It's all Tom Cotton and the GOP's fault. If they just hadn't published that letter!That is what is coming over the horizon.
Only an ASS or Obama would Negotieate with Iran
I disagree. Some sort of negotiation must always be tried in the hope of avoiding armed conflict. This administration just doesn't know how to negotiate INTELLIGENTLY in OUR favor. Obama is an APPEASER.Of course from British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain has been condemned and dismissed as a worthless appeaser, but I've known knowledgeable Britishers who were there at the time who believe Chamberlain acted very wisely, because it BOUGHT his country some much-needed TIME to get ready for armed conflict. Britain was was NOT prepared to fight at the time Hitler was gaining power. Neither we were when Pearl Harbor was attacked, but BOY did we get organized FAST. We could do that in those days, because we did no have an ENEMEDIA brainwashing us ceaselessly to doubt the value of our identity as Americans, and thus promote disloyalty, indecisiveness played out in endless debate, and too much limp-wristed shilly shallying on the part of our so-called leaders.
FT,In my view, the time that Iran is buying has terribly nefarious purposes.Did you get a chance to watch the video in the body of the blog post? I hope so. Ayatollah Khameini is openly behaving differently than Hitler did during Chamberlain's time.Is negotiation to prevent armed conflict a wise idea? Yes, indeed! But negotiating so that the other side can arm more efficiently is folly -- especially in the Nuclear Age. Iran's intent under the mullahs has been the same since 1979. The history is clear.
Only an ass or Obama?Isn't that like the department of redundancies department?
AOW, you know I can NOT watch videos right now. Also, you completely missed my point about Neville Chamberlain. I said his apparent naiveté or stupidity is regarded by many intelligent, well-informed Britishers who remember the pre-WWII era as a WISE MOVE that bought ENGLAND enough time to prepare herself for the inevitable conflict ha was to come. "Popular notions" are seldom correct.
FT, Well, I was hoping that you could watch the video by now. Oh, well. Technology can be the enemy!Actually, I didn't miss the point about Chamberlain. IMO, this nuclear age makes a big difference. We need to be aware of the possibility that Iran is buying time for a dangerously nefarious reason.
As David Steinberg notes Obama immediately congratulated Turkey’s Erdogan–a radical Islamist tyrant. He also congratulated Egypt’s president not to mention praising the faux “election” of the terror-supporting Iranian president. He also congratulated Putin, the Saudis, Morsi and a whole list of other Islamist tyrants. Obama congratulated radical Islamists when they won elections, even Putin! But not Israel’s leaderAnd how does the US government NOT immediately congratulate Bibi Netanyahu on his landslide re-election?Our president stayed silent and instead Obama sends John “Lurch” Kerry to do the duty.Obama Congratulated Radical Islamists When They Won Elections, But Not Israel’s Leader! Pettiness? I think it’s a lot more than that!Once again this proves that Barack Obama is a friend to tyrants and an opponent to free peoples everywhere.
The flowers of Mr. Obama's "good faith" negotiations have only just begun to blossom! Soon, they will be everywhere!
Cettes fleurs de mal n'est pas jolie, mon ami. Vraiment un sortilege mal, tres laid et malheureuse. Une vision d'horreur extreme, n'est-ce-pas?
