuse to take war against the Iranian people off the table? The Israeli government wants to prevent any change that would limit its freedom of action in the region — which has included repeated mass violence against the Palestinians and the Lebanese — and the U.S. government, largely for domestic political reasons, backs Israel to the hilt. President Obama and Vice-President Biden are only the latest American politicians to declare that “no daylight” exists between the United States and Israel — despite the absurdity of that claim.
In fact, the American people and the Israeli government have entirely different interests with respect to Iran. Americans have no interest whatever in war with Iran. Countless noncombatants, not to mention U.S. military personnel, would be killed or maimed, and economic well-being would be shaken by the disruption of oil production and trade. This wouldn’t be good for the people of Israel either, although their hawkish ruling elite and its boosters in America, including in Congress, apparently think otherwise.
It’s more and more obvious that this issue isn’t really about nuclear weapons at all. Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, is trying to reassure the West and Israel about its civilian nuclear program. (This is not the first time.) His foreign minister is meeting with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (the P5+1) in order to strike an agreement that would include lifting the economic sanctions — a form of warfare under international law — which deprive innocent Iranians of food and medicine. Progress in the talks had been reported, but France, with Israeli backing, reportedly threw up roadblocks, among other reasons, due to a conflict of interest, namely, its lucrative military ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia (the U.S.-allied Sunni kingdom that is a rival of Shiite Iran).
But perhaps more important, the Obama administration made an interim agreement unacceptable to Iran by refusing to recognize its prerogative under the NPT to enrich uranium.
Despite early signs of progress in the negotiations, Netanyahu and his biggest supporters in Congress want even more sanctions, as they talk down the potential for a peaceful settlement. One gets the feeling that they will never take yes for an answer to the question of nuclear weapons; they want war and regime change, no matter what the Iranian government does.
The warmongers must be thwarted. Peace is the priority.

This column was originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation.


  1. Israel is a bigger problem for the United States than Iran ever was. Obama has been severely weakened by this entire Obamacare debacle. I can only hope that his handlers advise him against any idiotic thoughts of support for our strategic liability in Tel Aviv and his wet dream of dragging the US into a war with Iran,

    1. It's in large part a US fault for contributing to this development by pampering Netanyahu and legitimizing his supremacist agenda. Obama should have told him upfront that Netanyahu's demands on Iran are baseless, contrary to international law, and his threats to attack Iran are unacceptable. That the US would not attack Iran and would not help Israel in any way if it launches such an attack. That would have given Netanyahu a realistic perspective of geopolitics. Instead, the US led him to believe he's going to get his way, and now when he realizes he won't he's going berserk.
      If the Israelis were honest and fair party to negotiations, they'd offer Iran a bilateral deal of giving up their nuclear weapons and a nuclear-free region in exchange for Iran giving up its own program. Then hope the Iranians agree and this way avert a future M.A.D. standoff. As it stands, the Israelis offer nothing, make wild demands and wild threats.
      The current deal being discussed is similar to one that could've been reached back in 2005 - Iran limiting enrichment to levels needed to fuel its reactors - in exchange for the West recognizing their right to do so and stop badgering them.
      Obama can scrap the deal as Netanyahu demands - and afterwards just a walk away from it all. Without active Washington involvement,the sanctions will fall apart on their own even without a deal - and Iran will continue to do whatever the h*ll they choose to do with their nuclear program.

    2. The objective of the US, in 2005 was not to gain an agreement, but to provide for justification of an extension of the Middle Eastern conflict.

      Dick Cheney approved the sale of 25 General Electric reactors, to Iran, when he was SecDef.
      The nuclear program is legal, under Treaty. If the Iranians agree to the normal inspections regimes.
      Which they have, and currently are.

      For a variety of reasons, there are those in government and industry that firmly believe that their political, financial and social success is dependent upon the US having an "Enemy".

      Iran and the Mullahs are easy targets to demonize.

    3. Yes, indeed, they are. Hanging little girls and gays would be considered by "normal" folks, devilish.

    4. Mr. Obama does not know what to do with Iran other than avoid military action against her. He has never, for a single second, contemplated war with Iran for America's security, much less that of Israel.

      France has never needed Israel's "backing" for anything. To state otherwise is borderline paranoia.

      If you all keep reading these comic books while in the bathroom, you will not only go blind but you will drool as you try to talk.

    5. America is already at war with Iran....

      You just don't have the balls to admit it...

  2. By 1941, with the outbreak of World War II, the Persian Gulf and Iran's vast oil resources became critical for the success of the British Navy.

    Iran declared itself neutral, but Reza Shah, who had established strong cultural and technological ties with Germany, was perceived as problematic by the Allies. With Iran under virtual occupation by Allied forces, he was forced to abdicate his throne, and his young son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was crowned as the new king. Reza Shah would die in exile in 1944.

    The Reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi

    Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was twenty-two years old when he assumed his position as the Shah of Iran.
    Allied forces occupied much of the country.

    After the end of World War II, Russia continued to occupy regions of northern Iran.
    The young Shah visited the United States, meeting with US officials and addressing the United Nations. Under pressure, the USSR withdrew from Iranian territory.
    The 1940s saw a resurgence in parliamentarism in Iran. In 1949, Mohammad Mossadeq formed the National Front Party, with the aim of upholding the 1906 Constitution.

    One of the main goals of the National Front was to nationalize Iran's oil industry; the British continued to control most of Iran's oil revenue through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

    In 1951, the Shah appointed Mossadeq as prime minister. Mossadeq followed through on his plans to nationalize the oil industry, and the National Iranian Oil Company was formed.

    For many Iranians, Mossadeq became a nationalist leader. To some Western leaders with economic interests in the Middle East, his actions set an unwelcome precedent. In 1952 Mossadeq was named Time magazine's Man of the Year.

    In 1953 the British MI-6 and the CIA undertook Operation Ajax, which toppled Mossadeq from power.

    To many Iranians, Mossadeq became a symbol of yet another moment in history when foreign  intervention played a pivotal role in thwarting a democratic movement in Iran. Meanwhile, as Iran emerged from the political unrest of the 1950s, its economy was in tatters.

    In 1963, the Shah announced his White Revolution, a program that included land reform, the nationalization of forests, the sale of state-owned enterprises to the private sector, a profit-sharing plan for industrial workers, and the formation of a Literacy Corps to eradicate illiteracy in rural areas.

    The White Revolution also granted Iranian women the right to vote, increased women's minimum legal marriage age to 18, and improved women's legal rights in divorce and child custody matters. These reforms were opposed by some of Iran's clergy, in particular Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Khomeini led the June 5, 1963 uprising, opposing the Shah and the White Revolution.

    In the course of this uprising, the authorities quelled resistance among the religious students in a seminary in the city of Qum, and a number of students lost their lives.  Khomeini's activities eventually led to his exile to Iraq in 1964.

    The oil boom of the 1970s ushered in an influx of petro-dollars, with which the regime spearheaded major development programs.
    The accelerated rate of development exacerbated unequal distribution of wealth and led to a variety of social problems in Iran.

    Discontent with government policies was spreading through various segments of Iranian society. In 1976, leading members of the National Front published an open letter to the Shah, calling on his government to comply fully with the 1906 Constitution.

    In the Fall of 1977 the Iranian Writers' Association organized a series of poetry readings at the Goethe Institute in Tehran known as "Dah Shab" or Ten Nights. Towards the end of the ten nights, the writers and some students took to the streets, demanding an end to censorship.

    By the winter of 1978, major demonstrations became increasingly common in Iran's major cities. 4 On January 16, 1979, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi left Iran. On February 1, 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini returned.

  3. Mahdi Darius NazemroayaSat Nov 16, 06:28:00 PM EST

    Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”: Divide, Conquer and Rule the “New Middle East”

    The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge of the region, know very little about the Arabs. What is unfolding amongst the Arab peoples is naturally a mixed package. Insurgency is part of this package as is opportunism. Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution.

    The upheavals in the Arab World are not an Arab “awakening” either; such a term implies that the Arabs have always been sleeping while dictatorship and injustice has been surrounding them. In reality the Arab World, which is part of the broader Turko-Arabo-Iranic World, has been filled with frequent revolts that have been put down by the Arab dictators in coordination with countries like the United States, Britain, and France. It has been the interference of these powers that has always acted as a counter-balance to democracy and it will continue to do so.
    Divide and Conquer: How the First “Arab Spring” was Manipulated
    The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.
    Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.
    During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.

    In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

    After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today.

    The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

    1. The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge of the region, know very little about the Arabs

      Humbug, they know that Pakistan consumes more porn per capita than any other country in the world. If we supplied the Muslims with better porn, they soon would be as docile as a pretty, sexy, tender sheep (or goat).

