[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 23 October 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Iraq has access to Persian Gulf .by land &by arvand .

I never noticed that before for some reason. Or if I noticed, I forgot. I thought Kuwait was totally blocking the gulf access. And I had to look up Arvand. Wikipedia says it's in Iran, which doesn't help much.

Quote

Romney should buy a map .

U.S. Americans don't have maps.

[EmperorMagus]

Algiers treaty . They split it in half .

[Vengeance]

Thank god we are replacing Geography with a class on creationism in schools. Wouldn't want people to know how countries boundaries really are.

[Terez]

I can score like 90% on a world map quiz, even typing out the names of the countries. (I do badly with the islands.) But I would probably do badly if you got down into specifics about boundaries and who has access to what bodies of water, clearly.

[Terez]

Interesting...apparently Romney has said it several times before:

Quote

...a reader counted at least five times in which Romney has used this phrase, including in the Feb. 22 debate, at last month's American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual conference, in a TV interview (MSNBC, Dec. 21), on the radio (Kilmeade & Friends, Feb. 14) and even in a Washington Post interview (Feb. 10).

I can't remember if I watched that debate. I watched several of them, and really, bits of all of them, but there were something like 22 debates in the primary season.

This post has been edited by Terez: 23 October 2012 - 02:33 PM

[Vengeance]

This is a helpful map that explains everything

MItt Romneys map

[Terez]

From the same blog I quoted earlier:

http://www.washingto...TbXRT_blog.html

Quote

This is the explanation provided by the Romney campaign: "It is generally recognized that Syria offers Iran strategic basing/staging access to the Mediterranean as well as to terrorist proxies in the Levant. This is a large reason why Iran invests so much in Syria."The campaign also noted that the Boston Globe had looked into this statement at the time of the Arizona debate.

The Globe noted that "given that Iran borders the sea, it seems to be an odd claim that Syria is Iran's route to the sea." The newspaper noted that Iran is able to reach the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal. But it said that "Romney's comments are more accurate than they first seem," citing a news report that Iran was building an army base in Syria and quoting an expert on the importance of Syria to Iran.

We also checked with other experts, many of whom confessed to being puzzled by Romney's comments. Tehran certainly uses Syria to supply the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, but that has little to do with the water. The relationship with Syria could also effectively allow Iran to project its power to the Mediterranean and the border with Israel.

But does that really mean, "a route to the sea"?

This post has been edited by Terez: 23 October 2012 - 02:45 PM

[EmperorMagus]

What need does Iran have for influence in Mediterranean?After all Hormoz pass is all Iran needs to seriously tip some scales . (If they can block it, which I seriously doubt.)

Syria is important for Iran because of Hamas and Hezbollah .

The Mediterranean nonsense , I believe is cleaning up after Romney.

[Tapper]

Iran's squadron of Mediterranean dolphin riders operating from Syrian ports are clearly endangering the supply of Rhodian (or should that be Romneyan?) green olives for his martini's.....

This post has been edited by Tapper: 23 October 2012 - 03:11 PM

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 23 October 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

What need does Iran have for influence in Mediterranean?After all Hormoz pass is all Iran needs to seriously tip some scales . (If they can block it, which I seriously doubt.)

Syria is important for Iran because of Hamas and Hezbollah .

The Mediterranean nonsense , I believe is cleaning up after Romney.

One thing you didn't comment on was his idea that Obama should have intervened in Iran during the protests and subsequent smackdowns. I have some thoughts on that, but I'd like to know yours. In case you didn't know, it's a widespread Republican sentiment that we should have somehow taken advantage of that moment.

[EmperorMagus]

Terez, on 23 October 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 23 October 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

What need does Iran have for influence in Mediterranean?After all Hormoz pass is all Iran needs to seriously tip some scales . (If they can block it, which I seriously doubt.)

Syria is important for Iran because of Hamas and Hezbollah .

The Mediterranean nonsense , I believe is cleaning up after Romney.

One thing you didn't comment on was his idea that Obama should have intervened in Iran during the protests and subsequent smackdowns. I have some thoughts on that, but I'd like to know yours. In case you didn't know, it's a widespread Republican sentiment that we should have somehow taken advantage of that moment.

Sorry If I offend anyone with this.





But even if Ahmadinejad and the rest of them are dictators , they are Iranian . and I would rather Iranians pillage iranian wealth than U.S companies.

[Terez]

Not offended at all. But my thoughts were pretty much along those lines. It would be nice if we could make human rights a part of the sanctions negotiations when they come, but I don't think that will happen either since they won't want to risk stubbornness on the nuclear tech. inspections.

PS—And when I say 'we', I mean the multilateral sanctions group.

This post has been edited by Terez: 23 October 2012 - 03:38 PM

[Terez]

I know I brought it up during the debate, but I thought Romney calling for an indictment for Ahmadinejad was just weird. Did he do it as a response to all the calls for indicting Bush, Cheney et al.?