Voici venir les temps où vibrant sur sa tigeChaque fleur s'évapore ainsi qu'un encensoir;Les sons et les parfums tournent dans l'air du soir;Valse mélancolique et langoureux vertige!Chaque fleur s'évapore ainsi qu'un encensoir;Le violon frémit comme un coeur qu'on afflige;Valse mélancolique et langoureux vertige!Le ciel est triste et beau comme un grand reposoir.Le violon frémit comme un coeur qu'on afflige,Un coeur tendre, qui hait le néant vaste et noir!Le ciel est triste et beau comme un grand reposoir;Le soleil s'est noyé dans son sang qui se fige.Un coeur tendre, qui hait le néant vaste et noir,Du passé lumineux recueille tout vestige!Le soleil s'est noyé dans son sang qui se fige...Ton souvenir en moi luit comme un ostensoir!— Charles Baudelaire, " Harmonie du soir"
Claude Debussy called one of his preludes for the piano Les sons et les parfums tournent dans l'air du soir. I don't believe he credited Beaudelaire, but obviously must have drawn inspiration from the poem you quoted from Fleurs du mal.Franz Liszt titled one of his Transcendental Etudes Harmonies du soir.Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, Fauré, Debussy, Ravel, DuParc, Poulenc and Hugo Wolf were fascinated by exotic elegiac night scenes filled with languorous musing, wonder, world-weariness, longing, sometimes rapture, but more often tinged with deep regret. These moods are reflected and expanded upon in much of the song literature and many of the character pieces for piano they produced.The poem quoted seemed almost like a sonnet at first, but closer examination reveals it to follow more closely the pattern of a classic villanelle, but the villanelle is written in interlocking tercets and always contains 19 lines aba, aba, aba, aba, aba, abaa. To make it even more confining and exacting the first and third line of the first tercet must be repeated alternately in each of the following groupings. The villanelle must end with an exact repetition of the first and third lines.the most famous example in English would be Dylan Thomas' "Do not go gentle into that good night."Beaudelaire does not quite do that, but Harmonie du soir, which contains 16 lines, written in iambic pentameter, certainly tends in that direction.Thank you for such a refreshing retreat from the gladiatorial arena of current world politics.
And thank you for the continued free association. It's always enlightening. :)
Don't you have more than a sneaking suspicion by now that our illustrious First Black Precedent (wink! wink!) is more than sympathetic to any agenda that seeks first to dismantle and then to destroy the United States of America?There simply HAS to be an "AGENDA" behind everything he has done. It seems impossible to me that anyone could rise to the position The Black Knight now holds and be THAT incredibly STUPID.
As these barbarians chant "Death to America" it has been mutually assured by Americans themselves with the election of B.O. twice and Hillary looming on the horizon. In essence [WE] are doing their heavy work for them!
Thank you, Jon, you took the words right out of my fingers. ;-)
We didn't jump on John Kennedy for being a Catholic, nor did we beat up Jimmy Carter for his deep rooted religious faith or his alliance to countries that were hostel to America. So why would we bring Obama's race or “Muslim” faith? There are many "distractions" that we could gossip about when it comes to almost all presidents, but the main point of discussion should Mr. Obama's dereliction of duty and his shameful performance as president and leader of this nation. Also, we should all be ashamed for blaming him for the color of his skin.Whether he's Black or White, or Green, or a Socialist, a Marxist, it a Muslim, a Communist, or whatever! What is for sure, he’s a lying president and that is more than enough for me to be pissed off about his being my president. And he brought a bunch of liars into his administration along with him... ala Hillary Clinton. Instead of beating him into the ground, all of us should be slamming those people that voted him into office, not once, BUT TWICE. Whether he's a Muslim, a communist, or anything else, is not as important as his performance as our president, especially since he's the one sitting in the oval office. I'd much rather debate his presidency, than to debate his personal preferences that are aside from his duty and responsibilities to this nation. Personally, I judge him by the state of this nation and his leadership, or lack thereof, rather than guessing his religion or whether he's a commie or not.I also believe our “president” made the wrong choice in supporting a terrorist nation like Iran instead of Israel. And for the wrong reasons... Why in the world would he want to pal up with Iran at the cost of alliance with the state of Israel?
Proverbs 25:26 - A righteous man falling down before the wicked [is as] a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.
Ed,Good choice of Bible verse for this thread.
Well why don't we just bomb 'em up because Israel's pilots have never flown into that serious a hazard so they need someone to do it for them.Unarmed civilian shelters are more their speed.Let's just do something stupid. It will probably turn out as well as the fiasco in Yemen.
There is no doubt that Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor ("Osirak") was brilliant and gutsy. On the other hand, the Obama/Biden Administration is fully committed to a model of remote drone assassinations. This inevitably comes with collateral damage.It doesn't help the Iranian regime to believe that he is any different than any other US President...
