1 Now where did I put those air maps of Iran

2

Gabe are you popping pseudoephedrine pills like candy?

the posts are flying

3 Hell it worked with Cuba.

4 Gabe of Spades! And Gates sounds like Bartleby the Defense Secretary: "I'd prefer not to."

5 Now where did I put those air maps of Iran You can borrow ours, if need be.

6

I have a question that has yet to be asked. Would Iran use nukes on its own citizens if they revolted?  Similar to Project X from Atlas Shrugged.

Everyone fears Iran nuking Israel, which is a legitimate fear, but isn't anyone considering that Iran's government is making nukes to ensure their grip on power  forever?

 

Saddam used his chemical weapons for that very reason, who is to say Iran wouldn't.

7

South Africa. Liberals will tell you sanctions got rid of apartheid.

Ergo, sanctions work everywhere for everything.

8

Sanctions, sanctions...y'know I'm having trouble coming up with an example where economic sanctions worked to keep a country from doing what it wants to do in the face of U.S. or international opposition

 

South Africa is the only example i can think of

9

_{Boy, I wish somebody'd ask the President about that. He's supposed to be pretty smart, right}?

My Expertise is Constitutional Law...

and don't call me, Boy.

10

_{Bartleby the Defense Secretary:}

What no Hat Tip!?!?

11 O/T:  rush just said the WH is calling Kyl a liar.   Rush suggested that any republican who goes to a meeting with the president should wear a wire.  Did I hear that right?  Wasn't paying that close attention so maybe I didn't hear right?

12

Hey, sanctions worked like a charm on North Korea.  Hmm.. ok, maybe not.  Well, they sure did the trick with ... hmm.. no, wait - they've never really worked have they.

But gosh, I'm sure if we just continue with the same failed policies that have never worked anywhere they'll work like a charm this time.  After all, they got that BP oil spill all capped off and the cleanup is already done!

Hmm.. umm.. no, guess not.

Ok, face it folks, were screwed.  But hey, at least we can all tune into MSNBC and they can tell us how great things are right up to the point where New York goes up in a mushroom cloud, so at least we still have that going for us.

13 So they don't want to talk about Iran's Nuclear weapons, but talking about ours is fair game?

14

*sniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffffff*

**wipses nose**

Okay. Now I can keep up witht he bloggage today.

15

What possible harm could Iran do?

We're such a small country.

16 What, is everyone in BHO administration need a teleprompter.

17 Gabe,

You sillyhead.  Sanctions worked great against Saddam.  We kept him in a box, remember?  I do, since I was one of the guys chasing down all the converted coastal freighters smuggling Iraqi oil.  Funny, but we'd impound one, sell it, and then it would be right back out doing the same thing a few months later.  Good times.

18 Gates is a yes man who wants his job. Simple. Iran is getting nukes or Israel is going to war. Simple.

19 Iran, is just a little country on the map, quit blowing things out of proportion

20 Well, look, economic sanctions work. I, for one, have cut back on all of my plans under The New Regime. If Obama is going to tax the crap out of Iran and spend all of their money, Gates is absolutely right.

21 Iran is getting nukes or Israel is going to war. Simple. Posted by: Dan at June 21, 2010 02:12 PM (1jzSs) And which side will we be on?

22 Sanctions work as a springboard to military action because they prepare us domestically for what everyone (but the Obama regime, apparently) knows comes next. 

Beyond that they have no value.

23 Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that all options are still on the table if Iran were to go nuclear,

It's a word game, here.  But, what this treasonous set of retards considers one of the options needed to still be on the table is the total US surrender and passing all responsibility (and later blame) for Iran onto "Israel, the criminal state" - as it's known around the White House.

They know that people think "all options" stresses" military action, but for this junta, "all options" means surrender, the likes of which will make the French blush.

24 Rush suggested It's a good idea that any republican absolutely anyone who goes to a meeting with the president should wear a wire.

