The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Operation “We’re Sorry” has failed.

President Obama is now stationing ships in the gulf and deploying 4 large ground based patriot missile batteries across the Mideast. Iran is promising a “devastating blow” on February 11th. 

We’ve allowed Iran to run thousands of continuous centrifuges for 13 months now in defiance of the IAEA and UN.  We should have taken out the facility.  We know they have at least 3,000 centrifuges and as many as 6,000 running in the facility at Natanz. 

I guess we are now reactive rather than proactive. 

You have no idea what's going on.

Crap!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0120076120100201

Feb. 11 also is the date that big opposition protests are scheduled in Iran. Sounds like the government there is trying its best to provide distractions from its own internal troubles.

Hmmm, wonder if the Obama Admin is going to fall easy prey to bogus intel also  ::)

If we are forced to take action, can we call it “HOPE & CHANGE” instead of “SHOCK & AWE?”

Oh good. 

More from Iran today.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers during this week's 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.
"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei, who is also Iran's commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel.  

This will be President Bush's fault, just wait.

The first President Bush.

Color me skeptical. 

There's no good reason for the supreme leader of a small theocracy in the middle east to telegraph an attack of any sort against the most powerful country in the world.  They're guaranteed the harshest possible response.  We'd crush them immediately.  There's just no way around it.  They know that, and we know that. They'd also finally lose whatever shreds of goodwill they've been able to amass internationally, too. 

Think of it this way:  9/11 -- the most successful attack on American soil in modern times -- was perpetrated by nonstate actors.  And we found a culpable state to invade ASAP.  In fact, we invaded two.

If something comparable should ever happen in the US again, this time sponsored by a state actor, it's a foregone conclusion that we'd knock that state out immediately. 

On the other hand, we can think we have better intelligence about Iran than the president does, prejudge his perceived lack of action as weakness or fecklessness, and buttress our own preconceived notions about how spineless Democrats are as a species.  That's always another option. 

I thought 911 was caused by George Bush?

Perhaps you're confusing me with the 'Generic Liberal #1' that figures so strongly in so many of the rightie blogs out there. 

I've never said 9/11 was caused by George Bush.  His negligence didn't help, certainly, but he didn't cause it.

Yeah, I didn't say that either..... must be another one of those "liberal mantra" doo-hickeys...  

I personally believe 9/11 was an inside job done by a buncha wealthy patricians who are actually aliens from another planet.... outside the limit of our sight, feeding off us, perched on top of us, from birth to death, are our owners!... our owners, they have us...... they control us!... they are our masters!.... Wake up! They're all about you! All around you!..... we could be pets, we could be food...... but all we really are is livestock.



/snark

My opinion is that 9/11 was caused by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush Jr's apathy towards the rise in terrorism.  Clinton started to worry about it more after the Cole bombing, but that was so late in his term that it really didn't amount to a popcorn fart as far as concern goes.  All three, IMO, share the blame.  I'm not going to say equally, because history will sort that out.

I blame the terrorists.

Well, why wouldn't you believe that? I do, it's exactly the troof!  ;)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kic0GGu2UnY[/youtube]

They are turning our atmosphere into their atmosphere...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnHSDuYmnfo[/youtube]


Man oh man.... where did I put my sunglasses....?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBY6pF42I-c&NR=1[/youtube]

How could you refer to They Live and not include the longest fight scene in movie history?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO8mKM1iAww[/youtube]

Back to our regularly scheduled thread...

Or this one.........

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_K8prLfso[/youtube]

Alright.  What were we talking about....?

Where you been, Ruf? I've missed your usual dose of "Republican Hack".

(http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Samara1.jpg)

I blame the cheap pulldown of the isles of Cyprus behind the terrorists.  

I thought homosexuality was frowned upon in Iran.

But not in Lebanon!

Actually, I think it is also frowned on in Lebanon.

Really? I thought that's where all the Lesbians came from...oh wait, uh Lebanese.  My bad...

Than you sir, are a fool.  They were simply misunderstood.  Terrorists had nothing to do with it.   Besides, they were not terrorists, they were foreign contingency workers, otherwise known as Islamic community organizers.  Had we taken the time to talk to them and get to know them, none of this would have happened. 

A hug could have saved 3,000 lives!

Or having a hand up Yasser Arafart's skirt.

Of course, nobody ever actually said that.
Typical Gaspar PARTISAN HYPERBOLE.

My turn.....


There.... fixed your post. ::)  

Glad to see that "Word of The Day" calendar you got from your Secret Santa is being put to good use.

February 11th - HYPERBOLE
Example: "Iran is now a nuclear state" says Ahmadinejad as millions  take to the streets.

What's tomorrow?

I like to call him...Imadinnerjacket......

Hell, even al-Jazeera is casting deep doubts on Ahmadinjad's claim that Iran is a "nuclear state." Everyone's calling him on his B.S. now.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/02/201021193246956530.html

Yeah, I couldn't quite understand what Iran hopes to gain by announcing this so publicly. It makes me think that, like North Korea, they want our relationship to be more productive, but the only way they know how to force us to the table is through belligerent talk. (And it seems to take forcing, since we're apparently still not interested in having a dialogue with either nation)

It seems more like a cry for attention than any actual threat. Not that it wouldn't be threatening for Iran to have a nuke. It would be. That said, I think even they grasp the concept of the total annihilation that will be brought upon them should their technology find its way into the hands of a terrorist organization.