      Yes, legend has it that the sectarian strife within Islam began in the seventh century CE. It has continued, more or less, unabated since. the Jamestown Plantation was established in the early seventeenth century CE (1607). Thus, for about one thousand years before a European foot touched Virginia's soil, Muslims have been doing just fine killing themselves and Jews since the foundation of Islam. It is well argued that Jerusalem was first taken by Christians because of Muslim internecine warfare. Read!

  4. Mahdi Darius NazemroayaSat Nov 16, 06:31:00 PM EST

    The Yinon Plan: Order from Chaos…

    The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

    Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

    The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan.

    Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria.

    The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views.
    The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

    1. Mahdi Darius NazemroayaSat Nov 16, 06:34:00 PM EST

      Securing the Realm: Redefining the Arab World…
      Although tweaked, the Yinon Plan is in motion and coming to life under the “Clean Break.”
      This is through a policy document written in 1996 by Richard Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel at the time.
      Perle was a former Pentagon under-secretary for Roland Reagan at the time and later a U.S. military advisor to George W. Bush Jr. and the White House.

      Aside from Perle, the rest of the members of the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ consisted of James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), and Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University).

      A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is the full name of this 1996 Israel policy paper.

      In many regards, the U.S. is executing the objectives outlined in Tel Aviv’s 1996 policy paper to secure the “realm.”

      Moreover, the term “realm” implies the strategic mentality of the authors.
      A realm refers to either the territory ruled by a monarch or the territories that fall under a monarch’s reign, but are not physically under their control and have vassals running them. In this context, the word realm is being used to denote the Middle East as the kingdom of Tel Aviv.

      The fact that Perle, someone who has essentially been a career Pentagon official, helped author the Israeli paper also makes one ask if the conceptualized sovereign of the realm is either Israel, the United States, or both?

  5. 10 Days Till Talks Means 10 Days to Condemnation
    by Jason Ditz, November 10, 2013

    Israeli officials were uniformly “relieved” by the French government’s sabotage of the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, but with more talks just 10 days away, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promising an intense lobbying campaign against diplomacy.

    How they’re going to spread a general opposition to diplomacy into 10 solid days of narrative isn’t clear, but Jewish Home leader Naftali Bennett has promised to spearhead the lobbying effort with the US Congress.

    Netanyahu, for his part, issued a call to arms for all Jews, everywhere, but particularly in North America, to unite behind him in opposing diplomacy with Iran.

    Netanyahu tried to portray his opposition to diplomacy as a “matter of Jewish survival,” but while his anti-diplomacy slant has currency with his own right/far-right government, his assumption that he can snap his fingers and unite international Jewry against diplomacy seems very presumptuous, and with most of the world still hoping for a deal, Israel’s “no deal at all cost” position has many worried that the government is positioning itself well outside of the debate by being completely unreasonable.

  6. Netanyahu never misses an opportunity to be unreasonable.

    1. Yet..,He is a prime minister and you are what, again?

    2. So was Idi Amin (or was it President?) Robert Mugabe? I don't know. Don't care. Bibi's no friend of Clan Rufus; of that I Am sure.

    3. It was President, Field Marshall, Dr. Idi Amin, DaDa. I am glad you mentioned him. As the world wrung its hands like little old ladies who've lost their glasses, Israel and its African allies ran an "impossible" raid on a Ugandan airport. All hostages were freed and returned home. The only Israeli casualty was Major Netanyahu (KIA), BiBi's older brother.

    4. Yes, Iran calls Israel "a cancerous, bastard illegal regime"

      How can you not feel the Iranian love or it's 70,000 rockets sitting 12 miles from the Israeli border....

    5. Iran spends billion on supporting hezbollah, hamas and dozens of other jihadist groups across the globe, blows up Jewish community centers, targets civilians across the world and "bibi is unreasonable"

      How gullible are you? Every single USA administration since the Iranian Revolution has been SCREWED by Iran. Do you really think they have CHANGED their feelings about America/????


      How stupid are you?

    6. The Russians have 1,800 deployed nuclear weapons, most all of which can reach some part of the United States.
      News from the Russians October 8 (RIA Novosti) – Russia is to increase annual spending on nuclear weapons by more than 50 percent in the next three years. ...

      Bu it was not that long ago, recently really that ...
      At the peak of its arsenal in 1988, Russia possessed around 45,000 nuclear weapons in its stockpile

      Now that, young man, is a real nasty threat.
      One that makes those rockets in the rebel areas of Ersatz Israel, just fade to nohing by comparison.

      Those rockets and mortars, they are just a normal part of the regional war you fellas started, in 1948.
      The British left, the colonial exploration expanded.
      The natives are restless.
      It chaos rages in Syria, flaming up in Egypt, Lebanon and Libya.
      Chaos smolders in Ersatz Israel.

      The Yinon Plan - man, just Google that ...
      What a wealth of data sets there to be mined.

    7. You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees.

      The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established “normally” and happened to occupy another country in 1967.

      Palestinians are not struggling for a “state” but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.

    8. Nelson was and is a terrorist....

      Nelson should concern himself with the shit can that is now South Africa...

  7. I read one of the William F. Buckley Jr books that are on the shelf, in the library.
    My father-in-Law was an avid reader, of WFBj.

    In "Spytime" the protagonist spymaster James Jesus Angleton is discussing an operation with one of his associates.
    Towards the end of their conversation James Jesus is asked, paraphrasing the dialog ...

    "Well, how did work out?"
    to which he replied ...
    "It's hard to judge ... it has only been five years"

    1. William F. Buckley Jr called Pat Buchanan an anti-Semite, maybe you should have listened to your father and not have been such a stupid fuck.

  8. The Israeli-Saudi Axis, a de facto alliance between Saudi Arabia and the state of Israel.
    An de facto alliance that allen not only acknowledged, but proclaimed.

    The physical evidence of this, being played out in Syria, over the past six to eight months, since the first Israeli air strikes against the Assad regime in 2013.

    Mr Nazemroaya described this scenario, along with the Nato operation in Libya and the rise and fall of Mr Morsai, which in retrospect fit a 'tweaked' version of the The Yinon Plan: Creating the Chaos…

    Creating the chaos that justifies implementing hegemonic order.


    1. Israeli airstrikes in Syria were and will be to disarm Hezbollah from taking delivery of advanced weapons.

      Israel could have taken out assad AT ANY TIME since he arrived in Syria from London if they choose to...

  9. Younes Parsa BenabSat Nov 16, 07:49:00 PM EST

    The origin and development of imperialist contention in Iran; 1884-1921: part II
    A case study in under development and dependency

    Younes Parsa Benab

    … after the Bolshevik Revolution, the conflict between the new Russia and Great Britain became even more antagonistic. Lenin and his associates struggled, on the one hand, to combat the British imperialist presence and on the other, to assist the national liberation movements in Iran.
    Facing the rise of the anti-imperialist tide in Iran, the British originated and planned the Anglo-Persian Treaty of 1919. Curzon's plan was to create a chain of pro-British countries stretching from the Mediterranean to the borders of India aimed at perpetuating Great Britain's interest in the strategically-located Iran [88]. “The weakest and most vital link” of the Chain, as viewed by Curzon, was Iran. On these grounds, he regarded a policy of evacuation of Iran by the British as “immoral, feeble and disastrous” [89]. To avoid such a "disaster", (i.e., the victory of the national liberation movement and the expulsion of the British troops from Iran), Great Britain sought to dominate Iran by imposing the infamous Anglo-Persian Treaty of 1919.
    The Anglo-Persian Agreement of August 9, 1919 contained a preamble and six Articles. In Article I, Britain reiterated the policies which she had repeatedly pretended to follow in the past regarding the “independence and integrity” of Persia. The remaining Articles provided that Britain would (1) supply, at Iran's expense, advisers for the Iranians administration; (2) equip, at the expense of Iran, the reorganisation of the Iranian army; (3) furnish a substantial loan of 200,000 pounds to Iran to be repaid by the Iranian administration at the rate of seven percent per annum; (4) co-operate with the Iranian government to improve the system of communication; and (5) sponsor the appointment of a committee of experts to study a revision of existing tariff regulations [90].
    Curzon who saw in the agreement the climatic achievement of his career and regarded it as a “diplomatic masterpiece”, [91] justified the signature of this treaty to the British Cabinet in the following analysis:
    If it be asked why we should undertake the task at all, and why Persia should not be left to herself and allowed to rot into picturesque decay,
    the answer is that her geographical position,
    the magnitude of our interests in the country,
    and the future safety of our Eastern Europe render impossible for us now -
    just as it would have been impossible for us any time during the last fifty years -
    to disinherit ourselves from what happens in Persia.