FIFY

25

Saddam used his chemical weapons for that very reason, who is to say Iran wouldn't.

Posted by: Ben at June 21, 2010 02:07 PM (wuv1c)

Iran has already committed mass murder of its own dissidents.  You can be sure that the current Supreme Leader Khameini will order the use of whatever weapons are necessary to quell revolt.  There is, however, a real question as to whether the security forces -- even the Revolutionary Guard -- would be willing to carry out those orders.  Certainly some members of the security forces would not question the orders, but there are others who might actively interfere to prevent internal massacres.

26 You know, when I here "all options" i generally think that they desperately want any option other than military action.

27 I am starting to think that Robert Gates is not a very good Secretary of Defense.

28 Sanctions only work on democracies because they have to legitimately face the voters every so often. On dictatorships they only hurt the "little people".

29 Methos, what makes you think the 0bama administration wants Iran to be contained? 

30

"I don't think we're prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran."

Translation: We're not ready to tell the American people that the Obama Administration has already accepted that Iran is going to get nukes.

31 Have you started reading this yet:

HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. HUMANI- TARIAN LAW PROJECT ET AL. 

I only believe judicial analysis when I read it on sites soaked in cheap booze and hobo urine.

32 I tell you, these new golf clubs are the best.  I'm down to a 17 handicap.

33 I am starting to think that Robert Gates is not a very good Secretary of Defense.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 21, 2010 02:18 PM (ZESU0)

As he said after the little dog pulled back the curtain, "I'm a very good man, but I'm a very bad SecDef."

34 '...the Islamic Republic, whose government is growing increasingly isolated.'

This is a news story? Iran is not growing increasingly isolated. They are expanding their influence and reach by the day. Their allies, clients, and surrogates are getting bolder. The terrorist flotilla, for example.

Since sanctions were imposed, Iran has strengthened its ties to anti-American regimes like Venezuela and has flipped Turkey from a nominal US friend to a de facto Iranian ally. Russia is selling them weapons technology. China refuses to go along with anything more than wrist-slap sanctions. Even Karzai in Afghanistan is hedging his bets.

Iran is not isolated, sanctions aren't working, and this administration is committed to nuclear proliferation throughout the Islamic world - a world where suicide bombing is considered the most enlightened form of religious devotion.

 

35 I am starting to think that Robert Gates is not a very good Secretary of Defense.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at June 21, 2010 02:18 PM (ZESU0)

I didn't like his ideas when Bush first brought him in.  Gates was part of the leftward lurch of the Bush 2nd term.  He was left enough for the Indonesian Imbecile to leave in place, along with most of the policies.  That's how mild they were.

36 As long as the Iranians don't devlop Long Bow technology we will be safe.

37 I think our system of government needs something like, you know, a loyal opposition.

38 The only time economic sanctions ever worked was Apartheid South Africa.  I can't think of another circumstance.   

39 The peasants are revolting!

40 You know, it's almost as if this president lied his ass off about oh everything to get where he is now. 

File "Community Organizer" with other bull shit politically correct 'job' titles.

Jesus, even administrative assistant has some vague hint of what the job is.

"Community Organizer"..

fuck off

41 Until he releases any of his school records, I contend Obama isn't even as smart as GWB (who was two percentage points smarter than John Kerry in the same exact classes in an overlapping time frame at the same institution, after all).  His actions and inability to act on his feet show a serious lack of intelligence, which is made worse by his one-sided philosophy of anti-Americanism.  He skated through every phase of education, leaving no mark whatever, only because of minority quotas and reverse discrimination. I don't care about his birth certificate.  Show me your school records!

42

South Africa. Liberals will tell you sanctions got rid of apartheid.

Ergo, sanctions work everywhere for everything.

and non-violent protests freed India, 1930's Germany, not so much.

43

South Africa. Liberals will tell you sanctions got rid of apartheid.

Ergo, sanctions work everywhere for everything.