The Iraqi reactor was barely started and lightly defended. It wasn't even underground like the Iranian facilities. Israel will continue to do what it does best, bomb civilians and claim jump on the West Bank.Meanwhile, the collateral damage in Yemen is a state in full scale civil war.Another U.S. military success.
There are many options other than war. yes, there are some fringe armchair general loonies talking crap, but that's a small minority.
1) Of course the Obama/Biden Administration's drone policy is not working in Yemen... Thats old news.2) The Iranians attempted to destroy the Iraqi reactor and failed. They had to defer to their military superiors (the Israeli military) to get it done...You can call them names, but thanks to their effective military Israel has survived for over a half a century even though they have been completely surrounded. They didn't survive because of appeasement. The Arabs attempted to sweep the Jews from the "river to the sea" but were too inept against such a juggernaut.
Silverfiddle, I think you and I agree that a strict military posture has been a failure in the Middle East.Can an attempt to negotiate do much more harm?I don't think so but you may have a different perspective.
Ducky I agree that we should persue negotiations if possible. They have us at a disadvantage because now that Obama committed himself to this negotiation he needs an agreement. Iran wins in any outcome. If we make an agreement they would get major concessions from us. If there is no agreement then Iran can claim victory (as they always do). They will say that they defied American imperialism.Anyway, Iran needs anti-Americanism more than it needs us to drop our economic embargo. Just look at Cuba. Ideology is more important than money.
During the Iraq-Iran conflict the nation of Iran took conscripted "soldiers", tied them together with ropes and sent them out to walk across fields laden with mines to work as human mine sweepers.Does anyone really think that they wouldn't nuke us if given a chance? A nation which does horrible things to their own citizens will not hesitate to do worse to non-citizens.
Sounds pretty similar to World War I when the west strutted its stuff.Yeah, I know, we're the Christians.
Yeah Ducky, The Iranians sending little boys into minefields is just like the Western Front in WWI. At least, in your fever dreams.Christianity or Islam really has nothing to do with this point anyway. Its a problem of the Iranian dictatorship. The Quran never stated that children must be used to clear minefields and the Bible never said that European countries should build trenches with machine gun nests to slaughter soldiers.You are really way off your usual off-baseness today...
Right, there may have been an incident involving children. I don't know and possibly neither do you.We do know that the U.S, was happy to see our "friend" Saddam's Iraq go at it with Iran and we supplied him with chemical weapons which he used against the Iranians.Later we would start whining like little puking babies about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction".So you are going to have to move in pretty mysterious ways if you are going to make one nation the only duplicitous player in that mess which we have very willingly helped engineer.
No Ducky we know that Iran used child soldiers. But since Iran officially denied it to the West, apologists have taken advantage of that to attack any rational person who criticizes the theocratic regime for this barbarity. This denial was aimed at the West, while the cult of martyrdom was celebrated within the state.I managed an Iranian restaurant for years and outside of the fanatics, the majority of Iranians and Iraqis accept the reality of child martyrs as a fact, as much as water is wet.They know first hand how child were given necklaces with plastic keys and told that it was for their passage into paradise.Apologists have tried to confuse the issue because not all minefield martyrs were children, some were old men, some untrained recruits of all ages.Children were not exclusively used in minefield clearing attacks. They were often sent in human wave formation against Iraqi troops as human shields for better trained/equipped soldiers and to demoralize the enemy.So this propaganda confuses the issue in the hopes that no-one will criticize the Iranian regime for this crime...
FN,outside of the fanatics, the majority of Iranians and Iraqis accept the reality of child martyrs as a fact, as much as water is wetTwisted morality!
"By all means necessary"
Freedomnow, you make a lot of very good sense. So did "Anonymous" who started this long thread condemning Iran for using children roped together as human mine sweepers, and claiming the current regime in Iran would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against us –––– and Israel or any of the other Western nations by extension.I believe we would be safer if we simply assumed that to be true, if we acted accordingly.In the interests of fairness I must add that Nazi Germany wound up conscripting TWELVE-YEAR-OLD BOYS to fight against the Allies in the latter stages of WWII.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Notice how you had to dig into the past to find an equivalency?We've progressed, they have not.Thanks for playing.