    Moreover, now that we are about to assume the mandate for Mesopotamia,
    which will make us coterminous with the western frontiers of Asia, we cannot permit the existence …
    between the frontiers of our Indian Empire and Baluchistan and those of our new protectorate, …
    of a hotbed of misrule, enemy intrigue, financial chaos and political disorder.

    Further, if Persia were to be alone, there is every reason to fear that she would be overrun by Bolshevik influence from the north.
    Lastly, we possess in the south-western corner of Persia great assets in the shape of oil fields, which are worked for the British navy and which give us a commanding interest in that part of the world [92].

    1. Younes Parsa BenabSat Nov 16, 07:53:00 PM EST

      The origin and development of imperialist contention in Iran; 1884-1921: part II
      A case study in under development and dependency

      PART TWO

      Younes Parsa Benab

      Presenting the conclusion of the treaty as necessary step to preserve the vital interest of the British in the East, Curzon further elaborated:
      If that end (protecting the British interests in the Middle East from Bolshevik encroachment ) was a right and reasonable end, it was necessary and vital that Great Britain and Persia work together in order to secure it. Great Britain and Persia were jointly prepared to defend that Agreement, and they looked forward to the vindication of its real character by its success [93].
      In Iran, opposition to this capitulatory treaty with England was both organised militant. The most significant factor in the ever-increasing hostilities toward this treaty was the upsurge of Iranian nationalism in its new and anti-imperialist scope. This new phenomenon reflected the growing antagonism toward Great Britain and the subservience of the Iranian ruling elites who served British interests.
      Seeing the ever-growing hostility of the people against this treaty, Britain shifted from the traditional strategy of maintaining her interest in Iran to outright intervention by planning and engineering a military coup d'etat which succeeded in toppling Iran's weak but constitutional, government in February, 1921, and brought about twenty years of terror and military rule under Reza Khan's dictatorship.
      In retrospect, the dynamics of the anti-imperialist policies of Bolshevik Russia and the British plan to maintain her economic interest in Iran by quelling the national liberation movement had a series of far-reaching consequences on Iran's social-political institutions and ideological foundation as a Third World country after 1919.
      The Bolshevik Revolution and the obvious change in the nature and scope of Anglo-Russian relations polarised the politically active forces in Iran into three major streams: pro-British conservatives, (the traditional ruling elites), pro-Soviet leftist groups, and democratic-constitutionals (nationalist) factions.
      The pro-British forces, led by Vusuq al-Dowleh advocated that Iran's “salvation” from territorial disintegration and “national disunity” rely on the active support of the British “containment” policy against the spread of Bolshevism toward the south, in the direction of the Persian Gulf. Frightened by the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of national liberation movements in Gilan and Azerbaijan, the ruling elites saw fit to make an “alliance” with British power by negotiating the infamous Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919. Our investigation of this decision by ruling elites shows definitively that its consequences gave rise to the development of a genuine anti-imperialist struggle throughout Iran. One serious result, as far as her public image was concerned, was that Great Britain became associated with a small group of men generally regarded as traitors to the nation.

    2. Younes Parsa BenabSat Nov 16, 07:55:00 PM EST

      The origin and development of imperialist contention in Iran; 1884-1921: part II
      A case study in under development and dependency


      Younes Parsa Benab

      Two factors shaped the basis for this judgement. One was the concept of nationalism by articulated Iranians. For them, it embodied, as it does now, loyalty to constitutionalism (i.e. free and honest elections), land distribution, and a tendency toward an active neutralism, or a Third World position, in the international relations of Iran [94]. Vusuq al-Dowleh's regime betrayed the first, opposed the second, and undermined the third,

      The second factor which played a decisive role in the widening of the gap between the ruling elite and the masses was the attitude of the Iranians toward major foreign powers, which was directly connected with their support of, or opposition to, the established Iranian regime. The closer the identification of the government with the foreign power, the more hostile and pronounced was the attitude of the Iranians toward that power [95].

      In actuality, the dependence of the conservative forces on Britain allowed the latter to use Iranian territory as a springboard for assisting anti-Bolshevik Russians to fight against the Soviets. The object of this incursion was to combat Bolshevik expansion in Asia and to protect British interests in India and Central Asia, which both bordered on Iran.

    3. Boy, you know, if you go and read the entire paper, this is the "pertinent" part, Q.

      Younes Parsa Benab is Associate Professor of Economics at Strayer College, Washington DC.
      Since 1986 he has been Academic Dean.
      He is co-founder and editor of Review of Iranian Political Economy and History.
      His publications include Political Organisations in Iran (1979),
      Tabriz in Perspective: a historical analysis of the current struggles of the Iranian people (1977),
      Oil embargo: analysis (1973)

    4. Younes Parsa BenabSat Nov 16, 08:17:00 PM EST

      … after the Bolshevik Revolution no longer did the British and the Russia's act in concert and collusion, but, instead, the two diametrically-opposed systems waged a life- and death struggle in Iran. The Bolshevik seizure of power created a far reaching transformation in the character of "power politics." The expansionist policies of Tzarist Russia, which had long been in unison with the British, were now replaced by the anti-imperialist and revolutionary policies of the Bolsheviks, especially in regard to the total Russian troop withdrawals from Iran [62].
      The Bolshevik decision to withdraw the Russian troops from Iran in favour of supporting the national liberation forces created a vacuum in Iran which the British attempted to fill. The dynamic impact of the Bolshevik Revolution on the Iranian liberation movement and the discovery and exploitation of huge reservoirs of petroleum in Iran made the British move in the direction of colonising Iran [63].
      Throughout the period from 1918 to 1920, the British permitted officers of Denikin and other white Russian generals to use Iran as a base from which to wage their wars against Lenin's Russia [64]. Apart from supplies furnished to the anti-Bolshevik Russians, the British troops, under the leadership of Dunsterville, moved north through Iran and, with the aid of Russian white Guards occupied the valuable oil provinces of the Caucasus. These military aggressions by the British forces could hardly fail to attract attention in Moscow [65].
      To Lenin and his associates, the fundamental strategic goal in Iran was to see that the British would fail in their attempt to use Iran as a spring board to attack the Soviet Republic. But, apart from this important security principle, the Bolsheviks attached importance to the increasing strategic role of Iran in relation to the outcome of the national liberation movements in the East. In fact, the theoretical concept of the Bolsheviks in regard to the "semi-colonial" condition of Iran as well as other Asian countries originated much earlier than the time of the Bolshevik take-over in Russia. As early as 1908, Lenin, noting a new significance in the revolutionary movement in Iran, Turkey, and India, pointed out:
      There shall be no doubt that the age-old British system of plunder in India, and the present struggle of these "progressive" Europeans against Persian....Democracy, will steel millions of proletarians throughout Asia, for a struggle against oppressors [66].

  10. Israel will not commit suicide so that you can have your so called peace.


    Guess that's just the stick in the wheel of your final solution.

  11. The constant parade of Iran good, israel bad threads tells us where your loyalty lies.



    1. The United States of America

    2. The United States of America used for something.

      Iran is NOT an ally of the USA. But you can fool yourselves into thinking that. IT will bite you in the ass...

    3. You are correct, Iran is not an ally of the United States.
      Who said it was?

      No one around has ever said that they were an ally of the US.
      But no one has made the case that they are a mortal enemy of the US, even if they wanted to be.
      Which no one had made a case for, either.

      A few shout outs a street demonstrations are not qualifiers.
      Attacks on a US naval vessel, resulting in multiple deaths, that would qualify a country as an enemy.

      Shooting down a civilian airliner, that would qualify a country as adversarial.
      The United States HAS shot down Iranian civilian airliners, the Iranians did not reciprocate.

      US allies DO have a history of invading and occupying Iran.
      They have no record of reciprocation.

      The US has no Cause to attack Iran.

      No adequate case has been made that the US should attack Iran, to start an overt war with the country

    4. Not airlinerS.

      Libyan Airlines Flight 114 was a regularly scheduled flight from Tripoli, Libya, via Benghazi to Cairo. At 10:30 on February 21, 1973, the Boeing 727 left Tripoli, but became lost with a combination of bad weather and equipment failure over northern Egypt around 13:44 (local). It entered Israeli-controlled airspace over the Sinai Peninsula, was intercepted by two Israeli F-4 Phantom II fighters, refused to land, and was shot down. Of the 113 people on board, 5 survived, including the co-pilot.

      Korean Air Lines Flight 902 was a civilian airliner shot down by Soviet Su-15 fighters on April 20, 1978, near Murmansk, Russia, after it violated Soviet airspace and failed to respond to Soviet interceptors. Two passengers were killed in the incident. 107 passengers and crew survived after the plane made an emergency landing on a frozen lake.