I knew that was gonna be the example. Except that sanctions took 25 years to work...and they weren't the thing that actually ended apartheid.

44 italics fail, sorry

45 You knew, for sure, that Gates was awful when the Indonesian Imbecile intentionally stalled on the Afghan troop surge and Gates didn't resign.  He even supported the retard.

46  Have you started reading this yet:

HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. HUMANI- TARIAN LAW PROJECT ET AL. 

I only believe judicial analysis when I read it on sites soaked in cheap booze and hobo urine.

Yeah, I read it when it was issued this morning. The Chief spanks Judge Pregerson pretty good. The dissenters too.

47 The peasants are revolting!

Posted by: Mullah Obese at June 21, 2010 02:21 PM (w41GQ)

Especially their smell.

48

American bad-ass John Bolton and mustache officianado all but laughed at the prospects of more sanctions on Iran, he said on Fox News yesterday "they have been preparing for this for years."  

49

 There is, however, a real question as to whether the security forces -- even the Revolutionary Guard -- would be willing to carry out those orders.  Certainly some members of the security forces would not question the orders, but there are others who might actively interfere to prevent internal massacres.

The threat doesn't really come from a nuclear Iran directly, the real threat comes from a nuclear Iran that can arm any of it's puppet terrorist organizations with a bomb any time they like.

Think about it, a terrorist group gets a nuke, smuggles it into whatever country and whatever city they like, and sets it off.  Good luck proving where it came from, much less getting a chance to retaliate properly.

This was the threat that caused us to invade Iraq in the first place.  Iraq or Iran with WMD's is bad, but it gets magnified to a million times worse when you take into account that they have a near perfect deniable delievery system already in place.  No need to launch a missle that can be easily tracked back to your home country.  Nope, just arm a couple of pissed off camel jockey's and point them in whatever direction you need them to go, and suddenly MAD is all but out the window.

That's the true threat to a nuclear Iran, much as it was with a nuclear Iraq.  And while our intel might have been bad on how close Iraq was to getting WMD's, I don't think anybody doubts Iran is way too close for comfort by now.  Sadly though I doubt the mushbrain fluff heads in charge ATM will do jack about it, maybe not even after the fact, so things definately don't look good for the home team.

50 Iran, is just a little country on the map, quit blowing things out of proportion A thousand nations of the Persian empire descend upon you. Our arrows nukes will blot out the sun!

51 Posted by: dananjcon at June 21, 2010 02:24 PM (pr+up) We fart in the general direction of sanctions.

52

FREE TIBET!!111!!!!111

53

I watched Gates on the interview on Fox this weekend.  I have to say that he looks comfortable having lost every shred of credibility and self respect.  I'm just saying that because there for the first several months of him being in the Obama administration, he looked like he was keeping intimate company with ole' Jack Daniels.

I mean, for crying out loud - he has sunk to closing his eyes and wishing for Iran not to have nukes.  Not exactly a comprehensive robust strategy if you know what I mean.

54 Methos, what makes you think the 0bama administration wants Iran to be contained? 

Sorry, that seemed clearer in my head.  I don't think Obama wants Iran contained.  I think the normal American route to dealing with troublemakers is to issue sanctions, which get in the news and make the broader public aware that there's a problem, followed by dropping bombs.

Obama (and liberals generally) treat sanctions as a PR matter because they consider the problem dealt with (See, we did something), and then think they can move back to something they prefer like stealing and redistributing wealth.

55 They have given up. We knew that was coming. Guess it is up to Israel.

56 We fart in the general direction of sanctions.

Posted by: Mullahtown at June 21, 2010 02:26 PM (Qp4DT)

Weren't they a boys band back in the 90's?

57 I mean, for crying out loud - he has sunk to closing his eyes and wishing for Iran not to have nukes. Not exactly a comprehensive robust strategy if you know what I mean. Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 21, 2010 02:28 PM (RkRxq) And he is the "Hawk" in the Obama Administration. G-D save us all.

