I wish I was able to see this live. Instead I have to rely on NYTimes updated blog posts. I would love someone to ask the Iranian Prez, “Does your nation love all nations or just ones Iran recognizes?”
This specifically talking to his final remarks, “We are a peace-loving nation. We love all nations.”
This article simply proves it. (article) He wants to kick out any foreign critic of his government.
Funny but when he call Bush the devil did the US kick him out as soon as he left the UN grounds… uhm no.
That is what separates a free society from a society that is not free.
I found this to be very interesting, and a potential path to relative peace in Iraq. Sadr is a radical Shia cleric that weilds a lot of power within the Shia community of Iraq, and in the past has been calling the Shias to fight the ‘American Occupation’. But now his views are changing. (article)
Without a doubt this is good news. Hopefully the radical Shias listen to him. (Other leading radial islamist who attempted such things were marginalized by the younger members…. oh the irony… train the young to hate, and when you want to change your message, you are no longer relavent.)
In my opinion he has a reason to do this. The insurgency are not Shia, they are Sunni and Sadam loyalists. As soon as Americans leave, the Shias making noise and trouble are fucked. The Islamic factions maybe working together now to get America to leave. If America leaves, these factions will then fight each other for control. This is a loose/loose proposition for anyone involved in wanting control. And since the Sunnis took over Iraq before, they can do it again and I believe the Shia leadership recognizes this. Because of this, the Shia’s best course of action is to let the true insugency be flushed out.
Then again, it is pretty late in the game to come to such a conclusion. Could be he is just doing it to appease certain voices within his faction, and mean absolutely nothing.
Former President Carter said some nasty comments the other day about the current administration. The first amendment lets you say whatever the hell you want, no matter who you are. But the White House attacked Carter with statements like…
“I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelavent with these kind of comments”.
I am troubled by the comment from the White House. They have basically entered a tit-for-tat argument that is suited for the most professional of 3rd graders.
Everyone has the right to be critical of the administration, and the White House has to right to be critical of others, but to actually announce such a public statement makes them look childish and extremely petty. (As if they needed to look any worse.)
I mean, if Carter’s comments have become more irrelavent, why then now, does the White House feel the need to respond?
(article)
Iran has agreed to Talks with the US. (article) Whatever gets them talking… right?
Interesting… talk about a bitch-slap to the current administration…
‘The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is to visit Syria early next week despite objections by the White House. ‘ (article)
Iran is obviously a market threat, and will continue to be until their attitude changes. (The crazier they act the more of a risk premium is factored into the price of crude, hence threating global economic growth.)
But Iran is stupid, and here is why.
Iran does not really need any other western country. All they really need is Russia and China. Russia and China have the resouces to help Iran do whatever it is Iran needs to do. So Iran thinks it can act the way it does.
In the past China and Russia tolerated Iran’s attitude because it was all talk. China needs Iran’s Oil for growth, and will pay up for it. Russia in turn has the ability to greatly facilitate Iran’s infrastructure, and has the know-how to help Iran spend the money they get from China.
China and Russia (R-C) need Iran. Everyone wants economic growth to continue. Iran’s action are acting like a speed bumd to economic growth, and China and Russia can not afford to lose what Iran can give them.
In other words, R-C can not afford the US (and other allies) to over take Iran. R-C has too much at stake in Iran, and they know this. This is why R-C attitude toward Iran has become harsher in recent months. If push comes to shove R-C will, and this recent escalation with hostages turns for the worst, Russia and China will be the first to enter Iran, so THEY can secure assets and business contract they need. (And the Western countries also know this.)
Iran is stupid because they are not fighting the Western Ideology… they are fighting global economic growth. No matter what your ideoligy is, that fight is an already lost war.
Now here is interesting NYT article. Russia suddenly stopped helping Iran w/its Nuclear development. Non-payment reasons from the Russian side was given, but the real reason is anyone’s guess. I like the fact that Russia’s action are a lined with ours… even though their words are not.
He is taking too firm of a position with his allied nations. From the allied point of view I can only assume this would drive them to lean toward America. Why would one contry trade a presumed unfair partner w/another one. (Especially when one partner is the most powerful and influential contry in the world, verse one that wants to gains an ounce of influence?)
I do not think the nations of Brazil, Bolivia and others are stupid enough to had control over to Chavez. That is just like bending over to the Americans.
Ultimately, whatever maintains stability within the region for the time being is all I care about.
Silvestre Reyesa, a Texas Democrat, said al-Qaeda was a predominantly Shia organisation. The opposite is the truth - al-Qaeda professes a form of Sunni extremism. Mr Reyes is a long-time member of the House Intelligence Committee and is set to become its new chairman in January. (article)
Is every political figure that comes out of Texas stupid? or do they just like acting stupid?
This level of stupidity from our leaders is very troubling… very troubling.