      Air Rhodesia Flight RH825, was a scheduled flight between Kariba and Salisbury, Rhodesia (now Harare, Zimbabwe), that was shot down on September 3, 1978, using a Strela 2 missile.

      Air Rhodesia Flight RH827 was a scheduled flight between Kariba and Salisbury that was shot down on February 12, 1979, by ZIPRA guerrillas using a Strela 2 missile.


      Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 crashed in the Tyrrhenian Sea on June 27, 1980. Around forty minutes after take off from Bologna, Italy, an unknown object was seen approaching the aircraft and soon after, the plane disappeared from radar screens. All eighty-one people on board were killed and parts of the wreckage were floating on the water. The cause of the crash is unknown, but one of the leading theories is that it was shot down by NATO forces or jet fighters. This is supported by the then Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, who attributed the downing to French interceptors, later covered by Gladio secret services.

      Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was a Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 civilian airliner shot down by a Soviet Su-15TM fighter on September 1, 1983, near Moneron Island just west of Sakhalin island. 269 passengers and crew, including US congressman Larry McDonald, were aboard KAL 007; there were no known survivors. An official investigation concluded that the course deviation was likely caused by pilot error in configuring their air navigation system.

      Polar 3
      On February 24, 1985, the Polar 3, a research airplane of the Alfred Wegener Institute, was shot down by guerrillas of the Polisario Front over West Sahara. Polar 3 was on its way back from Antarctica and had taken off in Dakar, Senegal, to reach Arrecife, Canary Islands.

      Air Malawi 7Q-YMB
      On November 6, 1987, an Air Malawi Shorts Skyvan 7Q-YMB was shot down.... The flight plan took it over Mozambique where the Mozambican Civil War was in progress. The aircraft was shot down near the Mozambican town of Ulongwe.

      Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On July 3, 1988, towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew. It was later determined that USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters at the time of the attack, and IR655, an Airbus A300, was misidentified as an Iranian F-14.

      T&G Aviation DC-7
      On December 8, 1988 a Douglas DC-7 chartered by the US Agency for International Development was shot down over Western Sahara by the Polisario Front killing 5.
      Leaders of the movement said the plane was mistaken for a Moroccan Lockheed C-130.
      The aircraft was to be used to spray insecticide to control a locust outbreak.

      September 1993 Transair Georgian Airline Shootdowns
      In September 1993, three airliners belonging to Transair Georgia were shot down by missiles and gunfire from rebels in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, Georgia.


    6. Move to Iran...

      I'll help pay for your move...

    7. Iranian Jewish community to Obama: Seize 'unrepeatable' chance to mend ties with Iran
      10/14/2013 02:40

      Head of community urges US President Barack Obama to accept Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's overtures.

      Iran's Jewish community has called on US President Barack Obama to seize an "unrepeatable" opportunity to mend ties with Tehran following Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's overtures to the US, AFP reported on Sunday.

      "If the US and the international community do not make the best of this golden and perhaps unrepeatable opportunity, then it will be in the benefit of those who are against the normalization of ties between Iran and the US," the head of the Jewish community in Tehran wrote in an open letter to the US president.

      Homayoun Sameyah Najaf Abady also rejected the suggestion made by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the Iranian people are denied personal freedoms.

    8. Rabbi Levi BrackmanSat Nov 16, 11:36:00 PM EST

      “We do not have a problem. The government does not create problems for us,” he said in a Sukkot prayer ceremony in the Abrishami synagogue in the center of the capital, attended by some 200 faithful.

      One of the 10 active synagogues in Tehran, Abrishami, which can accommodate 500 people, is adorned with marble floors and walls and chandeliers.

      A large hut with glass walls has been set up on its roof to host families for the duration of the week-long festivity as they mark the exodus of the Jewish people from captivity in Egypt, in the Old Testament.

      “We pray for it to rain, as it is a sign of good fortune for the entire year to come,” said Eliza Masoudi Panah, a mother in her 40s accompanied by her teenage daughter under the hut.

      Well-integrated minority

      Recognized as a religious minority, along with Christians and Zoroastrians, the Jewish community has a representative in parliament and appears to be well-integrated in a society dominated by Muslims.

      It operates schools, a library and a hospital – funded in part by public funds – in Tehran.,7340,L-4433605,00.html

    9. Seems to me, quot, there is more room there for you, than for me.
      You already have 20,000 -30,000 cousins there, waiting for you!

      You'll have to cover your own costs.
      "Because I know no worse injustice than the giving of the undeserved.”
      Ayn Rand


    10. there's lots of room for Jews to return to Iran once the mullahs are hung.

      After the mullahs of iran? drove out over 200000 Jews from Iran.

      As of now? Iran needs a regime change.

      It's coming soon, hopefully you will be in your cell by then, locked up forever for the war crimes you are guilty of...


    11. Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent.


    12. No, son, it is not independent.

    13. Mahdi Darius NazemroayaSun Nov 17, 01:44:00 AM EST

      It is part of the “Hegemonic Realm.”

      Moreover, the term “realm” implies the strategic mentality of the authors.

      A realm refers to either the territory ruled by a monarch or the territories that fall under a monarch’s reign, but are not physically under their control and have vassals running them. In this context, the word realm is being used to denote the Middle East as the kingdom of ... either Israel, the United States, or both?

  12. Why does Obama and Netanyahu refuse to take war against the Iranian people off the table?


    Why does Iran help groups like Hamas and Hezbollah target Israeli civilians both in Israel and Jews across the globe with murder?

    Israel does not target innocent civilians. It will, if need be, take out those responsible for attacks directly.

    1. WiO, Just have some fun with this. You could not pay enough to get laughs this good. Just push their little buttons and watch them twirl.

    2. Twirl yourself, allen. The fact is, you were right. Obama is going to do everything he can think of to avoid war in Iran. Bibi's gonna have to find your taters someplace else.

    3. One of the regulars posited a while back that the US threatened Britain and France with war over the Suez Crisis. Trying to debate such ignorance is like debating the presence of non-Latino aliens in Area 51.

    4. So Rufus, America is going to make peace with Iran? A nation that hangs women with cranes? Stones 14 yr old retarded girls for vice crimes? Starves it's own populations to death?

      Yeah that's the ticket...

      Meanwhile let's blame Israel for warmongering..

      I guess all those American GI's killed in Iraq and Afpak by Iranian IED's died for nothing...
      Go Iran Go..

      Peace in our time...

    5. So meanwhile Iran is fighting in Syria, with Hezbollah for the Assad led nation...

      But Israel is the issue and problem.

    6. Rufus II, We'll be just fine. We have never needed American troops to win a war yet.

      As to my being right, wow.

      Mr. Obama isn't going to "try" to avoid war, he will not go to war under any circumstance. That is why Netanyahu detests him: Obama's foreign policy promises are as worthless as those dealing with health care policy. The world has his range.

    7. Allen dead on. Obama's agenda was to throw israel under the bus. Along with England, Columbia, Taiwan, South Korea to name a few..

      America the "cuckhold" America the punished. America the unexceptional.

      All Obama's (and Soros and Jarett's) agenda

    8. The good news? The world understands that the USA aint the USA of just 6 years ago. It also understands that it's NOT the people of the USA that have changed but it's leadership.

      Spineless, liberty hating, freedom hating progressives that is what is in charge in America today.

    9. Theodore RooseveltSun Nov 17, 12:02:00 AM EST

      “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
      When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans.

      Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad.

      But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.”

      “This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen.

      Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul.
      Our allegiance must be purely to the United States.

      We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.”
      “But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.”

    10. Ole Teddy is a "dead American"

      deal with it.

  13. .

    Boy, you know, if you go and read the entire paper, this is the "pertinent" part, Q.

    Not sure why you directed this note to me, rat, but even though I hadn't read the paper the comment intrigued me.

    You have posted what appears to be a complete or nearly complete article (?) by this guy, Younes Parsa Benab. You then posted at least a partial CV on the guy. You then state that his CV is the pertinent part of the paper.

    Now, doubt my fault, but you lost me.

    First, I skimmed the 'entire paper' so as to see where the CV appeared in it. Since it appeared where I expected it to be, at the end just ahead of the footnotes, I remained confused.

    The paper is titled The origin and development of imperialist contention in Iran; 1884-1921: part II
    A case study in under development and dependency
    ; yet you tell me that the guy and/or his CV is 'the pertinent part of the paper.'

    To clarify things do you mean pertinent in the usual sense? Do you mean that the CV is relevant to the subject matter of the paper which is 'the origin and development of imperialist contention in Iran between 1884-1921'.