58

"I don't think we're prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran. I think we're -- we -- our view still is we -- we do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons."

In other news, the Obama Administration announced that it also "refuses to accept" that cars and trucks can't use diet soda and pixy sticks as fuel, that really high quality solar panels can't supply all of the nation's energy need, or that the demand for tree trimmers and mariachi bands will ever be outstripped by current levels of illegal immigration.

59 28 You know, when I here "all options" i generally think that they desperately want any option other than military action.

Posted by: Penfold at June 21, 2010 02:18 PM (1PeEC)

Really...Barky and crew probably wonder every day how much longer its gonna take Iran to get their she-ite together and take out those damn jooooos already!!

 

60

That's the true threat to a nuclear Iran, much as it was with a nuclear Iraq.  And while our intel might have been bad on how close Iraq was to getting WMD's, I don't think anybody doubts Iran is way too close for comfort by now.  Sadly though I doubt the mushbrain fluff heads in charge ATM will do jack about it, maybe not even after the fact, so things definately don't look good for the home team.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 21, 2010 02:25 PM (e8T35)

I'd also point out that a nuclear-armed Iran can subject the West to economic blackmail without giving a nuke to a terror group.  All they have to do is threaten each of the Gulf Arab oil states.

Iran is armed with swarms of intermediate-range surface-to-surface missiles. If it fits nuclear warheads to even a few of those missiles, Iran can hold all of the Gulf Arab oil states hostage.

Put yourself in the place of a sheik ruling Dubai, Bahrain or Kuwait: Can you rely on assurances by the U.S. that it will be able to shoot down every single missile Iran might launch at your country? And of what value to you would an assurance be that the U.S. would use its own nuclear arsenal to avenge you should the Iranians annihilate you and your people?

Without firing a shot, Iran's mullahs could force the Gulf Arabs to reduce their oil production and raise prices to suit Iran's needs, and the U.S. would be hard pressed to do anything, diplomatically or militarily, to stop them.

61

Until he releases any of his school records, I contend Obama isn't even as smart as GWB (who was two percentage points smarter than John Kerry in the same exact classes in an overlapping time frame at the same institution, after all). 

"Smarter than John Kerry."  Is there a cash prize that goes with that?

62

I wonder sometimes if the Iranian "nuke Israel" talk is just a diversion from the main event: dominating every oil-producing country in the region. 

63 So when a potentially nuclear war breaks out between Israel and Iran, who do you think Obadouche is going to support / blame?

Manchurian President

Fuck you again, you stupid fucking 52%'ers.

64

Really...Barky and crew probably wonder every day how much longer its gonna take Iran to get their she-ite together and take out those damn jooooos already!!

Posted by: dananjcon at June 21, 2010 02:30 PM (pr+up)

It's actually exactly the opposite.  Obama wants Israel to take out the Iranian nuclear program because it's a foreign policy two-fer: he gets the Iranian nuke issue pushed back a couple of years, and he gets another big stick with which to bash Israel for being an obstacle to peace.

65 They have given up. We knew that was coming. Guess it is up to Israel.

Posted by: Vic at June 21, 2010 02:29 PM (6taRI)

This was always their intention.  The Precedent came into office planning to allow Iran a free hand and force Israel to take actionl.  That would kill two birds with one stone.  Iran's nuclear program would be stopped.  Then, the whole world would come crashign down on Israel, now with full US support, and a major effort to destroy Israel would be fully operational.  The reaction would be 10000 x's worse than the reaction to the Gaza invasion or this flotilla incident.  The world has been waiting for this.

On top of that, it would be a four-fer for the White House, since any problems in Iraq or Afghanistan, after that, would be fully blamed on Israel.  The ultimate scapegoat.  All of a sudden, the press would return to pictures of death and destruction in those wars (which has always existed) and Israel would be portrayed as the villain.  A blockade of Israel might even be  in the offing - especially as Israel's blockade of Gaza is attacked.