PS—I read a few Republican-ish op-eds today talking about how Romney actually won the debate. And in a way, I agree with them. I really thought Obama did badly, though not quite as bad as he did in the first debate. It really wasn't much better. He stuttered and stumbled and recited jingles and I didn't like it very much overall. Of course, the GOP is arguing through the lens of what Romney was trying to achieve with his debate tactics, something that was easily recognizable to all of us with an ounce of sophistication. (Not just the policy shift, but the personality shift.) But I'm not so sure it will play badly for him in the end at all. He might have actually pulled off what he wanted to pull off with that one. We won't see results on this debate in the nation-wide polls until tomorrow, but the strategy overall might be working. And I also agree with what the liberals are saying today...which is, if he does pull it off, then it will change American politics permanently, and for the worse. Because while it may be true that politicians are by nature always dishonest, Romney has taken it to extreme levels during this campaign, not to mention the rest of his career.

This post has been edited by Terez: 23 October 2012 - 09:46 PM

[Terez]

Last night's Daily Show was awesome:

http://www.thedailys...2-gerard-butler

He made fun of Obama for the native pronunciation of Pakistan. But the second segment was the best part.

[Sick@Simpliciter]

I watched the debate live and I found it dumber than the first two mainly because Obama went all arrogant on Romney... Romney would cause anyone to loose their cool with his straight-face lying and his opportunistic flip-flopping... and probably it wasn't a political mistake to show such an attitude but still for the first time ever I did feel a certain degree of dislike for Obama...
more to the point, I was surprised that commentators worldwide attributed the victory to Obama... I was more under the impression of a tie, especially since Romney handled quite well the slippery territory (for him) of foreign policy... and of course he basically said that Obama administration did everything right but maybe the president should have done it more "cowboy-style" and less "pussycat-style"...

on the topics themselves, the only point on which I don't agree with both candidates is the tightening sanctions on Iran... effective or not the sanctions result in starving the population and that's not something I'd never agree to... Obama was right in saying that he accomplished a great diplomatic success in convincing China, Russia and EU to comply with such actions... point is those actions are cruel and I don't think that Russia, China, some EU members and some American banks are really applying those sanctions... also these sanctions had an impact of 0.8% on the Italian GDP as Iran is the third-greates trade partner of Italy outside the EU... therefore, it's really easy for Americans to impose sanctions that won't economically hurt therm but only its partners...

In the end, why are these sanctions in place? do we have proof that Iran has a nuclear program? Or it's the same story of Saddam's mass destruction weapons? the Iranian regime is disgusting and untolerable but that does not justify such creal sanctions on the people of Iran... both candidates see them as the only alternative to war... too bad for them and for the US

[LinearPhilosopher]

In regards to your last post, yes we know iran has a nuclear program and we know they're getting closer every year. Israel's special forces has long been suspected of causing of several iranian nuclear scientist to run into accidents. The reason netanyahu (spelling) is rattling his sabre in front of iran is because they are getting closer to having a working reactor (amongst other things like the haredin coalition). Officially iran is saying it's nuclear program is for energy purposes only, not to weaponize it. However no one is stupid enough to take them at their word.

Because of the history israel and iran share it's understandable why thigns are so tense down there. Imagine the cold war, but where russia was close to developing nuclear capabilities and the states were in a panic about what to do. Let them build their arsenal and take them at their word? or lauch a pre-emptive strike to stop them from threatening you? That's iran and isreal's current geo-political situation, as portions of the government on both sides refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the other's existence.

Anyhow Sanction are largely done to exert pressure on the populace, if the populace is under too much pressure it can potentially ignite a revolution that topples the government or destabilizes it. That the big reason for sanctions, and the whole image of appearing as if they are actually doing something about the situation.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 24 October 2012 - 05:15 PM

[Abyss]

Sick@Simpliciter, on 24 October 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

... do we have proof that Iran has a nuclear program?

Actually yes, we do, because they have told us so repeatedly, and UN inspectors have toured the sites.

Iran just insists that it's for energy purposes as opposed to weapons, and even the most bleeding heart non-interventionista cultural relativist extreme left can't-we-all-just-get-along liberal has to admit that no one with half a brain can believe that.

[worry]

Terez, on 24 October 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Last night's Daily Show was awesome:

http://www.thedailys...2-gerard-butler

He made fun of Obama for the native pronunciation of Pakistan. But the second segment was the best part.

I agree that the show was awesome last night, but that Pakistan thing was kind of annoying, because it was nothing new. Obama has been pronouncing it that way for as long as he's been in the public eye. In fact, I'm willing to bet the Daily Show has even commented on it before. But now all of a sudden they're pretending he did it for the debate? Made no sense and was a sour note.