    Or, are you trying to say that it is apposite that Mr. Benab wrote this paper given the qualifications listed in his CV.

    If the former, I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Benab could have materially affected events that took place between 1884 and 1921.

    If the latter, I fail to see the relevance unless it was that your feelings might be hurt because of my references to Tetrahedron Publishing Group and Ancient Aliens. If this is the case, let me apologize and promise to not mention them again.


    1. Tetrahedron Publishing Group? He reads that in addition to Ancient Aliens?

      wow, just wow, bow wow, arf arf


  14. Mentioning another contributor, it personalizes the message, which improves the likelihood of a response.

    Improvisational Blogging benefits when there are responses.

    Mentioning you, actually, was neither the former or that latter.

    I addressed it to you, Q, because I was attempting to reference a remark you had made in the previous thread..

    When I typed 'this', I was referencing the entirety of the four or five posts.

    When I looked at it, afterward, the message sent and obviously delivered was that 'this' referred to that single posting.
    Which had not been the intent, but was the net result.

    mea culpa, on that piece of mangled messaging.

    1. rat's a two legged dog seeking a new horizon of howls


  15. Israel said to be working with Saudi Arabia on Iran strike planRiyadh reported to give Jerusalem okay to use Saudi airspace on cooperate on other tactical support, according to Sunday Times

    Mr. Obama lied to one too many heads of state: "The Saudis are furious". Last I heard, the Saudis had close to $700 Billion in liquid assets. Since the Chinese need to maintain good relations with the Saudis given the continuing build up of China's strategic petroleum reserve, using Saudi oil, they are unlikely to interfere.

    If there is such a Saudi-Israeli alliance, the world is going to fundamentally change. Who knows, the Chinese might orchestrate a run on the dollar.

    Yep, the Won has done one heck of a job overseas. Before I forget, der Spiegel is reporting that German polls show a strong dislike for Mr. Obama, something like 70-80% distrust him.

    1. To tell you the truth, allen, I don't trust Ms Angela Merkel.

      I do not think she has the best interest of the United States as her first priority.
      Obviously the US government feels similarly, or we've not have tapped her cell phone.
      At a minimum, as that is all tha has leaked. But it would be a 'safe' bet that most if not all her C&C network has been hacked.

      If she could get BND taps on the White House communications network, she would.

    2. Actually I think folks like you are not in the best interest of the United States.

      That is why your kind are on terror watch lists...


    3. “I was the walrus, but now I am John...and so my friends, you'll just have to carry on. The dream is over.”

    4. I was going to mention the article but Allen just has about Israel and the Saudis 'thinking about things'.

      Hope it is so.

  16. Jailed Anonymous hacker Jeremy Hammond: 'My days of hacking are done'
    Hammond calls his 10-year sentence a 'vengeful, spiteful act' by US authorities eager to put a chill on political hacking

    'I knew when I started out with Anonymous that being put in jail and having a lengthy sentence was a possibility,' Hammond said.

    Jeremy Hammond, the Anonymous hacktivist who released millions of emails relating to the private intelligence firm Stratfor, has denounced his prosecution and lengthy prison sentence as a “vengeful, spiteful act” designed to put a chill on politically-motivated hacking.

  17. So you take down my posts here, but let them walk all over me on the other thread. To hell with this Deuce.

    1. You cannot quit when angered. That is unreliable conduct.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Unreliable conduct is when the blog owner sets his expectations for administering the blog, then withholds the actual ability to carry them out. I was set up to fail. Not angered, just someone who has withdrawn her enthusiasm for being the butt of an elaborate joke. The only thing that remains is to have my name removed from the front page, then I'll be on my merry.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Last time. I won't forget this shit.

    6. I am saddened by this. You have been a great relief pitcher here. Now we are back to the same old same old Jew/Bibi bashing.

      I think Bibi is a lovely man in lots of ways myself. I admire him.

      Deuce has now managed to piss off Miss T.

      What a turn of events. A revoltin' development indeed.

      It is not Bibi nor the Israelis that are being unreasonable. It is Deuce, Whacky, Obama.......

    7. What ate talking about t? Did deuce take away your keys to make headline posts?

    8. Errr, what are you talking about t? Dish the dirt please. I'm confused?

    9. So am I. Teresita RedingerSat Nov 16, 10:32:00 PM EST
      So you take down my posts here, but let them walk all over me on the other thread. To hell with this Deuce.


      I have no clue about what you are talking about. I have been busy coordinating a campaign being carried over 25 blogs.

    10. I Just checked. Out of the last 11 posts, 8 are yours and I put up three.

  18. Potentially Fatal ‘Knockout’ Game Targeting Strangers May be Spreading

    CBS sanitized its report, omitting the race of the attackers. Wouldn't want to get people all stirred up. There are some Trayvons out there looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

    1. Leslie Moonves, allen, he is "The Man" at CBS.
      Moonves was born to a Jewish family in New York City, the son of Josephine (Schleifer) and Herman Moonves, and grew up in Valley Stream, New York.

      By far the largest private shareholder in CBS with 1,268,754 shares, reported on Jul 2, 2013.
      He's the one that makes the decisions, sets the direction, controls the content.

      You ought write him a letter.


    2. You would spend your time more fruitfully, organizing a campaign focused upon convincing Mr Moonves to tell the whole story.

    3. I have but one interest in this blog and it is not Mr. Moonves.

    4. Well, then CBS really is not important, not really worthy of filling one of the premium 200 spot on the .The Libertarian?

      We could use that spot for something important, a :) or 4,500 words of a history report on the proposed target.
      Funny, if you attempt to inform yourself and others as to the motives and history of the proposed opponent, what a fella find out.

      Then to tell others, providing them an opportunity to come to an informed perspective, and the war mongers come unglued.
      Question the loyalty of messenger.
      Then declare the United States, our Lady Liberty to be a fallen lady, that she has lost her virtue.

      Just at the prospect of public edification.

    5. End the OccupationSun Nov 17, 12:15:00 AM EST

      Israel Pays Students For Pro-Israeli Social Media Propaganda

      The move was publicised in a statement from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office, the Associated Press reported. Students will receive scholarships to "engage international audiences online" and combat anti-Semitism and calls to boycott Israel, it was alleged.

      In 2012, a Palestinian-run blog reported similar arrangements between the National Union of Israeli Students and the Israeli government. Students would be paid $2,000 to post pro-Israel messages online for five hours a week.

      According to Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, the most recent proposition is being spearheaded by Danny Seaman, who was slammed by the media for writing anti-Muslim messages on Facebook.

      Students will be organised into units at each university, with a chief co-ordinator who receives a full scholarship, three desk co-ordinators for language, graphics and research who receive lesser scholarships and students termed “activists” who will receive a “minimal scholarship”, the Independent reported.

    6. No sanitizing 'the knockout game' here -

      Watch the video - see our wonderful feral youth in action.

      A reaction is coming.....

    7. See teacher go down in one blow!

      Wow, what fun!

      I don't know what to do about them, they seem not able to be educated, but more money isn't the answer.

  19. Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement. This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006, after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment. Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program

    Iran has lied, been uncooperative, and is now in non-compliance. Why should Iran be trusted after all these years of deceit?

    1. Of course.
      Trust but Verify.

      Give 'em a chance.

      It is not worth US blood and treasure and threat of Global Economic Turmoil and Depression ...

      Because the Iranians want to manufacture their own nuclear fuel.

      The Iranians will let the inspectors in, which is more than the Israeli are willing to do.

    2. The Russians have 1,800 warheads, deployed.

      The chance of an accidental launch with one of Russian weapons is greater than the Iranians building a nuke that is missile capable and/or a missile with the capacity to lift the nuke they can't build.

      And if they could, then MAD would keep them in place, as it did with Stalin and Mao.

      You have never made the case that these skillful, chess playing Iranians that are in charge over there, to include Ali Khamenei, are suiciders.

  20. "Because the Iranians want to manufacture their own nuclear fuel"


    You are not delusion on this one, you just hate Jews.

    Deuce is delusional, he seems to actually buy into that line.


    1. And you just want to watch FOX News and see young Americans die on your big Chinese flat screen TV

      It would just be another off shore wind, riffling the leafs in the forest of your mind

    2. Go ahead, use the "f" word.

      Miss T no longer has The Power.


    3. “I did not attend boobie's funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.”

  21. Allen, up top you referred to Pakistanis consuming the mist porn per capita. I've never heard that before. What source such knowledge?

    1. Find that interesting, eh, Ash?


      You woke up on that one, bright and curious.....


