Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category

Quick Thought: Obama is right on Iran

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

President Obama has been right on Iran since way back… he’s also been wrong.  Just depends on which speech you recall.

Just wondering… do you think, as Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon and a delivery system… do you think he has locked into the view that Iran is a threat?  Even more than right wing Tea Party radicals and Arizona?

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Quick Thought: Iran vs Honduras

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

President Obama and most nations have called for the reinstatement of the President of Honduras who was removed via a military coup…  apparently, when President Manuel Zelaya tried to force through a referendum allowing him to be president for life, the military stepped in (I know this is probably an oversimplification).

On the other hand, in Iran the military acted against the people to keep Ahmadinejad in power after he clearly retained his office via a fixed election.

So… when a “president” tries to become a dictator and is thrown own by the military, Obama wants him returned to power…

And when a “president” remains in power via a fixed election, essentially acting as either a dictator or,  it could be argued, the front man for a dictatorship by committee, Obama doesn’t believe it is appropriate to interfere…

A hint at things to come?  This president for life thing has a nice ring to it…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Evil Then, Evil Now… revisted

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

Video compiled here at Thinkin’bout Stuff back in 2006…  sure seems to fit nearly three years later:

YouTube Preview Image

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

UN Report: Iran has enough nuke material to build a bomb

Friday, February 20th, 2009

From FoxNews:

Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. called for “immediate and serious action” Friday after a United Nations report showed Iran has enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the report, by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency, represented “another lost opportunity” for Iran as it continues to “renege” on its international obligations.

Gibbs called Iran an “urgent problem that has to be addressed.” He says “we can’t delay addressing it.”

There is likely no truth to the rumor that the White House is planning to propose another stimulus bill to address this urgent crises.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Blogosphere has a long memory…

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

Today we play, what did he really say…

On invading Pakistan:

From AP August 1, 2007 (link dead, but I have some of the original text) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Now, I won’t deny that a covert operation to take out Osama bin Ladan or other terrorists would be a good thing… but announcing intentions to do so is hardly covert and is irresponsible for someone who wants to be president. 

On meeting with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and North Korea.. in his own words:

YouTube Preview Image

And as an added bonus, I transcribed the question and the answer for you:

Question – In 1982 Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.  In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama – I would! And the reason is this, that, the notion that somehow not talking to countries, ah, is punishment to them, ah, which has been the guiding, ah, diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.  Now Ronald Reagan, and Democratic presidents like JFK, constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil …  evil empire.  And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country.  Ah, but we have the obligation to find, ah, areas where we could potentially move forward.  And ah, and I think that it is, ah, a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.  We’ve been talking about Iraq, one of the first things that I would do in terms of, ah, moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward, ah, is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria, because they’re gonna have responsibilities if Iraq collapses, they have been acting irresponsibly up until this point, but if we tell them that we are not gonna be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that, ah, they are gonna have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region.

What’s interesting here is agreeing to meet without precondition is only the tip of this iceberg:

  • The foundation for Obama’s justification is flawed because this “ridiculous” principle is one that has been followed well before the Bush administration. Reagan never met with any leader of the Soviet Union without precondition and JFK’s meeting with Khrushchev was nearly disastrous and led us to the brink of nuclear war… yeah that worked out well.  We dealt from a position of weakness and lost.
    • In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev saw JFK as a weak, inexperienced figure whom the U.S.S.R. could easily bully. In June of 1961, the two world leaders met at a summit in the Austrian capital of Vienna. The central issue for discussion was the fate of Berlin. At the end of World War II, the German capital had been divided, along with the nation itself, into two zones: Communist East Berlin and democratic West Berlin. Since the city as a whole lay in Communist East Germany (which was, in turn, under the thumb of the U.S.S.R.), the Communists were constantly threatening to cut off access to West Berlin, thus strangling the democratic half of the city. In Vienna, Khrushchev renewed this threat, suggesting that the Soviet Union might sign a treaty with East Germany that would cut off all access by western nations to West Berlin. JFK stood firm, and the promised blockade never materialized; but the East Germans did throw up an ugly concrete and barb-wired wall between East and West Berlin, to prevent their own people from leaving for the West. The Berlin Wall became a symbol of the Cold War, one that would endure until 1989.

