www.facebook.com/iransecularii

Killjoy

Being that it has been quite a while since you last arm-wrestled, have you considered the possibility that you might actually lose the arm wrestling match?  After all, emotions aside, these are formidable opponents, wouldn't you agree?

As to debating them, I don't know, but lately, my posts seems to raise the hackles of what I'm calling "The Trifecta".

The emotions you refer to can fire up the adrenaline...and if that happens....all I can say is "uh oh". Have a first aid kit within reach of the remaining good arm.

PEOPLE have the right to know, get used to it

Great commentary on the subject:

//edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2008/12/01/cttb.campbell.brown.clinton.cnn

Kaveh, to quote my favorite mccain supporter

she is a "half-breed muslin." She is half iranian. I'm sure of this! Christopher Hitchens said so. he's ALWAYS right, right?

Dear All,

Kaveh writes to David:

"No matter how much you try and make this point, (and you do it very effectively, and more diplomatically than I do), there are those who simply will not agree with what you or I have said and will continue to say regarding Hillary."

So, you guys had better listen to Marge and end these futile MONOLOGUES. I detect too much emotionalsim in the ladies' stands. It can't be helped. It seems to be in their nature--whatever that is. That's why even in the greatest democracy in the world there are only a few of them running the affairs.

Dear Kaveh,

As much as I enjoy the realism you bring into every discussion you enter, there's no way you could win a debate against a woman or even convince her to listen to what you're saying. ESPECIALLY when there's nothing in it for herself. Have you heard of "Gorbeh Morezaa Ali?"

So, in order to decide on a winner I suggest either tossing a coin or arm wrestling. Since you're into finances, you keep tossing the coin and I'll do the(arm)wrestling. I haven't done that since elementary school. It was fun, then.

Marge

Irooni? That's news to me.

I've read about a Pakistani woman named Huma Abedin who is her aide but haven't heard of any Iranians.

Did you know Hillary Clinton has an Iranian aide?

Her assistant who has a big wig washington fiance, is Iranian. She's a little strange and intimidating based on what I've seen, but I'm not surprised she's hillary's number one. You have to have these qualities to make it in politics. 

I can't stand Hillary personally. But I understand her appeal to others. She does have good qualities, and maybe because she is so qualified it is easier to judge her. I hated her Iran stance. I did. I hated what she said to appease the Jewish vote. But that's America and AIPAC.

Let's just calm down. Let's enjoy the American classics known as the Holidays. Eat, drink and be merry. Let's try to remember why we ever immigrated here. Buffets and booze! Hillary is really not that big of a problem!

OK, Now That's Enough

It's not a prerequisite that we agree on any issue, but what's worse is that you are also being condescending and patronizing.

This prosperity, dignity, unity and credibility that you are referring to has nothing to do with one person (that being GWB) as you believe. This is a nation of nearly 300 million people in 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico, not one dimunitive quasi-Texan sitting in a chair in Northwest Washington DC.

You are so quick to say that Republicans have broken this and broken that, while placing Democrats on a pedestal as fine examples of moral and ethical barometers of this nation. Both sides of the aisle share the blame for a host of things being faced today, but it appears that you are only interested in one side.

That's entirely your perogative, but it's hardly objective.

I repeatedly insist that I'm not criticizing Obama because you are insisting that I am criticizing him. Is saying that I'm criticizing him the only thing you have to validate your point of view?

You call yourself a liberal, which implies having an open mind, but it seems that as time passes, you are showing yourself to be more rigid, inflexible and closed minded than the day before.

I'm more than willing to give the new administration a chance. But again, Obama is just one man sitting in a chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Outnumbered by 535 members of Congress, and 300 million men, women and children.

If Obama can successfully put the likes Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barney Frank in their places, that will be fantastic. They have been at the core of all of this domestic economic damage that we have been dealing with and not Bush or the Republicans. Their primary fault lies in their handling of foreign policy matters.

You go on and on about how the Republicans are into the making the rich richer and keeping the poor poorer. So how can it be that Republicans created the subprime crisis and the resulting financial meltdown? You can't, because they didn't. The GOP sought greater regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several years ago but the Democrats refused to allow it.

So before you continue to make slogan-like statements about the Republicans destroying credibility, dignity and prosperity and unity, remember that the Democrats and their loose (oops, did I say loose? I mean liberal) ideology has resulted in the loss and freezing of credit, (credibility) people losing their home equity and then their homes (prosperity and dignity), and maybe some families coming apart from the stress of it all (unity).

Kaveh

Now that we established your predictions can be "obviously in error", lets give the president elect (who you repeatedly insist that you are not criticizing) the chance to take over the White House from the administration that has ruined the country for 8 yrs and see what he is planning to do to fix what republicans have broken which includes just about every aspect of this nation's prosperity, dignity, unity and credibility.

Thank you for your patience! 

IRANdokht

IRANdokht

I predicted Obama would lose, period. Obviously in error.

What I did was suggest that if Obama had picked Hillary as VP, the election would have been over in the summer. I'm not disappointed in him. I have very high hopes for him and his administration and presidency, but I have very low expectations.