    2. By the way, I've been meaning to ask, what's the hell is up with Toronto and the Mayor? Is he typical of your Canadian Mayors?

      That guy is a work of anti-art.

      Did you vote for him by any chance?

      Can't recall exactly where you are located.

    3. I'm in Toronto. He got elected on a conservative platform spouting he would end "the gravy train". He was a buffoon before he was elected but he won anyway. He has since melted down. No I did not vote for him.

    4. I love Ash, he so thoughtlessly puts his finger in his nose!

    5. Thought you were in Toronto.

      He is world class buffoon. Can't imagine he got elected.

      You done right, voting against him.

    6. Khalid Hasan - Pakistan most sex-starved - Daily Times, May 17, 2006

    7. Thanks allen. I did a bit of research and it seems the data comes from typing in search terms in google trends and google then gives you regional data on those search terms. It does seem that "child sex" and "dog sex" has Pakistan, still, in or near the top ranking for those search items.

    8. anon (bob) wrote "He is world class buffoon. Can't imagine he got elected."

      I'm not surprised actually. Hanging out at places like this has given me some insight that makes his election not surprising. You, bob (Fudd, anon, whatever) are a case in point.

      Municipal politics is a strange beast and there are no formal party affiliations for folk running here. Rob Ford was a buffoon city councilor who was no stranger to being on the 1 against the rest of council on various issues. He then ran for Mayor and he was the first out of the gate with a conservative platform - tea party like conservatism. Politics, especially at the municipal level, usually gets boiled down to a phrase or two and name recognition. His main phrase was "Stop the Gravy Train". He campaigned that huge budget savings could be had by stopping giving all that gravy to city employees and contractors. With the resulting savings, he promised, he could build Subways and provide top notch service to everyone. Heck, he could even cut taxes and provide more services - woooohooooo! His opponents saw the popularity of such a message and tacked to the right as well. Good ole Rob Ford won anyway.

      Seems most voters are 'low information' voters and they ignored, explained away, or simply didn't know his history. A buddy of mine, a conservative, thought he would "shake things up" so he voted for him. I tried to argue the guy was an idiot but that tea party like message won out.

      The guy is an idiot and there were "tells" before he was elected mayor but he got in anyway. Once in, the only way to get him out before his term is up is if he is convicted of a federal crime or nailed for corruption. Since day one of his Mayoralty (three years ago) it has been a litany of problems (two court cases all his doing and various stupid shit) culminating in the recent stuff. His response to it all is "I'm sorry but I really like my job and I won't do it again".

      A similar type of example (but very different) would be how YOU, BOB, are taken in by Sarah Palin. She is a doofus and if she were ever anywhere near the oval office she would be a disaster. I can see how she might get elected down there in the good ole USA with guys that think like you. Fortunately the vetting for candidates at the top-level US politics is a little more rigorous than at the municipal level.

  22. November 15, 2013
    There Will Be War

    By Mike Konrad

    What was going through the President's head when he eased up on sanctions on Iran? The only reason Iran was willing to talk was because Iran was breaking. He should have held his ground.

    Anyone who saw Netanyahu the other day decrying Obama's rapprochement with Iran saw an Israeli leader who was fueled by rage, bordering on a breakdown. One thing is clear: Netanyahu will not let Iran get nukes. In the past, it has been made clear that Israel will take down the Mideast with her rather than go quietly to defeat.

    It was only when the then Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, appealed directly to President Nixon and also threatened to use the atomic bomb that Israel was given the needed tanks, guns and ammunition to turn certain defeat into victory. - Dr. Gerhard Falk
    Nixon started to move fast after the consequences of delay were made clear to him. Israel was preparing to go nuclear.
    Israel will go it alone again if she has to. With U.S. aid, there may be no need for Israel to use her nukes against Iran. Without U.S. assistance, Israel will have to use tactical nukes.

    Doesn't anyone in the State Department realize this?

    Many think Obama can link Iran to a two-state solution: put pressure on Israel to make concessions. More likely, Israel will tell the State Department to get lost. The Israelis will attack Iran alone, and to hell with the Palestinians. If a world war starts, so be it. Israel will take down the whole Mideast with her before she surrenders Judea and Samaria.
    This is not right or wrong per se. This is simple fact

    Not as interesting to some as porn in Pakistan but more important.

    1. .

      Not interesting?

      Hell, if you think this guy knows what he is talking about and half of what he says is true then Bibi is a nutjob ready for a breakdown, Israel has blackmailed the US to get arms, and she plans to take down the entire ME is she doesn't get what she wants.

      Of course, the part about Israel having no plans to give back the West Bank is a given.

      The American Thinker. Right.


    2. "The American Thinker", a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tetrahedron Publishing Group

  23. I don't know what some of you folks are so uptight about - Obama's not getting us involved. War with Iran is off the table as far as he is concerned.

    One thing I've noticed about your position on this Quirk is that you have no position.

    You already know sanctions and negotiations are not going to stop Iran. So you really don't come out for that, unless I missed it. You generally don't support political farce. You already know the only way to do it. Yet you don't come out for that either.

    Iran has already been negotiated with by the West a dozen times. What we are in the process of doing is giving up and letting them have their way.

    Declare yourself. What would President Quirk do?

    Sell Peace Now! stickers?

    1. Obama's been throwing Israel under the bus from his first election.

      He didn't utter one word of support when the Iranian people nearly overthrew the mullahs.

      He supported the MB in Egypt.

      Don't lose your sleep over it - he is not going to help the Israelis.


  24. Israel is working on coordinating plans for a possible military strike with Saudi Arabia, with Riyadh prepared to provide tactical support to Jerusalem, a British newspaper reported early Sunday.

    The two countries have both united in worry that the West may come to terms with Iran, easing sanctions and allowing the Islamic Republic to continue its nuclear program.

    According to the Sunday Times, Riyadh has agreed to let Israel use its airspace in a military strike on Iran and cooperate over the use of rescue helicopters, tanker planes and drones.

    “The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” an unnamed diplomatic source told the paper.

    The report comes as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the midst of a blitz to lobby against a deal and cobble together an international alliance opposed to an agreement that allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.

    On Sunday, Israel will welcome French President Francois Hollande, who a week earlier put the kibosh on a deal between six world powers and Iran that would ease sanctions in return for initial steps toward curbing enrichment.

    Netanyahu on Friday urged France to remain firm in its pressure on Iran ahead of a new round of talks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in Geneva, kicking off Wednesday.

    After meeting Hollande, Netanyahu will head to Moscow on Wednesday to meet with President Vladimir Putin and lobby against the deal.

    Iran’s bid for the bomb “threatens directly the future of the Jewish state,” Netanyahu told CNN recently, in a short preview clip of an interview broadcast on Saturday. As the prime minister of Israel, he stressed, he had to care for “the survival of my country.”

    CNN reported that Netanyahu also said in the interview that he would do whatever it was necessary to do in order to protect Israel. The full interview will air Sunday morning.

    Should a deal be reached at talks set to resume in Geneva on Wednesday, according to the diplomatic source, a military option would be back on the table. Saudi tactical support, in lieu of backup from the Pentagon, would be vital for a long-range mission targeting Iran’s nuclear program.

    Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim country across the Persian Gulf from Iran has long been at odds with Tehran, and fears a nuclear weapon would threaten Riyadh and set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

  25. This is the article Allen mentioned.

    Why might they be looking to the Saudis, and the Saudis to them?

    Cause they both know we are staying out.

    Relax, chill, your arses aren't on the line.

    Unless it goes WW III which is very unlikely.

  26. Why does Obama and Netanyahu refuse to take war against the Iranian people off the table?

    And it wouldn't be a war "against the Iranian people".

    That is simply a propaganda line.

    A truer line would be "why haven't Obama and Netanyahu attacked the suicide cult running Iran and prevented them from obtaining nukes yet for the safety of the world".

    1. Though in another and real sense Obama declared war on the Iranian people when he failed to even speak on their behalf during the uprising of recent times. Again, he supported the mullahs against the people of Iran.

      O don't you worry, unless Israel and Saudi Arabia can stop it, Iran will have the nukes some of you so wish them to have.

  27. Putting things in perspective -

    The World of English Freedoms
    It's no accident that the English-speaking nations are the ones most devoted to law and individual rights, writes Daniel Hannan

    Perhaps the most important geopolitical question of the 21st century is this: Will India define itself primarily as a member of the Anglosphere or as an Asian power? In the decades after independence, India did what all former colonies do, adopting policies aimed at underlining its differences from the former occupier. Successive governments promoted autarky, the Hindi language and equidistance between the Western and Soviet blocs.

