OT: Obama is Conservative

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Chance the Gardener]I had a history professor in undergrad (ca. 1989) that said we would all know the day Iran got nukes because on that day, one would land in Tel Aviv, one in Jerusalem and one in Haifa. He was a bit eccentric, but I think he might have been right.[/quote]

I don’t know if that is accurate but its an interesting idea.
I think the first time Iran got a nuke it would test it publicly to point out that it had parity with Israel. That would follow the example of the US and Russia and also of India and Pakistan.

Still its a compelling idea.

[Shadowfax]

Urbanrealtor:

Here, here!

[Shadowfax]

Urbanrealtor:

Here, here!

[Shadowfax]

Urbanrealtor:

Here, here!

[Shadowfax]

Urbanrealtor:

Here, here!

[Shadowfax]

Urbanrealtor:

Here, here!

[surveyor]

hey, another 16 pager…

hi, dan!

[quote=urbanrealtor]Attributing actions to people whom you have not met based upon which church they attend fits the technical definition of bigotry. I do not assert that you are a necessarily a bigot(or that you are not) but lets be clear about what we are saying.[/quote]

Let’s also be clear that I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.

And regarding India and Indonesia, just because they haven’t been taken over or are in danger of being taken over by their muslim poopulation does not negate the idea that the religion itself teaches that there is a perpetual state of war between the House of Believers and everyone else, or that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Anyways, regarding gaffes: if you are suggesting I am using an “ad hominem” attack against Obama through the use of his gaffes, that would be an error. I have said that his gaffes show that he has a lack of understanding regarding history. And I used a few examples of his gaffes in order to establish the point. This is quite different from an ad hominem attack. If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.

[quote=urbanrealtor]The Europeans are in a different relationship with Iran. Their example does not apply. At what point after 29 years can we call our approach ineffective?[/quote]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us. So technically we have been negotiating and using diplomacy with the Iranians for the past four years. Certainly our “hands off” approach with Iran has not worked, but neither has diplomacy in the past four years.

On to Krushchev: I’ve stated before (although not to you) that I have no problem with diplomacy itself. However, the context of our debate was that Obama talking with no preconditions to rogue states. Will he be likely to use the military option as leverage? Or will be rely on more diplomacy? The implication was that Obama was certainly going to use diplomacy and more diplomacy as the answer. Unfortunately, I don’t think that would work and he would allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.

Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article? And you still want me to find someone better? After I’ve proven my point, you want me to prove it with established experts some more? Um, why? So that I can be proven even more right? (Gandalf and I hashed this very same issue out, although I will say you are much better at it than gandalf, you and he still make the same irrelevant point).

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” Again, that does not prove that your assertion is correct or that Spencer is automatically wrong. Your assertion was that most historians agree that the christians and jews lived well under islamic rule. Here is an author that says this is not true. And all you have to say is that well he’s not credible. And don’t bring up any other non-credible person. This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.

In any case, I have read a few of Spencer’s books (not all). I have not seen anything in there that says he “hates” islam or that he “intellectualizes religious bigotry.” What he does is prove that islam teaches violence and uses not his own words, but the words of the koran, hadiths, the statements of imams, the statements of the respected islam philosophers to prove it.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding ancient Islam:
Your assertions to not square with most history courses. If you are going to say that you know more than the generally accepted experts then you are in Cheneyland.[/quote]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.

It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.

[surveyor]

hey, another 16 pager…

hi, dan!

[quote=urbanrealtor]Attributing actions to people whom you have not met based upon which church they attend fits the technical definition of bigotry. I do not assert that you are a necessarily a bigot(or that you are not) but lets be clear about what we are saying.[/quote]

Let’s also be clear that I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.

And regarding India and Indonesia, just because they haven’t been taken over or are in danger of being taken over by their muslim poopulation does not negate the idea that the religion itself teaches that there is a perpetual state of war between the House of Believers and everyone else, or that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Anyways, regarding gaffes: if you are suggesting I am using an “ad hominem” attack against Obama through the use of his gaffes, that would be an error. I have said that his gaffes show that he has a lack of understanding regarding history. And I used a few examples of his gaffes in order to establish the point. This is quite different from an ad hominem attack. If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.

[quote=urbanrealtor]The Europeans are in a different relationship with Iran. Their example does not apply. At what point after 29 years can we call our approach ineffective?[/quote]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us. So technically we have been negotiating and using diplomacy with the Iranians for the past four years. Certainly our “hands off” approach with Iran has not worked, but neither has diplomacy in the past four years.

On to Krushchev: I’ve stated before (although not to you) that I have no problem with diplomacy itself. However, the context of our debate was that Obama talking with no preconditions to rogue states. Will he be likely to use the military option as leverage? Or will be rely on more diplomacy? The implication was that Obama was certainly going to use diplomacy and more diplomacy as the answer. Unfortunately, I don’t think that would work and he would allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.

Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article? And you still want me to find someone better? After I’ve proven my point, you want me to prove it with established experts some more? Um, why? So that I can be proven even more right? (Gandalf and I hashed this very same issue out, although I will say you are much better at it than gandalf, you and he still make the same irrelevant point).