I'm not critcizing Obama, for the BILLIONTH time. I disagree with his decision of picking Hillary.

Kaveh

Wasn't it you who also predicted that Obama would lose because he didn't pick Hillary as VP? or were you just disappointed by him for not picking her as VP?

what's the change of heart? or do you just criticize Obama because you don't like liberals?

IRANdokht

Rosen observed that, "This

Rosen observed that, "This was the first presidential election, since Reagan vs. Carter in 1980, where Iran policy played a central role." As a candidate, Obama repeatedly assailed the Bush administration for what he depicted as a refusal to talk to Iran. He promised to pursue a different policy toward Iran, one that would begin with direct engagement guided by the president himself.

But, Rosen predicted, Obama "will be surprised when he opens the files and looks at the actual record of recent diplomacy. He will discover that the Bush administration was deeply engaged in communication and dialogue with Iran for the entire eight years it was in power." Rosen distributed a list of more than twenty-eight meetings where Bush administration officials with the rank of ambassador or above, sat down directly with Iranian leaders, from the first to the last years of the Bush administration. In addition, there were numerous meetings conducted by European officials, in close consultation with the Bush administration. "Obama will see that there has not, in fact, been any lack of contact between American and Iranian officials. Obama is going to find it more difficult to do something new in this area than he thinks."

Rosen predicted that there will be constraints on Obama's freedom of action, as he looks for a new approach. There is already a package on the table—the so called EU-3 initiative, led by the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany. Will Obama want to push aside the European foreign ministers and pursue a unilateralist U.S. policy toward Iran? This is the opposite of what he has led the world to expect. Will he abandon the central precondition on which the Europeans have insisted in their dealings with Iran: the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment while the talks proceed? This would be a unilateral concession, undermining the credibility of the entire effort to curtail the Iranian nuclear program. The hard-liners in Teheran would take it as proof that, if the Islamic Republic has the courage to remain steadfast, the West will capitulate.

Obama will also be constrained by a desire not to alarm Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. And he will not want to undermine the confidence of the Israelis.

So what will Obama be able to do that is new?

Rosen predicted that Obama will review five distinct strategic options, three of which he will take off the table immediately. Regime change—aiding internal groups to overthrow the Iranian government—was never fully embraced by the Bush administration nor any government of Israel. In both countries, there were a handful of advisers who thought regime change could succeed, but they failed to convince Bush, Sharon or Olmert that it was an achievable goal. Therefore, Rosen predicted that Obama would take regime change off the table altogether, and in a forceful way. In fact, Rosen asserted that explicitly repudiating regime change as an option might be one of the dramatic steps Obama can take to distinguish his policy from that of Bush, without undermining the Europeans, the Arabs, or the Israelis.

At the opposite extreme, Obama will be told by some of his advisers that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, and that the United States should learn to live with it. They will argue for a strategy of deterrence and containment. Rosen, however, reasoned that the nuclearization of Iran would profoundly destabilize the region, undermining the confidence of our Arab allies on the Arabian Peninsula as well as Jordan and Israel. It would provoke further nuclear proliferation, as states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt would seek nuclear capabilities of their own to deter a rising Iran. Already, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and Turkey have announced their intention of building nuclear power plants. Nuclearization would greatly increase the danger of Iranian aggression and subversion at the subnuclear level, pursued under the nuclear umbrella. Obama has expressed these concerns in private discussions with Israeli leaders and in public speeches, and Rosen believes that Obama will take the idea of living with a nuclear Iran off the table, along with regime change.

A third option that will be presented to Obama is military preemption by surgical air strikes and special-operations, to destroy major elements of Iran's nuclear program and set it back five to ten years. Rosen believes that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen and other advisers will warn Obama that Iran could respond to preemptive strikes with a daunting array of countermeasures that could be destabilizing and costly to the United States and its allies. Rosen predicted that these advisers will succeed in convincing Obama that the risks and costs are too great, and he will therefore take preemption off the table.

This will leave Obama with the remaining two options: a strategy of pressure on Iran to change its behavior, and the pursuit of a "grand bargain," by offering Iran additional concessions if it will suspend or end its enrichment program. Rosen predicted that these two options— sometimes called "bigger carrots and bigger sticks"—are likely to dominate the real policy debate about Iran in the first phase of the Obama administration.

Rosen opined that the Obama administration is likely to turn to the carrot first, because "they believe that the previous administration had an excessive faith in the use of force, and insufficient faith in talking to people - dialogue, communication, engagement." Obama is likely to offer more inducements, both economic and political, toward softening Iran's position.

Obama will also be advised that bigger carrots are a precondition for bigger sticks. "Obama's advisers think that the last administration failed to get allied cooperation on sticks, because our side was unwilling to put on the table American carrots…And that had the last administration been willing to do that, they would have gotten more cooperation from the other major powers. The remaining unused sticks belong to the allies, while the unused carrots belong to the United States. Except for military force, the U.S. has used just about all of its pressure points against Iran. But the Europeans, Japanese, and certainly the Russians and Chinese have not used all the pressure points that they could use. On the other hand, most of the positive benefits that could be given to Iran if it changed, are cards in the hand of the United States."