    Enlarge Image

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill on board the HMS Prince of Wales, August 1941 Hulton Archive/Getty Images

    But India has long since passed its moment of maximum orbital distance from the other Anglophone democracies. The traits that continue to set it apart from most of its neighbors are, for want of a better shorthand, Anglosphere characteristics.

    In India, governments come and go as the result of elections, without anyone being exiled or shot. The armed forces stay out of politics. English is the language of government and of most universities and businesses. Property rights and free contract are secured by a common-law system, which remains open to individuals seeking redress. Shared values lead to shared habits. When, in the aftermath of the tsunami 10 years ago, the U.S., Australian and Indian navies coordinated the relief effort, they found an interoperability that goes beyond even that found among NATO allies.

    If India were to take its place at the heart of a loose Anglosphere network, based on free trade and military alliance, the future would suddenly look a great deal brighter. Of course, to join such a free trade area, the U.K. and Ireland would have to leave the EU. But that's another story.

    Mr. Hannan has represented South East England in the European Parliament since 1999. This essay is adapted from his new book, "Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World," which has just been published by HarperCollins

    One reason my niece and I have so much in common - the English language.

    1. (Which she writes and speaks much better than many here)

    2. Whether as a member of NATO or as a member of a loose Anglosphere network, India should be in our future. Along with Israel.

    3. She would never for instance say this -

      Why does Obama and Netanyahu refuse to take war against the Iranian people off the table?

      but this -

      Why do Obama and Netanyahu refuse to take war against the Iranian people off the table?

  28. Who is this "Deuce" Character?

  29. "The whole Build-a-Bear process creeps me out.

    You know what I’d like to see?

    Build-a-Whore Workshop.

    I would LIVE there."

    - TED

  30. Israel is working on coordinating plans for a possible military strike with Saudi Arabia, with Riyadh prepared to provide tactical support to Jerusalem, a British newspaper reported early Sunday.

    ...and the Amen choral group wonders why Iran needs a nuclear deterrent? It is rather simple. Iran needs a nuclear deterrent because Israel and the United States are always threatening Iran with war and the US has been interfering and damaging Iran for 60 years. Before that it was the English and the French.

    1. Russians, don't forget the Russians!

    2. Yeah those "Death to Israel" and "Death to the America" protests in Iran show love.

      Iran should have already BEEN NUKED if Israel was the threat you claim it was/is.

  31. Hey Deuce,

    This Vitriolic "T" character you offended:

    I would be more than happy to stand in her wake, in her unfortunate absence.

    I vow never to storm out in disgust, although you, or the crew, might cast me over the side for the same reason.

    That, I accept.

    You may peruse, edit, and refuse any of my offerings prior to publishing.

    I'm no Prima Donna.

    Your faithful sleuth,


    1. Prime donne often had grand off-stage personalities and were seen as demanding of their colleagues.

      From its original usage in opera, the term has spread in contemporary usage to refer to anyone behaving in a demanding or temperamental fashion or has an inflated view of herself.

  32. As to the Saudis, it is one of the most loathsome societies on the planet.

  33. Iran has lied, been uncooperative, and is now in non-compliance. Why should Iran be trusted after all these years of deceit?

    Do a “ find and replace” Israel for Iran, and ask which sentence is less true?

    1. Your hatred of Israel is amazing... Your love of Iran knows no bounds.

      I can only hope in some small sick way you get to meet the Iranians, in person, in Iran.

      Maybe the Israelis will save you ass then.

  34. And we have a winner for the most inane comment on this thread,

    It was a response by Allen to my comment:

    DeuceSat Nov 16, 06:35:00 PM EST
    Netanyahu never misses an opportunity to be unreasonable.


    allen Sat Nov 16, 08:52:00 PM EST
    Yet..,He is a prime minister and you are what, again?


  35. Stand back, avert your eyes, it is Allen and The Prime Minister of Israel passing.

    1. :-) I'm not one for formality, but BiBi is, wise choice.

  36. Accept Doug's offer.

    He's no Miss T, but in a pinch.....

    1. No Vagine,

      ...but a flaccid cock.

      Take what you can get.

    2. I hope my endorsement did your cause no harm, Doug.

    3. I'm not sure if an endorsement by Bibi himself could lower my standing.


  37. i am still chuckling about the Prime Minister of Israel.

    1. And ignoring the now reduced to pathetic, Doug.

    2. Arousing contemptuous pity, as through ineptitude or inadequacy.

    3. Actually, that is a definition for "pitiful"

      ...pathetic, whatever.

  38. All I ask from you Doug is this: can you copy a posted article through a word processor of your choice and limit yourself to the Verdana font?

    1. One of my first posts will be how some bright guys at Apple saved Steve Jobs from the Idiocy of his Ironheadedness.

      ...learned just yesterday.

      Think Mac w/o a cooling fan.


    No that link bove will take the reader to ...

    In Myanmar, Retracing George Orwell’s Steps

    Which does include some VERY interesting references to the colonialism that flourished in Burma and India.
    The opium trade that financed the British Empire is mentioned, but not much about the lives that London's institutionalized state sponsored terrorism destroyed.

    1. What is it about
      "institutionalized state sponsored terrorism."

      That you object to?

    2. ritish buildings remain, with their curious resemblance to the fictional London slums described in the opening pages of “1984,”
      “sordid colonies of wooden dwellings like chicken houses” — except that they are also monumental, lovely and haunted.
      Often painted aquamarine and dark liver-red, garnished with creeping moss and ferns, and adorned with dripping laundry, they are the ruins of an older city that is still alive — accidentally beautiful things preserved by failure.

      Around the corner from the Strand, I often passed a pale gray columned classical European building,
      flying a state flag out front and bearing the Orwellian label Bureau of Special Investigations.
      A man was asleep on the porch, his head resting on a tray of cauliflowers.

      One night, I made a time-consuming trek to find a Muslim shrine I had always wanted to visit,
      the tomb of the last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, which today lies on a deserted back street not far from the Shwedagon Pagoda. Zafar was exiled by the British to Rangoon in 1858 after the failed Sepoy Rebellion and died there four years later.

      The shrine that now houses his remains is spare and unvisited, and a lone guardian comes to the locked metal gates to admit the curious.

      Standing there in pouring rain, at the edge of an unlit alley, I wondered at the way my own people had busily gone about terminating dynasties — and histories — that might threaten their own new order.

      The guardian showed me around, and then we stood under the pasty portrait of Zafar himself pinned to the outside wall.
      “First visitor this month,” he said sadly, but with an ineffable defiance.

    3. "The British maintained a garrison here until 1890, and they are thought to have stripped all the gold lettering from the texts (as well as stealing 6,000 bronze bells).

      But a physical stone book of such size is far less easy to ban than mere paperback copies of “1984,” or for that matter the paper books that had disappeared from Orwell’s imaginary future.

      The tablets might have been either an inspiration or a warning to the young police officer who wandered here almost a century ago, or perhaps they left no impression on him at all. In the end Burma was utterly alien to Orwell.

      He described the place, sometimes lovingly, but ultimately its warmth and beauty eluded him.

      Perhaps he could not see his way past the colonial machinery in which he was implicated. Out of its oppressive heat, cruelty and beauty, however, he made not one great novel but three."

    4. In Kipling’s and indeed Orwell’s time, one traveled from Rangoon to Mandalay by paddle steamer on the Irrawaddy, a journey of several days. Via the new recently completed express road, it takes about nine hours.

      On the way, one can stop to visit the nation’s new capital city of Nay Pyi Taw, which was created out of nothing beginning in 2004 to replace Yangon.

      The Indian journalist Siddharth Varadarajan noted on a visit to Myanmar’s capital that it is
      “the ultimate insurance against regime change, a masterpiece of urban planning designed to defeat any putative ‘colour revolution’ — not by tanks or water cannons, but by geography and cartography.”
      The whole thing is lit up at night like a wedding with no guests.
      It’s a utopia with no guiding principle, and a capital city with no diplomats, since they refuse to leave the comforts and karaoke clubs of Yangon.
      And yet it is filled with imperial longings and references.
      The name means “Abode of Kings”: an attempt, then, to start yet another new history.

    5. "Perhaps he could not see his way past the colonial machinery in which he was implicated. Out of its oppressive heat, cruelty and beauty, however, he made not one great novel but three.""