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” Again, that does not prove that your assertion is correct or that Spencer is automatically wrong. Your assertion was that most historians agree that the christians and jews lived well under islamic rule. Here is an author that says this is not true. And all you have to say is that well he’s not credible. And don’t bring up any other non-credible person. This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.

In any case, I have read a few of Spencer’s books (not all). I have not seen anything in there that says he “hates” islam or that he “intellectualizes religious bigotry.” What he does is prove that islam teaches violence and uses not his own words, but the words of the koran, hadiths, the statements of imams, the statements of the respected islam philosophers to prove it.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding ancient Islam:
Your assertions to not square with most history courses. If you are going to say that you know more than the generally accepted experts then you are in Cheneyland.[/quote]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.

It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.

[surveyor]

hey, another 16 pager…

hi, dan!

[quote=urbanrealtor]Attributing actions to people whom you have not met based upon which church they attend fits the technical definition of bigotry. I do not assert that you are a necessarily a bigot(or that you are not) but lets be clear about what we are saying.[/quote]

Let’s also be clear that I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.

And regarding India and Indonesia, just because they haven’t been taken over or are in danger of being taken over by their muslim poopulation does not negate the idea that the religion itself teaches that there is a perpetual state of war between the House of Believers and everyone else, or that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Anyways, regarding gaffes: if you are suggesting I am using an “ad hominem” attack against Obama through the use of his gaffes, that would be an error. I have said that his gaffes show that he has a lack of understanding regarding history. And I used a few examples of his gaffes in order to establish the point. This is quite different from an ad hominem attack. If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.

[quote=urbanrealtor]The Europeans are in a different relationship with Iran. Their example does not apply. At what point after 29 years can we call our approach ineffective?[/quote]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us. So technically we have been negotiating and using diplomacy with the Iranians for the past four years. Certainly our “hands off” approach with Iran has not worked, but neither has diplomacy in the past four years.

On to Krushchev: I’ve stated before (although not to you) that I have no problem with diplomacy itself. However, the context of our debate was that Obama talking with no preconditions to rogue states. Will he be likely to use the military option as leverage? Or will be rely on more diplomacy? The implication was that Obama was certainly going to use diplomacy and more diplomacy as the answer. Unfortunately, I don’t think that would work and he would allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.

Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article? And you still want me to find someone better? After I’ve proven my point, you want me to prove it with established experts some more? Um, why? So that I can be proven even more right? (Gandalf and I hashed this very same issue out, although I will say you are much better at it than gandalf, you and he still make the same irrelevant point).

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” Again, that does not prove that your assertion is correct or that Spencer is automatically wrong. Your assertion was that most historians agree that the christians and jews lived well under islamic rule. Here is an author that says this is not true. And all you have to say is that well he’s not credible. And don’t bring up any other non-credible person. This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.

In any case, I have read a few of Spencer’s books (not all). I have not seen anything in there that says he “hates” islam or that he “intellectualizes religious bigotry.” What he does is prove that islam teaches violence and uses not his own words, but the words of the koran, hadiths, the statements of imams, the statements of the respected islam philosophers to prove it.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding ancient Islam:
Your assertions to not square with most history courses. If you are going to say that you know more than the generally accepted experts then you are in Cheneyland.[/quote]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.

It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.

[surveyor]

hey, another 16 pager…

hi, dan!

[quote=urbanrealtor]Attributing actions to people whom you have not met based upon which church they attend fits the technical definition of bigotry. I do not assert that you are a necessarily a bigot(or that you are not) but lets be clear about what we are saying.[/quote]

Let’s also be clear that I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.

And regarding India and Indonesia, just because they haven’t been taken over or are in danger of being taken over by their muslim poopulation does not negate the idea that the religion itself teaches that there is a perpetual state of war between the House of Believers and everyone else, or that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Anyways, regarding gaffes: if you are suggesting I am using an “ad hominem” attack against Obama through the use of his gaffes, that would be an error. I have said that his gaffes show that he has a lack of understanding regarding history. And I used a few examples of his gaffes in order to establish the point. This is quite different from an ad hominem attack. If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.

[quote=urbanrealtor]The Europeans are in a different relationship with Iran. Their example does not apply. At what point after 29 years can we call our approach ineffective?[/quote]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us. So technically we have been negotiating and using diplomacy with the Iranians for the past four years. Certainly our “hands off” approach with Iran has not worked, but neither has diplomacy in the past four years.

On to Krushchev: I’ve stated before (although not to you) that I have no problem with diplomacy itself. However, the context of our debate was that Obama talking with no preconditions to rogue states. Will he be likely to use the military option as leverage? Or will be rely on more diplomacy? The implication was that Obama was certainly going to use diplomacy and more diplomacy as the answer. Unfortunately, I don’t think that would work and he would allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.

Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article? And you still want me to find someone better? After I’ve proven my point, you want me to prove it with established experts some more? Um, why? So that I can be proven even more right? (Gandalf and I hashed this very same issue out, although I will say you are much better at it than gandalf, you and he still make the same irrelevant point).