Identify yourself or don't bother to post. I won't tolerate an anonymous chicken squat.
But Warren, several intelligent, worthwhile remarks have been posted anonymously on this thread. I hope you wouldn't want to eradicate them all just because they were "anonymous." After all, AOW permits anonymous posts. Doesn't that mean she finds them generally acceptable? I always try to analyze the content of any remark before I scrub it. Except for the well-known trolls, I always try to look carefully at what is said. I do think we owe each other at least that much, or don't you agree?
FT,I saw the comment via email notification. It was not a worthwhile comment -- and was way off topic, to boot. I had planned to delete the comment myself, but hadn't gotten around to it yet.I permit anonymous posts within certain limitations.Managing a blog is no fun in the current blogospheric atmosphere.
FT, give me a little credit. The troll that commented used their anonymity to try and cause a disruption without suffering any repercussions for their action. That's why I called them a chicken squat.Consider it an obscene phone call that was hung up on.
Obama will raise the Islamic banner over the White House... Inshallah...
And the Democrats only slam us and ignore the whole point. WOW.
They slam you because you insist on strict militarism when it is obviously an abject failure.
Is that your talking point de jure Nostradumbass?Time to get your meds adjusted again.There hasn't been anything close to a "strict militarism". Its. Just been more of the good ole' proportional response that served us so well in Viet Nam (not)If it wasn't for strawmen, lies and talking points you wouldn't have anything to say.
Ducky, I meant the insults here ...'slamming' us as strawmen, as Warren says.And still you ignore the whole point. You REALLY don't see, do you. This video's not something AOW photo shopped..And this has nothing to do with militarism.It's why giving more and more land to Palestinians hasn't worked toward attaining peace for israel; it's not LAND they want...it's JEWS.Do you think this is some spontaneous hateful moment like you thought Obama's fellow church attenders just spontaneously broke into "GD AMERICA" and it hadn't been fostered by Jeremiah Wright? No....Wright called for hate in America and this Ayatollah certainly isn't countering what they're screaming..Look at them; black-clad, backwards, hateful people...the ones you seem to champion over a bunch of American patriots. wow.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z,This video's not something AOW photo shopped..Exactly. In fact, yesterday a CNN reporter brought up this video during yesterday's press conference with Josh Earnest:CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta pressed White House press secretary Josh Earnest about why the Obama administration trusted an Iranian Ayatollah who only recently chanted “Death to America.”“Over the weekend, Ayatollah Khomeini gave a speech,” Acosta said. ”And during that speech, there were people in the crowd chanting ‘Death to America’ and the Ayatollah responded back to them according to various translations, ‘Of course, Death to America.’ Do those comments give this White House any pause about moving forward with a nuclear deal with that country?”“Those kinds of comments only underscore why it is so critically important that the United States and the international community succeed in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Earnest responded. “And the best way for us to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons is sitting down at the negotiating table and getting Iran to make very specific commitments that would prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.”The problem is that Iran is looking out for its only best interest. And that best interest is tainted by militant Islam and Islamic supremacism. Just how much compromise is Iran going to do? From some of the leaks, it seems that Iran is getting 80% of its points and, in essence, dictating the terms of the agreement.Do we really believe that Iran's definition of peace is the same as our definition of peace. For these hardliners, the destruction of Israel, then the West, means peace.
Ducky, as far as your comment about militarism:How about the Red Army or the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War? They used a military force against fascists such as the Nazis and Franco's Nationalists.While I dislike many aspects of both organizations I support our alliance with the Soviet Union during WWII and feel that we should have supported the Spanish Republic (Although I would have regretted the repercussions that the success of the Socialists would of had, it was the right thing to do).We are still a relatively primitive species and militarism is a fact of life as much as hunting once was.