    6. Siddhartha:

      The story takes place in ancient India. Siddhartha, the son of a Brahmin, decides to leave behind his home in the hopes of gaining spiritual illumination by becoming an ascetic wandering beggar of the Samanas. Joined by his best friend Govinda, Siddhartha fasts, becomes homeless, renounces all personal possessions, and intensely meditates, eventually seeking and personally speaking with Gautam, the famous Buddha, or Enlightened One. Afterward, both Siddhartha and Govinda acknowledge the elegance of the Buddha's teachings. Although Govinda hastily joins the Buddha's order, Siddhartha does not follow, claiming that the Buddha's philosophy, though supremely wise, does not account for the necessarily distinct experiences of each person. He argues that the individual seeks an absolutely unique and personal meaning that cannot be presented to him by a teacher; he thus resolves to carry on his quest alone.
      Siddhartha crosses a river and the generous ferryman, whom Siddhartha is unable to pay, merrily predicts that Siddhartha will return to the river later to compensate him in some way. Venturing onward toward city life, Siddhartha discovers Kamala, the most beautiful woman he has yet seen. Kamala, a courtesan of affluent men, notes Siddhartha's handsome appearance and fast wit, telling him that he must become wealthy to win her affections so that she may teach him the art of love. Although Siddhartha despised materialistic pursuits as a Samana, he agrees now to Kamala's suggestions. She directs him to the employ of Kamaswami, a local businessman, and insists that he have Kamaswami treat him as an equal rather than an underling. Siddhartha easily succeeds, providing a voice of patience and tranquility against Kamaswami's fits of passion, which Siddhartha learned from his days as an ascetic. Thus, Siddhartha becomes a rich man and Kamala's lover, though in his middle years realizes that the luxurious lifestyle he has chosen is merely a game, empty of spiritual fulfillment. Leaving the fast-paced bustle of the city, Siddhartha returns to the river and thinks of killing himself. He is saved only by an internal experience of the holy word, Om. The very next morning Siddhartha briefly reconnects with Govinda, who is passing through the area as a wandering Buddhist.

    7. Siddhartha decides to live out the rest of his life in the presence of the spiritually inspirational river. Siddhartha thus reunites with the ferryman, named Vasudeva, with whom he begins a humbler way of life. Although Vasudeva is a simple man, he understands and relates that the river has many voices and significant messages to divulge to any who might listen.
      Some years later, Kamala, now a Buddhist convert, is travelling to see the Buddha at his deathbed, accompanied reluctantly by her young son, when she is bitten by a venomous snake near Siddhartha's river. Siddhartha recognizes her and realizes that the boy is his own child. After Kamala's death, Siddhartha attempts to console and raise the furiously resistant boy, until one day the child flees altogether. Although Siddhartha is desperate to find his runaway son, Vasudeva urges him to let the boy find his own path, much like Siddhartha did himself in his youth. Listening to the river with Vasudeva, Siddhartha realizes that time is an illusion and that all of his feelings and experiences, even those of suffering, are part of a great and ultimately jubilant fellowship of all things connected in the cyclical unity of nature. After Siddhartha's moment of illumination, Vasudeva claims that his work is done and he must depart into the woods, leaving Siddhartha peacefully fulfilled and alone once more.
      Toward the end of his life, Govinda hears about an enlightened ferryman and travels to Siddhartha, not initially recognizing him as his old childhood friend. Govinda asks the now-elderly Siddhartha to relate his wisdom and Siddhartha replies that for every true statement there is an opposite one that is also true; that language and the confines of time lead people to adhere to one fixed belief that does not account for the fullness of the truth. Because nature works in a self-sustaining cycle, every entity carries in it the potential for its opposite and so the world must always be considered complete. Siddhartha simply urges people to identify and love the world in its completeness. Siddhartha then requests that Govinda kiss his forehead and, when he does, Govinda experiences the visions of timelessness that Siddhartha himself saw with Vasudeva by the river. Govinda bows to his wise friend and Siddhartha smiles radiantly, having found enlightenment.

  40. For the record, Deuce, here is why I resigned:

    You laid out the parameters by which I could remove posts, but did not give me the power to remove posts. So when I attempted to remove a set of posts that said only "112" ... "113" ... etc, I could not do so. I brandished a piece and it jammed, with the attendant embarrassment. And the rest of the bar didn't back me up, including and most especially the blog owner. It was pile on Teresita day yesterday. I was happy and eager to keep the conversations going with new topics when they hit the 200 post mark, but the stupid one-liners were abusing that eagerness. and my volunteerism evaporated away. I'm funny that way.

    1. Oh, horseshit. You wrote "Gone" well before the "112," "113" thang.

    2. Horseshit and Assholes,

      There's some alternative energy possibilities goin on here.

    3. It will require a new commission with a more realistically defined set of expectations to put things back the way they were. I won't hold my breath.

    4. I don't know google too well but if one has administrator privileges (i.e. allowed to make headline posts) one would have the power to delete as well. Are sure this isn't a case of DUE (dreaded user error) followed by a hissy fit? If you can make headline posts yet can't delete comments then I would imagine Deuce also didn't know that and it is a far cry from "setting you up to fail". I think a big apology is in order and not by Deuce.

    5. :-)

      My expectations to put things back the way they were have been divinely desired, and Devilishly denied.

    6. :-)

      Was in response to you, T, not the intrusive Ash.

    7. yep I didn't start numbers til you said gone...

      cry baby

  41. Yeah, that's the ticket, Ash. Maybe I need Doug to be my IT guy. I don't care if I'm not allowed to delete posts. I don't want the responsibility anyway. I do care when I have to scramble to line up another topic before it hits 200 posts because the whole freaking community is posting paragraphs of information one line at a time. I thought, erroneously, that I was being a net plus for the group.

  42. "I thought, erroneously"

    Maybe you're thought that you thought erroneously was erroneous.

    1. YOU need ME to be your IT guy?

      Get Serious, T!

    2. Know anything about the Samsung Note 2 2014?

      ...I think I want it.

    3. Kid says I don't want a big 10 inch tablet.

      Me and my old eye says yes I do.

    4. Eye do, really.

      Gimme a break.

  43. .

    Lord, T, get a grip.

    I brandished a piece and it jammed, with the attendant embarrassment.

    Embarrassment? Are you that conceited about your IT ability that when a system jams up on you get embarrassed? No one else on this blog was even aware of it.

    And the rest of the bar didn't back me up...

    Bullshit. I had an extended post immediately following your "Gone" defending what you were doing here. Allen on numerous occasions asked you to reconsider. Bob was still asking you to come back today. Those who didn't want you back or just didn't care? The people you argue with regularly regarding their pet causes. What do you expect.

    ...but the stupid one-liners were abusing that eagerness.

    You will have to be more specific since one-liners have always been your forte.

    I thought, erroneously, that I was being a net plus for the group.

    I commended you yesterday for your contributions.

    ...and my volunteerism evaporated away. I'm funny that way.

    Unfortunate, you were doing a good job.


    1. And now I've burned my bridges. So it's over.

    2. .


      That's what delete buttons are for.


  44. .

    As for Doug's needy request to be allowed to put up new post streams, I second (or is it third) his request.

    Depending on his mood I suspect his post streams would range from the bizarre to the sublime. Lately, he has actually been making sense at times, although in a rather inconsistent and truncated fashion. I attribute his enlightenment to an austere and aesthetic lifestyle brought upon by forced and extended fasting resulting from forgetting to take the beans off the stove. He now even waxes poetic about Siddhartha.

    I seem to recall that in a past age when elephants were a bar that he even posted a few streams.

    Let him do it.

    He can be our new 'fool on the hill'.


  45. .

    One thing I've noticed about your position on this Quirk is that you have no position.

    You already know sanctions and negotiations are not going to stop Iran. So you really don't come out for that, unless I missed it. You generally don't support political farce. You already know the only way to do it. Yet you don't come out for that either.

    Iran has already been negotiated with by the West a dozen times. What we are in the process of doing is giving up and letting them have their way.

    Declare yourself. What would President Quirk do?

    Declare myself?

    What is this need you have for me to constantly be declaring myself. On this particular subject, I have declared my views numerous times. I have to assume you just have a hard time either with reading comprehension or with memory. Whether it is either or both, I firmly believe you should have it checked out.

    Lest I be too critical, at least I notice that you are consistent. You are consistently declaring yourself, but in this case, you merely consistently declare yourself to be an idiot.

    First, you post an article from the American Thinker supposedly in support of your position. Then when I make fun of you and sarcastically point out that what the author is really describing is an Israel that is paranoid, duplicitous, let by a crazy man, and willing to destroy the ME with nukes, but then who turns around and argues that the US has no choice but to give in to Israeli blackmail, you ask me to declare my position.

    I will declare my position, AGAIN, but first tell me specifically what your position is. And no bullshit and weasel wording, lay it out there. You and your friends sit around in your easy chairs watching football on Sundays but still have time to spend all day on this blog calling the US castrated and cowardly. What exactly in all the gory detail is your strategy and what is the back-up plan if it doesn’t work?