Strategies designed to seduce Iran have a long history of failure. Rosen quoted a recent speech by Robert Gates, who Obama apparently plans to keep as secretary of defense: "I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years. I was in the first meeting that took place between a senior U.S. government official and the leadership of the Iranian government in Algiers at the end of October, 1979. Every administration since then has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed. The Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a very long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship."

Rosen predicted that an Obama strategy of bigger carrots....

(...)Obama said very forcefully during the campaign, in his AIPAC speech, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon." He added, "Everything in my power. Everything."

But actually deciding on the use of force, against what Rosen thinks will be the advice of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others, is a different matter. Obama will still have large forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and telling the American people that he has decided to launch what some will call a "third war" may be simply too much.

Rosen fears that Israel will then be all alone, and will have to consider its own destiny. A unilateral Israeli strike would have all the problems that the U.S. faces, and more. The number of sorties that the Israeli Air Force can mount against Iran in a single wave is a small fraction of what the U.S. could do. Israel is much further away, and must overfly third countries. Israel has smaller payloads, and fewer weaponeering choices. Israel can strike Iran, but under much more difficult circumstances and not as well as could the Americans.

The biggest disincentive for Israel may be the United States itself, and Israel's desire to avoid conflict with its most important ally. In 1981, Israel could enter Iraqi airspace to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor without American involvement. Today, the United States, in effect, controls the airspace near and even over Iran. Israel cannot get there without being detected by American sensors, and before launching a preemptive strike, the Israeli Air Force will have to deconflict with the United States Air Force and Navy. The Iranians, and most of the world, will not believe that Israel could have acted without an American green light, even if this is a fiction.

Will Israel have the guts to do it anyway? Rosen believes that this option cannot be taken for granted. Everything may depend on the new prime minister of Israel, which will be decided when Israel has its own election on February 10.

//www.meforum.org/article/2012

David

No matter how much you try and make this point, (and you do it very effectively, and more diplomatically than I do), there are those who simply will not agree with what you or I have said and will continue to say regarding Hillary.

Of all people, it was Rush Limbaugh who applauded the choice of Hillary, saying, that Obama is operating on the principle of keeping his friends close, and his enemies closer.

Mark my words, should "Shrillary" be confirmed, and she will, (if only so that the rest of Congress can get rid of her, as she's alienated them as well), her tenure at the State Department will be one of drama and controversy. She already has made several staffing demands to which Obama agreed, something that is unprecedented for SoS designees to do. But her supporters will not view this as any special treatment.

Although I didn't vote for Obama, I sincerely want him to succeed and wish him nothing but the best. But believe me when I tell you, with Hillary back in the picture, this is only the beginning of what can be a very bumpy ride.

You're right David

I should not have attempted to read before having my first cup of coffee...  my bad

Anyhow, to assume that the only reason the team spoke was Hillary's special treatment, seems to be a speculation. I try not to read too much into it.

On the other hand, even if it was because of Hillary's nomination, maybe it has something to do with a high percentage of supporters she has out there, and why not! if it adds to the overall number of people who will be supporting this future administration? Be positive my friend, they're out there crying, they have their own reasons, we don't need to join them based on specualtions and predictions! We voted for him to be commander and chief and the head of the country, we should give him the chance to do the job first. 

IRANdokht

Let the show commence!

Bit by bit the skins are peeled off and when you reach the core you can't stop crying - no, it not the onion silly - it's Obama!

Dear Irandokht read again:

"In prior announcement of the members of Obama Team,  they just stood in back and Obama did the speech. Last week at the midst of one of the biggest economic crisis facing US and the world, Obama's economic team stood quietly while Obama did all the talking. but this time Obama HAD TO give preferential treatment to Hillary and let her speak too! and, in order to balance, he arranged for other members of the national security team to speak also"

speacial treatment?

I am not sure if you noticed but yesterday, Hillary was not the only one who spoke: Obama did of course, every single one of the nominees spoke and so did Joe Biden.

I don't think she's getting special treatment from Obama, but maybe from the news channel that you were watching.

Anyway, although I have my reasons not to like Hillary's foreign policy approach, I still admire her for her strength, her determination and her liberal views.

Let's not forget these cabinet members will be working for Obama (at the pleasure of the president). He proved that he's that same "no drama Obama" by not holding a grudge and by dismissing the reporters attempts to bring up the election quotes (as he called them). I am convinced that he knows what he's doing and I am willing to give him the chance to prove it. All the speculations even before he takes office is just unnecessary and makes our republican friends uneasy and afraid even more. They are scared and desperate enough  ;-)

IRANdokht

Let’s keep the flam going

I believe that is way too early to judge President Elect’ selection of Hillary Clinton. Obama said that he believes in strong personality and strong opinions…… (or something like that). I trust that he will be able to manage the team he is putting together and will ensure that his vision will be implemented. I also believe that Hillary’s better side will kick in soon and she will do the “Right Thing” vs. what is right for her.