FN,Militarism is an expression of "The Strong Man." Turning the other cheek doesn't work with regard to relations between nation states.
Giving more and more land to the Palestinians?Are you insane?
"GD AMERICA" and it hadn't been fostered by Jeremiah Wright?-----An anecdotal quote taken out of context but very similar to quotes by patriots such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.I notice that fringe right wing darling Ted "He's psycho" Cruz chose Liberty University as the site of his announcement.As if appealing to the lunatic fringe is going to advance his marginal candidacy.
If you were paying attention, you'd realize that most presidential candidates go to where they're best received.You see, Ducky, conservatives have every right to say and think what they want and go where they want. I know it's not a popular mindset anymore in America, but we are a two party country and this belittling half the country's character and values is getting very old. And even dangerous. As for the "GD AMERICA", that wasn't anecdotal at all. "Taken out of context"??? He very clearly says "not God BLess America, but God D*** America" Can you explain your hypothesis? He says "GD America" is "in the Bible".....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whNE40AwVNoI'd bother Googling Falwell or Robertson about anything close they've said to GD AMERICA but they're no heroes of mine and it'd be a big waste of time, anyway.
What would the cons have Obama do differently? JMJ
1) Back Israel over Iran2) Stop supporting Sunni Islamists in Syria3) Stop bashing the US as a means of promoting US foreign policyThat is a start...
Just what does "backing Israel" entail? Military action?You're a slow learner aren't you. I don't think we're giving much support to anyone in Syria.Stop bashing the US? What the hell does that mean?Let's fly a few more drones in Yemen.
You are being a child. I didnt say anything about military action.You know exactly what I mean and you just are embarrassing yourself...
Then answer, what does "backing Israel" mean?
Leave Freedomnow alone; he doesn't need me to stick up for him but you have never answered a question, even after I and others have recommented over and over asking you to.you don't know what 'backing Israel' means? really? look it up.
With Ms Z's protection I have nothing to fear, ever!!!!!!!!!!
There are books filled with things Nostradumbass doesn't know. They are called elementary textbooks. The problem is his invincible ignorance.That's why I call him Nostradumbass.
The full term was "backing Israel against Iran". The Israelis are very fearful that we will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons (either willingly or unwittingly). We are talking very sweetly to the Mullahs and very harshly with our ally Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.It should be the other way around... Happy Nowruz, Ducky-jan!!!!!!!!
What troubles me as well as most other people that I have this conversation with, irrespective of any real or assumed anti-Israel or anti-Semitic element, is Obama’s pursuit of a deal with the Iranians that would permit them at some point to make their own nuclear weapons. It quite simply makes no sense to anyone except Obama. Iran has never made no secret of its wish to “wipe Israel off the map.” Netanyahu left no doubt that Israel would use military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. In the past they destroyed such facilities in Iraq and Syria. And that they would do so with or without the help of America. And as the way it looks today, it would be without the help of America. At least as long as Obama is in office. As for the Iranians, they don’t care how the negotiations turn out. They have gotten a respite from the sanctions, Obama’s so called sanctions have been meaningless, and as for the funds that were frozen? They were already returned.. As for Bibi Netanyahu’s winning the election, he did so even with Obama’s helping the opposition, and he even stooped as low as having Arabs bussed in to the polls to vote against Mr. Netanyahu. Obama’s plan to appease Iran at any cost, even with Israel, in their cross hairs!As for the destruction of Israel, Iran has both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza as their allies to threaten Israel, so they can wait for a nuke to finish off the job. And who did the U.S. just remove from its list of terrorist nations and groups? Iran and Hezbollah! Hows that? Go figure? We also know that when a liberal starts a subject in their blog with a lie then, there isn't much point in reading it any further. Thus the reason why i don’t and won’t read that slop written by the progressive a-hole. They don't give a damn about our nation. The only thing they care about is the election of a “Black Man”! Kind of a shocking? Mind-Boggling? You bet it is.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:1. Any use of profanity or abusive language2. Off topic comments and spam3. Use of personal invective