While I'm generally not for dick-waving contests, I think that this is one subject on which a dick-waving contest is a mighty fine idea. Your weapon destroys our city, our weapon destroys your city and some others destroy all the underground bunkers in your country. (no fair hiding underground while your populace reaps what you sowed!) And we've got several hundred more where that came from if you want to keep screwing around.

This is one area where there can be no compromise. We will respond in kind, no matter how repugnant that seems. It's the only way to deter such idiocy.

Until that time, there's no need for the big stick.

I don't get why we refused to exchange their material for fuel rods, though. What exactly was wrong with giving them the fuel rods when they gave us the uranium they've now partly refined? Was there any benefit to the plan of taking their uranium, waiting a few months and then giving them fuel rods?

And therein lies the problem with our amateur view of diplomacy and intel.  There's a whole lot the general public is not made privvy to and probably for good reason.

No matter what the intel, I fail to see how taking something that would be easier to use for a bomb and giving them something that would be harder to use for a bomb can be anything but a step forward.

I think it boils down to not wanting to reward extortion.  What kind of message does that send?

It sends the message that we'll be supportive of peaceful use of nuclear energy for anybody, no matter how much we dislike them or how stupidly they behave.

This keeps the non-proliferation regime strong by assuring nations that they need not build their own infrastructure to refine uranium. It's not like it's beneficial from a purely financial perspective. Those gas centrifuges are extremely capital intensive.

Our manly-man contests only undermine the NPT.

While I think that an eye for an eye type deterrence will probably work on its own, I prefer a more layered approach to security.

(http://transition2008.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/jimmy_carter_wikipedia.jpg)

"I support this message."

I suspect, given the story above, that the U.S. government thinks there's a con job involved.

How about rather than a picture of Carter and a pithy message, you explain to me where I'm wrong?

rwarn: My understanding is that it's relatively easy to determine that you're getting what you're supposed to if you have the right equipment with you. Perhaps I'm wrong and they could have easily substituted depleted uranium or something. (DU isn't useful to someone trying to build a fission bomb, although it's quite handy for a fission-fusion-fission bomb)

Either way, if the deal was as advertised, there's only upside. We seem to be pretty good at walking away from deals with only upside in the middle east in the past decade or two, at least going by what the public has been told.

Well, that's a big "if" ...

Let's face it ... Amidinejad has been such a nutjob and has been so disingenuous that it's hard to take anything he says seriously. Given all his bluster from the past week, there was no reason to pay this guy any serious attention.

It sure is. And that's why we should have protected ourselves. Flat-out refusing with no reason given, on the other hand, makes us look like the assholes. I don't mind being an a**hole when it's the only option, but when there are other options, I think being an a**hole is one of the worse options when you're fighting a "war" for hearts and minds.

You're assuming there was a flat-out refusal with no reason given. Rash assumption, very likely.

I can only go by what the news reports say, not being an involved party.

Easy Nathan,

All I can do is refer to history.  We’ve tried this in multiple countries with everything from weapons to food to fuel. . . and every time it backfires. 

Diplomacy is completely different from blackmail.  They cannot exist together.  Diplomacy relies on trade and trust, and both parties grow from it.  Blackmail relies on politics and lack of trust. . .give me what I want and I’ll do what you want.  Jimmy Carter failed to recognize the difference too, as did many others.

These countries are exercising leverage through threat.  They use the relaxation in tensions to create new bargaining chips and expand the threat.  To placate them is a dangerous tactic, and a lesson we’ve learned again and again.

Threat becomes currency when there’s no fear of retribution.

I have two small children.  I know how this works.

Having read books about the history of varying presidents and the inner workings of such things, I can say it's very, very likely the refusal wasn't just a snap decision, and not without cause.

A lot of background occurs out of the public eye ... for good reason.

Of course, to also start wars without considering all of the possible long-term consequences is a dangerous tactic, too. That's one thing the previous administration obviously failed to contemplate.

Agreed!

There are other ways.

Although I disagree with your assessment, I thank you for your well thought explanation of your position. Seriously.  :)

I guess what I still don't get, even granting your premise, how it is a negative for us to make individual deals that improve the situation from our perspective. Obviously we shouldn't do whatever they ask willy-nilly, but in a relatively simple "you give us something we don't want you to have and we give you something you want to have that's less threatening to us" or a "you give us nuclear fuel and we give you food" is really an issue.

I think a lot of our recent issues with North Korea (and Iran to a lesser degree) boiled down to obstinately refusing to even talk.

Even if all you're doing is buying time, I don't see where it puts us at any disadvantage, aside perhaps from a prison created in our own minds. It takes no future options off the table, yet modestly improves the situation from our perspective.

Either way, none of us know all the facts, so having stated our positions, I don't know how much good will come of continued discussion on the subject, barring new evidence.