      The true challenge for JFK, however, lay still ahead. Khrushchev, probing for weakness, authorized the construction of Soviet missile bases in Cuba, from which the entire United States could be threatened with nuclear attack. On October 16, 1962, JFK’s military advisers handed him aerial reconnaissance photographs showing these missile emplacements. Many of the president’s generals urged an immediate invasion of Cuba, but JFK held out hope for a peaceful settlement. On October 22, he announced that a United States naval and air quarantine would go into effect, preventing any further missile shipments from Russia to Cuba. He also demanded that the Soviets remove any and all nuclear weapons already in place.So began the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war. As Russian ships steamed closer to the blockade cordon, a flurry of telegrams shot back and forth between Washington and Moscow. Khrushchev, alternately conciliatory and bellicose, claimed that he was only trying to protect Castro’s government from U.S. invasion, and then suggested that the missiles might be removed if the U.S. dismantled its own Jupiter missiles in Turkey, just across the Black Sea from the Soviet Union. On Wednesday, October 24, Russian ships steaming toward Cuba turned back, and by the end of the week an agreement had been struck: Khrushchev would remove the missiles from Cuba in return for JFK’s public pledge that the U.S. would cease trying to undermine Castro’s government, and his private pledge that the U.S. would dismantle the Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
  • He believes it is a disgrace that President Bush has not spoken to the leaders of any of these countries face-to-face? I don’t think Iran, Syria and North Korea are brand new enemies… so I guess we have a history of disgraced presidents in Obama’s opinion.  They were all wrong, he’s right.  And why should we doubt him, after all, he has years of experience as a state senator.
  • We have the obligation to find areas where we could potentially move forward?  If only we had chatted over tea and crumpets with Hitler, we could have avoided that whole Holocaust thing.. oh wait, what am I saying. We mustn’t upset Ahmadinejad by implying the Holocaust really happened.  So where is that area of common ground we so hope to find with Iran?  I can’t even imagine what would be acceptable to a leader who wants to vaporize Israel.. maybe he’ll give us time to evacuate the country.
  • Iran and Syria have been acting irresponsibly?  Is that what we call killing US troops in Iraq these days?  Bad Iran!  Bad Syria!  Go to your rooms!
  • Since Obama plans to not leave an occupying force (is that what our future president calls US troops that have liberated a country, an occupying force?  Nice…), we must make certain Syria and Iran will promise they will behave responsibly after we leave.  Maybe we can even get them to sign a piece of paper.  But who better to act as a stabilizing force in the region than the man who has vowed to vaporize Israel?  Is he really this naive?  Scary.

Please… listen to what he says before his handlers spin him back around in the right direction, because if he does get elected president, there are no Mulligans in the real world.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Obama’s Iran Policy: Hit ‘em with cliche’s

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008

Barack Obama reminded the world today what he has been trying to tell us all along:  Iran is a serious threat to the world and can not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Everyone on the same page now?  We all clear here?

And he also outlined his policy, drawing from a growing list of cliche’s that make up most of what he knows about the real world:

AFP: Obama spoke of a series of “big sticks and big carrots” regarding the Iranian regime and repeated his openness to meeting with its representatives, if the conditions were appropriate.

If big sticks and big carrots are not effective, Obama doesn’t expect us to get wrapped around the axle over the situation in Iraq, he plans to float a trial balloon and run some ideas up the flagpole as a first step towards peeling back the onion to identify the net-net of the situation before meeting with representatives of Iran and forming subcommittees to flesh out a plan for a win-win proposal.

Oh… and all that talk about meeting unconditionally with Iran and the fact that they pose no real threat to the United States… let’s put that behind us and keep moving forward:

YouTube Preview Image

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

If only someone had listened to me 2 years ago…

Monday, May 19th, 2008

Originally published in 2006, republished in 2007.. and now here we are in 2008 and it still may not be too late, but it sure as heck would have been better if we had addressed this two years ago.  Reprinted here in it’s entirety:  How to Break the Oil Habit

_________________________________________________________

The following was originally posted July 2006. I decided to repost it (with some minor updates) because I believe we need to stop talking about freeing ourselves from our addiction to oil and start to actually do something about it. Also, since it was only the 3rd article I posted, odds are I’m the only one who read it :-)

Although the price of oil has come down since this was written, the key points remain the same:

  • We need to encourage research and development of alternative energy sources
  • We need to encourage conservation of existing sources
  • We need to do this in a way that limits the money funneled to terrorist backers like Iran
  • We need to counter the money flowing out to terrorist nations with money flowing into our own government until we can break our addiction to oil

The bottom line for those not planning to read the entire article:

I propose that for the next five years, a new federal tax on gasoline (not diesel.. just gasoline) be phased in, increasing from 25 cents a gallon the first year to $1.25 in year five and continuing until the end of the war AND the identification of a viable alternative to oil for 50% – 75% of our energy needs. 
Painful… sure.  So is paying more for gasoline when OPEC raises the price of crude oil… but we get nothing out of it when they raise the price.  If we ever expect to kick the oil habit and fund the war on terror… we need to be willing to make some sacrifices. 