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” Again, that does not prove that your assertion is correct or that Spencer is automatically wrong. Your assertion was that most historians agree that the christians and jews lived well under islamic rule. Here is an author that says this is not true. And all you have to say is that well he’s not credible. And don’t bring up any other non-credible person. This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.

In any case, I have read a few of Spencer’s books (not all). I have not seen anything in there that says he “hates” islam or that he “intellectualizes religious bigotry.” What he does is prove that islam teaches violence and uses not his own words, but the words of the koran, hadiths, the statements of imams, the statements of the respected islam philosophers to prove it.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding ancient Islam:
Your assertions to not square with most history courses. If you are going to say that you know more than the generally accepted experts then you are in Cheneyland.[/quote]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.

It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.

[surveyor]

hey, another 16 pager…

hi, dan!

[quote=urbanrealtor]Attributing actions to people whom you have not met based upon which church they attend fits the technical definition of bigotry. I do not assert that you are a necessarily a bigot(or that you are not) but lets be clear about what we are saying.[/quote]

Let’s also be clear that I never said that muslims themselves were violent. I just stated that the koran requires them to commit violence. Trying to imply the bigotry is a “straw man” attack, also a very weak argument.

And regarding India and Indonesia, just because they haven’t been taken over or are in danger of being taken over by their muslim poopulation does not negate the idea that the religion itself teaches that there is a perpetual state of war between the House of Believers and everyone else, or that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Also, bringing up the death toll of major conflicts and noting muslim participation in only a few still does not refute the idea that the koran teaches muslims to kill unbelievers.

Anyways, regarding gaffes: if you are suggesting I am using an “ad hominem” attack against Obama through the use of his gaffes, that would be an error. I have said that his gaffes show that he has a lack of understanding regarding history. And I used a few examples of his gaffes in order to establish the point. This is quite different from an ad hominem attack. If I said that he was dumb, or just a lawyer, then that could have been classified as an ad hominem attack. However, I laid out the case, I brought evidence of my point, and then put analysis of that point. That is not ad hominem. It’s analysis. Now, that analysis is not definitive. It is evidence, not proof. You want proof. Good enough for me, but not you. Fine.

[quote=urbanrealtor]The Europeans are in a different relationship with Iran. Their example does not apply. At what point after 29 years can we call our approach ineffective?[/quote]

The Europeans are negotiating on the behalf of us. So technically we have been negotiating and using diplomacy with the Iranians for the past four years. Certainly our “hands off” approach with Iran has not worked, but neither has diplomacy in the past four years.

On to Krushchev: I’ve stated before (although not to you) that I have no problem with diplomacy itself. However, the context of our debate was that Obama talking with no preconditions to rogue states. Will he be likely to use the military option as leverage? Or will be rely on more diplomacy? The implication was that Obama was certainly going to use diplomacy and more diplomacy as the answer. Unfortunately, I don’t think that would work and he would allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. While the Cuban missile crisis was solved with diplomacy, it was backed up forcefully. I do not see Obama having that much leverage.

Now, Bolton. So despite the fact that you claimed that he was not respected, is reviled by many diplomats, you were not able to dispute the thrust of his article? And you still want me to find someone better? After I’ve proven my point, you want me to prove it with established experts some more? Um, why? So that I can be proven even more right? (Gandalf and I hashed this very same issue out, although I will say you are much better at it than gandalf, you and he still make the same irrelevant point).

And so with this thought, you bring up the “Spencer is not a widely credited expert.” Again, that does not prove that your assertion is correct or that Spencer is automatically wrong. Your assertion was that most historians agree that the christians and jews lived well under islamic rule. Here is an author that says this is not true. And all you have to say is that well he’s not credible. And don’t bring up any other non-credible person. This is in the debating world called “weak sauce.” It doesn’t refute the points brought up in the debate.

I don’t know, it sounds to me a lot like when the Church put Galileo on trial for saying the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a whacko then.

In any case, I have read a few of Spencer’s books (not all). I have not seen anything in there that says he “hates” islam or that he “intellectualizes religious bigotry.” What he does is prove that islam teaches violence and uses not his own words, but the words of the koran, hadiths, the statements of imams, the statements of the respected islam philosophers to prove it.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding ancient Islam:
Your assertions to not square with most history courses. If you are going to say that you know more than the generally accepted experts then you are in Cheneyland.[/quote]

I TOTALLY agree that my assertions do not square with most history courses. Does that mean the history courses are correct? No. I also do not claim to know more than accepted experts, but neither do I accept the claim of the experts. As I stated to gandalf, if you are just going to rely on the analyses of the established “experts” then you have forgotten the tenets of piggington. It is the belief of this website that you question the “experts” and do not rely on the “experts.”

And accusing me of being in Cheneyland, THAT is also an irrelevant, inaccurate, and weak argument (generally called the straw man argument). Also name-calling. Which means in the debate, your argument has no merit.

It is clear you are a learned individual and have been able to debate me better than most of the people on this board. However, here’s a hint on raising the leveling of the discussion: do not imply that the establishment’s word is gospel.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Author]

Posts