It's going to be very, very ugly and I believe this was always the plan.

66

I wonder sometimes if the Iranian "nuke Israel" talk is just a diversion from the main event: dominating every oil-producing country in the region. 

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 21, 2010 02:33 PM (w41GQ)

Exactly.  See comment #62 above.

67

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 21, 2010 02:35 PM (Qp4DT)

Great minds think alike.  Mine just happened to push the Post button a few milliseconds faster.

68 Think about it, a terrorist group gets a nuke, smuggles it into whatever country and whatever city they like, and sets it off.  Good luck proving where it came from, much less getting a chance to retaliate properly.

Which is why we should have a well publicized list of 10 or 12 muslim targets for retaliation in the event of an 'untraceable' nuclear attack on us.  Of course we won't because it might make people feel bad, and the political establishment has pretty much decided not to take the threat from Islam seriously, guaranteeing the disappearance of New York or San Francisco, and they don't want to have to do anything about it then, either.

69

Great minds think alike.  Mine just happened to push the Post button a few milliseconds faster.

Posted by: stuiec at June 21, 2010 02:36 PM (7AOgy)

It can't be said enough.

I'll get you next time!  It was my extras on the four-fer that slowed me down

70 Which is why we should have a well publicized list of 10 or 12 muslim targets for retaliation in the event of an 'untraceable' nuclear attack on us.  Of course we won't because it might make people feel bad, and the political establishment has pretty much decided not to take the threat from Islam seriously, guaranteeing the disappearance of New York or San Francisco, and they don't want to have to do anything about it then, either.

Posted by: Methos at June 21, 2010 02:37 PM (Xsi7M)

The irony is most of the likely targets of such a device in the US will be in a major metropolitan area, which will statistically kill more liberals than anything else.

71 6

I have a question that has yet to be asked. Would Iran use nukes on its own citizens if they revolted?  Similar to Project X from Atlas Shrugged.

Everyone fears Iran nuking Israel, which is a legitimate fear, but isn't anyone considering that Iran's government is making nukes to ensure their grip on power  forever?

 

Saddam used his chemical weapons for that very reason, who is to say Iran wouldn't.

Posted by: Ben at June 21, 2010 02:07 PM (wuv1c)

Well they'd better not do that.  I mean that would actually piss Obama and the world off.  Afterall they would be killing muslims instead of those dirty evil jooooos

72 Okay, here's one case where sanctions worked:

The Suez Crisis

Problem with that historical example is, well, the US was probably on the wrong side, there.  Should've let Britain, France, and Israel take the Suez Canal.

But sanctions in that case threatened to bankrupt the UK, and so they gave in.

(London should've gone ahead anyway, and _dared_ Washington to do it.)

73 7 & 8 you're like Abbott & Costello... well played!

74 I blame Bush, seriously.  He should have taken care of this before he left office.

75 19 Did you ever spot Marc Rich?

76 Sanctions, sanctions...y'know I'm having trouble coming up with an example where economic sanctions worked to keep a country from doing what it wants to do in the face of U.S. or international opposition. Well, Japan was all in China's face in the 1930s and the US helped impose economic sanctions on Japan. And now Japan isn't in China's face so they must have worked, right?

77 Seriously, sanctions put a lot of pressure on Rhodesia and South Africa. The better question is when have sanctions worked against a govt. that didn't have to worry about losing the next election?

78 Oh, thank goodness that someone else with the Gates name is revealed as a bigger cockholster than I was.

79

Well they'd better not do that.  I mean that would actually piss Obama and the world off.  Afterall they would be killing muslims instead of those dirty evil jooooos

Posted by: buzzion at June 21, 2010 02:43 PM (oVQFe)

Have you actually seen any outrage from Obama and the world about the Muslim-on-Muslim carnage in Kyrgystan?  Not to mention the ongoing suicide bombing campaigns by Muslims against Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan?