As far as Obama's tone, it didn't bother me at all. He didn't all of a sudden turn into Christopher Hitchens, he just called Romney on a few of his (many, maaaaaaaaany) stupid remarks. And that's not the reason he won. It was because a lot of his answers were solid and a lot of Romney's answers were either agreeing with Obama but pretending he came up with them or could do the same ideas better (based on nothing but his "leadership"), or reciting the wikipedia pages he read the night before (where the hell did Mali come from, for instance?). What Obama failed to do was satisfy far left single issue and Nader-voter types who care more about the drone strikes or Guantanamo than they do whether people have insurance or gay people and women are second class citizens. But a moderate like Obama -- and likely no electable politician period -- would never have satisfied them anyway. And frankly, who wants to spend time convincing morons who think not voting is taking a political stand that they should get off their high horses? It's wasted breath. That other group of morons -- undecideds -- were more important. And even if they split 50/50 after this debate, then Obama won. I'm not saying it's a blowout, but the notion that Obama and Romney are in a dead heat is the 24 hour cable networks doing what they always do: trying to make it a horse race with a photo finish, so viewers stay glued on election night.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 24 October 2012 - 08:10 PM

[Terez]

The sanctions argument has always been a controversial one, but when it comes to the possibility of an insane dictator actually willing to use them, then people start to think maybe sanctions are kinder to the residents of the country in question than the possibly ensuing nuclear holocaust would be. If we don't remain diligent about the possibility of nuclear war, then who knows what will happen? I think if I was in Iran and had to worry about the crazy dude in Israel who hates Iran and has nukes, I'd want my country to have nukes too. (I even think that if I ruled such a country, I'd be insane too.)

Like, the Pakistani weren't terribly worried about getting nuclear weapons until India got them, and then it became a necessity. And as much as we tried to stop them, in the end we weren't successful. I think we need to round up all the uranium and send it to a random planet somewhere. Will that work? (Not a nuclear scientist, clearly.)

By the way, I've been reading up on Pakistan's nuclear journey kind of accidentally because I was just reading up on their history in general. I went from a documentary about the US getting double-played by Pakistan after 9/11 to a documentary about Benazir Bhutto (which started with her dad) to digging around in the archives of official .gov declassified documents. Like this one:

September 11, 1976

There's a blog called Pakistan Media Watch where they analyze spin and whatnot, and when I was digging around to see if there was any evidence of US involvement in Ali Bhutto's ouster (Zia military coup), I found this:

http://pakistanmedia...d-hamid-mir-ii/

This person argues that there's no evidence that Henry Kissinger ever actually threatened to make 'a horrible example' of Ali Bhutto (if Bhutto continued to pursue nuclear capability). So I dug around, and while they were right that no one talks about it in the media etc., eventually found that September 11 Kissinger document linked above. It's a documentation of a conversation between Henry Kissinger and Yaqub Khan, who was Pakistan's Ambassador to the US. Kissinger worked for Gerald Ford, and Ford was running for a second term against Jimmy Carter. The Pakistani were working on a deal with the French for a nuclear reprocessing facility, and Kissinger was trying to stop that deal in its tracks.

Quote

Kissinger: ...What I wanted to tell you this afternoon is the same thing that I've told Giscard and your Prime Minister. The nuclear reprocessing issue has become a domestic issue. Each of us is in exactly the same boat.

YAQUB: The Prime Minister thinks it is a very sensitive issue.

Kissinger: Yes. Giscard is sensitive, as is your Prime Minister. Frankly, there are two interpretations of what your Prime Minister told me in Lahore. First is that you have decided to go ahead and have simply taken an elegant way of saying that neither of you can take the initiative cancelling it. Or, both of you are now on the horns of a dilemma with, ramifications neither could foresee. You know what the American domestic situation is. You know that if the Democrats win, they would like nothing better than to make a horrible example of somebody. They would love to take on the French, but they can't. They cannot be accused of being anti-European integration and anti-NATO, let alone anti-Atlantic. If the Democrats win, you will face an assault and they will attack you. Credit and arms sales will be much more difficult, even impossible. You know that the last thing I want to do is to be responsible for this. Frankly, what I would like at this point is some sense of what you would like to do.

They dance around for a little while, and finally Yaqub Khan says that he doesn't have the authority to say what they would do if the French backed out of the deal first, and because they had made an agreement, they didn't want to be the first to back out. It was a feint, of course...on both sides. After Carter won the election, but before he took office, they met again:

December 17, 1976

Quote

YAQUB: When does your new Congress convene?

Kissinger: Early in January and it will be a new administration which was elected on a plank of non-proliferation. And I think I can assure you that it won't avail itself of escape clauses, or Symington amendments.

YAQUB: We're locked into a pretty firm position. We can't cancel.

Kissinger: How about joint cancellation.

YAQUB: If the French were to break their agreement, I'm afraid we just wouldn't understand.

Kissinger: What should we announce to the press?

YAQUB: I will simply say that I came in to discuss a variety of matters with you.

(At 4:00 p. m. the Secretary indicated the others should leave the room while he and Yaqub Khan met privately for five minutes.)

In other words, Yaqub Khan basically told Kissinger FU.

Details of the proposed deal.

[Terez]

Best source I found in a quick google:

http://www.examiner....papers-acquired