—— July 23, 2006 ——

How many of you believe the price of fuel is too high, probably going higher, will ultimately wreck our economy and we need prices lowered, stabilized and affordable? … Raise your hands.

How many of you believe oil is a limited resource, that we need to encourage conservation, we need to identify alternatives to our dependency on mid-east oil and until we find a way to break the shackles of oil dependency, our future will continue to be threatened by nut cases who line their pockets and grow their weapons stockpiles with buckets of money shipped overseas in empty crude oil containers courtesy of you and me?  Raise your hands.

Did you raise your hand both times?  I wonder how typical that is of Americans.  We want fuel to be cheap and “affordable” so we can use as much as we want, yet we know that we also need to conserve this limited resource and find alternatives.  Trouble is, as long as fuel is affordable, there is no incentive to conserve and little incentive to find alternatives.  As with any addict, we won’t stop consuming until the supply is gone or the cost is so high we can’t pay for the fix.

How much does a gallon of gasoline have to cost for us to change our driving habits.  Gas hits $5 a gallon, are you still driving down to the shore or out to the country every weekend? Would $8 a gallon convince you to walk to the corner store instead of drive?  $10 and maybe it’s not worth driving 15 miles to see if you can get this new lawn mower at another store for a few dollars less?

What about commuting?  There will always be jobs where commuting is required (hard to work construction from the comfort of your family room); but do we all have to commute, or do we all think we have to commute?  Until 6 years ago, I commuted to work, 100 miles round trip, every weekday.  That’s 500 miles/week; assuming four weeks for vacations, holidays, other days off, that’s 24,000 miles per year.  My car got 30 miles to the gallon, which is better than average, which means I was using about 800 gallons of gas a year just to drive to work!

Assuming there are just 1 million people in a similar situation who could be working from home.  (not out of the question considering our current population is about 300 million according to the US Census and 14 million of us commute 45 minutes or more one way to work), that would be a yearly reduction of 800 million gallons of gasoline!!!!

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2004 47% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline was to pay for the crude oil.  Assuming a gallon of gas costs $3.00, those 800 million gallons means more than $1.1 BILLION dollars going to the crude oil producers like Iran!!  Every year.  From those 1 million of us who might want to consider not commuting and setting up a home office.

$1.1 Billion dollars that could be spent here in the USA instead of on rockets for Hezbollah who then fires them into Israel while trying to distract us from the nuclear games Iran is playing

So demand continues to rise, prices continue to rise, the amount of real dollars shipped overseas to crude oil producers continues to rise, and available supplies continue to drop.  Even if raising crude oil prices causes a drop in consumption, the profit margin for the producers likely offsets the decrease in volume since the bulk of the price hike goes into their pockets.  What we need to do is reduce demand by raising prices in such a way that the crude oil producers do not benefit.

I can’t believe I am saying this, because I am almost ALWAYS opposed to new or increased taxes, but….

  1. We need to encourage research and development of alternative energy sources
  2. We need to encourage conservation of existing sources
  3. We need to do this in a way that limits the money funneled to terrorist backers like Iran
  4. We need to counter the money flowing out to terrorist nations with money flowing into our own government until we can break our addiction to oil

We need a (hand shaking as I type) Homeland Security and Energy Evolution Tax.

Look, the price of gas is going to go up until the demand comes down, and a lot of the money will go to weapons for terrorists.  In simplistic terms, if raising prices reduces demand, and if demand outruns supply, the prices are going to go up until demand and supply meet a state of equilibrium, period.  Inserting a tax into the equation drives down demand without increasing the flow of money to the crude oil producers.

Demand goes down, less money flows to terrorist nations, and we perhaps buy some time to develop alternative energy sources.

So where does that revenue go?  Two places, and only two places.  First, 50% goes to sponsor research for domestic sources of energy that require no dependence on foreign resources.  The other 50%, directly to Homeland Security and Defense. 

Are we at war? Well duh! So why are you whining about a tax to support the war effort and to eliminate one potential cause (if not the root cause) of the war? (Come on, some of you are whining and you know it)  If we weren’t dependent on foreign oil maybe our decision making when attacked wouldn’t be so complicated… bad guys go boom!

I propose that for the next five years, a new federal tax on gasoline (not diesel.. just gasoline) be phased in, increasing from 25 cents a gallon the first year to $1.25 in year five and continuing until the end of the war AND the identification of a viable alternative to oil for 50% – 75% of our energy needs.

Painful… sure.  So is paying more for gasoline when OPEC raises the price of crude oil… but we get nothing out of it when they raise the price.  If we ever expect to kick the oil habit and fund the war on terror… we need to be willing to make some sacrifices.  This doesn’t even come close to what our country sacrificed in World War II.  Time to suck it up people!

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share