80 Which is why we should have a well publicized list of 10 or 12 muslim targets for retaliation in the event of an 'untraceable' nuclear attack on us.  Of course we won't because it might make people feel bad, and the political establishment has pretty much decided not to take the threat from Islam seriously, guaranteeing the disappearance of New York or San Francisco, and they don't want to have to do anything about it then, either.

Posted by: Methos at June 21, 2010 02:37 PM (Xsi7M)

I'd suggest an Axis of Evil Package Policy that says that if terrorists set off a nuke in the West, then all the known suspects -- currently Iran and North Korea -- will get a dose of retaliation.  Let Tehran (or possibly Qom, a target with more sentimental value) and Pyongyang (or possibly the military units along the DMZ. a target with more practical value with regard to pushback on South Korea) be hostage to the good behavior of the terrorists.

81

@81

I was sort of kidding. 

82 Gabe don't jump the gun and say sanctions can't work.  We haven't actually tried any real ones yet.

Of course what we really need is to send them another angry letter.  Where's Hans Brix when you need him?

83 The irony is most of the likely targets of such a device in the US will be in a major metropolitan area, which will statistically kill more liberals than anything else.

Probably.  Muzzies only seem to care about body count.  I think more overall damage would be done with a strike on Hoover Dam or salting the earth in one of our farm states.  Or one of the Great Lakes, for that matter.

84

Sanctions don't work.  Giving them what they want?  Now, that's a sure winner.

If we just let them have nukes, they won't ask for anything else.

85 "Let's ask Obama":  I think there were some pressures brought to bear on some of Obama's early political opponents (his opponent in the Illinois Senate race comes to mind); those threatened sanctions came out pretty well (depending on your point of view, of course).

86

I don't get it. The 2007 NIE report on Iran said they were no threat and weren't working on nuclear weapons.

Right? I mean, all the talk bout shutting Iran down by the Bush administration was just a cover for them to grab more power, and was based on a lie.

I think Dick Cheney is behind this.

87

87 Hey, that's true. 

Way to go, Jeri Ryan.  One little trip to a club full of, ah, like-minded individuals, and this whole nightmare could have been avoided. 

88 #72, in a novel I read (Caliphate by Thomas Kratman), the destruction of three cities in the US with nukes (Los Angeles, Kansas City, Boston; New York and DC were "fizzles") threw off the next election considerably. With Boston's liberal population blown up and LA gone, a third party candidate swept all fifty states in the next election.

89 When New York gets nuked, it will be by a device carried on a small boat. Any powerboat in the 28' range can carry the 1,000 kilos a 2nd generation bomb weighs. There are millions of them out there and just a few hundred coasties. N.Y. or D.C are the most likely targets. In both cities, you can bring a small boat right into the heart of the city. The other good thing about using a ski boat or sport fisherman is that there will be no evidence left.

90 "With Boston's liberal population blown up and LA gone, a third party candidate swept all fifty states in the next election."

RON PAUL!!!11ELEVENTY!!11!!

91 Muzzies only seem to care about body count.

Yep. They don't want to fuck up your car. They want to blow you up while you're in your car. Fewer infidels, and that's their motivation.

92

Have you actually seen any outrage from Obama and the world about the Muslim-on-Muslim carnage in Kyrgystan?  Not to mention the ongoing suicide bombing campaigns by Muslims against Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Posted by: stuiec at June 21, 2010 02:57 PM (7AOgy)

That would be like the media reporting the party affiliation of a Democrat involved in a scandal.

93 90 & 92 If the small McCain types keep getting elected and the small r republican party at the beheast of the fake conservative frum types keeps going the way they've been going, that would be possible, but I am counting on a return to conservatism being brought about in the next election.


... I hope to hell

Cuz we're maybe even more F'd than now with Ron "abandon all our allies" Paul at the helm.

94 ... or someone like him

95 Peace in our time...I tell you, this means peace in our time!

96 wow

97 If sanctions work why is Fidel Castro still in power.  Sanctions as well as the idiots that advise using them area joke!